Bequeath’d by bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won.”[[245]]
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 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.[[246]]
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.[[247]]
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,[[248]] 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 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.”[[249]] 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.”