King, Charles I. by a series of unjustifiable measures, repugnant to the constitution, and in violation of his own promises and oaths, had provoked an opposition, which issued in a rupture and a bloody war. The King had fled from London, and Parliament had assumed the executive as well as legislative authority. The King and the Parliament levied troops, the sword was unsheathed, and, after a sanguinary struggle of several years, the unhappy Charles died on the scaffold, Episcopacy was abolished, the monarchy was overturned, and a commonwealth, under the protectorship of Cromwell, was established on its ruins. Mr. Williams arrived at an early period in this disastrous conflict. Its issue was then very doubtful. The Episcopal clergy, and a large portion of the aristocracy, were on the side of the King. With these were joined many of the quiet men of the kingdom, who, while they disapproved the King's conduct, were led by a sentiment of loyalty, and a hope that he might be persuaded to a right course, to rally around the monarch. The patriot would have been satisfied with a guarantee for the rights of the people; and the advocates of religious liberty would have been content with toleration. But the inflexible obstinacy and arbitrary principles of the King daily strengthened his enemies and alienated his friends. It soon became evident, that the King must yield, or the nation must submit to slavery. The contest ended, as every struggle between despotism and liberty, the rulers and the people, must, sooner or later, terminate : "For Freedom's battle, once begun, The disturbed condition of the kingdom was, in some respects, favorable to the objects of Mr. Williams. It disposed the Parliament to strengthen themselves, by conciliating the favor of their brethren in America. The House of Commons, in March, 1642-3, passed a memorable resolve, in favor of New-England, exempting its imports and exports from customs, subsidy or taxation. In November, 1643, not long, we presume, after Mr. Williams' arrival, Parliament passed an ordinance, appointing the Earl of * Byron's Giaour. Warwick Governor in Chief and Lord High Admiral of the American colonies, with a council of five peers and twelve commoners. It empowered him, in conjunction with his associates, to examine the state of their affairs, to send for papers and persons, to remove governors and officers, and appoint others in their places, and to assign to these such part of the power now granted as he should think proper.* From these commissioners Mr. Williams easily obtained, by the aid of Sir Henry Vane, one of their number, a charter for the colony of Rhode-Island, dated March 14, 1643-4, in which the most ample powers were granted to the inhabitants to form and maintain a civil government.† * During Mr. Williams' absence, his youngest child, Joseph, was born, in December, 1643, according to Backus, though his tombstone, now standing in the family graveyard, in Cranston, (R. I.) bears an inscription, which states that he was born in 1644. While in England, Mr. Williams, notwithstanding the pressure of his duties, and the disturbed state of the public mind, found leisure to prepare for the press his celebrated book, 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." In this book, which he dedicated to Parliament, and which was doubtless read, with interest and profit, by many of the leading men in England, Mr. Williams discusses the great principles of religious liberty, in answer to a letter of the Rev. John Cotton. Mr. Cotton wrote a reply, to which, in accordance with the humor of those times, he gave the quaint and punning title of "The Bloody Tenet Washed, and made White in the Blood of the Lamb." Mr. Williams published a rejoinder, with a title in the same strain, "The Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody, by Mr. Cotton's Endeavor to Wash it White." Of these books we shall give some account, in a subsequent chapter. It may suffice * Holmes' Annals, vol. i. p. 273. For a copy of the charter, see Appendix E. The Westminster Assembly of Divines, who were then in session, might have learned from this book, if they had read it, lessons which they greatly needed. now, to say, that Mr. Cotton's argument rests on a sophistical distinction between persecution for religious opinions, and punishment for maintaining errors. He disclaims the right to persecute any for conscience rightly informed;" but if a man possesses "an erroneous and blind conscience, in fundamental and weighty points," he ought, after suitable admonition, to be punished by the civil magistrate, not because he entertains heretical principles, but because he is wilfully blind and criminally obstinate, in refusing to believe what is clearly revealed in the Scriptures. It seems surprising, that a man of Mr. Cotton's abilities and virtues, could seriously maintain so transparent an absurdity; for if the magistrate be allowed to judge what is " an erroneous and blind conscience," he will decide according to his own construction of the word of God, and will pronounce all who differ from himself to be culpably obstinate, and worthy of punishment. This is precisely the case in every instance of persecution; and the Court of High Commission, who expelled Mr. Cotton from England, would have needed no other defence of their conduct than his own arguments. But Mr. Cotton, though a great and a good man, was misled by his views of the duty of the civil magistrate to interfere, for the preservation of purity in the Christian church, as the civil authorities were required to guard the Jewish religion, and to smite, with unsparing severity, those who renounced or corrupted it. Mr. Williams, in his book, exposes the fallacy of Mr. Cotton's arguments; and by cogent reasoning and acute expositions of various texts, he establishes this fundamental principle, as alike taught by the Scriptures and by reason, that men are not responsible to each other for their religious opinions, and ought not to suffer molestation, or injury, in their persons or property, for those opinions, nor for the actions by which they are expressed and maintained, unless the civil peace is disturbed. In this case, their conduct ceases to be a matter of religious concern merely, and comes within the cognizance of the civil magistrate. Mr. Williams is very clear and decided on this point. Though he was accused as a turbulent contemner of magistracy and civil order, yet in this book, printed within a few years after his banishment, he says, "I speak not of scandals against the civil state, which the civil state ought to punish.* This book is written with great ability, it shows learning and taste, and it breathes a tone of courtesy which was not common at that time, and which would not dishonor this age. Mr. Williams returned to America, in the autumn of 1644. He landed at Boston, September 17. He was emboldened to venture on this forbidden ground, by the following letter from several noblemen and other members of Parliament, addressed "To the Right Worshipful the Governor and Assistants, and the rest of our worthy friends in the plantation of Massachusetts Bay, in New-England :" "Our much honored friends: 'Taking notice some of us of long time of Mr. Roger Williams' good affections and conscience, and of his sufferings by our common enemy and oppressors of God's people, the prelates, as also of his great industry and travels in his printed Indian labors, in your parts, (the like whereof we have not seen extant from any part of America) and in which respect it hath pleased both Houses of Parliament to grant unto him, and friends with him, a free and absolute charter of civil government for those parts of his abode, and withal sorrowfully resenting, that amongst good men (our friends) driven to the ends of the world, exercised with the trials of a wilderness, and who mutually give good testimony, each of the other, (as we observe you do of him, and he abundantly of you,) there should be such a distance; we thought it fit, upon divers considerations, to profess our great desires of both your utmost endeavors of nearer closing and of ready expressing those good affections, (which we perceive you bear to each other) in effectual performance of all friendly offices. The rather because of those bad neighbors you are likely to find too near you in Virginia, and the unfriendly visits from the west of England and from Ireland. That howsoever it may please the Most High to shake our foundations, yet the report of your peaceable and prosperous plantations may be some refreshings to your true and faithful friends." This letter procured for Mr. Williams permission to proceed unmolested to Providence, but it produced no relaxa * Bloody Tenet, p. 64. tion of the policy of Massachusetts towards him. Mr. Hubbard (p. 349) says: "Upon the receipt of the said letter, the Governor and magistrates of the Massachusetts found, upon examination of their hearts, they saw no reason to condemn themselves for any former proceedings against Mr. Williams; but for any offices of Christian love, and duties of humanity, they were very willing to maintain a mutual correspondency with him. But as to his dangerous principles of separation, unless he can be brought to lay them down, they see no reason why to concede to him, or any so persuaded, free liberty of ingress and egress, lest any of their people should be drawn away with his erroneous opinions." The aversion to Mr. Williams' principles, both religious and political, was not abated by his return with a charter, which invested the heretical colony with the dignity of an independent government, and armed * Massachusetts was the more disinclined to show favor to Mr. Williams and his colony, because the Baptists began to multiply. A Baptist church was formed about this time, in Newport, by Dr. John Clarke and a few others, and in Massachusetts itself the new doctrine spread. The General Court was aroused, therefore, to an effort to crush the growing sect; and no method seemed to promise more success, than to wield against it a legislative denunciation, edged by an appeal to the popular dread of anabaptism: "Immortale odium, et nunquam sanabile vulnus." They accordingly passed the following act, in November, 1644: "Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since the first rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealth, and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in all places where they have been, and that they who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or heresies therewith, though they have (as other heretics use to do) concealed the same till they spied out a fit advantage and opportunity to vent them, by way of question or scruple; and whereas divers of this kind have, since our coming into New-England, appeared amongst ourselves, some whereof (as others before them) denied the ordinance of magistracy, and the lawfulness of making war, and others the lawfulness of magistrates, and their inspection into any breach of the first table; which opinions, if they should be connived at by us, are like to be increased amongst us, and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us, infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole commonwealth; it is ordered and agreed, that, if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely |