If, however, such an act had been passed, it would not necessarily impeach the character of Mr. Williams. He was an Assistant, only, in the Legislature of 1663–4, and could not be responsible for its acts. His own principles are on record. He contended for liberty of conscience to all men without any restriction. In his “Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s,” printed in 1652—only eleven years before—he says: “All these consciences, (yea, the very conscience of Papists, Jews, &c. as I have proved at large in my answer to Mr. Cotton’s washings) ought freely and impartially to be permitted their several respective worships, their ministers of worships, and what way of maintaining them they please.”
We proceed, now, to the other charge. It is contained in an article, in 1 His. Col. v. pp. 216–220, signed Francis Brinley, whose statement is repeated in Holmes’ American Annals, vol. i. p. 341. Mr. Brinley says: “1665. The government and council of Rhode-Island, &c. passed an order for outlawing the people called Quakers, because they would not bear arms, and to seize their estates; but the people in general rose up against these severe orders, and would not suffer it.”
We are again indebted to Mr. Eddy for the means of correcting a mistake. He says (2 His. Col. vii. p. 97,) that the account of Mr. Brinley “is incorrect and partial.” There was a difficulty, in which the Quakers, it seems, felt themselves aggrieved, but it was not the result of any acts aimed directly at them. The origin of it, as Mr. Eddy thinks, was this: The commissioners of the King required, in his name, “that all householders, inhabiting this colony, take the oath of allegiance.” The Assembly, in reply, stated, that it had been the uniform practice of the colony, in pursuance of their great principles of religious liberty, to allow those who objected to take an oath, to make an engagement, under the penalty for false swearing. An engagement was accordingly drawn up, in which the individual promised to bear true allegiance to the King and his successors, and to yield “due obedience unto the laws established from time to time.” The Quakers, it appears, objected to this part of the engagement, because it bound them to pay obedience to the militia laws. The Assembly had enacted, that those who did not take the engagement, should not be permitted to “vote for public officers or deputies, or enjoy any privilege of freemen.” Those persons, consequently, who refused to take the engagement, were disfranchised; and to this effect, Mr. Brinley probably alludes, when he says that the Quakers were outlawed. If so, his statement is very loose and injurious, for it implies, that the act was expressly directed against them. But there was no design, apparently, on the part of the Assembly to affect them. The King commanded the General Assembly to require an oath of allegiance. They dispensed with the oath, but required an engagement, promising, in general terms, obedience to the laws. It would seem, that all the citizens might have safely taken the engagement, reserving their opposition to particular laws, to which they might be conscientiously opposed. An engagement to obey the laws would, of course, mean such laws only as were consistent with the laws of God and with the rights of conscience. The Assembly cannot, at any rate, be justly charged with an assault on the Quakers. The engagement was mitigated, the very next year, to suit their views, and every disposition was manifested to consult their feelings and respect their rights. One of their number was, the next year, elected Deputy Governor.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Mr. Williams’ public services—religious habits—efforts as a minister—Indians—private affairs—letter to John Whipple.
We are now approaching the close of Mr. Williams’ life. Years were increasing upon him, and abating the vigor of his body and the ardor of his mind. Yet we find his name in the records both of the town and colony, so frequently, as to prove, that he retained his zeal for the public welfare, and that he enjoyed, to the end of his life, a large measure of public confidence. In the town meetings, he was often appointed moderator. He was appointed as a member of numerous committees, and was usually selected, when a skilful pen was needed for the public service.
After serving the colony for two years, as President, and repeatedly as Assistant, or Commissioner, under the first charter, he occupied a seat in the General Assembly, under the new charter, as an Assistant, in the years 1664, 1670, and 1671. He was chosen, in 1677, but he refused to serve, on account, probably, of his age. He was a Deputy from Providence, in May, 1667.
Of his religious habits we have little knowledge. We have satisfactory reasons, however, for believing, that he preserved the character of an upright Christian. His books and letters are distinguished by the language of piety, and his general conduct exhibited its influence. Even Cotton Mather confesses, that “in many things he acquitted himself so laudably, that many judicious persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him, during the long winter of this retirement.”[[335]] He had, it is true, no connection with any church; a circumstance, which we must regret, because it injured his reputation and his usefulness, while it diminished his personal enjoyment and spiritual growth. But we know that his reason for this course was, an erroneous idea, that the true church was, for a time, lost. He did not undervalue the benefits of church fellowship, but ardently longed for the restoration of the church. In his reply to George Fox, written about 1672, he says, (p. 66,) “After all my search, and examinations, and considerations, I said, I do profess to believe, that some come nearer to the first primitive churches, and the institutions and appointments of Christ, than others; as in many respects, so in that gallant, and heavenly, and fundamental principle, of the true matter of a Christian congregation, flock or society, viz. actual believers, true disciples and converts, living stones, such as can give some account how the grace of God hath appeared unto them, and wrought that change in them. I professed, that if my soul could find rest, in joining unto any of the churches professing Christ Jesus now extant, I would readily and gladly do it, yea unto themselves, whom I now opposed.”[[336]]
As a minister of the Gospel, we have evidence that he did not wholly discontinue his labors; though he must, according to his principles, have confined himself to “prophecy,” or a declaration of truth and witness against error. Mr. Callender says, (p. 57,) “Mr. Williams used to uphold a public worship, sometimes, though not weekly, as many now alive [1738] remember, and he used to go once a month, for many years, to Mr. Smith’s, in the Narraganset, for the same end.” If persons alive in 1738, were present at Mr. Williams’ meetings, as Mr. Callender’s expression seems to imply, those meetings must have been held towards the close of his life. His visits to Narraganset were designed, it has been supposed, for the benefit of the Indians; but this is doubtful. There is reason to believe, that his object was to instruct the whites, who either lived in that neighborhood, far from any Christian teacher, or who were occasionally at Mr. Smith’s trading-house.[[337]]
He did, however, endeavor to instruct the Indians. “He made,” says Mr. Callender, (p. 84) “some laudable attempts to instruct them, yet he was much discouraged, not only by want of a lawful warrant, or an immediate commission to be an apostle to them, but especially by (as he thought) the insuperable difficulty of preaching Christianity to them in their own language, with any propriety, without inspiration.” On this subject, he speaks, in his “Bloody Tenet more Bloody.” He says, that he and others have found “how hard it is for any man to attain a little propriety of their language in common things, (so as to escape derision among them) in many years, without abundant of conversing with them, in eating, travelling and lodging with them.” He refers, for proof, to the case of Mr. Eliot, who, notwithstanding his intimacy with the Indians, could not always make himself understood.[[338]] Mr. Williams seemed to think, that when the ministry should be restored, the gift of tongues would be bestowed on missionaries, to qualify them for their work.