USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 3
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 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
2
18
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
officiate to an unseparated people", and denounced the congregation at Boston for not making public declaration of their repentance for having had communion with the churches of England, and for allow- ing their magistrates to inflict penalties for the neglect of religious duties.
Hc was then invited by the church at Salem to become an assistant to Rev. Mr. Skelton, succeeding Higginson in the position of teacher. Scarcely had he accepted and begun his ministry in that town when the General Court at Boston interfered, and, relating the obnoxious opinions he had broached in Boston, remonstrated that the Salem people should choose him without first conferring with the Council. Although, in theory, the church at Salem was an absolutely independ- ent community, the authorities at Boston did not scruple to attempt jurisdiction over it whenever they thought that the safety of the state was in question. : The Puritans had shrewdly kept clear of any discus- sion as to the Anglican Church, and public repentance for having had communion with it would occasion great offense among powerful quar- ters in the mother country. The assertion of Roger Williams, in which he denied the right of the magistrates to punish for breach of the Sabbath or any other violation of the "first table"-the first four of the Ten Commandments-affected the very foundation of the Puri- tan theocracy. Massachusetts historians, like Palfrey and others, have tried to excuse the Puritan remonstrance against this assertion by stating that three out of these four Commandments are penal crimes to-day. But they have overlooked the fact that Roger Williams's doctrine referred only to the attitude of a man's own conscience to God, and explicitly disclaimed the idea that the magistrates could not punish for violations that "did disturb the civil peace".1 This remonstrance of the Boston authorities apparently, at first, had little effect. Whether or not any later influence was brought to bear upon the church at Salem the records do not disclose; but before the close of the summer of 1631 wc find Williams removed from there and in- stalled as an assistant to Ralph Smith in the church at Plymouth. This place was entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the Boston Court, and his surroundings were surely more congenial. Governor Brad- ford says: "He was friendly entertained according to their poor ability, and exercised his gifts amongst them; and after some time was admitted a member of the church and his teaching approved".2
1This doctrine is explicitly stated in the first of the four charges brought against Williams in July, 1635. For the attitude of Massachusetts historians, see Palfrey, i, 407.
2Hist. Plymouth Plant., p. 195.
--
19
THE PURITANS AND ROGER WILLIAMS.
He remained here for two years, supporting himself by manual labor and rapidly gathering, by his teaching, a band of faithful adherents to his doctrines. During the period he wisely availed himself of cul- tivating friendly relations with his Indian neighbors. To promote the religious welfare of the savages, he studied their language and manners, and formed a lifelong acquaintance with Massasoit, Canoni- cus, and Miantonomi. In later times this friendship proved of great value to Rhode Island and to New England as well. His doctrines, although they fell upon more fruitful ground, excited even here the opposition of some of the Pilgrim authorities. The mild Elder Brew- ster feared his disputatious spirit, and Bradford, after a few months' experience, describes him as "a man godly and zealous, having many precious parts, but very unsettled in judgment".
The Salem church, in the meanwhile, had not forgotten their former pastor, and, in 1633, showed their affection and confidence by inviting him to resume his ministry with them as an assistant to Skel- ton. In August of that year he obtained his dismissal from the Ply- mouth Church, and accompanied by a few of his flock who preferred to remain faithful to him, he returned to Salem. His teaching does not seem to have inspired any notable opposition from the Boston authorities during the first few months.1 While at Plymouth he had written a treatise upon the royal patent, in which he maintained that the colonists could acquire title to the land, not by royal grant, but only by purchase from the lawful owners, the Indians. In December, 1633, the General Court requested that this treatise should be sub- jected to their examination, and after consulting the clergy, found that it contained matter liable to bring them into displeasure at home, the more as it was "accompanied with language of studied affront to the late and to the reigning king". They found these three passages especially offensive: "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; that he chargeth him and others with blasphemy for calling Europe Christendom, or the Christian world; that he did personally apply to our present King Charles, these three places in the Revelations." Regarding the first point, Williams was historically correct, as the land was discovered over a century previous. As concerns the second, denial of the Chris- tianity of Europe was a common phrase among the more zealous of
'There is no reliable evidence to show that he took any prominent part in the controversies of the time regarding the wearing of veils or the meeting of ministers in "associations". (See Arnold, Hist. of R. I., i, 26.)
20
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
those who opposed the Angliean church and need not have eauscd sueh sudden indignation among those who believed it if they did not put it in writing. As to the last point, Savage, a Massachusetts historian, says: "No complaint of sueh indiscretion would have been expressed ten years later, when the mother country far outran the colony in these perversions of Seripturc".1 The Court, however, ordered that Will- iams should be eensured, and wrote Governor Endieott to urge him to retraet. This treatise, whether purposely or not, was evidently mis- understood by the Massachusetts authorities, being written, not for publieation, but for the "private satisfaction" of the governor at Plymouth. Williams had no intention of being disloyal, and when his religious opponents put him to the test by bringing forward something that he had written privately, he offered to give every proof of his loyalty, even to the burning of his book. The General Court accepted this offer, being satisfied, after reflection, that the views were not so dangerous as had first appeared.
In August, 1634, Skelton died, and Williams, in spite of the remon- stranee of the General Court, was chosen by the Salem ehureh to suc- eeed him as teaeher. Seareely was he installed when he again began propagating the opinions which the Boston clergy deemed so danger- ous. They first complained that he was "teaching publicly against the King's patent, and our great sin in claiming right thereby to this country, and for usual terming the ehurehes of England Anti-Chris- tian". This complaint was soon dropped for a more serious one. The General Court, in order to secure allegianee to the colony in case of possible opposition to the king, had designed to impose upon the people an oath of fidelity. Williams, whether because he thought that the authority of the king was thereby compromised, or beeause he had abstraet theories regarding the taking of oaths, asserted that "a mag- istrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerated man, for that we thereby have communion with a wieked man in the worship of God, and cause him to take the name of God in vain". Williams was brought before the ministers for voieing this opinion, which admittedly eaused the Court to desist from imposing the oath, and aceording to the statement of his adversaries, he was "clearly confuted".
As yet the magistrates had been able to make but little headway in overthrowing the opinions of Roger Williams. Whenever they took oeeasion to strengthen their religious oligarchy by an abuse of civil power, up rose this young Salem minister and successfully contested
1Winthrop, i, 122.
21
THE PURITANS AND ROGER WILLIAMS.
their unwarranted assumption of authority. Since the magistrates seemed unable or unwilling to assume the responsibility, the General Court took up the matter, and in July, 1635, summoned Williams to appear before them. He was accused of maintaining the following dangerous opinions : "First, that the magistrate ought not to punish the breach of the first table, otherwise than in such cases as did disturb the civil peace; secondly, that he ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerated man ; thirdly, that a man ought not to pray with such, though wife, child, etc .; fourthly, that a man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament nor after meals," etc.1 The first and second of these charges we have already alluded to. The third and fourth are but trivial, being added merely as subsidiary to the two most important offenses, although there is nothing in Williams's writings to show that he ever promulgated these views. If he ever did express them, they are at most merely technical differences in doctrine, due to his zeal as a Separatist to combat everything that worked toward uniformity in the church, and could never have been dangerous to the civil peace of the Colony. Williams appeared in answer to the summons of the Court and the "said opinions were adjudged by all, magistrates and ministers, to be erroneous, and very dangerous, and the calling of him to office, at that time, was adjudged a great contempt of authority. So, in fine, time was given to him and the church at Salem to consider of these things until the next General Court, and then either to give satisfaction to the Court, or else to expect sentence".
While the matter was thus pending, the town of Salem petitioned for some land in Marblehead Neck, which they considered 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", their petition was refused. For a political body to refuse to do an act of temporal justice on account of some spiritual deficiency in the petitioners was a perversion of law and an extraordinary abuse of authority. The Salem church imme- diately took offense, and, according to Winthrop, "wrote to other churches to admonish the magistrates of this as a heinous sin, and likewise the deputies". The people of the other churches, however, not being inspired by the preaching of Williams, apparently decided to side with the party which had the most power. Williams, whom Winthrop describes as "being sick and not able to speak", then wrote to his church, protesting that he could not communicate with the
1Winthrop, i, 162. This author is our sole authority for a large part of this religious controversy.
22
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
churches of the Bay, nor communicate even with them unless they refused communication with the rest. At the next General Court the deputies from Salem were refused their seats until they should give satisfaction about the letter.1
The Salem church was now in a decided predicament. If they yielded to the pressure of the magistrates, they were refused communi- cation with their pastor. If they continued to oppose the General Court, they would be denied any voice in the government of the colony. Much grieved at the situation, they chose the lesser of the two evils and yielded, leaving their persecuted minister to retreat also, or else suffer the consequences. A single person is always more liable than a com- munity to show devotion to a principle; or, as Williams's opponents might have put it, he was more obstinate than his following. His nature was not one that quailed before a show of force, and when the time of his trial came he was as unshaken in his convictions as ever. In October, 1635, in response to the summons of the General Court, he appeared in order to answer to the charges against him. The pro- ceedings of the Court are best given by Winthrop, the least unpreju- diced of the early annalists :
"At this general court, Mr. Williams, the teacher at 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, etc., and the other to his own church, to persuade them to renounce com- munion with all the churches in the bay, as full of anti-christian pollu- tion, etc. He justified both these letters, and maintained all his opin- ions ; and, being offered further conference or dispution, and a month's respite, he chose to dispute presently. So Mr. Hooker was appointed 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, etc."
The sentence of banishment was passed in these words :
1Endicott, Salem's principal deputy, subsequently justified this Salem letter, and the General Court, in addition to unseating him, imprisoned him until he should acknowledge his offense. Savage, one of the first Massachu- setts historians to admit the magistrates' abuse of temporal power, says: "This denial, or perversion, of justice will not permit us to think that the judges of Williams were free from all blame in producing his schism." Win- throp, i, 164.
23
THE PURITANS AND ROGER WILLIAMS.
"Whereas, Mr. Roger Williams, one of the elders of the church at Salem, hath broached and divulged divers new and dangerous opinions against the authority of the magistrates ; as also writ letters of defama- tion, both of the magistrates and churches here, and that before any conviction, and yet maintained the same without any retracting; 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 magis- trates to send him to some place out of this jurisdiction, not to return any more without license from the Court.'"
Liberty was afterwards granted him to stay until spring, provided he did not "go about to draw others to his opinions". His restless nature, however, did not permit him to remain quiet, and in January, 1636, we find the General Court listening to the complaints that he was promulgating his views in his own house, and that he and twenty others were intending to erect a plantation about Narragansett Bay. Since there were many who still embraced his opinions, the magistrates deemed that his proposed settlement would result in a "spread of the infection", and accordingly resolved to send him away to England by ship. On his refusal to come to Boston in answer to a summons they dispatched Captain Underhill with a pinnace to Salem with orders to seize him and to carry him on board the ship about to sail for England. But when they came to his house they found that he had gone three days before, whither they could not learn.
It seems that Governor Winthrop, who, in spite of his many differ- ences, manifested a lifelong friendship towards Williams, had advised him to settle in the fertile Narragansett country; and to that end, Williams, leaving behind his wife and two infant children, set out upon his perilous winter journey.2 He apparently passed the winter among the Wampanoag Indians, whose friendship he had cultivated during his residence at Plymouth, and, at the opening of spring, began to plant and build on the east side of the Seekonk River, on what was recently known as Manton's Neck.
1Mass. Col. Rec. i, 160. There has been much misapprehension concerning the date of banishment of Roger Williams. The accepted date of October 9, 1635, was first given, with a full discussion of the subject, in Dexter's As to Roger Williams, p. 58. See also J. A. Howland in R. I. H. S. Proc. 1886-87, p. 52.
2Straus, in his biography, p. 74, concludes that this journey must have been made by sea, referring to Guild as his authority. But Dr. Guild, in later years, in his Footprints of R. W., p. 19, retracts this opinion, agreeing with the generally recognized view that the journey was made by land. For a careful discussion of this subject see Dexter As to R. W., p. 62; also Book Notes, xi, 148.
24
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
But he was soon destined to be disturbed. "I received a letter," he says, "from my ancient friend, Mr. Winslow, the Governor of Plymouth, 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 loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other side of the water." Williams, though suffering the loss of the crops he had planted, quictly acquiesced, and accompanied by five companions1 who had in the meantime joined him, set out to seek a freer land beyond the river. Tradition narrates that they proceeded down the Seekonk River in a canoe as far as "Slate Rock", where they were welcomed by the Indians with the friendly salutation "What cheer, netop ?''2 Passing around the headlands now known as India and Fox Points, they traveled up the Mooshassuck River and disembarked near a spring,3 on the east side of the river a little southwest of where St. John's church now stands. Here they began their settlement, to which in gratitude for deliverance from his many distresses, Williams gave the name of Providence.
It is now time to review briefly the true causes of Roger Williams's banishment and to draw conclusions as to the justifiability of the pro- ceedings. Probably no one event in early New England history has given rise to so much contradictory discussion among historical writers as the explanation of the real motives for expelling Williams from the Massachusetts Colony. The Puritan apologists have attempted to show that he was a "subverter of the foundations of government" and that his removal was brought about for reasons purely political; while his own eulogists, chiefly of the Baptist persuasion, have asserted that his enunciation of the great principle of religious freedom was the chief
1William Harris, John Smith, Francis Wickes, Thomas Angell and Joshua Verin. See Arnold, i, 97. For William Arnold's claim as a first comer, see Prov. Rec. xv, 77. According to Theodore Foster's account, obtained of Stephen Hopkins ( Foster Papers, vi, 19 in R. I. Hist. Soc.), Thomas Angell was the only person to accompany Williams on his famous expedition around Fox Point. (See R. I. H. S. Coll. vii, 83, and Stone's Life of Howland, p. 344.) The date of this expedition, which is also the date of the founding of Provi- dence, has been variously estimated from April 20 to June 26, 1836. The safest estimate would put it in the latter part of May or early in June. For a full discussion of this question, which is too lengthy to be entered upon here, see Narr. Hist. Reg. v. 27.
2Articles on "What Cheer" and its tradition are in Rider's Book Notes, vii, 47, and in R. I. H. S. Publ. vi, 232.
3There are accounts of Roger Williams's Spring in the Microcosm, Febru- ary 24, 1826; Providence Journal, March 11, 1894; and R. I. H. S. Publ. vii, 135. Moses Brown relates a tradition that upon landing, the first comers "were invited by the natives to partake with them of succotash and boiled bass then cooking over the fire, which they accepted". (R. I. Mss. viii, 5, in R. I. H. S.)
25
THE PURITANS AND ROGER WILLIAMS.
reason for his departure. Indeed, writers of the present decade seem able to argue the subject with as much conviction and prejudice as they did half a century ago. To arrive at any clear judgment of the case, we must depend on three classes of original authorities: the official action of the Court, the evidence afforded by contemporary writers, and the statements of Williams himself.1
The sentence of the Court gives the following reasons for his ban- ishment : his broaching of "new and dangerous opinions against the
SLATE ROCK AND SEEKONK RIVER
From a painting by Noyes, in the possession of the Rhode Island Historical Society, representing the locality as remembered by the artist.
authority of magistrates", and his writing and defending certain "letters of defamation". These are the sole charges against him. As far as the wording goes, the crimes might be political, but as a matter of fact, they are not. The "new and dangerous opinions" were care- fully defined in the official complaint of the Court three months pre-
1Every writer on the subject must acknowledge his obligations to H. M. Dexter for the marshalling of original authorities in his As to Roger Williams, even though few could agree with all the inferences therein expressed.
26
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
vious to the sentence. By a reference to this,1 it may clearly be seen that the first two of the four charges instance his conception of the complete separation of civil and religious authority, whereas the last two refer to trivial peculiarities of private religious opinion. He was at that time threatened with banishment unless he retracted these specific opinions. The second charge against him in the sentence re- ferred to his protest against the "scandalous injustice" of the magis- trates in denying the Salem petition for land, merely because the Salem pastor had offended the Court. This again instanced his objection to the principle whereby temporal punishment could be administered for spiritual deficiencies. So much for the official action of the Court.
Winthrop, perhaps the most reliable of the contemporary writers, affirms that the defamatory letters and the maintenance of his opinions were the causes; of Williams's banishment. Later, in referring to Wheelwright's heresies, he says that Williams was expelled "for the like, though less dangerous". Cotton, the strongest adversary of Williams in his later life, always sought to justify Massachusetts on the ground that Williams was banished because his preachings against the patent and oath of fidelity, his letters of defamation, and his renunciation of the churches in the Bay were all subvertive of the civil peace. Gorton says he was expelled for "dissenting from them in some points about their Church Government."2
The most important reference by Williams to his banishment is in his reply to Cotton, where he quotes the charges as made by Governor Haynes, and admits that they were rightly summed up. The charges were : "That we have not our land by Patent from the King, but that the natives are the true owners of it. That it is not lawful to swear, to pray, as being actions of God's worship. That it is not law- ful to hear any of the ministers of the parish assemblies in England. That the civil magistrate's power extends only to the bodies and goods, and outward state of men." These, says Williams, were "the four particular grounds of my sentence.''3
Although the foregoing authorities do not settle upon the same spe- cific reasons for banishment, they certainly agree in the negative con- clusion that Williams was not expelled for any one separate cause. Whether we accept the rather vague indictment that appears in his
1See ante. p. 21; also W. E. Foster in R. I. H. S. Coll., vii, 96.
2Winthrop, i, 171, and his Life, ii, 186; Cotton, Reply to Williams, p. 26; Gorton, Simplicities Defence (in R. I. H. S. Coll., ii, 43).
8Cotton's letter examined, p. 4.
27
THE PURITANS AND ROGER WILLIAMS.
final sentence, or the definite charges as made by Haynes and admitted by Williams, which were the real grounds of his banishment, we must undoubtedly come to the same conclusion. The offender had propa- gated certain opinions which, said the clergy, were "subvertive of the framework of government". And so they were, but subvertive of the religious, and not the political, framework. Roger Williams did not discourse upon the tax system, or the method of holding elections, or any other strictly political question ; but he did protest, and vehement- ly, against the mingling of temporal and spiritual concerns, against the principle which made the magistrate but the mouthpiece of the clergy. Those in power quickly realized that if any considerable number of people accepted his teachings, their theocracy would be greatly weakened, and it was but natural that they should wish the thorn in their flesh removed. And so they banished him, not for his attitude upon religious toleration, nor for his championship of liberty of conscience-for these ideas were then but embryonic in his mind- but for his protest against their usurpation of temporal authority.
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.