Baptism of Mr. Williams—establishment of the First Baptist Church in
Providence—Mr. Williams soon leaves the church.
Having related the principal facts, which can now be ascertained,
concerning the settlement of Providence and Newport, it is proper to say
something of ecclesiastical affairs. We must lament, in vain, that so
little is known on this subject. We have no account, from Mr. Williams
or his friends, of the manner in which the public worship of God was
maintained, and the first church formed at Providence. The notices which
may be gleaned from writers, who, for various reasons, were not disposed
to look on the new colony with a favorable eye, must, obviously, be
received with caution.
We might be sure, from the known character of Mr. Williams, and of his
companions, that they would meet together for the public worship of God.
Mr. Williams was acknowledged, at Plymouth and Salem, to be an able
minister, and he would, of course, preach to those who might choose to
hear him, at Providence. We learn from Winthrop,[191] that he was
accustomed to hold meetings, both on the Sabbaths, and on week days. It
does not appear, that there was, at first, any organization into a
distinct church; though, perhaps, those who had been members of the
church in Salem, regarded themselves as still a church, and Mr. Williams
as their pastor.[192] They were, at first, few in number, and were
obliged to provide dwellings and subsistence for themselves and their
families. They were not able to erect a house of worship, and tradition
states, that in pleasant weather they met in a grove. On other
occasions, they probably convened, either at the house of Mr. Williams,
or at some other private habitation; and, undoubtedly, enjoyed, in their
humble assemblies, the presence of Him, who is nigh to all who fear Him,
and who prefers “above all temples, the upright heart and pure.”[193]
It should be remembered, that the colony was a refuge for all who
pleased to reside there; and that, as Winthrop states, “at their first
coming, Mr. Williams and the rest did make an order, that no man should
be molested for his conscience.” The inhabitants were consequently free
to worship God as they thought proper. They were not all united in
opinion on religious subjects. Mr. Williams may have judged it to be
most conducive to the peace and welfare of his little colony, to erect,
at first, no distinct church, but to gather the inhabitants into one
assembly for worship; until the number should have so increased, as to
enable them to form separate churches, and maintain public worship
conformably to their own views.
After the lapse of two or three years, the colony had increased, by the
accession of emigrants from England, as well as from the other colonies.
Some of these are said by Hubbard, (336) to have been inclined to the
principles of the Baptists. By what means Mr. Williams’ mind was drawn
to a consideration of baptism, we do not know. He was accused, before
his banishment, of preaching doctrines “tending to anabaptistry;”[194] a
charge which was meant to impute to him principles subversive of civil
order, rather than heterodox notions concerning the rite of baptism. It
does not appear, that he had then adopted any views on this point,
opposed to the practice of the churches in Massachusetts; for if he had
then insisted on immersion, and rejected the baptism of infants, these
opinions would certainly have been placed prominently among the reasons
for his banishment.
That his principles tended to “anabaptistry,” using this word as
referring to the principles now held by the Baptists, is doubtless true.
His views of the distinction between the Mosaic institutions and the
christian church; his reverence for the supreme authority of Jesus
Christ; his appeals to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and
practice, and to the New Testament as the statute book of the Christian
church; his assertion and defence of the independent right, and
imperative obligation, of every individual to search the oracles of God,
and follow their teachings, without dictation or restraint from other
men; his bold and uniform proclamation of the unfettered liberty of
conscience, in those concerns which pertain to the intercourse between
God and the soul, will doubtless be acknowledged by the Baptists, to
have had a strong tendency to lead Mr. Williams to adopt their
distinctive views of the Christian ordinances.
Nor will it be considered, by other men, as a very strange vagary of an
unstable mind, that a clergyman, educated in the Church of England,
should adopt the opinion, that immersion is the only scriptural baptism,
when that church had taught him, in her offices, that baptism must be so
administered, except in cases of weakness or disease. Nor ought Mr.
Williams to be severely censured for denying that infants are proper
subjects of this ordinance, when it is recollected, that the first
President of Harvard University, (Dunster,) held the same opinion; and
the second President (Chauncy) so far followed in the same course, as to
insist, that baptism should be administered, to infants and adults, by
immersion only.[195] Mr. Williams will, at least, be viewed as
excusable, by those who agree with a learned Pedobaptist of our own
times, that “it is a plain case, there is no express precept respecting
infant baptism in our sacred writings.”[196] If Mr. Williams could not
find infant baptism in the Scriptures, his rejection of it was a natural
result of his principles, and may candidly be ascribed to his
single-hearted deference to the authority of the Bible; though his
reputation for ingenuity may suffer, because he was unable “to make out
the proof in another way.”
We are not, therefore, reduced to the necessity of adopting Governor
Winthrop’s account of Mr. Williams’ change of opinion. That account
attributes the blame to an artful woman, a sister of the great
heresiarch of those times, Mrs. Hutchinson.[197] We may, not
unreasonably, suppose, that Mr. Williams, on further study of the
Scriptures, and finding that several of the colonists had embraced
Baptist principles, was himself convinced, that he had not been
baptized. He accordingly resolved to obey the Saviour’s command, and
unite in a church, with such persons as might be willing to join him.
A difficulty now presented itself. They had been educated in the
Episcopal church, and were accustomed to regard the clergy with respect,
as the only legal administrators of the Christian ordinances. Mr.
Williams himself seems to have strongly felt this difficulty; and his
scruples on this point, probably, had some effect on his subsequent
conduct. He had not himself been immersed, and it seemed a reasonable
conclusion, that he could not, with propriety, baptize his brethren,
till he had received baptism. There was no other minister in
New-England, who would have baptized him, if he had made an application,
and his banishment from Massachusetts had been suspended.
The most obvious expedient, in their circumstances, was adopted. Mr.
Ezekiel Holliman[198] was selected to baptize Mr. Williams, who then
baptized the administrator and ten others.[199] This event occurred in
March, 1638–9. Thus was founded the first Baptist church in America, and
the second, as it is stated, in the British empire.[200] The church was
soon after increased by the addition of twelve other persons.
The validity of this baptism of Mr. Williams and his companions having
been disputed, it may be proper to examine this point.
The spirit of the Scriptures, if not their letter, assigns to the
ministers of the Gospel the duty of administering the ordinances of the
church. Expediency obviously requires an adherence to this general
principle. But the language of the Bible is not so decisive on this
point, as to make it certain, that a layman might not, in cases where a
minister could not be obtained, administer the ordinances. It is known,
that in the earliest ages of the church, while there was a general
observance of the principle, that the administration of the ordinances
belongs to ministers, laymen were occasionally permitted to baptize.
Mosheim says: “At first, all who were engaged in propagating
Christianity, administered this rite; nor can it be called in question,
that whoever persuaded any person to embrace Christianity, could baptize
his own disciple.”[201] Tertullian says, “Laymen have power to baptize,
which yet, for the sake of order, they ought only to use in cases of
necessity.”[202] Ambrose says: “That at the beginning, laymen were
permitted to preach and baptize, in order to increase the number of
Christians.”[203] Augustine affirms, “that it is a very small fault, or
none at all, for laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent necessity.”[204]
Jerome speaks of it as a thing certain, that “laymen may lawfully
baptize, when there is urgent necessity for it.”[205] There were, it is
true, at a very early period, erroneous views of the indispensable
necessity of baptism to salvation, which led to various unauthorized
practices. But the principle, that laymen might lawfully baptize, in
certain exigencies, seems to have been early admitted, and it was
formally sanctioned by a decree of the Council of Eliberis.[206]
But the reason of the case is of more weight than the decisions of
councils. It sometimes happens, that persons become Christians, without
the direct labors of a minister. If, for example, by the agency of the
Scriptures and tracts, which missionaries are now sending into the
Chinese empire, a number of persons in a neighborhood should become
converts, would it not be their privilege and their duty, if they were
sufficiently instructed respecting the nature of the church and of its
ordinances, to appoint one of their number to baptize the rest, to form
themselves into a church, and to partake of the Lord’s Supper? Must
these believers wait, till a missionary could come to baptize them, and
to organize a church? The great ends for which the church and its
ordinances were appointed,—the spiritual edification of believers, and
the spread of truth,—would require that these Christians should enjoy
them. If it were indispensable, that the administrator be a minister,
there would, in such a case, be no insuperable difficulty. The duty of
the converts to assemble, to pray, and to exhort each other, would be
clear. Their voluntary agreement thus to meet, to maintain mutual
watchfulness, and to enjoy the ordinances of the Gospel, would
constitute them a church. They might call one of their number,
possessing, in their judgment, suitable gifts, to the office of the
ministry, and this election by the church would be the only human
sanction which such a minister would need, to authorize him to preach
the Gospel, and to administer the ordinances.[207] This position cannot
be denied, without resorting to the doctrine of a regular apostolical
succession. If the church has no power to originate a ministry, by
investing with the sacred office those to whom, in her judgment, the
Saviour has given the inward vocation, the ministry might become
extinct. Those who insist on an apostolical succession, are obliged to
trace their ministry through the channel of the papal clergy. They are
forced to admit, that the Pope is a true bishop, and the Catholic
community a Christian church. Archbishop Laud confessed, that “it is
through her that the bishops of the Church of England, who have the
honor to be capable of deriving their calling from St. Peter, must
deduce their succession.”[208] If the race of English prelates had
become extinct, as might have happened, had Cromwell’s life been
prolonged a few years, the Church of England would have been reduced to
the embarrassing dilemma, of consecrating bishops by her own authority,
and thus dissolving the charm of succession, or of sending an humble
embassy to Rome, to crave from his Holiness the communication, anew, of
the mysterious virtue.
If, then, a company of believers in China might, in accordance with the
spirit of the New Testament, appoint an administrator of the ordinances,
the little band of Baptists at Providence were fully authorized to do
it.[209] No minister could have been obtained, in America, to baptize
Mr. Williams. The case was one of obvious necessity, and the validity of
the baptism cannot be denied, without rejecting the fundamental
principle, on which dissenting churches rest, that all the
ecclesiastical power on earth resides ultimately in the church, and that
she is authorized to adopt any measures, not repugnant to the
Scriptures, which may be necessary for her preservation and prosperity.
Whatever the New Testament has positively prescribed, must of course be
strictly obeyed.
In regard to those whom Mr. Williams baptized, there can be no dispute.
He was a clergyman of the Church of England, and Pedobaptists must
admit, that immersion, administered by him, was Christian baptism. Their
own ministers not unfrequently administer the rite in this manner, and
the persons thus baptized are received as regular members of their
churches.[210]
At what time, and under what circumstances, Mr. Williams left the
church, has been a vexed question among writers. Callender, (p. 56,)
expresses a doubt, whether Mr. Williams ever belonged to the church, and
adds: “The most ancient inhabitants now alive, some of them above eighty
years old, and who personally knew Mr. Williams, and were well
acquainted with many of the original settlers, never heard that Mr.
Williams formed the Baptist church there, but always understood, that
Mr. Brown, Mr. Wickenden, Mr. Dexter, Mr. Olney, Mr. Tillinghast, &c.
were the first founders of that church.” But Mr. Callender was under a
mistake, and, according to Mr. Backus,[211] he was afterwards convinced
of his error. The records of the church, as quoted by Mr. Benedict (vol.
i. p. 476,) assert, that “Mr. Williams held his pastoral office about
four years, and then resigned the same to Mr. Brown and Mr. Wickenden,
and went to England, to solicit the first charter.” This statement,
also, is incorrect.
Winthrop (vol. i. p. 307,) says, under the date of June or July, 1639:
“At Providence, matters went on after the old manner. Mr. Williams and
many of his company a few months since were in all haste re-baptized;
and denied communion with all others; and now he was come to question
his second baptism, not being able to derive the authority of it from
the apostles, otherwise than by the ministers of England, (whom he
judged to be ill authority) so as he conceived God would raise up some
apostolic power. Therefore he bent himself that way, expecting (as was
supposed) to become an apostle; and having a little before refused
communion with all, save his own wife, now he would preach to and pray
with all comers. Whereupon some of his followers left him and returned
back from whence they went.”
According to this paragraph, Mr. Williams left the church about three or
four months after its formation. This fact is confirmed by a letter of
Richard Scott, inserted in George Fox’s “Firebrand Quenched.” Scott says
of Roger Williams, “I walked with him in the Baptist way, about three or
four months, in which time he broke from the society, and declared at
large the grounds and reason of it, that their baptism could not be
right, because it was not administered by an apostle. After that, he set
up a way of seeking with two or three that had dissented with him, by
way of preaching and praying; and there he continued a year or two, till
two of the three left him.”[212]
Mr. Scott was at Providence, when the church was formed, and there can
be no doubt, that he soon became a member of it, though he afterwards
joined the Quakers. The “three or four months” which he mentions must,
on this supposition, be estimated as commencing at, or near, the
formation of the church, and consequently Mr. Williams must have left it
in June or July, 1639, as Winthrop states.
Of his reasons for this step, we are not clearly informed. The motives
assigned by those who disapproved his conduct, are loosely stated, and
must be received with caution. The principal reason, as stated by
Winthrop, Scott, and others, was, that Mr. Williams doubted the validity
of the baptism which he and his associates had received, because it was
not “administered by an apostle,” or because he could not “derive the
authority of it from the apostles, otherwise than by the ministers of
England, whom he judged to be ill authority.”
Of Mr. Williams’ real views at this time, we have no explanation by
himself; but if we may judge from his writings a few years later, he
denied, that any ministry now exists, which is authorized to preach the
Gospel to the impenitent, or to administer the ordinances. He believed,
that these functions belonged to the apostolic race of ministers, which
was interrupted and discontinued, when the reign of Antichrist
commenced, and which will not, as he thought, be restored, till the
witnesses shall have been slain, and raised again. (Rev. 11: 11.) In his
“Bloody Tenet,” printed in 1644, several passages occur, in which he
intimates, that the true church and ministry are now lost. The following
paragraph may be quoted, both as an illustration of his views and as a
proof of his liberal charity: He speaks of “thousands and ten thousands,
yea, the whole generation of the righteous, who, since the falling away
(from the first primitive Christian state or worship) have and do err
fundamentally concerning the true matter, constitution, gathering and
governing of the Church; and yet far be it from any pious breast to
imagine, that they are not saved, and that their souls are not bound up
in the bundle of eternal life.”—(p. 20.) He says, in his “Hireling
Ministry none of Christ’s,” published in 1652: “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.” (p. 4.)
The only ministry, which, in his opinion, now exists, is that of
prophets, i. e. ministers, who explain religious truths, and bear
witness against error. In a passage of the same work, he says: “Ever
since the beast Antichrist rose, the Lord hath stirred up the ministry
of prophecy, who must continue their witness and prophecy, until their
witness be finished, and slaughters, probably near approaching,
accomplished.”
We shall have occasion to disclose his opinions more fully in a
subsequent chapter. The passages which we have quoted were not printed
till a few years after he left the church, but there can be no doubt,
that they explain his conduct on that occasion. His mind, like the minds
of many other good men, became blinded “by excess of light,” while
gazing at the glorious visions of the Apocalypse; and he formed the
conclusion, that in the disastrous antichristian apostacy, the true
ministry and the whole exterior organization of the church went to ruin,
from which, however, as he believed, they shall be restored, and the
Saviour’s kingdom shall come on earth.
We need not pause, now, to show, that his views were erroneous. We must
deeply regret, that he formed them; but we can have no doubt of his
sincerity. A temperament like his impelled him to hasty decisions, but
his love of truth held a supreme sway over his mind. No considerations
could deter him from adopting, and carrying into instant practice,
whatever he believed to be true. Nothing but clear conviction could
induce him to relinquish what he considered as right. His principle of
action on this subject is beautifully expressed in a passage of his
Bloody Tenet: “Having bought truth dear, we must not sell it cheap, not
the least grain of it, for the whole world; no not for the saving of
souls, though our own most precious, least of all for the bitter
sweetening of a little vanishing pleasure.”
We may conclude, then, that he left the church, not because he had any
doubts respecting the nature of baptism; nor because he had been
baptized by a layman; but because he believed, that no man is now
authorized to administer the ordinances, and that no true church can
exist, till the apostolic ministry shall be restored. With these views,
he could not conscientiously remain connected with any church, nor
regard his baptism as valid.
Winthrop states, that he expected, “as was _supposed_, to become an
apostle.” This supposition is not entitled to much weight. It is
certain, however, that he believed the restoration of the church and its
ministry to be not far distant, and he might reasonably hope, should he
live to witness this glorious event, to be honored with a vocation to
this high ministry.
The statement of Winthrop, that “having a little before refused
communion with all, _save his own wife_, now he would preach to and pray
with all comers,” deserves a passing remark. The phrase, “a little
before,” apparently refers to the time of Mr. Williams’ residence at
Salem. But Morton, (p. 153) and Hubbard, who copies him, (p. 207)
assert, that “he withdrew all private religious communion from any that
would hold communion with the church there; insomuch as he would not
pray nor give thanks at meals _with his own wife_, nor any of his
family, because they went to the church assemblies.” Here Winthrop’s
statement respecting Mr. Williams’ wife is directly opposed to that of
Morton and Hubbard. It is probable, that they were all under a mistake.
The disputed point, whether Mr. Williams was the first pastor of the
church, or not, does not appear to present a material difficulty. He
would, we may suppose, as a matter of course, be the pastor of the
church while he remained in connection with it. He was the only ordained
minister at Providence, and though there may have been no formal
election, we cannot reasonably doubt, that he was considered as the
pastor. Richard Scott accuses him, in his letter, of a disposition to
manage every thing according to his own pleasure; a charge, which,
coming from an adversary, may imply no more than that Mr. Williams was
the head of the church. When he left it, he ceased, of course, to be its
pastor. He was succeeded by the Rev. Chad Brown, though not, as it
appears, till after an interval of two years; for the records of the
church assert, that he was not ordained till the year 1642.[213] We may
easily suppose, that as Mr. Williams’ connection with the church was
very short, Mr. Brown was considered as the first pastor, even by his
contemporaries, and that this impression was transmitted to their
descendants. It was not unnatural, moreover, for the church to be
willing to recognise Mr. Brown as the first pastor, rather than a man
who soon left them, and who refused to acknowledge them, or any other
body of men, to be a true church. It is possible, that other causes had
some influence in the case. It is certain, however, that Mr. Brown has
been generally believed to have been the first pastor of the
church.[214] He was, unquestionably, the first regular and permanent
pastor, and may be regarded as one of the chief founders. It is not
probable that he contended for the honor while he lived, and we may be
sure that there was no strife, on this point, between him and Roger
Williams, who speaks of him, in a letter written in 1677, as “a wise and
godly soul, now with God.”
We have thus stated the facts, concerning Mr. Williams’ conduct, so far
as we have been able to ascertain them. We see that he acted from
erroneous views, in leaving the church, and we lament that he was thus
misled into a course injurious to religion and to his own spiritual
welfare. But we see nothing which impeaches his religious character; and
his future life furnished abundant evidence of his piety towards God,
and of his love to men. He adopted no errors, except his views
respecting the ministry and the organization of the church. The great
truths of the Gospel he steadfastly believed. His life exhibited their
efficacy, and his heart felt their consoling power.
The church continued in existence, after Mr. Williams left it. The
statement of Richard Scott, that “_he broke from the society_,” implies,
that the society itself or church remained. The Rev. Chad Brown became
its pastor, and a succession of good men have continued to labor for the
Lord, in that church, till the present day. The church has experienced
some of the usual vicissitudes to which all things on earth are liable;
but it has never ceased to exist, and for the most part it has enjoyed
great prosperity.
No meeting-house was built till about 1700, when the Rev. Pardon
Tillinghast, the pastor, erected a house at his own expense.[215] This
long delay to build a meeting-house may be, in part, explained, by the
poverty of the inhabitants, and by the diversity of religious opinions
which prevailed among them. But we can scarcely acquit the church of
some deficiency in zeal and liberality. We must presume, however, that
they had a stated place of worship. Their numbers were, at this period,
small, and they had, perhaps, sufficient humility to be content with
very primitive accommodations. To Him whom they worshipped, the sincere
offerings of pious hearts were acceptable, however humble the place from
which they ascended.
Of the religious doctrines of this church, Mr. Benedict (vol. i. p. 486)
says: “It was first formed on the Particular or Calvinistic plan. In
process of time, they became what our English brethren would call
General Baptists, and so continued for the most part more than a hundred
years. From the commencement of Dr. Manning’s ministry, they have been
verging back to their first principles, and now very little of the
Arminian leaven is found among them.”
These facts show, that Mr. Cotton and his grandson, Cotton Mather, were
mistaken, when they affirmed of the church at Providence, that they
“broke forth into anabaptism, and then into antibaptism and familism,
and now finally into no church at all.”[216] Perhaps Mr. Cotton would
not acknowledge, that the congregation of Baptists at Providence
deserved the name of a church. Mr. Williams and his wife, with several
others of the members, were excommunicated from the church at Salem, of
which they were retained as members till they were baptized.[217] A
Baptist church, thus constituted, could not be viewed with much favor by
Mr. Cotton and his friends. A church, which was formed this year at
Newport, though Congregational in form, and orthodox, it is presumed, in
its doctrines, is mentioned, in a tone of censure, by Winthrop, and
after him, by Hubbard, (339) as having been gathered in a “very
disordered way, for they took some excommunicated persons, and others
who were members of the church of Boston, and not dismissed.”[218] The
leaders, both in church and state, in Massachusetts, were not then in a
mood to be pleased with any thing which occurred in Rhode-Island. It
would have been well if this feeling had expired with the first age. But
local prejudice is almost as durable as the natural features of a
country. Bœotia incurred, among the Greeks, a contempt, which the fame
of Pindar, Hesiod and Epaminondas could not soften.[219] Nazareth seems
to have acquired a similar distinction among the Jews.[220] Rhode-Island
may regret, yet cannot greatly wonder, that her sisters have sometimes
remembered the circumstances of her origin, better than the purity of
her principles and the steadiness of her patriotism. Many, since Mr.
Cotton, have been inclined to doubt, whether there was any true religion
in Rhode-Island, and to believe, with Winthrop, that there was no good
government. But let her not be moved. Time is brightening the fame of
her founder, and the reflected lustre will attract the eyes of men to a
fairer contemplation of her character.