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.

“Even as the papists have their he and she saint protectors, as St. George, St. Patrick, St. Dennis, Virgin Mary, &c.

“Secondly. As they have many of these feigned deities, so worship they the creatures in whom they conceive doth rest some deity:

“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,

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.