stood before these stones to you and lament the downfall of the israelite empire. ♪ announcer: and next on lectures in history, west virginia university professor kevin gooding talks about the idea of religious freedom. at howicular, he looks

the puritans felt about those anddealt with the believes codes. this course is from the salem witch trial. : the story so far, from where we left off on monday. monday we dealt with how the puritans approach people who engaged in misbehaviors. we talked about those and how familiar they were to anybody walking up and down high street on a friday or saturday night. [laughter] how the approach them, how they dealt with people engaged in those behaviors and while was so important for them to bring those people back into the fold, if you well. if possible. if not possible then, thank you, will you please go away. ok? what we're going to deal with today are larger problems that are not necessarily individual

behaviors but people who are espousing ideas and leaf systems and actually practicing and acting upon them that are not reallysbehaviors but question and shake the foundation of p written society. that whole experiment. we talked about how port it was so make sure they were doing it right according to their understanding of the christian faith. they had to do at this particular way. if they did not do at this particular way they would run the risk of being abandoned by god. which was one of the most terrifying things they could imagine. not isstioning

questioning, you know, different religious ideas and the entire basis for the whole thing into cannot do that in their society. ok? so we're going to talk about that am particularly look at it from the standpoint of religious liberty. did they haven't? as we understand it? or, was it something different. religious liberty with a great pig asterisk beside it. ok? so, what we find is the idea of freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion was a contested idea almost as soon as people started to get off the boat in the 16 30's. 1630, colony was established. within just a few years, people start saying on inks. different things. things that threaten the society and the experiment.

contested almost from the beginning. you have people engaging in dissent. wrong here.thing is this approach that we are taking to the christian faith and the way we order our society on the basis of that understanding, some is wrong. we're going to look at a couple people. as people started to say, something is wrong here, it did not take the leaders long to begin to deal with them. because as one puritan minister said, god doff nowhere in his world tolerate christian states to give toleration to a adversaries of his truth, if they have the power in their hands to suppress them. that is not exactly what we would understand is religious liberty from our standpoint or perspective in this particular

point in time. this was not freedom of conscience. they had a very different understanding of religious freedom. believe what to or you are freely or to be punished if you refused . to leave in some very intriguing and sometimes painful ways. or in some cases if you are particularly persistent and your refusal to go along, you might be punished by death. coupletalk about a people. we're going to talk about three people. to in-depth and one we'll touch on her briefly in transition.

who very early started questioning this entire experiment and what happened to them. what with the same? what were the criticisms and how did the puritan society deal with them in the hierarchy? it is we have to understand what they are doing with people who do not go along to understand how they deal with problems because that will help us understand what happened in 1692 with the witch trials. fromid that make sense their perspective? all right? even if it seems insane from ours. all right? let's talk a bout a couple people. some you've heard about before, some you may not have. let's talk about a gentleman by the name of roger williams. heard about him at some point in your high school history classes. he was a charismatic young

minister, cambridge university educated. colony in massachusetts and nearly 1630's and became their minister at a northeast town from boston called salem. salem town, not salem village. you will learn very quickly they are two very different places, very close by. first really one of our few champions and what became the united states of true religious freedom in what we would understand as separation of church and state. and, we will look at some of his ideas about that and how he articulated them and why he articulated them and why he got into trouble because of that. very soon, he arrives in salem. 1633. unknowinge is already people. he did not take very long at all

to do so. thatd a number of ideas annoyed the leadership in the colony. let's talk about those. all, he was settled among a people called puritans. and, he did not think they were appearing enough. enough.were pure you claim to the puritan, as people used to call you the rice of late, as your own, that i do not think you are pure enough. remember we left england because we thought there were problems in the church of england? that it was not pure enough. that there was corruption in it. they participated in our persecution. if that thing that you

used to say was so corrupt and foul enough that you left to get away from it, sort of, why are you still attached to it? why haven't you said, we are no longer part of the church of england? why haven't you done that yet? ,f you really want to be pure what you need to do is repent of that connection. right? remembering the words that john winters said, we want to avoid that shipwreck we used to know. that shipwreck of the church in england. if you really want to be here, you have got to repent of that connection and severus. well, that is not what the leaders wanted to hear. pay what they called a being what they called a separatist was not a good thing.

ok? it was not a good thing. plymouthims had a colony, they were a separatist. not something you wanted to become a good name to have. they did not want that. all right? rebel number one, you need to repent of your connection to the church of england. next thing he thought, people today are fond of quoting founding fathers. whoever they are. right?, all i think one of the most quotable founding fathers that we have is roger williams. i am going to share some of those with you. we are fantastic. you do not have to guess where the man stands. remember, i believe we talked about worship at 10's being mandatory legally. he had strong issues with that. he denounced mandatory worship

attendance, saying this wonderful phrase, forced worship stinks in gods nostrils. use on come a roger, tell what you think. all right. forced worship stinks in god's nostrils. he denounced and forced religious conformance a. believe what we believe or go away. denounced and forced religious conformity. coerced religion on good days produced hypocrites; on bad days rivers of blood. we will see in a moment why he said such extreme things about this. why he is so passionate about it.

he said enforced uniformity confounds civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of christianity and civility. no man shall be required to worship or maintain a worship against his will. maintain a worship is a particular thing. it means you with your tax dollars, basically. for a church, for a will live just organization for which you do not adhere. religion confounds civil and religious liberties and denies the pits both of civility.liberty and he had, as he begin spouting these beliefs, he had exchanges, as you might imagine, with the leaders of the community. one of which was john cotton, one of the early ministers in massachusetts bay colony.

name is spelled just as it sounds, ok? cotton is on the left, williams is on the right. i will be needed to in the language it was written and then i will translate it. : if they'll hunt as to any for the cause of conscience, how canst thou say to our ball resting lamb of god that so abhorred the practice? after peopleing who are holding to their own religious beliefs for their own sake, how can you say you are a follower of the had of god, who himself problems with people going after different religious

beliefs, in his interpretation. to which, the good reverend john cotton says, well, who are free -- their consciences are free as long as, and i quote their minds rightly informed. ok? as long as they have learned this appropriate set of beliefs or behaviors or religious understandings within that, they are perfectly free. all right? rightly informed. proper believes. proper practices. they are like a fence. bird withinree as a

these. ok? just don't try to jump the fence. do what you

do what you wish, but just stay within this area. right understanding, right beliefs, ok? that is a more positive statement of their understanding religious liberty than you are free to believe or get out, which is an oversimplification, but it does make a point. ok, another thing. religious -- government officials had no business getting involved in religious affairs, keep your hands off. that cannot be a true religion which means carnal weapons to uphold it. anybody want to translate that? that cannot be a true religion which needs carnal weapons to uphold it. >> is it like, carnal weapons, flesh weapons -- to think that we humans are not spiritual. professor gooding: can you be more specific? >> carnal weapons forced course and that coercion. professor gooding: by whom? >> the government. professor gooding: if you need government health -- help to prop up your religion, then it is not a true religion. each religion does not need that. now we are getting out why he is

so passionate about this. he is not objecting to this in forest religious -- enforced religious conformity on some sort of philosophical principle or constitutional grounds. he has such a high view of the spiritual life that if -- that if, for it to be its best in a person's heart and life, it needs to be untouched by anything outside of it. any sort of governmental authority, any sort of law forcing you to behave spiritually in one way or another, is just going to dirty your religious faith.

ok? he holds it so high that he thinks that that sort of interference in someone's spirit is harming. does that make sense? ok, very good. he said, god requires not a uniformity of religion to be enforced by any state. such enforced uniformity is the greatest cadence of civil war, rising as ravishing conscience, and hypocrisy of millions of souls. when government bodies get involved in religious faith, from his perspective, people only get hurt. from his perspective, millions of people throughout time. ravishing their conscience,

making them do something they do not believe in. this is an understanding of religious liberty that makes sense to our minds. that we understand at this point in time. that is not with the people in massachusetts bay colony thought. it was dangerous. quite dangerous. he had one more thing. if religious ideas were not bad enough, he had one other idea he put out there which suggests that was too much. and it was this -- the

massachusetts bay colony that we got from the king, and we brought with us on the ships and we built homes and churches and farms, making little puritans over here, right? that charter is not valid. because the king did not own this land. if we really wanted to own this land, we need to get it from the people who owned it, not the king, the native people who lived here. he thought it was null and void. again, that goes to the heart of everything we are doing. legally and financially, ok, you have no title on your land, because that title was granted -- it is not valid, the ownership of this land is not valid.

so he was spiritually troubling, religiously troubling, legally troubling. they do not take kindly to his words. [laughter] professor gooding: the general court of massachusetts decided in 1635, he had been in salem for two years, ok? that he would be placed either voluntarily or involuntarily on the next ship from boston back to england in 1636. when it was safe to travel, he was gone. but it turns out he had one friend in a high place, because he did not wait until that ship was taken back to england in 1636.

somebody said, roger, here is what is up. they will put you on a ship and get you out of here. he said ok, fine. he fled to massachusetts bay colony and went south, purchase property from the native peoples around what became providence, rhode island. 1644, he gets a charter from the crown for his new colony. he establishes what we know as rhode island. it was the first colony to grant true religious freedom as we would understand it, freedom of conscience, you can believe whatever your conscience leads you to believe.

because of that it became a haven for dissenters, such as a hand -- anne hutchinson. we will talk more about anne hutchinson and mary. by creating a haven for dissenters, grading everybody -- granting everybody true religious freedom, that does not believe that rogers -- that is not me rogers believed everything. you should have to convince people about your religion, rather than forcing them that he was passionately -- forcing them. he was passionately behind his own beliefs, but would not 30 wenzhou -- throw you in jail for not believing them. he chose the option of leaving before he was forced to leave. any questions? is the story clear? very briefly, we will talk about

a woman by the name of anne hutchinson. ok? anne came to massachusetts bay colony in the early 16 30's, joined later by followers. ok, mary is the bridge between rogers and hutchinson. we need to talk about mary a little bit. she also began to state some rather unorthodox religious

beliefs very soon after her arrival. after listening to the ministers in massachusetts bay, she decided a couple of things. one, that they were preaching a gospel of works. meaning you are going to earn god's favor by what you do. by engaging in a certain set of behaviors. in her case, she described things such as civil obedience,

public loyalty, you had to profess loyalty to the crown, to the colony and so on. instead of a gospel of grace, free grace, meaning that love and forgiveness and salvation of god is available to all, regardless. there is nothing you can do to earn it, it is a gift. she had this idea and she did not keep it to herself. we talked about on monday, that was the problem with women spoke out loud things they should not be speaking out loud, according to the time. one of the things she did is she spoke it out loud in meetings at her house. people recognize she had a

certain spectral -- spiritual authority and women and children would gather weekly and hear her teach. that is ok, because remember in the hierarchy, women were fine and teaching other women and children and household servants. even if your ideas are a little wonky. just do not get too wonky. keep it there. very soon she was accused of and put on trial for having, remember the word, promiscuous gatherings in her house. now, by your reaction i believe you probably have a different view of what promiscuous means

you will and will they and what they did back then. all this meant was that in her house there were both men and women while she was teaching. horrible, right? how could she do that? she was fine at one point teaching religiously until that first man stepped across the threshold of her house, at which point she was claiming religious authority that was not hers. which from what we learned on monday, she would have been guilty of what? what? when was -- one more time. >> disorderly speech. professor gooding: correct, saying something foul that was not important --was not allowed.

she was having promiscuous gatherings at her house. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] an unfortunate end. one of the followers who went with her when she left the massachusetts a colony was a woman by the name of mary. , if you have that

the opportunity to read about yourself, if you read about her trial and the way she stood up and it ended herself, she was early in. she was confident. her words were power. take the opportunity to read about her words in her right to believe as she saw fit. it is very our. a remarkable person. followers went south with her was a woman by the name of mary dyer. died,w exactly when she down to a couple of minutes. why.ou will find out

born around six to 11-1635, she married her husband . with him she immigrated to space colony. she became a follower of and hutchinson. shortly before she left, she gave birth to a child who was stillborn, who had not fully developed. and they buried her child there in the massachusetts bay colony. we talked about looking for

signs, interpreting a. they remembered this. muse wentreligious south as far as they were concerned, they said, see, god in already unhappy with her 1637. not a pretty thick. she lived in rhode island for 14 years. william took a trip to england where they stayed for about five years. while on her trip there, she joined a new religious group that had just started in the 16 40's he was tried civilly and called the quakers. he was tried civilly andthey were founded by gun man by the

name of john fox. horrors oft of the war, -- and weil will go back. that is mr. fox on the right. mr. fox came to the understanding that religious people could have a direct experience of god without the help of any clergy, any ordained, professional clergy. you can imagine, that might make the clergy uneasy. they were not popular, from the beginning. mr. fox was not shy about his beliefs. not only did he believe that everybody could have a direct

experience of god, but that everybody had the divine light within them. he rejected the theological idea of predestination, the idea that god selected the elect, those who will experience salvation, those who will go to heaven. that was the centerpiece of reformed thought. that was important piece of their theology.

they rejected the idea that christ's physical body was in heaven. that did not happen. instead, the physical body was the church, as the people gather. by the early 1650's, he was only dragged in front of magistrates and charged with blasphemy in england. it is in front of the magistrates that they got the name, quakers. it was a derisive term. he instructed his followers to be so in awe of the word of god that they should tremble. so the judge referred to them as "quakers." he said sure, that is exactly who we are. i know a number of folks who are

quakers. they are fabulous people, peaceful, pacifism is a key part of the religious belief system. they do a huge amount of outreach both inside and outside the united date, which is fantastic and fabulous, peaceful people. great folks. they were not exactly peaceful in these days. they had a reputation, depending on who you ask, for being of noxious or forthright, depending on your perspective.

they were given to breaking up church meetings, and explaining to those gathered how everything was wrong. a story i have heard sometimes, and i need to back up and get the truth, is that sometimes, to make their point, as they burst into the church meeting, the only thing that would bring with them was their voice and their ideas, because they left their clothing outside. ok? disruptive. they were still very disruptive in the time. by 1700, the witch trials take place. they move on to more peaceful development. but in the 1600s, they were loud. explained to everybody why things were wrong. nobody liked the quakers. "the doctrine of this sect of people intends to overthrow the whole gospel and the vitals of christianity." they are a threat to everybody, horrible people.

this is the group to which mary dyer converted in england, with william. they stayed until 1657. while she is gone, quaker missionaries arrive in massachusetts bay in new england. once the leadership of the colony recognizes that they have quakers, they start passing laws. to deal with them, to try to

discourage them from arriving in the first place. these laws have in them a variety of possibilities, should a quaker decide to arrive in the massachusetts bay colony. 1656, six and 57, these were written. you had a variety of things. depending on the severity, the number of times the quaker has done this, coming to massachusetts bay, whipping, putting your head in a stock. what are stocks? [laughter] kevin: and where is that thing? [laughter] [indiscernible] kevin: very good. [laughter] kevin: all right. where would stocks be in the town? >> town square.

kevin: why? >> so everyone would know. kevin: right. they would see you. it would have hurt. it would be horrible on your back. you would be exposed in the sun for a period of time. it is a physical and emotional punishment, shame, embarrassment. you are nailed to a board. your tongue could be seared or pierced. if nothing else worked, death. this also dealt with the people they got them there.

ship captains. if you pull into marblehead or any other port and you have quakers on board and you want to offload them into the massachusetts bay colony, you can be fined to the tune of 100 pounds. right? that is in 1656. i have been a rough conversion on a currency converter online and converted that hundred pounds into u.s. dollars now.

in a rough sense, that would be equal to about $22,000. they were not playing softball. ok? this is not pitch and catch, this is hardball. you show up to her, you are a quaker, you are in trouble. if you bring a quaker, you are in trouble to the point of maybe financial ruin. ok? there are serious about this, serious about the religious purity of their colony. we have got to do it the way we understand it needs to be done, "the way god sent us here to do it. if we don't, then we are done." all that stuff that winthrop

talked about. so, the year after that first law was passed, the anti-quaker laws, mary and william returned to rhode island. she lives there in peace and quiet, because of religious toleration within the colony. then, 1659, two gentlemen step off the boat in the port of boston.

william robinson and marmaduke stephenson are both quakers. they are arrested. mary hears of their incarceration from her home in rhode island and travels to boston to visit them. she is immediately arrested herself. they are put on trial, and they are, "permanently banished." apparently, the judge's definition of "permanent" and mary's definition were not the same. within a few weeks, they are back in boston. not surprisingly, they are

arrested again and thrown into jail. they are put on trial. they are arrested for this, two things: for their "rebellion, sedition, and presumptious obtruding themselves upon us." for not having the good sense to stay away. they are "presumptuous." they are also put on trial for being underminers of the government. one of things the quakers would do was refuse to swear under an oath.

they would undermine the government structure. they acknowledged, "yes, we are quakers." mary defends herself. she says this. speaking about the laws, she

came to boston to protest and be in support of william and marmaduke in their protest. she said, "was ever the like laws heard of among a people that profess christ come in the flesh?" "search with the light of christ in you, and it will show you of whom, as it hath done me and many more." ouch. [laughter] kevin: search of whom do you take counsel. what is she asking? >> who do you serve? are you really looking at the government, or god? which one is this? kevin: whose advice are you taking, basically. "earch your heart, you will know

as i have come to know. what that means is, "you don't know." what a person! this does not sway the court. governor endicott says, "we have made many laws and endeavored in several ways to keep you from among us." we don't know exactly, other than the imprisonment, of how mary and marmaduke and william were treated. you get a little hint here in what the governor says. which of the options of

punishment they make use of. "we have made many laws and endeavored in several ways to keep you from us, but neither whipping nor imprisonment nor cutting off years nor banishment upon pain of death will keep you from us. we do not wish your death, but what more can we do to get our point across to you that you are not to be here? we have thrown you in jail, we have with you, we have mutilated you. what is it going to take? you leave us no alternative, according to our laws. you shall go to the place from whence you came, jail, and then

be hanged until you be dead." so mary, william, and marmaduke are led to a place of execution. william and marmaduke are executed in october 1659. mary is on the scaffold, she is ready. she is ready to give her life. her husband says, "no, please?" he intervenes with the governor. against her will, she is given a reprieve. as long as within the next eight hours, you get out of the colony, and you stay gone. if you are not on in eight

hours, we carry out the sentence. she goes, permanently banished again. again, we run into a confusion of the meaning of the word, "permanent." seven months later, she is back, may of 1660. she is arrested. she is put on trial on may 31, 1660. would you please come forward? >> "are you the same mary dyer

that was here before?" >> "i am the same mary dyer that was here the last general court." >> "you own yourself a quaker, will you not?" >> "i own myself to be reproachfully so-called." >> "sentence was passed upon you the last general court, and now, likewise. you must return to prison, and there rein till tomorrow at 9:00. then thence you must go to the gallows and there be hanged till you are dead." >> "this is no more than thou saidst before." >> "but now it is to be executed. therefore prepare yourself tomorrow at 9:00." >> "i came in obedience to the will of god the last general court, desiring you to repeal your unrighteous laws of banishment on pain of death; and that same is my work now, and earnest request, although i told you that if you refused to repeal them, the lord would send others of his servants to witness against them."

kevin: the next morning. >> "it is my duty to carry out your execution on order of the court. in our was them, the court has instructed me to inform you that even now, we may give you assurance of your repentance. upon such assurance, you will be permitted to dispense from where you are now and save your life." >> "i am not now repentant." kevin: a few minutes after 9:00 on june 1, 1660, mary dyer is executed.

listen to what she said from the scaffold. she was given one last chance. right? repent and you will live. repent and go away, and you will live. right? stay away. what does she say? do you want to read it, hannah? go for it. >> the whole thing? "nay, i came to keep bloodguiltiness from you, desiring you to repeal the unrighteous and unjust law of banishment upon pain of death, made against the innocent servants of the lord." kevin: the court is saying i have done all these things for your good. she says no, i'm here for your good. these are horrible loss, i came to convince you to repeal them, because there will be blood on

your hands because of them. i came to save you from blood guiltiness, that is what she is saying. and that last line, i'm sorry, it is amazing. she stands on the scaffold, about to be executed. she could live and she says, "nay, i will not now repent." they built a statue to her years later. on boston commons, it says, "mary dyer, quaker, witness for religious freedom, hanged on boston commons 1660." i can read a little bit more.

"my life not availith may in comparison to the liberty of the truth." they note her passing in rhode island this way. mary dyer, wife of william dyer, was put to death in the town of boston with the cruel hand as the martyrs were in queen mary's time. i have two pictures. later artists have painted these of mary on her way to execution. tell me which one is more accurate. >> the one where [indiscernible] kevin: the one on the right?

why not this one? [laughter] kevin: why is that not in keeping with what you just read or heard? why is this one more accurate? >> the one on the left looks defeated. she is dying for a cause. she would not look defeated doing the right thing. kevin: i agree. i think this is a much more accurate description of what we understand of her character, from her behavior, from the things she said herself. ok. i told you about roger williams. i told you about anne hutchinson. i told you about mary dyer. all 3 ran afoul of how things were supposed to be in massachusetts bay.

they disagreed over the issue of religious freedom, religious liberty. what am i free to believe, to espouse? it is not because they are being arbitrary. is not because they are being cruel for cruelty's sake. remember, we have to take this and put this within the context of why they understood they were here. what the stakes were. the stakes were huge. if they did not deal with any sort of wrongdoing, like my personal wrongdoing, getting out and fighting in the street when i should be at home teaching my

kids, whether it is that sort of behavior or a larger issue, a theological issue, a heresy issue, they had to deal with it. to maintain the purity of their society, their church. also, to help themselves understand and help to understand that when things arrive, we deal with it. we do things the way we understand you want to do with god. we have to deal with them. and sometimes, harshly. ok? that is a piece we have to keep

in mind as we jump forward 30 years. that is what we will do on monday. we will finally get to salem, massachusetts. yay! he chose the option of leaving before he was forced to leave. any questions? is the story clear?