Proceedings which led to his banishment—freeman’s oath—various charges
against him—sentence—birth of his second child—leaves Salem for
Narraganset Bay—review of the causes of his banishment.
We will now proceed to narrate the measures which issued in the
banishment of Mr. Williams. We shall follow the guidance of Winthrop, as
to the facts, because this truly great man wrote without the angry
temper which most of the early writers on the subject exhibited.
“1634, Nov. 27. The Court was informed, that Mr. Williams, of Salem, had
broken his promise to us, in teaching publicly against the King’s
patent, and our great sin in claiming right thereby to this country, &c.
and for usual terming the churches of England antichristian. We granted
summons to him for his appearance at the next Court.” Winthrop, vol. i.
p. 151.
We are not informed of the terms of Mr. Williams’ promise, here referred
to, and cannot decide how far he had broken it. The epithet which he is
said to have applied to the churches in England, might, in his judgment,
have been well deserved by many of them. He, of course, referred to the
established churches, then practising, as the Puritans believed,
idolatrous ceremonies, and under the direction of wicked men. Mr.
Cotton, in his “Bloody Tenet Washed,” (p. 109) acknowledges it to be a
source of grief to himself and others, “that there is yet so much of
those notorious evils still continuing in the parishes, (in England)
worldliness, ignorance, superstition, scoffing, swearing, cursing,
whoredom, drunkenness, theft, lying; I may add, also, murder, and
malignity against the godly, suffered to thrust themselves into the
fellowship of the churches, and to sit down with the saints at the
Lord’s table.” We may be allowed to think, that Roger Williams was not
remarkably bigoted, if he did call such churches as these antichristian,
and deem it a sin to hold fellowship with them. He obeyed the summons of
the Court:
“1635, Mo. 2, 30.[75] The Governor and Assistants sent for Mr. Williams.
The occasion was, for that he had taught publicly, 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. Mr. Endicott was at first of the same opinion,
but he gave place to the truth.” Vol. i. p. 157.
We may repeat, here, what, ought to be constantly borne in mind, that
the statements of Mr. Williams’ opinions come, not from himself, but
from his opponents. We need not insist on the liability to mistake, in
cases where a man’s sentiments are thus disjoined from all those
explanations and arguments with which he would himself have accompanied
them. In the present case, we are not informed of the precise views of
Mr. Williams respecting oaths.[76] He had taken the freeman’s oath in
1631. Many others have entertained doubts of the propriety of oaths, in
any case, and our laws allow an individual, who feels these scruples, to
substitute an affirmation. The unlawfulness of all oaths might be
plausibly argued, from the words of our Saviour, Matthew, v. 34, and
from those of the Apostle James, v. 12. On this ground, however, they
would be equally unlawful to all men, and the distinction which Mr.
Williams is said to have made between Christians and unregenerate men
could not be sustained. If, however, an oath were considered, as he
viewed it, as a religious act, implying devout reverence for the Supreme
Being, a fear of His displeasure and desire of His favor, it would not
be easy to show how an irreligious man can sincerely take an oath. Mr.
Williams had probably seen oaths taken in England with such scandalous
levity, and used for purposes so iniquitous, as to awaken in his mind a
strong aversion to their being administered indiscriminately to the
pious and the profane. We may, nevertheless, admit, that he was
unnecessarily scrupulous on this point, without impeaching either his
piety or his judgment. The ministers seem to have been satisfied with
their success in confuting him. It is usual for disputants to claim the
victory. Perhaps if Mr. Williams had recorded the event, he might have
told us of the unimpaired vigor of his arguments. We have reason to
believe, however, that the offensiveness of Mr. Williams’ opinions
respecting oaths consisted not so much in his abstract objections to
their use, as in his opposition to the new oath of fidelity which the
Court thought proper to require of the citizens. Mr. Cotton[77] states
the case thus: “The magistrates and other members of the General Court,
upon intelligence of some Episcopal and malignant practices against the
country, 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, that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not
betrust them with place of public charge and command. This oath, when it
came abroad, he (Mr. Williams) vehemently withstood, and dissuaded
sundry from it, partly because it was, he said, Christ’s prerogative to
have his office established by an oath; partly because an oath was 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. So the Court was
forced to desist from that proceeding.”
The reasons assigned by Mr. Cotton for Mr. Williams’ opposition to the
oath are, we suspect, not all the reasons which really moved him to this
course. He probably viewed the act of the Court in absolving the
citizens from the oath which they had already taken, and substituting
another, as an illegal assumption of power. It might be understood to
claim for the Court an authority superior to the charter, for it omitted
the clause of the former oath, which required of the subject obedience
to laws which should be “lawfully” made by the Court, and, instead of
it, obliged men to swear to submit to the “_wholesome_” regulations
which might be established. As the charter prohibited the passage of
laws contrary to the laws of England, the first oath bound the citizen
to obey the Court only while they adhered to the charter; but the new
oath required submission to all the “wholesome” acts of the government,
who were, of course, the sole judges of the wholesomeness of their own
measures. Mr. Cotton says, that the oath was only _offered_, not
imposed, but it was, by a subsequent act of the Court, enforced on every
man above the age of sixteen years, on penalty of punishment at the
discretion of the Court.[78]
To this oath, under such circumstances, Mr. Williams, as a friend of
liberty, was opposed. He would not renounce an oath which he had taken,
and substitute another, which bound him to obey whatever laws the
magistrates might deem wholesome. The reason assigned for the new oath,
moreover, was to guard against “Episcopal and malignant practices.” This
gave it the appearance of a law to restrain liberty of conscience; and
Mr. Williams’ principles were totally opposed to any measure which
tended to that result, however specious its professed object might be.
If these views are correct, Mr. Williams’ opposition to oaths in this
case resolves itself into an inflexible adherence to his great doctrine
of unfettered religious liberty; a doctrine which, more than any thing
else, drew upon him the jealousy and dislike of the magistrates and the
clergy.
In July, he was again summoned to Boston.
“1635, Mo. 5, 8. At the General Court, Mr. Williams, of Salem, was
summoned and did appear. It was laid to his charge, that being under
question before the magistracy and churches for divers dangerous
opinions, viz: 1. that the magistrate ought not to punish the breach of
the first table, otherwise than in such cases as did disturb the civil
peace; 2. that he ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man; 3.
that a man ought not to pray with such, though wife, child, &c.; 4. that
a man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament, nor after meat, &c.;
and that the other churches were about to write to the church of Salem
to admonish him of these errors; notwithstanding, the church had since
called him to [the] office of teacher. Much debate was about these
things. The said opinions were adjudged by all, magistrates and
ministers, (who were desired to be present) to be erroneous and very
dangerous, and that the calling of him to office, at that time, was
judged a great contempt of authority. So, in fine, time was given to him
and the church of Salem to consider of these things till the next
General Court, and then either to give satisfaction to the Court, or
else to expect the sentence; it being professedly declared by the
ministers (at the request of the Court to give their advice) that he who
should obstinately maintain such opinions (whereby a church might run
into heresy, apostacy, or tyranny, and yet the civil magistrate could
not intermeddle) were to be removed, and that the other churches ought
to request the magistrates so to do.” Vol. i. p. 162.
The first two of these charges have been considered. It will be
observed, that the Governor has candidly acknowledged, that Mr. Williams
allowed it to be right for the civil magistrate to punish breaches of
the first table, when they disturbed the civil peace. This fact exempts
him from the charge of opposition to the civil authority.
The third charge, if it is a true representation of the opinion of Mr.
Williams, shows that his judgment in this particular was biased, by an
idea of the impropriety of uniting in religious worship with those who
cannot cordially participate in the service. He thus carried to an
extreme a principle, which the state of things in England had frequently
called into exercise. He probably recollected, that the book of common
prayer implied that all present adopted the petitions as their own; and
as he knew that many who pretended to join in the worship were
notoriously profligate, he might be impelled to the opposite error.[79]
The fourth charge seems too frivolous for notice. What right have men to
insist on ceremonies which the Bible does not enjoin, and which are in
themselves indifferent? If, as is not improbable,[80] there was an
attempt to introduce among the churches a uniformity touching these
little observances, it is not wonderful that Mr. Williams resisted them.
He had seen too much of this system in England, to be willing to submit
to it in America.
As the Salem church adhered to Mr. Williams, notwithstanding the
well-known displeasure of the magistrates and the clergy, a singular
mode of punishing them for their contumacy was soon adopted. Three days
after the session of the Court just mentioned, we are told by Winthrop,
that the “Salem men had preferred a petition at the last General Court,
for some land in Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as belonging
to their town; but, because they had chosen Mr. Williams their teacher,
while he stood under question of authority, and so offered contempt to
the magistrates, &c. their petition was refused till, &c. Upon this the
church of Salem write to other churches to admonish the magistrates of
this as a heinous sin, and likewise the deputies; for which, at the next
General Court, their deputies were not received until they should give
satisfaction about the letter.” Vol. i. p. 164.
Here is a candid avowal, that justice was refused to Salem, on a
question of civil right, as a punishment for the conduct of the church
and pastor. A volume could not more forcibly illustrate the danger of a
connection between the civil and ecclesiastical power. The land, in
question, was granted, after Mr. Williams was banished. The postponement
was evidently designed, and probably had some effect, to induce the
people of Salem to consent to their pastor’s removal.
The church at Salem felt this to be a flagrant wrong, and they naturally
wrote to the other churches, to warn them of this dangerous attack upon
their liberty, and to request them to admonish the magistrates, as
members of the churches, of the criminality of their conduct. It is
difficult to see, why the church at Salem were not fully justified in
this procedure.
The health of Mr. Williams failed under the pressure of his trials and
duties. He declared, “that his life was in danger, by his excessive
labors, preaching thrice a week, by labors night and day in the field;
and by travels night and day, to go and come from the Court.” We need
not be surprised, therefore, at the next notice of him by Winthrop,
under the date of August 16:
“Mr. Williams, pastor of Salem, being sick and not able to speak, wrote
to his church a protestation, that he could not communicate with the
churches in the Bay; neither would he communicate with them, except they
would refuse communion with the rest: but the whole church was grieved
herewith.” Vol. i. p. 166.
Solomon has said, that “oppression maketh a wise man mad;”[81] and it is
not wonderful that it should impel a sick man to write such a letter as
the one here alluded to. Mr. Williams felt deeply that he had been
injured, and that the spiritual fellowship between him and the churches
had suffered a melancholy interruption. He therefore declared, that he
could not commune with them, and he insisted that the church in Salem
should refuse such a communion. In this conduct he was doubtless wrong,
yet who will venture to say, that if he had been placed in the situation
of Mr. Williams, he would have maintained a more subdued spirit?
Matters now rapidly approached a crisis. The magistrates punished with
rigor the offence of the Salem church, or rather of Mr. Williams, in
writing the letter to the other churches. Mr. Endicott was committed,
for justifying that letter, and was not discharged, till he acknowledged
his offence. The following extract from the records of the Court shows a
case, which savours much of the English Court of High Commission: “Mr.
Samuel Sharpe is enjoined to appear at the next Particular Court, to
answer for the letter that came from the church of Salem, as also _to
bring the names of those that will justify the same_, or else to
acknowledge his offence, under his own hand, for his own
particular.”[82]
In October, Mr. Williams was called before the Court for the last time:
“At this General Court, Mr. Williams, the teacher of Salem, was again
convented, and all the ministers in the Bay being desired to be present,
he was charged with the said two letters, that to the churches,
complaining of the magistrates for injustice, extreme oppression, &c.
and the other to his own church, to persuade them to renounce communion
with all the churches in the Bay, as full of antichristian pollution,
&c. He justified both these letters, and maintained all his opinions;
and, being offered further conference or disputation, and a month’s
respite, he chose to dispute presently. So Mr. Hooker was chosen to
dispute with him, but could not reduce him from any of his errors. So,
the next morning, the Court sentenced him to depart out of our
jurisdiction within six weeks, all the ministers, save one, approving
the sentence; and his own church had him under question also for the
same cause; and he, at his return home, refused communion with his own
church, who openly disclaimed his errors, and wrote an humble submission
to the magistrates, acknowledging their fault in joining with Mr.
Williams in that letter to the churches against them,” &c. Vol. i. p.
171.
The sentence was in these terms: “Whereas Mr. Roger Williams, one of the
elders of the church of Salem, hath broached and divulged divers new and
dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates; as also writ
letters of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here, and
that before any conviction, and yet maintaineth the same without any
retractation; it is therefore ordered, that the said Mr. Williams shall
depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks now next ensuing,
which, if he neglect to perform, it shall be lawful for the Governor and
two of the magistrates to send him to some place out of this
jurisdiction, not to return any more without license from the
Court.”[83]
The conduct of the church at Salem is to be ascribed to the severe
measures of the magistrates, rather than to hostility to Mr. Williams.
Many of them accompanied or followed him in his exile. Neal, in his
History of New-England, acknowledges, that when he was banished, “the
whole town of Salem was in an uproar, for he was esteemed an honest,
disinterested man, and of popular talents in the pulpit.”
Mr. Williams received permission to remain at Salem till spring, but
because he would not refrain, _in his own house_, from uttering his
opinions, the Court resolved to send him to England, in order to remove,
as far as possible, the infection of his principles. Happily for
themselves, and for the country, their design was defeated.
“11 mo. January. The Governor and Assistants met at Boston to consider
about Mr. Williams, for that they were credibly informed, that,
notwithstanding the injunction laid upon him (upon the liberty granted
him to stay till the spring,) not to go about to draw others to his
opinions, he did use to entertain company in his house, and to preach to
them, even of such points as he had been censured for; and it was agreed
to send him into England by a ship then ready to depart. The reason was,
because he had drawn above twenty persons to his opinion, and they were
intended to erect a plantation about the Narraganset Bay, from whence
the infection would easily spread into these churches, (the people being
many of them much taken with the apprehension of his godliness.)
Whereupon a warrant was sent to him to come presently to Boston to be
shipped, &c. He returned answer (and divers of Salem came with it,) that
he could not come without hazard of his life, &c. Whereupon a pinnace
was sent with commission to Capt. Underhill, &c. to apprehend him, and
carry him aboard the ship, (which then rode at Nantasket;) but, when
they came at his house, they found he had been gone three days before;
but whither they could not learn.
“He had so far prevailed at Salem, as many there, (especially of devout
women) did embrace his opinions, and separated from the churches, for
this cause, that some of their members, going into England, did hear the
ministers there, and when they came home the churches here held
communion with them.” Vol. i. p. 175.
Mr. Williams had received notice of the design of the Court, and had
left Salem, in quest of a quiet refuge in the neighborhood of
Narraganset Bay. It appears, that Governor Winthrop had privately
advised him to leave the colony, as a measure, which the public peace
required, and by which the personal interests of Mr. Williams might
ultimately be best promoted. The good of the Indians, also, was a motive
which operated on both their minds. Mr. Williams says, in a letter which
has already been quoted: “It pleased the Most High to direct my steps
into this Bay, by the loving private advice of the ever honored soul,
Mr. John Winthrop, the grandfather, who, though he were carried with the
stream for my banishment, yet he tenderly loved me to his last breath.”
The same fact is asserted, in the letter to Major Mason,[84] and the
advice of Governor Winthrop is ascribed to “many high, and heavenly, and
public ends.” The friendship of the Governor was manifested on various
occasions, and he afterwards united with Mr. Williams in the purchase of
the island of Prudence in Narraganset Bay.
The removal, however, if it might on general grounds have been
expedient, was not now optional. Without considering the justice or
injustice of his banishment, there was certainly great hardship in being
forced from his home in the middle of winter. His second daughter was
born in the latter part of October, 1635,[85] and was consequently an
infant less than three months old, while his eldest child was but a
little more than two years of age. The mother and her two infants he
left behind. His house and land at Salem he mortgaged, to raise money
for the supply of his wants.[86] With a heavy heart must this exiled
husband and father, and this affectionate pastor, have parted from his
family and flock, and plunged into the wilderness, to endure the wintry
storms, and to try the hospitality of the savages.
We have thus briefly examined the reasons assigned by the mild and
candid Winthrop for the expulsion of Mr. Williams from Massachusetts. We
have seen, that these reasons related almost entirely to opinions, which
the magistrates thought to be dangerous, and which the clergy opposed as
tending to schism. It is satisfactory to observe, however, that these
opinions did not refer to any of the great principles of the Gospel. The
religious doctrines which Mr. Williams preached before his banishment
were the same as those of Cotton and Hooker. He was not accused, while
at Plymouth or at Salem, of any deviation from the established
principles of the churches, on points of faith, much less was there any
impeachment of his moral character. It is confessed, by the most bitter
of his opponents, that both at Plymouth and at Salem, he was respected
and beloved, as a pious man, and able minister.
What was there, then, it may be inquired, in the opinions of Mr.
Williams, which was so offensive to the rulers in church and state? His
denial of the right to possess the lands of the Indians without their
own consent, needed not to disturb the colonists, for they purchased
their lands from the natives. His ideas of the unlawfulness of oaths,
and of the impropriety of praying with unregenerate persons, and other
harmless notions of this kind, were surely too unimportant to excite the
fears and provoke the ire of the government. We are led to the
conclusion, that the cause of Mr. Williams’ banishment is to be found in
the great principle which has immortalized his name, that THE CIVIL
POWER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CONSCIENCE. This noble doctrine,
which the Scriptures clearly teach, and which reason itself proclaims,
was, at that time, viewed, by most men, to be as heterodox, in morals,
as the Copernican theory was considered by the Inquisition to be false
in philosophy; and he who maintained it was liable to the fate of
Galileo. The Papists abhorred it, for it would have subverted the Papal
throne. The English Church rejected it, for it would have wrested from
the hierarchy its usurped authority, and led the Church away from the
throne of an earthly monarch to the footstool of the King of kings, as
her only head and sovereign. The Puritans themselves disowned it, for
they were so firmly convinced of the truth of their doctrines, that they
deemed him, who was so obstinate as not to embrace them, to be worthy of
punishment for acting in opposition to his own conscience.[87] They
refused to conform to the ceremonies of the English Church, but it was
because they believed those ceremonies to be idolatrous, and not because
they denied to men the power to enforce the belief of doctrines and the
practice of rites. They opposed the Prelates, but they believed that a
similar sway might be safely intrusted to their own hands. They resisted
and for a while triumphed over the Lords Bishops, but they forgot that
the despotism of the Lords Brethren, as Blackstone termed them, might be
quite as intolerable. They did not understand the nature of that liberty
which the Gospel bestows. They were misled by the analogies which they
drew from the Mosaic institutions, and felt it to be their duty to
extirpate heresy, with as unsparing rigor, as the Jews were required to
exercise against those who despised or violated their ritual.
The character of the Puritans has been greatly misunderstood on this
point, and there has been much common-place declamation respecting their
bigotry and inconsistency in persecuting others, after having suffered
persecution themselves. But a candid mind, which understands their
principles, will not, while it must lament and condemn their conduct,
use the language of harsh censure. They were so far from believing, that
liberty of conscience in religious concerns ought to be extended to all
men, that they regarded toleration as a crime. They argued, that they
ought to promote truth, and oppose error, by all the methods in their
power. If they were able to suppress false doctrines, it was, they
believed, a solemn duty to God to employ force, if necessary, for their
suppression. They thought, that he who permitted error to be believed
and preached, was chargeable with a participation in the guilt.
Intolerance became, in their view, a paramount duty to God and to the
heretic himself; and the greater their love of God and of truth, the
greater was their zeal to extirpate, with a strong hand, every noxious
weed from the garden of the Lord.[88] It was not, therefore, a bigoted
preference merely for their own views which made them persecute others,
but a conviction that they only embraced the truth, and that all
opposing doctrines were pernicious, and must not be allowed. It was not,
in their judgment, inconsistent to act thus towards others, after having
themselves endured persecution; for they regarded themselves as having
been sufferers for the truth, and they were urged, by these very
sufferings, to be more faithful in upholding that truth, and suppressing
what they deemed to be error. It is due to the Pilgrims to remember,
that they acted from principles, erroneous certainly, and deplorable in
their effects, but sincerely adopted and cherished in hearts which,
nevertheless, glowed with love to God. The grand doctrine of LIBERTY OF
CONSCIENCE was then a portentous novelty, and it was the glory of Roger
Williams, that he, in such an age, proclaimed it, defended it, suffered
for it, and triumphantly established it.
The principles of Roger Williams stood in the attitude of irreconcilable
opposition to the system which the Pilgrims had established in
New-England. They could not blend with it. They came into collision with
it, at every point. We have accordingly seen, that Mr. Williams was
continually at variance with the government, because their measures were
adjusted to their settled policy, but were repugnant to his great
doctrine. There could be no peace between them, unless he yielded, or
they abandoned their system. He was firm, and they were unconvinced.
They possessed the power, and they banished him; not so much to punish
him, as to remove from the colony a man whose doctrines they believed to
be wrong, whose influence they feared, and whom they could neither
intimidate nor persuade to abandon his principles.
It is intimated by Dr. Bentley,[89] that the rivalry of Salem and Boston
had some effect to induce a rigorous treatment of Mr. Williams. He had
great influence in Salem. He had drawn thither some persons from
Plymouth, and it was, perhaps, feared, that his popularity gave an
importance to Salem, which might be prejudicial to the metropolis.
It is due to the principal actors in these scenes, to record the fact,
of which ample evidence exists, that personal animosity had little, if
any, share in producing the sentence of banishment. Towards Mr.
Williams, as a Christian and a minister, there was a general sentiment
of respect. Governor Winthrop was a generous friend to him throughout
his life; and it is asserted by Dr. Bentley, that “had Governor Winthrop
been at liberty to concur with Endicott, and not have been deterred by
the competition of Boston and Salem, Williams would have lived and died
at Salem.”
Mr. Haynes was Governor at the time Mr. Williams was banished, and Mr.
Winthrop lost for a while his salutary influence over the public
councils.[90] He endeavored, at a subsequent period, to procure a repeal
of the sentence of banishment against Mr. Williams; but a more rigid
policy prevailed, and the founder of Rhode-Island continued till his
death an outlaw from Massachusetts.
Mr. Cotton was, at that time, the most powerful man in the commonwealth;
and well did his piety, learning and intrepid love of pure religion
merit the respect and affections of the colonists. Whatever share he may
have had in procuring the banishment of Mr. Williams,[91] it is certain,
that there was no personal feud between them. They had been acquainted
with each other in England, and had alike suffered from the intolerance
of the Prelates. Mr. Cotton sincerely thought Mr. Williams’ principles
wrong, and dangerous to the church and the state. He felt it to be the
duty of the government to protect the colony, by removing from it this
source of peril. In the controversy which subsequently arose between Mr.
Cotton and Mr. Williams, the latter uniformly spoke of Mr. Cotton in the
most respectful terms;[92] a circumstance, which is the more remarkable,
because at that day the style of polemic discussion was less decorous
than it is at the present time, and disputants lavished upon each other,
with unsparing virulence, the bitterest epithets of obloquy. While we
lament, therefore, that a man of so many admirable qualities as Mr.
Cotton, was misled by wrong views of religious liberty, and thus
betrayed into intolerance, we owe it to his honorable fame to remember,
that the best men are imperfect, and that no personal hostility inflamed
his zeal.
We may express the verdict, which, at this distant period, all calm and
fair minds will, it is presumed, pronounce: that Mr. Williams was
unnecessarily scrupulous about some minor points of conduct and of
policy, though these scruples may be candidly traced to the agitated
condition of the public mind in England and America, and to his own
delicacy of conscience; that he may have erred in maintaining his
principles with too little of that meek patience which he who would
effect a reform in the opinions of men must possess, though candor will
admit, that the constant opposition which Mr. Williams encountered might
have irritated a gentler spirit than his; that his behavior to the civil
rulers was not indecorous, unless a firm opposition to what he
considered as wrong in their measures might be viewed as indecorum, for
he yielded to their authority, in every point which his conscience would
allow; that his private character was pure; and that the cause of his
banishment may be found, in his distinguishing doctrine, _that the civil
power has no control over the religious opinions of men_; a doctrine
which no man, in our country, would, at the present day, venture to
deny. Mr. Williams was banished, therefore, because his spirit was too
elevated and enlarged, for the community in which he lived. Like
Aristides, the prominent excellence of his character was the cause of
his banishment.
But the same impartial verdict will do justice to the Pilgrims. They
felt it to be not merely their right, but their duty, to protect their
theocracy from persons, whose opinions or conduct, in their judgment,
disturbed its peace or endangered its purity. They believed, that the
sword of the magistrate was to be used for the defence of the church, as
in the days of Moses and Aaron. To deny this principle, was to subvert
the foundation of their civil and religious institutions; and it became,
in their opinion, a measure of self-preservation, and of paramount duty
to God, to expel Mr. Williams from the colony. That the grounds of this
measure were wrong, will not now be disputed; but we ought to rejoice,
that we can ascribe it to a sincere, though misdirected, desire to
uphold the church, and to advance the honor of God. Were these excellent
men now alive, they would be foremost in lamenting their own error, and
in vindicating those principles of religious liberty, for which Mr.
Williams incurred their displeasure.
And we may on this occasion, as on many others, observe the wonderful
wisdom of Divine Providence, which so controls the mistakes and sins of
men, as to accomplish the most important results. The banishment of Mr.
Williams contributed in the end to his own happiness and fame. Another
colony was established, and thus civilization and religion were
diffused. And we shall soon see how this event, though springing from
wrong views, and producing much immediate suffering, was the means, a
few years after, of that interposition of Mr. Williams between the
colonists and the Indians, which apparently rescued the whites
throughout New-England from total destruction.