8/12/2019 1994 Issue 5 - His Story - Gods Providence, The Banishment of Roger Williams - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1994-issue-5-his-story-gods-providence-the-banishment-of-roger-williams 1/2

THE BANISHMENT OF

ROGER WILLI MS

To modern, 20th

century

Amelicans, Roger Williams is the one

shining light in the midst of that

whole sony darkness which was the

PUlitan era in this country. But ole

Roger put 'em

in

their place and

singlehandedly made this country a

great place to live and rear chllin'.

According to the accepted story, the

PUlitans were an extremely intolerant

folk, paranoid over anyone who didn't

believe precisely as they, and utterly

unwilling to consider differing views.

Because of this, they cast out Roger

Williams (that gracious, sweet-spirtted

man who

only

desired religious libelty).

He was banished

from

Massachusetts

Bay, merely because he was a Baptist

and forced to flee from his persecutors

by making an heroic escape into a

harsh, New England winter.

This is precisely the view of Roger

Williams given in most grade school

history books and sadly, even some

Christian histOlY books). All this is

quite different from the description

given of Williams by those who knew

him and were closer to the events than

we. Cotton Mather says, about the

year 1630, there anived here one Mr.

Roger Williams; who being a preacher

that had less light than fire in him,

hath by his own sad example, preached

unto us the danger

of

that evil which

the apostle mentions in Rom. 10:2;

'They have a zeal,

but not according to

knowledge.

Magnalia Christi

Amelicana,

vol. II., p. 495)

Henry

Martyn

Dexter,

in his

monograph, As

to

oger

Williams and

His Banishment, Etc.,

(1876), goes

further, When [Williams] lived in

Massachusetts, he was evidently a

hot-headed youth, of detelmined

perseverance, vast energy, considerable

infOlmation, intense convictions, a

decided taste fornovelty, a hearty love

of controversy, a habit of hasty speech

with absolute carelessness

of

consequences,

and

a religious horror

of all expediency

Chlistianity

and

Civilization,

No.1,

Spring, 1982, pp.

237,238) John Quincy Adams would

later call Williams conscientiously

contentious.

One must ask what accounts for

this stark difference of opinion?

If

Adams, Mather, and Dexter are light,

where have we in this century gone

wrong? Perhaps we should examine

the things everyone takes for granted.

When

we do, we once again find

unsubstantiated

assumptions and

unfounded bias as

the

basis for the

facts

of

history. Consider:

MYT

#1 -   Roger

Williams

w s a

victimoj ypical Puritan intolerance.

I fanything, the truth is exactly the

opposite. Roger Williams was likely

one of the most intolerant men ever to

set foot

in

this country. He held

to

an

extreme separatism which

led

him

eventuallyto renounce every Christian

church in the world as apostate.

When

Williams arrived

in

Boston

in 1631, he refused to accept the

position of teacher with the

church

there because they wouldnot renounce

the Church of England. Not merely

must they denounce the errors of the

Church of England, but Williams

insisted, theymustrepent

of

ever being

in communion with the Church of

England.

That alone

was

true

separation, 1 durst not officiate to an

unseparated people, as upon

examination

and

conference found

them to be. (quoted by Edmund

Morgan,

TIle Pulitan Dilemma,

p. 117)

Being disappointed

in

Boston,

Williams moved to Salem where he at

once won the hearts

of

the people by

his sweemess of spirit. So much were

they impressed, they also offered

Williams the same position the Boston

church had.

Upon

hearing

of

this,

Winthrop wrote the

church

warning

them of Williams' dangerous views.

The offer was withdrawn and Williams

went to Plymouth

in

order to

be

with

the truly separated brethren.

At Plymouth Williams was satisfied

for a time, but he

soon

discovered that

when members of the church visited

England, they attended the established

church. This was,

in

Williams' mind,

a selious offense. To attend worship

was tantamount to acknowledging the

June, 1994 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon

15

8/12/2019 1994 Issue 5 - His Story - Gods Providence, The Banishment of Roger Williams - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1994-issue-5-his-story-gods-providence-the-banishment-of-roger-williams 2/2

Church of England as a true church.

When hesaw that the PlymOllthchurch

was

willing to tolerate thls practiCe

without excommunicating those

who

did such things, he felt it to be

compromisedand thushewasconscience

bound

to separate himself

from

it

Leaving Plymouth, Williams

returned

to

Salem where he

was

welcomed warmly and soon made an

unof\l.cial assistant to the pastor.

Williams

tQok

advantage ofhls position

to stir another controversy.

He began publicly to attack

t q ~ Ki1 .g of g l n d on two

issues:

1) He

assened that

the

KinghadnO authority to grant

chaners'to lands which

Were

.

not hls to give (i.e., the land

in this country

~ l o h g e d

to .

the Indians, not to the King);

2) He

attacked the

King

for

referring . to Europe

as

Christendom, charging him

with blaSphemy.

These

statementswere not

~ n l y

foolish

and embarrassing, but

they jeopard,zed the charter of

Mass'achlisetts Bay. Winthrop

admonished htmbut it didno good.

when

Williams

f(

 

fused

to

be

siient,

the General Coun strongly appealed

to

him

to Cease

iliilkingthese sorts

of

Statements. Williarrts did

agree

to

appear and "gave satisfaction of his

intention and loyalty:' .

However, iIi November, 1634,

Wiiliams published'a treatise calling

the

charter or'the Bay

Colony

invalid

anddemandfng that the colony to

retuITf it to the King with a request that

he 'm:odify it by

Omitting all

dauses

reladngto

the dOnation

ofland.

''Unless

thls were the sin ofaccepting

the

land

from

this public liar could not be

expiated exce

pt

by dissolving the

colony and remming

all

the settlers to

EnglanCl

"where they couldmake public

acknowledgment of the evil they had

done by coming to

New

England on

such false pretenses."

(Morgan,

op.

cit., p.

123) The General

Coun

again

summoned him to appear.

At this

pOint, John Cotton intervened and

requested

to be

given opportunity

to

speak with Williams privately:

"Mr. Cotton, with the consent of

the otherministers, presentedarequest

unto

the magistrates,

that they

would

please

to forbear

prosecuting of

him,

till they themselves, with their

churches, had

in

a church-way

endeavored his conviction and

repentance; for they alleged, that they

hoped his

violences

proceeded rather

from a misguided conscience,

than

from 'a seditious principle." (Mather,

op. cit., p. 497)

Theministerswereable to

persuade

Williams to abandon hls attack

on

the

chaner. He

even

agreed

to forebear

sending

the

letter he

was

preparingfor

the

King

in which he accused the King

of being a

"public

liar." Peace was

restored but only briefly.

In the spring of 1635,

Williams'

separatism began to spawn all manner

of strange

ideas: Magistrates

could not

administer an oath to unregenerate

men (when enlisting them in

the

militia); a

regenerate

man ought not

to

prayin companywithan unregenerate

man (noteven his wife or children, not

even at meals ); the civil government

had no authority in "religious'matters;

etc.

These

and other matters lead to

another summons to appear before

the General Court in July. At this

l j TIlE (:OUNSEL of Chalcedon

Jnne,

1994

meeting

the

ministers of the churches

were asked

for· their

advice. They

unanimously agreed that any minister

holding to

Williams' views

should

be

removed from a church .

WilliamS responded

by

renouncing

all

the churches of Massachusetts as

"no

churches

of

our LordJesus

Christ"

and wrOte a letter to his own

congregation calling them to join him

in this conviction.

The

congregation,

who

had supported Williams up to

this pOint,

could not bring

themselves

to

declare

everyone

but

themselves

apostate. Williams thus

renounced them and

tendered his resignation.

(Williams

later declared that

there were

no

tnie churches

in the world and,

for

a

time,

would only take

communion

with

his wife.) .

All things <;onsidered, the

Puritans treated him with

remarkable kindness,

gentleness, and patience. If

anything,

theywere victims ofhls intolerance.

It

was

only

after

their repeated efforts

at

restoration were rebuffed, that the

sentence of banishment came (in

October, 1635) .

ThiS

sentence

however,

was

never carried out.

Because

Williams refused to

abide

by

the terms of the judgment (that he not

stir

dissension

in Salem) the decision

was

made

tb

return him

to England.

When he learned

this,

Williams fled

MassachusettsinJanuary. His

flight

in

the middle ofwinter would emphasize

the

''injustiCe''

of the

godly

and

forever

enshrine him as the supreme Victim of

Christian

bigotry

.

One

does not

have

to agree \vith

all

the actions of the

General Coun

to

see that

this

incident

was occasioned more by Williams'

own

recalcitrance and flair for the dramatic

than the heartlessness of his

persecutors.

TO BE

CONCLUDED

NEXT ISSUE