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.