THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
Se ee ee
his Indian friends, who gave him such entertainment as they could. ‘I was sorely tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.” In June he arrived at the present site of Providence and, having secured land from the natives, he admitted to equal rights with himself twelve “loving friends and neighbors ”’ (several had come to him from Massachusetts since the opening of spring). It was provided that ‘‘such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with us ”’ from time to time should become members of their commonwealth. Obedience to the majority was promised by all, but “ only in civil things.” In 1640 another agreement was signed by thirty-nine freemen, in which they express their determination “ still to hold forth liberty of conscience.” In 1643 Williams was sent to England by his fellow citizens to secure a charter for the colony. The Puritans were then in power, and through the good offices of Sir Henry Vane a thoroughly democratic charter was readily obtained. In 1647 a somewhat similar but larger colony having been planted on Rhode Island by William Coddington, John Clarke, and others, Providence was united with the Rhode Island towns under a single government, and liberty of conscience was again proclaimed. Disagreement having arisen between Providence and Warwick on the mainland and the towns on the island and between the followers of Clarke on the island and those of Coddington, Coddington had gone to England and in 1651 had secured from the council of state a commission to rule the islands of Rhode Island and Conanicut. This arrangement left Providence and Warwick to themselves. Coddington’s scheme was strongly disapproved by Williams and Clarke and their followers, especially as it seemed to involve a federation of Coddington’s domain with Massachusetts and Connecticut and a consequent imperiling of liberty of conscience not only on the islands but also in Providence and Warwick, which would be left unprotected. Many of the opponents of Coddington were by this time Baptists. Later in the same year Williams and Clarke went to England on behalf of their friends to secure from Cromwell’s government the annulling of Coddington’s charter and the recognition of the colony as a republic dependent only on England. This they succeeded in accomplishing, and Williams soon returned to Providence. To the end of his life he continued to take a deep interest in public affairs.
In 1688 several Massachusetts Christians who had been led to adopt antipedobaptist views and found themselves subject to persecution removed to Providence. Most of these had probably been
under Williams’ influence while he was
Relations in Massachusetts, and some of them with the may have been influenced by English Baptists. antipedobaptists before they left Eng-
land. Williams himself probably knew of the Arminian antipedobaptist party of which John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and John Murton were founders (1609) and of the rich literature in advoeacy of liberty of conscience produced by this party after its return to England (see Baptists, i
1, §§ 1-9). He could hardly have failed to learn something of the Calvinistic antipedobaptist party that arose in London in 1638, a short time after his departure, led by Spilsbury, Eaton, and others. It is not likely that Williams adopted antipedobaptist views before his: banishment from Massachusette, for antipedobaptism was not laid to his account by his opponents. Winthrop attributes Williams’ “‘ Anabaptist ’’ views to the influence of Mrs. Scott, a sister of Anne Hutchinson, the Antinomian (see ANTINOMIANISM AND ANTINOMIAN Con- TROVERSIES, II., 2). It is probable that Ezekiel Holliman came to Providence as an antipedobaptist and joined with Mrs. Scott in impressing upon Williams the importance of believers’ baptism. About Mar., 1639, Williams was baptized by Holliman and immediately proceeded to baptize Holliman and eleven others. Thus was constituted the first Baptist church in America, which still survives. Williams remained with the little church only a few months. He became convinced that the ordinances having been lost in the apostasy could not be validly restored without a special divine commission. He assumed the attitude of a “Seeker” or ‘‘ Comeouter,”’ always deeply religious and active in the propagation of Christian truth, yet not feeling satisfied that any body of Christians had all of the marks of the true Church. He continued on the most friendly terms with the Baptists, being in agreement with them in their rejection of infant baptism as in most other matters. Williams’ religious and ecclesiastical attitude is well expressed in the following sentences (1643): ‘‘ The two first principles and foundations of true religion, or worship of the true God in Christ, are repentance from dead works and faith toward God, before the doctrines of baptism or washing and the laying on of hands, which continue the ordinances and practises of worship; the want of which I conceive is the bane of millions of souls in England and all other nations professing to be Christian nations, who are brought by public authority to baptism and _ fellowship with God in ordinances of worship, before the saving work of repentance and a true turning to God.”
Williams’ career as an author began with A Key into the Language of America (London, 1643), written during his first voyage to England. His next publication was Mr. Cotton’s Letter lately Printed, Examined and Answered (London, 1644; reprinted, with Cotton’s letter, which it answered, in Publications of the Narragansett Club, vol. ii.). Soon after Williams’ banishment he had written to John Cotton of Boston, bitterly complaining of the treatment he had received from the Massachusetts authorities. Cotton had written a long letter in reply, in which he sought to win him from the error of his way and at the same time to justify his banishment. Cotton expressed the opinion in this letter that if Williams had perished in the wilderness his blood would have been upon his own head. Williams examines minutely Cotton’s argument, elaborately states his own position, and defends his attitude toward the Massachusetts authorities. The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience soon followed (London, 1644), This is his most famous work, and