Читать книгу Memoir of Roger Williams, the Founder of the State of Rhode-Island - James D. Knowles - Страница 7

Table of Contents

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.