Baptism of Mr. Williams—establishment of the First Baptist Church in Providence—Mr. Williams soon leaves the church.

Having related the principal facts, which can now be ascertained, concerning the settlement of Providence and Newport, it is proper to say something of ecclesiastical affairs. We must lament, in vain, that so little is known on this subject. We have no account, from Mr. Williams or his friends, of the manner in which the public worship of God was maintained, and the first church formed at Providence. The notices which may be gleaned from writers, who, for various reasons, were not disposed to look on the new colony with a favorable eye, must, obviously, be received with caution.

We might be sure, from the known character of Mr. Williams, and of his companions, that they would meet together for the public worship of God. Mr. Williams was acknowledged, at Plymouth and Salem, to be an able minister, and he would, of course, preach to those who might choose to hear him, at Providence. We learn from Winthrop,^[191] that he was accustomed to hold meetings, both on the Sabbaths, and on week days. It does not appear, that there was, at first, any organization into a distinct church; though, perhaps, those who had been members of the church in Salem, regarded themselves as still a church, and Mr. Williams as their pastor.^[192] They were, at first, few in number, and were obliged to provide dwellings and subsistence for themselves and their families. They were not able to erect a house of worship, and tradition states, that in pleasant weather they met in a grove. On other occasions, they probably convened, either at the house of Mr. Williams, or at some other private habitation; and, undoubtedly, enjoyed, in their humble assemblies, the presence of Him, who is nigh to all who fear Him, and who prefers “above all temples, the upright heart and pure.”^[193]

It should be remembered, that the colony was a refuge for all who pleased to reside there; and that, as Winthrop states, “at their first coming, Mr. Williams and the rest did make an order, that no man should be molested for his conscience.” The inhabitants were consequently free to worship God as they thought proper. They were not all united in opinion on religious subjects. Mr. Williams may have judged it to be most conducive to the peace and welfare of his little colony, to erect, at first, no distinct church, but to gather the inhabitants into one assembly for worship; until the number should have so increased, as to enable them to form separate churches, and maintain public worship conformably to their own views.

After the lapse of two or three years, the colony had increased, by the accession of emigrants from England, as well as from the other colonies. Some of these are said by Hubbard, (336) to have been inclined to the principles of the Baptists. By what means Mr. Williams’ mind was drawn to a consideration of baptism, we do not know. He was accused, before his banishment, of preaching doctrines “tending to anabaptistry;”^[194] a charge which was meant to impute to him principles subversive of civil order, rather than heterodox notions concerning the rite of baptism. It does not appear, that he had then adopted any views on this point, opposed to the practice of the churches in Massachusetts; for if he had then insisted on immersion, and rejected the baptism of infants, these opinions would certainly have been placed prominently among the reasons for his banishment.

That his principles tended to “anabaptistry,” using this word as referring to the principles now held by the Baptists, is doubtless true. His views of the distinction between the Mosaic institutions and the christian church; his reverence for the supreme authority of Jesus Christ; his appeals to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice, and to the New Testament as the statute book of the Christian church; his assertion and defence of the independent right, and imperative obligation, of every individual to search the oracles of God, and follow their teachings, without dictation or restraint from other men; his bold and uniform proclamation of the unfettered liberty of conscience, in those concerns which pertain to the intercourse between God and the soul, will doubtless be acknowledged by the Baptists, to have had a strong tendency to lead Mr. Williams to adopt their distinctive views of the Christian ordinances.

Nor will it be considered, by other men, as a very strange vagary of an unstable mind, that a clergyman, educated in the Church of England, should adopt the opinion, that immersion is the only scriptural baptism, when that church had taught him, in her offices, that baptism must be so administered, except in cases of weakness or disease. Nor ought Mr. Williams to be severely censured for denying that infants are proper subjects of this ordinance, when it is recollected, that the first President of Harvard University, (Dunster,) held the same opinion; and the second President (Chauncy) so far followed in the same course, as to insist, that baptism should be administered, to infants and adults, by immersion only.^[195] Mr. Williams will, at least, be viewed as excusable, by those who agree with a learned Pedobaptist of our own times, that “it is a plain case, there is no express precept respecting infant baptism in our sacred writings.”^[196] If Mr. Williams could not find infant baptism in the Scriptures, his rejection of it was a natural result of his principles, and may candidly be ascribed to his single-hearted deference to the authority of the Bible; though his reputation for ingenuity may suffer, because he was unable “to make out the proof in another way.”

We are not, therefore, reduced to the necessity of adopting Governor Winthrop’s account of Mr. Williams’ change of opinion. That account attributes the blame to an artful woman, a sister of the great heresiarch of those times, Mrs. Hutchinson.^[197] We may, not unreasonably, suppose, that Mr. Williams, on further study of the Scriptures, and finding that several of the colonists had embraced Baptist principles, was himself convinced, that he had not been baptized. He accordingly resolved to obey the Saviour’s command, and unite in a church, with such persons as might be willing to join him.

A difficulty now presented itself. They had been educated in the Episcopal church, and were accustomed to regard the clergy with respect, as the only legal administrators of the Christian ordinances. Mr. Williams himself seems to have strongly felt this difficulty; and his scruples on this point, probably, had some effect on his subsequent conduct. He had not himself been immersed, and it seemed a reasonable conclusion, that he could not, with propriety, baptize his brethren, till he had received baptism. There was no other minister in New-England, who would have baptized him, if he had made an application, and his banishment from Massachusetts had been suspended.

The most obvious expedient, in their circumstances, was adopted. Mr. Ezekiel Holliman^[198] was selected to baptize Mr. Williams, who then baptized the administrator and ten others.^[199] This event occurred in March, 1638–9. Thus was founded the first Baptist church in America, and the second, as it is stated, in the British empire.^[200] The church was soon after increased by the addition of twelve other persons.

The validity of this baptism of Mr. Williams and his companions having been disputed, it may be proper to examine this point.

The spirit of the Scriptures, if not their letter, assigns to the ministers of the Gospel the duty of administering the ordinances of the church. Expediency obviously requires an adherence to this general principle. But the language of the Bible is not so decisive on this point, as to make it certain, that a layman might not, in cases where a minister could not be obtained, administer the ordinances. It is known, that in the earliest ages of the church, while there was a general observance of the principle, that the administration of the ordinances belongs to ministers, laymen were occasionally permitted to baptize. Mosheim says: “At first, all who were engaged in propagating Christianity, administered this rite; nor can it be called in question, that whoever persuaded any person to embrace Christianity, could baptize his own disciple.”^[201] Tertullian says, “Laymen have power to baptize, which yet, for the sake of order, they ought only to use in cases of necessity.”^[202] Ambrose says: “That at the beginning, laymen were permitted to preach and baptize, in order to increase the number of Christians.”^[203] Augustine affirms, “that it is a very small fault, or none at all, for laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent necessity.”^[204] Jerome speaks of it as a thing certain, that “laymen may lawfully baptize, when there is urgent necessity for it.”^[205] There were, it is true, at a very early period, erroneous views of the indispensable necessity of baptism to salvation, which led to various unauthorized practices. But the principle, that laymen might lawfully baptize, in certain exigencies, seems to have been early admitted, and it was formally sanctioned by a decree of the Council of Eliberis.^[206]

But the reason of the case is of more weight than the decisions of councils. It sometimes happens, that persons become Christians, without the direct labors of a minister. If, for example, by the agency of the Scriptures and tracts, which missionaries are now sending into the Chinese empire, a number of persons in a neighborhood should become converts, would it not be their privilege and their duty, if they were sufficiently instructed respecting the nature of the church and of its ordinances, to appoint one of their number to baptize the rest, to form themselves into a church, and to partake of the Lord’s Supper? Must these believers wait, till a missionary could come to baptize them, and to organize a church? The great ends for which the church and its ordinances were appointed,—the spiritual edification of believers, and the spread of truth,—would require that these Christians should enjoy them. If it were indispensable, that the administrator be a minister, there would, in such a case, be no insuperable difficulty. The duty of the converts to assemble, to pray, and to exhort each other, would be clear. Their voluntary agreement thus to meet, to maintain mutual watchfulness, and to enjoy the ordinances of the Gospel, would constitute them a church. They might call one of their number, possessing, in their judgment, suitable gifts, to the office of the ministry, and this election by the church would be the only human sanction which such a minister would need, to authorize him to preach the Gospel, and to administer the ordinances.^[207] This position cannot be denied, without resorting to the doctrine of a regular apostolical succession. If the church has no power to originate a ministry, by investing with the sacred office those to whom, in her judgment, the Saviour has given the inward vocation, the ministry might become extinct. Those who insist on an apostolical succession, are obliged to trace their ministry through the channel of the papal clergy. They are forced to admit, that the Pope is a true bishop, and the Catholic community a Christian church. Archbishop Laud confessed, that “it is through her that the bishops of the Church of England, who have the honor to be capable of deriving their calling from St. Peter, must deduce their succession.”^[208] If the race of English prelates had become extinct, as might have happened, had Cromwell’s life been prolonged a few years, the Church of England would have been reduced to the embarrassing dilemma, of consecrating bishops by her own authority, and thus dissolving the charm of succession, or of sending an humble embassy to Rome, to crave from his Holiness the communication, anew, of the mysterious virtue.

If, then, a company of believers in China might, in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament, appoint an administrator of the ordinances, the little band of Baptists at Providence were fully authorized to do it.^[209] No minister could have been obtained, in America, to baptize Mr. Williams. The case was one of obvious necessity, and the validity of the baptism cannot be denied, without rejecting the fundamental principle, on which dissenting churches rest, that all the ecclesiastical power on earth resides ultimately in the church, and that she is authorized to adopt any measures, not repugnant to the Scriptures, which may be necessary for her preservation and prosperity. Whatever the New Testament has positively prescribed, must of course be strictly obeyed.

In regard to those whom Mr. Williams baptized, there can be no dispute. He was a clergyman of the Church of England, and Pedobaptists must admit, that immersion, administered by him, was Christian baptism. Their own ministers not unfrequently administer the rite in this manner, and the persons thus baptized are received as regular members of their churches.^[210]

At what time, and under what circumstances, Mr. Williams left the church, has been a vexed question among writers. Callender, (p. 56,) expresses a doubt, whether Mr. Williams ever belonged to the church, and adds: “The most ancient inhabitants now alive, some of them above eighty years old, and who personally knew Mr. Williams, and were well acquainted with many of the original settlers, never heard that Mr. Williams formed the Baptist church there, but always understood, that Mr. Brown, Mr. Wickenden, Mr. Dexter, Mr. Olney, Mr. Tillinghast, &c. were the first founders of that church.” But Mr. Callender was under a mistake, and, according to Mr. Backus,^[211] he was afterwards convinced of his error. The records of the church, as quoted by Mr. Benedict (vol. i. p. 476,) assert, that “Mr. Williams held his pastoral office about four years, and then resigned the same to Mr. Brown and Mr. Wickenden, and went to England, to solicit the first charter.” This statement, also, is incorrect.

Winthrop (vol. i. p. 307,) says, under the date of June or July, 1639: “At Providence, matters went on after the old manner. Mr. Williams and many of his company a few months since were in all haste re-baptized; and denied communion with all others; and now he was come to question his second baptism, not being able to derive the authority of it from the apostles, otherwise than by the ministers of England, (whom he judged to be ill authority) so as he conceived God would raise up some apostolic power. Therefore he bent himself that way, expecting (as was supposed) to become an apostle; and having a little before refused communion with all, save his own wife, now he would preach to and pray with all comers. Whereupon some of his followers left him and returned back from whence they went.”

According to this paragraph, Mr. Williams left the church about three or four months after its formation. This fact is confirmed by a letter of Richard Scott, inserted in George Fox’s “Firebrand Quenched.” Scott says of Roger Williams, “I walked with him in the Baptist way, about three or four months, in which time he broke from the society, and declared at large the grounds and reason of it, that their baptism could not be right, because it was not administered by an apostle. After that, he set up a way of seeking with two or three that had dissented with him, by way of preaching and praying; and there he continued a year or two, till two of the three left him.”^[212]

Mr. Scott was at Providence, when the church was formed, and there can be no doubt, that he soon became a member of it, though he afterwards joined the Quakers. The “three or four months” which he mentions must, on this supposition, be estimated as commencing at, or near, the formation of the church, and consequently Mr. Williams must have left it in June or July, 1639, as Winthrop states.

Of his reasons for this step, we are not clearly informed. The motives assigned by those who disapproved his conduct, are loosely stated, and must be received with caution. The principal reason, as stated by Winthrop, Scott, and others, was, that Mr. Williams doubted the validity of the baptism which he and his associates had received, because it was not “administered by an apostle,” or because he could not “derive the authority of it from the apostles, otherwise than by the ministers of England, whom he judged to be ill authority.”

Of Mr. Williams’ real views at this time, we have no explanation by himself; but if we may judge from his writings a few years later, he denied, that any ministry now exists, which is authorized to preach the Gospel to the impenitent, or to administer the ordinances. He believed, that these functions belonged to the apostolic race of ministers, which was interrupted and discontinued, when the reign of Antichrist commenced, and which will not, as he thought, be restored, till the witnesses shall have been slain, and raised again. (Rev. 11: 11.) In his “Bloody Tenet,” printed in 1644, several passages occur, in which he intimates, that the true church and ministry are now lost. The following paragraph may be quoted, both as an illustration of his views and as a proof of his liberal charity: He speaks of “thousands and ten thousands, yea, the whole generation of the righteous, who, since the falling away (from the first primitive Christian state or worship) have and do err fundamentally concerning the true matter, constitution, gathering and governing of the Church; and yet far be it from any pious breast to imagine, that they are not saved, and that their souls are not bound up in the bundle of eternal life.”—(p. 20.) He says, in his “Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s,” published in 1652: “In the poor small span of my life, I desired to have been a diligent and constant observer, and have been myself many ways engaged, in city, in country, in court, in schools, in universities, in churches, in Old and New England, and yet cannot, in the holy presence of God, bring in the result of a satisfying discovery, that either the begetting ministry of the apostles or messengers to the nations, or the feeding and nourishing ministry of pastors and teachers, according to the first institution of the Lord Jesus, are yet restored and extant.” (p. 4.)

The only ministry, which, in his opinion, now exists, is that of prophets, i. e. ministers, who explain religious truths, and bear witness against error. In a passage of the same work, he says: “Ever since the beast Antichrist rose, the Lord hath stirred up the ministry of prophecy, who must continue their witness and prophecy, until their witness be finished, and slaughters, probably near approaching, accomplished.”

We shall have occasion to disclose his opinions more fully in a subsequent chapter. The passages which we have quoted were not printed till a few years after he left the church, but there can be no doubt, that they explain his conduct on that occasion. His mind, like the minds of many other good men, became blinded “by excess of light,” while gazing at the glorious visions of the Apocalypse; and he formed the conclusion, that in the disastrous antichristian apostacy, the true ministry and the whole exterior organization of the church went to ruin, from which, however, as he believed, they shall be restored, and the Saviour’s kingdom shall come on earth.

We need not pause, now, to show, that his views were erroneous. We must deeply regret, that he formed them; but we can have no doubt of his sincerity. A temperament like his impelled him to hasty decisions, but his love of truth held a supreme sway over his mind. No considerations could deter him from adopting, and carrying into instant practice, whatever he believed to be true. Nothing but clear conviction could induce him to relinquish what he considered as right. His principle of action on this subject is beautifully expressed in a passage of his Bloody Tenet: “Having bought truth dear, we must not sell it cheap, not the least grain of it, for the whole world; no not for the saving of souls, though our own most precious, least of all for the bitter sweetening of a little vanishing pleasure.”

We may conclude, then, that he left the church, not because he had any doubts respecting the nature of baptism; nor because he had been baptized by a layman; but because he believed, that no man is now authorized to administer the ordinances, and that no true church can exist, till the apostolic ministry shall be restored. With these views, he could not conscientiously remain connected with any church, nor regard his baptism as valid.

Winthrop states, that he expected, “as was supposed, to become an apostle.” This supposition is not entitled to much weight. It is certain, however, that he believed the restoration of the church and its ministry to be not far distant, and he might reasonably hope, should he live to witness this glorious event, to be honored with a vocation to this high ministry.

The statement of Winthrop, that “having a little before refused communion with all, save his own wife, now he would preach to and pray with all comers,” deserves a passing remark. The phrase, “a little before,” apparently refers to the time of Mr. Williams’ residence at Salem. But Morton, (p. 153) and Hubbard, who copies him, (p. 207) assert, that “he withdrew all private religious communion from any that would hold communion with the church there; insomuch as he would not pray nor give thanks at meals with his own wife, nor any of his family, because they went to the church assemblies.” Here Winthrop’s statement respecting Mr. Williams’ wife is directly opposed to that of Morton and Hubbard. It is probable, that they were all under a mistake.

The disputed point, whether Mr. Williams was the first pastor of the church, or not, does not appear to present a material difficulty. He would, we may suppose, as a matter of course, be the pastor of the church while he remained in connection with it. He was the only ordained minister at Providence, and though there may have been no formal election, we cannot reasonably doubt, that he was considered as the pastor. Richard Scott accuses him, in his letter, of a disposition to manage every thing according to his own pleasure; a charge, which, coming from an adversary, may imply no more than that Mr. Williams was the head of the church. When he left it, he ceased, of course, to be its pastor. He was succeeded by the Rev. Chad Brown, though not, as it appears, till after an interval of two years; for the records of the church assert, that he was not ordained till the year 1642.^[213] We may easily suppose, that as Mr. Williams’ connection with the church was very short, Mr. Brown was considered as the first pastor, even by his contemporaries, and that this impression was transmitted to their descendants. It was not unnatural, moreover, for the church to be willing to recognise Mr. Brown as the first pastor, rather than a man who soon left them, and who refused to acknowledge them, or any other body of men, to be a true church. It is possible, that other causes had some influence in the case. It is certain, however, that Mr. Brown has been generally believed to have been the first pastor of the church.^[214] He was, unquestionably, the first regular and permanent pastor, and may be regarded as one of the chief founders. It is not probable that he contended for the honor while he lived, and we may be sure that there was no strife, on this point, between him and Roger Williams, who speaks of him, in a letter written in 1677, as “a wise and godly soul, now with God.”

We have thus stated the facts, concerning Mr. Williams’ conduct, so far as we have been able to ascertain them. We see that he acted from erroneous views, in leaving the church, and we lament that he was thus misled into a course injurious to religion and to his own spiritual welfare. But we see nothing which impeaches his religious character; and his future life furnished abundant evidence of his piety towards God, and of his love to men. He adopted no errors, except his views respecting the ministry and the organization of the church. The great truths of the Gospel he steadfastly believed. His life exhibited their efficacy, and his heart felt their consoling power.

The church continued in existence, after Mr. Williams left it. The statement of Richard Scott, that “he broke from the society,” implies, that the society itself or church remained. The Rev. Chad Brown became its pastor, and a succession of good men have continued to labor for the Lord, in that church, till the present day. The church has experienced some of the usual vicissitudes to which all things on earth are liable; but it has never ceased to exist, and for the most part it has enjoyed great prosperity.

No meeting-house was built till about 1700, when the Rev. Pardon Tillinghast, the pastor, erected a house at his own expense.^[215] This long delay to build a meeting-house may be, in part, explained, by the poverty of the inhabitants, and by the diversity of religious opinions which prevailed among them. But we can scarcely acquit the church of some deficiency in zeal and liberality. We must presume, however, that they had a stated place of worship. Their numbers were, at this period, small, and they had, perhaps, sufficient humility to be content with very primitive accommodations. To Him whom they worshipped, the sincere offerings of pious hearts were acceptable, however humble the place from which they ascended.

Of the religious doctrines of this church, Mr. Benedict (vol. i. p. 486) says: “It was first formed on the Particular or Calvinistic plan. In process of time, they became what our English brethren would call General Baptists, and so continued for the most part more than a hundred years. From the commencement of Dr. Manning’s ministry, they have been verging back to their first principles, and now very little of the Arminian leaven is found among them.”

These facts show, that Mr. Cotton and his grandson, Cotton Mather, were mistaken, when they affirmed of the church at Providence, that they “broke forth into anabaptism, and then into antibaptism and familism, and now finally into no church at all.”^[216] Perhaps Mr. Cotton would not acknowledge, that the congregation of Baptists at Providence deserved the name of a church. Mr. Williams and his wife, with several others of the members, were excommunicated from the church at Salem, of which they were retained as members till they were baptized.^[217] A Baptist church, thus constituted, could not be viewed with much favor by Mr. Cotton and his friends. A church, which was formed this year at Newport, though Congregational in form, and orthodox, it is presumed, in its doctrines, is mentioned, in a tone of censure, by Winthrop, and after him, by Hubbard, (339) as having been gathered in a “very disordered way, for they took some excommunicated persons, and others who were members of the church of Boston, and not dismissed.”^[218] The leaders, both in church and state, in Massachusetts, were not then in a mood to be pleased with any thing which occurred in Rhode-Island. It would have been well if this feeling had expired with the first age. But local prejudice is almost as durable as the natural features of a country. Boeotia incurred, among the Greeks, a contempt, which the fame of Pindar, Hesiod and Epaminondas could not soften.^[219] Nazareth seems to have acquired a similar distinction among the Jews.^[220] Rhode-Island may regret, yet cannot greatly wonder, that her sisters have sometimes remembered the circumstances of her origin, better than the purity of her principles and the steadiness of her patriotism. Many, since Mr. Cotton, have been inclined to doubt, whether there was any true religion in Rhode-Island, and to believe, with Winthrop, that there was no good government. But let her not be moved. Time is brightening the fame of her founder, and the reflected lustre will attract the eyes of men to a fairer contemplation of her character.