Читать книгу A Key Into the Language of America - Roger Williams - Страница 5

Table of Contents

Roger Williams was born of reputable parents, in Wales, A. D. 1598. He was educated at the University of Oxford; was regularly admitted to orders in the Church of England, and preached for some time, as a Minister of that Church; but on embracing the doctrines of the Puritans, he rendered himself obnoxious to the laws against non-conformists and embarked for America, where he arrived with his wife, whose name was Mary, on the 5th of February, 1631. In April following, he was called by the Church of Salem, as teaching Elder, under their then Pastor, Mr. Skelton. This proceeding gave offence to the Governor and Assistants of the Massachusetts Bay, and in a short time, he removed to Plymouth, and was engaged as assistant to Mr. Ralph Smith, the pastor of the Church at that place. Here he remained until he found that his views of religious toleration and strict non-conformity gave offence to some of his hearers, when he returned again to Salem, and was settled there, after Mr. Skelton’s death in 1634. While here and while at Plymouth, he maintained the character he had acquired in England, that “of a godly man and a zealous preacher.” He appears, however, to have been viewed by the government of that colony with jealousy from his first entrance into it. He publicly preached against the patent from the king, under which they held their lands, on the ground that the king could not dispose of the lands of the Natives without their consent—he reprobated “the calling of natural men to the exercise of those holy ordinances of prayers, oaths, &c.” and “the frequenting of Parish Churches, under the pretence of hearing some ministers;”[2] but that, without doubt, which rendered him most obnoxious, was his insisting that the magistrate had no right to punish for breaches of the first table; or in other words, “to deal in matters of conscience and religion.” These causes conspiring with others of less importance, finally procured a decree of banishment to be passed against him, in the autumn of 1635, and he was ordered to depart the jurisdiction, in six weeks. Subsequently to this, he was permitted to remain until spring, on condition that he did not attempt to draw any others to his opinions; but “the people being much taken with the apprehension of his godliness,” in the January following the Governor and Assistants sent an officer to apprehend him and carry him on board a vessel then lying at Nantasket, bound to England. But before the officer arrived, he had removed and gone to Rehoboth. Being informed by Governor Winslow of Plymouth, that he was then within the bounds of the Plymouth patent, in the spring he crossed the river, and commenced the settlement of Providence. The field that he first planted composes “Whatcheer,” the present residence of his Excellency, James Fenner, Governor of Rhode-Island, and the land originally set off to Williams adjoining this field, has continued to the present day, in possession of his descendants.

He afterwards embraced some of the leading opinions of the Baptists, and in March 1639, was baptized by immersion, at Providence, by Ezekiel Holliman, whom he afterwards baptized. He formed a Society of this order, and continued preaching to them for several months, and then separated from them, doubting, it is said, the validity of all baptism, because a direct succession could not be traced from the Apostles to the officiating ministers.

In 1643, Williams went to England as agent for the colonies at Providence, Rhode Island, and Warwick, to solicit a charter of incorporation, which he finally procured, signed by the Earl of Warwick, then Governor and Admiral of the English plantations, and by his Council—bearing date March 14, 1644. On the 17th of September, 1644, he returned from England and landed at Boston, bringing a letter of recommendation to the Governor and Assistants of the Massachusetts Bay, from some of the most influential members of the Long Parliament. This saved him from the penalty incurred by him on entering their bounds, which he avoided at his departure, by taking ship at New-York. In 1651, serious difficulties having been raised in the colony, by Coddington’s procuring a Charter, which gave him almost unlimited authority over the Islands of Narragansett Bay, Williams and Clarke were despatched as agents of the colony, to procure a revocation of it. This they effected in October 1652. Williams returned in 1654, but Clarke remained in England, and procured the second Charter of 1663. While in England at this time Williams resided a principal part of the time, at Belleau, a seat of Sir Henry Vane, in Lincolnshire; and on his return, brought a letter from him, recorded in the records of Providence, inviting the planters to a closer union with one another. This letter, aided by the urgent and constant solicitations of Williams, finally restored peace and union to the colony, which, during his absence, had been rent by many divisions. He was several times both before and after this period, elected to the office of President or Governor of this colony, by the “free vote of the freemen.” He died in April, 1683, at Providence, and was buried under arms, in his family burying ground, with every testimony of respect that the colony could manifest. He was the father of six children: viz. Mary, Freeborn, Providence, Mercy, Daniel, and Joseph; the descendants of whom, at this time, amount to several thousands.

Very few incidents in his life, are to be collected from the writings of Williams, and the prejudices of contemporary and even later historians who have mentioned him, render it difficult to form a true estimate of his character. Facts, which in the estimation of the writers of those days, would have raised a more orthodox man almost above the level of humanity, are slightly mentioned; and opinions which all protestant nations and even the descendants of his enemies have since fully adopted, in him were heretical and subversive, not only of church but of civil government. From these slight and prejudiced statements must the character of Williams be drawn. They prove him to have been a man of unblemished moral character and of ardent piety, unyielding in opinions which he conceived to be right, and not to be diverted from what he believed to be duty, either by threats or by flattery.

One fact speaks volumes in favor of his Christian temper. After he was banished, he conceived himself to be an injured, persecuted man, but with all the opportunities which his intimacy with the neighboring Indians gave him, no purpose of revenge seems ever to have been harbored by him. Instead of that, the next year after his banishment, he gave to his very persecutors, information of the Indian plot, which would have destroyed their whole settlement. He concluded treaties for them, which ensured their peace and prosperity, “employing himself continually in acts of kindness to his persecutors, affording relief to the distressed, offering an asylum to the persecuted”

He is accused, and not unjustly, of frequent changes in his religious sentiments. These changes must have been the effect of sincere conviction—they could not have arisen from a time-serving policy. For had he remained an Episcopalian, England and all her comforts, and undoubtedly as due to his Learning, some of the honors of the Church were before him; and had he continued a lukewarm non-conformist, Massachusetts and Plymouth, the society of his former friends and especially that of Hooker and Cotton, might have solaced him in his residence in this new country. But these were all resigned for what he conceived to be his duty to his God. He was however at all times and under all changes, the undaunted champion of Religious Freedom. It was openly professed by him, on his arrival among those who sought in America, a refuge from persecution and strange as it may seem, it was probably the first thing that excited the prejudices of the Massachusetts and Plymouth rulers against him. He was accused of carrying this favorite doctrine so far as to exempt from punishment any criminal who pleaded conscience. But let his own words exculpate him from this charge.

“That ever I should speak or write a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience, is a mistake, and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred. To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this case. There goes many a ship to sea with many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common; and is a true picture of a common-wealth, or an human combination or society. It hath fallen out, some times, that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship. Upon which supposal, I affirm that all the liberty of conscience, that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two hinges, That none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews or Turks, be forced to come to the ship’s prayers or worship; nor compelled from their own particular prayers or worship, if they practice any. I further add, that I never denied, that notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of this ship ought to command the ship’s course; yea, and also command that justice, peace and sobriety be kept and practiced, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If any of the seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to pay their freight; if any refuse to help in person or purse, toward the common charges or defence; if any refuse to obey the common laws and orders of the ship concerning their common peace or preservation; if any shall mutiny and rise up against their commanders and officers; if any should preach or write, that there ought to be no commanders nor officers, because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters nor officers, no laws nor orders, no corrections nor punishments; I say, I never denied but in such cases, whatever is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist, compel and punish such transgressors, according to their deserts and merits.”

And in Williams’ political transactions, self interest does not appear to have had any influence, in opposition to the public good. The title to Providence Plantations, from the Indians, was in him and in him alone, by their deed. Yet almost his first act was to divide it among his “loving neighbors” reserving to himself only an equal right with them. In the charter procured by him, no office of trust or profit was conferred on him. Of what other agent employed on such business, can the same be said? Well might Calender call him, “the most disinterested man that ever lived.”

The publications of Williams, that have reached us, are not voluminous. The public services in which he was engaged, and the private difficulties which he had to encounter, undoubtedly prevented them from being so. The first, in order of time, is his “Key to the Language of America,” now republished. This, it would seem, was composed during his voyage to England in 1643, and was printed at London soon after his arrival. It preceded Elliot’s publications on the same subject, and was highly commended by the Board of Trade, at the time it was published. Very few copies of the original edition are now extant. The one belonging to the Massachusetts Historical Society is the only one known to be in this country. A strain of ardent piety runs through this work which cannot fail to recommend both itself and its author to the reader. It presents the character of the Natives in a new and favorable light, and appears to have been admirably calculated to facilitate that intercouse with them, which the safety of the settlers and the interests of both settlers and natives imperiously demanded.

The next work was his “Bloody Tenent,” written in answer to Cotton’s work upholding the right and enforcing the duty of the civil magistrate to regulate the doctrines of the Church. This work called forth a reply from Cotton, entitled “The Bloody Tenent, Washed and made White in the blood of the Lambe.” And this was followed by a rejoinder from Williams, entitled “The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody, by Mr. Cotton’s endeavor to Wash it White.” In these works of Williams the doctrine of religious liberty and unlimited toleration are illustrated in strong language and supported by stronger arguments—arguments that preceded those of Locke, Bayle and Furneau. The character and standing of Cotton made him an antagonist, with whom to contend, was glorious, even though vanquished, but with truth on his side, and supported and strengthened by a sense of it, Williams entered the contest, and was not vanquished. Accompanying this last, are two letters, one to Gov. Endicott and the other to the Clergy of Great-Britain and Ireland. The first of which, if it had been read with the spirit in which it appears to have been written, would have stayed the arm of Persecution in New-England. These were published in London in 1652. About twenty years after, Williams had a controversy with the Quakers. He maintained a public dispute with them at Newport, on the 9th, 10th and 12th, and at Providence, on the 17th August, 1672. Afterwards he published his “George Fox digged out of his Burrows,” in answer to a work of Fox. This is a rare book.

In regard to the literary attainments of Roger Williams it is deemed proper to say but little. The readers of this work will be principally such as chuse to form their own opinions. It will be, however, generally admitted, that his Style, abounds with the Beauties and Defects, peculiar to the Literature of his own Times. It is no small praise to say of him, that, as an author, he compares well with his great opponent, Cotton. Both indulge in the same apposite, but somewhat profuse use of Scripture allusion and Phraseology; both are at home in the Classics and the Fathers, and surprise us with quaint erudition; both fight with the same weapon of controversy—the ancient scholastic Logic.

Those who have a partiality for Williams will justify that partiality, by the conciliating liberality of his doctrines, and the philosophic philanthropy of his sentiments, which impart a peculiar amenity to his diction, and to his reasoning, an air of common sense deduction and equitable and rational conclusion, more satisfactory than the most refined subtilties of dialectic skill.

No description of the person of Williams has reached us, but Rhode-Islanders will always remember his name and his deeds, and revere him as the father of their State, and the world will ever regard him as the earliest and boldest champion of the right of all men “fully to have and enjoy their own judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments.”