It was during his sojourn at Plymouth that Roger Williams began to cement that famous friendship with the Indians which was one day to stand him in such good stead.[834] “My soul’s desire,” he said, “was to do the natives good.”[835] And later, when
“Declined
Into the vale of years,”
he wrote again: “God was pleased to give me a painful, patient spirit, to lodge with them in their filthy, smoky holes, to gain their tongue.”[836] In this way he became acquainted with Massasoit, the chief of the Wampanoags, and with Canonicus and Miantonomoh, the sachems of the Narragansetts, among whom, in after-years, he sought and found a home.
On his return to Salem his struggle with the government recommenced. While at Plymouth he had written a pamphlet against the validity of the colonial charter, and submitted it to Bradford.[837] Now he published it. He said: “Why lay such stress upon your patent from King James? ’Tis but idle parchment: James has no more right to give away or sell Massasoit’s lands, and cut and carve his country, than Massasoit has to sell James’ kingdom or to send his Indians to colonize Warwickshire.”[838]
Since the Pilgrims had legalized their title to the land in foro conscientiæ, by actual purchase from the aborigines,[839] it is somewhat difficult to conceive why Williams, already staggering under a load of odium, should have added to the pack by a declaration entirely useless, yet certain to kindle anger because it was looked upon as treason against the cherished charter.[840]
The fact should seem to be that he had the certaminis gaudia—the joy of disputation; common to intellectual gladiators. Occasionally this got the better of his prudence; and when it did, like a skilful rider, he soon recovered the reins of his caution and made glad amends. On this occasion, he confessed his penitence for the ill which had arisen from the unfortunate polemic, and offered to burn the manuscript if the authorities chose to countenance the bon-fire.[841]
Roger Williams next pronounced himself upon an exciting local question. It was then a mooted point at Salem whether women were commanded to appear at church veiled.[842] Singularly enough, the radical Williams said Yes, and the conservative Cotton said No; the historic opponents for once changed places; and Cotton, going to Salem, handled the subject so convincingly in his morning sermon, that the ladies came to church in the afternoon unveiled; upon which “Williams, though unconvinced, desisted from opposition.”[843]
Behind these frivolities were graver issues. In 1633, trouble seemed brewing between England and the Pilgrim colonists. Charles, Laud, and Strafford, had hinted at a “commission” for the regulation of the non-conforming American plantations; and the Privy Council had commanded Cradock to order the colonial charter home, to be “regulated.” The ex-president of the Massachusetts Company did write for it in 1634, and in 1635 “quo warranto”[844] was issued. But the provisional authorities, while answering Cradock’s missive, declined to return the charter.[845]
Affairs looked black indeed. Resistance was seriously contemplated; what was called the “freeman’s oath,” which bound the colonists to allegiance to the colony rather than to the king, was ordered to be subscribed throughout Massachusetts Bay; and at the same time it was decided to “avoid and protract.”[846] Nothing prevented England from launching her cohorts upon the plantations but the presence of those home troubles which now began to press the royalist party as closely as the serpents enveloped Laocöon. It was a time of general anxiety, and men cried Hush! and held their breath to see what should next occur.