Transcriber’s Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

MEMOIR

OF

ROGER WILLIAMS.

FAC SIMILE OF THE HANDWRITING OF ROGER WILLIAMS.
Copied from a Document written in 1677.

MEMOIR
OF
ROGER WILLIAMS,
THE
FOUNDER OF THE STATE
OF
RHODE-ISLAND.

BY JAMES D. KNOWLES,

PROFESSOR OF PASTORAL DUTIES IN THE NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION.

“Roger Williams justly claims the honor of having been the first legislator in the world, in its latter ages, that fully and effectually provided for and established a full, free and absolute liberty of conscience.”

Governor Hopkins.

BOSTON:

LINCOLN, EDMANDS AND CO.

1834.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1833,

BY JAMES D. KNOWLES,

In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

Lewis & Penniman, Printers.

Bromfield-street.

TO THE

Citizens of Rhode-Island,

THIS VOLUME

IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY

THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

The citizens of the United States, have sometimes been ridiculed, for an alleged propensity to please their imaginations with romantic visions concerning the future glory of their country. They boast, it is said, not of what the nation has been, nor of what it is, but of what it will be. The American faculty, it is affirmed, is anticipation, not memory.

If the truth of this charge were admitted, it might be replied, that the ‘proper motion’ of the youthful imagination—in states as well as in individuals—is towards the future. It springs forward, with buoyant wing, forgetting the past, and disregarding the present, in the eagerness of its desire to reach fairer scenes. It is the instinct of our nature, the irrepressible longing of the immortal soul for something higher and better. It is never extinguished, though frequent disappointments abate its ardor, and long experience confirms the testimony of revelation, that perfect happiness is sought in vain on earth. In mature age, therefore, reason has corrected the errors of the imagination, and the old man looks backward to his early years, as the happiest period of his life, and praises the men and the scenes of his youthful days, as far surpassing those which he now sees around him.[^[1]]

Most nations are impelled, by the same principle, to recur to some past epoch in their history, as the period of their greatest glory. There is little in the prospect of the future to excite their hopes. The adherents to old institutions dread the progress of that spirit of innovation, which has already overthrown many of them, and which threatens speedy ruin to the rest. And the patriot, who is striving to raise his country to the enjoyment of liberty and happiness, foresees too many obstacles, too much fierce strife, suffering and bloodshed, to permit him to contemplate the future without anxiety.

It is the happiness of America, that almost every thing in her condition invites her to look forward with hope. Her perfect freedom,[^[2]] her rapid progress, the elastic energy of her national character, the boundless extent of her territory, her situation, far from the contentions of European nations, and safe from the dangers both of their friendship and of their hostility, all awaken and justify the confident hope, that she is destined to reach a height of prosperity and power, which no other nation, of ancient or modern times, has attained.

But if Americans were so prone to look forward, that they forgot the past, it would certainly be a fault, which would deserve rebuke. Bright as the future may be, the past can present scenes, on which the American may gaze with pleasure, and from which he should draw lessons of wisdom and incitements to patriotism. Passing by the prosperous course of our history, since the adoption of the Constitution; not pausing to contemplate the formation of that Constitution, though it was one of the most glorious achievements of wisdom and national virtue; looking beyond the unparalleled revolution itself; the character and actions of the men who laid the foundations of this country deserve the careful study, and must attract the admiration, of every true-hearted American. The motives, the policy, the personal qualities of the founders; their fervent piety, their courage and patience, their unwavering constancy, their calm wisdom, their love of learning, and their thirst for liberty, entitle those venerable men to the affection and gratitude of every succeeding generation. Their faults we may now see more clearly than their contemporaries; but those faults were, for the most part, the excesses of their virtues, the errors of wise heads and pure hearts, whose piety sometimes became austere, and whose conscientious love of truth occasionally betrayed them into intolerance. There is no stain upon their personal character; and the American may point, with grateful pleasure, to the bright names of Winslow, Winthrop, Hooker, Penn, Baltimore, Oglethorpe, and their associates, as among the choicest treasures of his country.

Among these names, that sense of justice, which eventually triumphs over temporary prejudice and wrong, has already placed that of Roger Williams. Long misunderstood and misrepresented, he was excluded from his appropriate place among the chief founders and benefactors of New-England. The early historians, Morton, Mather, Hubbard, and even Winthrop, spoke harshly of his character. His principles, both political and religious, were offensive to the first generations; and it is not strange, that he was viewed and treated as a fanatical heresiarch in religion, and a factious disturber of the state.

Later writers have treated his memory with more respect; and we might quote many honorable testimonies to his principles and his character. But no extended memoir of his life has ever before been published. It would not be difficult to assign reasons for this neglect. The want of materials, and the contradictory accounts of various writers, were sufficient to deter his friends from the undertaking, and a lingering prejudice against him prevented others. The attention of some able writers has, nevertheless, been drawn to the subject. Dr. Belknap designed to give to the life of Roger Williams a place in his American Biography, and he made application to several persons in Rhode-Island for materials, but without success. It was announced, a few years since, that Robert Southey, Esq. intended to write the life of Mr. Williams. He probably relinquished the plan, for the same reason. The Rev. Mr. Greenwood, of Boston, formed the design of preparing a memoir, at the suggestion, I believe, of Mr. Southey. Mr. Greenwood collected many valuable materials, but the failure of his health, and other causes, induced him to abandon the undertaking.[^[3]]

My attention was directed to the subject, in 1829, by hearing the Rev. Dr. Sharp, of Boston, pronounce, with his usual eloquence and true love of freedom, a eulogium on the character of Roger Williams. I soon afterwards suggested to him, that the life of Mr. Williams ought to be better known. He urged me to undertake the office of biographer, and many other friends concurred in the request. I consented, having learned—that Mr. Greenwood had resolved to relinquish the design. I made an application to him, however, to be informed of his real purposes. With the most generous politeness, he placed at my disposal all the materials which he had collected. Among them were between twenty and thirty unpublished letters, copied from the originals, which were kindly lent to him by the Hon. Thomas L. Winthrop. These letters form a valuable part of this volume.

In my further search for information, I soon discovered, that many persons, well acquainted with our early history, knew very little of Roger Williams. In the books, I found almost every important fact, concerning him, stated differently. I was obliged to gather hints from disconnected documents, and to reconcile contradictory assertions; and in fine, my labor often resembled that of the miner, who sifts large masses of sand, to obtain a few particles of gold. I have spared neither toil nor expense to obtain materials. I have endeavored to make the book as complete and accurate as possible. It has cost me much time, and a degree of labor, which no one can estimate, who has not been engaged in similar investigations.

I have, however, received much aid from several individuals. Besides Mr. Greenwood, my thanks are especially due to the venerable Nestor of Providence, Moses Brown, and to John Howland, Esq. Other gentlemen are entitled to my gratitude, whom it would give me pleasure to name. I have, too, derived great assistance from several books. Among these I ought to mention Mr. Backus’ History, from which I have copied a number of valuable documents, and gathered important information. Mr. Savage’s admirable edition of Winthrop’s Journal has been my chief guide, in narrating the early events of Mr. Williams’ history, after his arrival in this country. From the valuable Annals of Dr. Holmes, and from the Library and the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, I have derived important aid.

I have strongly felt the want of a history of Rhode-Island. I have been obliged to relate many historical facts, which I have collected, in various ways, at the hazard of mistake and deficiency. It has been somewhat mortifying to me, as a native of Rhode-Island, to be obliged to rely on the writers of Massachusetts and Plymouth, for facts concerning the history of Rhode-Island, which could not, otherwise, be ascertained. While all the other New-England States, and indeed most of the States of the Union, have histories, it is hoped that Rhode-Island will not much longer be content to bear the reproach, of being indebted to other States for her knowledge of her own history. I am glad to learn, that the papers of the late Theodore Foster, Esq. are now in the possession of the Rhode-Island Historical Society. I hope that the Society will immediately appoint some competent person to prepare a history of the State. The Legislature ought to aid in procuring the requisite documents from England, and in defraying other necessary expenses. The State has no reason to be ashamed of her history. She owes it to herself to record it truly.

The want of such a history has induced me to insert in this volume several documents which cannot readily be found. I am not aware of any Rhode-Island publication, except a file of newspapers, in which a copy of the first charter is contained. The second charter is not easily to be procured. Very few, probably, of the citizens possess a copy.

It may, indeed, be objected to this book, that it is encumbered with documents. But I have desired to furnish the reader with the means of forming an acquaintance with Mr. Williams, by a perusal of his own letters, and other writings. These are never common-place. They are all marked with the impress of his character. The numerous authorities have been added, in order that if I have committed mistakes, the reader might have the means of correcting them. It would be strange, if, amid so much contradiction and confusion, I have fallen into no errors. I can only say, that I have anxiously labored to learn the truth; and I shall be thankful for any suggestions, which may tend to make the book more accurate and useful.

A few of the notes are marked “G.” They were appended by Mr. Greenwood to the documents which he loaned to me, and I have taken the liberty to copy them, as valuable illustrations.

Roger Williams lived in an eventful period, and a memoir of him must contain many references to contemporary personages and events. I have endeavored, to speak of these with candor and kindness. The character and actions of the Pilgrim fathers have necessarily come under review. I have been obliged, occasionally, to censure; but it has been a source of pleasure, that the more I investigated their actions, the more deep and sincere was my veneration for those excellent men. It is due to them to point out those errors in their conduct, which they, were they now living, would lament and condemn.

The position in which this country is placed, as the great exemplar of civil and religious liberty, makes it inexpressibly important, that the true principles on which this liberty rests, should be thoroughly understood. A responsibility lies on the citizens of this country, which no other nation ever sustained. Here it is to be demonstrated, that man can govern himself, and that religion can walk abroad in her own dignity and unsullied loveliness, as the messenger of God, armed with his authority, and wielding his omnipotence; that she can speak to the hearts of men with a voice of power, which owes no part of its emphasis to the force of human laws; that she, instead of leaning on the arm of the magistrate for support, can enter the halls of legislation, the cabinets of rulers, and the courts of justice, to spread out her laws, and proclaim her eternal sanctions. If civil liberty fail here, or if religion be overwhelmed with error or worldliness, the great cause of human happiness will suffer a disastrous check. It is believed, that a better knowledge of the principles of Roger Williams will have a salutary tendency, and that the publication of a memoir of his life is opportune, at this crisis, when, both in America and in Europe, the public mind is strongly agitated by questions which affect both the civil and the religious rights of men. If this book shall contribute, in the slightest degree, to the promotion of truth and freedom, I shall rejoice, and praise Him, who has restored my health, and given me leisure to finish the work.

A word or two of explanation, on certain points, may be necessary. In the quotations from old documents, I have altered the orthography conformably to present usage. One reason for this course was, that scarcely any writer was consistent with himself, especially in relation to proper names. There is, too, nothing in orthography to mark the style of a particular writer, and it may, consequently, be altered, without affecting the idiomatic peculiarities of his composition, while the book is freed from the uncouth forms of words spelled according to antiquated fashions.

The Indian names have been reduced to a uniform orthography, agreeably to what was believed to be the best form. They are spelled, in a most perplexing variety of ways, by different authors. Roger Williams himself sometimes spelled the same name differently in the same document.

I have endeavored to arrange the dates according to the old style. Many mistakes have been committed, by various authors, from a neglect of this point. Before 1752, the year was computed to commence on the 25th of March, which was, accordingly, reckoned as the first month, and January and February were the eleventh, and twelfth. Dates between the 1st of January and the 25th of March, are usually, in this book, marked with both years. Thus the time of Mr. Williams’ arrival in America was the 5th of February, 1630–1.

No portrait of Roger Williams, it is believed, is in existence. As the best substitute, a fac-simile of his hand writing has been engraved, and prefixed to this volume. It was copied from a document, kindly furnished by Moses Brown.

Ill health, and various other causes, have delayed the work. Further search might, perhaps, detect additional materials; but my official duties, and other reasons, forbid a longer delay. It is now respectfully commended to the favor of the public; and above all, to the blessing of Him, without whose smile human approbation would be vain. I cannot, and, indeed, ought not to, be without some solicitude respecting the reception of a work, on which I have expended so much time and labor, cheered by the hope, that it would serve the cause of human happiness. I am well aware, that it is defective in several points; but it has not been in my power to make it more complete. I can easily anticipate objections, which will arise in some minds. One of these, it is probable, will be, that I have spoken too freely of the faults of Christians and ministers; that I have unveiled scenes of intolerance and persecution, which the enemies of religion may view with malicious joy. But my reply is, that I have not alluded to such topics, except where my main theme compelled me to speak of them. I trust, that what I have said is true, and uttered in a respectful and kind spirit. We must not, in order to promote or defend religion, attempt to conceal events which history has already recorded, and much less to palliate conduct, which we cannot justify. Let us, rather, confess, with frankness and humility, our own faults, and those of our fathers; learn wisdom from past errors; and bring ourselves and others, as speedily as possible, to the adoption of those pure principles, by which alone Christianity can be sustained and diffused. The book of God records, among its salutary lessons, the mistakes and sins of good men. I have believed, that the wrong and mischievous tendency of intolerance could not be more forcibly exhibited, than in the conduct of our fathers. All men concede to them sincere piety, pure lives and conscientious uprightness of purpose. How pernicious, then, must be a principle, which could so bias the minds of such men, as to impel them to oppress, banish or put to death their fellow Christians! How dangerous the principle, if, in such hands, its operation was so terrible! We need not wonder that, under the direction of bigotry, ambition, cupidity and despotism, it produced the horrors of St. Bartholomew’s, and the atrocities of Smithfield. The experience of New-England has proved, that the best men cannot be trusted with power over the conscience; and that this power must be wrested from the hands of all men, and committed to Him who alone is competent to wield it. This volume is dedicated to the defence of religious liberty, both by an exposition of the principles of Roger Williams, and by a display of the evils of intolerance. If it shall thus aid in hastening the universal triumph of pure and undefiled religion; my strongest desire will be accomplished.

Newton, December 12, 1833.

CONTENTS.

MEMOIR.

CHAPTER I.

Early life of Mr. Williams—State of religious affairs in England—Mr. Williams embarks for America.

The obvious analogy between human life and a river has supplied the poet with similes, and the moralist with arguments. The resemblance of the two objects is, in this point, at least, worthy of notice, that their origin awakens the curiosity of every reflective mind. This feeling has impelled many travellers to a perilous search for the sources of the Niger and the Nile; and it made Lewis and his associates look, with triumphant joy, on the little rill, at the summit of the Rocky Mountains, which flows on, and expands into the mighty Missouri.

We feel a similar desire, when we survey the actions of a distinguished individual, to learn the incidents of his youth. The mind is perplexed and dissatisfied, if such a personage has suddenly appeared, like Manco Capac to the Peruvians, as if he had indeed alighted on the earth from the sun, or risen, like the fabled Venus, from the ocean.

This curiosity has valuable uses. The instruction which is gathered from the lives of men is drawn, in great part, from a view of the steps, by which they advanced to their subsequent elevation in virtue and usefulness, or to a bad eminence in crime. The character of most men is formed early, and we can scarcely pronounce a fair judgment respecting any individual, unless we take into the account the circumstances, which shed a propitious or malignant influence on those early years, when his habits were fixed, and his principles imbibed.

It is a subject of regret, that of the early life of Roger Williams so little is known. A few facts only have been preserved, and these do not rest on very certain evidence. It is remarkable, that in his numerous writings, there are no allusions to his parents, to the place of his birth and education, and to other points relating to his early years. There are, in his letters and books, but two or three incidental references to events anterior to his arrival in this country; though his allusions to early occurrences after his emigration are very frequent.

He was about 32 years of age when he reached our shores; a period of life, when the energy of youth remains without its rashness, and the mind has acquired steadiness, without the timid caution and fixed pertinacity of old age. It is a period, however, when the character of most men is already formed. Though new situations and difficult exigencies may develope unexpected powers, and give prominence to certain traits of character, yet the mind commonly remains unchanged in its essential qualities. It was long since said by Horace, that those who cross the ocean pass under a new sky, but do not acquire a new disposition.[^[4]] This was probably true of Mr. Williams; and if we could trace his early history, we should undoubtedly see an exhibition of the same principles and temper which distinguished his subsequent career.

It may, however, be said of most of the prominent men among the first settlers of New England, that their history begins at the period of their arrival here. Our accounts of their early lives are very brief. They were too busy to record their own early fortunes, and too pious to feel any pride in displaying their descent, their virtues, or their sufferings. The present and the future filled their minds; and they seem to have felt, that the wide ocean which separated them from the land of their fathers had effected a similar disjunction of their history. Of Roger Williams less is known than of some others, because no efforts were made by early biographers to collect facts concerning him. His opponents were more disposed to obliterate his name, than to record his life. His contemporary friends were sharers in his sufferings, and were not at leisure to relate his story or their own. Even the records of the church which he founded at Providence contain no notice of him, written earlier than 1775, when the Rev. John Stanford, a venerable minister, still living in New-York, collected the fugitive traditions concerning the origin of the church.

These traditions state that Mr. Williams was born in Wales, in 1599.[^[5]] The place of his birth, and the character of his parents, are not known. We may easily believe that he was a native of Wales. He possessed the Welch temperament—excitable and ardent feelings, generosity, courage, and firmness, which sometimes, perhaps, had a touch of obstinacy. It has been supposed, that he was a relative of Oliver Cromwell, one of whose ancestors was named Williams.[^[6]] This conjecture has not a very solid basis. Roger Williams does not claim, in his writings, any kindred to the formidable Protector, though he repeatedly alludes to his intimacy with him, and once speaks of a “close conference with Oliver,” on the subject of Popery, which they both abhorred and feared. It appears, from a remark in one of his books, that he became pious in early life. “The truth is, from my childhood, now above threescore years, the Father of lights and mercies touched my soul with a love to himself, to his only begotten, the true Lord Jesus, to his holy Scriptures,” &c.[^[7]]

That his parents were in humble life, and that his disposition was pious and thoughtful, may be inferred from an incident which is related concerning him, and which, if true, had a great share in determining his future course. It is said, that the famous lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, observed him, one day, during public worship, taking notes of the discourse. His curiosity was excited, and he requested the boy to show him his notes. Sir Edward was so favorably impressed by the evidences of talent which these exhibited, that he requested the parents of young Williams to intrust their son to his care. He placed him, as the tradition runs, at the University of Oxford,[^[8]] where he drank deeply at the fountains of learning. His writings testify, that his education was liberal, according to the taste of those times, when logic and the classics formed the chief objects of study at the universities.

He afterwards commenced the study of the law, at the desire and under the guidance of his generous patron, who would naturally wish to train his pupil to the honorable and useful profession which he himself adorned. The providence of God may be seen in thus leading the mind of Mr. Williams to that acquaintance with the principles of law and government, which qualified him for his duties as legislator of his little colony.

But he probably soon found that the study of the law was not congenial with his taste. Theology possessed more attractions to a mind and heart like his. To this divine science he directed his attention, and received Episcopal orders. It is stated, that he assumed, while in England, the charge of a parish; that his preaching was highly esteemed, and his private character revered.[^[9]]

We have thus recited the traditions which have been current in Rhode Island. There is undoubtedly some truth in them, though the story is a little romantic, and may have received some embellishment in its progress.

Roger Williams entered on public life at an eventful period, when the national mind was strongly agitated by those political and religious causes, which had been slowly operating for many years, and which soon subverted the throne and the Episcopal Church. At these causes we can do no more than glance.

The Reformation, in England, commenced as far back as the latter part of the fourteenth century, when Wickliffe taught the pure doctrines of the Scriptures, and kindled a great light for the guidance of the people in the path to Heaven, by translating the Scriptures, for the first time, into the English language. He was, of course, denounced and persecuted by the Catholic Church, but his doctrines spread, and though many of his followers were put to death, and the utmost cruelty was practised, in various ways, to hinder the progress of the truth, yet the principles of the Reformation were extensively diffused in England, before Luther and his fellow laborers commenced their glorious ministry. But no public blow was given to the papal power in England, till Henry VIII. finding the authority of the Pope an obstacle to his favorite project of repudiating his wife Catharine and marrying Anne Boleyn, renounced, in 1534, his political allegiance to his Holiness.[^[10]] The King was created, by act of Parliament, the Head of the Church, and the powers which had previously been claimed and exercised by the Pope, were transferred to the King. But, while the papal authority was rejected, the doctrines of Popery were not discarded. The King was a strenuous believer in transubstantiation, purgatory, sprinkling of holy water, invocation of saints, and other doctrines and rites of the Catholic Church. He exacted as implicit a submission to his will as the Pope himself. Indeed, little more was yet gained, than the substitution of a Pope in England for a Pope in Rome. Henry was of a temper too despotic to permit him to be a friend of the Protestant religion. To a monarch of arbitrary principles, the spirit of Popery is more congenial than that of the Protestant faith. The Catholic system requires an unconditional submission to the authority of man. The first principle of Protestantism is implicit obedience to God alone. The decisions of Councils and the commands of the Pope bind the Catholic; the will of God, as it is uttered in the Holy Scriptures, is the only rule of faith and practice to the true Protestant.

After the death of Henry, his son, Edward VI. ascended the throne. He was a religious Prince, and a zealous friend of the Reformation. The Church of England was purified from many corruptions during his reign, a liturgy was compiled, and the Protestant religion made a rapid progress in the nation. But some relics of Popery were still retained, and among others, the vestments of the clergy. It was deemed indispensable, that the priests should wear the square cap, the surplice, the cope, the tippet, and other articles of apparel, which were in use among the Popish clergy. Some excellent ministers refused to wear these garments, on the ground that they were associated in the public mind with Popery; were regarded by many of the people with superstitious reverence, and ought, consequently, to be rejected with the other corruptions from which the church had purged herself. It was, unquestionably, very unwise to retain an appendage of the old system, which tended to remind the people of the discarded religion, to irritate the minds of its enemies, while it nourished the attachment to it which some persons secretly retained, and to suggest the obvious conclusion, that as the ministers of the new religion resembled so nearly those of the old, the difference between the two systems was very small. The effect of wearing the popish garments was so manifestly injurious to the progress of truth, that the refusal to wear them was not a trivial scruple of conscience, as it may, at first sight, appear. But the attempt to enforce the use of them, by severe penalties, and by expulsion from office, was unjust; and it led to a final separation of the Protestants themselves into Conformists and Non-Conformists.

After Edward’s death, and the accession of Mary, Popery was restored, and scenes of barbarous cruelty and bloody persecution ensued, which have made the name of this Queen infamous. Many hundreds of the Protestants perished at the stake, or in prison, and multitudes fled to Germany, Switzerland, and other countries.

The reign of this fierce bigot was happily short, and Elizabeth succeeded her. The Protestant religion was re-established, and during her long reign it gained an ascendancy which it has never since lost. Yet Elizabeth possessed the despotic temper of her father. She had a fondness for some of the gaudy rites of Popery.[^[11]] She peremptorily insisted on the use of the clerical vestments, and on a strict conformity to all the other ceremonies of the church. The final separation of the Non-Conformists from the Church of England was thus hastened. Those who had fled from England during the reign of Mary, returned, on the accession of Elizabeth, bringing with them an attachment to the purer rites of the Reformed Churches in Holland, Switzerland and France. Most of these exiles, and of the other Non-Conformists, were, nevertheless, willing to subscribe to the doctrines of the Church of England, and to use the liturgy, if they might be permitted to omit the vestments, the sign of the cross in baptism, and some other ceremonies. They disliked the pretensions of the Bishops, and many of them preferred the Presbyterian or Independent form of Church government. There were, too, some minor points in the liturgy, to which they objected. But had they been treated with Christian kindness, and allowed, in the spirit of mutual forbearance and charity, to neglect those forms, which they considered as sinful or inexpedient, they would, for the most part, have remained in the Episcopal Church, and England would have been spared the manifold crimes and miseries, which issued in a civil war, and drenched her soil with the blood of her King, and of thousands of her bravest sons.

But the principles of religious liberty were then unknown. The Queen, though for a while she treated the Non-Conformists with indulgence, till her power was fully established, soon announced to them her sovereign pleasure, that they should submit to all the ceremonies of the church. Severe laws were passed by an obsequious Parliament, and enforced, with ready zeal, by servile Bishops. Every minister who refused to conform to all the prescribed ceremonies was liable to be deprived of his office; and a large number of the ablest ministers in the nation were thus expelled and silenced.[^[12]] In order to enforce the laws with the utmost rigor, a new tribunal was erected, called the Court of High Commission, consisting of Commissioners, appointed by the Queen. This Court was invested with power to arrest ministers in any part of the kingdom, to deprive them of their livings, and to fine or imprison them at the pleasure of the Court. “Instead of producing witnesses in open court, to prove the charges, they assumed a power of administering an oath ex officio, whereby the prisoner was obliged to answer all questions the Court should put to him, though never so prejudicial to his own defence. If he refused to swear, he was imprisoned for contempt; and if he took the oath, he was convicted upon his own confession.”[^[13]] By this Protestant Inquisition, and by other means, one fourth of the preachers in England are said to have been under suspension. Numerous parishes were destitute of preachers, and so many were filled by illiterate and profligate men, that not one beneficed clergyman in six was capable of composing a sermon.[^[14]] Thus were learned and pious ministers oppressed, merely for their conscientious scruples about a few ceremonies, their families were ruined, the people were deprived of faithful teachers, the progress of truth was hindered, the papists were gratified, and a state of irritation was produced in the public mind, which led, in a succeeding reign, to the disastrous issue of a bloody civil war.

Nor was the edge of this intolerance turned against the clergy alone. The people were rigorously required to attend regularly at the parish churches.

Measures like these gradually alienated the affections of many from the Established Church, and convinced them, that there was no prospect of obtaining toleration, or of effecting a further reform in the church. They accordingly separated from it, and established meetings, where the ceremonies were not practised. These Non-Conformists were called Puritans, a term of reproach derived from the Cathari, or Puritans, of the third century after Christ. The term, however, was not inappropriate, as it intimated their desire of a purer form of worship and discipline in the church. It was afterwards applied to them on account of the purity of their morals, and the Calvinistic cast of their doctrines.

This separation occurred in the year 1566. The storm of royal and ecclesiastical wrath now beat the more fiercely on the heads of the Puritans. The history of England, for the succeeding century, is a deplorable narrative of oppression, bloodshed and indescribable misery, inflicted on men and women, of deep piety and pure lives, but guilty of claiming the rights of conscience, and choosing to worship God with different forms from those which the National Church prescribed. No man, of right feelings, can read Neal’s History of the Puritans, without sorrow and indignation. Every man ought to read it, if he would understand the reasons why the founders of this country left their native land, to seek an asylum in the wilderness, and if he would rightly estimate the great principles of religious liberty which Roger Williams maintained and defended.

The accession of James I. excited the hopes of the Puritans. He had been educated in the principles of the Reformation, and had stigmatized the service of the Church of England as “an evil said mass in English.”[^[15]] He had promised, that he would maintain the principles of the Church of Scotland while he lived. But he changed his principles or his policy, after he ascended the throne of England. He then announced the true royal creed, No Bishops, no King. He treated the Puritans with contempt and rigor, declaring that they were a sect “unable to be suffered in any well-governed commonwealth.”[^[16]] Many of the Puritans, finding their situation intolerable at home, left the kingdom for the continent, or turned their eyes to America for a refuge from persecution.

In the midst of these scenes, Roger Williams was born and educated. His character impelled him to the side of the Puritans. His political principles were then, it is probable, as they were throughout his subsequent life, very liberal; and were entirely repugnant to the doctrines which were then upheld by the court and the dignitaries of the church. James was an obstinate and arbitrary monarch, who inflexibly maintained, in theory and often in practice, those despotic principles, which led his son to the scaffold, and expelled James II. from the throne. A mind, like that of Williams, strong, searching and fearless, would naturally be opposed to the pretensions and policy of the King.[^[17]] His patron, Sir Edward Coke, incurred the resentment of James, for his free principles, and his bold vindication of the rights of the people. Charles I. was, if possible, more arbitrary than his father, and more disposed to trample on the constitution, and on the rights of the people.

The tyranny exercised by the Bishops, the severe persecution of the Puritans, and the arrogant demand of absolute submission to the National Church, were still more offensive to a man like Mr. Williams. His principles, as he afterwards expounded them, by his life and in his writings, claimed for all men a perfect liberty of conscience, in reference to religion. Such principles, allied to a bold spirit, must have brought him into notice at such a crisis, and must have attracted upon his head the storm of persecution. Cotton, Hooker, and many other ministers, were silenced. In such times, Mr. Williams could not escape. If he was indeed admitted to a living, it must have been through the indulgence of some mild Prelate, or by the influence of some powerful patron. If Cotton and Hooker were not spared, Williams could not be suffered to preach, for his refusal to conform seems to have been more decided than theirs.[^[18]]

The same motives, without doubt, which induced others to forsake their native land for America, operated on the mind of Mr. Williams. On the 1st of December, 1630, he embarked at Bristol, in the ship Lyon, Captain William Peirce. His wife accompanied him, a lady, of whose previous history we are more ignorant than of his own.[^[19]] There is, however, satisfactory evidence, in her subsequent life, of her virtues as a wife and a mother. We cannot doubt, that she was of a kindred spirit with her husband, whose fortunes, both adverse and prosperous, she shared for half a century.

CHAPTER II.

Historical Sketch—View of the condition of the country at the time of Mr. Williams’ arrival.

The first settlement, by Europeans, in North America, was made in 1585, when Sir Walter Raleigh sent a fleet of seven ships from England to Virginia. One hundred and seven persons were landed on the island of Roanoke, near the mouth of Albemarle Sound, in the present State of North Carolina. But discouraged by the want of provisions, and probably by other causes, all the colonists returned to England the next year. Another, and more successful, attempt was made twenty years afterwards, under the authority of a patent from King James, who granted all the territory in North America, comprehended between the 34th and 45th degrees of latitude, to be equally divided between two companies, called, respectively, the London and the Plymouth.

In 1607, three ships, with one hundred emigrants, formed a settlement on the James River, in Virginia, and called the spot Jamestown, in honor of the King.

In the same year, a small colony made a settlement at the mouth of the Kennebec River, in the present State of Maine; but the loss of their stores by fire, and the severity of the winter, induced them all to abandon the undertaking the next year, and return to England.

In 1610, a settlement was commenced at Newfoundland, and in 1614, the Dutch built a fort on the island of Manhattan, where the city of New York now stands, and held the country many years, under a grant from the States’ General, by the name of the New Netherlands.[^[20]]

In 1620, the ever memorable landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth took place. The colonists were a company of Puritans, who left England so early as 1608, with their pastor, the Rev. John Robinson, and settled at Leyden, in Holland. The merciless oppression which they endured in England impelled them thus to abandon their native land. They enjoyed protection and prosperity in Holland, but they were not satisfied with their condition and prospects in that country, which a foreign language and lax morals rendered an undesirable home for them and their children. They accordingly resolved to emigrate to America. They sailed from Plymouth (England) in September, 1620, and on the 11th of December they landed at the spot to which they gave the name of Plymouth.

The settlement of Massachusetts Bay occurred a few years after. This great enterprise was conducted under the direction of the Plymouth Company, who obtained a new patent from King James, by which a number of the highest nobility and gentry of England, their associates and successors, were constituted “the Council established at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering and governing of New England, in America.” By this patent, the whole territory between the 40th and the 48th degrees of north latitude, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, was granted to the company.[^[21]] In 1627–8, the Company sold to several gentlemen, among whom were John Endicott and John Humfrey, all that part of New-England which lies between three miles north of Merrimac River and three miles south of Charles River, across the whole breadth of the continent. In June, 1628, Mr. Endicott sailed from England, for Naumkeag, since called Salem, where a small company of emigrants had fixed their residence a short time before. Mr. Endicott’s first letter from America is dated September 13, 1628, and his arrival is considered as the date of the first permanent settlement of Massachusetts Proper.

The patent from the Council of Plymouth gave a good right to the soil, (says Hutchinson, vol. i. pp. 16, 17) but no powers of government. A royal charter was necessary. This passed the seals March 4, 1628–9. It confirmed the patent of the Council of Plymouth, and created the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, in New-England, a body politic and corporate. By this charter, the Company were empowered to elect, annually, forever, out of the freemen of said Company, a Governor, a Deputy Governor, and eighteen assistants, and to make laws not repugnant to the laws of England.

As the state of things in the parent country daily became more distressing to the friends of religion and liberty, an emigration, unparalleled for its extent, and for the character of the emigrants, was projected. A considerable number of persons of great respectability, of good fortune, and of consideration in society, among whom were Winthrop, Dudley, Johnson, and Saltonstall, resolved to remove, with their families and property, to Massachusetts, on condition that the charter of the colony and the seat of its government should be transferred to America. This important proposition was acceded to, and on the 28th of April, 1630, Winthrop, who had been elected Governor, and his associates, sailed from Yarmouth,[^[22]] in a fleet, which, with the vessels that preceded and followed them the same season, amounted in the whole to seventeen sail,[^[23]] with above fifteen hundred passengers.[^[24]] The Arbella, with Governor Winthrop on board, arrived at Salem on the 12th of June, and the other vessels arrived soon after. The colonists there had lost eighty of their number by death the winter previous. Their provisions were nearly consumed, and they were in a distressing situation. The arrival of the new emigrants occasioned great joy to the sufferers, and revived their hopes.

It was early determined that Salem was not the proper position for the capital. The Governor, and the principal part of the emigrants, left Salem soon after their arrival, and resided awhile at Charlestown. Here sickness prevailed among them, and a considerable number died.[^[25]] They were distressed by the want of fresh water. Many of them accordingly abandoned Charlestown, and settled at Watertown and Dorchester, while a still larger number removed, in September, to the other side of the river, and laid the foundation of Boston. The peninsula was then inhabited by only one white man, the Rev. William Blackstone.[^[26]] It was called by the Indians Shawmut, and by the neighboring settlers, Trimountain, the former name signifying the abundance and sweetness of its waters, the latter the peculiar character of its hills.[^[27]] It was called Boston by a vote of the Court, September 7, in well deserved honor of the Rev. John Cotton, who had been a minister of Boston, in England, and whose arrival in America was earnestly expected.

The sufferings of the first inhabitants of the metropolis were very great. Sickness swept many of them into the grave. The weather during the winter was extremely severe, and provisions were so scarce, that the inhabitants were in imminent peril of starvation.[^[28]] At this critical juncture, the ship Lyon, in which Roger Williams had embarked, arrived, on the 5th of February, 1630–1. Governor Winthrop (vol. i. pp. 41, 42) thus records the arrival of this vessel:

“Feb. 5. The ship Lyon,[^[29]] Mr. William Peirce, master, arrived at Nantasket. She brought Mr. Williams, a godly minister,[^[30]] with his wife, Mr. Throgmorton, Perkins, Ong, and others, with their wives and children, about twenty passengers, and about two hundred tons of goods. She set sail from Bristol, December 1. She had a very tempestuous passage, yet through God’s mercy, all her people came safe, except Way his son, who fell from the spritsail yard in a tempest, and could not be recovered, though he kept in sight near a quarter of an hour; her goods also came all in good condition.”

The strong contrast between the situation of the present inhabitants of the metropolis, and that of the little company of suffering exiles in 1630, forces itself on our minds. They were few in number. They had no suitable dwellings to shelter them from the rigors of winter, then more severe, perhaps, than any which we now experience. They were almost without food. Disease was among them, and several of their number sunk into the grave, whose lives might doubtless have been preserved, had they been furnished with suitable shelter, food and medicine. When they looked around them, all was dreary and melancholy. “Where now exists a dense and aggregated mass of living beings and material things, amid all the accommodations of life, the splendors of wealth, the delights of taste, and whatever can gratify the cultivated intellect, there were then only a few hills, which, when the ocean receded, were intersected by wide marshes, and when its tide returned, appeared a group of lofty islands, abruptly rising from the surrounding waters. Thick forests concealed the neighboring hills, and the deep silence of nature was broken only by the voice of the wild beast or the bird, and the war whoop of the savage.”[^[31]]

How different the situation of the present inhabitants. That little company has swelled to more than sixty thousand. Those forests, which then covered the hills and vallies, are gone; the ocean has been driven back from much of the space over which it then rolled; and now, where stood the few tents and cabins of the first settlers, have sprung up, over the whole peninsula, sumptuous structures and spacious temples, comfortable dwellings, ample warehouses, and every thing which can minister to the happiness of men. The poorest of its citizens is better sheltered and better fed, than some of the richest families among the first inhabitants. Let them give devout thanks to God, that He has reserved for them a happier lot than that of their fathers. Let them, amid their profusion of blessings, praise the Lord, who has done so great things for their city, and its successive generations. Let them, above all, hold fast those great truths, for which the founders sacrificed every thing dear to them on earth.

As the colonists came to this country to enjoy the privilege of worshipping God according to their conceptions of His will, it was, of course, among their first objects to form churches, and make provision for the regular worship of the Most High.

The settlers at Plymouth were organized as a church before they left Holland, and as such they landed on our shores. This church was formed on the principle of entire independence on all human authority. Its members belonged to that class of the Non-Conformists, who had separated entirely from the Church of England, and adopted a form of church polity which they deemed more consistent with the letter and the spirit of the New Testament.

The separate independence of each church on all others; the necessity of true piety as a qualification for membership; the right of each church to elect its own officers; the rejection of all officers except pastors or elders, and deacons, and the entire equality of all pastors and elders, in respect to power and privileges, were among the principles adopted by this excellent body of Christians. They are the principles which the Scriptures teach, and it would have been happy for the cause of truth, if they had been held fast, without any corrupt mixture, by all the churches which professed to receive them. Another principle adopted by the church of Plymouth was, that ecclesiastical censures are wholly spiritual, and not to be accompanied with temporal penalties. In this respect, the church of Plymouth were in advance of their brethren in Massachusetts, and the history of the Plymouth colony is honorably distinguished by a tolerant spirit, which contributed not less to her peace and prosperity, than to her true fame.

The first settlers at Salem, Boston, and other towns in Massachusetts Bay, belonged, for the most part, to the other class of Non-Conformists, who did not, while in England, separate wholly from the Established Church, though they opposed her corruptions. They desired only a further reform of the Church herself, and retained their membership, some of them conforming, though reluctantly, to her ceremonies, to avoid persecution, and others refusing such a conformity, protected awhile by the indulgence of some mild Prelates, or by the friendship of powerful laymen. When, at length, despairing of the desired reform, and weary of persecution, they embarked for America, they came as members of the Church of England. Winthrop and his associates, while on board the fleet at Yarmouth, addressed a farewell letter to the “rest of their brethren in and of the Church of England,” which is as beautiful in diction as it is admirable for its affectionate pathos. They say, “We desire you would be pleased to take notice of the principals and body of our company, as those who esteem it our honor to call the Church of England, from whence we arise, our dear mother, and cannot part from our native country, where she specially resideth, without much sadness of heart and many tears in our eyes; ever acknowledging, that such hope and part as we have obtained in the common salvation, we have received in her bosom, and sucked it from her breasts. We leave it not, therefore, as loathing that milk, wherewith we were nourished, but blessing God for the parentage and education, as members of the same body, shall always rejoice in her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any sorrow that shall ever betide her; and, while we have breath, sincerely desire and endeavor the continuance and abundance of her welfare, with the enlargement of her bounds in the kingdom of Christ Jesus.”[^[32]]

There was, unquestionably, an entire sincerity in these expressions of attachment to the Church of England. There was, as they judged, no inconsistency in their subsequent conduct, in forming churches, from which Episcopacy, and all the ceremonies of the parent Church, were excluded. Their love for that Church was founded on her doctrines, not on her ceremonies. They recognised in her articles the genuine faith, once delivered to the saints. Her ceremonies they regarded as unseemly appendages, the relics of Popish superstition, of which they desired to divest her. They loved the inward spirit, not the outward form. They did reverence to the majestic soul, while they looked with sorrow on her fantastic attire. They would have remained in her bosom, and submitted to much which they deemed undesirable, if she would have permitted them to reject what they considered as positively unlawful and wrong. But as she left them no alternative but unconditional submission, or exile, they departed for America; and when they came to form churches here, they endeavored to incorporate that soul in a body befitting her dignity. The American church was, in their view, the Church of England, redeemed and regenerated, holding to her former self a similar relation to that which the just man made perfect bears to the saint who is still on earth, and encumbered with his diseased and mortal body.

A church was formed at Salem, on the 6th of August, 1629, when thirty persons entered into a covenant in writing, and the Rev. Mr. Skelton was ordained, or instituted, as the pastor, and the Rev. Mr. Higginson as the teacher; these offices being considered as distinct, and both being deemed essential to the welfare of a church. The church thus formed was entirely independent. The Governor of Plymouth, and other members of the church there, who had been invited to attend the ceremony, were not permitted to give the right hand of fellowship to the new church, till an explicit declaration had been made, that this service was not meant to indicate any right of interference or control. The pastor and teacher were inducted into office by the vote of the church, and by the imposition of the hands of the ruling elder, as the organ of the church. Thus careful were this body to exclude, at the outset, all authority but that of the Head of the Church. Several of the inhabitants, among whom Messrs. John and Samuel Brown were the principal men, opposed the new church, because the liturgy of the Church of England was rejected.[^[33]] They accordingly formed another society, in which the book of common prayer was read. The schism was speedily remedied, by a measure which was much more energetic than just. Mr. John Brown and his brother, the leaders, were sent to England, and their followers quietly relinquished their opposition.

A church was formed at Charlestown, July 30, 1630, by Governor Winthrop and a number of other persons, who signed a covenant, in which they simply promised to “walk in all our ways according to the rule of the Gospel, and in all sincere conformity to his holy ordinances, and in mutual love and respect to each other, so near as God shall give us grace.”[^[34]] On the 27th of August, the Rev. John Wilson was elected teacher. “We used imposition of hands,” says Governor Winthrop, “but with this protestation by all, that it was only as a sign of election and confirmation, not of any intent that Mr. Wilson should renounce his ministry he received in England.”[^[35]] Thus careful were they to guard the independence of the church, while they preserved due respect for the Church of England, whose ministers, so far as they were pastors and teachers, they acknowledged and honored.

When the Governor and the greater portion of the colonists removed to Boston, the church, with the minister, removed thither. It remained without a house for public worship till August, 1632, when a building was commenced,[^[36]] on the south side of State street, opposite the spot where the Branch Bank now stands. It was a humble structure, with a thatched roof and mud walls.[^[37]] Perhaps, however, the metropolis has never seen a more devout congregation than that which was accustomed to assemble there. It well illustrates the piety of the founders, and their high regard for the ministry, that at the first Court of Assistants, held on board the Arbella, at Charlestown, August 23, 1630, the first question propounded was, How shall the ministers be maintained? It was ordered, that houses be built for them with convenient speed, at the public charge, and their salaries were established. These were sufficiently moderate. Mr. Wilson was allowed twenty pounds per annum, till his wife should arrive, and Mr. Phillips, the minister of Watertown, was to receive thirty pounds.[^[38]]

The ecclesiastical polity, now commenced, was afterwards moulded into a more regular and permanent form, by the personal influence of Mr. Cotton, and by the authority of the platform adopted in 1648. The great principles which were established were these: each church is independent, and possesses the sole power of governing itself, according to the Scriptures; piety and a holy life are the qualifications for church membership; the officers of a church are pastors, teachers, ruling elders and deacons, and are to be chosen by the church itself; the ordination of ministers is to be performed with imposition of hands, by the ministers of the neighboring churches. These and other principles, which, with some exceptions, are still held by the Independent, Congregational and Baptist churches, were joined, with another article, which was the source of manifold mischiefs to the colony. It is thus expressed, in the words of Hubbard, (540): “Church government and civil government may very well stand together, it being the duty of the magistrate to take care of matters of religion, and to improve his civil authority for observing the duties commanded in the first as well as in the second table; seeing the end of their office is not only the quiet and peaceable life of the subject in matters of righteousness and honesty, but also in matters of godliness.” 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

The ecclesiastical polity being adjusted, the civil government was made to conform to it.[^[39]] To the excellent founders, religion was the most precious of all interests, and civil government was, in their view, useful, no further than it was necessary for the good order of the community, and the security of their religious privileges. Having escaped from the grasp of the civil power in England, they resolved, that in the new state to be formed here, the church should hold the first place. They wished to erect here a community, which should be itself a church, governed by the laws of Jesus Christ, flourishing in the peace and beauty of holiness, and realizing the glorious visions of the prophets. It was a noble conception, a sublime purpose, of which none but pure hearted men would have been capable. That they failed in accomplishing all their plans, was the natural result of human corruption; but they succeeded in forming a community, more moral, more easily governed, better educated, more thoroughly under the control of religious principles, and more truly free, than the world had then seen. At the General Court, held so early as May 18, 1631, it was ordered, that no person should be admitted to the privileges of a freeman, unless he was a member of some church in the colony. This law was, no doubt, unjust, and the colony was afterwards forced to repeal it. It was, also, injurious to the interests of religion, for it made church membership an object of earnest desire, for political purposes, and thus introduced men without piety into the church. It led to the adoption, to some extent, of the ruinous principle, that piety is not necessary to church membership, and it was one of the causes of that unhappy strife, which issued in the introduction of the half-way covenant.[^[40]] But the law is characteristic of the founders, and proves their determination to keep the state subordinate to the church. They also adopted, as the basis of their civil code, the laws of Moses, so far as they were of a moral nature, though, as Roger Williams remarked, “they extended their moral equity to so many particulars as to take in the whole judicial law.” They punished crimes, not by the laws of England, but by those of Moses. Idolatry, blasphemy, man stealing, adultery, and some other crimes, not punishable with death by the laws of the parent country, were made capital. Every inhabitant was compelled to contribute, in proportion to his ability, to the support of religion. This adoption of the Mosaic code, and a constant disposition to seek for precedents in the Old Testament, will account for many of the measures which have been attributed to the bigotry of our fathers.

CHAPTER III.

Mr. Williams refuses to unite with the Boston church—is invited to Salem—interference of the General Court—removes to Plymouth—the Indians—difficulties at Plymouth—birth of Mr. Williams’ eldest child.

On the 5th of February, 1630–1,[^[41]] as we have already stated, Mr. Williams arrived in America, where he was to become one of the founders of a great nation. As a minister of the Gospel, he would naturally seek, without delay, for an opportunity to fulfil his office. He was, it is probable, without property, and a sense of duty would concur with the dictates of prudence, to urge him to inquire for some situation where he might be useful, while he obtained a maintenance. The church in Boston were supplied with a pastor, and the great Cotton was expected to become their teacher. There was, however, another difficulty to which we shall soon have occasion to recur.

In a few weeks after Mr. Williams’ arrival, he was invited by the church at Salem to become an assistant to Mr. Skelton, as teacher, in the place of the accomplished Higginson, who died a few months before. Mr. Williams complied with the invitation, and commenced his ministry in that town. But the civil authority speedily interfered, in accordance with the principle afterwards established in the platform, that “if any church, one or more, shall grow schismatical, rending itself from the communion of other churches, or shall walk incorrigibly and obstinately in any corrupt way of their own, contrary to the rule of the word; in such case, the magistrate is to put forth his coercive power, as the matter shall require.”[^[42]]

On the 12th of April, says Governor Winthrop (vol. i. p. 53) “at a Court, holden at Boston, (upon information to the Governor, that they of Salem had called Mr. Williams to the office of teacher,) a letter was written from the Court to Mr. Endicott to this effect: That whereas Mr. Williams had refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they would not make a public declaration of their repentance for having communion with the churches of England, while they lived there; and besides, had declared his opinion that the magistrate might not punish a breach of the Sabbath, nor any other offence, as it was a breach of the first table; therefore they marvelled they would choose him without advising with the Council; and withal desiring him that they would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.”

The first of these charges is made in very indefinite terms.[^[43]] It does not appear, what was the degree of conformity which the members of the church had practised in England, nor what degree of criminality was, in the estimation of Mr. Williams, attributable to their conduct. It is well known, that some of the Puritans did maintain, till they left England, a connection with the church, from whose ritual they secretly dissented, and whose corruptions they deeply deplored. We have already stated, that Governor Winthrop and his associates had not separated from the church when they left England, but acknowledged themselves, at the moment of their departure, as among her children. Many good men considered this conformity as a pusillanimous and sinful connivance at evil, tending to sanction and perpetuate the corruptions of the church. Mr. Cotton himself, being forced, by the intolerance of the hierarchy, either to submit to their ritual, or to suffer the vengeance of the High Commission Court, resolved to leave England. He travelled in disguise to London. “Here,” says Cotton Mather, (Magnalia, b. iii. chap. 1. § 18) “the Lord had a work for him to do, which he little thought of. Some reverend and renowned ministers of our Lord in that great city, who yet had not seen sufficient reason to expose themselves unto persecution for the sake of non-conformity, but looked upon the imposed ceremonies as indifferent and sufferable trifles, and weighed not the aspect of the second commandment upon all the parts and means of instituted worship, took this opportunity for a conference with Mr. Cotton; being persuaded, that since he was no passionate, but a very judicious man, they should prevail with him rather to conform, than to leave his work and his land. Upon the motion of a conference, Mr. Cotton most readily yielded; and first, all their arguments for conformity, together with Mr. Byfield’s, Mr. Whately’s, and Mr. Sprint’s, were produced, all of which Mr. Cotton answered, unto their wonderful satisfaction. Then he gave his arguments for his non-conformity, and the reasons why he must rather forego his ministry, or, at least, his country, than wound his conscience with unlawful compliance; the issue whereof was, that instead of bringing Mr. Cotton back to what he had now forsaken, he brought them off altogether from what they had hitherto practised. Every one of those eminent persons, Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, and Mr. Davenport, now became all that he was, and at last left the kingdom for their being so.”

If, then, these distinguished ministers had practised a conformity which Mr. Cotton esteemed “unlawful,” and which Cotton Mather seems to have considered as a breach of the second commandment, it is probable, that many private Christians had done the same. The members of the Boston church had undoubtedly shared in these “compliances.” But if Mr. Cotton could not conform, without wounding his conscience, he must have thought the practice criminal. There is no question, that Mr. Williams was of the same opinion; and as his temper was more ardent and bold than that of Mr. Cotton, his opposition to what he must have regarded as highly censurable, would naturally be strong and decided. It is not very surprising, therefore, if, on his arrival in America, with a vivid sense of recent wrong from the persecuting church, he was disinclined to a cordial union with those who had, in any measure, yielded to her despotic pretensions, and sanctioned, by any acts of compliance, her unscriptural requirements. We are not told, precisely, in what terms, and to what extent, he wished the members of the Boston church to express their repentance for their conduct. He, perhaps, allowed his feelings to bias his judgment in this case, and to make him forget his own principles of liberty of conscience; but the facts to which we have alluded show, that his objections were not altogether frivolous, nor his conduct the offspring of bigotry and caprice. It appears, that his feelings were afterwards allayed; and while at Plymouth, the next year, he communed with Governor Winthrop and other gentlemen from Boston.[^[44]]

The other allegation, made in the extract from Winthrop, that Mr. Williams denied the power of the civil magistrate to punish men for violations of the first table of the law,[^[45]] that is, in other words, for the neglect, or the erroneous performance, of their duties to God, is one, which, at this day, needs little discussion. Time has wrought out a triumphant vindication of this great principle. The doctrine, that man is accountable to his Maker alone for his religious opinions and practices, and is entitled to an unrestrained liberty to maintain and enjoy them, provided that he does not interfere with the rights of others, and with the civil peace of society, has won for itself, in this country, at least, a place among the undisputed principles of thought and action. Ample experience has demonstrated, even in New-England, the manifold evils which spring from intrusting to civil rulers the power to legislate for the church, to control the conscience, and to regulate the intercourse between men and his Creator. We shall have occasion to recur to this topic. It is sufficient now to say, that Mr. Williams stood on the firm ground of truth and of enlightened policy, when he denied to the civil magistrate the right to interfere with the consciences of men.[^[46]] There is no allegation, that he failed, on this occasion, in due respect for the constituted authorities; but he claimed the right of a freeman to speak freely of their principles and measures. His natural temperament would give warmth and energy to his remonstrance. A calmer man than he might have been moved, if, when driven from his native land by intolerance, he found, in the country to which he had fled, the same principles maintained, the same usurpation of power over the conscience claimed, as a regular attribute of the civil authority.

It appears, therefore, that the General Court had little cause for their interference between Mr. Williams and the church at Salem. Their right to interfere, for any cause, will not now be maintained by any man. That church, though she was probably aware of the disapprobation and meditated interference of the Court, seems to have disregarded it, and on the 12th of April, the same day on which the Court was held, received Mr. Williams, as her minister.[^[47]] She thus consulted her duty as well as her true interests. Jesus Christ is the only King and Legislator of his church. He has given her his statute book, and it is as inconsistent with her duty, as it ought to be repugnant to her feelings, to permit any attempt to abridge the rights which her Lord has bestowed on her. The choice of her pastors and teachers is one of her most sacred rights, and most important duties. She is bound to exercise this high privilege, in humble dependence on the teachings of divine wisdom, but with a resolute resistance of attempts, from any quarter, to control her election.

Notwithstanding the unwarrantable proceedings of the Court, which must have been offensive both to the principles and the feelings of Mr. Williams, we find him, the next month, (the 18th of May, 1631) taking the usual oath on his admission as a freeman.[^[48]] This fact is worthy of notice, because it proves, that he was willing to honor the civil authorities, within their proper sphere, and that he desired to become a permanent and useful citizen. It shows, too, that he had no objection to an oath, when administered in a proper manner, and for suitable ends. At this very Court, the law was made, which excluded from the rights of freemen every person, who was not a member of some one of the churches. Whether the difficulty which had already risen respecting Mr. Williams, had any influence in producing this measure, cannot now be ascertained.

Notwithstanding that the church at Salem had received Mr. Williams, he was not permitted to remain in peace. “Persecution,” says Dr. Bentley,[^[49]] “instead of calm expostulation, instantly commenced, and Williams, before the close of summer, was obliged to retire to Plymouth.” That this separation from the church at Salem was not a voluntary one, on her part or on his, may be presumed, from the fact, asserted by the historian of Salem just quoted, that “he was embraced with joy at Salem, and throughout all his life supported a high place in their affections, as a truly godly man.”[^[50]] His return to that town, by their invitation, two years after, is a satisfactory proof that the church there felt a confidence in his piety, and an attachment to his person and ministry.[^[51]]

At Plymouth, Mr. Williams was received with much respect, and became an assistant to Mr. Ralph Smith, the pastor of the church there. Governor Bradford speaks of Mr. Williams in honorable terms,[^[52]] and even Morton, who was not much disposed to speak favorably of him, acknowledges that he “was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry.”[^[53]]

During Mr. Williams’ residence at Plymouth, Governor Winthrop, with Mr. Wilson, of Boston, and other gentlemen, visited that town.[^[54]] Winthrop’s account of the visit is so strongly illustrative of the manners of those times, that it may be properly inserted.

“1632. September 25. The Governor, with Mr. Wilson, pastor of Boston, and the two Captains, &c. went aboard the Lyon, and from thence Mr. Peirce carried them in his shallop to Wessaguscus.[^[55]] The next morning Mr. Peirce returned to his ship, and the Governor and his company went on foot to Plymouth, and came thither within the evening. The Governor of Plymouth, Mr. William Bradford, (a very discreet and grave man) with Mr. Brewster, the elder, and some others, came forth and met them without the town, and conducted them to the Governor’s house, where they were very kindly entertained and feasted every day at several houses. On the Lord’s day there was a sacrament, which they did partake in; and in the afternoon Mr. Roger Williams (according to their custom) propounded a question, to which the pastor, Mr. Smith, spake briefly; then Mr. Williams prophesied; and after the Governor of Plymouth spake to the question; after him, the elder; then some two or three more of the congregation. Then the elder desired the Governor of Massachusetts and Mr. Wilson, to speak to it, which they did. When this was ended, the deacon, Mr. Fuller, put the congregation in mind of their duty of contribution; whereupon the Governor and all the rest went down to the deacons’ seat, and put into the box, and then returned.” Vol. i. p. 91.

While at Plymouth, Mr. Williams enjoyed favorable opportunities of intercourse with the Indians, who frequently visited that town. It appears, too, that he made excursions among them, to learn their manners and their language, and thus to qualify himself to promote their welfare. His whole life furnished evidence of the sincerity of his declaration, in one of his letters, “My soul’s desire was, to do the natives good.” He became acquainted with Massasoit, or, as he was also called, Ousamequin, the sachem of the Pokanokets, and father of the famous Philip. He also formed an intimacy with Canonicus, the Narraganset sachem. He secured the confidence of these savage chiefs, by acts of kindness, by presents, and not less, perhaps, by studying their language. He says, in a letter, written near the close of his life, “God was pleased to give me a painful, patient spirit, to lodge with them in their filthy smoky holes, (even while I lived at Plymouth and Salem) to gain their tongue.”

The effects of this intimacy with the sachems were very important. We shall see, by his subsequent history, that his success, in purchasing lands for himself and for the other settlers in Rhode Island, was the result mainly of his personal influence with the Indians. We discern, in these preparatory measures, the hand of God, who was designing to employ Mr. Williams as an instrument in establishing a new colony, and in preserving New-England from the fury of the savages.

There is reason to believe, that for some time previously to his banishment, he had conceived the idea of residing among the Indians, and that in his intercourse with the sachems, some propositions had been made respecting a cession of land. His strong desire to benefit the natives was a sufficient inducement; and he had, perhaps, seen such indications of the state of feeling towards him among the colonists, as to awaken an apprehension that he would not long be allowed to remain within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Williams continued about two years at Plymouth. While there, we may easily believe, he uttered his sentiments on those points which had occasioned his removal from Salem, as well as on other subjects, in relation to which his opinions were at variance with those of that age. They were not acceptable to the principal personages at Plymouth, though it does not appear that any public expression of disapprobation was made by the church. His heart was evidently drawn towards Salem, and being invited to return,[^[56]] to assist Mr. Skelton, whose declining health unfitted him for his duties, Mr. Williams requested a dismission from the church at Plymouth. Some of the members were unwilling to be separated from him, and accompanied him to Salem, after ineffectual efforts to detain him at Plymouth.[^[57]] But the ruling elder, Mr. Brewster, prevailed on the church to dismiss him and his adherents. Mr. Brewster probably disliked his opinions, and feared that he would be successful in diffusing them at Plymouth. He, therefore, alarmed the church, by expressing his fears, that Mr. Williams would “run the same course of rigid separation and anabaptistry, which Mr. John Smith, the Se-Baptist, at Amsterdam, had done.”[^[58]] Anabaptism was a spectre, which haunted the imaginations of the early settlers. The word possessed a mysterious power of inspiring terror and creating odium. It has, perhaps, been sometimes employed to justify measures, which might else have wanted the appearance of justice and humanity. It was one of those terms, which, in the language of the most original writer, perhaps, of this age—himself liable to the charge of anabaptism[^[59]]—“can be made the symbol of all that is absurd and execrable, so that the very sound of it shall irritate the passions of the multitude, as dogs have been taught to bark, at the name of a neighboring tyrant.”[^[60]]

While Mr. Williams was at Plymouth, his eldest daughter was born there, in the first week in August, 1633.[^[61]] She was named Mary, after her mother.

CHAPTER IV.

Returns to Salem—Ministers Meetings—Court again interferes—the rights of the Indians—his book against the patent—wearing of veils—controversy about the cross in the colors.

Mr. Williams left Plymouth probably about the end of August, 1633.[^[62]] He resumed his labors at Salem, as an assistant to Mr. Skelton, though, for some cause, he was not elected to any office till after Mr. Skelton’s death. Perhaps the expectation of this event induced the church to delay the election of Mr. Williams.

Soon after his return to Salem, his watchful love of liberty seems to have excited him, together with the venerable Mr. Skelton, to express some apprehension of the tendencies of a meeting, which several ministers had established, for the ostensible and probably real purpose of mutual improvement, and consultation respecting their duties, and the interests of religion. Winthrop thus states, under the date of November, 1633:

“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 debated. 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 superintendency, 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.” Vol. i. p. 116.

It may be true, that the fears of Mr. Skelton and Mr. Williams were without cause, and, in our own times, such meetings of ministers are held, with much advantage to themselves and to the churches, and without exciting alarm. But before we decide, that Mr. Williams was unnecessarily apprehensive, and especially before we accuse him of a turbulent and factious temper, it deserves inquiry, whether his experience of ecclesiastical usurpation and intolerance in England might not justify the fear, that the frequent consultations of the ministers were not ominous of good to the independence of the churches and to liberty of conscience. Mr. Skelton, however, seems to have been the principal in this opposition.[^[63]] It may have been a good service to the cause of liberty and of religion. A watchful dread of encroachments on civil or religious freedom is not useless, in any age. It was a prominent trait in the character of the colonists, before the revolution, and it will always be cherished by a free people. It is a salutary provision, like the sense of fear in the human bosom. It may sometimes cause an unnecessary alarm, as the watchman may arouse the city with an unfounded report of danger. But these evils are preferable to the incautious negligence, which fears not peril, and thus invites it.

But more important causes of offence to the magistrates and the clergy were soon found, in the sentiments and conduct of Mr. Williams. So early as December 27, 1633, we find the General Court again convened to consult respecting him:

“December 27. The Governor and Assistants met at Boston, and took into consideration a treatise, which Mr. Williams (then of Salem) had sent to them, and which he had formerly written to the Governor and Council of Plymouth, wherein, among other things, he disputed their right to the lands they possessed here, and concluded that, claiming by the King’s grant, they could have no title, nor otherwise, except they compounded with the natives. For this, taking advice with some of the most judicious ministers, (who much condemned Mr. Williams’ error and presumption) they gave order, that he should be convented at the next Court, to be censured, &c. There were three passages chiefly whereat they were much offended: 1. for 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: 2. for that he chargeth him and others with blasphemy, for calling Europe Christendom, or the Christian world: 3. for that he did personally apply to our present King, Charles, these three places in the Revelations, viz: [blank.][^[64]]

“Mr. Endicott being absent, the Governor wrote to him to let him know what was done, and withal added divers arguments to confute the said errors, wishing him to deal with Mr. Williams to retract the same, &c. Whereto he returned a very modest and discreet answer. Mr. Williams also wrote to the Governor, and also to him and the rest of the Council very submissively, professing his intent to have been only to have written for the private satisfaction of the Governor, &c. of Plymouth, without any purpose to have stirred any further in it, if the Governor here had not required a copy of him; withal offering his book, or any part of it, to be burnt.

“At the next Court he appeared penitently, and gave satisfaction of his intention and loyalty. So it was left, and nothing done in it.” Vol. i. p. 122.

The book, which occasioned these transactions, has not been preserved.[^[65]] We know not in what terms Mr. Williams uttered his offensive opinions. The doctrine which he maintained, that the charter from the King of England could not convey to the colonists the right to occupy the lands of the Indians, without their consent, is, in the highest degree, honorable to his head and his heart. He clearly saw the utter absurdity and injustice of the pretension, whether made by the Pope or by a Protestant monarch, of sovereignty over other countries, merely on the ground of prior discovery, or of the barbarous and wandering character of the inhabitants. It may be a useful regulation among nations, that the first discoverers of a country shall possess a superior right to intercourse with the inhabitants for trade or other purposes. But no people, whether Pagans or Christians, can rightfully be subjected to a sway, to which they have not voluntarily submitted. This fundamental principle of human rights applies to the Indians. They were independent tribes, and could, in no sense, be considered as the subjects of the King of England. The fact, that some of his vessels had sailed along their coasts, no more gave him a title to be their sovereign, than the passage of one of their canoes up the Thames would have transferred to Canonicus or Powhatan a claim to the crown of England. If the King possessed no jurisdiction over the Indians, he could not, of course, convey a title to their lands. It was this point on which Mr. Williams insisted with special earnestness. “His own account of this matter,” says Mr. Backus, (vol. i. p. 58,) “informs us, that the sin of the patents which lay so heavy on his mind was, that therein ‘Christian Kings (so called) are invested with a right, by virtue of their Christianity, to take and give away the lands and countries of other men.’[^[66]] And he tells us, that this evil so deeply afflicted his soul, that ‘before his troubles and banishment, he drew up a letter, not without the approbation of some of the chiefs of New-England, then tender also upon this point before God, directed unto the King himself, humbly acknowledging the evil of THAT PART of the patent, which respects the donation of lands,’” &c.[^[67]] And the colonists themselves acted, generally, on the very principle which Mr. Williams advocated. They purchased the lands of the natives, for a trifling recompense, as it may seem to us, but such as satisfied the Indians. Cotton Mather states, though he reckons it as a proof of civility, that “notwithstanding the patent which they had for the country, they fairly purchased of the natives the several tracts of land which they afterwards possessed.”[^[68]] Dr. Dwight asserts, that “exclusively of the country of the Pequods, the inhabitants of Connecticut bought, unless I am deceived, every inch of ground contained within that colony, of its native proprietors. The people of Rhode-Island, Plymouth, Massachusetts and New-Hampshire, proceeded wholly in the same equitable manner. Until Philip’s war, in 1675, not a single foot of ground was claimed or occupied by the colonists on any other score but that of fair purchase.”[^[69]] These facts are honorable to the pilgrims, and assuredly Roger Williams is entitled to some praise for steadily advocating this policy from the beginning. He, perhaps, construed the patent with too much rigor. The King did not, it may be, mean all that his lofty royal style implied. In his patent to the Plymouth Company, he alludes to the “wonderful plague” which had raged among the natives, and left the “large and goodly territories deserted as it were by the natural inhabitants.” He nevertheless calls himself the “sovereign lord” of the whole continent, and therefore by his “special grace, mere motion, and certain knowledge,” gives and grants to the Company a large part of the continent, from sea to sea, without intimating that any rights belonged to the natives. A warm friend to the Indians might easily construe such an instrument as a designed and flagrant usurpation of their rights. We have seen how the colonists of New-England practised under the patent, and Mr. Cotton, in his reply to Roger Williams, affirms: “It was neither the King’s intendment, nor the English planters’, to take possession of the country by murder or by robbery, but either to take possession of the void places of the country, by the law of nature, (for vacuum domicilium cedit occupanti) or if we took any lands from the natives, it was by way of purchase and free consent. We have not our land merely by right of patent from the King, but that the natives are true owners of all that they possess or improve. Neither do I know any amongst us, that either then were, or now are, of another mind.” Bloody Tenet Washed, p. 26.

But this subject deserves a more full consideration than we can here give it. The suggestions now offered may suffice to exhibit the upright integrity and sound judgment which drew from Mr. Williams his declarations in favor of the natives. It seems, that his book discussed the abstract question, and probably it was called forth by some expression of the opposite doctrine. It was not intended for the public eye, but was a private communication to the Governor and other gentlemen of Plymouth. He could not be charged with a public attack in this book on the charter. Nor is it certain, that he questioned the authority of the charter, so far as it could operate without an infringement of the rights of the Indians. He was, indeed, charged by Mr. Cotton (Hubbard, 210) with insisting that the charter ought to be returned to the King. This would certainly have been very unwise, but we can hardly suppose that Mr. Williams would carry his opposition to this unreasonable length. Winthrop does not intimate that any such opinion was expressed, and Mr. Cotton may have misunderstood Mr. Williams’ real meaning.

In regard to the passages which were construed as disrespectful to the King, it may be sufficient to say, that his own words are not reported; and at a meeting of the Court, in January, the magistrates and the clergy acknowledged that they had taken unnecessary offence. It is probable that they misunderstood him. Winthrop says, under date of January 24, 1633–4: “The Governor and Council met again at Boston, to consider of Mr. Williams’ letter, &c. when, with the advice of Mr. Cotton and Mr. Wilson, and weighing his letter, and further considering of the aforesaid offensive passages in his book, (which being written in very obscure and implicative phrases, might well admit of doubtful interpretation,) they found the matters not to be so evil as at first they seemed. Whereupon they agreed, that, upon his retraction, &c. or taking an oath of allegiance to the King, &c. it should be passed over.” Vol. i. p. 123.

The conduct of Mr. Williams on this occasion was, it must be acknowledged, mild and conciliatory. He offered to burn the offensive book, though he did not retract his opinions. He wrote to the Court, we are told, “submissively,” and afterwards appeared before them “penitently,” and furnished satisfactory evidence of his “loyalty.” We cannot determine, how far these expressions may be construed to imply an acknowledgment of error on the part of Mr. Williams; but they are valuable, as a proof that he was not so obstinate and contumacious as the world have been taught to regard him.

He was now permitted, for a while, to continue his ministry at Salem, without interruption from the magistrates. He was popular as a preacher, and the people at Salem became strongly attached to him. Mr. Skelton died in August, 1634, and Mr. Williams was soon after invited to become the teacher of the church. The magistrates sent to the church a request, that they would not ordain him; but the church persisted, and Mr. Williams was regularly introduced to the office of teacher.

This “great contempt of authority,” as it was afterwards pronounced to be by the magistrates and ministers, was not forgotten. We shall soon see how it was punished.

We may here take notice of two charges against Mr. Williams, which, trivial as they are, have been often alleged to his disadvantage. It has been said, that he preached on the use of veils by females, and insisted that they should wear them in religious assemblies. We have no record of his real sentiments on this frivolous subject. Dr. Bentley asserts, that Mr. Endicott had introduced it before Mr. Williams arrived, and that the latter adopted the notion, rather to gratify Mr. Endicott and Mr. Skelton, than because he felt any interest in it himself.[^[70]] And if it were true, that he was the author of the custom, and wasted his time in establishing it, we should regard it as a venial weakness, springing from a reverence for the Scriptures, and a desire for the decorum of public worship. Before we condemn him, we should call to mind, that other divines of great name in New-England, such as President Chauncy and John Elliot, preached vehemently against wigs, and that, in 1649, the magistrates signed a grave protest against the custom among men of wearing long hair, and requested the clergy to preach against it, “as a thing uncivil and unmanly, whereby men do deform themselves, and offend sober and modest men, and do corrupt good manners.”[^[71]]

The other charge is of more importance. It is said, that in consequence of Mr. Williams’ preaching, Mr. Endicott cut the cross out of the military colors, as a relic of antichristian superstition. This act was doubtless unjustifiable, because the colors were established by the authority of the King, and ought to have been viewed as a merely civil regulation. But there is no evidence that Mr. Williams advised the measure. It seems rather to have been a practical application, by Mr. Endicott, of the doctrine maintained by Mr. Williams on the unlawfulness of the ceremonies and symbols which had been used in the service of idolatry and of Popery. The great controversy between the Puritans and the Prelates in England mainly turned on the use of the surplice, and the sign of the cross, and other Popish ceremonies, which the English Church retained. The Puritans would not conform to the church, on account of these ceremonies, which they regarded as abominable relics of Popery. It was a principle among them, on which they acted, that “such rites and ceremonies as had been abused to idolatry, and manifestly tended to lead men back to Popery and superstition, were no longer indifferent, but to be rejected as unlawful.”[^[72]]

Mr. Williams probably preached this doctrine at Salem, and Mr. Endicott deemed it his duty, as a magistrate, to remove from the colors the cross, which was the favorite symbol of Popery.[^[73]] Dr. Bentley asserts, that Mr. Williams was the “innocent, though the real cause of it.”[^[74]] Mr. Endicott was summoned before the Court, admonished, and declared incapable, for one year, of holding any public office, as a punishment for the act; but neither he, nor the Court, appear to have attributed any blame to Mr. Williams, which we may, without a want of charity, suppose they would have done, if there had been any reasonable pretence.

CHAPTER V.

Proceedings which led to his banishment—freeman’s oath—various charges against him—sentence—birth of his second child—leaves Salem for Narraganset Bay—review of the causes of his banishment.

We will now proceed to narrate the measures which issued in the banishment of Mr. Williams. We shall follow the guidance of Winthrop, as to the facts, because this truly great man wrote without the angry temper which most of the early writers on the subject exhibited.

“1634, Nov. 27. The Court was informed, that Mr. Williams, of Salem, had broken his promise to us, in teaching publicly against the King’s patent, and our great sin in claiming right thereby to this country, &c. and for usual terming the churches of England antichristian. We granted summons to him for his appearance at the next Court.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 151.

We are not informed of the terms of Mr. Williams’ promise, here referred to, and cannot decide how far he had broken it. The epithet which he is said to have applied to the churches in England, might, in his judgment, have been well deserved by many of them. He, of course, referred to the established churches, then practising, as the Puritans believed, idolatrous ceremonies, and under the direction of wicked men. Mr. Cotton, in his “Bloody Tenet Washed,” (p. 109) acknowledges it to be a source of grief to himself and others, “that there is yet so much of those notorious evils still continuing in the parishes, (in England) worldliness, ignorance, superstition, scoffing, swearing, cursing, whoredom, drunkenness, theft, lying; I may add, also, murder, and malignity against the godly, suffered to thrust themselves into the fellowship of the churches, and to sit down with the saints at the Lord’s table.” We may be allowed to think, that Roger Williams was not remarkably bigoted, if he did call such churches as these antichristian, and deem it a sin to hold fellowship with them. He obeyed the summons of the Court:

“1635, Mo. 2, 30.[^[75]] The Governor and Assistants sent for Mr. Williams. The occasion was, for that he had taught publicly, that a magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man, for that we thereby have communion with a wicked man in the worship of God, and cause him to take the name of God in vain. He was heard before all the ministers, and very clearly confuted. Mr. Endicott was at first of the same opinion, but he gave place to the truth.” Vol. i. p. 157.

We may repeat, here, what, ought to be constantly borne in mind, that the statements of Mr. Williams’ opinions come, not from himself, but from his opponents. We need not insist on the liability to mistake, in cases where a man’s sentiments are thus disjoined from all those explanations and arguments with which he would himself have accompanied them. In the present case, we are not informed of the precise views of Mr. Williams respecting oaths.[^[76]] He had taken the freeman’s oath in 1631. Many others have entertained doubts of the propriety of oaths, in any case, and our laws allow an individual, who feels these scruples, to substitute an affirmation. The unlawfulness of all oaths might be plausibly argued, from the words of our Saviour, Matthew, v. 34, and from those of the Apostle James, v. 12. On this ground, however, they would be equally unlawful to all men, and the distinction which Mr. Williams is said to have made between Christians and unregenerate men could not be sustained. If, however, an oath were considered, as he viewed it, as a religious act, implying devout reverence for the Supreme Being, a fear of His displeasure and desire of His favor, it would not be easy to show how an irreligious man can sincerely take an oath. Mr. Williams had probably seen oaths taken in England with such scandalous levity, and used for purposes so iniquitous, as to awaken in his mind a strong aversion to their being administered indiscriminately to the pious and the profane. We may, nevertheless, admit, that he was unnecessarily scrupulous on this point, without impeaching either his piety or his judgment. The ministers seem to have been satisfied with their success in confuting him. It is usual for disputants to claim the victory. Perhaps if Mr. Williams had recorded the event, he might have told us of the unimpaired vigor of his arguments. We have reason to believe, however, that the offensiveness of Mr. Williams’ opinions respecting oaths consisted not so much in his abstract objections to their use, as in his opposition to the new oath of fidelity which the Court thought proper to require of the citizens. Mr. Cotton[^[77]] states the case thus: “The magistrates and other members of the General Court, upon intelligence of some Episcopal and malignant practices against the country, made an order of Court, to take trial of the fidelity of the people, not by imposing upon them, but by offering to them, an oath of fidelity, that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not betrust them with place of public charge and command. This oath, when it came abroad, he (Mr. Williams) vehemently withstood, and dissuaded sundry from it, partly because it was, he said, Christ’s prerogative to have his office established by an oath; partly because an oath was part of God’s worship, and God’s worship was not to be put upon carnal persons, as he conceived many of the people to be. So the Court was forced to desist from that proceeding.”

The reasons assigned by Mr. Cotton for Mr. Williams’ opposition to the oath are, we suspect, not all the reasons which really moved him to this course. He probably viewed the act of the Court in absolving the citizens from the oath which they had already taken, and substituting another, as an illegal assumption of power. It might be understood to claim for the Court an authority superior to the charter, for it omitted the clause of the former oath, which required of the subject obedience to laws which should be “lawfully” made by the Court, and, instead of it, obliged men to swear to submit to the “wholesome” regulations which might be established. As the charter prohibited the passage of laws contrary to the laws of England, the first oath bound the citizen to obey the Court only while they adhered to the charter; but the new oath required submission to all the “wholesome” acts of the government, who were, of course, the sole judges of the wholesomeness of their own measures. Mr. Cotton says, that the oath was only offered, not imposed, but it was, by a subsequent act of the Court, enforced on every man above the age of sixteen years, on penalty of punishment at the discretion of the Court.[^[78]]

To this oath, under such circumstances, Mr. Williams, as a friend of liberty, was opposed. He would not renounce an oath which he had taken, and substitute another, which bound him to obey whatever laws the magistrates might deem wholesome. The reason assigned for the new oath, moreover, was to guard against “Episcopal and malignant practices.” This gave it the appearance of a law to restrain liberty of conscience; and Mr. Williams’ principles were totally opposed to any measure which tended to that result, however specious its professed object might be.

If these views are correct, Mr. Williams’ opposition to oaths in this case resolves itself into an inflexible adherence to his great doctrine of unfettered religious liberty; a doctrine which, more than any thing else, drew upon him the jealousy and dislike of the magistrates and the clergy.

In July, he was again summoned to Boston.

“1635, Mo. 5, 8. At the General Court, Mr. Williams, of Salem, was summoned and did appear. It was laid to his charge, that being under question before the magistracy and churches for divers dangerous opinions, viz: 1. that the magistrate ought not to punish the breach of the first table, otherwise than in such cases as did disturb the civil peace; 2. that he ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man; 3. that a man ought not to pray with such, though wife, child, &c.; 4. that a man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament, nor after meat, &c.; and that the other churches were about to write to the church of Salem to admonish him of these errors; notwithstanding, the church had since called him to [the] office of teacher. Much debate was about these things. The said opinions were adjudged by all, magistrates and ministers, (who were desired to be present) to be erroneous and very dangerous, and that the calling of him to office, at that time, was judged a great contempt of authority. So, in fine, time was given to him and the church of Salem to consider of these things till the next General Court, and then either to give satisfaction to the Court, or else to expect the sentence; it being professedly declared by the ministers (at the request of the Court to give their advice) that he who should obstinately maintain such opinions (whereby a church might run into heresy, apostacy, or tyranny, and yet the civil magistrate could not intermeddle) were to be removed, and that the other churches ought to request the magistrates so to do.” Vol. i. p. 162.

The first two of these charges have been considered. It will be observed, that the Governor has candidly acknowledged, that Mr. Williams allowed it to be right for the civil magistrate to punish breaches of the first table, when they disturbed the civil peace. This fact exempts him from the charge of opposition to the civil authority.

The third charge, if it is a true representation of the opinion of Mr. Williams, shows that his judgment in this particular was biased, by an idea of the impropriety of uniting in religious worship with those who cannot cordially participate in the service. He thus carried to an extreme a principle, which the state of things in England had frequently called into exercise. He probably recollected, that the book of common prayer implied that all present adopted the petitions as their own; and as he knew that many who pretended to join in the worship were notoriously profligate, he might be impelled to the opposite error.[^[79]]

The fourth charge seems too frivolous for notice. What right have men to insist on ceremonies which the Bible does not enjoin, and which are in themselves indifferent? If, as is not improbable,[^[80]] there was an attempt to introduce among the churches a uniformity touching these little observances, it is not wonderful that Mr. Williams resisted them. He had seen too much of this system in England, to be willing to submit to it in America.

As the Salem church adhered to Mr. Williams, notwithstanding the well-known displeasure of the magistrates and the clergy, a singular mode of punishing them for their contumacy was soon adopted. Three days after the session of the Court just mentioned, we are told by Winthrop, that the “Salem men had preferred a petition at the last General Court, for some land in Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge 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, &c. their petition was refused till, &c. Upon this the church of Salem write to 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.” Vol. i. p. 164.

Here is a candid avowal, that justice was refused to Salem, on a question of civil right, as a punishment for the conduct of the church and pastor. A volume could not more forcibly illustrate the danger of a connection between the civil and ecclesiastical power. The land, in question, was granted, after Mr. Williams was banished. The postponement was evidently designed, and probably had some effect, to induce the people of Salem to consent to their pastor’s removal.

The church at Salem felt this to be a flagrant wrong, and they naturally wrote to the other churches, to warn them of this dangerous attack upon their liberty, and to request them to admonish the magistrates, as members of the churches, of the criminality of their conduct. It is difficult to see, why the church at Salem were not fully justified in this procedure.

The health of Mr. Williams failed under the pressure of his trials and duties. He declared, “that his life was in danger, by his excessive labors, preaching thrice a week, by labors night and day in the field; and by travels night and day, to go and come from the Court.” We need not be surprised, therefore, at the next notice of him by Winthrop, under the date of August 16:

“Mr. Williams, pastor of Salem, being sick and not able to speak, wrote to his church a protestation, that he could not communicate with the churches in the Bay; neither would he communicate with them, except they would refuse communion with the rest: but the whole church was grieved herewith.” Vol. i. p. 166.

Solomon has said, that “oppression maketh a wise man mad;”[^[81]] and it is not wonderful that it should impel a sick man to write such a letter as the one here alluded to. Mr. Williams felt deeply that he had been injured, and that the spiritual fellowship between him and the churches had suffered a melancholy interruption. He therefore declared, that he could not commune with them, and he insisted that the church in Salem should refuse such a communion. In this conduct he was doubtless wrong, yet who will venture to say, that if he had been placed in the situation of Mr. Williams, he would have maintained a more subdued spirit?

Matters now rapidly approached a crisis. The magistrates punished with rigor the offence of the Salem church, or rather of Mr. Williams, in writing the letter to the other churches. Mr. Endicott was committed, for justifying that letter, and was not discharged, till he acknowledged his offence. The following extract from the records of the Court shows a case, which savours much of the English Court of High Commission: “Mr. Samuel Sharpe is enjoined to appear at the next Particular Court, to answer for the letter that came from the church of Salem, as also to bring the names of those that will justify the same, or else to acknowledge his offence, under his own hand, for his own particular.”[^[82]]

In October, Mr. Williams was called before the Court for the last time:

“At this General Court, 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 oppression, &c. and the other to his own church, to persuade them to renounce communion with all the churches in the Bay, as full of antichristian pollution, &c. He justified both these letters, and maintained all his opinions; and, being offered further conference or disputation, and a month’s respite, he chose to dispute presently. So Mr. Hooker was chosen 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,” &c. Vol. i. p. 171.

The sentence was in these terms: “Whereas Mr. Roger Williams, one of the elders of the church of Salem, hath broached and divulged divers new and dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates; as also writ letters of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here, and that before any conviction, and yet maintaineth the same without any retractation; 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 magistrates to send him to some place out of this jurisdiction, not to return any more without license from the Court.”[^[83]]

The conduct of the church at Salem is to be ascribed to the severe measures of the magistrates, rather than to hostility to Mr. Williams. Many of them accompanied or followed him in his exile. Neal, in his History of New-England, acknowledges, that when he 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.”

Mr. Williams received permission to remain at Salem till spring, but because he would not refrain, in his own house, from uttering his opinions, the Court resolved to send him to England, in order to remove, as far as possible, the infection of his principles. Happily for themselves, and for the country, their design was defeated.

“11 mo. January. The Governor and Assistants met at Boston to consider about Mr. Williams, for that they were credibly informed, that, notwithstanding the injunction laid upon him (upon the liberty granted him to stay till the spring,) not to go about to draw others to his opinions, he did use to entertain company in his house, and to preach to them, even of such points as he had been censured for; and it was agreed to send him into England by a ship then ready to depart. The reason was, because he had drawn above twenty persons to his opinion, and they were intended to erect a plantation about the Narraganset Bay, from whence the infection would easily spread into these 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 Capt. Underhill, &c. to apprehend him, and carry him aboard the ship, (which then rode at Nantasket;) but, when they came at his house, they found he had been gone three days before; but whither they could not learn.

“He had so far prevailed at Salem, as many there, (especially of devout women) did embrace his opinions, and separated from the churches, for this cause, that some of their members, going into England, did hear the ministers there, and when they came home the churches here held communion with them.” Vol. i. p. 175.

Mr. Williams had received notice of the design of the Court, and had left Salem, in quest of a quiet refuge in the neighborhood of Narraganset Bay. It appears, that Governor Winthrop had privately advised him to leave the colony, as a measure, which the public peace required, and by which the personal interests of Mr. Williams might ultimately be best promoted. The good of the Indians, also, was a motive which operated on both their minds. Mr. Williams says, in a letter which has already been quoted: “It pleased the Most High to direct my steps into this Bay, by the loving private advice of the ever honored soul, Mr. John Winthrop, the grandfather, who, though he were carried with the stream for my banishment, yet he tenderly loved me to his last breath.” The same fact is asserted, in the letter to Major Mason,[^[84]] and the advice of Governor Winthrop is ascribed to “many high, and heavenly, and public ends.” The friendship of the Governor was manifested on various occasions, and he afterwards united with Mr. Williams in the purchase of the island of Prudence in Narraganset Bay.

The removal, however, if it might on general grounds have been expedient, was not now optional. Without considering the justice or injustice of his banishment, there was certainly great hardship in being forced from his home in the middle of winter. His second daughter was born in the latter part of October, 1635,[^[85]] and was consequently an infant less than three months old, while his eldest child was but a little more than two years of age. The mother and her two infants he left behind. His house and land at Salem he mortgaged, to raise money for the supply of his wants.[^[86]] With a heavy heart must this exiled husband and father, and this affectionate pastor, have parted from his family and flock, and plunged into the wilderness, to endure the wintry storms, and to try the hospitality of the savages.

We have thus briefly examined the reasons assigned by the mild and candid Winthrop for the expulsion of Mr. Williams from Massachusetts. We have seen, that these reasons related almost entirely to opinions, which the magistrates thought to be dangerous, and which the clergy opposed as tending to schism. It is satisfactory to observe, however, that these opinions did not refer to any of the great principles of the Gospel. The religious doctrines which Mr. Williams preached before his banishment were the same as those of Cotton and Hooker. He was not accused, while at Plymouth or at Salem, of any deviation from the established principles of the churches, on points of faith, much less was there any impeachment of his moral character. It is confessed, by the most bitter of his opponents, that both at Plymouth and at Salem, he was respected and beloved, as a pious man, and able minister.

What was there, then, it may be inquired, in the opinions of Mr. Williams, which was so offensive to the rulers in church and state? His denial of the right to possess the lands of the Indians without their own consent, needed not to disturb the colonists, for they purchased their lands from the natives. His ideas of the unlawfulness of oaths, and of the impropriety of praying with unregenerate persons, and other harmless notions of this kind, were surely too unimportant to excite the fears and provoke the ire of the government. We are led to the conclusion, that the cause of Mr. Williams’ banishment is to be found in the great principle which has immortalized his name, that THE CIVIL POWER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CONSCIENCE. This noble doctrine, which the Scriptures clearly teach, and which reason itself proclaims, was, at that time, viewed, by most men, to be as heterodox, in morals, as the Copernican theory was considered by the Inquisition to be false in philosophy; and he who maintained it was liable to the fate of Galileo. The Papists abhorred it, for it would have subverted the Papal throne. The English Church rejected it, for it would have wrested from the hierarchy its usurped authority, and led the Church away from the throne of an earthly monarch to the footstool of the King of kings, as her only head and sovereign. The Puritans themselves disowned it, for they were so firmly convinced of the truth of their doctrines, that they deemed him, who was so obstinate as not to embrace them, to be worthy of punishment for acting in opposition to his own conscience.[^[87]] They refused to conform to the ceremonies of the English Church, but it was because they believed those ceremonies to be idolatrous, and not because they denied to men the power to enforce the belief of doctrines and the practice of rites. They opposed the Prelates, but they believed that a similar sway might be safely intrusted to their own hands. They resisted and for a while triumphed over the Lords Bishops, but they forgot that the despotism of the Lords Brethren, as Blackstone termed them, might be quite as intolerable. They did not understand the nature of that liberty which the Gospel bestows. They were misled by the analogies which they drew from the Mosaic institutions, and felt it to be their duty to extirpate heresy, with as unsparing rigor, as the Jews were required to exercise against those who despised or violated their ritual.

The character of the Puritans has been greatly misunderstood on this point, and there has been much common-place declamation respecting their bigotry and inconsistency in persecuting others, after having suffered persecution themselves. But a candid mind, which understands their principles, will not, while it must lament and condemn their conduct, use the language of harsh censure. They were so far from believing, that liberty of conscience in religious concerns ought to be extended to all men, that they regarded toleration as a crime. They argued, that they ought to promote truth, and oppose error, by all the methods in their power. If they were able to suppress false doctrines, it was, they believed, a solemn duty to God to employ force, if necessary, for their suppression. They thought, that he who permitted error to be believed and preached, was chargeable with a participation in the guilt. Intolerance became, in their view, a paramount duty to God and to the heretic himself; and the greater their love of God and of truth, the greater was their zeal to extirpate, with a strong hand, every noxious weed from the garden of the Lord.[^[88]] It was not, therefore, a bigoted preference merely for their own views which made them persecute others, but a conviction that they only embraced the truth, and that all opposing doctrines were pernicious, and must not be allowed. It was not, in their judgment, inconsistent to act thus towards others, after having themselves endured persecution; for they regarded themselves as having been sufferers for the truth, and they were urged, by these very sufferings, to be more faithful in upholding that truth, and suppressing what they deemed to be error. It is due to the Pilgrims to remember, that they acted from principles, erroneous certainly, and deplorable in their effects, but sincerely adopted and cherished in hearts which, nevertheless, glowed with love to God. The grand doctrine of LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE was then a portentous novelty, and it was the glory of Roger Williams, that he, in such an age, proclaimed it, defended it, suffered for it, and triumphantly established it.

The principles of Roger Williams stood in the attitude of irreconcilable opposition to the system which the Pilgrims had established in New-England. They could not blend with it. They came into collision with it, at every point. We have accordingly seen, that Mr. Williams was continually at variance with the government, because their measures were adjusted to their settled policy, but were repugnant to his great doctrine. There could be no peace between them, unless he yielded, or they abandoned their system. He was firm, and they were unconvinced. They possessed the power, and they banished him; not so much to punish him, as to remove from the colony a man whose doctrines they believed to be wrong, whose influence they feared, and whom they could neither intimidate nor persuade to abandon his principles.

It is intimated by Dr. Bentley,[^[89]] that the rivalry of Salem and Boston had some effect to induce a rigorous treatment of Mr. Williams. He had great influence in Salem. He had drawn thither some persons from Plymouth, and it was, perhaps, feared, that his popularity gave an importance to Salem, which might be prejudicial to the metropolis.

It is due to the principal actors in these scenes, to record the fact, of which ample evidence exists, that personal animosity had little, if any, share in producing the sentence of banishment. Towards Mr. Williams, as a Christian and a minister, there was a general sentiment of respect. Governor Winthrop was a generous friend to him throughout his life; and it is asserted by Dr. Bentley, that “had Governor Winthrop been at liberty to concur with Endicott, and not have been deterred by the competition of Boston and Salem, Williams would have lived and died at Salem.”

Mr. Haynes was Governor at the time Mr. Williams was banished, and Mr. Winthrop lost for a while his salutary influence over the public councils.[^[90]] He endeavored, at a subsequent period, to procure a repeal of the sentence of banishment against Mr. Williams; but a more rigid policy prevailed, and the founder of Rhode-Island continued till his death an outlaw from Massachusetts.

Mr. Cotton was, at that time, the most powerful man in the commonwealth; and well did his piety, learning and intrepid love of pure religion merit the respect and affections of the colonists. Whatever share he may have had in procuring the banishment of Mr. Williams,[^[91]] it is certain, that there was no personal feud between them. They had been acquainted with each other in England, and had alike suffered from the intolerance of the Prelates. Mr. Cotton sincerely thought Mr. Williams’ principles wrong, and dangerous to the church and the state. He felt it to be the duty of the government to protect the colony, by removing from it this source of peril. In the controversy which subsequently arose between Mr. Cotton and Mr. Williams, the latter uniformly spoke of Mr. Cotton in the most respectful terms;[^[92]] a circumstance, which is the more remarkable, because at that day the style of polemic discussion was less decorous than it is at the present time, and disputants lavished upon each other, with unsparing virulence, the bitterest epithets of obloquy. While we lament, therefore, that a man of so many admirable qualities as Mr. Cotton, was misled by wrong views of religious liberty, and thus betrayed into intolerance, we owe it to his honorable fame to remember, that the best men are imperfect, and that no personal hostility inflamed his zeal.

We may express the verdict, which, at this distant period, all calm and fair minds will, it is presumed, pronounce: that Mr. Williams was unnecessarily scrupulous about some minor points of conduct and of policy, though these scruples may be candidly traced to the agitated condition of the public mind in England and America, and to his own delicacy of conscience; that he may have erred in maintaining his principles with too little of that meek patience which he who would effect a reform in the opinions of men must possess, though candor will admit, that the constant opposition which Mr. Williams encountered might have irritated a gentler spirit than his; that his behavior to the civil rulers was not indecorous, unless a firm opposition to what he considered as wrong in their measures might be viewed as indecorum, for he yielded to their authority, in every point which his conscience would allow; that his private character was pure; and that the cause of his banishment may be found, in his distinguishing doctrine, that the civil power has no control over the religious opinions of men; a doctrine which no man, in our country, would, at the present day, venture to deny. Mr. Williams was banished, therefore, because his spirit was too elevated and enlarged, for the community in which he lived. Like Aristides, the prominent excellence of his character was the cause of his banishment.

But the same impartial verdict will do justice to the Pilgrims. They felt it to be not merely their right, but their duty, to protect their theocracy from persons, whose opinions or conduct, in their judgment, disturbed its peace or endangered its purity. They believed, that the sword of the magistrate was to be used for the defence of the church, as in the days of Moses and Aaron. To deny this principle, was to subvert the foundation of their civil and religious institutions; and it became, in their opinion, a measure of self-preservation, and of paramount duty to God, to expel Mr. Williams from the colony. That the grounds of this measure were wrong, will not now be disputed; but we ought to rejoice, that we can ascribe it to a sincere, though misdirected, desire to uphold the church, and to advance the honor of God. Were these excellent men now alive, they would be foremost in lamenting their own error, and in vindicating those principles of religious liberty, for which Mr. Williams incurred their displeasure.

And we may on this occasion, as on many others, observe the wonderful wisdom of Divine Providence, which so controls the mistakes and sins of men, as to accomplish the most important results. The banishment of Mr. Williams contributed in the end to his own happiness and fame. Another colony was established, and thus civilization and religion were diffused. And we shall soon see how this event, though springing from wrong views, and producing much immediate suffering, was the means, a few years after, of that interposition of Mr. Williams between the colonists and the Indians, which apparently rescued the whites throughout New-England from total destruction.

CHAPTER VI.

Numbers, condition, language, rights, &c. of the Indians in New-England.

The history of Roger Williams becomes, from this point, so closely connected with that of the Indians, as to make it necessary to present a brief sketch of their situation and character. We must confine our view to those who inhabited New-England. Mr. Williams himself has furnished us with valuable aid in this review. His Key to the Indian Languages, though its chief object was philology, presents many interesting details respecting the habits and general character of the aborigines.

The territory now comprehended within the limits of New-England was inhabited by various tribes, the principal of which were the following:

1. The Pawtuckets, whose territory extended from Salem, (Mass.) to Portsmouth, (N. H.,) being bounded by the ocean on the east, and by the Nipmuck country on the west.

2. The Massachusetts, who dwelt chiefly about the Bay, which bears their name.

3. The Pokanokets, who inhabited the territory of the old colony of Plymouth. This tribe included several subordinate tribes, among whom were the Wampanoags, the particular tribe of Massassoit and Philip.

4. The Narragansets, who inhabited nearly all the territory which afterwards formed the colony of Rhode-Island, including the islands in the Bay, Block-Island, and a part of Long-Island.

5. The Pequods, who inhabited the southern part of the present State of Connecticut. The Mohegans have been considered as a part of this tribe, inhabiting the western and northern parts of Connecticut.

These principal nations included many subordinate and tributary tribes, among whom may be mentioned the Nipmucks, who were scattered over the western parts of Massachusetts.

At a period not long preceding the arrival of the English, a pestilence prevailed among the natives, to so frightful an extent, that some of the tribes became nearly extinct. The Pawtuckets, who could previously raise three thousand fighting men, were almost exterminated. The Massachusetts, who were equally numerous, were so reduced, that they could not, probably, in 1630, have raised a hundred men. The Pokanokets were diminished to about five hundred warriors.[^[93]] The Narragansets suffered little, and the Pequods were uninjured by the pestilence. Each of these tribes could raise four thousand fighting men.[^[94]] The Pequods were the most fierce and warlike, and the Narragansets the most civilized, of the New-England savages.

The Indians, when most numerous, could occupy but a small portion of the territory. They subsisted chiefly by hunting, a mode of life which is impracticable except where extensive tracts remain in the wildness of nature. Their dwellings were usually built in small villages, rudely constructed of skins or bark, and easily removed, as their caprice or necessities required. The lands claimed by each tribe were held in common. Each member roamed over it at his pleasure, and took the game wherever he could find it. Their agriculture was limited to the cultivation of Indian corn, tobacco, and a few esculent vegetables, such as beans and squashes. The agricultural labor was performed by the women, with little skill, and rude implements. The product must consequently have been small. Game was not always plentiful, or was consumed with the improvident voracity of savages. They did not understand the art of salting provisions for future use. They often suffered from hunger, especially during the winter. They knew little of the medical art, and their diseases, though few, were fatal. Their wars were frequent and sanguinary. Their mode of life was unfavorable to the rearing of children. For these and other reasons, the native tribes could never have been very numerous; and if the Europeans had not landed here, the country over which our free and flourishing States have spread themselves would, it is probable, have been, at this hour, a wilderness, the hunting ground of tribes not less savage, and, perhaps, little more numerous, than those whom our fathers found here.

The origin of the Indians is involved in impenetrable mystery. Their own traditions shed no light on the subject, and nothing has been found, in their customs or languages, which could lead to a satisfactory conclusion. Imagination has been active in tracing their connection with different nations. The favorite theory of many writers has been, that they are the descendants of the ten Jewish tribes; but this opinion is founded on the slight ground of a few coincidences between the customs of the Jews and those of the Indians, and fancied resemblances in some of their words to terms in the Hebrew language. Roger Williams wisely refrains from expressing any opinion on the subject, except by stating his confidence that the Indians have sprung from Adam and Noah. He mentions several Indian customs, which resemble Jewish rites, and says, “others (and myself) have conceived some of their words to hold affinity with the Hebrew.” But he adds, “I have found a greater affinity of their language with the Greek tongue.”[^[95]] The natives themselves believed, that their great god Cautantowit made a man and woman of a stone, but disliking them, he broke them in pieces, and made another man and woman of a tree, from whom all mankind have descended.[^[96]] The mounds and other monuments found in the western States, have been considered as evidences, that some people, superior to the Indians, once inhabited that part of the country. But who they were, and why they disappeared, we shall probably never know. The probability seems to be, that America was first inhabited by emigrants from Asia, who crossed from the one continent to the other, at some point near the northwestern extremity of America. But conjecture is useless. That the Indians have descended from Adam, no one who reverences the Bible will doubt. That they are of a kindred nature with other men is proved, both by their virtues and their vices. Their minds are acknowledged, by all who have known them well, to be fully equal in strength and acuteness to those of civilized men. That they are capable of becoming pious Christians, has happily been demonstrated by many cheering examples.

Their government was very simple. A wild freedom prevailed among them, and their roving habits did not permit much control. They needed, however, some rulers in peace, and leaders in war. Each tribe had one or more chiefs, called sachems, who were, at first, chosen by the tribe, or who gained the ascendency, by superior wisdom or courage. Some of these sachems inherited and transmitted their power, by hereditary right; but it is probable, that the incumbent owed his authority more to his personal qualities than to his birth.[^[97]] The sachems held nominally the supreme power, and received tribute, but they were controlled by the wisdom of the aged men, and by the fierce energy of the young warriors. “The sachems,” says Roger Williams,[^[98]] “although they have an absolute monarchy over the people, yet they will not conclude of aught that concerns all, either laws, or subsidies, or wars, unto which the people are averse, and by gentle persuasion cannot be brought.” There were subordinate chiefs, sometimes called sagamores, who held a limited authority over portions of the tribes. All important questions were discussed in councils, where eloquence was as fervid and efficacious, probably, as in the more polished assemblies of Greece.

The physical characteristics of the Indians were common to all the tribes,—a bronze or copper color; straight, coarse, black hair, hazel eyes, high cheek bones, and an erect form.[^[99]] They possessed firm, well compacted bodies, capable of enduring the greatest hardships and fatigues, and regardless of cold, while travelling in the severity of winter.[^[100]] They were very active, and could run vast distances with astonishing speed and endurance.[^[101]] They could subsist for many days on a little parched corn, pounded into meal. “This,” says Roger Williams, “is a very wholesome food, which they eat with a little water, hot or cold. I have travelled with near two hundred of them at once, near one hundred miles through the woods, each man carrying a little basket of this at his back, and sometimes in a hollow leather girdle about his middle, sufficient for a man for three or four days. With this ready provision, and their bow and arrow, are they ready for war and travel at a moment’s warning. With a spoonful of this meal and a spoonful of water from the brook, have I made many a good dinner and supper.”[^[102]] When they had leisure, however, and a plentiful supply of food, they would compensate themselves for their abstinence, by eating enormous quantities. Their cookery was simple, their meat or fish being boiled or roasted, and eaten without salt or bread. Indian corn, boiled, either whole or when ground, was a common dish.[^[103]] Their only drink was water, until Europeans introduced among them the devouring curse of spirituous liquors. Tobacco was in general use, as a remedy for the toothache, and as a stimulant, of which they were as fond as their civilized successors.

Their diseases were few, but neglect or injudicious treatment made them very destructive. The chief remedy was sweating, in a cave or cell, made hot with heated stones. In this cell the patient remained an hour or more, and then plunged into a river. Roger Williams expended much time and money in administering to the sick among the Indians, and he expressed his confidence, that millions of the natives had perished for want of suitable aid. Infectious diseases sometimes seized them, and made terrific ravages. The living fled, and whole towns were deserted. The powaws, or priests, pretended to much skill in curing diseases; but their medical practice consisted mainly of hideous bellowings, incantations, and other fantastic ceremonies.

Their domestic habits were not favorable to happiness or virtue. The marriage relation was formed with little care, and was dissolved at the pleasure of the husband. A man might have as many wives as he chose, and was able to purchase from their parents. The women were treated with rigor. They were forced to perform the labors of agriculture, and to carry the provisions and packs of every kind, in their huntings and marches. The parents permitted their children to grow up without restraint, and the children were undutiful, and often cruel to their parents.

The Indians were hospitable to strangers. They were grateful for benefits, and were firm friends; but their resentment of injuries was fierce and implacable. They pursued an enemy with the malignity of fiends, and they usually murdered their captives, with prolonged and shocking tortures. They met death, even when thus inflicted, with the utmost composure, disdaining to exhibit any symptoms of fear or pain, and often provoking their tormentors by scornful taunts. They were treacherous, prone to lying, and indolent, except when war or hunting roused them to action. They were fond of sports, and like the Germans, as described by Tacitus, they were addicted to gaming.

They had no commerce, except the sale of corn, skins, and some other articles, to the Europeans. Their only money consisted of shells, sewed together on strips of cloth, and thus forming belts of various lengths, and different degrees of beauty, according to the taste of the maker. This money, as described by Roger Williams, “was of two sorts: one white, which they make of the stem or stock of the periwinkle, which they call meteauhock, when all the shell is broken off; and of this sort, six of their small beads (which they make with holes to string the bracelets) are current with the English for a penny. The second is black, inclining to blue, which is made of the shell of a fish which the English call hens, poquauhock,[^[104]] and of this sort three make an English penny.” The white money was called wampum, which signified white. The other was called suckauhock, a word signifying black. Both kinds seem to have been called wampum, or wampumpeag. The Narraganset Indians were reputed the most skilful coiners of wampum, and the most ingenious manufacturers of pendants, bracelets, stone tobacco pipes, and earthen vessels for cooking and other domestic uses.[^[105]] They were, as a cause, or perhaps as a consequence, more civilized and less warlike than their neighbors.[^[106]] The Pequods insulted them, with the contemptuous title of a nation of women. It is a coincidence worthy of remark, that Rhode-Island, where this primitive nation of manufacturers resided, is distinguished as the place where the manufacture of cotton was commenced in this country, and where this, and its kindred arts, have been cultivated with great success. The history of Rhode-Island, however, shows that her sons have not been deficient in martial qualities. If the sarcasm of the Pequods was deserved by the Narragansets, it has no application to those who now occupy the beautiful islands, the streams, the hills and the plains, from which this hapless tribe have disappeared forever.

The wars of the Indians were frequent. They were conducted in a desultory manner, with all the arts of savage cunning. Their weapons were bows and arrows, clubs, and rude spears. Their arrows were headed with sharp, triangular pieces of stone, many of which are found at the present day. After the arrival of the English, the arrow heads were made of brass, and an iron hatchet being added to the club, formed the dreaded tomahawk. The Indians soon learned the value of fire arms. Though the sale of muskets and of powder to the Indians was forbidden by the colonists, yet the natives, obtaining a supply from the Dutch, and from unprincipled traders, speedily rivalled the Europeans in the skilful use of these instruments of death.

The religion of the Indians was vague and shadowy. They had no images, but they worshipped a number of deities. Roger Williams said, that he had heard the names of thirty-seven gods, to whom they rendered some religious homage. They acknowledged, however, one superior being, named Cautantowit, as the creator of men, and the giver of their corn and other temporal benefits. They believed that Cautantowit resided in the southwest,[^[107]] in a delightful region, to which the souls of good men went after death, and enjoyed fruitful fields, placid streams, abundant game, and every thing else which an Indian’s imagination could conceive as necessary to happiness. The souls of wicked men, as they believed, would wander, without rest.[^[108]] The separate existence and immortality of the soul, and an endless state of retribution, according to the deeds done in the body, were prominent doctrines in the narrow creed of these rude savages. These doctrines are found among almost all nations; and their prevalence can be satisfactorily explained only by supposing that they are derived from the original revelation, and preserved, by tradition, as well as by their accordance with the reason and instincts of mankind.

The Indians had priests, who directed their worship. This consisted in little more than occasional prayers, dances and feasts. Their religion had little influence over their minds, as an incentive to virtue, or as a source of consolation. They lived in gross darkness, and died without hope. Though Eliot, Roger Williams, and others, labored for their spiritual welfare, with some success,[^[109]] yet the great mass of the tribes went into eternity without a knowledge of the Saviour. It is melancholy to reflect, that multitudes of these immortal beings died, in all their darkness, after the glorious Gospel had begun to shed its radiance over these hills and vallies. Our fathers desired and attempted their conversion, but their efforts were baffled, by many adverse causes. Let us, at this late day, endeavor to lead the feeble remnants of these departed nations to the great Bishop of souls.

The languages of the Indians are among the wonders of philology. They have been studied, with ardor and success, by many scholars in our own country, and by a few scientific men abroad.[^[110]] These languages, instead of being rude and scanty, as might be inferred from the character of the Indians, are found to be astonishingly regular and copious, rich in forms, and possessing a facility of combination, and a nice discrimination in their inflections, which are scarcely surpassed even by the ancient Greek.[^[111]] Mr. Du Ponceau, of Philadelphia, who has studied the native dialects with great diligence and with philosophical acumen, says, “I confess that I am lost in astonishment at the copiousness and admirable structure of their languages; for which I can only account by looking up to the Great First Cause.”[^[112]] He says, of the Delaware language, “it would rather appear to have been formed by philosophers in their closets, than by savages in the wilderness.”

The languages and dialects spoken on the continent of America, have been estimated by the authors of the Mithridates, at the astonishing number of twelve hundred and fourteen.[^[113]] A large proportion of these, however, are only variations of a few parent languages, just as the English language is varied in different counties in England by peculiarities, which are scarcely intelligible in other parts of the island. The French language is, in the same way, corrupted by the patois of different sections of the country. Unwritten languages are, of course, still more liable to variations, which, in time, would make a distinct dialect.

All the native languages of North America have been reduced to four classes: 1. The Karalit, or language of Greenland, and the Esquimaux. 2. The Delaware. 3. The Iroquois. 4. The Floridian, comprehending the body of languages spoken on the whole southern frontier of the United States.[^[114]]

The dialects spoken in New-England are believed to have been varieties of the Delaware language.[^[115]] Roger Williams affirms of the Narraganset tongue, that “with this I have entered into the secrets of those countries wherever English dwell, about two hundred miles, between the French and Dutch plantations. There is a mixture of this language north and south from the place of my abode about six hundred miles; yet, within the two hundred miles aforesaid, their dialects do exceedingly differ, yet not so but (within that compass) a man may by this help converse with thousands of natives all over the country.”[^[116]] The Massachusetts language, into which Eliot translated the Bible, was radically the same tongue as the Narraganset.

Roger Williams published the first vocabulary of an Indian language. His book attracted attention, when first published, in 1643, and it is still much valued. We shall have occasion to recur to it. Eliot wrote a Grammar of the Massachusetts language. The son of President Edwards wrote a brief account of the Mohegan language. The Hon. Josiah Cotton, a descendant of the great John Cotton, compiled a vocabulary of the Massachusetts dialect. These and other valuable papers on the native languages, have been published in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. They are worthy of the attention of every man who loves to study the human mind, and who feels an interest in the character of the Indians.

We will now offer a few remarks on a subject which has already been touched, the rights of the Indians, and the treatment which they received from the colonists. It is a topic of deep interest, which affects the character of our fathers, and to which recent events and the present condition of the surviving Indians have attracted earnest attention.

The right of the natives to hold the possession and control of all the territory on this continent has been a subject of dispute. The general principles applicable to this case, as expounded by Vattel, are these:[^[117]] God has given the earth to the human race, and every man is entitled to a portion of its surface, sufficient for the comfortable support of himself and family. The actual occupancy of such a portion gives to the occupant a title which no man can rightfully disturb. But no one has an original right to appropriate to himself more than he needs, because he may thus deprive others, who possess equal rights with himself, of their appropriate share. Nor can he justly adopt a mode of subsistence, which will necessarily require so large an extent of territory, as to deprive his fellow men of their proportion, and either prevent the increase of the human race, or produce in other places an accumulation of masses of men, too great to be comfortably sustained. That the cultivation of the earth was designed by the Creator to be the chief means of subsistence to the human family, cannot be doubted; because the increase of the race was certainly his purpose,[^[118]] and agriculture is the only mode by which a dense population could every where be supported. It follows, that a man has no right to claim for himself a vast tract of forest, because he chooses to subsist by hunting. If all other men cannot have a similar tract, he must, himself, become a cultivator, and thus subsist on a small portion of land. If a man had appropriated to himself a large territory, which, by proper cultivation, would furnish subsistence for many others, those others, if their necessities required, would have a right to claim their share, and to enforce their claim.

These principles, in their application to a primitive society, just taking possession of a new territory, seem to be indisputable. They are the principles on which the land of Canaan was divided among the Jews, by the authority of God himself, and on which the colonists in this country generally proceeded, in dividing the territory which they acquired from the Indians.

In the progress of society, however, the balance soon becomes disturbed. Other modes of subsistence than agriculture are adopted, and various causes produce an accumulation of wealth in the hands of some men, while others are reduced to indigence. The peace of society requires, that the rich should be protected in their lawful possessions; though every civilized nation still acts on the principle, that every member of the community is entitled to a subsistence. He ought to earn it by his labor, but if sickness, or want of employment, or other reasonable causes, prevent, he is entitled to assistance from the community, and the rich are taxed for his support. The most strenuous opposer of poor laws will not deny, that a man, who cannot maintain himself, has a right to aid from his fellow citizens. Thus the original law of nature comes into operation, and the inequalities which arise are, in some measure, compensated. But a fundamental principle of civilized society is, that every man is to be protected in the enjoyment of the property which he lawfully acquires. He may use it as he pleases, if he does not injure others; and he cannot be deprived of it, or of any part of it, without his own consent.

It is not easy to see, why the same principle should not be applied to the Indians. They had regular, though simple, governments, and the territories of each tribe were defined by boundaries sufficiently precise for their purposes. They had the best of all titles to their lands, actual possession. Why, then, might not the Indian claim to be protected in the enjoyment of his property? Why might he not make use of that property as he pleased, while he did not trespass on the rights of others? If the law of nations did not reach him, was he out of the pale of the great law of justice and reason? If it were said, that he had no right to appropriate to himself miles of forest, for a hunting ground, he might reply, that he had as good a right as an English nobleman has to appropriate to himself a vast space, for parks and fish ponds; and, indeed, a better right, by the law of nature, for every other Indian could enjoy as much land as himself, while the nobleman must see hundreds around him in abject poverty.

But it has been said, that the Creator could not have designed this vast and beautiful region to be exclusively inhabited by a few thousands of savage hunters; and, therefore, if the old world should become crowded with inhabitants, a portion of them would have a right to remove to America, and occupy a portion of it, as a part of the great inheritance of the human race. The Indians would consequently be bound to allow them a sufficient space; and if the numbers of both parties should so increase as to make hunting impracticable, the Indians ought to become cultivators.

If this theory were admitted as sound, the practical application of it would not be easy. The absolute necessity of emigration from the old world has not, perhaps, occurred, and yet this case must be made out, to justify an occupancy of a part of the Indian territory, without the consent of the natives. Immense tracts of uncultivated land exist in Europe, and even in England. Why would it not be as just for a company of settlers to fix their dwellings in a nobleman’s park, cut down his trees, and plant their corn, as to do the same on the lands of an Indian? If it were alleged, that the Indian had more land than he needed, the same might be said, perhaps, of the nobleman. At any rate, it might be asked, who was the proper judge, how much land an Indian needed?

But, looking at the actual state of things, at the settlement of this country, the necessities of the Pilgrims were sufficiently great, to make it the duty of the Indians to receive them hospitably, and allow them a portion of their lands. Where the country was deserted by the natives, the colonists might, undoubtedly, take possession. But wherever the Indians actually occupied the territory, even for the purposes of hunting, they were, clearly, the proprietors; and though it was doubtless their duty to cede to the Europeans a sufficient portion for their maintenance, yet they could not justly be forced to perform this duty. The settlers were bound to be satisfied with a sufficient amount of land for their comfortable support by agriculture and by the arts of civilized life. But the Indians retained an inviolable right to so much territory as they deemed necessary for their own use. Their title was beyond dispute. No power on earth could lawfully dispossess them.

We may conclude, then, that the Indians were the lawful proprietors of all the lands which they occupied. They were independent nations, and had a right to regulate their governments, and use their territory, as they pleased, while they respected the rights of others. They consequently could not be lawfully subjected to the sway of any other nation, without their own consent. No charters from popes or kings could give a right to take possession of the Indian territory. The Indians were nevertheless under an obligation to receive distressed Europeans, who sought their coasts, and to sell them land. They were, too, bound by the great law of God, which requires men to aspire after moral and physical perfection. This law obliged them to become civilized, and to adopt those modes of life which would enable their territory to support the greatest possible number of inhabitants. Hence arose another obligation to admit Europeans among them, who were capable of instructing and elevating them to the rank of civilized, educated, Christian nations. The duties of the settlers were, to make a reasonable compensation for the land ceded; to respect the rights of the natives; to treat them with uniform kindness; to teach them the arts of civilization; and, above all, to inculcate the principles and the practice of the Christian religion.

It is pleasing to observe, in the history of the New-England colonists, that the duties of both parties were, to so great an extent, fulfilled. The Indians, in most cases, received the white men with generous hospitality; they sold them land, on easy terms; many tribes remained their firm friends; and some of the natives became converts to the Christian faith. The colonists, on the other hand, purchased their lands from the Indians, for such a compensation as satisfied the natives, and was a fair equivalent at that time.[^[119]] They treated the Indians, generally, with justice, and they made many zealous efforts for their conversion. That some of the proceedings of the colonists towards the Indians were not strictly equitable nor kind, must be admitted. Our fathers were too prone to view them rather as heathens than as men. They recurred too often to the Jewish history, for imaginary analogies; and drew unauthorized inferences from the conduct of the Jews towards idolatrous nations, whom God, the sovereign ruler, commanded them to destroy. In their wars with the natives, the colonists were sometimes unjustifiably severe; but it is due to their memory to say, that those wars were commenced by the savages themselves, from jealousy of the advancing power of the whites, rather than from the experience of actual injury. We must consider, too, that when the struggle came, it was, on the part of the whites, a contest for life and death, with an enemy vastly more numerous, and whose modes of warfare were treacherous, cruel, and terrific in the highest degree to the scattered and feeble settlements.[^[120]]

A candid reader of our early colonial history, while he observes many things which he deeply regrets and condemns, must nevertheless admit, that the conduct of our fathers towards the Indians was, in general, worthy of their high character, as wise and pious, yet imperfect men, who were placed in circumstances which severely tried their principles, and amid difficulties, which required the utmost wisdom and courage. When we consider the diabolical cruelty with which the Spaniards treated the unhappy natives of South America, we must turn, with, emotions of grateful pleasure, to the history of our own land, and rejoice, that our fathers were men, for whom their descendants have little occasion to blush, or to apologize.

The kings of England, whatever language they employed in their patents and charters, treated the Indians, in practice, as separate nations, and entered into treaties with different tribes. The government of the United States have done the same, and, except in one humiliating instance, have pursued towards the natives a just and humane policy. The treaties so formed have been pronounced, by the highest legal authority in this country, to be binding on our government, and the rights of the Indians, as distinct nations, though under the protection of the United States, have thus been judicially recognised.[^[121]]

That the Indian tribes in New-England melted away, must awaken melancholy feelings. But it cannot be maintained, that their disappearance was occasioned mainly by the treatment or the neglect which they experienced from the colonial governments. These governments could not wholly prevent unprincipled individuals from inflicting wrongs on the natives, which tended to exasperate them. They could not entirely exclude the introduction of ardent spirits, the most deadly and active agent in the destruction of the aborigines. Though they sent missionaries, and printed Bibles, and erected schools, for the religious and literary instruction of the natives, they could not reclaim any considerable proportion of them from their savage habits. As the whites increased, the game disappeared, and as the Indians did not alter their habits, they became destitute, and their numbers diminished. They saw, at length, the alternative, of utter ruin or the expulsion of the English, and they determined to attempt the latter. But it was too late. They fought, with desperation, and filled the land with frightful distress and bloodshed. But the superior skill of the whites prevailed, and the death of the formidable Philip terminated forever the power of the Indians in New-England. We may admit, that the savages were impelled by some motives of patriotism and love of liberty. We may respect and pity them. But surely we cannot lament that they failed; that their exterminating warfare did not accomplish its purpose; that the tomahawk did not, after butchering the last father in the field, smite the last infant in the cradle; that the flames did not lay in ashes every dwelling of civilized man and every temple of God; and that barbarism did not resume its dominion over the hills and vallies of New-England. No man, if he could do it by waving some potent wand, would bid all this teeming population, this wide spread happiness, this wonderful triumph of civilization, freedom and religion, disappear, like a gorgeous vision, and restore this whole land to the condition in which the Pilgrims found it, or even place it in the situation in which it would have been, at this moment, if no civilized man had landed on these shores. Human happiness has been immeasurably increased by the settlement of this continent. Christianity has extended her conquests; and no thoughtful man can doubt, that the landing of the Pilgrims, and the subsequent history of this country, have been controlled by Him, who accomplishes his great designs of mercy to the universe, by means which often involve individual suffering, and sometimes produce national ruin.

Let us feel our obligation to treat the feeble remnants of the tribes who yet remain with generous kindness. Let us recompense them for whatever wrongs their fathers may have received. Let us, now that they are weak, and we are strong, be scrupulously attentive to their rights, and seek to promote their highest temporal and eternal welfare. Without the friendship of their fathers, at the beginning, ours must have perished. Let the children of the white man prove their gratitude, by saving from ruin the helpless descendants of the savage.

CHAPTER VII.

Mr. Williams proceeds to Seekonk—crosses the river, and founds the town of Providence.

About the middle of January, 1635–6,[^[122]] Mr. Williams left Salem, in secrecy and haste. It is not certain, that any one accompanied him, though a number of persons were with him a short time afterwards. He proceeded to the south, towards the Narraganset Bay. The weather was very severe, and his sufferings were great. In a letter written thirty-five years afterwards, he said: “I was sorely tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean;” and he added, that he still felt the effects of his exposure to the severity of the weather.[^[123]]

He appears to have visited Ousamequin, the sachem of Pokanoket, who resided at Mount Hope, near the present town of Bristol (R. I.) From him he obtained a grant of land now included in the town of Seekonk, in Massachusetts, on the east bank of Pawtucket (now Seekonk) river.[^[124]] This territory was within the limits of the Plymouth colony, but Mr. Williams recognised the Indians only as the proprietors, and bought a title from the sachem. Ousamequin doubtless granted his request with pleasure, as a return for the services and presents which he had formerly received from Mr. Williams. If, as we have supposed, the exile was obliged to visit the sachem, and make these arrangements, the journey, on foot, increased that exposure to the severity of the elements, of which he complains.

He was, moreover, unprovided with a dwelling. Mr. Cotton (in his Bloody Tenet washed, p. 8.) says, “that some of his friends went to the place appointed by himself beforehand, to make provision of housing, and other necessaries for him against his coming.” This statement however, must be incorrect. Mr. Williams’ departure from Salem was sudden and unexpected; and his assertion, just quoted, that he did not know “what bread or bed did mean,” for fourteen weeks, must be understood as excluding the idea of such a preparation as Mr. Cotton mentions. Mr. Williams, too, says, “I first pitched, and began to build and plant at Seekonk.”[^[125]] He had no house, it would seem, till he built one.

For the means of subsistence, he must have been dependent on the Indians. At that season, hunting and fishing were impracticable, if he had possessed the proper instruments. The earth was covered with snow, and he had not even the poor resource of roots. He may refer to his situation at this time, in the following lines, alluding to the Indians:

“God’s Providence is rich to his,

Let none distrustful be;

In wilderness, in great distress,

These ravens have fed me.”[^[126]]

The spot, in Seekonk, where he reared his habitation, is believed, on good authority, to have been at Manton’s Neck, near the cove, a short distance above the Central Bridge.[^[127]]

Here he probably hoped, that he might live in peace. He was soon joined by several friends, if they did not at first accompany him. His wife and children were still at Salem.

But Seekonk was not to be his home. In a short time, to use his own language, “I received a letter 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 to the other side of the water, and there, he said, I had the country free before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should be loving neighbors together.”

This advice was apparently prudent and friendly, prompted by a desire of peace, and by a kind regard to Mr. Williams. It does not seem to deserve the harsh comments which have sometimes been made on it. Mr. Williams himself does not speak of it in a tone of reproach. He immediately resolved to comply with the advice. He accordingly embarked in a canoe, with five others,[^[128]] and proceeded down the stream. As they approached the little cove, near Tockwotten, now India Point, they were saluted, by a company of Indians, with the friendly interrogation, “What cheer?” a common English phrase, which they had learned from the colonists.[^[129]] At this spot, they probably went on shore, but they did not long remain there.[^[130]] They passed round India Point and Fox Point, and proceeded up the river on the west side of the peninsula, to a spot near the mouth of the Moshassuck river. Tradition reports, that Mr. Williams landed near a spring, which remains till this day.[^[131]] At this spot, the settlement of Rhode-Island commenced:

“O call it holy ground,

The soil where first they trod,

They have left unstained, what there they found,

Freedom to worship God.”[^[132]]

To the town here founded, Mr. Williams, with his habitual piety, and in grateful remembrance of “God’s merciful Providence to him in his distress,” gave the name of Providence.

There has been much discussion respecting the precise period at which this memorable event occurred. There is a perplexing confusion in the statements of different writers. We shall be excused, if we examine the subject with some minuteness. Callender, in his Century Sermon, (p. 18) says, that it was “in the spring of the year 1634–5.” Governor Hopkins, in his History of Providence,[^[133]] places it “some time in the year 1634.” Hutchinson (vol. i. p. 41) assigns the same year. Later writers have naturally been led into the same mistake. Backus (vol. i. p. 70) states, that in January, 1636, Mr. Williams left Massachusetts, which is the right date, according to the modern mode of computing time, though, by the style, which then prevailed, it was 1635.

But the period of his banishment is fixed decisively by the records of Massachusetts, and by Winthrop’s Journal. His sentence of banishment was passed, November 3, 1635.[^[134]] In January following, according to Winthrop (vol. i. p. 175) the Court resolved to send him to England, and the messengers found, that he had departed from Salem three days before their arrival.

In his letter to Major Mason, Mr. Williams says, “The next year after my banishment, the Lord drew the bow of the Pequod war against the country.” This war commenced in July, 1636, with the murder of Oldham. This fact corroborates the preceding statement.

The time of his leaving Seekonk for Providence cannot be accurately determined, but we may approach very near to the true date.

Governor Winslow, of Plymouth, who advised him to leave Seekonk, entered on his official duties in March, 1635–6. This was the only year that he held the office of Governor, between 1633 and 1644.[^[135]] Mr. Williams must, therefore, have been at Seekonk, subsequently to the date of Governor Winslow’s accession to office.

In Mr. Williams’ letter to Major Mason, he says, that he “began to build and plant at Seekonk.” He did not begin to plant, we may presume, till the middle of April, if so early.[^[136]] In the same letter, he speaks of his removal as occasioning his “loss of a harvest that year,” from which remark we may reasonably infer, that the corn had attained a considerable growth before he left Seekonk, and consequently that he did not cross the river till the middle, perhaps, of June.

On the 26th of July, a letter was received from Mr. Williams, by Governor Vane, informing him of the murder of Mr. Oldham, by the Indians of Block-Island.[^[137]] This letter was written at Providence, and it proves, that Mr. Williams had removed thither previously to the 26th of July.

We may safely conclude, that he left Seekonk, not far from the middle of June, 1636. The exact day will never, it is probable, be ascertained.[^[138]]

There is one circumstance, which, perhaps, misled Mr. Callender and Governor Hopkins respecting the year of Mr. Williams’ arrival. In a deed, signed by himself and wife, and dated December 20, 1661, he used these words: “Having, in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-five, had several treaties with Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narragansets, and in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of these lands.”

The statement, that he had held several treaties with the Narraganset sachems, in 1634 and 1635, presents some difficulty. But we have already seen, that while at Plymouth and at Salem, he held some intercourse with these chiefs. In a manuscript letter, already quoted, he says:

“I spared no cost towards them, and in gifts to Ousamequin and all his, and to Canonicus and all his, tokens and presents, many years before I came in person to the Narraganset; and therefore when I came, I was welcome to Ousamequin and to the old prince Canonicus, who was most shy of all English to his last breath.”

It is probable, therefore, that the “treaties” which he mentions, as having been held in 1634 and 1635, were propositions concerning lands, made by him, perhaps, to the chiefs, through Indians, whom he saw at Boston or Salem, and by whom he was in the habit of sending to them presents. We have already intimated a conjecture, that for some time before his banishment, he had entertained the thought of a settlement in the Indian country. If so, it was natural for him to enter into negotiations for lands. But these propositions, whatever they were, were not concluded in the years which he mentions. He says, that “in the end,” he purchased the lands at Providence, and that the deed was dated two years after the purchase. We accordingly find, that the deed was dated “at Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called March, in the second year of the plantation, or planting at Moshassuck, or Providence.” The year is not mentioned in the instrument, but it is known to have been 1637–8.[^[139]] This deed corresponds with Mr. Williams’ statement, and refers to the year 1636 as the time of his actual purchase, and also as that of his arrival.

We will add another fact, to strengthen a position, which has, perhaps, been sufficiently established. A parchment deed, now in the possession of Moses Brown, is dated the “14th day of the second month, in the 5th year of our situation, or plantation, at Moshassuck, or Providence, and in the 17th year of King Charles, &c. 1641.”[^[140]] This deed also points to the year 1636, as the date of the first settlement of Providence.

In June, of this year, the settlement of Hartford (Con.) was begun. Rev. Messrs. Hooker and Stone, who had been settled at Newtown, (now Cambridge) removed, with their whole church, and founded the city of Hartford. A fort had been built, the preceding year, at Saybrook, at the mouth of the river Connecticut, and small settlements had been commenced at Weathersfield and Windsor.

CHAPTER VIII.

Purchase of lands from the Indians—division of the lands among the settlers.

The spot where Mr. Williams and his companions landed was within the jurisdiction of the Narraganset Indians.[^[141]] The sachems of this tribe were Canonicus, and his nephew Miantinomo. The former was an old man, and he probably associated with him his young nephew, as better fitted to sustain the toils and cares of royalty. Their residence is said by Gookin to have been about Narraganset Bay, and on the island of Canonicut.

The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed to him by a deed. This instrument may properly be quoted here:[^[142]]

“At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called March, the second year of the plantation or planting at Moshassuck, or Providence; Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents, establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on the west.[^[143]] We also, in consideration of the many kindnesses and services he hath continually done for us, both with our friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum, or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands.”

The mark (a bow) of CANONICUS.

The mark (an arrow) of MIANTINOMO.

In the presence of

The mark of Sohash.

The mark of Alsomunsit.

“1639. Memorandum. 3d month, 9th day, this was all again confirmed by Miantinomo. He acknowledged, that he also [illegible][^[144]] and gave up the streams of Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, without limits, we might have for our use of cattle.

Witness hereof,

Roger Williams,

Benedict Arnold.”

The lands thus ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an equal part only. Before we narrate the particulars of this transaction, a few remarks are necessary.

It appears from the tenor of the deed, and from other evidence, that the original sale included only the lands mentioned in the first part of the deed. These are said by the sachems to have been “sold” to Mr. Williams. The grass and meadows on Pawtuxet river are said to be given to him, in consideration of his services.

An interesting question, which occasioned much debate in the early times of the colony, claims consideration here. Were the lands, ceded by the sachems, so conveyed, that they became the property of Roger Williams himself, and might he, with justice and honor, have sold or retained them, as he pleased? An answer to this question will throw light on his subsequent conduct.

The conveyance in the deed is made to him alone. The title, consequently, was vested in him, so far as the instrument went. But this fact does not decide the point. It was a subject of accusation against him, that the conveyance was not made to him and his associates. Did he, then, act on behalf of others, as well as for himself?

If his own solemn and often repeated assertions are worthy of credit, he obtained the lands by his own money and influence, and might have held them as his property.

He argues the case at large, in his letter to the Commissioners, in 1677, to whom he was accused of unfair conduct respecting the lands.

He asserts, in the first place, “It is not true, that I was employed by any, was supplied by any, or desired any to come with me into these parts. My soul’s desire was, to do the natives good, and to that end to learn their language, (which I afterwards printed) and therefore desired not to be troubled with English company.” He adds, that “out of pity, he gave leave to several persons to come along in his company.” He makes the same statement in his deed of 1661:—“I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed for conscience. I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving friends, [whom he names] who then desired to take shelter here with me.”

It seems, then, that his original design was to come alone, probably to dwell among the Indians, and do them good; but he altered his plan, and resolved to establish a refuge for those who might flee from persecution. The project was his own, and worthy of his generous and liberal mind. He certainly was not employed, as an agent, to purchase lands for others. He uses another argument: “I mortgaged my house in Salem (worth some hundreds) for supplies to go through, and, therefore, was it a single business.”

Having thus shown that he acted for himself, and on his own responsibility, he states, that the lands were procured from the sachems by his influence alone. He enumerates several advantages which he enjoyed in this negotiation: “1. A constant, zealous desire to dive into the natives’ language. 2. God was pleased to give me a painful, patient spirit to lodge with them in their filthy, smoky holes, (even while I lived at Plymouth and Salem) to gain their tongue. 3. I spared no cost towards them, and in gifts to Ousamequin, yea, and all his, and to Canonicus, and all his, tokens and presents, many years before I came in person to the Narraganset, and when I came, I was welcome to Ousamequin, and to the old prince Canonicus, who was most shy of all English, to his last breath. 4. I was known by all the Wampanoags and the Narragansets to be a public speaker at Plymouth and Salem, and, therefore, with them, held as a sachem. 5. I could debate with them (in a great measure) in their own language. 6. I had the favor and countenance of that noble soul, Mr. Winthrop, whom all Indians respected.”

He proceeds to state, respecting Canonicus, that “it was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money could have bought of him an English entrance into this Bay.”

In the deed, already quoted, he says, “By God’s merciful assistance, I was 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 me; and also bore the charges and venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great sachems, and other sachems round about us, and lay engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to my great charge and travel.”[^[145]]

These facts prove, that the lands were granted to Mr. Williams, as a personal favor, as an expression of gratitude on the part of the sachems, and as a remuneration for presents, which they had been receiving from him for several years. Mr. Williams, then, was entitled to make the assertion, which is contained in his touching letter to the town of Providence, in 1654: “I have been blamed for parting with Moshassuck, and afterwards Pawtuxet, (which were mine own, as truly as any man’s coat upon his back) without reserving to myself a foot of land, or an inch of voice, more than to my servants and strangers.”[^[146]]

Mr. Williams was thus the legal proprietor of the lands which were ceded to him, and he might have remained so, if he had pleased. He had a clear title from the Indians, and he had, a few years later certainly, sufficient influence with the rulers in England, to obtain a recognition of his rights, and a confirmation of his authority. He might, doubtless, have been, like William Penn, the proprietary of his colony, and might have exercised a control over its government. He would, we may easily believe, have exercised his authority as wisely and beneficially as the great legislator of Pennsylvania. The peace of his settlement and his own comfort would, perhaps, have been promoted, if he had retained this power awhile, instead of committing it to the whole company of settlers, among whom, from the nature of the colony, as a refuge for “all sorts of consciences,” some heterogeneous and discordant tempers might be expected to find admission. That he was blamed for this conduct, we know from his letter to the town of Providence, already quoted;[^[147]] and as that letter was written soon after his return from England, we may infer, that the censure came from leading men there.

But he chose to found his colony on pure democratic principles; as a commonwealth, where all civil power should be exercised by the people alone, and where God should be the only ruler over the conscience.

We will now relate the facts respecting his division of the lands among his associates.

The persons who accompanied him, at his first landing, were William Harris, John Smith, Joshua Verin, Thomas Angell and Francis Wickes. Several others joined him at various times, previously to October 8, 1638, on which day, Mr. Williams executed an instrument, of the following tenor.[^[148]]

“Providence, 8th of the 8th month, 1638, (so called.)

“Memorandum, that I, Roger Williams, having formerly purchased of Canonicus and Miantinomo, this our situation, or plantation, of New Providence,[^[149]] viz. the two fresh rivers, Wanasquatucket and Moshassuck, and the ground and meadows thereupon; in consideration of thirty pounds received from the inhabitants of said place, do freely and fully pass, grant and make over equal right and power of enjoying and disposing of the same grounds and lands unto my loving friends and neighbors, Stukely Westcott, William Arnold, Thomas James, Robert Cole, John Greene, John Throckmorton, William Harris, William Carpenter, Thomas Olney, Francis Weston, Richard Waterman, Ezekiel Holliman, and such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with us:—As also I do freely make and pass over equal right and power of enjoying and disposing of the lands and grounds reaching from the aforesaid rivers unto the great river Pawtuxet, with the grass and meadows thereupon, which was so lately given and granted by the aforesaid sachems to me. Witness my hand,

ROGER WILLIAMS.”[^[150]]

On the 20th of December, 1661, the following deed was executed. It is inserted here, because it is an interesting document, and it throws much light on the transactions which we are considering.

“Be it known unto all men by these presents, that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, having, in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-five, had several treaties with Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two sachems having, by a deed, under their hands, two years after the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God’s merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed for conscience. I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris, Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior, Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior, William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God’s merciful assistance, I was 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 me, and also bore the charges and venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by some loving friends, that I should receive some loving consideration and gratuity, 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 unto 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; and whereas in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven,[^[151]] so called, I delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein, reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way, under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and assigns, never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by, through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one.

“ROGER WILLIAMS, (Seal.[^[152]])

“Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of us, Thomas Smith, Joseph Carpenter. Memorandum, the words, of the purchase, were interlined before these presents were sealed. I, Mary Williams, wife unto Roger Williams, do assent unto the premises. Witness my hand, this twentieth day of December, in this present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one.

The mark of (M. W.) MARY WILLIAMS.[^[153]]

“Acknowledged and subscribed before me,

“WILLIAM FIELD, Assistant.

“Enrolled, April the 6th, 1662, pr. me,

“THOMAS OLNEY, Junr., Town Clerk.”

From this document, it appears, that the twelve persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted.[^[154]]