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.]*

"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

Perhaps," says Mr. Savage, "the same expressions from another would have given less offence. From Williams they were not at first received in the mildest, or even the most natural sense; though further reflection satisfied the magistrates that his were not dangerous. The passages from the Apocalypse were probably not applied to the honor of the King; and I regret, therefore, that Winthrop did not preserve them."

been preserved.* 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.'t And he tells us,

*It was probably this book, to which Mr. Coddington alluded, in his bitter letter against Mr. Williams, inserted at the close of Fox's Reply. Mr. W. is there charged with having "written a quarto against the King's patent and authority."

A writer in the North American Review, for October, 1830, p. 404, says: "The Kings of Europe did, in some instances, assert the right to subdue the natives by force, and to appropriate their territory, without their consent, to the uses of the colonists. The King of Spain founded this right solely on the grant of the Pope, as the vicegerent of Christ upon earth. The Kings of England, in the sixteenth century, placed it on the superior claims, which Christians possessed over infidels."

that this evil so deeply afflicted his soul, that 'before his
troubles and banishment, he drew up a letter, not with-
out 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.*
And the colonists themselves acted, generally, on
the very principle which Mr. Williams advocated. They
purchased the lands of the natives, for a trifling recom-
pense, as it may seem to us, but such as satisfied the In-
dians. 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 na-
tives the several tracts of land which they afterwards pos-
sessed."+ Dr. Dwight asserts, that "exclusively of the
country of the Pequods, the inhabitants of Connecticut
bought, unless I am deceived, every inch of ground con-
tained 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." 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 in-
habitants." 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. Cot-

* Reply to Cotton on the Bloody Tenet, pp. 276, 277.
Travels, vol. i. p. 167,

Magnalia, book i. c. v. § 5.

ton, 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.* And if it

*

Mr. Endicott's zeal on this point may be learned from the following incident, related by Winthrop: "March 7, 1633. At the lecture at Boston a question was propounded about veils. Mr. Cotton concluded, that where (by the custom of the place) they were not a