Images de page
PDF
ePub

is no such church of the separation at all that I know of. That separate church, (if it may be called a church) which separated with Mr. Williams, first broke into a division about a kall occasion (as I have heard) and then broke forth into Anabaptism, and then into Antisptisan and familism, and now finally into no church at all.”

28. Mr. Williams, after this, was very instrumental in obtaining a charter for the government of Rhode Island, which lay near and with his town of Providence, and was by the people sometimes chosen governour: bat for the most part he led a more private life.

It was more than forty years after his exile that he lived here, and in many things acquitted himself so laudably, that many judicious persons julged him to have had the “root of the matter” in him, during the long winter of this retirement: He used many commendable endeavours to Christianize the Indians in his neighbourhood, of whose language, tempers and manners he printed a little relation with observations, wherein he spiritualizes the curiosities with two and thirty chapters, whereof he entertuins his reader. There was always a good correspondence always held between him and many worthy and pious people in the colony, from whence he had been banish’d, tho' his keeping still so many of his dangerous principles kept the government, unto whose favour some of the English nobility had by letters recommended him, from taking off the sentence of his banishment. And against the Quakers he afterwards maintained the main principles of the Protestant religion with much vig. our in some disputations; whereof he afterwards published a large account, in a book against George Fox and Edward Burrowes, which he entituled, "George Fox digg'd out of his burrowes.” But having reported thus much concerning Mr. Williams, we shall now supersede further mention of him, with the mention of another difference, which happened in our "primitive times," wherein he was (indeed but obliquely and remotely) concerned.

$ 9. It was about the year 1633 that one in some authority, under the heat of some impressions from the ministry of Mr. Williams, did by bis tun authority cut the red-cross out of the king's colours, to testifie a zeal against the continuance or appearance of a superstition. This hot action met with a warm censure; and besides the mischiefs hereby occasioned anong the trained soldiers, whereof some were loth to follow the colours which had the cross, least they should put honour upon a Popish idol; others were loth to follow the colours which had not the cross, lest they should seem to cast off their allegiance to the crown of England; the business fell under agitation in the General Court.

The freemen of the colony show'd their displeasure at the gentleman chiefly concerned in this business, by discarding him from his place in the povernment; and a committee of those freemen, chosen by both magistrates and people, judged him to be guilty of a great offence, and worthy of admonition, and so to be one year disabled for bearing any publiek ollice. An harder sentence was not passed, because real tenderness and

perswasion of conscience, and not any ill-affected mind, was the real original of his offence: but so hard a sentence was passed, as a signification of the desire which was rooted in the heart of the country, to approve themselves in all points thorough Englishmen and good subjects. Now, though the action of defacing the colours was generally disapproved, yet the rite of the cross in the banner" became on this occasion a matter of controversie wherein many pious and able men were differently perswaded; and son of our chief worthies maintained their different perswasions with weapon indeed no more dangerous than easie pens, and effects no worse than a litth harmless and learned ink-shed, it will not be a thing unuseful or unpleasan unto a curious reader to have a brief display of that controversie.

§ 10. On the one side, they that pleaded against the use of "the cros in the banner," argued after this manner. The question is not, whether a private man may not march after his colours, which have the cross it them? for the Christian legions never scrupled following the Labarum* of the Roman emperor, which was an idolatrous ensign. Yea, the Jews themselves, that made such earnest suit, first unto Pilate, and then unta Petronius, to have such an idolatrous ensign removed from the walls of their temple, yet without any scruple followed it into the field. Nor is i the question, whether the cross may be used in our colours, as a charm to protect us from enemies, to defend us from disasters, to procure victorie unto us. The faith which the Roman Catholicks have in it, mentione i by Hoveden in the reign of Henry II., when England, France and Flander distinguished themselves by their varieties of it, ever since retained, i abominable to all real Protestants. But the question is, whether the cross as representing the cross of Christ, erected as a badge of Christianity, and : sign of distinction between Christians and Infidels, may by any prince of state be now in their banners reserved and employed? This, they approrer not, and that for these reasons: First, That which God hath commande utterly to be destroyed, slıould not be retained for the important uses of men but God has commanded the "cross in the banner" to be destroyed. Thi may be thus proved: images of idols are commanded utterly to be destroyed but the cross in the banner is the image of an idol, and the greatest idol it the church of Rome. The text in Deuteronomy, where this is commanded will affect Christians as well as Jews; for the moral reason of the command still continues. If it be objected, that then the temples of idols were to be destroyed, it may be answered, Theodosius made a law that they shoul be so. However, we may distinguish between temples dedicated unto idols, and such temples as were dedicated unto God with creatures. The Papists, with Aquinas, deny their temples to have been dedicated unt saints; but affirm them dedicated unto the honour and service of God, fu: his blessings communicated by the saints, whose names are used on this occasion. These temples being purged from their “superstitious desigua

• Imperial standard.

the

tvas," may be still used for our Christian assemblies, as our Saviour used

the Jewish water-pots to turn the water into wine, tho' they were "superatitious purifications” for which they were placed there. Again, there is no civil honour to be given unto the image of an idol; the second commandinent forbids all sort of honour, not only sacred, but civil also, to such an image; yea, and elsewhere, all mention of it with honour is prohibited. But now to advance the cross into the banner, is to put a civil and no little denour upon it: it is the cross in the ensign, which does now insignire, and render it insign; and it was the intention of Constantine to honour cross,

when he interdicted all executions of malefactors upon it, but improved it for his banner. Further, if the figure of the altar in Damascus might not be used as a badge of the religion and profession of the IsraelLites, then the figure of the cross may not be used as a badge of the religion and profession of the Protestants. For there is a like proportion; the Papists regard the cross as the altar whereon our Lord was offered: Now, such a figure of an altar was unlawful to the people of God. Once more, that which was execrable to our Lord, the sign of it should not be honouraDe to us. But so was the cross of our Lord; it made his death accursed; nor was it a pure instrument of meer martyrdom unto him. Moreover, if the partaking of idolothytes in the places where the idols are worshipped, express a communion with idols and idolaters, then the setting up of the cruss in the places where idolaters do worship it, namely, in the banner, 13 an expression of communion in their idolatry. 'Tis true, such meats, when sold in the shambles, might be eaten without scruple of conscience; but besides this, that it was only a common place where these might be eaten; whereas the "cross in the banner" is in the temple, where the apocalyptic Gentiles do adore it; you may add, they were creatures of God, whereas the "cross in the banner" is only an humane contrivance. If it had been lawful for a man to have bought the silver-shrines of Diana, and have caused them to be worn for the cognisance of his family or his attendants; the cross might perhaps have been lawfully used in the banner for a cognisance. Finally, if the first use of the “cross in the banner," by Constantine, were superstitious, then “the first fruits being unclean, the *bole lump of the following use is also unclean.” But now, Eusebius will tell you, "that this saving sign the emperor used as a protection against all warlike and hostile powers.” And Sozomen will tell you, that the emperor changed the image in the Roman Labarum for the sign of the cross, and so the soldiers, who were accustomed to worship the heathen imperial ensign, by the continual sight and worship of the cross, might be weaned from their country-rites, and brought on to worship that God alone whose sign it was." These were the chief of the considerations then urged against the cross by the faithful that were themselves in a wilderness, now preaching and suffering under the cross. That they thus argued, was not because they were those whom the apostle calls “enemies

unto the cross of our Lord;" they knew, they felt, they consented, that Omnis Christianus est Grucianus—"every Christian must be a cross bearer.” Our king Edward I. was the comliest of men, tho' common

! called crook-back, by a mistake of the name crouch-back, [that is, cross-luo? which name he has worn, because of his wearing a cross on his back Our good old planters had the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ laid upo their back, by the manifold afflictions which they underwent for his true and ways; but mankind will be mistaken, if they imagine those blesse soldiers, under the banners of the Lord Redeemer, to have been of "defective stature” in Christianity, because of their not affecting to mak the cross in their banners the mark of that Christianity. It is Catholicky

that is, ridiculously-enough given as the answer to the second questio in the catechism, wherein the French new-converts are instructed; the question, "Whereby shall one know a true Christian?” the answer, A d qu'il fait le Signe de la Croix; that is, "By this, that he makes the sign o' the cross.” Our New-Englanders were good Christians, but yet were lol to give the cross for the sign of their being so; they chose a better sign of it, by being themselves crucified unto the vanities of the world; that whieu made the cross disagreeable to them, was its being the great idol of Popery, which is but revived Paganism. As the primitive Christians, when the Pagans charged them with the veneration of the cross, answered, Crus nec Colimus, nec Optamus ;* this might a Minutius on the behalf of our New-English Christians have given for their answer also: If Tertulliaa reckoned it a scandal raised upon the primitive Christians, that they were, Crucis Religiosi, t you see the New-English Christians took an effectual course, that they might not on that part be scandalized.

$ 11. On the other side, they that pleaded for the use of "the cross in the banner," argued after this fashion: To state the question, we must know that it is necessary that there should be a banner displayed: and a banner with a cross in it, serves the end of a banner as much as any other. Had the cross never been superstitiously abused, the civil use of that figure could not be questioned; but the superstitious abuse is a thing that is added unto the civil use, and accordingly the superstitious abuse may again be removed from it; otherwise what a desolation of bells must be produced by a just reformation of superstitions? Wherefore, if the present author ity does neither appoint nor declare any superstition in the observation of any civil usage, the superstition of that usage is at an end. Thus, tho' it be notoriously known that many persons in authority have their superstitious conceits about churches, yet, inasmuch as there is no injunction of authority upon private persons to approve any such conceits, 'tis no super stition in such persons to use those churches unto unlawful purposes

. The question then is, whether the "civil use" of the “cross in the banner" may not be separated from the "superstitious abuse" of it? It seems that

+ Cross-worshippers.

. Crucifixes we neither worship nor want.

it may; for--first, If names that have been abused for the honour of uns

, may in a civil way be still used, then things that have been so abused, ray be in like manner used for a civil distinction. But we find the names of Apollo and Phæbe, and the like, used in the "Apostolical salutations,” Sa tao' it had been a less difficulty for those persons to have changed the Danes at first sinfully impos'd on them, than for “the cross in the banner" in be now wholly laid aside. If any heathen king put an honour upon his idol Bel, by saying, “O Belteshazzar!" the Spirit of God may speak it without any honour to that idol at all. Again, it is one thing to describe a cross, as an artificial thing, by way of civil signification, and another thing L'employ a cross, as a sacramental thing, by way of sacred observation; and in the banner, 'tis the former, not the latter way, that it is considered; when I am relating how a Papist crosses himself, I may lawfully express it by making an aerial cross like his; whereas it would not be lawful for me to bake such a cross upon the same ends with him. And, what if the cross, as first used by Constantine, bad in it somewhat unwarrantable? It follows not, that the following use of it is of the same lump with the first; for if it now be used upon another design, the uncleanness is taken away. Besides, Constantine brought the cross with as much unwarrantableness i.to his coins, as into his colours, but it is believed that most men, at this day, would count themselves very sorely cross'd, and their purses very unhappy, if there were none of those crosses in them. To proceed: Meats that were sacrificed unto idols might be eaten, when sold and bought in

now a cross, as an effect of art, is a creature of God's, as well any

of the meats bred and cooked by men. And what if the banner be like the temple to the idol? One might have eaten the idolothytes in a chamber or corner of an idol temple, if there had been any such, where b-holders would not have been scandalized. Such were the colours of good iud evil, which were put upon the use of the cross in the colours, at the first seitlement of the militia in these plantations. But there was nothing like a var appearing in the disputations of the good men, that thus flourished the matter on both sides. All the velitations were peaceably furled up in this result: that the cross was kept in the banners of castles and vessels, where it was necessary; and in the banners of the trained bands it was generally omitted, until it was very lately introduced.

$ 12. It will be now not improper—I am sure it will not be unchristian in the same chapter which reports the disturbances of New-England, Fuised by Mr. Williams, to relate some further disturbances of the country, to the extinguishing whereof Mr. Williams very commendably contributed bis assistances: For I freely acknowledge, with Tully, Est iniqua in omni te accusanda, prætermissis bovis, malorum enumeratio, vitiorumque selectio.* Know, then, that in the year 1636 arrived at Boston one Samuel Gorton,

An unfair summing up and setting forth of evils and vices, to the exclusion of what is good, is reprehensible under all circumstances. --Cicero, de Legibus, III. 10.

the market;

is

« PrécédentContinuer »