Visit https://testbankbell.

com to download the full version and

explore more testbank or solution manual

Solution Manual for International Macroeconomics,

4th Edition, Robert C. Feenstra

_____ Click the link below to download _____

http://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-
international-macroeconomics-4th-edition-robert-c-
feenstra/

Explore and download more testbank at testbankbell

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

Test Bank for International Trade, 4th Edition, Robert C.

Feenstra

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-international-trade-4th-
edition-robert-c-feenstra/

testbankbell.com

Test Bank for International Economics, 4th Edition, Robert

C. Feenstra

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-international-
economics-4th-edition-robert-c-feenstra/

testbankbell.com

International Macroeconomics 4th Edition Feenstra

Solutions Manual

http://testbankbell.com/product/international-macroeconomics-4th-
edition-feenstra-solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com

Fraud Examination 5th Edition Albrecht Test Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/fraud-examination-5th-edition-
albrecht-test-bank/

testbankbell.com
Life-Span Human Development Sigelman 7th Edition Test Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/life-span-human-development-
sigelman-7th-edition-test-bank/

testbankbell.com

Managerial Accounting Whitecotton 2nd Edition Solutions

Manual

http://testbankbell.com/product/managerial-accounting-whitecotton-2nd-
edition-solutions-manual/

testbankbell.com

Intermediate Accounting Reporting and Analysis 2nd Edition

Wahlen Test Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/intermediate-accounting-reporting-and-
analysis-2nd-edition-wahlen-test-bank/

testbankbell.com

Solutions Manual to accompany Calculus with Applications

10th edition 0321749006

http://testbankbell.com/product/solutions-manual-to-accompany-
calculus-with-applications-10th-edition-0321749006/

testbankbell.com

Test Bank for Systems Analysis and Design 9/E 9th Edition
Kenneth E. Kendall Julie E. Kendall

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-systems-analysis-and-
design-9-e-9th-edition-kenneth-e-kendall-julie-e-kendall/

testbankbell.com
Test Bank for Personal Finance 12th Edition By Kapoor

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-personal-finance-12th-
edition-by-kapoor/

testbankbell.com
 Solution Manual for International
Macroeconomics, 4th Edition, Robert
C. Feenstra
Full download chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-
for-international-macroeconomics-4th-edition-robert-c-feenstra/

1 (12) The Global Macroeconomy

1. Discovering Data In this problem you will use data from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) to investigate the dependence of the United States on foreign markets
over time. Go to the BEA website at www.bea.gov and under the “National” tab open the
interactive table for “GDP and the National Income and Product Account (NIPA)
Historical Tables.” Open Table 4.1 for “Foreign Transactions” and download the data
going back to 1969.
a. The current account is the difference between “current payments to the rest of the
world” and “current receipts from the rest of the world.” What is the latest estimate of
the current account?
Answer: After downloading the data for the “Foreign Transactions” table of the BEA
National Income and Product Accounts and subtracting “current payments to the rest
of the world” from “current receipts from the rest of the world,” we see that the
current account in the most recent year of available data (2015) is −$477.4 billion.
This is a current account deficit, meaning that the United States has a net outflow of
payments to the rest of the world.

b. Create a graph that shows: Current receipts, Current payments, and Current
account over time.
Answer:
Payments, Receipts, and the Current Account
(Retrieved: March 2016)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015

-1000
-2000

Current receipts from the rest of the world

Current payments to the rest of the world
Balance on current account, NIPAs
c. In what year was the current account largest? How would you characterize its trend
over time? How would you characterize the trends in receipts and payments?

Answer: The current account was largest (in absolute size) in 2006 when it was
−$802.2 billion. It hovered close to zero and did not begin a significant
downward and negative trend until the early 1990s. Since its peak in 2008, the
current account has remained more or less flat around −$450 billion. The
 trends in receipts and payments has been moving much more steadily upward over
the period since the 1970s, with contractions only during recessions.

d. The United States current account deficit grew significantly from the 1990s up
until the financial crisis of 2008. In principle, this growth could have occurred
because of falling receipts from abroad or increasing payments to foreign countries,
or both. Which factor appears to have driven the growth in the current account deficit
in this period?
Answer: Over this period both payments to abroad and receipts are rising. Since
rising receipts from abroad would lessen the current account deficit, it must be the
case that payments to the rest of the world must be rising at a faster rate. This is what
has driven the increase in current account deficit over this period.

e. What does the evolution of the three trends you plotted in part (b) tell you about the
reliance of the United States on foreign markets? Does the country appear to be
growing more open or more closed over time?
Answer: These trends indicate a greater reliance of the United States on foreign
markets. Even if the current account were balanced (it is not), the steady increase in
both receipts from and payments to abroad show a country whose volume of trade
with the rest of the world is growing and is becoming more dependent on both foreign
goods to consume as well as income received from the foreign consumption of
domestically produced goods. To know more accurately how reliant we have become,
one would want to look at these trends as a percentage of United States GDP.

2. The data in Figure 1-1(12-1) end in 2015. Visit

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DEXCHUS and
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DESUSEU (or another site with daily
exchange rate data) and download data on the same exchange rates (yuan per dollar
and dollar per euro) for the past 12 months. What are the rates today? What were they
a year ago? By what percentage amount did the rates change? Do you think the rates
are floating or fixed? Why?
Answer: Answers will depend on the latest data update. The yuan per dollar
exchange rate is fixed (with only occasional changes in its value), and the euro–dollar
exchange rate is floating, as is evident from its wide fluctuations over time.
As of September 2013, the weekly average for yuan per U.S. dollar was about 6.14;
In 2014 it was about 6.34. The yuan has appreciated by about 3.2%. On September
22, 2013, the weekly average was 1.34 dollars per euro; in 2014 it was 1.29. Thus,
dollar depreciated by about 3.8%.

3. Visit the Financial Times website to download data for country risk today. (Hint: Try
searching for “Data Archive Financial Times” to find the Data Archive web page;
then look for “FT500, Fixed incomes, Commodities, Interest rates.”) You may need
to download the most recent daily report (pdf) for interest rates, and look for the table
containing high-yield emerging market rates. Which three emerging market countries
have the highest spreads on their U.S. dollar debt? Which three have the lowest?
 Answer: Answers will depend on the latest data update. The spread also depends on
the date of maturity for these bonds. In the sample of countries in the Financial
Times data found at https://markets.ft.com/data/bonds in the “Market rates” table for
February 2016, the three highest spreads are Russia (10%), South Africa (6.50%),
and India (6.05%). The three lowest spreads are Hong Kong (0.02%), the United
Kingdom (0.05%), and Singapore (0.15%). The Financial Times has discontinued
the original emerging markets table used, so both emerging and developed
economies appear in the “Market rates” table. To see a more comprehensive list
of sovereign bond spreads, visit https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds.

4. The charts below show the growth of real GDP per capita in three pairs of
geographically adjacent countries: North and South Korea, Argentina and Chile,
Zimbabwe and Botswana (using data from the Penn World Table).

Control of Government Political Rule of Regulatory Voice and

Corruption Effectiveness Stability Law Quality Accountability
and
Absence of
Violence
South Korea 0.37 0.63 0.49 0.64 0.47 0.76
North Korea −0.93 −1.10 −0.66 −1.08 −1.70 −2.02
Chile 1.56 1.34 0.85 1.31 1.38 0.56
Argentina −0.34 0.28 0.48 0.17 0.45 0.44
Botswana 1.02 0.98 0.90 0.67 0.79 0.78
Zimbabwe −0.87 −1.13 −1.21 −0.74 −1.61 −0.97

a. Which country in each pair experienced faster growth in GDP per capita? Which
one is now richest?
Answer: South Korea experienced faster growth than North
Korea. Argentina experienced faster growth than Chile between 1970 and
1980, but Chile’s growth rate was higher than Argentina’s between 1980
and 2000. Botswana has grown faster than Zimbabwe since 1970. As of
2006, the richest countries in each pair are South Korea, Chile, and
 Botswana. Of the three, South Korea is the richest.
b. The World Bank’s World Governance Indicators for each country in 2000 were as
shown in the table (higher is better).Based on these data, do you think institutions
can explain the divergent outcomes in these countries? Explain. Why do you think
it helps to compare countries that are physically contiguous?
Answer: South Korea has consistently higher governance ratings than North
Korea. Similarly, Chile’s are higher than Argentina’s ratings, and Botswana’s are
higher than Zimbabwe’s. Based on the information for these six countries, it
appears as though quality governance is associated with higher economic growth.

5. Visit one of the many websites that list all of the current exchange rates between
different currencies around the world. Try a financial newspaper’s site such as ft.com
(follow the links to “Market Data,” and then “Currencies”), or try websites devoted to
foreign exchange market data such as oanda.com or xe.com (dig down—don’t just
look at the major currency tables). According to these lists, how many distinct
currencies exist around the world today? Are some currencies used in more than one
country?
Answer: Answers will depend on the latest data update. This answer is based on
information obtained from the Market Data section in the Wall Street Journal for
September 2013. The countries are divided into six groups: Africa, Americas, Asia,
the Caribbean, Europe, and Oceania. There are 138 countries listed. Many countries
in the Caribbean and Americas have adopted the U.S. dollar as their currency. The
Eurozone uses the euro, and many countries outside the Eurozone have also adopted
the euro as their currency.
Other documents randomly have
different content
 He afterwards commenced the study of the law, at the desire and
under the guidance of his generous patron, who would naturally
wish to train his pupil to the honorable and useful profession which
he himself adorned. The providence of God may be seen in thus
leading the mind of Mr. Williams to that acquaintance with the
principles of law and government, which qualified him for his duties
as legislator of his little colony.
But he probably soon found that the study of the law was not
congenial with his taste. Theology possessed more attractions to a
mind and heart like his. To this divine science he directed his
attention, and received Episcopal orders. It is stated, that he
assumed, while in England, the charge of a parish; that his
preaching was highly esteemed, and his private character revered.[9]
We have thus recited the traditions which have been current in
Rhode Island. There is undoubtedly some truth in them, though the
story is a little romantic, and may have received some embellishment
in its progress.
Roger Williams entered on public life at an eventful period, when
the national mind was strongly agitated by those political and
religious causes, which had been slowly operating for many years,
and which soon subverted the throne and the Episcopal Church. At
these causes we can do no more than glance.
The Reformation, in England, commenced as far back as the latter
part of the fourteenth century, when Wickliffe taught the pure
doctrines of the Scriptures, and kindled a great light for the guidance
of the people in the path to Heaven, by translating the Scriptures,
for the first time, into the English language. He was, of course,
denounced and persecuted by the Catholic Church, but his doctrines
spread, and though many of his followers were put to death, and the
utmost cruelty was practised, in various ways, to hinder the progress
of the truth, yet the principles of the Reformation were extensively
diffused in England, before Luther and his fellow laborers
commenced their glorious ministry. But no public blow was given to
the papal power in England, till Henry VIII. finding the authority of
the Pope an obstacle to his favorite project of repudiating his wife
Catharine and marrying Anne Boleyn, renounced, in 1534, his
political allegiance to his Holiness.[10] The King was created, by act of
Parliament, the Head of the Church, and the powers which had
previously been claimed and exercised by the Pope, were transferred
to the King. But, while the papal authority was rejected, the
doctrines of Popery were not discarded. The King was a strenuous
believer in transubstantiation, purgatory, sprinkling of holy water,
invocation of saints, and other doctrines and rites of the Catholic
Church. He exacted as implicit a submission to his will as the Pope
himself. Indeed, little more was yet gained, than the substitution of
a Pope in England for a Pope in Rome. Henry was of a temper too
despotic to permit him to be a friend of the Protestant religion. To a
monarch of arbitrary principles, the spirit of Popery is more
congenial than that of the Protestant faith. The Catholic system
requires an unconditional submission to the authority of man. The
first principle of Protestantism is implicit obedience to God alone.
The decisions of Councils and the commands of the Pope bind the
Catholic; the will of God, as it is uttered in the Holy Scriptures, is the
only rule of faith and practice to the true Protestant.
After the death of Henry, his son, Edward VI. ascended the
throne. He was a religious Prince, and a zealous friend of the
Reformation. The Church of England was purified from many
corruptions during his reign, a liturgy was compiled, and the
Protestant religion made a rapid progress in the nation. But some
relics of Popery were still retained, and among others, the vestments
of the clergy. It was deemed indispensable, that the priests should
wear the square cap, the surplice, the cope, the tippet, and other
articles of apparel, which were in use among the Popish clergy.
Some excellent ministers refused to wear these garments, on the
ground that they were associated in the public mind with Popery;
were regarded by many of the people with superstitious reverence,
and ought, consequently, to be rejected with the other corruptions
from which the church had purged herself. It was, unquestionably,
very unwise to retain an appendage of the old system, which tended
to remind the people of the discarded religion, to irritate the minds
of its enemies, while it nourished the attachment to it which some
persons secretly retained, and to suggest the obvious conclusion,
that as the ministers of the new religion resembled so nearly those
of the old, the difference between the two systems was very small.
The effect of wearing the popish garments was so manifestly
injurious to the progress of truth, that the refusal to wear them was
not a trivial scruple of conscience, as it may, at first sight, appear.
But the attempt to enforce the use of them, by severe penalties, and
by expulsion from office, was unjust; and it led to a final separation
of the Protestants themselves into Conformists and Non-Conformists.
After Edward’s death, and the accession of Mary, Popery was
restored, and scenes of barbarous cruelty and bloody persecution
ensued, which have made the name of this Queen infamous. Many
hundreds of the Protestants perished at the stake, or in prison, and
multitudes fled to Germany, Switzerland, and other countries.
The reign of this fierce bigot was happily short, and Elizabeth
succeeded her. The Protestant religion was re-established, and
during her long reign it gained an ascendancy which it has never
since lost. Yet Elizabeth possessed the despotic temper of her father.
She had a fondness for some of the gaudy rites of Popery.[11] She
peremptorily insisted on the use of the clerical vestments, and on a
strict conformity to all the other ceremonies of the church. The final
separation of the Non-Conformists from the Church of England was
thus hastened. Those who had fled from England during the reign of
Mary, returned, on the accession of Elizabeth, bringing with them an
attachment to the purer rites of the Reformed Churches in Holland,
Switzerland and France. Most of these exiles, and of the other Non-
Conformists, were, nevertheless, willing to subscribe to the doctrines
of the Church of England, and to use the liturgy, if they might be
permitted to omit the vestments, the sign of the cross in baptism,
and some other ceremonies. They disliked the pretensions of the
Bishops, and many of them preferred the Presbyterian or
Independent form of Church government. There were, too, some
minor points in the liturgy, to which they objected. But had they
been treated with Christian kindness, and allowed, in the spirit of
mutual forbearance and charity, to neglect those forms, which they
considered as sinful or inexpedient, they would, for the most part,
have remained in the Episcopal Church, and England would have
been spared the manifold crimes and miseries, which issued in a civil
war, and drenched her soil with the blood of her King, and of
thousands of her bravest sons.
But the principles of religious liberty were then unknown. The
Queen, though for a while she treated the Non-Conformists with
indulgence, till her power was fully established, soon announced to
them her sovereign pleasure, that they should submit to all the
ceremonies of the church. Severe laws were passed by an
obsequious Parliament, and enforced, with ready zeal, by servile
Bishops. Every minister who refused to conform to all the prescribed
ceremonies was liable to be deprived of his office; and a large
number of the ablest ministers in the nation were thus expelled and
silenced.[12] In order to enforce the laws with the utmost rigor, a new
tribunal was erected, called the Court of High Commission,
consisting of Commissioners, appointed by the Queen. This Court
was invested with power to arrest ministers in any part of the
kingdom, to deprive them of their livings, and to fine or imprison
them at the pleasure of the Court. “Instead of producing witnesses
in open court, to prove the charges, they assumed a power of
administering an oath ex officio, whereby the prisoner was obliged
to answer all questions the Court should put to him, though never so
prejudicial to his own defence. If he refused to swear, he was
imprisoned for contempt; and if he took the oath, he was convicted
upon his own confession.”[13] By this Protestant Inquisition, and by
other means, one fourth of the preachers in England are said to
have been under suspension. Numerous parishes were destitute of
preachers, and so many were filled by illiterate and profligate men,
that not one beneficed clergyman in six was capable of composing a
sermon.[14] Thus were learned and pious ministers oppressed, merely
for their conscientious scruples about a few ceremonies, their
families were ruined, the people were deprived of faithful teachers,
the progress of truth was hindered, the papists were gratified, and a
state of irritation was produced in the public mind, which led, in a
succeeding reign, to the disastrous issue of a bloody civil war.
Nor was the edge of this intolerance turned against the clergy
alone. The people were rigorously required to attend regularly at the
parish churches.
Measures like these gradually alienated the affections of many
from the Established Church, and convinced them, that there was no
prospect of obtaining toleration, or of effecting a further reform in
the church. They accordingly separated from it, and established
meetings, where the ceremonies were not practised. These Non-
Conformists were called Puritans, a term of reproach derived from
the Cathari, or Puritans, of the third century after Christ. The term,
however, was not inappropriate, as it intimated their desire of a
purer form of worship and discipline in the church. It was afterwards
applied to them on account of the purity of their morals, and the
Calvinistic cast of their doctrines.
This separation occurred in the year 1566. The storm of royal and
ecclesiastical wrath now beat the more fiercely on the heads of the
Puritans. The history of England, for the succeeding century, is a
deplorable narrative of oppression, bloodshed and indescribable
misery, inflicted on men and women, of deep piety and pure lives,
but guilty of claiming the rights of conscience, and choosing to
worship God with different forms from those which the National
Church prescribed. No man, of right feelings, can read Neal’s History
of the Puritans, without sorrow and indignation. Every man ought to
read it, if he would understand the reasons why the founders of this
country left their native land, to seek an asylum in the wilderness,
and if he would rightly estimate the great principles of religious
liberty which Roger Williams maintained and defended.
The accession of James I. excited the hopes of the Puritans. He
had been educated in the principles of the Reformation, and had
stigmatized the service of the Church of England as “an evil said
mass in English.”[15] He had promised, that he would maintain the
principles of the Church of Scotland while he lived. But he changed
his principles or his policy, after he ascended the throne of England.
He then announced the true royal creed, No Bishops, no King. He
treated the Puritans with contempt and rigor, declaring that they
were a sect “unable to be suffered in any well-governed
commonwealth.”[16] Many of the Puritans, finding their situation
intolerable at home, left the kingdom for the continent, or turned
their eyes to America for a refuge from persecution.
In the midst of these scenes, Roger Williams was born and
educated. His character impelled him to the side of the Puritans. His
political principles were then, it is probable, as they were throughout
his subsequent life, very liberal; and were entirely repugnant to the
doctrines which were then upheld by the court and the dignitaries of
the church. James was an obstinate and arbitrary monarch, who
inflexibly maintained, in theory and often in practice, those despotic
principles, which led his son to the scaffold, and expelled James II.
from the throne. A mind, like that of Williams, strong, searching and
fearless, would naturally be opposed to the pretensions and policy of
the King.[17] His patron, Sir Edward Coke, incurred the resentment of
James, for his free principles, and his bold vindication of the rights of
the people. Charles I. was, if possible, more arbitrary than his father,
and more disposed to trample on the constitution, and on the rights
of the people.
The tyranny exercised by the Bishops, the severe persecution of
the Puritans, and the arrogant demand of absolute submission to the
National Church, were still more offensive to a man like Mr. Williams.
His principles, as he afterwards expounded them, by his life and in
his writings, claimed for all men a perfect liberty of conscience, in
reference to religion. Such principles, allied to a bold spirit, must
have brought him into notice at such a crisis, and must have
attracted upon his head the storm of persecution. Cotton, Hooker,
and many other ministers, were silenced. In such times, Mr. Williams
could not escape. If he was indeed admitted to a living, it must have
been through the indulgence of some mild Prelate, or by the
influence of some powerful patron. If Cotton and Hooker were not
spared, Williams could not be suffered to preach, for his refusal to
conform seems to have been more decided than theirs.[18]
 The same motives, without doubt, which induced others to forsake
their native land for America, operated on the mind of Mr. Williams.
On the 1st of December, 1630, he embarked at Bristol, in the ship
Lyon, Captain William Peirce. His wife accompanied him, a lady, of
whose previous history we are more ignorant than of his own.[19]
There is, however, satisfactory evidence, in her subsequent life, of
her virtues as a wife and a mother. We cannot doubt, that she was
of a kindred spirit with her husband, whose fortunes, both adverse
and prosperous, she shared for half a century.
 CHAPTER II.

Historical Sketch—View of the condition of the country at the time

of Mr. Williams’ arrival.

The first settlement, by Europeans, in North America, was made in

1585, when Sir Walter Raleigh sent a fleet of seven ships from
England to Virginia. One hundred and seven persons were landed on
the island of Roanoke, near the mouth of Albemarle Sound, in the
present State of North Carolina. But discouraged by the want of
provisions, and probably by other causes, all the colonists returned
to England the next year. Another, and more successful, attempt was
made twenty years afterwards, under the authority of a patent from
King James, who granted all the territory in North America,
comprehended between the 34th and 45th degrees of latitude, to be
equally divided between two companies, called, respectively, the
London and the Plymouth.
In 1607, three ships, with one hundred emigrants, formed a
settlement on the James River, in Virginia, and called the spot
Jamestown, in honor of the King.
In the same year, a small colony made a settlement at the mouth
of the Kennebec River, in the present State of Maine; but the loss of
their stores by fire, and the severity of the winter, induced them all
to abandon the undertaking the next year, and return to England.
In 1610, a settlement was commenced at Newfoundland, and in
1614, the Dutch built a fort on the island of Manhattan, where the
city of New York now stands, and held the country many years,
under a grant from the States’ General, by the name of the New
Netherlands.[20]
In 1620, the ever memorable landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth
took place. The colonists were a company of Puritans, who left
England so early as 1608, with their pastor, the Rev. John Robinson,
and settled at Leyden, in Holland. The merciless oppression which
they endured in England impelled them thus to abandon their native
land. They enjoyed protection and prosperity in Holland, but they
were not satisfied with their condition and prospects in that country,
which a foreign language and lax morals rendered an undesirable
home for them and their children. They accordingly resolved to
emigrate to America. They sailed from Plymouth (England) in
September, 1620, and on the 11th of December they landed at the
spot to which they gave the name of Plymouth.
The settlement of Massachusetts Bay occurred a few years after.
This great enterprise was conducted under the direction of the
Plymouth Company, who obtained a new patent from King James, by
which a number of the highest nobility and gentry of England, their
associates and successors, were constituted “the Council established
at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling,
ordering and governing of New England, in America.” By this patent,
the whole territory between the 40th and the 48th degrees of north
latitude, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, was granted to the
company.[21] In 1627–8, the Company sold to several gentlemen,
among whom were John Endicott and John Humfrey, all that part of
New-England which lies between three miles north of Merrimac River
and three miles south of Charles River, across the whole breadth of
the continent. In June, 1628, Mr. Endicott sailed from England, for
Naumkeag, since called Salem, where a small company of emigrants
had fixed their residence a short time before. Mr. Endicott’s first
letter from America is dated September 13, 1628, and his arrival is
considered as the date of the first permanent settlement of
Massachusetts Proper.
The patent from the Council of Plymouth gave a good right to the
soil, (says Hutchinson, vol. i. pp. 16, 17) but no powers of
government. A royal charter was necessary. This passed the seals
March 4, 1628–9. It confirmed the patent of the Council of
Plymouth, and created the Governor and Company of the
Massachusetts Bay, in New-England, a body politic and corporate. By
this charter, the Company were empowered to elect, annually,
forever, out of the freemen of said Company, a Governor, a Deputy
Governor, and eighteen assistants, and to make laws not repugnant
to the laws of England.
As the state of things in the parent country daily became more
distressing to the friends of religion and liberty, an emigration,
unparalleled for its extent, and for the character of the emigrants,
was projected. A considerable number of persons of great
respectability, of good fortune, and of consideration in society,
among whom were Winthrop, Dudley, Johnson, and Saltonstall,
resolved to remove, with their families and property, to
Massachusetts, on condition that the charter of the colony and the
seat of its government should be transferred to America. This
important proposition was acceded to, and on the 28th of April,
1630, Winthrop, who had been elected Governor, and his associates,
sailed from Yarmouth,[22] in a fleet, which, with the vessels that
preceded and followed them the same season, amounted in the
whole to seventeen sail,[23] with above fifteen hundred passengers.
[24]
The Arbella, with Governor Winthrop on board, arrived at Salem
on the 12th of June, and the other vessels arrived soon after. The
colonists there had lost eighty of their number by death the winter
previous. Their provisions were nearly consumed, and they were in a
distressing situation. The arrival of the new emigrants occasioned
great joy to the sufferers, and revived their hopes.
It was early determined that Salem was not the proper position for
the capital. The Governor, and the principal part of the emigrants,
left Salem soon after their arrival, and resided awhile at
Charlestown. Here sickness prevailed among them, and a
considerable number died.[25] They were distressed by the want of
fresh water. Many of them accordingly abandoned Charlestown, and
settled at Watertown and Dorchester, while a still larger number
removed, in September, to the other side of the river, and laid the
foundation of Boston. The peninsula was then inhabited by only one
white man, the Rev. William Blackstone.[26] It was called by the
Indians Shawmut, and by the neighboring settlers, Trimountain, the
former name signifying the abundance and sweetness of its waters,
the latter the peculiar character of its hills.[27] It was called Boston by
a vote of the Court, September 7, in well deserved honor of the Rev.
John Cotton, who had been a minister of Boston, in England, and
whose arrival in America was earnestly expected.
The sufferings of the first inhabitants of the metropolis were very
great. Sickness swept many of them into the grave. The weather
during the winter was extremely severe, and provisions were so
scarce, that the inhabitants were in imminent peril of starvation.[28]
At this critical juncture, the ship Lyon, in which Roger Williams had
embarked, arrived, on the 5th of February, 1630–1. Governor
Winthrop (vol. i. pp. 41, 42) thus records the arrival of this vessel:
“Feb. 5. The ship Lyon,[29] Mr. William Peirce, master, arrived at
Nantasket. She brought Mr. Williams, a godly minister,[30] with his
wife, Mr. Throgmorton, Perkins, Ong, and others, with their wives
and children, about twenty passengers, and about two hundred tons
of goods. She set sail from Bristol, December 1. She had a very
tempestuous passage, yet through God’s mercy, all her people came
safe, except Way his son, who fell from the spritsail yard in a
tempest, and could not be recovered, though he kept in sight near a
quarter of an hour; her goods also came all in good condition.”
The strong contrast between the situation of the present
inhabitants of the metropolis, and that of the little company of
suffering exiles in 1630, forces itself on our minds. They were few in
number. They had no suitable dwellings to shelter them from the
rigors of winter, then more severe, perhaps, than any which we now
experience. They were almost without food. Disease was among
them, and several of their number sunk into the grave, whose lives
might doubtless have been preserved, had they been furnished with
suitable shelter, food and medicine. When they looked around them,
all was dreary and melancholy. “Where now exists a dense and
aggregated mass of living beings and material things, amid all the
accommodations of life, the splendors of wealth, the delights of
taste, and whatever can gratify the cultivated intellect, there were
then only a few hills, which, when the ocean receded, were
intersected by wide marshes, and when its tide returned, appeared a
group of lofty islands, abruptly rising from the surrounding waters.
Thick forests concealed the neighboring hills, and the deep silence of
nature was broken only by the voice of the wild beast or the bird,
and the war whoop of the savage.”[31]
How different the situation of the present inhabitants. That little
company has swelled to more than sixty thousand. Those forests,
which then covered the hills and vallies, are gone; the ocean has
been driven back from much of the space over which it then rolled;
and now, where stood the few tents and cabins of the first settlers,
have sprung up, over the whole peninsula, sumptuous structures
and spacious temples, comfortable dwellings, ample warehouses,
and every thing which can minister to the happiness of men. The
poorest of its citizens is better sheltered and better fed, than some
of the richest families among the first inhabitants. Let them give
devout thanks to God, that He has reserved for them a happier lot
than that of their fathers. Let them, amid their profusion of
blessings, praise the Lord, who has done so great things for their
city, and its successive generations. Let them, above all, hold fast
those great truths, for which the founders sacrificed every thing dear
to them on earth.
As the colonists came to this country to enjoy the privilege of
worshipping God according to their conceptions of His will, it was, of
course, among their first objects to form churches, and make
provision for the regular worship of the Most High.
The settlers at Plymouth were organized as a church before they
left Holland, and as such they landed on our shores. This church was
formed on the principle of entire independence on all human
authority. Its members belonged to that class of the Non-
Conformists, who had separated entirely from the Church of
England, and adopted a form of church polity which they deemed
more consistent with the letter and the spirit of the New Testament.
The separate independence of each church on all others; the
necessity of true piety as a qualification for membership; the right of
each church to elect its own officers; the rejection of all officers
except pastors or elders, and deacons, and the entire equality of all
pastors and elders, in respect to power and privileges, were among
the principles adopted by this excellent body of Christians. They are
the principles which the Scriptures teach, and it would have been
happy for the cause of truth, if they had been held fast, without any
corrupt mixture, by all the churches which professed to receive
them. Another principle adopted by the church of Plymouth was,
that ecclesiastical censures are wholly spiritual, and not to be
accompanied with temporal penalties. In this respect, the church of
Plymouth were in advance of their brethren in Massachusetts, and
the history of the Plymouth colony is honorably distinguished by a
tolerant spirit, which contributed not less to her peace and
prosperity, than to her true fame.
The first settlers at Salem, Boston, and other towns in
Massachusetts Bay, belonged, for the most part, to the other class of
Non-Conformists, who did not, while in England, separate wholly
from the Established Church, though they opposed her corruptions.
They desired only a further reform of the Church herself, and
retained their membership, some of them conforming, though
reluctantly, to her ceremonies, to avoid persecution, and others
refusing such a conformity, protected awhile by the indulgence of
some mild Prelates, or by the friendship of powerful laymen. When,
at length, despairing of the desired reform, and weary of
persecution, they embarked for America, they came as members of
the Church of England. Winthrop and his associates, while on board
the fleet at Yarmouth, addressed a farewell letter to the “rest of their
brethren in and of the Church of England,” which is as beautiful in
diction as it is admirable for its affectionate pathos. They say, “We
desire you would be pleased to take notice of the principals and
body of our company, as those who esteem it our honor to call the
Church of England, from whence we arise, our dear mother, and
cannot part from our native country, where she specially resideth,
without much sadness of heart and many tears in our eyes; ever
acknowledging, that such hope and part as we have obtained in the
common salvation, we have received in her bosom, and sucked it
from her breasts. We leave it not, therefore, as loathing that milk,
wherewith we were nourished, but blessing God for the parentage
and education, as members of the same body, shall always rejoice in
her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any sorrow that shall ever
betide her; and, while we have breath, sincerely desire and
endeavor the continuance and abundance of her welfare, with the
enlargement of her bounds in the kingdom of Christ Jesus.”[32]
There was, unquestionably, an entire sincerity in these expressions
of attachment to the Church of England. There was, as they judged,
no inconsistency in their subsequent conduct, in forming churches,
from which Episcopacy, and all the ceremonies of the parent Church,
were excluded. Their love for that Church was founded on her
doctrines, not on her ceremonies. They recognised in her articles the
genuine faith, once delivered to the saints. Her ceremonies they
regarded as unseemly appendages, the relics of Popish superstition,
of which they desired to divest her. They loved the inward spirit, not
the outward form. They did reverence to the majestic soul, while
they looked with sorrow on her fantastic attire. They would have
remained in her bosom, and submitted to much which they deemed
undesirable, if she would have permitted them to reject what they
considered as positively unlawful and wrong. But as she left them no
alternative but unconditional submission, or exile, they departed for
America; and when they came to form churches here, they
endeavored to incorporate that soul in a body befitting her dignity.
The American church was, in their view, the Church of England,
redeemed and regenerated, holding to her former self a similar
relation to that which the just man made perfect bears to the saint
who is still on earth, and encumbered with his diseased and mortal
body.
 A church was formed at Salem, on the 6th of August, 1629, when
thirty persons entered into a covenant in writing, and the Rev. Mr.
Skelton was ordained, or instituted, as the pastor, and the Rev. Mr.
Higginson as the teacher; these offices being considered as distinct,
and both being deemed essential to the welfare of a church. The
church thus formed was entirely independent. The Governor of
Plymouth, and other members of the church there, who had been
invited to attend the ceremony, were not permitted to give the right
hand of fellowship to the new church, till an explicit declaration had
been made, that this service was not meant to indicate any right of
interference or control. The pastor and teacher were inducted into
office by the vote of the church, and by the imposition of the hands
of the ruling elder, as the organ of the church. Thus careful were this
body to exclude, at the outset, all authority but that of the Head of
the Church. Several of the inhabitants, among whom Messrs. John
and Samuel Brown were the principal men, opposed the new church,
because the liturgy of the Church of England was rejected.[33] They
accordingly formed another society, in which the book of common
prayer was read. The schism was speedily remedied, by a measure
which was much more energetic than just. Mr. John Brown and his
brother, the leaders, were sent to England, and their followers
quietly relinquished their opposition.
A church was formed at Charlestown, July 30, 1630, by Governor
Winthrop and a number of other persons, who signed a covenant, in
which they simply promised to “walk in all our ways according to the
rule of the Gospel, and in all sincere conformity to his holy
ordinances, and in mutual love and respect to each other, so near as
God shall give us grace.”[34] On the 27th of August, the Rev. John
Wilson was elected teacher. “We used imposition of hands,” says
Governor Winthrop, “but with this protestation by all, that it was
only as a sign of election and confirmation, not of any intent that Mr.
Wilson should renounce his ministry he received in England.”[35] Thus
careful were they to guard the independence of the church, while
they preserved due respect for the Church of England, whose
ministers, so far as they were pastors and teachers, they
acknowledged and honored.
When the Governor and the greater portion of the colonists
removed to Boston, the church, with the minister, removed thither. It
remained without a house for public worship till August, 1632, when
a building was commenced,[36] on the south side of State street,
opposite the spot where the Branch Bank now stands. It was a
humble structure, with a thatched roof and mud walls.[37] Perhaps,
however, the metropolis has never seen a more devout congregation
than that which was accustomed to assemble there. It well
illustrates the piety of the founders, and their high regard for the
ministry, that at the first Court of Assistants, held on board the
Arbella, at Charlestown, August 23, 1630, the first question
propounded was, How shall the ministers be maintained? It was
ordered, that houses be built for them with convenient speed, at the
public charge, and their salaries were established. These were
sufficiently moderate. Mr. Wilson was allowed twenty pounds per
annum, till his wife should arrive, and Mr. Phillips, the minister of
Watertown, was to receive thirty pounds.[38]
The ecclesiastical polity, now commenced, was afterwards
moulded into a more regular and permanent form, by the personal
influence of Mr. Cotton, and by the authority of the platform adopted
in 1648. The great principles which were established were these:
each church is independent, and possesses the sole power of
governing itself, according to the Scriptures; piety and a holy life are
the qualifications for church membership; the officers of a church
are pastors, teachers, ruling elders and deacons, and are to be
chosen by the church itself; the ordination of ministers is to be
performed with imposition of hands, by the ministers of the
neighboring churches. These and other principles, which, with some
exceptions, are still held by the Independent, Congregational and
Baptist churches, were joined, with another article, which was the
source of manifold mischiefs to the colony. It is thus expressed, in
the words of Hubbard, (540): “Church government and civil
government may very well stand together, it being the duty of the
magistrate to take care of matters of religion, and to improve his
civil authority for observing the duties commanded in the first as
well as in the second table; seeing the end of their office is not only
the quiet and peaceable life of the subject in matters of
righteousness and honesty, but also in matters of godliness.” 1 Tim.
ii. 1, 2.
The ecclesiastical polity being adjusted, the civil government was
made to conform to it.[39] To the excellent founders, religion was the
most precious of all interests, and civil government was, in their
view, useful, no further than it was necessary for the good order of
the community, and the security of their religious privileges. Having
escaped from the grasp of the civil power in England, they resolved,
that in the new state to be formed here, the church should hold the
first place. They wished to erect here a community, which should be
itself a church, governed by the laws of Jesus Christ, flourishing in
the peace and beauty of holiness, and realizing the glorious visions
of the prophets. It was a noble conception, a sublime purpose, of
which none but pure hearted men would have been capable. That
they failed in accomplishing all their plans, was the natural result of
human corruption; but they succeeded in forming a community,
more moral, more easily governed, better educated, more
thoroughly under the control of religious principles, and more truly
free, than the world had then seen. At the General Court, held so
early as May 18, 1631, it was ordered, that no person should be
admitted to the privileges of a freeman, unless he was a member of
some church in the colony. This law was, no doubt, unjust, and the
colony was afterwards forced to repeal it. It was, also, injurious to
the interests of religion, for it made church membership an object of
earnest desire, for political purposes, and thus introduced men
without piety into the church. It led to the adoption, to some extent,
of the ruinous principle, that piety is not necessary to church
membership, and it was one of the causes of that unhappy strife,
which issued in the introduction of the half-way covenant.[40] But the
law is characteristic of the founders, and proves their determination
to keep the state subordinate to the church. They also adopted, as
the basis of their civil code, the laws of Moses, so far as they were
of a moral nature, though, as Roger Williams remarked, “they
extended their moral equity to so many particulars as to take in the
whole judicial law.” They punished crimes, not by the laws of
England, but by those of Moses. Idolatry, blasphemy, man stealing,
adultery, and some other crimes, not punishable with death by the
laws of the parent country, were made capital. Every inhabitant was
compelled to contribute, in proportion to his ability, to the support of
religion. This adoption of the Mosaic code, and a constant disposition
to seek for precedents in the Old Testament, will account for many
of the measures which have been attributed to the bigotry of our
fathers.
 CHAPTER III.

Mr. Williams refuses to unite with the Boston church—is invited to

Salem—interference of the General Court—removes to Plymouth
—the Indians—difficulties at Plymouth—birth of Mr. Williams’
eldest child.

On the 5th of February, 1630–1,[41] as we have already stated, Mr.

Williams arrived in America, where he was to become one of the
founders of a great nation. As a minister of the Gospel, he would
naturally seek, without delay, for an opportunity to fulfil his office.
He was, it is probable, without property, and a sense of duty would
concur with the dictates of prudence, to urge him to inquire for
some situation where he might be useful, while he obtained a
maintenance. The church in Boston were supplied with a pastor, and
the great Cotton was expected to become their teacher. There was,
however, another difficulty to which we shall soon have occasion to
recur.
In a few weeks after Mr. Williams’ arrival, he was invited by the
church at Salem to become an assistant to Mr. Skelton, as teacher, in
the place of the accomplished Higginson, who died a few months
before. Mr. Williams complied with the invitation, and commenced
his ministry in that town. But the civil authority speedily interfered,
in accordance with the principle afterwards established in the
platform, that “if any church, one or more, shall grow schismatical,
rending itself from the communion of other churches, or shall walk
incorrigibly and obstinately in any corrupt way of their own, contrary
to the rule of the word; in such case, the magistrate is to put forth
his coercive power, as the matter shall require.”[42]
On the 12th of April, says Governor Winthrop (vol. i. p. 53) “at a
Court, holden at Boston, (upon information to the Governor, that
they of Salem had called Mr. Williams to the office of teacher,) a
letter was written from the Court to Mr. Endicott to this effect: That
whereas Mr. Williams had refused to join with the congregation at
Boston, because they would not make a public declaration of their
repentance for having communion with the churches of England,
while they lived there; and besides, had declared his opinion that the
magistrate might not punish a breach of the Sabbath, nor any other
offence, as it was a breach of the first table; therefore they
marvelled they would choose him without advising with the Council;
and withal desiring him that they would forbear to proceed till they
had conferred about it.”
The first of these charges is made in very indefinite terms.[43] It
does not appear, what was the degree of conformity which the
members of the church had practised in England, nor what degree of
criminality was, in the estimation of Mr. Williams, attributable to their
conduct. It is well known, that some of the Puritans did maintain, till
they left England, a connection with the church, from whose ritual
they secretly dissented, and whose corruptions they deeply
deplored. We have already stated, that Governor Winthrop and his
associates had not separated from the church when they left
England, but acknowledged themselves, at the moment of their
departure, as among her children. Many good men considered this
conformity as a pusillanimous and sinful connivance at evil, tending
to sanction and perpetuate the corruptions of the church. Mr. Cotton
himself, being forced, by the intolerance of the hierarchy, either to
submit to their ritual, or to suffer the vengeance of the High
Commission Court, resolved to leave England. He travelled in
disguise to London. “Here,” says Cotton Mather, (Magnalia, b. iii.
chap. 1. § 18) “the Lord had a work for him to do, which he little
thought of. Some reverend and renowned ministers of our Lord in
that great city, who yet had not seen sufficient reason to expose
themselves unto persecution for the sake of non-conformity, but
looked upon the imposed ceremonies as indifferent and sufferable
trifles, and weighed not the aspect of the second commandment
upon all the parts and means of instituted worship, took this
opportunity for a conference with Mr. Cotton; being persuaded, that
since he was no passionate, but a very judicious man, they should
prevail with him rather to conform, than to leave his work and his
land. Upon the motion of a conference, Mr. Cotton most readily
yielded; and first, all their arguments for conformity, together with
Mr. Byfield’s, Mr. Whately’s, and Mr. Sprint’s, were produced, all of
which Mr. Cotton answered, unto their wonderful satisfaction. Then
he gave his arguments for his non-conformity, and the reasons why
he must rather forego his ministry, or, at least, his country, than
wound his conscience with unlawful compliance; the issue whereof
was, that instead of bringing Mr. Cotton back to what he had now
forsaken, he brought them off altogether from what they had
hitherto practised. Every one of those eminent persons, Dr. Goodwin,
Mr. Nye, and Mr. Davenport, now became all that he was, and at last
left the kingdom for their being so.”
If, then, these distinguished ministers had practised a conformity
which Mr. Cotton esteemed “unlawful,” and which Cotton Mather
seems to have considered as a breach of the second commandment,
it is probable, that many private Christians had done the same. The
members of the Boston church had undoubtedly shared in these
“compliances.” But if Mr. Cotton could not conform, without
wounding his conscience, he must have thought the practice
criminal. There is no question, that Mr. Williams was of the same
opinion; and as his temper was more ardent and bold than that of
Mr. Cotton, his opposition to what he must have regarded as highly
censurable, would naturally be strong and decided. It is not very
surprising, therefore, if, on his arrival in America, with a vivid sense
of recent wrong from the persecuting church, he was disinclined to a
cordial union with those who had, in any measure, yielded to her
despotic pretensions, and sanctioned, by any acts of compliance, her
unscriptural requirements. We are not told, precisely, in what terms,
and to what extent, he wished the members of the Boston church to
express their repentance for their conduct. He, perhaps, allowed his
feelings to bias his judgment in this case, and to make him forget his
own principles of liberty of conscience; but the facts to which we
have alluded show, that his objections were not altogether frivolous,
nor his conduct the offspring of bigotry and caprice. It appears, that
his feelings were afterwards allayed; and while at Plymouth, the next
year, he communed with Governor Winthrop and other gentlemen
from Boston.[44]
The other allegation, made in the extract from Winthrop, that Mr.
Williams denied the power of the civil magistrate to punish men for
violations of the first table of the law,[45] that is, in other words, for
the neglect, or the erroneous performance, of their duties to God, is
one, which, at this day, needs little discussion. Time has wrought out
a triumphant vindication of this great principle. The doctrine, that
man is accountable to his Maker alone for his religious opinions and
practices, and is entitled to an unrestrained liberty to maintain and
enjoy them, provided that he does not interfere with the rights of
others, and with the civil peace of society, has won for itself, in this
country, at least, a place among the undisputed principles of thought
and action. Ample experience has demonstrated, even in New-
England, the manifold evils which spring from intrusting to civil
rulers the power to legislate for the church, to control the
conscience, and to regulate the intercourse between men and his
Creator. We shall have occasion to recur to this topic. It is sufficient
now to say, that Mr. Williams stood on the firm ground of truth and
of enlightened policy, when he denied to the civil magistrate the
right to interfere with the consciences of men.[46] There is no
allegation, that he failed, on this occasion, in due respect for the
constituted authorities; but he claimed the right of a freeman to
speak freely of their principles and measures. His natural
temperament would give warmth and energy to his remonstrance. A
calmer man than he might have been moved, if, when driven from
his native land by intolerance, he found, in the country to which he
had fled, the same principles maintained, the same usurpation of
power over the conscience claimed, as a regular attribute of the civil
authority.
It appears, therefore, that the General Court had little cause for
their interference between Mr. Williams and the church at Salem.
Their right to interfere, for any cause, will not now be maintained by
any man. That church, though she was probably aware of the
disapprobation and meditated interference of the Court, seems to
have disregarded it, and on the 12th of April, the same day on which
the Court was held, received Mr. Williams, as her minister.[47] She
thus consulted her duty as well as her true interests. Jesus Christ is
the only King and Legislator of his church. He has given her his
statute book, and it is as inconsistent with her duty, as it ought to be
repugnant to her feelings, to permit any attempt to abridge the
rights which her Lord has bestowed on her. The choice of her
pastors and teachers is one of her most sacred rights, and most
important duties. She is bound to exercise this high privilege, in
humble dependence on the teachings of divine wisdom, but with a
resolute resistance of attempts, from any quarter, to control her
election.
Notwithstanding the unwarrantable proceedings of the Court,
which must have been offensive both to the principles and the
feelings of Mr. Williams, we find him, the next month, (the 18th of
May, 1631) taking the usual oath on his admission as a freeman.[48]
This fact is worthy of notice, because it proves, that he was willing
to honor the civil authorities, within their proper sphere, and that he
desired to become a permanent and useful citizen. It shows, too,
that he had no objection to an oath, when administered in a proper
manner, and for suitable ends. At this very Court, the law was made,
which excluded from the rights of freemen every person, who was
not a member of some one of the churches. Whether the difficulty
which had already risen respecting Mr. Williams, had any influence in
producing this measure, cannot now be ascertained.
Notwithstanding that the church at Salem had received Mr.
Williams, he was not permitted to remain in peace. “Persecution,”
says Dr. Bentley,[49] “instead of calm expostulation, instantly
commenced, and Williams, before the close of summer, was obliged
to retire to Plymouth.” That this separation from the church at Salem
was not a voluntary one, on her part or on his, may be presumed,
from the fact, asserted by the historian of Salem just quoted, that
“he was embraced with joy at Salem, and throughout all his life
supported a high place in their affections, as a truly godly man.”[50]
His return to that town, by their invitation, two years after, is a
satisfactory proof that the church there felt a confidence in his piety,
and an attachment to his person and ministry.[51]
At Plymouth, Mr. Williams was received with much respect, and
became an assistant to Mr. Ralph Smith, the pastor of the church
there. Governor Bradford speaks of Mr. Williams in honorable terms,
[52]
and even Morton, who was not much disposed to speak favorably
of him, acknowledges that he “was well accepted as an assistant in
the ministry.”[53]
During Mr. Williams’ residence at Plymouth, Governor Winthrop,
with Mr. Wilson, of Boston, and other gentlemen, visited that town.
[54]
Winthrop’s account of the visit is so strongly illustrative of the
manners of those times, that it may be properly inserted.
“1632. September 25. The Governor, with Mr. Wilson, pastor of
Boston, and the two Captains, &c. went aboard the Lyon, and from
thence Mr. Peirce carried them in his shallop to Wessaguscus.[55] The
next morning Mr. Peirce returned to his ship, and the Governor and
his company went on foot to Plymouth, and came thither within the
evening. The Governor of Plymouth, Mr. William Bradford, (a very
discreet and grave man) with Mr. Brewster, the elder, and some
others, came forth and met them without the town, and conducted
them to the Governor’s house, where they were very kindly
entertained and feasted every day at several houses. On the Lord’s
day there was a sacrament, which they did partake in; and in the
afternoon Mr. Roger Williams (according to their custom)
propounded a question, to which the pastor, Mr. Smith, spake briefly;
then Mr. Williams prophesied; and after the Governor of Plymouth
spake to the question; after him, the elder; then some two or three
more of the congregation. Then the elder desired the Governor of
Massachusetts and Mr. Wilson, to speak to it, which they did. When
this was ended, the deacon, Mr. Fuller, put the congregation in mind
of their duty of contribution; whereupon the Governor and all the
rest went down to the deacons’ seat, and put into the box, and then
returned.” Vol. i. p. 91.
While at Plymouth, Mr. Williams enjoyed favorable opportunities of
intercourse with the Indians, who frequently visited that town. It
appears, too, that he made excursions among them, to learn their
manners and their language, and thus to qualify himself to promote
their welfare. His whole life furnished evidence of the sincerity of his
declaration, in one of his letters, “My soul’s desire was, to do the
natives good.” He became acquainted with Massasoit, or, as he was
also called, Ousamequin, the sachem of the Pokanokets, and father
of the famous Philip. He also formed an intimacy with Canonicus, the
Narraganset sachem. He secured the confidence of these savage
chiefs, by acts of kindness, by presents, and not less, perhaps, by
studying their language. He says, in a letter, written near the close
of his life, “God was pleased to give me a painful, patient spirit, to
lodge with them in their filthy smoky holes, (even while I lived at
Plymouth and Salem) to gain their tongue.”
The effects of this intimacy with the sachems were very important.
We shall see, by his subsequent history, that his success, in
purchasing lands for himself and for the other settlers in Rhode
Island, was the result mainly of his personal influence with the
Indians. We discern, in these preparatory measures, the hand of
God, who was designing to employ Mr. Williams as an instrument in
establishing a new colony, and in preserving New-England from the
fury of the savages.
There is reason to believe, that for some time previously to his
banishment, he had conceived the idea of residing among the
Indians, and that in his intercourse with the sachems, some
propositions had been made respecting a cession of land. His strong
desire to benefit the natives was a sufficient inducement; and he
had, perhaps, seen such indications of the state of feeling towards
him among the colonists, as to awaken an apprehension that he
would not long be allowed to remain within their jurisdiction.
Mr. Williams continued about two years at Plymouth. While there,
we may easily believe, he uttered his sentiments on those points
which had occasioned his removal from Salem, as well as on other
subjects, in relation to which his opinions were at variance with
those of that age. They were not acceptable to the principal
personages at Plymouth, though it does not appear that any public
expression of disapprobation was made by the church. His heart was
evidently drawn towards Salem, and being invited to return,[56] to
assist Mr. Skelton, whose declining health unfitted him for his duties,
Mr. Williams requested a dismission from the church at Plymouth.
Some of the members were unwilling to be separated from him, and
accompanied him to Salem, after ineffectual efforts to detain him at
Plymouth.[57] But the ruling elder, Mr. Brewster, prevailed on the
church to dismiss him and his adherents. Mr. Brewster probably
disliked his opinions, and feared that he would be successful in
diffusing them at Plymouth. He, therefore, alarmed the church, by
expressing his fears, that Mr. Williams would “run the same course of
rigid separation and anabaptistry, which Mr. John Smith, the Se-
Baptist, at Amsterdam, had done.”[58] Anabaptism was a spectre,
which haunted the imaginations of the early settlers. The word
possessed a mysterious power of inspiring terror and creating
odium. It has, perhaps, been sometimes employed to justify
measures, which might else have wanted the appearance of justice
and humanity. It was one of those terms, which, in the language of
the most original writer, perhaps, of this age—himself liable to the
charge of anabaptism[59]—“can be made the symbol of all that is
absurd and execrable, so that the very sound of it shall irritate the
passions of the multitude, as dogs have been taught to bark, at the
name of a neighboring tyrant.”[60]
While Mr. Williams was at Plymouth, his eldest daughter was born
there, in the first week in August, 1633.[61] She was named Mary,
after her mother.
 CHAPTER IV.

Returns to Salem—Ministers Meetings—Court again interferes—the

rights of the Indians—his book against the patent—wearing of
veils—controversy about the cross in the colors.

Mr. Williams left Plymouth probably about the end of August,

1633.[62] He resumed his labors at Salem, as an assistant to Mr.
Skelton, though, for some cause, he was not elected to any office till
after Mr. Skelton’s death. Perhaps the expectation of this event
induced the church to delay the election of Mr. Williams.
Soon after his return to Salem, his watchful love of liberty seems
to have excited him, together with the venerable Mr. Skelton, to
express some apprehension of the tendencies of a meeting, which
several ministers had established, for the ostensible and probably
real purpose of mutual improvement, and consultation respecting
their duties, and the interests of religion. Winthrop thus states,
under the date of November, 1633:
“The ministers in the Bay and Saugus did meet once a fortnight,
at one of their houses, by course, where some question of moment
was debated. Mr. Skelton, the pastor of Salem, and Mr. Williams,
who was removed from Plymouth thither, (but not in any office,
though he exercised by way of prophecy) took some exception
against it, as fearing it might grow in time to a presbytery or
superintendency, to the prejudice of the churches’ liberties. But this
fear was without cause; for they were all clear in that point, that no
church or person can have power over another church; neither did
they, in their meetings, exercise any such jurisdiction.” Vol. i. p. 116.
 It may be true, that the fears of Mr. Skelton and Mr. Williams were
without cause, and, in our own times, such meetings of ministers are
held, with much advantage to themselves and to the churches, and
without exciting alarm. But before we decide, that Mr. Williams was
unnecessarily apprehensive, and especially before we accuse him of
a turbulent and factious temper, it deserves inquiry, whether his
experience of ecclesiastical usurpation and intolerance in England
might not justify the fear, that the frequent consultations of the
ministers were not ominous of good to the independence of the
churches and to liberty of conscience. Mr. Skelton, however, seems
to have been the principal in this opposition.[63] It may have been a
good service to the cause of liberty and of religion. A watchful dread
of encroachments on civil or religious freedom is not useless, in any
age. It was a prominent trait in the character of the colonists, before
the revolution, and it will always be cherished by a free people. It is
a salutary provision, like the sense of fear in the human bosom. It
may sometimes cause an unnecessary alarm, as the watchman may
arouse the city with an unfounded report of danger. But these evils
are preferable to the incautious negligence, which fears not peril,
and thus invites it.
But more important causes of offence to the magistrates and the
clergy were soon found, in the sentiments and conduct of Mr.
Williams. So early as December 27, 1633, we find the General Court
again convened to consult respecting him:
“December 27. The Governor and Assistants met at 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.][64]
“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 been
preserved.[65] 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.’[66] And he tells us, that this evil so
deeply afflicted his soul, that ‘before his troubles and banishment, he
drew up a letter, not without 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
[67]
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 recompense, as it may seem to us, but such as
satisfied the Indians. 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 natives the several tracts of
land which they afterwards possessed.”[68] Dr. Dwight asserts, that
“exclusively of the country of the Pequods, the inhabitants of
Connecticut bought, unless I am deceived, every inch of ground
contained 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.”[69] 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.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

testbankbell.com