Mr. Williams’ writings—Key—Bloody Tenet—liberty of conscience—Mr.
Cotton’s Reply—Mr. Williams’ Rejoinder.
Our examination of the writings of Mr. Williams must be brief.
Sufficient specimens of his style have been given in the preceding
pages. We shall, therefore, present no extracts from his books, except
such as may be necessary to explain their character, or to illustrate
his principles.
His first printed book was his Key. The title page is in these words: “A
Key into the Language of America, or a Help to the Language of the
Natives, in that part of America called New-England; together with brief
Observations of the Customs, Manners and Worships, &c. of the aforesaid
Natives, in Peace and War, in Life and Death. On all which are added,
Spiritual Observations, general and particular, by the Author, of chief
and special use (upon all occasions) to all the English inhabiting those
Parts; yet pleasant and profitable to the View of all Men. By Roger
Williams, of Providence, in New-England. London. Printed by Gregory
Dexter, 1643.”
It was dedicated “to my dear and well-beloved friends and countrymen in
Old and New-England.” In this dedication, he says, “This Key respects
the native language of it, and happily may unlock some rarities
concerning the natives themselves, not yet discovered. A little key may
open a box, where lies a bunch of keys.” He professes his hope, that his
book may contribute to the spread of Christianity among the natives,
“being comfortably persuaded, that that Father of spirits, who was
graciously pleased to persuade Japhet (the Gentile) to dwell in the
tents of Shem (the Jews) will, in his holy season, (I hope approaching)
persuade these Gentiles of America to partake of the mercies of Europe;
and then shall be fulfilled what is written by the prophet Malachi, from
the rising of the sun (in Europe) to the going down of the same (in
America) my name shall be great among the Gentiles.”
The book is divided into thirty-two chapters, the titles of which are,
Of Salutation. Of Eating and Entertainment. Of Sleep. Of their Numbers.
Of Relations and Consanguinity, &c. Of Houses, Family, &c. Of Parts of
Body. Of Discourse and News. Of Time of Day. Of Seasons of the Year. Of
Travel. Of the Heavenly Lights. Of the Weather. Of the Winds. Of Fowl.
Of the Earth and Fruits thereof. Of Beasts and Cattle. Of the Sea. Of
Fish and Fishing. Of their Nakedness and Clothing. Of their Religion,
Soul, &c. Of their Government. Of their Marriages. Of their Coin. Of
their Trading. Of their Debts and Trusting. Of their Hunting. Of their
Sports and Gaming. Of their Wars. Of their Paintings. Of their Sickness.
Of their Death and Burial.
The work is ingeniously constructed in such a manner, as to present a
vocabulary of Indian words, with their significations, while valuable
information is given concerning the various topics enumerated in the
titles of the chapters. Appended to each chapter are some pious
reflections, and a few lines of rude poetry.
An extract from the twenty-first chapter, “Of Religion, the Soul, &c.”
will furnish a specimen of the work.
“Manit Manittowock, God, Gods.
“Obs. He that questions whether God made the world, the Indians will
teach him. I must acknowledge, I have received, in my converse with
them, many confirmations of those two great points, Heb. 11:6. viz:
“1. That God is.
“2. That he is a rewarder of all them that diligently seek him.
“They will generally confess that God made all; but then, in
special, although they deny not that Englishman’s God made English
men, and the heavens and earth there; yet their Gods made them, and
the heaven and the earth where they dwell.
“Nummus quauna-muckqun manit. God is angry with me.
“Obs. I heard a poor Indian lamenting the loss of a child, at break
of day, call up his wife and children, and all about him, to
lamentation, and with abundance of tears, cry out, O, God, thou hast
taken away my child! thou art angry with me: O, turn thine anger
from me, and spare the rest of my children.
“If they receive any good in hunting, fishing, harvest, &c. they
acknowledge God in it.
“Yea, if it be but an ordinary accident, a fall, &c. they will say,
God was angry and did it.
“Musquantum manit. God is angry.
“But herein is their misery:
“First. They branch their godhead into many gods.
“Secondly. Attribute it to creatures.
“First. Many gods: they have given me the names of thirty-seven,
which I have, all which, in their solemn worships, they invocate:
as,
“Kautantowwit. The great southwest god, to whose house all souls go,
and from whom came their corn and beans, as they say.
Wompanand. The eastern god.
Chekesuwand. The western god.
Wunnanameanit. The northern god.
Sowwanand. The southern god.
Wetuomanit. The house god.
“Even as the papists have their he and she saint protectors, as St.
George, St. Patrick, St. Dennis, Virgin Mary, &c.
Squauanit. The woman’s god.
Muckquachuckquand. The children’s god.
“Secondly. As they have many of these feigned deities, so worship
they the creatures in whom they conceive doth rest some deity:
Keesuckquand. The sun god.
Nanepaushat. The moon god.
Paumpagussit. The sea.
Yotaanit. The fire god.
“Supposing that deities be in these, &c.”
_“The general Observation of Religion, &c._
“The wandering generations of Adam’s lost posterity, having lost the
true and living God, their Maker, have created, out of the nothing
of their own inventions, many false and feigned gods and creators.
“More particular,
“Two sorts of men shall naked stand,
Before the burning ire
Of him, that shortly shall appear,
In dreadful flaming fire.
First, millions know not God, nor for
His knowledge care to seek;
Millions have knowledge store, but, in
Obedience, are not meek.
If woe to Indians, where shall Turk,
Where shall appear the Jew?
O, where shall stand the Christian false?
O, blessed then the true.”
The work displays genius, industry and benevolence. It was very valuable
when it was written, and it is still one of the best works on the
subject. It breathes, throughout, a spirit of piety, and it closes in
the following devout strain:
“Now, to the Most High and Most Holy, Immortal, Invisible, and only
wise God, who alone is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, the first and the last, who was, and is, and is to come;
from whom, by whom, and to whom are all things; by whose gracious
assistance and wonderful supportment in so many varieties of
hardship and outward miseries, I have had such converse with
barbarous nations, and have been mercifully assisted, to frame this
poor Key, which may (through his blessing, in his own holy season,)
open a door, yea, doors of unknown mercies to us and them, be honor,
glory, power, riches, wisdom, goodness and dominion ascribed by all
his in Jesus Christ to eternity. Amen.”
Of the original edition, the copy in the library of the Massachusetts
Historical Society is probably the only one in this country. In the
third and fifth volumes of the Society’s Collections, first series, a
large part of the work was republished. The first volume of the
Collections of the Rhode-Island Historical Society contains a handsome
edition of the Key, with a well written preface, and a brief memoir of
the author.
His next publication was entitled “The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, for
Cause of Conscience, discussed, in a Conference between Truth and Peace,
who, in all tender affection, present to the High Court of Parliament
(as the result of their Discourse) these, (amongst other passages) of
highest consideration. Printed in the year 1644.” It was published
without the name of the author.
The origin of this work was this: A person, who was confined in Newgate,
on account of his religious opinions, wrote a paper against persecution.
“Having not the use of pen and ink, he wrote these arguments in milk, in
sheets of paper, brought to him by the woman, his keeper, from a friend
in London, as the stopples of his milk bottle. In such paper, written
with milk, nothing will appear; but the way of reading it by fire being
known to this friend, who received the papers, he transcribed and kept
together the papers.”[365]
This essay was sent to Mr. Cotton, of Boston. He wrote a reply, of which
Mr. Williams’ book is an examination. Its title, “The Bloody Tenet,” is
a fanciful reference to the circumstance, that the original paper of the
prisoner was written with milk. “These arguments against such
persecution, and the answer pleading for it, written (as love hopes)
from godly intentions, hearts and hands, yet in a marvellous different
style and manner—the arguments against persecution in _milk_, the answer
for it (as I may say) in _blood_.”
The book is dedicated “To the Right Honorable, both Houses of the High
Court of Parliament.” After an address “To every courteous reader,” and
a minute table of contents, the essay of the prisoner and Mr. Cotton’s
reply are inserted. Then follows the main work, divided into one hundred
and thirty-eight short chapters, eighty-one of which are employed in
discussing Mr. Cotton’s reply, and the remainder in examining “A Model
of Church and Civil Power, composed by Mr. Cotton and the Ministers of
New-England, and sent to the Church at Salem, as a further Confirmation
of the Bloody Doctrine of Persecution for Cause of Conscience.” The
whole work forms a small quarto, of two hundred and forty-seven pages. A
few copies exist, in the large libraries in this country.[366] It ought
to be reprinted, and it is hoped that the Rhode-Island Historical
Society will make it one of the volumes of their Collections. It is the
best work of its author, and it contains a full exhibition of his
principles. Its style is animated, and often beautiful.[367] It is in
the form of a dialogue between Truth and Peace, and the colloquy is
sustained with great skill. It commences thus:
“_Truth._ In what dark corner of the world (sweet Peace) are we two
met? How hath this present evil world banished me from all the
coasts and quarters of it, and how hath the righteous God in
judgment taken thee from the earth? Rev. 6:4.
“_Peace._ ’Tis lamentably true, (blessed Truth) the foundations of
the world have long been out of course. The gates of earth and hell
have conspired together to intercept our joyful meeting, and our
holy kisses. With what a weary, tired wing, have I flown over
nations, kingdoms, cities, towns, to find out precious Truth.
“_Truth._ The like inquiries, in my flights and travels, have I made
for Peace, and still am told, she hath left the earth and fled to
heaven.
“_Peace._ Dear Truth, what is the earth but a dungeon of darkness,
where Truth is not?”
An analysis of this book would occupy too much space. The author himself
presents a summary view of its contents in the introduction:
“First. That the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of
protestants and papists, spilt in the wars of present and former
ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted
by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.
“Secondly. Pregnant Scriptures and arguments are throughout the work
proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience.
“Thirdly. Satisfactory answers are given to Scriptures, and
objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the
ministers of the New English churches, and others former and later,
tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience.
“Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is
proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance
under the altar.
“Fifthly. All civil states, with their officers of justice, in the
irrespective constitutions and administrations, are proved
essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders
of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.
“Sixthly. It is the will and command of God, that since the coming
of his Son, the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish,
Jewish, Turkish or Antichristian consciences and worships, be
granted to all men in all nations and countries: and they are to be
fought against with that sword, which is only in soul matters able
to conquer, to wit, the sword of God’s Spirit, the word of God.
“Seventhly. The state of the land of Israel, the kings and people
thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and
no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world
to follow.
“Eighthly. God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted
or enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity sooner or
later is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of
conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the
hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.
“Ninthly. In holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil
state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the
Jews’ conversion to Christ.
“Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or
civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the
principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh.
“Eleventhly. The permission of other consciences and worships, than
a state professeth, only can according to God procure a firm and
lasting peace, good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of
the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.
“Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and christianity may both flourish
in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and
contrary consciences, either of Jews or Gentiles.”
Without examining the numerous arguments and texts, with which Mr.
Williams fortifies his doctrine, we will briefly state the general
principles of liberty of conscience.
All men are bound by the laws of God, and are responsible to Him for
their conduct. He requires them to love, worship and obey Him. From this
duty, they cannot be released. The conscience cannot be freed from this
obligation. God has not granted any liberty to disobey His commands.
As God is the Supreme Ruler, He may prescribe the modes in which He
chooses to be worshipped, and may enforce conformity by temporal
penalties. This he did in the Jewish commonwealth. He established a
system of rites, and armed the magistrate with power to coerce the
consciences of the Jews. The civil sword was rightly used to maintain
the national religion, because the magistrate acted in the name and by
the authority of Jehovah. The destruction of several heathen nations, by
the Jews, was just, because God commanded the act. He uses what
instruments he pleases to punish men, and the chastisement was deserved,
whether it was inflicted by the Jewish sword, or by famine or
pestilence.
But since the introduction of the christian system, the case is altered.
The obligation to love God and obey the Gospel, binds the conscience of
every man; but he is responsible to God alone. His fellow men have no
right to interfere. God has not delegated to any man this authority over
the conscience.
All human laws, therefore, which either prescribe or prohibit certain
doctrines or rites, that are not inconsistent with the civil peace, are
unjust, and are an invasion of the prerogatives of God. They are
consequently null and void, and no man is bound to obey them. The
reasons are obvious:
Such laws are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the New
Testament. The Saviour gave no intimation to his ministers, that force
should be employed in the diffusion of his Gospel. He appointed, on the
contrary, the preaching of the truth, an appeal to the understandings
and hearts of men, as the means by which his kingdom was to be
established. His apostles accordingly went abroad among the nations,
proclaiming the Gospel, and by moral suasion, endeavoring to bring men
to the obedience of faith. They represented themselves to be
ambassadors, commissioned to declare the will of their Sovereign, but
not authorized to employ force. “We are ambassadors for Christ; as
though God did _beseech_ you by us, we _pray_ you, in Christ’s stead, be
ye reconciled to God.” “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we
_persuade_ men.”[368] The great commission of the ministers of the
Gospel is, “Go ye into all the world, and _preach the Gospel_ to every
creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that
believeth not shall be damned.”[369] The only legitimate means,
therefore, of operating on the wills of men, in reference to religion,
are the affecting truths, the precious promises, and the terrific
threatenings of the word of God. These are to be presented to the minds
and hearts of men, with solemnity and urgent affection; but here the
agency of man ceases. If men choose to disobey the Gospel, they do it on
their responsibility to God, who will bring them into judgment for the
deeds done in the body.
The early believers acted on this principle; and after Christians
obtained possession of the civil power, the employment of force to
constrain the conscience was not introduced, till the purity of
Christianity became corrupted by her alliance with the state.[370] The
remark of Tertullian,[371] expresses the feelings of the early
Christians: “It is the natural civil right of every man to worship
whatever he pleases. It is inconsistent with the nature of religion to
propagate it by force, for it must be received by voluntary consent, not
by coercion.”
This remark suggests another argument. Religion essentially consists in
love to God. Its seat is the soul. External acts of worship are merely
manifestations of this inward principle, and derive from it all their
value. When they do not spring from it, they are not acceptable to God.
The principle may exist, in vigor and purity, without any external
expressions; and much of the intercourse of every Christian with God
consists in this silent communion of his soul with the great Invisible.
But, from the nature of man, he needs external modes of manifesting his
feelings, in order to preserve those feelings in healthful action. God
accordingly requires worship, and obedience to certain rites. The social
principle is brought into action, and individual Christians increase
their own strength, by union with their fellow Christians in acts of
devotion.
But when force is employed, to constrain men to the performance of
religious duties, the end proposed is not attained. Men may be made to
assume attitudes, and to repeat words, and to visit certain places; but
they cannot be forced, by human power, to love God. They cannot thus be
made religious. The soul is not subject to human constraint. Men cannot
penetrate the interior sanctuary, where she resides, in the awful
presence of God alone. It is absurd, therefore, to attempt to
accomplish, by human laws, what they are incompetent, from their nature,
to effect. No legislator ever enacted a law, requiring the citizens to
love the state. The law provides for the punishment of actions
inconsistent with this love; but beyond the external manifestations of
the inward feelings, it does not attempt to extend its jurisdiction.
Laws requiring men to perform religious duties are vain, as well as
unjust. They attempt an impossibility, because the duty is not
performed, unless it springs from love to God; which love no human power
can create in the soul.
But such laws are unjust, because God has given to men no power over the
conscience, and because men cannot grant this power to each other. Civil
society is necessary to the happiness of men, and a sufficient amount of
power must be confided to the hands of rulers, for the protection of
society. But the degree of this delegated authority is limited by its
objects. The regulation of the conscience is not one of the purposes for
which men combine in civil society. The object of such a society is the
promotion of civil interests. Those interests must be guarded and
promoted. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be secured to
every citizen. When these ends are attained, government has fulfilled
its purpose. It has no power to dictate to the citizen, in what mode he
shall pursue happiness. It cannot interfere with his domestic or social
relations, unless the public welfare is injured. It cannot, above all,
intrude into the hallowed asylum, where the religious affections reign.
It is inconsistent with the theory of the social compact, to suppose,
that men have surrendered to the state the right to control their
faith,—a surrender which is not necessary to the ends for which men
unite in political communities.
But if men were willing to yield this right, they could not do it. God
holds every man personally responsible. Every individual must stand at
the judgment seat of Christ, and give an account of his own actions. No
man, therefore, can surrender to another the control over his
conscience. His soul is committed to his own responsibility, and of him
God will require it. He must not commit himself implicitly to the
control or guidance of any man; but, seeking for light from Heaven, he
must strive for the perfection of his moral nature, and for a
preparation for the eternal life beyond the grave.
The absurdity of permitting the civil magistrate to regulate the
conscience, is shown by the fact, that the magistrate will make his own
views the standard of orthodoxy; and, consequently, it has happened,
that successive rulers have maintained, by force, totally opposite
systems of faith and practice. Mr. Williams says, on this point, “Who
knows not, that within the compass of one poor span of twelve years’
revolution, all England hath become from half Papist, half Protestant,
to be absolute Protestants; from absolute Protestants to be absolute
Papists; from absolute Papists, (changing as fashions) to absolute
Protestants.”[372]
The magistrate must be infallible, in order to be a safe guide to the
consciences of men. This consideration is a sufficient answer to Mr.
Cotton’s sophism, that a man must not be persecuted for his opinions,
but he may be punished for acting in contradiction to his own
conscience. But who is to be the judge? Fundamentals, says Mr. Cotton,
are so clear, that a man must be criminally blind and obstinate, who
does not receive and obey them. But what are these fundamentals? is a
question which different magistrates will decide differently; and men
may be successively rewarded and punished, by successive
administrations, for the same opinions.
The great and true principle, then, is, that men are not responsible to
each other, for their religious opinions or practices, as such; and that
every man has a right, as a citizen, to hold any opinions, and to
practise any ceremonies, which he pleases, unless he disturbs the civil
peace. The duty of the magistrate, in relation to religion, consists in
personal obedience to the truth, and impartial protection to all the
citizens in the exercise of their religious privileges. Mr. Williams has
well stated this point. In answer to the question, “What may the
magistrate lawfully do with his civil power in matters of religion?” he
says:
“The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and worship, which
his conscience is persuaded is true and upon which he ventures his soul;
or else, that and those which he is persuaded are false. Concerning the
first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true, be true, I say
he owes a three-fold duty to it.
“First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable
testimony (according to Isaiah 49, and Rev. 31) with a tender respect of
truth, and of the professors of it.
“Secondly, personal submission of his own soul to the power of the Lord
Jesus, in that spiritual government and kingdom, according to Matt. 18,
and 1 Cor. 5.
“Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart,
or met together, as also of their estates, from violence or injury,
according to Rom. 13.
“Now, secondly, if it be a false religion (unto which the civil
magistrate dare not adjoin,) yet he owes:
“First, _permission_ (for _approbation_ he owes not to what is evil) and
thus according to Matthew 13: 30, for public peace and quiet sake.
“Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of
a false worship) that no injury be offered either to the persons or
goods of any. Rom. 13.”[373]
It follows, from this last position, that no man can be lawfully
compelled to support a system of worship which he disapproves; for this
is, in effect, to tax and punish him for his religious opinions.
The duty of the magistrate is thus very clear. With the religious
opinions or practices of the citizens, he has no concern. They are not
civil matters, which, alone, come within his cognizance. If a man’s
religious views lead him to actions which injure society, those actions
become civil offences, and are within the jurisdiction of the
magistrate, who is appointed to guard the interests of the civil
community. If a company of Hindoos should remove to Boston, and should
erect a temple to Juggernaut, they ought to be protected in their
worship, if they confined themselves to such acts, as made no
disturbance, and violated no civil law. If, however, they should attempt
to drag the idol through the streets, the magistrates ought to
interfere. If they should sacrifice one of their children, the
perpetrators ought to be tried and punished for murder. If a man
violates the third commandment, in such a way as to disturb the
community, he may be punished, though experience has proved, that it is
not wise to enforce laws against blasphemy. If a man breaks the fourth
commandment, by actions which interrupt or disturb the devotions of
others, the law may restrain and punish him, not for the breach of the
commandment, but for interfering with the religious privileges of other
citizens. If a man chose to labor on the Sabbath, on his farm or in his
shop, the law could not rightfully interfere; but if by his labor he
disturbed the devotions of his neighbors, he might be restrained;
though, here, too, experience proves, that the interference of the law
is odious, and seldom beneficial.
Such cases as those specified present no difficulty. There is a broad,
clear line, running between religious opinions and actions. The actions,
and not the opinions, are the subjects of law. If it is alleged, that
the opinions necessarily lead to illegal conduct, the reply is, wait
till the actions are attempted or performed. They, then, come within the
cognizance of civil law. If, indeed, a case could be supposed to happen,
in which a religious sect avowed it as their creed, that they were
required, or permitted, to murder their fellow-citizens, or burn their
dwellings, the magistrates would be bound to take the necessary
precautions to prevent such results. In such a case, the creed would
involve a criminal design, against which the community would have a
right to guard itself; but the mere design could not be punished; just
as a purpose to commit murder cannot be punished, though it justifies
the magistrate in taking measures to prevent its execution.
Liberty of conscience, however, has some limitations. It does not
prohibit churches from excluding members whose opinions or conduct are
inconsistent with the principles on which the church is founded. The
Bible makes it the duty of churches to maintain suitable discipline. A
church is a voluntary society, founded on certain fundamental rules, to
which every member assents, when he enters it. If he adopts other
principles, or in any way violates the rules, he makes himself liable to
expulsion from the church, as from any other voluntary association.
Neither does liberty of conscience imply, that a man has a claim to our
confidence, our patronage, our votes, whatever may be his religious
opinions. I would not intrust my children to the care of an infidel, but
I do not deprive him, by such refusal, of any right; yet a law
forbidding infidels to be employed as instructors, would be unjust. I
would not vote for a man holding certain principles, but I do not
thereby invade his privileges, for he has no title to my vote; yet a
law, making men ineligible to office, on account of certain opinions,
would be an invasion of their civil rights.[374] Every man must bear the
responsibility of his principles. Those principles cannot impair his
positive rights; but they may, and will, affect the opinions and
feelings of his fellow men. To their confidence, their patronage, or
their votes, he has no natural right, and no civil injustice is done to
him, if these are withheld.
We cannot prolong our remarks on this subject. It is expounded and
illustrated, with much ability, learning and eloquence, in the “Bloody
Tenet.” Roger Williams is entitled to the honor of being the first
writer, in modern times, who clearly maintained the absolute right of
every man, to a “full liberty in religious concernments.” Bishop Heber,
in his Life of Jeremy Taylor, says, of the “Liberty of Prophesying,” “It
is the first attempt on record, to conciliate the minds of Christians to
the reception of a doctrine, which, though now the rule of action
professed by all Christian sects, was then, by every sect alike,
regarded as a perilous and portentous novelty.”[375]
Bishop Heber has here fallen into a mistake. The “Liberty of
Prophesying” was published in 1647, three years after the “Bloody
Tenet,” in which the principles of religious liberty are more clearly
and consistently maintained, than in Taylor’s excellent work.[376]
Bishop Heber admits (p. 222) that this essay “can by no means lay claim
to the character which has been assigned to it, of a plea for universal
toleration. The forbearance which he claims, _he claims for those
Christians only, who unite in the confession of the Apostles’ creed_.”
Bishop Taylor himself, at the end of the sixteenth section of the work
referred to, says, that “opinions are to be dealt with,” if they tend to
disturb the public peace, and lead to vice. “If either themselves or
their doctrine do really and without color or feigned pretence, disturb
the public peace, and just interests, they are not to be suffered.” But
the magistrate must judge, in this case; and, of course, the door is
left wide open, for persecution. Roger Williams, on the contrary,
contended, that “a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or
Antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all
nations and countries;” and he left no discretion to the magistrate to
judge of opinions, any further than they should exhibit their effects in
action. His principles, too, claimed for men entire _liberty of
conscience_, and not merely a right to _toleration_. To tolerate implies
the power to interfere, and to regulate the conscience. If there is
power to _permit_, there is power to _forbid_.
The great Mr. Locke advocated the principles of religious liberty with
distinguished ability, in his Letters concerning Toleration, written
about the year 1690; but he maintained, by implication, that Papists
ought not to be tolerated, and expressly asserted that atheists must not
receive toleration.[377]
We may here take notice of an attempt to deprive Roger Williams and his
colony of their just praise, by claiming for Lord Baltimore the priority
in establishing religious liberty in Maryland. We would not detract from
the merit of Lord Baltimore and his colony; but the liberty established
in Maryland, though far beyond the spirit of those times, did not rise
to the Rhode-Island standard. It extended only to Christians.[378] Lord
Baltimore commenced his settlement in 1634, and established
Christianity, agreeably to the old common law, without allowing
pre-eminence to any particular sect. This was wise and liberal; but Mr.
Williams established his colony in 1636, two years afterwards, on the
broad principle of unlimited religious freedom; and the Jew, the
Mahometan or the Hindoo might have found a home in Rhode-Island, and
might have enjoyed his opinions unmolested, while he fulfilled his civil
duties. The first law of Maryland, respecting religious liberty, was
enacted in 1649. In 1647, at the first General Assembly held in
Rhode-Island, under the first charter, a code of laws was adopted,
relating exclusively to civil concerns, and concluding with these words:
“Otherwise than thus, what is herein forbidden, _all men may walk as
their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God. And
let the lambs of the Most High walk in this colony without molestation,
in the name of Jehovah their God, forever and ever._”[379] This noble
provision was a part of the code; and it was not only prior in date to
the law of Maryland, but it was more liberal, and more consistent with
the rights of conscience.
We must now return to Mr. Williams’ book. A reply was written by Mr.
Cotton, and published in London, in 1647. Its title was: “The Bloody
Tenet washed, and made white, in the Blood of the Lamb, being discussed
and discharged of Blood-Guiltiness, by just Defence. Wherein the great
Questions of this Time are handled, viz. How far Liberty of Conscience
ought to be given to those that truly fear God, and how far restraint to
turbulent and pestilent Persons, that not only rase the Foundation of
Godliness, but disturb the civil Peace, where they live. Also, how far
the Magistrates may proceed in the Duties of the first Table. And that
all Magistrates ought to study the Word and Will of God, that they may
frame their Government according to it. Discussed, as they are alleged,
from divers Scriptures, out of the Old and New Testaments. Wherein also
the Practice of Princes is debated, together with the Judgment of
ancient and late Writers, of most precious Esteem. Whereunto is added, a
Reply to Mr. Williams’ Answer to Mr. Cotton’s Letter. By John Cotton,
Bachelor in Divinity, and Teacher of the Church of Christ, at Boston, in
New-England. London, printed by Matthew Symmons, for Hannah Allen, at
the Crown, in Pope’s-Head Alley. 1647.” The book is a small quarto, of
339 pages. It is able and learned, but it maintains the right of the
magistrate to interfere, for the promotion of truth, and the suppression
of error.
Mr. Williams again took up his pen, and published a rejoinder, entitled,
“The Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody, by Mr. Cotton’s Endeavor to wash it
white in the Blood of the Lamb. Of whose precious Blood, spilt in the
Blood of his Servants, and of the Blood of Millions spilt in former and
later Wars for Conscience Sake, that most bloody Tenet of Persecution
for Cause of Conscience, upon a second Trial, is found now more
apparently and more notoriously guilty. In this Rejoinder to Mr. Cotton,
are principally, I. The Nature of Persecution. II. The Power of the
civil Sword in Spirituals, examined. III. The Parliament’s Permission of
Dissenting Consciences justified. Also, (as a Testimony to Mr. Clarke’s
Narrative) is added, a Letter to Mr. Endicott, Governor of the
Massachusetts, in New-England. By R. Williams, of Providence, in
New-England. London, printed for Giles Calvert, and are to be sold at
the Black-Spread-Eagle, at the West End of Paul’s, 1652.” It is a small
quarto, of 302 pages.[380]
This book discusses the same topics, as its predecessor, with additional
arguments. Though the controversy was maintained with spirit, yet the
tone of the book is courteous. Mr. Williams says: “The Most Holy and
All-Seeing knows, how bitterly I resent [lament] the least difference
with Mr. Cotton, yea with the least of the followers of Jesus, of what
conscience or worship soever.” He calls his book, “An Examination of the
worthily honored and beloved Mr. Cotton’s Reply.” It would be well if
all disputants cherished the same kind spirit.
The book contains an “Address to the High Court of Parliament,” in which
the author prays them to favor toleration, and to secure their personal
salvation.
There are also two addresses, the one “to the several respective General
Courts, especially that of the Massachusetts, in New-England,” and the
other “To the Merciful and Compassionate Reader.”
The body of the work is written, like the Bloody Tenet, in the form of a
“Conference between Truth and Peace,” and is divided into chapters, in
each of which, for the most part, a corresponding chapter of Mr.
Cotton’s book is examined.
At the close of the examination, is a letter to Governor Endicott, of
Massachusetts, in which Mr. Williams expresses great affection for him,
alludes to former days, and exhibitions of a different spirit, intimates
that the love of honor had affected the Governor, beseeches him to adopt
and practise the principles of toleration, and assures him, that if he
should follow out his principles he must proceed to bloodshed. This
prediction was soon after fulfilled in the execution of the Quakers.
In an appendix, is an address “To the Clergy of the four great Parties
(professing the name of Christ Jesus) in England, Scotland and Ireland,
viz. the Popish, Prelatical, Presbyterian and Independent.” It is mild
and respectful, though it accuses them all of persecuting each other,
when they possessed the power. He says: “Just like two men, whom I have
known break out to blows and wrestling, so have the Protestant Bishops
wrestled with the Popish, and the Popish with the Protestant, the
Presbyterian with the Independent, and the Independent with the
Presbyterian. And our chronicles and experiences have told this nation
and the world, how he whose turn it is to be brought under, hath ever
felt a heavy, wrathful hand of an unbrotherly and unchristian
persecution,” (p. 316.) He says, that they all pleaded for freedom when
they were persecuted, and adds, “What excellent subscriptions to this
soul freedom are interwoven in many passages of the late King’s book (if
his.)”[381]
He alludes to the ejected clergy, and makes the following appeal, which
is very honorable to his feelings:—“I make another humble plea (and
that, I believe, with all the reason and justice in the world) that such
who are ejected, undone, impoverished, might, some way, from the state
or you, receive relief and succor; considering that the very nation’s
constitution hath occasioned parents to train up, and persons to give
themselves to studies (though, in truth, but in a way of trading and
bargaining before God) yet it is according to the custom of the nation,
who ought, therefore, to share also in the fault of such parents and
ministers, who, in all changes, are ejected.” How different is this
language from that of a rash, proscriptive reformer, who, in his zeal
for what he esteems right, disregards every consideration of justice or
humanity! The clergy whom Mr. Williams had especially in view were the
Episcopal ministers, who had been expelled from their benefices. He did
not believe them, in general, to be fit to preach, but he wished them to
be treated with kindness and liberality.