The Beginners of a Nation

In this work of propagandism the missionaries did not forget the red men. Their labors among the aborigines were fairly successful at first, then interrupted by relapse and by war. Such is the history of Indian missions. Much was made of the solemn profession and baptism of an Indian "king," at which the governor and other distinguished men "honored by their presence the Christian sacraments," the governor marching behind the neophyte in the procession. Maryland was in fact openly a Catholic colony until after 1640. Note 17. (#x_8_i40)

Failure to make a Catholic state. But as a Catholic colony it was a failure. In fear of the rising Puritan tempest in England, or the violent opposition on several grounds of its stronger neighbor Virginia, and of the mutinous bigotry of its own Puritan settlers, who regarded Baltimore's government as a "Babylon" to be overthrown, it was never able to afford to Catholics perfect security, much less was it able to promise them domination. But the Catholics included most of the rich and influential families, and it was a Jesuit boast that they were superior to other American settlers in breeding and urbanity. As they had choice of the best land in the province, the Catholic families remained during the whole colonial period among the most prominent people of Maryland. [85 - Letters of Missionaries, p. 77. "The Catholics who live in the colony are not inferior in piety to those who live in other countries; but in urbanity of manners, according to the judgment of those who have visited the other colonies, are considered far superior to them." More than a hundred years later the Catholics retained a superiority, according to Updike's Appendix to McSparran, 1752: "The Catholics, having the start in point of time of the after settlers, are also to this day ahead of them in wealth and substance; by which means the first and best families are for the most part still of the Roman communion," p. 492.] There is also evidence that the Catholics were numerically considerable in proportion to the population, though the reports on the subject are vague and conflicting. In 1641 they were about one fourth of the whole. The ranks of the early Catholic settlers, both of the rich and poor, seem to have been recruited from Ireland as well as from England, but the Maryland government in Queen Anne's Protestant time passed acts levying an import tax of twenty pounds on each Irish Catholic servant, in order that the bond servants and even the transported convicts in Maryland should be orthodox Protestants. [86 - The act passed in 1704 was renewed in 1715 and still in force in 1749. I cite from Ogle's Account of Maryland, of the latter date, a manuscript at Landsdowne House, numbered 45, folio 199. In No. 61 at Landsdowne House is a decision of the Attorney-General in England in 1605 that Jesuits may be expelled from Maryland by order of the queen if aliens, but not if they are subjects. The various eighteenth-century enactments against Catholics will be found in Bacon's Laws of Maryland, passim. MS. 15,489, British Museum, cites some of these severe laws and the proceedings taken under them. Strong petitions against these measures were signed by Charles Carroll and others.]

XVII

Opposition to Maryland. George Calvert, the first Baron Baltimore, molded the Maryland enterprise until the drafting of the charter, and his spirit was felt in it after his death. Cecilius, his son, was a man of a somewhat different sort, and his traits became more apparent as time went on. He was strongly supported at court by Strafford, his father's most devoted and obliged friend, and no doubt also by the queen, who was godmother to Maryland. The opposition to Maryland was probably embittered by the hatred to Strafford and the jealousy of a Catholic queen.

The second Lord Baltimore and Virginia. On his enemies in Virginia the younger Baltimore took ample vengeance. He got one of the queen's household appointed treasurer of the colony, and the Virginians found themselves obliged to pay the quitrents, which had been neglected and apparently forgotten. [87 - Gabriel Hawley, Robert Evelin, and Jerome Hawley, appointed to places in Virginia, appear to have been Catholics and partisans of Baltimore. Aspinwall Papers, i, page 101, note.] Other officers of the colony were nominated by Baltimore. Harvey, the governor, hoping to collect money due him from the royal treasury by Baltimore's assistance, was his obsequious tool, to the bitter indignation of the Virginians, who hated Baltimore not only because he was a Romanist, but also because he had divided the first colony and cut off the northern Indian trade from Virginia. In consequence of the quarrel between Harvey and the Virginians over Maryland there ensued a revolution in Virginia; Harvey was shipped to England by the same bold men who had sent the first Lord Baltimore packing. But Harvey was sent back again by the king, and by this counter revolution the colonial constitution of Virginia was modified for the worse. It was altogether an exquisite revenge.

Baltimore seeks to control Virginia. Cecilius meditated even a bolder stroke. He schemed through Windebank to have himself made governor of Virginia, promising to wring out of it eight thousand pounds more of revenue for the king from some neglected sources. To achieve this, he proposed a scheme by which Windebank was to impose on the king's credulity. Secretary Windebank may have recoiled from the part he was to play; it is certain that Charles was not persuaded to hand over Virginia bound hand and foot into the power of the proprietary of the rival colony. [88 - Baltimore's letter bears date February 25, 1637, and is in the Record Office, Colonial Papers, xiv, No. 42. The memorial apparently sent with it is No. 49 in the same volume. Baltimore proposes to reward Windebank for his assistance, and he sets down the very manner in which the secretary is to approach the king with a diplomatic falsehood. Both the letter and memorial are printed in Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, pp. 41, 42.]

XVIII

Cautious policy of Baltimore. Intolerance on the part of the authorities of Maryland directed toward Protestants might have brought a swift overthrow of the whole project. The instructions given for the first voyage already cited show throughout the need for extreme caution in the face of extreme peril. It is required of the governor and commissioners that "they be very careful to preserve the peace amongst all the passengers on shipboard, and that they suffer no scandal nor offense to be given to any of the Protestants." Baltimore's instructions, 15 Nov., 1633, Calvert Papers. The rulers are to instruct the Catholics to be silent "upon all occasions of discourse concerning matter of religion," and those in authority are to "treat the Protestants with as much mildness and favor as justice will permit." These instructions were to hold good after landing, and in one notable case of religious dissension after the arrival in Maryland, justice was meted out against the Catholic offender in a way that showed a disposition to observe this policy of conciliation toward Protestants at the expense of some unfairness toward Catholics. Very early a proclamation was issued for the suppression of all religious disputes, and Copley, the business administrator of the Jesuits, thought they ought to be put down for fear the writings should be sent to the governor of Virginia.

Necessary ambiguity. The ambiguous charter of Maryland was a necessary hypocrisy. The plan of toleration was also inevitable, and it was carried no further than necessity required, for in that age, when toleration was odious, a liberal policy had also its perils. The Act for Church Liberties of 1639 was a fine example of the studied ambidexterity of the Maryland government. It was enacted "that Holy Church within this province shall have all her rights, liberties, and immunities, safe, whole, and inviolate in all things." Holy Church here is a deliberate substitution for "the Church of England" in a similar phrase of Magna Charta. Such an act was worthy of Bunyan's Mr. Facing-both-ways. Interpreted by judges holding office at the will of a Catholic proprietary, it could have but one meaning. For the outside world it might bear another sense. It did all that could be done in the circumstances for the Roman Catholic religion and for Catholic ecclesiastics. [89 - The act was one of those that for some reason of expediency was never read a third time, but was condensed into what would now be called an omnibus bill. The act is given in Bacon's Laws, and is compared by Bozman with Magna Charta. Bozman regards this law of 1639 as an attempt to establish the Roman Catholic religion.]

XIX

Puritan settlers invited. In 1643, Parliament, dominated by Puritans, could not let the distant Maryland province rest in peace. It passed an ordinance making the Earl of Warwick Governor in Chief and Lord High Admiral of all the plantations in America. This act contained covert allusions to papists, Spaniards, and governors recently appointed by the king. [90 - A copy of the ordinance as printed separately at the time is in the Lenox Library. It is reprinted in Churchill's Voyages, viii, 776.] Baltimore met the rising tempest in a way characteristic of him. If he could settle a portion of his province with Puritans they might serve to shield him from the storm. Besides, the Catholic emigration had not proved large, and his province needed inhabitants. He wrote to a Captain Gibbons, of Boston, sending him a commission under the Maryland government, and offering "free liberty of religion and all other privileges" to such of the New England people as were willing to remove to Maryland. Winthrop's Journal, ii, 148, 149. There were those in New England in that day who longed for a more genial climate, but to settle under the authority of a papist was to them much like pitching a tent on the confines of perdition.

Puritans from Virginia. Though Puritans could not be induced to move from New England, it happened that the Puritans living in Virginia were persecuted in this same year by that stanch cavalier and retrograde churchman, Sir William Berkeley, who wanted his parsons to read prayers, but did not like preaching ministers of any sort. 1643. He was new to his government, and had brought over with him plenty of hostility to the party that had affronted his royal master in England. Virginia Puritans had no choice but to suffer or depart, and Maryland was convenient. They began soon after this to seek a refuge under the protection of a proprietary who was a papist and who practiced toleration – two things almost equally hateful to the Puritans. Mr. James, a Puritan minister, tarried in Maryland a short time, as early as 1643; he was probably the only Protestant minister that set foot on Maryland soil before 1650. But the Puritan was never easy unless he was uneasy, and he was sure to be uneasy within when there was none to molest from without. To take an oath of fidelity to a papist was to him swearing fealty to antichrist; but so desirous was Baltimore of Puritan settlers that even the Maryland oath of fidelity was modified, and a saving clause was inserted for the ease of the Puritan conscience. The coming of Puritans who were in sympathy with the Parliament in England and who abhorred a tolerant papist, contributed something to the multifarious turmoils of the following years.

XX

Maryland turmoils. What we know of the petty civil wars of Maryland is tedious and perplexing. The broils before 1649 sprang from diverse sources, some of which we know, others we may easily conjecture. There was the old claim of Claiborne to jurisdiction over Kent Island; there was a disposition on the part of some of the Marylanders to relieve the tedium of existence by taking a hand in the great struggle against royal authority which was rending England; there was the tendency common in frontier communities to carry debates to a violent issue; there was perhaps a natural proneness to insurrection on the part of bond servants and men lately out of service; and there was an innate hunger for spoil of any sort in the seamen of that age and in the rougher class on shore. [91 - It is extremely curious that, in the letters of one of the Jesuits reporting the attack upon them in 1645, he should have used an expressive word hitherto supposed to be very modern and American. He says that the assault was made "by a party of 'rowdies' or marauders." From the way in which the sentence is printed in the Records of the Society of Jesus, iii, 387, I suppose that in the original manuscript the English word "rowdies" is given and explained by a Latin equivalent.] But by 1648 the tempest had passed for the time; order had been reestablished; the Catholic and the Puritan were living in peace like the lion and the lamb of Hebrew prophecy; and the Catholic proprietary, always promptly bending before the storm, had delegated his authority to a Protestant governor who took the Parliament side.

XXI

The Act of 1649. Before this epoch Maryland toleration had been merely a practical fact. It had not been theoretically stated; it had not been a matter of legislation at all; its extent and limitations were unknown. But now that this colonial home of Catholics was to be a land of Protestants, and particularly of Puritans, it was necessary to formulate the principle of toleration, the more, that Baltimore's own co-religionists were to be put under a Protestant governor. Governor and high officers of state were required to swear that they would molest on account of religion no person professing to believe in Jesus Christ, "and in particular no Roman Catholic." By the mere march of events it had come to pass that in the state founded by Catholics as a cradle for the Roman Catholic religion, the Catholic was now compelled to secure as best he could the toleration of his religion at the hands of the heretic. Part of Baltimore's plan for this new settlement of affairs involved the sending over of a code of perpetual laws to be adopted by the Assembly. The proprietary gave orders that the governor should not assent to any of these laws if all were not passed; but the Assembly of Maryland farmers was too cunning to be entrapped into passing laws which it thought inconvenient and unjust. A humble letter was sent from the members to the lord proprietary complaining that they were "illeterate" and "void of that Understanding and Comprehension" necessary to the discussion of such a code, and that in April they were too busy with their "necessary employment in a Crop" to give attention to it. They selected certain acts out of the code which they passed, among which was the famous Act of Toleration of 1649. That this was part of the code sent from England there can be no doubt; the "illeterate" colonists were not capable of framing it, and it bears the character-mark of the Baltimore policy throughout. Here is no philosophic theory of toleration, no far-reaching conclusion like that of Roger Williams, that the magistrate may not take cognizance of merely religious offences. Williams was a thinker, a doctrinary, too far in advance of his age to be the successful organizer of a new state. Baltimore, on the other hand, accepted a practical toleration as an expedient – he may even have come to believe in it as a theory by force of his own situation. But he was not primarily a thinker at all. Even here, where Baltimorean toleration reaches high tide, no philosophic congruity is sought. The Jew and the Unitarian who deny the divinity of Christ are to be put to death. Only so much toleration is granted as is needful to the occasion. And even this toleration is not put upon any other ground than public policy; the forcing of conscience in religion "hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence"; therefore this law is made "to preserve mutual love and amity amongst the inhabitants." The provisions against such offences as blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking and religious disputes precede those for toleration. Very politic is the arrangement by which reviling of God is made a capital offence, while reviling the Virgin Mary is adroitly associated with speeches against the "holy apostles or evangelists" as a sort of second-class blasphemy, a finable offence. [92 - Charles, the third Lord Baltimore, writes in defense of the Maryland policy of toleration under date of March 26, 1678: "That at the first planteing of this Provynce of my ffather – Albeit he had an absolute Liberty given to him and his heires to carry thither any Persons out of any the Dominions that belonged to the Crown of England that should be found Wylling to goe thither, yett when he comes to make use of this Liberty He found very few who were inclyned to goe and seat themselves in those parts But such as for some Reasons or other could not Lyve with ease in other places, And of these a great parte were such as could not conforme in all particulars to the severall Lawes of England relateing to Religion. Many there were of this sort of people who declared their Wyllingness to goe and Plant themselves In this Provynce soe as they might have a generall toleračon settled there by a Lawe by which all of all sorts that professed Christianity in Generall might be at liberty to worship God in such manner as was most agreeable with their respective Judgments and Consciences without being Subject to any Penaltyes whatever for their soe doing." Colonial Papers, vol. xlix, Record Office. Compare Leah and Rachel, p. 23, where the author also implies that the Act of Toleration was a concession to Puritan demands.]

Vicissitudes of toleration. And yet it was toleration, and the law was all the more influential as an example, perhaps, because it was only practical and quite incongruous. It was eminently prudent and statesmanlike. That it was not perpetually effective was the fault not of Baltimore but of the times. Puritan ideas were rampant. The government of the proprietary was overthrown; the Jesuits fled to the inhospitable Virginia, where they lived concealed in a low hut like a cistern or a tomb, not lamenting their physical privations so much as the lack of wine which deprived them of the consolation of the sacrament. The new government of Maryland, five years after Baltimore's famous "act concerning Religion," passed a new act with the same title – an act brusque and curt, a law with its boots and spurs on. "That none profess and exercise the papist religion" is its rude forbidding. The tables are turned; it is no longer the nonresident Jew and the hypothetical Unitarian who are excepted. But the wheels rolled swiftly once more, and in three years Cecilius, absolute lord and proprietary, was again master of Maryland, and the beneficent act of 1649 resumed its sway. It protected the Catholic element, which, though always rich and influential, came to be in latter colonial times but about a twelfth of the population. Toleration also served to make Maryland an early dwelling place for abounding Quakers and others holding religious views not relished in colonies less liberal.

CHAPTER THE SECOND.

THE PROPHET OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

I

Centrifugal forces in Massachusetts. The centrifugal force of religious differences acted with disastrous results in Maryland, because the Catholic party, which had always a controlling negative there through the proprietary, was in the minority. The Massachusetts people, on the other hand, were fairly homogeneous in religious opinion, and their government was admirably compacted. In Massachusetts religious sentiment was a powerful centripetal force. Magistrates and ministers were nicely poised, and each order relied upon the other to maintain existing conditions. If the magistrates were perplexed or were seriously opposed, the elders were called in to advise or to lend a powerful ecclesiastical sanction to the rulers. When any disturbance of church order was threatened, the magistrates came to the front and supported the clergy with the sharp smiting of the secular arm. In the magistracy and in the ranks of the clergy were men of unusual prudence and ability. If the little Puritan commonwealth seemed a frail canoe at first, it was navigated – considering its smallness one might rather say it was paddled – most expertly. But in Massachusetts, as well as in Maryland, religious opinion was the main source of disturbance. The all-pervading ferment of the time could not be arrested, and more than once it produced explosion. Now one and now another prophet of novelty or prophet of retrogression arose to be dealt with for religious errors; there were divergences from the strait path of Puritanism in the direction of a return to Church of England usage, divergences in the direction of extreme Separatism, in the direction of the ever-dreaded "Anabaptism," in the direction of Arianism, and of so-called Antinomianism. In the case of the Antinomians, the new movement was able to shelter itself under the authority of the younger Vane, then governor, and for a while under the apparent sanction of the powerful Cotton. But no other religious disturbance was ever allowed to gather head enough to become dangerous to the peace and unity of the little state. Dislike as we may the principles on which uniformity was enforced, we must admire the forehanded statesmanship of the Massachusetts leaders in strangling religious disturbances at birth, as Pharaoh's midwives did infant Hebrews.

II

Early life of Roger Williams. One of the most formidable of all those who ventured to assail the compact phalanx presented by the secular and religious authorities of Massachusetts was Roger Williams. N. Eng. Hist., Gen. Reg., July, 1889. Williams was the son of a merchant tailor of London. He manifested in boyhood that quickness of apprehension which made him successful in acquiring languages later in life. Before he was fifteen the precocious lad was employed in the Star Chamber in taking notes of sermons and addresses in shorthand, and his skill excited the surprise and admiration of Sir Edward Coke. Coke had found time, in the midst of a tempestuous public career and the arduous private studies that brought him permanent renown, to defend the legacy which founded the new Sutton's Hospital, later known as the Charter-House School. Indorsement of Mrs. Sadleir on Williams's letter, transcript, Lenox Library; also in Narragansett Club, Pub. VI. Of this school he was one of the governors, and he appointed young Roger Williams to a scholarship there, Williams being the second pupil that ever gained admission to that nursery of famous men. His natural inclination to industry in his studies was quickened by the example and encouragement of Coke, who was wont to say that he who would harrow what Roger Williams had sown must rise early. From the Charter House Williams went to Pembroke College, Cambridge. He early manifested sincere piety and a tendency to go to extremes in his Puritan scruples. Even in his father's house he had begun to taste the bitterness of persecution. His eager temper transformed his convictions into downright passions; his integrity was an aggressive force, and there was a precipitation in his decisions and actions that was trying to his friends. [93 - Sir William Martin, an early friend of Williams, describes him as passionate and precipitate, but with integrity and good intentions. Hutchinson Papers, 106. See also, for example, the two letters of Williams to Lady Barrington, in New England Genealogical Register, July, 1889, pp. 316 and following.] From an early period he showed a conscience intolerant of prudent compromises. Puritanism had contrived to exist and to grow to formidable strength within the church by means of such compromises. Hooker and Cotton, two of the greatest luminaries of that party and afterward the lights that lightened New England, one day urged on the impetuous Williams the propriety of temporarily conforming in the use of the common prayer. By conceding so much to the judgment of his revered elders, Williams would have removed the only obstacle to his advancement, for preferment was offered to the clever and exemplary protégé of Coke in the universities, in the city, in the country, and at court. [94 - Letter to John Cotton the younger, 25th March, 1671. "He knows what gains and preferments I have refused in universities, city, country and court," etc. Williams's enthusiastic nature gave a flush of color to his statement of ordinary fact, the general correctness of which, however, there is never reason to doubt.] But neither interest nor example could sway the impractical young minister. He took refuge, like other extreme Puritans, in a private chaplaincy, and refused all compromise, in order, as he afterward declared, to keep his "soul undefiled in this point and not to act with a doubting conscience." Most men feel bound to obey conscience only where it clearly commands or forbids; good men may act on the balance of probabilities where there is doubt; but this young man would not do anything concerning which his moral judgment felt the slightest halting. Here is the key to his whole career; his strength lay in his aspiration for a soul undefiled; his weakness, in that he was ever a victim to the pampered conscience of an ultraist. Property of some thousands of pounds, that might have been his had he been willing to make oath in the form required in chancery, he renounced to his scruples. It certainly seemed rash in a young man just setting out in life, with a young wife to care for, to indulge in such extravagant luxury of scruple.

III

Flight of Williams from England. Laud succeeded in hunting the non-conforming Puritans from their lectureships and chaplaincies. It became with Williams no longer a question of refusing preferments on both hands with lavish self-denial, but of escaping the harsh penalties reserved for such as he by the Courts of High Commission and the Star Chamber. There was nothing left but to betake himself to New England for safety. Williams's letter to Mrs. Sadleir, as above. He fled hurriedly across country on horseback, feeling it "as bitter as death" that he dared not even say farewell to his great patron Sir Edward Coke, who detested schism.

Arrival in New England. Here, as in after life, the supreme hardship he suffered was not mere exile, but that exile of the spirit which an affectionate man feels when he is excommunicate of those he loves. His escape by sea was probably the more difficult because he was unwilling to "swallow down" the oath exacted of those who emigrated. But he succeeded in sailing with his young wife, and in 1631 this undefiled soul, this dauntless and troublesome extremist, landed in New England. He was invited to become one of the ministers of the Boston church. [95 - Letter to John Cotton the younger, Narragansett Club Publications, vi, 356. There is no account of this event elsewhere, but the church records of that early date are imperfect, and there is every reason to accept the circumstantial statement of Williams. That he refused to enter into membership with the church is confirmed by Winthrop's Journal, 12th April, 1631, and such refusal must have had some such occasion.] But Williams was conscientiously a Separatist, and he refused to enter into communion with the Boston congregation because of its position with reference to the church in England.

This protest by withdrawal of communion was a fundamental principle of Separatism. It was not, as it appears on the surface, a manifestation of uncharitableness toward persons, but a solemn protest by act in favor of a principle. [96 - "We have often tried your patience, but could never conquer it," were Winthrop's words to Williams, who gave to Massachusetts lifelong service in return for its lifelong severity toward him. The sentence is quoted in Williams's letter to the younger Cotton, cited above, which is itself a fine example of his magnanimity of spirit. Narragansett Club Publications, vi, 351-357.] Never was any man more forgiving, long-suffering, and charitable toward opponents than Williams, but never was a man less inclined to yield a single jot in the direction of compromise where his convictions were involved, whatever might be the evils sure to result from his refusal.

IV

Williams at Salem. Williams repaired first to Salem, the north pole of Puritanism, where the pioneer church of Massachusetts had a more Separatist tone than any other. In the phrase of the time, no other churches in the world were so "pure" as the New England churches, and Salem was accounted the "purest" church in New England. Its surviving minister, Skelton, and its principal layman, Endecott, both tended to extreme Congregationalism; but the General Court of the colony protested against the selection of Williams to be one of the ministers of the Salem church. Skelton's Separatist tendencies, Endecott's impetuous radicalism, and Salem's jealous rivalry with the younger town of Boston, were already sources of anxiety to the rulers. The addition of Williams to these explosive forces was alarming. Williams's ecclesiastical ideals were not those which the leaders of the colony had devoted their lives and fortunes to establish. Had this young radical been less conscientious, less courageous, less engagingly good and admirable, there would not have been so much reason to fear him. A letter was written to Endecott protesting against Williams's ordination, because he had refused communion with the church at Boston, and because he denied the power of the magistrate to enforce duties of the first table – that is, duties of religion. Winthrop's Journal, i, 63, 12th April, 1631. Here at the very outset of his American life we find that Williams had already embraced the broad principle that involved the separation of church and state and the most complete religious freedom, and had characteristically pushed this principle to its logical result some centuries in advance of the practice of his age. [97 - There is difference of opinion on this point, but certain words of Williams himself seem to bear on it. After his retirement from Salem to Plymouth he received a letter from Winthrop, which appears to have intimated that no man under twenty-five ought to be ordained. Williams explains in reply that he is "nearer upwards of thirty than twenty-five," but avers, "I am no elder in any church … nor ever shall be, if the Lord please to grant my desires that I may intend what I long after, the natives souls." Williams's Letter, Narragansett Club Publications, vi, 2. Of course, these words might have been written if he had resigned the eldership before leaving Salem, but they would have had much less pertinency.Note 6, page 276. (#x_9_i3) Mr. Straus, in his Life of Roger Williams, says aptly that Massachusetts was under a government of congregations rather than of towns, since only church members could vote. A fuller discussion of the source and evolution of the town system is deferred to a later volume of this series.] The protest of the court prevented his ordination. He yielded to the opposition and soon after removed to Plymouth, where the people were Separatists, modified by the conservative teachings of John Robinson, somewhat modified also by the responsibility of founding a new state, and perhaps by association with Puritans of the neighboring colony.

Williams at Plymouth. At Plymouth the young idealist "prophesied" in his turn, but did not take office in the church, which already had a pastor in Ralph Smith, the Separatist, who had been suffered to come over in a Massachusetts ship only on his giving a promise not to preach in that jurisdiction without leave. The congregation at Plymouth was poor, and Roger Williams mainly supported himself by hard toil "at the hoe and the oar" – that is, perhaps, in farming and fishing. His body seems to have been vigorous, and no physical fatigue abated anything of his mental activity. The Pilgrims had passed more than twelve years in Holland, and almost every adult in Plymouth must have known Dutch. Those of Roger Williams's own age, who were children when they migrated to Leyden and men when they left, probably spoke it as well as they did their mother tongue. Maverick's Description of New England, 25. The Plymouth people, indeed, were styled "mungrell Dutch" a quarter of a century later. It is probable that Williams, with his usual eagerness to acquire knowledge, now added Dutch to his stock of languages; it is certain that he afterward taught Dutch to John Milton. But he was still more intent on learning the language of the natives, that he might do them good. He resolved not to accept office as pastor or teacher, but to give himself to work among the Indians. Williams to Winthrop, 1632. Perhaps his tendency to individualism made this prospect pleasing to him. He may have begun already to realize in a half-conscious way that there was scant room in any organization for such as he. The learning of the Indian language was an arduous toil in more ways than one. "God was pleased to give me a painful patient spirit," wrote Williams long after, "to lodge with them in their filthy, smoky holes to gain their tongue." He afterward wrote an excellent treatise on the dialect of the New England Indians.

Writes against the royal patents. At Plymouth Williams spoke, as he had at Salem, without restraint from any motive of expediency or even of propriety. Separatist Plymouth, whose days of advance were over, was a little disturbed by his speech. In his own sweet, reckless way he sometimes sharply rebuked even the revered Bradford when he thought him at fault. And in the interest of the aborigines and of justice Williams laid before Governor Bradford a manuscript treatise which argued that the king had no right to give away, as he had assumed to do in his grants and charters, the lands of the Indians merely because he was a Christian and they heathen. That it was right to wrong a man because he was not orthodox in belief could find no place in the thoughts of one whose conscience was wholly incapable of sophistication. Bradford accepted candidly the rebukes of Williams and loved him for his "many precious parts." Bradford, 310. But as governor of a feeble colony he was disturbed by Williams's course. In spirituality, unselfish fearlessness, and a bold pushing of Separatist principles to their ultimate logical results, Roger Williams reminded the Pilgrims of the amiable pastor of the Separatist church in Amsterdam whose change step by step to "Anabaptism," the great bugbear of theology in that time, had been a tragedy and a scandal to the Separatists of Leyden. Knowles's Life of Williams, 53. Elder Brewster feared that Williams would run the same course. Williams wished to return to Salem, where he might still devote himself to the neighboring Indians, and assist Skelton, now declining in health. Brewster persuaded the Plymouth church to give him a letter of dismissal. Williams returns to Salem. The leading Pilgrims felt bound to send "some caution" to the Salem church regarding the extreme tendencies of Williams. On the other hand, some of the Plymouth people were so captivated by his teachings and his personal character that they removed with him. This following of an approved minister was common among Puritans; an acceptable preacher was of as much value to a town as good meadows, broad pastures, and pure water.

V

The town system. To understand the brief career of Williams at Salem and its catastrophe, we must recall the character of colonial life in Massachusetts at the time. There were already sixteen settlements or "towns" on the shores of Massachusetts Bay, with an indefinite stretch of gloomy wilderness for background, the dwelling place of countless savages and wild beasts. The population of all the settlements may have summed up five thousand people – enough to have made one prosperous village. The inhabitants of the various towns of the bay were from different parts of England; their dress and dialect were diverse, and their Puritanism was of various complexions. The town system, at first a reproduction on new soil of the township field communes that had subsisted in parts of England from ages beyond the fountain heads of tradition, gave some play to local peculiarities and prejudices. There is evidence that the central government relieved itself from strain by means of this rural borough system. The ancient town system in turn appears to have taken on a new youth; it was perhaps modified and developed by the local diversity of the people, and it lent to Massachusetts, at first, something of the elasticity of a federal government. Note 6. (#x_10_i5)

Life in the Massachusetts settlements. This community of scattered communes was cut off from frequent intercourse with the world, for the sea was far wider and more to be feared in that day of small ships and imperfect navigation than it is now. 1630 to 1640. The noise of the English controversies in which the settlers had once borne a part reached them at long intervals, like news from another planet. But most of the time these lonesome settlements had no interest greater than the petty news and gossip of little forest hamlets. The visitor who came afoot along Indian trails, or by water, paddling in a canoe, to Boston on lecture day, might bring some news of sickness, accident, or death. Sometimes the traveling story was exciting, as that wolves had slaughtered the cattle at a certain place, while yet cattle were few and precious. Or still more distressing intelligence came that the ruling elder of the church at Watertown had taken the High-church position that Roman churches were Christian churches, or that democratic views had been advanced by Eliot of Roxbury. A new and far-fetched prophetical explanation of a passage in the Book of Canticles, and a tale of boatmen wrecked in some wintry tempest, might divide the attention of the people. Stories of boats capsized, of boatmen cast on islands where there was neither shelter nor food, of boats driven far to sea and heard of no more, were staples of excitement in these half-aquatic towns; and if the inmates of a doomed boat had been particularly profane, these events were accounted edifying – divine judgments on the ungodly. When the governor wandered once and lost himself in the forest, passing the night in a deserted wigwam, there was a sensation of a half-public character. That a snake and a mouse had engaged in a battle, and that the puny mouse had triumphed at last, was in one budget of traveling news that came to Boston. To this event an ominous significance was given by John Wilson, pastor of the Boston church, maker of anagrams, solemn utterer of rhyming prophecies which were sometimes fulfilled, and general theological putterer. Wilson made the snake represent the devil, according to all sound precedents; the mouse was the feeble church in the wilderness, to which God would give the victory over Satan. Thus enhanced by an instructive interpretation from the prophet and seer of the colony, the story no doubt took up its travels once more, and now with its hopeful exegesis on its back. The Massachusetts mouse was an auspicious creature; it is recorded by the governor, and it was no doubt told along the coast, that one got into a library and committed depredations on a book of common prayer only, nibbling every leaf of the liturgy, while it reverently spared a Greek Testament and a Psalter in the same covers.

In a petty state with a range of intellectual interests so narrow, the conflict between Williams and the General Court took place.

VI

Self-consciousness of the Massachusetts community. It was a community that believed in its own divine mission. It traced the existence of its settlements to the very hand of God – the God who led Israel out of Egypt. The New England colonists never forgot that they were a chosen people. Upon other American settlers – the Dutch in New Netherland, the Virginia churchmen, the newly landed Marylanders, with their admixture of papists – they looked with condescension if not with contempt, accounting them the Egyptians of the New World. [98 - David Pieterzen de Vries, in his Voyages, reports this feeling of superiority as freely expressed at Hartford in 1639. There is a quaint humor in what he says of it that is enhanced by the naïve Dutch phrase in which it is set down: "Dit Volck gaven haer uyt det sy Israëliten waren, ende dat wy aen onse colonie Egyptenaren waren, end' Engelsen inde Vergienies waren mede Egyptenaren," p. 151.] The settlers on the Bay of Massachusetts were certain that their providential exodus was one of the capital events in human history; that it had been predesigned from eternity to plant here, in a virgin world, the only true form of church government and to cherish a church that should be a model to the Old World in turn, and a kind of foreshadowing of the new heaven and the new earth. Some dreamed that the second coming of Christ would take place among the rocky woodlands of New England. The theocratical government was thought to be the one most pleasing to God, and a solemn obligation was felt to import into this new theocracy the harsh Oriental intolerance which had marked that fierce struggle in which the Jewish tribes finally shook off image worship.

John Cotton, 1633. The apostle of theocracy who arrived soon after Williams's return to Salem was John Cotton, a Puritan leader in England, in whom devoutness was combined with extreme discretion, a dominant will with a diplomatic prudence and a temper never ruffled. Cotton's ingenious refinements made him a valuable apologist in an age of polemics, but they often served to becloud his vision of truth and right. He was prone to see himself as he posed, in the character of a protagonist of truth. He gave wise advice to the Massachusetts Puritans at their departure from England. When, a few years later, Laud's penetrating vigilance and relentless thoroughness made even Cotton's well-balanced course of mild non-conformity impossible, he fled from his parish of Boston, in Lincolnshire, to London, and escaped in 1633 with difficulty to the new Boston in New England. As John Cotton had been the shining candle of Puritanism in England, his arrival in America was hailed with joy, and from the time of his settlement in the little capital his was the hand that shaped ecclesiastical institutions in New England, and he did much also to mold the yet plastic state. [99 - "And such was the authority … Mr. Cotton had in the hearts of the people, that whatever he delivered in the pulpit was soon put into an Order of Court, if of a civil, or set up as a practice in the church, if of an ecclesiastical concernment." Hubbard, History of Massachusetts, 182.] Though he usually avoided the appearance of personal antagonism, every formidable rival he had left Massachusetts early. Williams, Hooker, Davenport, and Hugh Peter all found homes beyond the bounds of the colony. There can not be two queen bees in one hive, nor can there well be more than one master mind in the ecclesiastical order of a petty theocratic state. It was the paradox of colonial religious organization that the Episcopal colonies had parishes almost independent of all supervision, while the New England Congregationalists were, from the arrival of Cotton, subject to the dominance of ministers who virtually attained to the authority of bishops.

VII

Salem refractory. Salem, the oldest town of the commonwealth, was the most ready to pursue an independent course and it was attached to Williams, whose ability attracted new settlers and who maintained a position of independence toward Cotton and the authorities at Boston. To subdue the refractory Salem was no doubt one of the secondary purposes of the proceedings against Williams. There seems to have been no personal animosity toward Williams himself; his amiable character and his never-doubted sincerity were main obstacles to his punishment.

Collision inevitable. The return of Roger Williams to such a place as Salem was naturally a matter of alarm to the ministers and magistrates of Massachusetts. Collision was not a matter of choice on either side. The catastrophe was like one that comes from the irresistible action of physical forces. In a colony planted at great cost to maintain one chosen form of worship and subordinating all the powers of government to this purpose, a preacher who asserted the necessity for a complete separation of religion and government in the interest of soul liberty had no place. His ideal was higher than the prevailing one, but that age could not possibly rise to it.

VIII

The book against the patent. Williams was yet only a private member of the church in Salem, but in the illness of the pastor he "exercised by way of prophecy" – that is, preached without holding office. An alarming report was soon in circulation that he had written a book against the king's patent, the foundation of the colonial authority. This treatise, we have said, was written in Plymouth for the benefit of Governor Bradford. [100 - Knowles's Life of Williams, 58, note, quotes from a letter of Coddington's appended to Fox's reply to Williams, in which Coddington, who was one of the magistrates that examined the treatise, charges Williams with having "written a quarto against the King's patent and authority."] Like many of the manuscript books that have come down to us, it appears to have been a small quarto, and, if it resembled other books of the sort, it was neatly stitched and perhaps even bound by its author in the favorite pigskin of the time. Williams sent his book promptly to be examined. Some of the "most judicious ministers much condemned Mr. Williams's error and presumption," and an order was made that he "should be convented at the next court." In the charges no fault was found with the main thesis of the book, that the king could not claim and give away the lands of the Indians; but it was thought that there were disloyal reflections cast upon both James and Charles – at least those eager to condemn construed the obscure and "implicative phrases" of Williams in that sense – and these supposed reflections were the subject of the charges. Williams wrote a submissive letter, and offered his book, or any part of it, to be burned after the manner of that time. A month later, when the governor and council met, the whole aspect of the affair had changed. Cotton and Wilson, the teacher and the pastor of the Boston church, certified, after examination of Williams's quarto, that "they found the matters not so evil as at first they seemed." It was decided to let Williams off easily. There are some things unexplained about the affair; the eagerness of the "judicious ministers" and court to condemn without due examination, the failure even to specify the objectionable passages at last, and the unwonted docility of Williams – all leave one to infer that there was more in this transaction than appears. Laud and his associates were moving to have the Massachusetts charter vacated, and it may have seemed imprudent for the magistrates to found their authority on a base so liable to disappear. If the charter had been successfully called in, Williams's ground of the sufficiency of the Indian title to lands might have proved useful as a last resort. Williams asserted, long afterward, that before his troubles began he had drafted a letter addressed to the king, "not without the approbation of some of the chiefs of New England," whose consciences were also "tender on this point before God." Reply to Cotton, 276, 277. This letter humbly acknowledged "the evil of that part of the patent which relates" to the gift of lands. Had the letter been sent to its destination it would have cut a curious figure among the worldly-minded state papers of the time.

An abstract principle. It is probable that most of the land of the colony had been secured from the natives by purchase or by treaty of some sort; at least the Indians were content, and the little quarto had at that time no practical bearing whatever, but that did not matter to Williams. The more abstract a question of right and wrong, the more he relished a discussion of it. It was of a piece with his exquisite Separatism, a mere standing up in the face of heaven and earth for an abstract principle. His purpose was not to right a specific and concrete wrong, for there had been none, but to assert as a broad principle of everlasting application that a Christian king may not dispose of the land owned by heathens merely because of his Christianity. Williams was not a judge or a lawgiver; he was a poet in morals, enamored of perfection, and keeping his conscience purer than Galahad's.

IX

The alarm. It was in the winter of 1633-'34 that the book about the patent was called in question. Skelton, pastor of Salem, died in the following August, and the Salem people, in spite of an injunction from the magistrates, made Williams their teacher in his stead. 1634. The country was now full of alarm at news from England that the charter was to be revoked, that a general governor of New England was to be appointed, and that a force was to be sent to support his authority. Laud was put at the head of a commission for the government of the colonies in April, 1634. There could be no doubt of the meaning of this measure. For more than a year the alarm in Massachusetts continued. The ministers were consulted regarding the lawfulness of resistance to force. A platform was constructed on the northeast side of Castle Island, and a fortified house was proposed to defend the platform. The trainbands were drilled, muskets, "bandeleroes" or cartridge belts, and rests were distributed to the several towns, and pikemen were required to learn to use the cumbrous musket of the time. Puritans in England, angry that Laud, the new archbishop and old persecutor, should stretch a long arm to America, sent powder and cannon to their co-religionists, the object of whose military vigilance could easily be covered by dangers from the savages, from the French, or from the Spaniards.

Debates not appeased. But these assiduous preparations, under the supervision of a military commission which had "power of life and limb," did not abate in the least the discussion of questions of doctrine and casuistry. Refinements of theology were quite as real and substantial to the Puritan mind as trainbands and fortifications. Sound doctrine and a scrupulous observance of the "ordinances" conciliated God; they were indeed more important elements of public safety than drakes and demi-culverins.

Reform in dress. The General Court of September, 1634, undertook to provide for the public safety in both respects. Mass. Records, 3d September, 1634. Along with regulations and provisions of a military nature, it set out to remove those flagrant sins that had provoked the divine wrath. The wearing of silver, gold, and rich laces, girdles, and hatbands was forbidden; slashed clothes were also abolished, "other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back"; ruffs and beaver hats, which last were apparently a mark of dudishness, were not to be allowed. Long hair and other fashions "prejudicial to the general good" were done away with in this hour of penitence. Compare Ward's Simple Cobbler, passim. Men and women might wear out the clothes they had, except their "immoderate great sleeves, slashed apparel, immoderate great rayles, long wings," which were to go at once without reprieve or ceremony. The use of tobacco, socially and in public, or before strangers was made an offense. If taken secretly or medicinally, the Court did not take cognizance of it.

X

The fast-day sermon. Seeing that the millinery sins recounted in this act had cried to Heaven, and that, beside the danger from England, there was the desire of Hooker's party to remove to the Connecticut, and a dissension concerning the power of the Upper House that threatened trouble, the Court appointed the 18th of September a solemn fast-day, hoping by repentance, prayer, and the penance of hunger to avert the manifold disasters that threatened them. 1634. Roger Williams was sure to speak like a prophet on such an occasion. He did not stop at slashed garments, great sleeves, and headdresses with long wings; he preached on eleven "public sins" that had provoked divine wrath. We have no catalogue left us. The list may have included some of those amusing scruples that he held in common with other Puritans, or some of those equally trivial personal scruples that Williams cherished so fondly. But no sermon of his on public sins could fail to contain a declaration of his far-reaching and cherished principle of religious freedom, including perhaps a round denunciation of the petty inquisition into private opinion which had been set up in Massachusetts. The Sabbath law, the law obliging men to pay a tax to support religious worship, the requirement that all should attend religious worship under penalty, and the enforcement of a religious oath on irreligious and perhaps unwilling residents, the assumption of the magistrate to regulate the orthodoxy of a church under the advice of the ministers, were points of Massachusetts law and administration that he denounced at various times; and some of them, if not all, were no doubt put in pillory in this fast-day sermon in the early autumn of 1634. Judged by modern standards, the sermon may have had absurdities enough, but it was no doubt a long way in advance of the General Court's mewling about lace, and slashes, and long hair, and other customs "prejudicial to the general good." To this sermon, whatever it was, Williams afterward attributed the beginning of the troubles that led to his banishment.