USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > A discourse delivered at Providence, August 5, l836 : in commemoration of the first settlement of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Being the second centennial anniversary of the settlement of Providence > Part 2
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7
This then was the opinion which deserved removal, that " the civil magistrate could not intermeddle to prevent heresy, &c. in the churches." The other charges were thrown in, probably, for pop- ular effect, but this was the unpardonable sin.
The Church of Salem is here condemned, though it does not ap- pear they were called upon to answer except in the person of their minister. But what is the doctrine thus promulgated ? That the churches ought to request the magistrates to remove a minister of another independent church for his opinions. Let us now go back
* Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1, p. 162.
15
a little, and behold how consistency, and the liberties of the church were sacrificed for the removal of Mr. Williams.
In November, 1633, Governor Winthrop informs us that " 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 de- bated. 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 superintenden- cy, 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, &c."*
"No church or person can have power over another church." Such was the unanimous opinion of the ministers in 1633. In 1635 there is the same unanimity, but the doctrine is: The church in Salem, was guilty of a great contempt of authority, in choosing and ordaining their own minister ; that this minister ought to be remov- ed for his opinions, and the other churches have a right to take cognizance of these opinions, and to request the magistrates to re- move him. Can we wonder if the clear-sighted Roger Williams beheld here the same spirit of anti-christ which he so much abhor- red in England ? And is it strange that he should refuse communion with churches that sanctioned such doctrines ?
The time allowed Mr. Williams, and the Salem church, to con- sider of these things, and give satisfaction or expect sentence, was productive only of more difficulty. The town of Salem had peti- tioned the Court for some land which they claimed on Marblehead Neck, " but, (says Winthrop,) because they had chosen Mr. Wil- liams their teacher, while he stood under question of authority, and so offered contempt to the magistrates, &c. ; their petition was re- fused till, &c." (meaning, no doubt, till they had given the satisfac- tion required of them.) " Upon this, the church of Salem wrote to the 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."+
* Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1. p. 117.
+ Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1, p. 164.
16
Sad times, indeed, for the liberties and the rights of Salem ! They are deprived of the right to choose their minister ! For asserting this right they were outlawed and their land withheld from them, and for appealing to the churches in relation to this infringement upon their liberties, they were deprived of their deputies.
Under this complication of tyranny it is not surprising that Mr. Williams, in August, 1635, " being sick, and unable to speak, (as Winthrop informs us,) wrote his church a protestation that he could not communicate with the churches in the Bay ; neither could he communicate with them, except they would refuse communion with the rest ; but the whole church was grieved herewith."*
The able biographer of Roger Williams condemns this act some- what unadvisedly, saying, in excuse : " In this conduct he was doubtless wrong, yet who will venture to say, that if lie had been placed in the situation of Mr. Williams, he would have maintained a more subdued spirit ?"t
Under these circumstances, the spirit of most men would, indeed, have been subdued, and pastor and people made their peace by sub- mission. But such was not the spirit of Roger Williams ; though sick, he saw that he must separate himself from his church if they submitted, or himself submit to the tyranny which had been erected over them. He was not prepared for the latter, and his letter was intended to test how far his church would resist such tyranny ; it was a trial they were not able to bear, but their weakness could not shake his determination, for he was a man, says Dr. Bentley, " that was not afraid to stand alone for truth against the world." We are therefore prepared to behold him, for the last time, before the mag. istrates "and all the ministers in the Bay," happy if there had been transmitted to us a portion of that truth and glowing eloquence with which he defended himself on that occasion. It was in November, 1635, and the proceedings are thus narrated by Winthrop.
" At this general assembly, 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 op- pression, &c. ; and the other to his own church, to persuade them
* Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1. p. 166.
t Knowles's Memoir of Roger Williams, page 71.
-
17
to renounce communion with all the churches in the bay, as full of anti-christian pollution, &c. He justified both these letters, and main- tained all his opinions ; and being offered further conference or dis- putation, and a month's respite, he chose to dispute presently. So Mr. Hooker was appointed to dispute with him, but could not re- duce 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 re- turn home, refused communion with his own church, who openly disclaimed his errors, and wrote an humble submission to the mag- istrates, acknowledging their fault in joining with Mr. Williams in that letter to the churches against them, &c."*
Thus triumphed power, and thus was consummated an act of op- pression, by an union of church and state, by which a beloved pastor was again separated from his people, and the liberties of the church prostrated, to guard it from " heresy, apostacy and tyranny !" Neal says, " when Mr. Williams 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."
In the account of Winthrop, it might seem that the letters were the principal cause of banishment. It must be remembered, however, that Mr. Williams had given no satisfaction, to the court, in relation to his fundamental heresy, in denying the authority of magistrates in things spiritual, and that the sentence for this was suspended over him when these letters were written, in vindication of his conduct in this respect. The sentence yet remains of record, dated November 3d, 1635, and runs thus : " Whereas Mr. Roger Williams, one of the elders of the church of Salem, hath broached and dyvulged, dyvers newe and dangerous opinions against the authoritie of magistrates, as also writt Lrs. of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here, and that before any conviction, and yet maintaineth the same without retraccon ; It is therefore ordered, that the said Mr. Wil- liams shall depte out of this jurisdiction within six weekes nowe next ensueinge, which if hee neglect to performe, it shall be lawfull for the Govn", and two of the Magistrates to send him to some place out of
*Winthrop, vol. 1, page 171.
C
1
18
this jurisdiction, not to returne any more without licence from the Court."
Mr. Williams had liberty granted him to remain at Salem until spring, probably owing to the excitement which was produced there by his sentence of banishment. But, in January, he was driven from his home, into the wilderness, to escape being transported to England, under pretence that he had violated the injunction laid upon him not " to go about to draw others to his opinion," and the fact alleged in proof of this, was, that he entertained company in his house, and preached unto them, it was said, on points he had been censured for. But " the reason was," says Winthrop, and it is worthy of our special notice, " because he had drawn about twen- ty persous to his opinion, and they were intended to erect a planta- tion about the Narragansett Bay, from whence the infection would easily spread into the 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 Captain Underhill, &c. to ap- prehend him, and carry him on board the ship, (which then rode at Natuscutt,) but when they came at his house, they found he had been gone three days before; but whither they could not learn."*
Every Englishman considers his house as his castle, and Mr. Williams might have supposed that he had liberty of speech in his own house, without subjecting himself to the charge of going about to draw others to his opinion ; be this as it may, no opportunity was given him to defend himself against this charge, and, it would seem, it was made a pretence to cover a most tyrannical attempt against his liberty and rights. What right had these magistrates beyond the bounds of their patent ? and, if they chose to withdraw the liberty they had granted Mr. Williams, under pretence that he liad forfeit- ed it, what right had they to do any thing more than give him no- tice to depart out of their jurisdiction, agreeably to the sentence ? But Mr. Williams had committed a sin which was to be punished by transportation ; he was guilty of being beloved by many of the peo- ple, and he designed to lead them into the wilderness, and erect a
* 1. Winthrop. p. 177.
19
plantation where they might enjoy liberty of conscience. To crush such a conspiracy in favor of human rights, and to destroy, in em- bryo, the Narragansett colony, this act of arbitrary power was re- sorted to.
This conduct of the magistrates is not to be palliated by referring us to the bigotry of the age. It was an assumption of arbitrary power which thus trampled on the rights of a fellow-subject, and ar- rogated unto themselves the right to prevent him from colonizing beyond their patent, a right which belonged only to their common sovereign. They may have been good men, and no doubt were so, in other things, but they were not good in this ; they were corrupt- ed by, that grand corrupter, power ; the love of dominion had taken root, and " grew with what it fed on," and State necessity, "neces- sity, the tyrant's plea," was ready to justify, what there was light enough, even in that age, to condemn.
Mr. Winthrop was not Governor when Mr. Williams was thus driven from Salem, " though," says Williams, "he were carried with the stream for my banishment, yet he tenderly loved me to his last breath ;" and how differently he felt, from his brethren, in relation to the settlement here, we are happy to learn from another letter of Mr. Williams in which he says : "When I was unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New-England winter, now about thirty-five years past) at Salem, that ever-honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer my course to the Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and heavenly and public ends, encouraging me from the freeness of the place from any English claims or patents."*
Mr. Williams had now to encounter the perils of the wilderness. He says, " he steered his course from Salem, though in winter snow which he felt yet," (thirty-five years afterwards,) and " was sorely tossed for fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean."
We find him, in the following spring, at Seekonk, on the eastern bank of the Pawtucket river, on land granted to him by Ousame- quin, or Massasoit, where he had begun to build and plant. He removed from thence, in consequence of a letter which he received
* Williams' Letter to Major Mason, published in Ist vol. Mass. Hist. Coll. and in Knowles' App. page 393.
20
from the Governor of Plymouth, the character of which, in justice to both, we give in the words of Roger Williams : "I received a letter from my ancient friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Ply- mouth, professing his own and others' love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they were loth to displease the bay, to remove but to the other side of the water, and then he said I had the country free before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should be loving neighbors together."*
At what time Roger Williams removed from Seekonk, agrecably to this advice, we cannot ascertain to a day, or a month. Wc learn from him, incidentally, that his removal occasioned him the loss of a harvest that season, and therefore he could not have come here in season to have planted. He came, therefore, no doubt, in the summer, and after he had negotiated, with the Chief Sachems of Narragansett, for land and a peaccable settlement. The earliest record we have of his being here, is the journal of Governor Win- throp, under date of July 26, old style, when mention is made of information received from him by the Governor of Massachusetts of the murder of Oldham, and the conduct of Miantinomo on that occasion. In this uncertainty, as to the particular time of Roger Williams' arrival here, it has been deemed highly appropriate, in commemoration, not only of our settlement, but of the character of our founder, to set apart this day as the earliest record of the one, and the time when he commenced those essential services to those who banished him, which have done him so much honor.
Roger Williams had carly imbibed the spirit of a missionary, in relation to the Indians. " My soul's desire, said he, was to do them good," and he rightly deemed that a knowledge of their language was essential to enable him to conciliate their affections, and preach to them with effect. While he lived in Plymouth and Salem, he says, " God was pleased to give him a painful patient spirit to lodge with them in their filthy smoky holes to gain their tongue." A know. ledge of their language, a just notion of their rights, and the means which he employed to gain the affections of the natives, enabled him to procure from Canonicus and Miantinomo, the Chief Sachems of the Narragansetts, the land which first constituted the Providence
* Letter to Major Mason.
21
colony. In a deed of confirmation of these lands to his associates, dated 20th December, 1661, and now on the Providence records, he says, that he " was by God's merciful assistance the procurer of the purchase, not by monies, nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous that monies could not do it, but by that language, acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages which it pleased God to give him." In this he means that money alone could not have procured the purchase, but this was also necessary ; for in this same deed, he says, that he " bore the charges and venture of all the gratuities which he gave to the great Sachems and natives round about." To enable him to do this he says, in another place, "that he mortgaged his house in Salem, worth some hundreds, for supplies to go through, &c."
The deed from the Chief Sachems to Roger Williams, is dated " at Narragansett, the 24th of the first month, commonly called March, the second year of the plantation, or the planting at Mo- shassuck, or Providence," being, in fact, in the year 1638, new style .* This deed recites the purchase to have been made, by Ro- ger Williams, two years before, and, after setting forth the bounds of the first purchase, has the following clause : " We also, in con- sideration of the many kindnesses and services he hath continually done for us, both with our friends of Massachusetts, as also at Con- necticut, and Apaum, or Plymouth, we do freely give to him all that land from those rivers,f reaching to Pawtuxet river ; as also the grass and meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river." The first purchase made by Roger Williams in 1636, and conveyed by this deed, were the lands and meadows upon the rivers Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the bounds of which were established and confirmed by this deed, as follows : " From the river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on the west." The other lands, extending to Pawtux- et river, and the grass and meadows on the same, were conveyed to Roger Williams in 1638, as a gratuity for his kindnesses and ser- vices.
In October, 1638, Roger Williams conveyed, in consideration of thirty pounds, expressed, " equal right and power of disposing of the
* See App. A.
t Mentioned in the preceding part of the deed-the Moshassuck and Wan. asquatucket.
22
same grounds and lands," contained in the first purchase, with him- self, to twelve of his associates, and, in the words of the deed, " such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with us." The same deed also granted to the twelve au equal right to the Pawtuxet lands with himself. This deed was im- perfect, containing only the initials of the twelve, being written, as Williams afterwards alleged, " in a strait of time and haste." In reference to the Pawtuxet lands, however, there was another instru- ment, executed on the same day, by Roger Williams and the twelve, in which their names are fully expressed, and by which it was agreed between them, that the Pawtuxet lands should be equally di- vided between them, and that cach should pay an equal proportion of twenty pounds, and that those who failed so to do, within eight weeks, from the date thereof, should forfeit their proportion to those of the twelve who should pay the same to Roger Williams. On this agreement is an acknowledgment by Roger Williams, dated December 3d, 1638, that he had received " of the neighbors above said, the full sum of £18 11s. 3d." being twelve-thirteenths of the twenty pounds, the other thirteenth being his own share .* The Paw. tuxet lands thus became the property of the thirteen ; but in the first purchase, according to the deed, provision was made also for the new comers, the deed being not only to the twelve, but to such oth- ers as the major part should admit into their fellowship ; there was therefore a good reason why the consideration for the Pawtuxet lands should be paid by the twelve in the manner provided for as above mentioned, but not the same reason in reference to the thirty pounds specified as the consideration for Moshassuck. If these thirty pounds liad been paid or secured by the grantees, it is sin- gular that they should have been willing to have received such a deed, and that they had not been as particular in regard to the Mo- shassuck, as the Pawtuxet lands, the consideration of the former being, in truth, larger than the latter. Why, in reference to the latter, they should have been careful to have had an agreement con- taining their names in full, and providing that those who paid should have the share of those who neglected to pay, and to have had within the time provided, an acknowledgment endorsed of the stipulated payment-why they should have been so careful with regard to the lesser, and were willing to receive only the initial deed for the greater,
* See App. B.
23
cannot easily be accounted for if they paid the thirty pounds as well as the twenty. This makes it probable that the twelve were ad- mitted to an equal share in the first purchase gratuitously, and that the thirty pounds was to be paid, not by them, but by the new com- ers, as their portion of land was assigned them, as stated in the above mentioned deed of 1661, sometimes called the historical deed. This deed contains much recital, and was, no doubt, intended by Roger Williams, as well for the purpose of confirming to his asso- ciates their title to his first purchase, as to place on record the man- ner of the purchase, and of his apportionment of the same equally among them. Disputes, growing out of the Pawtuxet lands, and oth- er things, had induced some to call in question what Roger Williams was disposed here to record in perpetual memory. In this deed, af- ter reciting the expences and trouble he had been at in procuring the grant, he says, " it was, therefore, thought fit by some loving friends, that I should receive some loving consideration and gratui- ty, and it was agreed between us that every person that should be admitted into the fellowship of enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty shillings into the public stock ; and first about thirty pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a person, as they were admitted ; this sum I received, and in love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the said sum and payment as full satisfaction." *
Afterwards, on the 22d December, 1666, Roger Williams exe- cuted another deed of the first purchase, having the same date as the initial deed, (October 8th, 1638,) and intended to be a copy of the same, in all other respects except the names of the grantees, and rivers, which were written at full length .; The deed of 1661 was full confirmation to them of their title ; but this may have been required as a security to intermediate purchasers, or those who had disputed the facts alleged in the historical deed might not be willing to claim under the same. We say those, but we know not that there was more than onet who was disposed to dispute the recitals of the historical deed.
* See Knowles p. 115, and Backus, Vol. 1, p. 93. See App. C.
+ Knowles, p. 112, note. See App. D.
# Mr. William Harris. See an Historical account of the settlement of Providence, in the Rhode Island Register for 1823, by our venerable towns.
24
The names of the original grantees of Roger Williams, were Stuke. ly Westcott, William Arnold, Thomas James, Robert Cole, Jolm Greene, John Throckmorton, William Harris, William Carpenter, Thomas Olney, Francis Weston, Richard Waterman, and Ezekiel Holliman ; five of these, it appears from the Massachusetts records, did not leave Massachusetts until April, 1638, viz .: Olney, Weston, Westcott, Waterman, and Holliman.
Who came with Roger Williams from Salem to Seekonk, and after- wards to Moshassuck, the antiquarians are not agreed. Gov. Hop- kins, in his History of Providence, says : "So great was the love of some of his church for him, that they would not forsake him in this extreme distress, and twelve of them voluntarily went into exile and the solitary wilderness with him ;" these twelve he afterwards names, (the same to whom the deed of 8th October, 1638, was given,) as the " twelve poor suffering companions of Roger Williams" in his settle- ment here. Probably Gov. Hopkins was misled by the names of these persons appearing in this deed, five of whom, as above stated, did not leave the Massachusetts colony until April, 1638.
The biographer of Roger Williams has stated, upon the authority of our ancient fellow-citizen, Moses Brown, that those who accom- panied Roger Williams, at his first landing here, were five, viz .: William Harris, John Smith, Joshua Verin, Thomas Angell, and Francis Wickes, and that it " is not certain that any one accom- panied him from Salem to Seekonk, though a number of persons were with him a short time afterwards." (Page 100.)
Backus gives a tradition that Roger Williams, with "Thomas Angell, a hired servant, and some others," (whom he does not name,) " went over from Seekonk in a canoe and were saluted by the Indians near the lower ferry by the word whatcheer !"-that " they went round till they got to a pleasant spring above the great bridge, where they landed ; and near to which both he and Angell lived to old age." (Vol. 1, p. 74, note.)
man, Mr. Moses Brown, in which he takes a different view from Backus and Knowles, in relation to the manner in which the first purchase was commu- nicated to the twelve. We must be careful, however, not to confound the first purchase, with the disputes about the Pawtuxet lands. The verdict of the Jury referred to in page 23, of this account, was in reference to the Paw. tuxet lands.
* Backus, vol. 1, page 92, note.
25
Dr. Ezra Styles informs us, in his Itinerary, that in Nov. 1771, he visited, at Providence, Mr. John Angell, who, among other things, informed him that his grandfather, Thomas Angell, came from Salem to Providence with Roger Williams.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.