“2dly. The civil state is humbly to be implored to provide, in their high wisdom, for the security of all these respective consciences, in their respective meetings, assemblings, worshippings, preachings, disputings, &c. and that civil peace, and the beauty of civility and humanity, be maintained among the chief opposers and dissenters.
“3dly. It is the duty of all that are in authority, and of all that are able, to countenance, and encourage and supply all such true volunteers, as give and devote themselves to the service and ministry of Christ Jesus in any kind; although it be also the duty, and will be the practice, of all such, whom the Spirit of God sends upon any work of Christ’s, rather to work, as Paul did among the Corinthians and Thessalonians, than the work and service of their Lord and Master should be neglected.” pp. 29, 30.
Mr. Williams is said to have published, in London, in the same year, 1652, a work, entitled, “Experiments of Spiritual Life and Health, and their Preservatives.” Of this book, no copy has come to our knowledge.
The only remaining printed book of Mr. Williams, is his narrative of the dispute with the Quakers. It is entitled, “George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, or an Offer of Disputation on fourteen Proposals, made this last Summer, 1672, (so called,) unto G. Fox, then present on Rhode-Island, in New-England, by R. W. As also how (G. Fox slily departing) the Disputation went on, being managed three Days at Newport, on Rhode-Island, and one day at Providence, between John Stubs, John Burnet, and William Edmundson, on the one Part, and R. W. on the other. In which many Quotations out of G. Fox and Ed. Burrowes’ Book in Folio are alleged. With an Appendix, of some Scores of G. F. his simple and lame Answers to his Opposites, in that Book, quoted and replied to, by R. W. of Providence, in N. E. Boston. Printed by John Foster, 1676.” It is a small quarto volume, of 327 pages. Its execution is creditable to the American press, at that early day.
The book is dedicated to the King, Charles II. in a courteous epistle, in which Mr. Williams calls New-England a “miserable, cold, howling wilderness,” yet says, that God “hath made it His glory, your Majesty’s glory, and a glory to the English and Protestant name.”
There is also an epistle “To the People called Quakers,” in which the author says, “From my childhood, (now above threescore years) the Father of Lights and Mercies touched my soul with a love to himself, to his only-begotten, the true Lord Jesus, to his Holy Scriptures, &c. His infinite wisdom hath given me to see the city, court and country, the schools and universities of my native country, to converse with some Turks, Jews, Papists, and all sorts of Protestants, and by books, to know the affairs and religions of all countries, &c. My conclusion is, that Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee (Matt. 9) is one of the joyfullest sounds that ever came to poor sinful ears.”
He says, “I have used some sharp, scripture language, but not (as commonly you do) passionately and unjustly.”
He adds a letter “to those many learned and pious men whom G. Fox hath so sillily and scornfully answered in his book in folio, especially to those whose names I have been bold to mention in the Narrative and Appendix, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. John Owen, &c.” In this letter is this kind and liberal sentence: “As to matters in dispute between yourselves and me, I willingly omitted them, as knowing, that many able and honest seamen, in their observations of this sun (one picture of Christ Jesus) differ sometimes in their reckonings, though uprightly aiming at, and bound for, one port and harbor.”
Then follows the main body of the work, containing an interesting account of the dispute, and a long and tedious examination of numerous points of doctrine, which Mr. Fox and his friends maintained. We cannot present an analysis of the book. It would afford neither profit nor pleasure. Much of the discussion is a dispute about dark questions, and many of Mr. Williams’ objections arose, probably, from the uncouth phraseology with which Mr. Fox obscured his real meaning. Mr. Williams might easily misunderstand his opponents, while they insisted so strongly on the teachings of the inward light, on the formation of Christ in the soul, and other similar doctrines. Mr. Fox, too, assumed some positions, which none of the Friends would now approve. He justified, for example, the abominable conduct of the females who appeared naked in the streets, and contended that they acted under divine inspiration. Mr. Williams said, “You shall never persuade souls (not bewitched) that the Holy Spirit of God should persuade your women and maidens to appear in public streets and assemblies stark naked.” Mr. Fox replied, “We do believe thee in that dark, persecuting, bloody spirit that thou and the New-England priests are bewitched in, you cannot believe, that you are naked from God, and his clothing, and blind. And therefore hath the Lord in his power moved some of his sons and daughters to go naked; yea, and they did tell them, in Oliver’s days, and the Long Parliament’s, that God would strip them of their Church profession, and of their power, as naked as they were. And so they were true prophets and prophetesses to the nation, as many sober men have confessed since, though thou and the old persecuting priests in New-England remain in your blindness and nakedness.”[[382]] Mr. Williams might well abhor Mr. Fox’s principles, if this had been a fair specimen of their tendency.
Mr. Williams was accused by Mr. Fox and others of advocating persecution, because he condemned the use of Thee and Thou to superiors, as uncivil, and declared, that “a due and moderate restraint and punishing of these incivilities (though pretending conscience) is as far from persecution (properly so called) as that it is a duty and command of God unto all mankind, first in families, and thence unto all mankind societies.” p. 200. Mr. Williams did not reason on this point with his usual clearness. If a man is conscientious about using the terms Thee and Thou, and wearing his hat, he ought to be allowed to do so, because these customs do not necessarily interfere with any other man’s rights. But Mr. Williams viewed them as offences against civil decorum, and thought that they should be restrained and punished as such. He cannot, therefore, be justly accused of inconsistency in relation to his principles of religious liberty. He probably had in his view the offensive language, which some of the persons called Quakers used toward magistrates and others.[[383]] It is, indeed, a curious circumstance, that many of the early Quakers were remarkable for a spirit of bitter railing. Mr. Baxter says: “The Quakers, in their shops, when I go along London streets, say, ‘Alas! poor man, thou art yet in darkness.’ They have oft come into the congregation, when I had liberty to preach Christ’s Gospel, and cried out against me as a deceiver of the people. They have followed me home, crying out in the streets, ‘The day of the Lord is coming, when thou shalt perish as a deceiver.’ They have stood in the market-place, and under my window year after year, crying out to the people, ‘Take heed of your priests, they deceive your souls!’ and if they saw any one wear a lace or a rich clothing, they cried out to me, ‘These are the fruit of thy ministry.’”[[384]] Similar scenes were exhibited in this country. There was a remarkable contrast, at that time, between the language and the general demeanor of the Quakers. They used no force, and made no resistance, but they uttered, without stint, the most virulent epithets. It might seem, that they had literally adopted the counsel of Minerva to Achilles—not to unsheathe the sword, but to reproach their adversaries with words: