1. Urithi au Ukweli? Jinsi Armitage Anavyoifuatilia Historia ya Wabaptisti1. Succession or Truth? How Armitage Traces Baptist History
Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Sura ya Utangulizi, “Je, Tunao Urithi Unaoonekana wa Makanisa ya Kibaptisti Tangu Mitume?” (uk. 1–12). Imefupishwa; sehemu zilizoachwa zimewekwa alama […]. Maandishi ya Kiingereza yametoka kwa OCR isiyolinganishwa na nakala nyingine; mgawanyo wa aya umewekwa na CTS. Tafsiri za mambo ni za mwandishi.Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Introductory Chapter, “Have We a Visible Succession of Baptist Churches down from the Apostles?” (pp. 1–12). Abridged; omissions marked […]. English text from uncollated OCR; paragraph divisions supplied by CTS. The interpretations are the author’s.
Dokezo la CTS: Armitage (1819–1896), mchungaji Mbaptisti huko New York, aliandika utangulizi huu kupinga mtazamo wa “urithi”, ambao baadaye ulienezwa na Wabaptisti wa Landmark na kijitabu The Trail of Blood, unaosema kwamba makanisa ya Kibaptisti yanatokana na mitume kupitia mnyororo usiokatika wa makutaniko. Mtazamo wake mwenyewe, kwamba utambulisho wa Kibaptisti unategemea uaminifu kwa Agano Jipya na si mstari unaoonekana, unakaribiana na ule wa wanahistoria wengi leo, wanaoweka tarehe ya makanisa ya kwanza ya Kibaptisti kwa Wanaojitenga wa Kiingereza (English Separatists) walioishi Uholanzi na Uingereza karibu mwaka 1609–1612 (John Smyth, Thomas Helwys), huku wakikubali kwamba makundi ya awali, kama Wawaldensia, yalishikilia imani fulani zilizofanana. Baadhi ya Wabaptisti bado wanashikilia urithi wa makanisa. Maneno yake kuhusu Kanisa Katoliki yanaonyesha mabishano makali ya Kiprotestanti na Kikatoliki ya karne ya kumi na tisa; mafundisho ya Kikatoliki kuhusu urithi wa kitume yanaelezwa hapa na mpinzani, si kwa maneno yake yenyewe. Kifungu kinachomnukuu Matthew Arnold na Goethe kimeachwa.CTS note: Armitage (1819–1896), a Baptist pastor in New York, wrote this introduction against the “succession” view, later popularized by Landmark Baptists and the booklet The Trail of Blood, which holds that Baptist churches descend from the apostles through an unbroken chain of congregations. His own view, that Baptist identity rests on faithfulness to the New Testament rather than on a visible line, is close to that of most historians today, who date the first Baptist churches to English Separatists in Holland and England about 1609–1612 (John Smyth, Thomas Helwys), while recognizing that earlier groups such as the Waldenses held some similar convictions. Some Baptists still hold to church succession. His remarks about the Catholic Church reflect the sharp Protestant–Catholic controversy of the nineteenth century; Catholic teaching on apostolic succession is described here by an opponent, not in its own terms. A passage quoting Matthew Arnold and Goethe has been omitted.
Sura ya Utangulizi. Je, Tunao Urithi Unaoonekana wa Makanisa ya Kibaptisti Tangu Mitume?Introductory Chapter. Have We a Visible Succession of Baptist Churches down from the Apostles?
Kwenye pwani ya magharibi ya India, karibu na Goa, na pia katika Bahari ya Mediterania, chemchemi vya maji baridi, ambavyo havifiki juu ya uso bali huchukuliwa na mkondo wa chini, hububujika kutoka kwenye matabaka ya chini ya bahari. Lakini katika Ghuba ya Xagua, pwani ya kusini ya Kuba, chemchemi ya ajabu ya maji baridi hububujika katika bahari kuu; ikisukuma kando maji yake ya chumvi, hupita katika mkondo wa juu na kupotea baharini. Katika chemchemi hii mabaharia mara nyingi huteka maji safi ya kunywa katikati ya jangwa la maji chumvi. Hapa maumbile yanatupa mfano wenye nguvu wa ukweli kwamba kunaweza kuwa na mtiririko wa urithi unaoonekana bila usafi, na kwamba kunaweza kuwa na usafi unaoendelea bila mtiririko wa urithi unaoonekana. Je, urithi usiokatika, unaoonekana, wa kihistoria, wa makanisa huru ya Injili tangu mitume, ni muhimu kwa kuwepo halali kwa makanisa ya Kibaptisti leo, kuwa ya kitume kwa maana yote ya neno hilo?On the western coast of India, near Goa, and also in the Mediterranean, springs of fresh water, which do not rise to the surface but are run off by the undercurrent, rush out of the strata at the bottom of the sea. But in the Gulf of Xagua, on the southern coast of Cuba, a wonderful fountain of fresh water gurgles up in the open sea; forcing aside its salt waters, it passes off in the surface-current and is lost in the ocean. From this spring navigators often draw their supplies of pure water in the midst of the briny waste. Here nature lends us a forceful type of the fact that there may be a flow of visible succession without purity, and that there may be continuous purity without a flow of visible succession. Is an unbroken, visible, and historical succession of independent Gospel Churches down from the apostles, essential to the valid existence of Baptist Churches to-day, as apostolic in every sense of the word?
Swali hili linaleta jingine, yaani: Urithi wowote wa ukoo una thamani gani ukilinganishwa na kushikamana leo na kweli ya kitume? Kutokana na maswali haya mawili linatokea la tatu: Je, ukoo wa kweli kutoka kwa Makanisa ya Kitume hautegemei kupatana leo na kielelezo cha kitume, hata kama kanisa la mahali la leo limejiunda lenyewe, kutokana na watu ambao hawakuwahi kutoka katika kanisa lolote, mradi limesimama juu ya utume wa Agano Jipya peke yake? Ukweli ulio rahisi ni kwamba umoja wa ufalme wa Kristo duniani haupatikani katika kuonekana kwake, kama vile umoja wa mfumo wa jua haupatikani katika mwelekeo huo, kwa kuwa sehemu yake kubwa zaidi haiko chini ya uchunguzi wa kiumbe yeyote isipokuwa Mungu. Vivyo hivyo, umoja wa Ukristo hautafutwi kwa kufuatilia kwa macho kupitia kundi moja la watu. Umefungwa ndani ya wote waliofuata kanuni za kitume tupu katika vizazi vyote; na hivyo usafi wa maisha ya Kibaptisti unapatikana katika kiini cha mafundisho yao na mazoezi yao, bila kujali ni nani anayeyatekeleza.This question suggests another, namely, Of what value could any lineal succession be, as compared with present adherence to apostolic truth? From these two questions a third arises: Whether true lineage from the Apostolic Churches does not rest in present conformity to the apostolic pattern, even though the local church of to-day be self-organized, from material that never came out of any church, provided, that it stands on the apostolicity of the New Testament alone. The simple truth is, that the unity of Christ's kingdom on earth is not found in its visibility, any more than the unity of the solar system is found in that direction, for its largest domain never falls under the inspection of any being but God. So, likewise, the unity of Christianity is not found by any visible tracing through one set of people. It has been enwrapped in all who have followed purely apostolic principles through the ages; and thus the purity of Baptist life is found in the essence of their doctrines and practices by whomsoever enforced.
Hakuna maarifa mengi yanayohitajika kuona uongo wa urithi unaoonekana wa kitume katika huduma, lakini urithi unaoonekana wa kanisa ni uongo vivyo hivyo, na kwa sababu zilezile. Mkatoliki yuko sahihi katika nadharia yake kwamba mambo haya mawili lazima yasimame pamoja au yaanguke pamoja; kwa hiyo anadhani, kwa msingi huo huo, kwamba wote wasio katika urithi huu maradufu wametengwa na mstari wa kweli wa kitume. Na wengi wasio Wakatoliki wanafikiri kwamba wakishindwa kufunua mfululizo usiokatika wa makanisa yaliyoundwa kwa utaratibu, wanapoteza ukoo wao kwa pengo katika mnyororo, na hivyo wanashindwa kuthibitisha kwamba ni Makanisa halali ya Kitume. Ushahidi huo hauwezi kufuatiliwa na kanisa lolote duniani, na ungekuwa hauna thamani kabisa hata kama ungeweza, kwa sababu uhalali wa kweli wa Ukristo lazima upatikane katika Agano Jipya, na mahali pengine popote hapana. Jaribio lenyewe la kufuatilia mstari usiokatika wa watu waliobatizwa ipasavyo kwa kumwamini Kristo binafsi, au wa wahudumu waliowekwa wakfu kwa ukoo wa moja kwa moja kutoka kwa mitume, au wa makanisa yaliyoundwa kwa kanuni hizi na yanayoshikamana na Agano Jipya katika mambo yote, ni jaribio la kujenga ngome ya makosa.Little perception is required to discover the fallacy of a visible apostolical succession in the ministry, but visible Church succession is precisely as fallacious, and for exactly the same reasons. The Catholic is right in his theory that these two must stand or fall together; hence he assumes, ipso facto, that all who are not in this double succession are excluded from the true apostolic line. And many who are not Catholics think that if they fail to unroll a continuous succession of regularly organized churches, they lose their genealogy by a break in the chain, and so fail to prove that they are legitimate Apostolic Churches. Such evidence cannot be traced by any Church on earth, and would be utterly worthless if it could, because the real legitimacy of Christianity must be found in the New Testament, and nowhere else. The very attempt to trace an unbroken line of persons duly baptized upon their personal trust in Christ, or of ministers ordained by lineal descent from the apostles, or of churches organized upon these principles, and adhering to the New Testament in all things, is in itself an attempt to erect a bulwark of error.
Ni Mungu peke yake awezaye kuumba kiumbe kipya; na juhudi ya kufuatilia historia ya Kikristo kutoka kwa mtu aliyezaliwa upya hadi mtu aliyezaliwa upya inamaanisha kwamba mwanadamu anaweza kutoa nguvu fulani ya kudumisha mfululizo wa Wakristo mmoja mmoja. Tumia wazo hilohilo kwa makundi ya makanisa yanayoshuka kwa vizazi sitini, nasi tunapata matokeo yaleyale kabisa. Wazo hilo ndilo uhai wenyewe wa Ukatoliki. Msingi wetu wa pekee unaotegemeka dhidi ya mfumo huu ni huu: Kwamba kama hakuna alama yoyote ya kupatana na Agano Jipya ingeweza kupatikana katika Kanisa lolote tangu mwisho wa karne ya kwanza, Kanisa lililoanzishwa leo juu ya maisha na utaratibu wa Agano Jipya lingekuwa kanisa la kihistoria linalotoka kwa Kristo kikweli kama Kanisa lililopandwa na Paulo huko Efeso. Robert Robinson alisema vema: ‘Urithi usiokatika ni chambo cha kudanganya, mtego uliotegwa na hila ya hoja za uongo, ambao pande zote zimeunaswa.Only God can make a new creature; and the effort to trace Christian history from regenerate man to regenerate man, implies that man can impart some power to keep up a succession of individual Christians. Apply the same thought to groups of churches running down through sixty generations, and we have precisely the same result. The idea is the very life of Catholicism. Our only reliable ground in opposition to this system is: That if no trace of conformity to the New Testament could be found in any Church since the end of the first century, a Church established to-day upon the New Testament life and order, would be as truly a historical Church from Christ, as the Church planted by Paul at Ephesus. Robert Robinson has well said: 'Uninterrupted succession is a specious lure, a snare set by sophistry, into which all parties have fallen.
Na imewapata wanaofuatilia ukoo wa kiroho kama inavyowapata wengine waliofuatilia ukoo wa kimwili: wote wawili wameshona pamoja vijiti vya kila aina ili kujaza mapengo ya mbali. Fundisho hilo ni la lazima tu kwa Makanisa yanayoongoza imani na mazoezi yao kwa mapokeo, na kwa matumizi yao ndilo lilibuniwa mwanzoni. . . . Waprotestanti, kwa hoja zenye nguvu kuliko zote, wameliangamiza fundisho la urithi wa kipapa, na bado Waprotestanti hao hao wamejitwika kuthibitisha mfululizo usiokatika wa watu wenye mawazo yaliyo kama yao, wanaofuatana kwa utaratibu unaostahili kutoka kwa mitume hadi kwao wenyewe.’ Utakatifu ndio cheo cha juu kabisa cha uhalali katika ufalme wa Mungu, kwa sababu utakatifu, upole, na kujitoa kikamilifu kwa Kristo ndio roho ya maisha halisi ya Kanisa; na bila ukoo huu, ukale hauwezi hata kulifanya Kanisa liwe la heshima. Utakatifu huu hudhihirishwa kwa kukataa kosa na kuchagua kweli, katika mambo yote ambayo Agano Jipya limeyaagiza, kwa amri au kwa mfano.And it has happened to spiritual genealogists as it has to others who have traced natural descents, both have woven together twigs of every kind to fill up remote chasms. The doctrine is necessary only to such Churches as regulate their faith and practice by tradition, and for their use it was first invented. . . . Protestants, by the most substantial arguments, have blasted the doctrine of papal succession, and yet these very Protestants have undertaken to make proof of an unbroken series of persons, of their own sentiments, following one another in due order from the apostles to themselves.' Sanctity is the highest title to legitimacy in the kingdom of God, because holiness, meekness, and self-consecration to Christ are the soul of real Church life; and without this pedigree, antiquity cannot make Church existence even reverent. This sanctity is evinced by the rejection of error and the choice of truth, in all matters which the New Testament has enjoined, either by precept or example.
Katika mambo ya uzito mdogo, yanayohitaji akili timamu, moyo mtukufu na wa adabu wa Yesu lazima udumishwe, kwa maana utakatifu wa mtu binafsi ndio kipimo cha juu kabisa cha Ukristo katika uhusiano wake wote wa kihistoria. Lakini jambo hili la urithi unaoonekana wa Kanisa limeunganika kimsingi na wazo la Kanisa kutokosea, badala ya kufanana na Kristo. Mafundisho haya mawili pacha yalizaliwa na wazazi wale wale, na moja linamaanisha jingine, kwa kuwa urithi unaoonekana lazima uwe safi katika sehemu zake zote, yaani usiokosea; ukiwa umeharibika katika mambo fulani, hakuna hoja ya kimantiki inayoweza kuufanya kuwa kamili. Ukweli unatuita turudi kwenye mtazamo wa msingi, kwamba Kanisa lolote lenye muhuri halisi wa kitume linatokana moja kwa moja kihistoria na mitume, bila uhusiano na Kanisa lingine lolote la zamani au la sasa. Kwa kutetea msimamo huu, mambo yafuatayo yanawasilishwa kwa kila akili ya haki:In things of light import, demanding a robust common sense, the noble and courteous spirit of Jesus must be maintained, for personal holiness is the highest test of Christianity in all its historical relations. But this matter of visible Church succession is organically connected with the idea of Church infallibility, rather than of likeness to Christ. The twin doctrines were born of the same parentage, and the one implies the other, for a visible succession must be pure in all its parts, that is, infallible; if it is corrupt in some things, no logical showing can make it perfect. Truth calls us back to the radical view, that any Church which bears the real apostolic stamp is in direct historical descent from the apostles, without relation to any other Church past or present. In defense of this position the following considerations are submitted to all candid minds:
I. Kwamba Kristo hakuwahi kuweka sheria ya kikristo ya mzaliwa wa kwanza ambayo kwayo aliyapa makanisa ya mahali uwezo wa pekee wa kuzaa upya kimaadili, hivi kwamba lazima kanisa moja liwe mama wa jingine, kwa mfululizo wa kawaida, na bila hivyo hayawezi kuwa makanisa halali. Wale walioyaunda makanisa wakati wa mitume walikwenda tu na mistari ya mafundisho na utaratibu mikononi mwao, wakaunda makanisa mapya bila mamlaka wala hata habari ya makanisa mengine. Baadhi ya watu hawa hawakuwa mitume wala wachungaji, bali Wakristo wa kawaida. Watu huzaliwa kwa Mungu katika kuzaliwa upya, na si kwa Kanisa. Hawana ukoo katika kuzaliwa upya, sembuse kuwa wazao wa ukoo wa kishirika. Watu walioliunda Makanisa ya kweli huko Antiokia na Roma ‘walizaliwa kutoka juu,’ na Injili, si Kanisa, ndiyo iliyokuwa chombo ambacho kwa hicho watu ‘wanazaliwa na Mungu.’I. That Christ never established a law of Christian primogeniture by which he endowed local churches with the exclusive power of moral regeneration, making it necessary for one church to be the mother of another, in regular succession, and without which they could not be legitimate churches. Those who organized the churches in apostolic times went forth simply with the lines of doctrine and order in their hands, and formed new churches without the authority or even the knowledge of other churches. Some of these men were neither apostles nor pastors, but private Christians. Men are born of God in regeneration and not of the Church. They have no ancestry in regeneration, much less are they the offspring of an organic ancestry. The men who composed the true Churches at Antioch and Rome were 'born from above,' making the Gospel and not the Church the agency by which men are 'begotten of God.'
Uongo huu wa urithi wa Kanisa unahamisha swali kuu la maisha ya Kikristo kutoka kwenye msingi wa kitume wa kweli, imani na utii, hadi kwenye mafundisho ya Kirumi kuhusu watu, na kuufanya mfululizo wa kihistoria wa watu hao kuwa lazima ili kuongoza maagizo na kutoa uhai halali wa Kanisa. Maongozi ya Roho yanasemaje kuhusu jambo hili? ‘Mtu ye yote asiyekaa katika mafundisho ya Kristo, hanaye Mungu; akaaye katika mafundisho hayo, huyo anaye Baba na Mwana pia. Mtu akija kwenu, wala haleti mafundisho haya, msimpokee.’ Mafundisho safi, kama yanavyopatikana bila uharibifu katika neno la Mungu, ndio mstari pekee usiokatika wa urithi unaoweza kufuatiliwa katika Ukristo. Mungu hakuwahi kuiweka kweli yake mikononi mwa urithi wa kibinafsi wa kundi lolote la watu; mwanadamu hakuaminiwa kutunza amana hii ya thamani, bali Mfalme wa kweli ameweka funguo za kweli mkononi mwake mwenyewe.This Church succession figment shifts the primary question of Christian life from the apostolic ground of truth, faith and obedience, to the Romanistic doctrine of persons, and renders an historic series of such persons necessary to administer the ordinances and impart valid Church life. How does inspiration govern this matter? 'Whoso abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God; he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man cometh to you and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not.' Pure doctrine, as it is found uncorrupted in the word of God, is the only unbroken line of succession which can be traced in Christianity. God never confided his truth to the personal succession of any body of men; man was not to be trusted with the custody of this precious charge, but the King of the truth has kept the keys of the truth in his own hand.
Kanisa la kweli la Kristo limekuwa daima lile lililosimama juu ya Nafsi yake na kazi yake. Whitaker, akizungumzia kosa hili la uongozi wa kikuhani, anasema, ‘Kwa hiyo imani ndiyo roho ya urithi, kwa kusema hivyo; ikiwa haipo, urithi mtupu wa watu ni maiti.’ Tertullian anasema, ‘Ikiwa wazushi wowote wanathubutu kujiunganisha na Enzi ya Kitume, ili waonekane wametokana na Mitume, kama waliokuwepo chini yao, tunaweza kusema: Na watangaze, basi, asili ya Makanisa yao, na waonyeshe mfululizo wa maaskofu wao, ukishuka kwa mfululizo usiokatika tangu mwanzo, hivi kwamba waonyeshe askofu wao wa kwanza alikuwa mtume fulani au mtu wa kitume aliyekuwa mtangulizi wake au aliyemweka wakfu, na aliyedumu katika imani ileile na Mitume. Kwa maana hivi ndivyo Makanisa ya Kitume yanavyohesabu mfululizo wa maaskofu wao.’The true Church of Christ has ever been that which has stood upon his person and work. Whitaker, treating of this blunder of the hierarchy, says, 'Faith, therefore, is, as it were, the soul of the succession; which, being wanting, a naked succession of persons is a dead body.' Tertullian says, 'If any of the heretics dare to connect themselves with the Apostolic Age, that they may seem to be derived from the Apostles, as existing under them, we may say: Let them, therefore, declare the origin of their Churches, let them exhibit the series of their bishops, as coming down by a continued succession from the beginning, as to show their first bishop to have been some apostle or apostolic man as his predecessor or ordainer, and who continued in the same faith with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the Apostolical Churches calculate the series of their bishops.'
Ambrose anachukua msimamo huohuo, hivi: ‘Hawana urithi, si warithi wa Petro wale wasio na imani ya Petro.’ Gregory (wa Nazianzo), alipokuwa akimtetea Athanasio kuhusu haki yake ya kiti cha Aleksandria dhidi ya mpinzani wake, anatumia maneno haya: ‘Urithi huu wa utauwa unapaswa kuhesabiwa kuwa urithi wa kweli, kwa kuwa yeye anayeshikilia fundisho lilelile la imani ni mshirika katika kiti kilekile; lakini yule anayetetea fundisho lililo kinyume, anapaswa, ingawa yuko katika kiti cha Mt. Marko, kuhesabiwa kuwa adui wa kiti hicho. Huyu, kweli, anaweza kuwa na urithi kwa jina, lakini yule mwingine anao ukweli wenyewe, urithi kwa vitendo na kwa kweli.’ Msimamo wa Calvin unapatana na ushuhuda huu; anasema: ‘Naukana mpango wa urithi kuwa jambo lisilo na msingi kabisa. . . . Swali hili la kuwa warithi wa Mitume lazima litatuliwe kwa kuchunguza mafundisho yanayoshikiliwa.’Ambrose takes the same ground, thus: 'They have not the inheritance, are not the successors of Peter who have not the faith of Peter.' Gregory (Nazianzen), in defending the right of Athanasius, to the chair of Alexandria, against his opponent, uses these words: 'This succession of piety ought to be esteemed the true succession, for he who maintains the same doctrine of faith is partner in the same chair; but he who defends the contrary doctrine, ought, though in the chair of St. Mark, to be esteemed an adversary to it. This man, indeed, may have a nominal succession, but the other has the very thing itself, the succession in deed and in truth.' Calvin's view is in harmony with this testimony; he says: 'I deny the succession scheme as a thing entirely without foundation. . . . This question of being successors of the Apostles must be decided by an examination of the doctrines maintained.'
Zanchius anatoa mtazamo huohuo: ‘Wakati urithi wa kibinafsi pekee unapojivuniwa, usafi wa mafundisho ya kweli ya Kikristo ukiwa umeondoka, hakuna huduma halali, kwa kuwa Kanisa na huduma ya Kanisa vimefungwa si kwa watu, bali kwa neno la Mungu.’ Bradford, shahidi, alisema kwa kweli kuhusu Kanisa kwamba yeye ‘Hafungwi na urithi, bali na neno la Mungu.’ Na Stillingfleet anasema kwa ari: ‘Urithi na ujue mahali pake, na ujifunze kuinamisha kofia mbele ya Maandiko. Urithi uliodaiwa sana na waandishi wa Kanisa la kwanza haukuwa urithi wa watu katika mamlaka ya kitume, bali urithi wa mafundisho ya kitume.’ Kwa msingi huu inafuata kwamba wale wanaoshikilia urithi unaoshikika wa Makanisa ya Kibaptisti tangu Enzi ya Kitume, lazima wathibitishe kutoka katika Maandiko kwamba kuna kitu kingine zaidi ya utakatifu na kweli ambacho ni ishara ya lazima ya Kanisa la Mungu.Zanchius gives the same view: 'When personal succession, alone, is boasted of, the purity of true Christian doctrine having departed, there is no legitimate ministry, seeing that both the Church and the ministry of the Church are bound not to persons, but to the word of God.' Bradford, the martyr, truly said of the Church, that she is 'Not tied to succession, but to the word of God.' And Stillingfleet says, with spirit: 'Let succession know its place, and learn to vaile bonnet to the Scriptures. The succession so much pleaded by the writers of the primitive Church was not a succession of persons in apostolic power, but a succession of apostolic doctrine.' On this ground it follows, that those who hold to a tangible succession of Baptist Churches down from the Apostolic Age, must prove from the Scriptures that something besides holiness and truth is an essential sign of the Church of God.
Mpango mzima huu wa uongo wa kitume, tangu msingi wake, ulikuwa uumbaji wa uongozi wa kikuhani kwa madhumuni ya dhuluma. Swali la uaminifu wa kweli lina uzito mkubwa zaidi katika historia ya Kibaptisti kuliko lile la ukale. Uaminifu wa kweli hukubali kweli yote bila kujali wakati; ukiikusanya na kuiweka kumbukumbuni kama ilivyojulikana katika karne zote. Kweli ya kihistoria ina sehemu nyingi zinazopatana, lakini mistari migumu na isiyobadilika ya urithi unaoonekana ni ya mfumo tu wala si ya historia ya kweli. Biblia ni kilindi ambamo bahari ya kweli ya Injili hukaa, na vijito vyake vyote lazima vipatane na chanzo chake, wala si na asili ya ndoto na hisia tupu. Kama vile si kweli ya Injili kwamba Kristo ameweka nguvu ya uzazi wa kiroho ndani ya Makanisa yake, ndivyo isivyo kweli kwamba wote wasiotoka katika ukoo fulani wa Kanisa ni wageni na wasio halali.The whole pseudo-apostolic scheme, from its foundation, was a creation of the hierarchy for the purposes of tyranny. The question of veracity is of vastly more moment in Baptist history than that of antiquity. Veracity accepts all truth without regard to time; gathering it up, and putting it on record exactly as it has been known through the centuries. Historic truth has many parts in harmony with each other, but the hard and fast lines of visible succession are those of a mere system and not those of true history. The Bible is the deep in which the ocean of Gospel truth lies, and all its streams must harmonize with their source, and not with a dreamy, sentimental origin. As it is not a Gospel truth that Christ has lodged the power of spiritual procreation in his Churches, so it is not true that all who come not of any given line of Church stock are alien and illegitimate.
II. Bwana wetu hakuahidi kamwe kuonekana kwa Kanisa lake kishirika milele, kati ya watu wowote au katika kizazi chochote. Alilipa Kanisa lake uzima usiokufa aliposema: ‘Malango ya kuzimu (Hadesi) hayatalishinda.’ Lakini jambo hili halihusiani na swali la kuwepo kunakoweza kufuatiliwa au kuwa kwa siri. Anatoa ahadi yake kwamba Kanisa lake halitaangamia, na amelihakikishia utulivu huu. Nguvu za mauti zimejitupa kwa kiburi dhidi yake mara elfu, lakini licha ya hasira yao, linasimama imara lililojengwa juu ya ‘Mwamba.’ Limefukuzwa nyikani tena na tena, kama mwanamke asiye na msaada, ili lijitafutie makao kadiri liwezavyo. Ngome zake, ukiwa wake, mapango na pango zake zimelialika kwa usiri na hifadhi yake; lakini ingawa washiriki wake wamefukuzwa kama makapi mbele ya upepo, halijawahi kuangamizwa.II. Our Lord never promised an organic visibility to his Church in perpetuity, amongst any people or in any age. He endowed his Church with immortal life when he said: 'The gates of hell (Hades) shall not prevail against it.' But this has nothing to do with the question of a traceable or hidden existence. He gives his pledge that his Church shall not perish, and he has secured to her this stability. The forces of death have proudly dashed themselves against her a thousand times, but despite their rage, she stands firmly built on a 'Rock.' She has been driven into the wilderness again and again, as a helpless woman, to find a home as best she could. Its fastnesses, wastes, dens and caves, have invited her to their secrecy and shelter; but though her members have been driven like chaff before the wind, she has never been destroyed.
Jeshi halishindwi linapoondolewa uwanjani, hustaafu tu ili lifanywe lisiloweza kuharibika. Punje ya ngano iliyofungwa na kufichwa katika piramidi kwa maelfu ya miaka huota mbichi kama zamani ikirudishwa kwenye nuru na unyevu. Vivyo hivyo Kristo anaonyesha waziwazi uangalizi wake juu ya Kanisa lake anapolipeleka katika kimbilio la siri kwa usalama, au kama Yohana asemavyo, katika ‘mahali pake palipoandaliwa na Mungu,’ ili ‘lilishwe kwa muda,’ lije mbele likiwa na nguvu zaidi kuliko hapo awali. Watu mara nyingi wamefikiri Kanisa limekufa, kwanza kati ya watu hawa kisha kati ya wale, wakati lilikuwa hai zaidi kuliko hapo awali kwa sababu ya kutoonekana kwake mara kwa mara. Wakati kama huo shirika lake limevunjwa, maagizo yake yamesimamishwa, viongozi wake wameuawa, washiriki wake wamesagwa kuwa unga; lakini limetokea tena, si katika mpangilio mpya wa watu walewale, bali katika uamsho wa kweli za zamani kati ya watu wapya, kuzaa mifano mipya na mashuhuri ya watu waaminifu.An army is not overthrown when withdrawn from the field, it is retired only to make it indestructible. A grain of wheat enswathed and hidden in a pyramid for thousands of years grows as fresh as ever when brought back to light and moisture. So Christ signally evinces his watch-care over his Church when he brings her into a secret retreat for safety, or as John expresses it, into 'her place prepared by God,' that she may be 'nourished for a time,' to come forth stronger than ever. Men have often thought the Church dead, first amongst this people and then that, when she was more alive than ever for her occasional invisibility. At such times her organization has been broken, her ordinances suspended, her officers slain, her members ground to powder; but she has come forth again, not in a new array of the same persons, but in the revival of old truths amongst a new people, to reproduce new and illustrious examples of faithful men.
Ukristo umekuwa kama kitambaa kimoja ambacho kupitia hicho utepe wa dhahabu wa kweli umeonekana wakati mwingine kutoka ukingo hadi ukingo, kisha uzi mdogo tu umeonekana, kisha umefunikwa kabisa na nyuzi za msingi. Lakini punde umejitokeza tena ukiwa mng’ao kama zamani, baada ya kutoonekana kwa muda mrefu. III. Kristo hakuahidi kamwe makanisa yake yatalindwa kabisa dhidi ya makosa. Aliahidi Roho wake kuwaongoza Mitume wake katika kweli yote, na alitimiza neno lake kwa uaminifu waliposema na kuandika kama Roho alivyowaongoza. Lakini alipomaliza kanuni iliyovuviwa ya kuwaongoza, hakuona vema kuwaweka safi, wapende wasipende. Waliweza kuchanganya kosa na mafundisho ya uongo na kweli yake, na kujiaibisha kwa mchanganyiko wa uharibifu; lakini hasara na wajibu vilikuwa vyao. Kuwaahidi usafi usiochanganywa kwa nyakati zote licha ya mapenzi yao wenyewe, ilikuwa kuwapa kutokosea, ambalo ndilo hasa fundisho la Roma, na ni kinyume cha historia yote ya kutegemewa.Christianity has been one web through which the golden band of truth has been visible from edge to edge at times, then a mere thread has been seen, then it has been fully covered by the warp. But anon, it has re-appeared as bright as ever, from its long invisibility. III. Christ never promised to his churches their absolute preservation from error. He promised his Spirit to lead his Apostles into all truth, and kept his word faithfully when they wrote and spoke as the Spirit moved them. But when he had finished the inspired rule for their guidance, he did not vouchsafe to keep them pure, nolens volens. They might mix error and false doctrine with his truth, and disgrace themselves by corrupting admixtures; but the loss and responsibility were theirs. To have pledged them unmixed purity for all time despite their own self-will was to endow them with infallibility, which is precisely the doctrine of Rome, and a contradiction of all reliable history.
Hata katika karne ya kwanza kulikuwa na kuacha kweli kwingi, kama Nyaraka zinavyoonyesha. Nyingine ziliandikwa hasa kwa madhumuni ya kusahihisha makosa, hasa maandishi ya baadaye ya Paulo na Yohana. Kuanzia karne ya pili hadi ya nne, tunaona kuondoka kwa haraka kutoka kwenye kweli iliyovuviwa, kukiwa na madhehebu mengi, na hakuna makanisa hasa kwa mpangilio wa Kitume. Watu wachache, wenye fikira za asili ambao hawakumfuata mafundisho ya mtu yeyote, walijitenga na uongozi wa wote. Walikwenda moja kwa moja kwenye maandishi ya Maandiko, lakini walisimama peke yao, na walichukua pamoja nao kosa fulani ambalo hawakuweza kujikomboa nalo, hivi kwamba walianguka chini ya kielelezo chao wenyewe; na mfano wa asili haukurudishwa kwa muda mrefu. La, zaidi ya hayo hata ni kweli. Vikundi vile vya watu vilivyovutwa pamoja kuwa makanisa yaliyorekebishwa, vilisukumwa na nia mchanganyiko, na katika kujaribu mpangilio mpya wa mambo, ni wachache kati yao waliofikia kipimo cha Agano Jipya kwa kila hali.Even in the first century there was great defection from the truth, as the Epistles show. Some of them were written, indeed, for the express purposes of correcting error, especially the latter writings of Paul and John. From the second to the fourth century, we find a rapid departure from inspired truth, with many sects, and no churches exactly after the Apostolic order. Some few men, original thinkers who followed no man's teachings, broke loose from the leadership of all. They went independently to the text of Scripture, but stood single-handed, and took with them some error from which they could not free themselves, so that they fell below their own ideal; and the original model was not restored for some length of time. Nay, more than this even is true. Those organic bodies of men who were drawn together into reformed churches, were moved by mixed motives, and in attempting a new order of things, few of them came up to the New Testament standard in all respects.
Na kushindwa kufikia kipimo hicho katika makanisa yote kumekuwa dhahiri kiasi cha kufanya iwe bure kutafuta mstari unaoonekana wa urithi, unaoundwa kuwa ndiyo asili pekee ya kweli ya Kanisa tangu nyakati za Kitume hadi zetu. Makanisa mengine yamekuwa waaminifu kwa kweli moja ya Mungu na mengine kwa nyingine, lakini hakuna lililoshikilia kweli yote, na watu wachache mmoja mmoja wanaojulikana kwetu sasa wameshika matakwa yote ya Injili. Kanuni hii ya kutokosea na urithi wa Kanisa ndiyo ufisadi mkuu wa Roma, na imechafua imani yake kiasi kwamba hashikilii kweli yoyote kwa usafi, kimawazo na kivitendo. Anaamini Uungu halisi wa Yesu Kristo na wa Roho Mtakatifu, — katika Umoja na Utatu wa Uungu, — katika uhalisi na uvuvio wa Maandiko, — katika mafundisho ya kuzaliwa kwa mwili na upatanisho, — na katika utukufu wa milele na malipo.And the failure to reach that standard in all churches has been so marked as to render it vain to look for a visible line of succession, which constitutes the only true Church descent from Apostolic times to ours. Some churches have been faithful to one divine truth and some to another, but none have embodied all the truth, and few individual men now known to us have kept all the requisitions of the Gospel. This principle of infallibility and Church succession is the central corruption of Rome, and has so polluted her faith that she scarcely holds any truth purely, both in the abstract and the concrete. She believes in the proper Deity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, — in the Unity and Trinity of the Godhead, — in the authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, — in the doctrines of incarnation and atonement,— and in eternal glory and retribution.
Lakini ni lipi kati ya haya ambalo hajalibadilisha na kulipotosha, kwa kisingizio kwamba amepewa Ulimwengu-wote (Catholicity) na kuonekana daima, kama Kanisa halali la Kitume, licha ya uchafu wake wote? na sasa anafanya makosa yake kuwa uhai wake halisi. Kinachosemwa kuhusu uongozi wake wa kikuhani ni kweli vilevile, kwa jambo hili, kwa mashirika mengi yaliyoandamana naye na kuyakwepa uzushi wake mkuu. Walishikilia kweli fulani alizokanyaga chini ya miguu, lakini walikumbatia makosa yake mengine kwa nguvu kama alivyoyakumbatia, wakayatetea kwa ukali vilevile, na mara nyingi waliwatesa hadi kufa wale waliotofautiana nao, hata katika mambo madogo. IV. Ulimwengu umedaiwa zaidi na mfululizo wa watu mmoja mmoja walioshindania kweli, kila mmoja peke yake, kuliko makanisa yoyote ya kishirika yanayoweza kufuatiliwa kwa urithi unaoonekana kutoka kwa Mitume, chini ya jina lolote.But which of these has she not modified and perverted, under the pretense that she is endowed with Catholicity and perpetual visibility, as the rightful Church Apostolic, all her defilement to the contrary? and now she makes her errors her real life. What is true of the hierarchy is equally true, in this respect, of most of the bodies which have protested against and shaken off her chief heresies. They clung to some truths which she trod under foot, but they hugged some of her errors as closely as she hugged them, defended them as stoutly, and often persecuted unto death those who differed with them, even in minor matters. IV. The world is vastly more indebted to a line of individual men who have contended for the truth, each by himself, than to any organic churches which can be traced by visible succession from the Apostles, under any name whatever.
Katika dini, kama katika nyanja nyingine za maisha, harakati kubwa karibu daima zimekuwa na kitovu chake katika mtu mmoja au wawili waliotengwa, ambao wamekuwa na ushawishi mkubwa sana, kwa kuelekeza macho yao kwanza kwenye mahitaji ya nafsi zao wenyewe, bila msaada wa kibinadamu, na kwa kawaida kinyume cha mashirika yote. Mvuto wa nje ulikuwa na mchango mdogo katika kuunda nguvu zao. Waliumbwa juu ya kizazi chao na mbele yake, wakaumba uhai mpya kwa wote waliowazunguka, mara nyingi mbali nje ya mazingira yao ya asili. Kwanza kabisa walilazimika kujinasua na kujitawala wenyewe, kisha wakaongoza nyakati zao kwenye utauwa ulio juu na safi zaidi. Mungu alitenda mafanikio makubwa kupitia kwao bila msaada wa kanisa lolote la mahali, chini ya sheria zilezile za kweli ambazo kwazo ufalme wa Kristo umetawaliwa daima. Mifano hii yenye nguvu, iliyotawanyika katika karne zote, inaonyesha kwamba si ushirika wa kishirika, bali utu uliozaliwa upya ndio unaotengeneza historia ya kweli, kama tunavyoweza kutarajia kutokana na ukweli kwamba msingi wa utii wa Injili umewekwa katika imani za kina za rohoni za watu mmoja mmoja.In religion, as in other departments of life, great movements have almost always centered in one or two isolated individuals, who have become immensely influential, by first turning their eyes upon the needs of their own souls, without human aid, and generally in opposition to all organizations. External influences had little to do in shaping their powers. They were molded above and in advance of their age, and created a new life for all about them, often far outside of their native sphere. First of all they were obliged to escape from and master themselves, then they led their times into a higher and purer godliness. God wrought some grand consummation by them without the aid of any local church, under those uniform laws of truth by which Christ's kingdom has ever been governed. These powerful examples, scattered through the centuries, show that not organic association, but regenerated manhood makes true history, as we might expect from the fact, that the foundation of Gospel obedience is laid in the deep soul-convictions of individual men.
Uvumbuzi na maendeleo yaliyo mashuhuri zaidi ya historia yamefanywa si kwa mipango ya vyombo vilivyoungana, bali na akili za watu mmoja mmoja. Galileo alipata wazo la darubini kutokana na kuangalia kwa bahati mvulana aliyeshika bomba machoni; na Newton aligundua sheria inayofunga ulimwengu katika tofaa lililoanguka. Vivyo hivyo, wale wachache waliojazwa na makusudi matakatifu, waliolowekwa kabisa katika uaminifu kwa Kristo, wamenyanyuka kwa nguvu za kifalme kuitetea kweli yake; hawa ndio vilele vya Alps vinavyoashiria karne. Upendo wao kwa Kristo ulifanya matendo yao yawajibike kwake, na ukafanya matokeo yake ya mwisho yawe salama. Mifumo ya kidini ilitokana na jitihada zao binafsi, lakini ni lini mfumo wa kidini umeunda uhai mpya, baada ya karne ya kwanza? Wabaptisti wanadaiwa zaidi na mfululizo wa watu kama hao kuliko na mfululizo wowote wa makanisa unaoweza kutajwa. Sheria hii kuu ya ubinafsi haijaepuka macho ya wasiamini.The most marked discoveries and advancements of history have been made, not on the plans of concerted bodies, but by individual minds. Galileo seized the idea of the telescope from a casual glance at a boy holding a tube to his eye; and Newton found the law that binds the universe in a falling apple. So, the few who have been impregnated with holy purposes, saturated through and through with fidelity to Christ, have arisen in imperial strength to vindicate his truth; these are the Alpine peaks that mark the centuries. Their love to Christ held their action responsible to him, and made its final results safe. Religious systems arose out of their personal exertions, but when did a religious system create a new life, after the first century? Baptists are greater debtors to such a train of men than to any train of churches that can be named. This great law of individuality has not escaped the notice of skeptics.
[…][…]
Akili kubwa ya siku zetu inakiri, ‘Kwamba katika kipindi chote kutoka karne ya sita hadi ya kumi, hakukuwa na zaidi ya watu watatu au wanne katika Ulaya yote waliothubutu kufikiri wenyewe;’ na hata hao hawakuhesabiwa miongoni mwa waumbaji wa zama zao. Hawakuwa watawala wala wanasiasa, bali walikuwa wapendekezaji wa kimya na wasiojulikana, waliogundua ukiukaji na kuonyesha tiba ambazo nyakati za baadaye zilijivunia kuzitumia. Hasa kupitia aina hii ya akili ndipo tunapaswa kufuatilia kumbukumbu ya mawazo ya Kibaptisti, lakini jina ‘Mbaptisti’ lisitupotoshe kuwaandikisha katika safu zetu watu ambao wasingestahili jina hilo leo, kwa sababu tu walishikilia mambo fulani yanayofanana na yetu. Badala yake, tunapaswa kuwajumuisha wale tu waliolithamini kwa ukamilifu wazo ambalo Wabaptisti wa Agano Jipya na wale wa karne ya kumi na tisa walilitangaza kuwa msingi wa ufalme wote wa Kristo.A great mind of our day avows, 'That in the whole period from the sixth to the tenth century, there were not in all Europe more than three or four men who dared to think for themselves;' and even they were not classed with the creators of their age. They were neither rulers nor statesmen, but quiet and unobserved suggesters, who discovered abuses and pointed out remedies which future times were proud to apply. Chiefly through this order of mind we are to trace the record of Baptist sentiments, but the name 'Baptist' must not mislead us to enlist into our ranks men who would be unworthy of that name to-day, simply because they held some things in common with ourselves. Rather, we must embrace only those who cherished in full, the conception which both the New Testament Baptists and those of the nineteenth century set forth as underlying the entire kingdom of Christ.
Ni katika kujumuisha kanuni hizi, iwe katika watu mmoja mmoja au katika makanisa, ndipo tunapaswa kutafuta historia ya kweli ya Kibaptisti. Kwa kuwa zimepandikizwa katika Biblia tunainama mbele ya mafundisho yake matakatifu, ukale wa kanuni ukiwa jambo tofauti kabisa na ukale wa mashirika. Kwa kuwa mafundisho na mazoezi yaliyoanzishwa nyakati za baadaye ni ya hivi karibuni na mapya, lazima tuheshimu ukale ule tu ambao Mungu aliutamka mwanzoni. Mfumo unaoendelea kwa karne nyingi ni majivuno matupu isipokuwa unazalisha nakala hai na ya kiroho ya enzi ya kwanza. Kwa miaka sabini Wayahudi walipoteza mstari wa Pasaka, wakati Yerusalemu ilipokuwa magofu na Israeli ilikuwa utumwani Babeli, lakini Hezekia alipowarudisha na kurejesha sikukuu, vipindi sabini vilivyopotea vya sikukuu vilirudi pamoja nao. Vizazi viwili vya watu wao vilikuwa vimekufa na makabila fulani hayakusikika tena, lakini historia yao halisi kama Wayahudi haikuvunjika wala maana ya Pasaka haikuharibika, ‘ingawa hawakuwa wameifanya kwa muda mrefu kama ilivyoandikwa.’It is in the embodiment of these principles, whether in individuals or churches, that we are to look for true Baptist history. Because they are imbedded in the Bible we bow to their holy teachings, the antiquity of principles being quite another thing from the antiquity of organizations. As doctrines and practices originated in after times are late and new, we must reverence that antiquity alone which God uttered in the beginning. A system running through ages is an empty boast unless it reproduces the vital, spiritual copy of the first age. For seventy years the Jews lost the line of the Passover, when Jerusalem lay in heaps and Israel was enslaved in Babylon, but when Hezekiah brought them back and restored the feast, the seventy missing links of festivity came with them. Two generations of their people had died and certain of their tribes were never heard of again, yet their true history as Jews was not broken nor the significancy of the Passover impaired, 'although they had not done it of a long time in such sort as it is written.'
Mara tu Hekalu lilipojengwa upya, milango yake ikafunguliwa, na taa zake zikawashwa tena, mamlaka ya zamani ya taasisi hiyo yalifufuka. Hakuna kaya ya Kiyahudi inayoishi sasa inayoweza kufuatilia ukoo wake hadi kabila lolote lililokuwepo wakati Yerusalemu iliposhuka, B.K. 70. Wote wametawanyika na kuchanganyika miongoni mwao na Mataifa kiasi kwamba mipaka ya makabila imefutika kabisa; hata hivyo hakuna atakayekana kwamba ni wazao wa moja kwa moja wa Abrahamu. Kanuni zilizoelezwa hapo juu si zile zilizokubaliwa kwa kawaida katika historia ya Kibaptisti. Lakini mwandishi anaamini kwamba ndizo mkondo wa kweli pekee ambao kwao historia hiyo inaweza kufuatiliwa, na ambao kwao Wabaptisti wanaweza kufanywa kitu kimoja na Makanisa ya Kitume, huku ukoo unaoonekana na urithi usiokatika wa makanisa si, wala hauwezi kuwa, kipimo sahihi katika jambo hili. Tunafurahia haki ya kujitawala nchini Marekani kwa ukoo wa kawaida wa demokrasia kutoka Jamhuri ya Kirumi, lakini haiwezekani kufuatilia mwenendo wake kwa mstari wa demokrasia ambazo yetu ni mrithi wake.The moment that the Temple was rebuilt, its doors opened, and its lamps relit, the old authority of the institution revived. No Jewish household now living can trace its descent to any given tribe which existed at the fall of Jerusalem, A. D. 70. All have been so scattered and intermixed amongst themselves and the Gentiles, that tribal lines are entirely obliterated; yet none will deny that they are the direct descendants of Abraham. The principles above set forth are not those which have been generally adopted in Baptist history. But the writer is persuaded that they are the only true channel through which it can be traced, and by which Baptists can be made a unit with Apostolic Churches, while visible descent and the unbroken succession of churches are not and cannot be a proper test in the matter. We enjoy the right of self-government in the United States by a regular descent of democracy from the Roman Republic, but it is impossible to trace its course by a line of democracies to which our own is the successor.
Lakini hizo mbili, zilizotengana mno kwa wakati, kimsingi ni sawa katika uhuru wake. Watu mmoja mmoja wamedai haki za binadamu katika kila nchi, na vikundi vimepigania kuziweka katika kila serikali, lakini ni nani atakayesema kwamba hawa hawakuwa wazalendo wa kweli wa ulimwengu, kwa sababu mstari wa kudumu na unaoonekana wa jamhuri zilizopangwa haujashuka kwetu, bega kwa bega na mstari kama huo wa serikali za kidhalimu? Kweli ya kihistoria inatumia taratibu zilezile kwa mikondo mbalimbali ya sayansi ya asili. Familia na makabila fulani hupatikana katika maisha ya mimea na wanyama; yaani, aina fulani hujizalisha kuwa makundi, mfuatano ukiwa mwongozo wetu; hata hivyo hakuna mwanasayansi anayetupilia mbali imani katika kuwepo kwa aina, kwa sababu hawezi kufuatilia mfuatano wake unaoonekana, huku mara kwa mara akiona mwendo wake wa nje ukianza tena kwa namna ya ajabu. Hivyo tunasema juu ya watu wanaojulikana kama ‘Wabaptisti,’ ambao kwa kiasi kikubwa wamekuwa wa aina moja ya imani na mazoezi ya kidini, na wamefanywa hivyo na kanuni moja ya kidini.But the two, separated so widely in point of time, are essentially the same in their liberties. Individuals have asserted the rights of man in every country, and bands have struggled to embody them in every government, but who will say that these have not been the true patriots of the world, because a perpetual and visible line of organized republics has not come down to us, side by side with a similar line of despotic governments? Historical truth applies the same processes to the several streams of natural science. Certain families and tribes are found in vegetable and animal life; that is to say, a given type multiplies itself into groups, sequence being our guide; yet no scientist discards faith in the existence of a type, because he cannot trace its visible sequence, while again and again he finds its outward course strangely resumed. So we speak of a people known as 'Baptists,' who have been substantially of one order of religious faith and practice, and have been made so by one order of religious principle.
Wakikandamizwa wakati mmoja, au kufukuzwa kabisa nje ya macho, wengine wenye muhuri na nguvu zilezile za Kitume wametokea kuchukua nafasi zao, chini ya majina mengine. Mwanga wa jua ni mwanga wa jua, bila kujali unaanguka juu ya uchafu gani, au unachanganyika na uchafuzi gani; na kwa mwale wa namna hii tunapita njia yetu kutoka kwa Kristo kushuka katika maisha ya kikanisa. Lakini kujifanya kwamba ushirika wowote mmoja duniani sasa unaweza kufuatilia njia yake kutoka kwa Mitume, kwa mstari mmoja wa uaminifu na usafi kwa mafundisho ya Agano Jipya, ni kupingana na historia yote inayotegemeka. Dkt. Abel Stevens anasema: ‘Jumuiya zisizojulikana sana, kama Wakathari au Wanovatian, Wapaulikian, Waalbigensia, na Wawaldensia, zilidumisha imani ya zamani kwa usafi wa kulinganisha tangu mwanzo wa karne ya nne hadi Matengenezo ya Kanisa.’ Hawa na madhehebu mengine walishikilia kanuni moja au zaidi bainifu za Kibaptisti, lakini hakuna hata mmoja wao aliyekuwa Mbaptisti kamili, kabisa.If crushed at one time, or entirely driven out of sight, others bearing the same Apostolic stamp and force have come forth to fill their places, under other names. A sunbeam is a sunbeam, no matter upon what putrescence it may fall, or with what pollution it may mingle; and by a ray of this character we thread our way from Christ down in ecclesiastical life. But the pretense that any one communion now on earth can trace its way down from the Apostles, in one line of fidelity and purity to New Testament teachings, is to contradict all reliable history. Dr. Abel Stevens says: 'Obscure communities, as the Cathari or Novatians, the Paulicians, the Albigenses, and the Waldenses, maintained the ancient faith in comparative purity from the beginning of the fourth century down to the Reformation.' These and other sects held one or more distinctive Baptist principles, but none of them were thorough Baptists, through and through.
Kanisa la Kibaptisti ni kusanyiko, wala si madhehebu ya makusanyiko, na tulipate katika kona gani, likiweza kufuatilia mafundisho yake hadi kwa Mitume ni Kanisa la Kitume. ‘Kanisa,’ asema Dkt. Ripley, ‘lililoanza kuwepo jana, kwa kupatana kikamilifu na kanuni za Agano Jipya za uanachama, mbali sana na kanisa lolote lililodumu kwa muda mrefu au kundi la makanisa, na kwa hiyo haliwezi kufuatilia ukoo wa nje wa moja kwa moja, ni Kanisa la kweli la Kristo. . . . Wakati kanisa linaloitwa hivyo, lisilosimama juu ya kanuni za kitume za imani na mazoezi, lakini linaloweza kutazama nyuma kupitia mstari mrefu hadi wakati usiokumbukwa, huenda halijawahi kuwa la mwili ule ambao Kristo ndiye Kichwa.’ Msomaji wa historia ya dini lazima awe mwaminifu kama mwandishi wake, kwa kuwa mmoja yuko wazi kwa upendeleo kama mwingine.A Baptist church is a congregation, and not a denomination of congregations, and find it in what nook we may, if it can trace its doctrines to the Apostles it is an Apostolic Church. 'A church,' says Dr. Ripley, 'that came into existence yesterday, in strict conformity to the New Testament principles of membership, far away from any long-existing church or company of churches, and therefore unable to trace an outward lineal descent, is a true Church of Christ. . . . While a church so-called, not standing on the Apostolic principles of faith and practice, and yet able to look back through a long line up to time immemorial, may have never belonged to that body of which Christ is the Head.' The reader of religious history must be as honest as its writer, for the one is as much exposed to bias as the other.
Hata hivyo, ukweli halisi unaopatikana na mwanahistoria mkweli mara nyingi hulaaniwa bila kupimwa, kwa sababu hauna ladha nzuri; na kumbukumbu za kweli mara nyingi hufukiwa chini ya matusi wanayomwagia mada yao. Kwa sababu fulani, ukosefu huu wa haki hujitokeza kwa wengi kila wakati kweli za Agano Jipya zinapozingatiwa. Kwa hiyo mtu anajiheshimu mwenyewe na mafundisho ya uhai ya Roho Mtakatifu anapojitenga na yote yaliyo ya juu juu katika njia zake za uchunguzi. Zaidi ya watu wote, Wabaptisti wanapaswa kuridhika kutenganisha historia yao na mambo yote yenye shaka, na kuiandika na kuisoma katika umbo ambalo ukweli umeitupa, kipimo chake kamili cha majaribio kikiwa kupatana na Injili. Wale tu ndio wamekuwa Wabaptisti waliofuata kanuni hii, kutoka kizazi hadi kizazi, bila kuongeza wala kupunguza. Kosa litabaki kosa milele, na hakuna ukale unaoweza kulitakasa kuwa kweli.Yet, the exact facts which are found by the truthful historian are often condemned unweighed, because they are unpalatable; and true chronicles are often buried under the abuse which they heap upon their subject. For some reason much of this unfairness crops out, with many, whenever the truths of the New Testament are under consideration. Hence a man only honors himself and the vital teachings of the Holy Spirit when he separates himself from all that is superficial in his own methods of examination. Above all people, Baptists should be content to separate their history from all questionable material, and to write and read it in the form in which facts have cast it, its complete touchstone being conformity to the Gospel. Those only have been Baptists who have conformed to this rule, from age to age, without addition or subtraction. Error must eternally remain error, and no antiquity can sanctify it into truth.
Kwa malengo yote ya kweli, desturi ya kuheshimika tu ni dhaifu; hata hivyo, kama upendo mkuu wa kweli hauirudishi nyuma, itatawala akili kupitia milango ya fahamu, ambayo huvutwa na yaliyozeeka. Kama mabwawa ya Uholanzi yanavyozuia kuingia kwa bahari, ndivyo Wabaptisti wanaweza kupokea tu majimbo mazuri zaidi ya kweli kwa kupinga desturi za zamani, kwa sababu tu ni za zamani. Desturi za kikanisa hubadilika kama mtengenezaji wake, na hata hivyo, mazoezi ya zamani yanapopingana na Agano Jipya, wengi hufanya mazoezi hayo kuwa tafsiri ya kweli ya neno la Mungu bila kuhoji mamlaka yake. Ingawa hakuna nukta moja iliyoongezwa kwenye kweli tangu kifo cha Mtume Yohana, ukale mtupu wa mapokeo huyaweka katika imani ya wengi, hasa yakiwa yametoka kwa mmoja wa wale wanaoitwa ‘Mababa.’ Mwanafunzi mmoja hodari wa hivi karibuni wa Dkt. Wayland alionyesha hisia za wengi kuhusu jambo hili.For all the ends of truth merely venerable custom is weak; yet, if a supreme love of truth does not force it back, it will dominate the mind through the senses, which are captivated by the hoary. As the dykes of Holland repel the approaches of the sea, so Baptists can only receive the fairest provinces of truth by resisting ancient custom, simply because it is ancient. Ecclesiastical custom is as mutable as its maker, and yet, when an old practice conflicts with the New Testament, many make that practice the true interpretation of God's word without questioning its authority. Although not one jot has been added to the truth since the death of the Apostle John, the bare antiquity of tradition enshrines it in the faith of many, especially if it came down from one of the so-called 'Fathers.' A late able scholar of Dr. Wayland's illustrated the feeling of many on this subject.
Alimwuliza kama, kama daktari angeishi karibu na wakati wa Paulo, neno lake lisingekuwa na uzito zaidi kuliko la watu wengine. Mwalimu huyo mkuu alijibu, ‘Ndiyo, ikiwa Paulo angesema katika maandishi yake, “Namwachia Francis Wayland kuwa mfasiri wangu.”’ Na kama sivyo, angewezaje kumtafsiri mtume vizuri kuliko mtu mwingine yeyote, bila uvuvio maalum kutoka kwa Mungu? Akili zilizo bora zaidi mara nyingi hulemazwa na kujitahidi huku kuelekea ukale usiovuviwa, kwa wazo kwamba lazima ugusane na Uungu, bila kufikia kielelezo kisichokosea cha Kristo kinapokuwa wazi mbele ya macho yao. Wanahistoria wa Kibaptisti siku zote wameandika wakikabiliwa na vikwazo vikubwa. Kwa kawaida wale waliokataa kanuni zetu katika zama zilizopita walijaa uchungu, na wakaharibu vyanzo bora vya data sahihi katika umbo la maandiko, simulizi na kumbukumbu. Kundi lililochukiwa lilikuwa dhaifu, na lenye nguvu lilitaka kuliangamiza. Mara nyingi waathirika hawa wasio na msaada wa dhuluma walilazimika kuharibu nyaraka zao wenyewe, wasije wakagunduliwa na kuangukia katika maafa.He asked whether, if the doctor had lived near the time of Paul, his word would not have been weightier than that of other men. The great tutor replied, 'Yes, provided Paul had said in his writings, "I leave Francis Wayland my interpreter."' And if not, how could he have interpreted an apostle better than any one else, without special inspiration from God? The noblest minds are often crippled by this straining after uninspired antiquity, under the notion that it must touch the divine, without reaching after Christ's infallible ideal, when it stands openly before their eyes. Baptist historians have always written against great odds. Commonly those who rejected our principles in past ages were filled with bitterness, and destroyed the best sources of exact data in the shape of treatise, narrative and record. The hated party was weak, and the dominant sought its destruction. Often these helpless victims of tyranny were obliged to destroy their own documents, lest discovery should overwhelm them in calamity.
Tutaona pia kwamba ingawa madhehebu mengi ya zamani yalikuwa yamejaa kanuni za Kibaptisti kwa viwango tofauti, kila moja lilikuwa na aina yake ya hitimisho, imani na mazoezi. Matokeo yake, kile kilichokuwa imani inayothaminiwa na moja kilidharauliwa na jingine, na hali hizi za akili zikawa sehemu ya watu wenyewe. Hatua zao tofauti za imani zilikuwa hatua tofauti za fahamu; na ikawa kwamba kupingana kwa ukali ilikuwa ndiyo kufikia uaminifu wa juu. Katika udhaifu wa kusikitisha wa asili ya binadamu kila mtu alishikilia madhehebu yake mwenyewe kuwa ya wema na mengine kuwa ya uovu, huku wakisahau wakati wote kwamba kama mashirika yanayohusiana yalibadilishana, na yalibeba dhima kubwa kwa mienendo ya kila mmoja. Kisha, kwa kuwa Wabaptisti hawakuwa na udhibiti wa serikali yoyote ya kitaifa, hawakuweza kuhifadhi kumbukumbu zao kama wengine walivyofanya. Hawakuongoza sheria wala mfumo wowote wa sheria za kiraia, na hawakuweza kuweka nyaraka, kwa kuwa hawakuwa na maafisa wa kisheria ambao kazi yao maalum ilikuwa kuhifadhi na kutunza ukweli.We shall see also that while many of the old sects were more or less imbued with Baptist principles, each had its own class of deductions, convictions and practices. In consequence, what was a cherished faith with one was held in contempt by another, and these states of mind became a part of the men themselves. Their different stages of faith were different stages of consciousness; and it came to pass, that to oppose each other fiercely was to attain high fidelity. In the dreary weakness of human nature each man held his own sect virtuous and the other vicious, all the time forgetting that as relative bodies they modified each other, and were largely responsible for each other's conduct. Then, as the Baptists had control of no national government, they could not preserve their records as did others. They managed no legislation or system of civil jurisprudence, and could keep no archives, having no legal officers whose special business it was to store up and keep facts.
Kwa hiyo, kwa lazima, kumbukumbu chache walizoacha ni vipande vipande, zisizo na mwendelezo wa orodha unaostahili, na karibu zisizo na matukio muhimu. Mkono uliobeba upanga kuwapiga watu hawa ulibeba pia mwenge kuchoma vitabu vyao, na waandishi wao walifanywa majivu na miali ya fasihi yao wenyewe. Vifaa vya kujengea kumbukumbu zao ni vibichi na haba. Uhai unaotawala wa watu, na si mazingira peke yake, ndio unaotoa thamani kwa madai yao, na hivyo tunarudishwa kwenye kanuni na ujumlishaji mgumu. Ikiwa historia ya Kibaptisti ni ya pekee, ni kwa sababu tu wamekuwa watu wa pekee. Adui zao siku zote wamewahesabu kuwa ‘wazushi,’ ambao thamani yao kuu ilikuwa kuuweka ulimwengu baridi joto kwa kuwatumia kama kuni za kuchomea kwenye kigingi. Watu hawajawahi kuwa tayari kuwaelewa, kwa sababu hawakuwapokea kamwe kwa kujionyesha kwao wenyewe bali wamesisitiza kuwapima kwa vipimo vingine tofauti na vyao.Necessarily, therefore, what few records they have left are fragmentary, without due continuity of register, and almost barren of vital events. The hand which carried the sword to smite this people, carried also the torch to burn up their books, and their authors were reduced to ashes by the flames of their own literature. The material for building up their chronicles is both crude and scanty. The governing life of a people, and not circumstances alone, gives value to their claim, and so we are thrown back on principle and hard generalization. If Baptist history be peculiar, it is only because they have been a peculiar people. Their enemies have always accounted them 'heretics,' whose prime value was to keep a cold world warm by their use as fuel for the stake. Men have never been willing to understand them, because they never would accept them on their own showings but have insisted on measuring them by other standards than their own.
Kwa gharama kubwa walipata uhuru wao, na ubinafsi wao wa kimsingi uliwafanya waonekane na watu wengine kuwa wanaosumbua na hata wakali. Kwa upande mwingine, karibu mkono wa kila mtu umekuwa dhidi yao, na kama watu wa kitabu kimoja tu, wamechukua tabia thabiti na ngumu, iliyowafanya waonekane kana kwamba mkono wao ulikuwa dhidi ya kila mtu. Alichosema Burke kuhusu Waamerika, kwa mstari mwingine, ni kweli kwao katika kujitoa kwao kwa Biblia, yaani: ‘Katika nchi yoyote, labda, duniani, sheria haisomwi kwa wingi kama hivi.’ Tunaona, basi, kwamba Robinson, Crosby, Ivimey, Orchard, Jones, Backus, Benedict, Cramp, na wanahistoria wengine wa Kibaptisti, wameandika chini ya kila hasara inayowezekana. Hata hivyo, kazi yao inaonyesha upendo wa asili wa kweli kwa ajili ya kweli, unaostahili wazee hodari kama hao. Hali yao ya kiroho ni ya juu, utauwa wao hauna hila, kujitoa kwao kwa Injili ni kwa moto, na ujuzi wao wa kihistoria ni sawa kabisa na ule wa wanahistoria wengine wa Kanisa.With a great price they obtained their freedom, and their radical individualism made them appear to other men as disturbing and even violent. In turn, almost every man's hand has been against them, and as a people of but one book, they have taken a fixed and sturdy character, which has made them look as if their hand was against every man. What Burke said of Americans, in another line, is true of them in their devotion to the Bible, namely: 'In no country, perhaps, in the world, is the law so general a study.' We see, then, that Robinson, Crosby, Ivimey, Orchard, Jones, Backus, Benedict, Cramp, and other Baptist historians, have written under every possible disadvantage. Still, their work shows an instinctive love of the truth for the truth's sake, worthy of such veterans. Their spirituality is elevated, their piety without guile, their devotion to the Gospel ardent, and their historical acumen quite equal to that of other Church historians.
Kwa ujumla, ukweli wao mkuu na matokeo yao hayajathibitika kuwa hayatumainiki, na hakuna aliyejaribu kuonyesha kwamba hitimisho zao za jumla haziwezi kutetewa. Huenda kosa lao kuu limekuwa katika jaribio la kutafuta viungo vilivyopotea na vya bahati nasibu vya aina fulani ya makanisa ambayo, kwa kujipatanisha, yanaweza kuitwa ya Kibaptisti. Lengo la kazi hii litakuwa kufuata kweli fulani katika karne zote, kwa kanuni ile ya msingi ya Kiprotestanti inayodai kuacha madai ya Kirumi ya ulimwengu-wote na urithi, na hivyo kufuata kweli fulani hadi kwa walinzi wao wakuu wa wakati huu, Wabaptisti. Kwa njia hii tunaweza kuelewa vizuri zaidi vita vyao dhidi ya kosa na nguvu, kushindwa kwao na ushindi wao. Katika historia ya jumla hakuna mwandishi atakayeridhika kutafuta mfululizo wa wafalme na mabaraza, wa wapiganaji na viwanja vya damu, bali atapata kweli katika maisha ya kijamii na ya kiraia ya watu, katika maandamano ya uhuru wa kikatiba, na matukio ya kuinuliwa kwa binadamu.In the main, their leading facts and findings have not been proven untrustworthy, and no one has attempted to show that their general conclusions are untenable. Possibly, their chief mistake has lodged in the attempt to find the stray and casual links of a certain order of churches which may, by accommodation, be called Baptist. The design of this work will be, to follow certain truths through the ages, on that radical Protestant principle which professes to discard the Romish claim of catholicity and succession, and so to follow certain truths down to their chief conservators of this time, the Baptists. By this method we can best understand their battles with error and power, their defeats and victories. In general history no writer will be content to seek a succession of kings and courts, of warriors and bloody fields, but he will find truth in the social and civil life of a people, in the march of constitutional freedom, and the phenomena of human elevation.
Huduma bora zaidi inayoweza kutolewa kwa Wabaptisti ni kufuatilia nguvu ya kimya na kutokufa kwa asili kwa mafundisho wanayoshikilia, baada ya mapambano yao yote, kwa utukufu wa Kristo, kwa maana hapa hasa ndipo tunapoona ubora wao kama watu. Ikiwa inaweza kuonyeshwa kwamba makanisa yao yanafanana zaidi na ya Kitume kuliko yaliyopo sasa, na kwamba vipengele vinavyoyafanya hivyo vimepita kwa mafanikio katika mapambano marefu, urithi kutoka nyakati za Bwana wao mbarikiwa unawapa historia tukufu zaidi ambayo watu wowote wanaweza kutamani. Kuiga kitumwa vitu vya awali tu hakujawahi kuwa utume wa Wabaptisti. Kazi yao imekuwa kukuza uzazi hai wa Wakristo wa Agano Jipya, na hivyo kufanya lile lenye mfano wa Kristo la zamani kuwa jipya daima kwa furaha. Rufaa yao mpya daima kwa Maandiko kama kibali pekee cha kuwepo kwao hata kidogo haipaswi kukatwa, kwa jaribio la kipumbavu la kugeuza silaha za uongozi wa kikuhani dhidi yake yenyewe.The best service that can be rendered to the Baptists is, to trace the noiseless energy and native immortality of the doctrines which they hold, after all their conflicts, to the glory of Christ, for it is exactly here that we see their excellency as a people. If it can be shown that their churches are the most like the Apostolic that now exist, and that the elements which make them so have passed successfully through the long struggle, succession from the times of their blessed Lord gives them the noblest history that any people can crave. To procure a servile imitation of merely primitive things has never been the mission of Baptists. Their work has been to promote the living reproduction of New Testament Christians, and so to make the Christlike old, the ever delightfully new. Their perpetually fresh appeal to the Scriptures as the only warrant for their existence at all must not be cut off, in a foolish attempt to turn the weapons of the hierarchy against itself.
Upanga wa Roho lazima uendelee kuwa silaha yao pekee ya huduma, ya mashambulizi na ya kujihami. Rufaa kwa vitambulisho vya uongo sasa haingewakata tu kutoka kwenye orodha yao ya heshima ya zamani, bali ingewatenga na matumizi ya yote yaliyobaki bila kugunduliwa na kutotumiwa katika neno la Mungu. Sifa bainifu katika ufalme wa Kristo ni uzima; si uzima wa kihistoria, bali uzima wa kimungu, unaotiririka milele kutoka kwa Kristo peke yake kwa kweli yake iliyo hai. Kuwepo kama huko hakudai haki ya kumiliki kwa muda mrefu katika udongo huu au ule, au kupitia kipindi hiki au kile cha wakati; wala hii si hati bora ambayo kwayo Wabaptisti wanaweza kuthibitisha kuwa warithi wa urithi wao mzuri. Mbali na haki yao ya kuishi kuwa inatokana na ukoo wa kishirika kwa kushuka kwa kale, haki yao ya kuwepo, katika karne ya kumi na tisa, inatokana na umoja wao na kweli aliyoitoa Kristo katika karne ya kwanza.The sword of the Spirit must still be their only arm of service, offensive and defensive. An appeal to false credentials now would not only cut them off from their old roll of honor, but it would sever them from the use of all that now remains undiscovered and unapplied in the word of God. The distinctive attribute in the kingdom of Christ is life; not an historic life, but a life supernatural, flowing eternally from Christ alone by his living truth. Such existence does not claim the right of long possession in this soil or that, or through this or that course of time; nor is this the best title by which Baptists can prove their heirship to their fair inheritance. So far from their right to live inhering in organic ancestry by ancient descent, their right to be, in the nineteenth century, comes by their oneness with the truth given by Christ in the first century.
Kumiliki kwao kweli hiyo sasa ni ushuhuda wa umoja wao na uzima usio na mwisho, ndiyo mamlaka yao pekee ya kuwepo wakati wowote, kukiwa na kumbukumbu za kibinadamu au bila, na kunafunga nje mambo mengine yote. Uzima wa makanisa yote ya Injili lazima uwe na kitovu chake katika kweli iliyoshuka bila madhara kutoka kwa Yesu Kristo; ni lazima tuipate hapa au mahali popote hapana, na hakuna njia, ya kupindukia au ya kati, inayotumia kipimo cha kweli cha uzima wa Kanisa ila hii. Uongo wa kibinadamu unaweza kutumikia malengo ya Ukatoliki, lakini kwa kuwa Wabaptisti si Warumi, ni Kristo tu na utume kama zinavyopatikana katika Maandiko ya Kimungu ndivyo vinavyowatosha. Roho na matokeo ya haya katika umbo lake la kawaida hutoa malighafi ya Historia halisi ya Kibaptisti.Their present possession of that truth, is the testimony to their unity with an endless life, is their only authority for existence at any time, with or without human records, and shuts out all other considerations. The life of all Gospel churches must center in the truth which has come down unscathed from Jesus Christ; we must find it here or nowhere, and there can be no course, extreme or via media which applies the true test of Church life but this. A human figment may serve the ends of Catholicism, but as Baptists are not Romanists, only Christ and Apostolicity as they are found in the Divine Writings can suffice for them. The spirit and outcome of these in their normal form afford the staple for genuine Baptist History.
2. Vita vya Wakulima, Münster, na Swali la Waanabaptisti2. The Peasants’ War, Münster, and the Anabaptist Question
Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Sura ya IV, “Matengenezo ya Kanisa—Vita vya Wakulima—Mühlhausen na Münster” (takriban uk. 363–378). Imefupishwa; sehemu zilizoachwa zimewekwa alama […]. Maandishi ya Kiingereza yametoka kwa OCR isiyolinganishwa na nakala nyingine; mgawanyo wa aya umewekwa na CTS. Tafsiri za mambo ni za mwandishi.Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Chapter IV, “The Reformation—Peasants’ War—Mühlhausen and Münster” (about pp. 363–378). Abridged; omissions marked […]. English text from uncollated OCR; paragraph divisions supplied by CTS. The interpretations are the author’s.
Dokezo la CTS: Armitage anawaita waumini wenye amani wa Uswisi, Ujerumani Kusini na Uholanzi “Wabaptisti” na analihifadhi jina “Waanabaptisti” kwa kundi lenye vurugu la Münster (1534–35). Wanahistoria wa leo wanawaita makundi haya yote Waanabaptisti. Wanakubali kwamba Waanabaptisti wengi walikuwa watu wa amani na kwamba Münster ilikuwa tukio la kipekee, lakini wanaona Matengenezo ya Kanisa ya msimamo mkali yenye makundi mbalimbali zaidi kuliko mgawanyo mkali wa Armitage unavyoruhusu: Hubmaier (Hubmeyer), kwa mfano, hakuukataa upanga, na dai kwamba Wabaptisti wa Uholanzi walitokana na Wawaldensia halikubaliwi kwa ujumla. Maelezo yake kuhusu Luther na makasisi Wakatoliki ni ya kubishana, yaliyoandikwa kujibu waandishi Wakatoliki na Waprotestanti waliowalaumu Wabaptisti kwa Münster. Ndoa ya wake wawili ya Philip wa Hesse na ushauri wa siri wa wanamatengenezo wa mwaka 1539 ni mambo ya kihistoria, lakini baadhi ya maneno yanayohusishwa na Luther ni muhtasari wa maneno yake au yamenukuliwa nje ya muktadha. Kurasa kadhaa za nakala iliyochanganuliwa hazipo au haziwezi kusomeka katika OCR hii na zimewekwa alama [haisomeki]; ukurasa uliobaki vipande vipande na vifungu viwili kuhusu uasherati wa makasisi na desturi za ubatizo za zama za kati vimeachwa.CTS note: Armitage calls the peaceful Swiss, South German and Dutch believers “Baptists” and keeps the name “Anabaptists” for the violent party at Münster (1534–35). Historians today call all these groups Anabaptists. They agree that most Anabaptists were peaceful and that Münster was exceptional, but they see a more varied radical Reformation than Armitage’s sharp division allows: Hubmaier (Hubmeyer), for example, did not reject the sword, and the claim that the Dutch Baptists descended from the Waldenses is not generally accepted. His treatment of Luther and of the Catholic clergy is polemical, written to answer Catholic and Protestant writers who blamed Baptists for Münster. The bigamy of Philip of Hesse and the reformers’ secret advice of 1539 are historical, but some sayings attributed to Luther are paraphrases or are quoted out of context. Several pages of the scan are missing or unreadable in this OCR and are marked [illegible]; a fragmentary page and two passages on clerical immorality and medieval baptismal customs have been omitted.
Sura ya IV. Matengenezo ya Kanisa—Vita vya Wakulima—Mühlhausen na MünsterChapter IV. The Reformation—Peasants' War—Mühlhausen and Münster
Vita vya Wakulima vya B.K. 1525-26 vilitikisa Ujerumani ya Kusini na ya Kati. Zama hizo zilikuwa katika homa ya msisimko wa kisiasa, na vita hivi havikuwa jambo la mafundisho ya kidini bali la uhuru wa kisiasa na haki za asili za mwanadamu. Mshindi wa kwanza wa Kijerumani alitwaa nchi kisha akawapa maafisa wake au mabwana wake ardhi kama milki ya kudumu, nao kwa upande wao wakawafunga wategemezi wao kwenye ukaaji wa kitumwa. Wananchi walipangwa kama wakuu na ‘wakulima huru wa daraja la chini,’ na wengine wote walikuwa watumwa wa ardhi, watumwa hao wakifuata udongo walimozaliwa. Hawakuweza kuondoka katika eneo la bwana wao wala kukata rufaa dhidi ya mamlaka yake, wala yeye hakuweza kuwauza. Alijitwalia malisho ya wote, samaki na wanyama wa kuwindwa, akidai kodi kubwa au zaka, nao ilibidi wanyenyekee au waasi. Pia aliwalazimisha dini yake na kuwafanya watende kupitia wazo la kidini, ujuzi wao ukipunguzwa hadi mawazo machache juu ya mada hiyo.The Peasants' War of A. D. 1525-26 shook Southern and Central Germany. The age was in a fever of political excitement, and this war was not an affair of religious doctrine but of political liberty and the natural rights of man. The first German conqueror took possession and then gave lands in fee to his officers or lords, and in turn these bound their dependants to servile occupancy. The citizens took rank as nobles and 'villains,' and all others were serfs, the serfs going with the soil on which they were born. They could not leave their master's domain nor appeal from his authority, nor could he sell them. He took to himself the common pastures, the fish and game, exacting high rents or tithes, and they must submit or revolt. He also forced his religion upon them and made them act through the religious idea, their knowledge being narrowed down to a few notions on that subject.
Kwa karne nyingi Ujerumani ilijivunia kwamba uhuru ni haki ya kuzaliwa ya watu wake, mkulima na mwana wa mfalme. Wakazi wake wa awali wa Kiteutoni walikuwa wakulima na wafugaji, waliotangatanga bila alama za mipaka wala makao ya kudumu. Kisha wakajiunda kuwa Mataifa madogo chini ya aina fulani ya umiliki wa ardhi lakini kukiwa na vizuizi vichache vya kimila au madai ya haki ya milele ya mali. Hata hivyo, kwa wakati mashamba yalijipanga kwa ramani ya jamii yenye vizuizi, na mapato yakawa ya kurithiwa. Hivyo umiliki wa kimwinyi ulichipuka, ulinzi ukawa lazima na mamlaka ikaongezeka, utajiri ukaongezeka, nguvu za kijeshi na utawala wa kifalme ukafuata, pamoja na madai yote ya utii wa kipofu. Chini ya nira hii mkulima alikuwa na wasiwasi kwa karne nyingi, mara kwa mara [haisomeki] kwa ajili ya neno safi la Mungu na haki ya kuchagua wachungaji wao wenyewe; kwa ajili ya kusamehewa zaka zote isipokuwa ile ya ngano, ambayo wangetoa sehemu ya kumi kwa kuwategemeza wachungaji wao na maskini; kwa ajili ya kuokolewa kutoka utumwani na kutoka kwa utii kama huo kwa mahakimu ambao si halali kwa Wakristo kuutoa: kwa ajili ya haki itolewayo kwa usawa na uthabiti kulingana na sheria zilizo wazi, zilizoandikwa; na kwa ruhusa ya kuvua samaki mtoni na kuwinda misituni.For ages Germany had boasted that liberty was the birthright of her people, boor and prince. Her primitive Teutonic population were farmers and graziers, who wandered without landmark or fixed habitation. Then, they formed themselves into little States under a kind of land ownership but with few conventional restrictions or claims to the perpetual right of property. In time, however, estates shaped themselves after the map of restricted society and revenue became hereditary. Thus feudal tenures sprang up, defense became necessary and authority grew, wealth increased, military power and imperial rule followed, with all the exactions of blind obedience. Under this yoke the peasant was uneasy for ages, periodically [illegible] for the pure word of God and the right to choose their own pastors; for their exemption from all tithes except that of wheat, of which they would pay a tenth for the support of their pastors and the poor; for relief from bondage and from such obedience to the magistrates as it is not lawful for Christians to render: for justice administered fairly and firmly according to plain, written laws; and for permission to fish in the rivers and hunt in the forests.
Wanaunga mkono kila kifungu kwa kifungu chenye nguvu cha Maandiko, kwa sababu, kwa namna fulani, walikuwa wamefikia kuamini kwamba Kristo alikusudia watu wawe na haki za dhamiri. Wanasema: ‘Kristo alitununua na kutukomboa kwa damu yake ya thamani, mchungaji pamoja na mkuu zaidi, hakuna aliyetengwa; kwa hiyo, ni sawa na Maandiko kwamba sisi ni na tutakuwa huru.’ Wanamaliza kwa kuahidi kwamba ikiwa mojawapo ya madai haya si ya haki hayatakuwa na nguvu yoyote. Vifungu hivi vilisomwa hadharani kila mahali na kupitishwa na watu. Waliingia kwa ushindi Würtzburg; na punde, Spires, Palatinate, Alsace, Hesse na vituo vingine vikuu vilipitisha vifungu hivyo. Wengi wa tabaka za juu, Wakatoliki na Wanamatengenezo, walijiweka mbele ya wakulima. Maasi ya jumla yalitokea kwa mpango tarehe 1 Januari, 1525; kama ishara, Monasteri ya Kempton ilitekwa na tangu wakati huo nchi ilikuwa katika moto kutoka Rhine hadi mpaka wa Bohemia.They back each article with a forceful passage of Scripture, because, in some way, they had come to believe that Christ intended men to possess rights of conscience. They say: 'Christ bought and redeemed us by his precious blood, the shepherd as well as the noblest, none being excepted; wherefore, it accords with Scripture that we are and will be free.' They close by promising that if any of these demands be unjust they shall have no force. These articles were read publicly in every place and adopted by the people. They marched triumphantly into Würtzburg; and before long, Spires, the Palatinate, Alsace, Hesse and other great centers adopted the articles. Many of the upper classes, Catholics and Reformers, put themselves at the head of the peasants. The general uprising took place by concert January 1st, 1525; as a signal, the Convent of Kempton was captured and from that moment the country was in a blaze from the Rhine to the frontier of Bohemia.
Monasteri, ngome na miji viliharibiwa, na kila aina ya kupindukia ilifanywa na watu 300,000 wenye silaha, waliotiwa wazimu na ukandamizaji usiovumilika hadi kukata tamaa kabisa. Yote haya yalitokea miaka kumi kabla ya wazimu wa Münster, yakionyesha kuwa ni tukio tu katika ghasia ndefu za Kijerumani. Tunaona hapa jinsi dini ilivyoingia katika mapambano ya Vita vya Wakulima na ni nani aliyeileta. Ni upuuzi mtupu kusema kwamba wakulima hawa walikuwa ‘Waanabaptisti.’ Je, walidai haki ya kuchagua wachungaji wao wenyewe kwa sababu mabwana wao walikuwa wamewalazimishia wachungaji ‘Waanabaptisti’ wasiotakiwa? Wakulima walikuwa Wakatoliki na Walutheri, na wahudumu waliolazimishwa kwao walikuwa hao hao. Mabwana wao wengi walikuwa maaskofu na makasisi wengine. Ghasia zote zilikuwa tu akili isiyo ya kawaida ya Kijerumani ikijisukuma kurudi kwa njia ghafi kwenye uhuru wake wa asili, na Waanabaptisti hawawezi kwa madhumuni yoyote kufanywa kisingizio cha kuficha, mbele ya kweli ya kihistoria, ili kuleta mbele suala la uongo.Monasteries, castles and cities were destroyed, and every kind of excess was committed by 300,000 men in arms, maddened by intolerable oppression to the desperation of despair. All this took place ten years before the madness of Münster, showing it to be but an incident in the long German uproar. We see here how religion entered the contests of the Peasants' War and by whom it was introduced. It is simply absurd to say that these peasants were 'Anabaptists.' Did they demand the right to choose their own pastors because their masters had forced unwelcome 'Anabaptist' shepherds upon them? The peasants were Catholics and Lutherans, and their enforced ministers were the same. Many of their masters were bishops and other clergy. The entire disturbance was simply the abnormal German mind forcing its way back in a crude manner to its native freedom, and the Anabaptists cannot for any purpose be made a stalking-horse, in the face of historic truth, to force a false issue to the front.
Wahusika wakuu katika matukio haya wanatuwekea ukweli halisi bila kificho. Wakuu walipotaka Mteule awasaidie dhidi ya uasi, alimwambia kaka yake, John: ‘Sababu imetolewa kwa watu maskini kufanya ghasia hizi. . . . Wametendewa vibaya kwa njia nyingi na sisi watawala, wa kiroho na wa kidunia.’ Wajumbe kutoka Saxony na Hesse walisema katika Bunge la Augsburg: ‘Kuinuka kwa wakulima kulikuwa matokeo ya mwenendo usio na busara na [haisomeki].’ Mwanzoni, Luther, akiwa mwana wa mkulima, aliwahurumia jamii yake mwenyewe na akawaambia maaskofu: ‘Ni ukandamizaji wenu wenye hatia wa maskini wa kundi uliowasukuma watu kukata tamaa.’ Kwa wakuu alisema: ‘Mabwana wangu, si wakulima wanaoinuka dhidi yenu, bali ni Mungu mwenyewe anayeupinga wazimu wenu. Msidhani mnaweza kuepuka adhabu mliyowekewa.’The chief actors in these scenes candidly lay before us the real facts. When the princes desired the Elector to aid them against the rebellion, he said to his brother, John: 'Cause has been given for the poor people to make this uproar. . . . They have been dealt hardly with in many ways by us rulers, both spiritual and temporal.' The deputies from Saxony and Hesse said in the Diet at Augsburg: 'The rising of the peasants was the effect of impolitic and [illegible] usage.' At first, Luther, being the son of a peasant, sympathized with his own race and said to the bishops: 'It is your guilty oppression of the poor of the flock which has driven the people to despair.' To the princes he said: 'My lords, it is not the peasants who have risen against you, it is God himself who is opposing your madness. Think not that you can escape the punishment reserved for you.'
[haisomeki] vita kiasi kikubwa cha mali ya kanisa kilitumiwa kwa matumizi ya kidunia, haki nyingi za juu na kodi zilifutwa, wakuu wote isipokuwa Mfalme Mkuu walishushwa hadi kiwango cha kidemokrasia cha wananchi, mahakama huru zilianzishwa, makasisi walizuiwa kwenye makanisa yao ya mmoja mmoja, na vipimo, mizani na sarafu vilipewa umoja. Lakini mambo haya hayakupatikana hadi vita viligharimu pengine maisha 160,000, na kuchomwa kwa mamia kadhaa ya ngome, nyumba za watawa, vijiji na miji. Wakati mwingine Luther alijaribu kunawa mikono akidai kutokuwa na hatia katika jambo lote, kisha tena alikuwa tayari kubeba dhima yote, lakini wengine walimtupia lawama. Erasmus alimwambia: ‘Unakana uhusiano wowote na waasi, ilhali wao wanakuona mwandishi na mfafanuzi wa kanuni zao.’ Mwandishi mmoja wa mabishano wa mwaka 1532 anasema: ‘Luther ndiye aliyepiga kengele ya kwanza; hawezi kujisafisha na uasi, ingawa aliandika kwamba watu wa kawaida wasitumie nguvu bila serikali.[illegible] war much church property was put to secular uses, many high privileges and taxes were abolished, all princes but the Emperor were brought down to the democratic level of citizens, free courts were established, the clergy were restricted to their individual churches, and uniformity was given to weights, measures and currency. But these were not secured until the war had cost possibly 160,000 lives, and the burning of several hundred castles, convents, hamlets and towns. Sometimes Luther attempted to wash his hands in innocence of the whole affair, and then again he was willing to bear the whole responsibility, but others laid the blame at his door. Erasmus said to him: 'You disclaim any connection with the insurgents, while they regard you as the author and expounder of their principles.' A controversial writer of 1532 says: 'Luther first sounded the tocsin; he cannot clear himself from the rebellion, although he wrote that the common folks should not use force without the magistracy.
Watu wa kawaida hawasikii hayo, bali wanaangalia sehemu yoyote ya mahubiri na maandishi ya Luther wanayotaka.’ Osiander anaandika: ‘Luther alipowaona wakulima wakishambulia si maaskofu na makasisi tu, bali pia mafundisho yake na wakuu, alihubiri kuchinjwa kwao kama wanyama wa porini;’ na adui za wakulima walikuwa na uchungu kwake kama waasi wenyewe. Mwaka 1525 Amerbach alipokea barua kutoka kwa Zasius, ambamo huyo wa pili anasema: ‘Luther, huyu tauni ya amani, huyu aliye mbaya zaidi kuliko viumbe wote wenye miguu miwili, ameitumbukiza Ujerumani nzima katika hasira ya namna ambayo lazima mtu aione kama aina ya usalama ikiwa hatauawa mara moja.’ Wakati mwingine, alipokuwa akitafuta mbuzi wa kutolewa kafara, Luther alijaribu kuwatwika dhima ‘manabii wa mauaji,’ kama alivyowaita watu wa Zwickau. Lakini wakati mwingine alijidai haki, ambazo, kama Erasmus asemavyo, hakuna mfano wake unaoweza kupatikana, hazitofautiani sana na wazimu, na ambazo hakuna udhuru unaoweza kutolewa kwazo, kama hii: ‘Mimi, Martin Luther, nimewaua wakulima wote katika uasi kwa sababu niliamuru wauawe; damu yao i juu ya kichwa changu.The common people do not hear that, but they observe whatever part of Luther's sermons and writings they please.' Osiander writes: 'When Luther saw the peasants attacking not only the bishops and clergy, but also his teaching and the princes, he preached their slaughter like that of wild beasts;' and the enemies of the peasants were as bitter toward him as the rebels themselves. In 1525 Amerbach received a letter from Zasius, in which the latter says: 'Luther, this pest of peace, this most pernicious of all two-legged beings, has plunged the whole of Germany into such a fury that one must regard it as a sort of security if he be not killed at once.' Sometimes, when looking round for a scape-goat, Luther attempted to throw the responsibility on 'the prophets of murder,' as he called the Zwickau men. But at other times he arrogated prerogatives to himself, for which, as Erasmus says, no parallel can be found, scarcely distinguishable from madness, and for which no apology can be made, such as this: 'I, Martin Luther, have slain all the peasants in the insurrection because I commanded them to be killed; their blood is upon my head.
Lakini naiweka juu ya Bwana Mungu, ambaye kwa amri yake nilisema.’ Haya na ukweli mwingine mwingi yanaonyesha vya kutosha kwa nini Gieseler anasema kwamba ‘hakuna dalili za ushupavu wa Kianabaptisti zilizoonekana’ katika Vita vya Wakulima. Baadhi ya ‘Waanabaptisti’ mmoja mmoja walivutwa katika mapambano, kama huko Mühlhausen, chini ya uongozi wa Münzer, ambaye mwenyewe hakuwa ‘Mwanabaptisti’ kwa matumizi yoyote sahihi ya neno hilo. Kinyume chake, Keller, katika kazi yake ya hivi karibuni kuhusu ‘Matengenezo ya Kanisa’ (uk. 370), anasema kwamba Cornelius ameonyesha kwamba katika mambo makuu Münzer alikuwa dhidi ya Wabaptisti. Ilionekana ni matokeo yasiyoepukika kwamba ushupavu wa kidini ungetupwa katika mapambano ambayo maswali ya kisiasa na kidini yalikuwa kipengele kikuu, na hasa pale roho ya moto kama hiyo iliporuhusiwa kuja mbele. Hata hivyo ni swali la haki, kama hata yeye anapaswa kuchafuliwa kuanzia kichwani hadi miguuni. Hadithi ya kweli ya Thomas Münzer inaonekana kuwa hii. Alizaliwa Stollberg, chini ya Milima ya Hartz, B.K. 1490, na alisoma, wengine wanadhani Wittenberg, wengine Leipsic; kwamba alipata shahada ya uzamili wa sanaa ni wazi, na kwamba alikuwa na ujuzi mkubwa wa Maandiko. Baada ya kufundisha katika maeneo kadhaa, akawa kasisi na mkiri wa watawa wa kike [haisomeki]But I put it upon the Lord God, by whose command I spoke.' These and many other facts sufficiently show why Gieseler says that 'no traces of Anabaptist fanaticism were seen' in the Peasants' War. Some individual 'Anabaptists' were drawn into the contest, as at Mühlhausen, under the lead of Münzer, who was not in any proper use of the term an 'Anabaptist' himself. On the contrary, Keller, in his late work on the 'Reformation' (p. 370), says that Cornelius has shown that in the chief points Münzer was opposed to the Baptists. It seemed an inevitable result that religious fanaticism should be thrown into a contest in which politico-religious questions formed the chief element, and especially where such a fiery spirit was allowed to come to the front. Yet it is questionable justice, whether even he ought to be blackened from head to foot. The true story of Thomas Münzer appears to be this. He was born in Stollberg, at the foot of the Hartz Mountains, A. D. 1490, and studied, some think at Wittenberg, others at Leipsic; that he took a degree as master of arts is clear, and that he had large knowledge of the Scriptures. After teaching in several places, he became a chaplain and confessor to the nuns [illegible]
Hapa ni jambo muhimu sana limetolewa wazi. Ikiwa Walutheri na Wazwingli walichanganywa na ‘Waanabaptisti waovu,’ kama waandishi wetu wanavyowaita watu wa Münster, ni rahisi kiasi gani Wakatoliki na Waprotestanti wote walivyofikia kuwachanganya ‘Wabaptisti’ waaminifu na wazimu hawa? Wanahistoria Waholanzi wanaendelea kusema kwamba: ‘Wabaptisti waliteseka zaidi, lakini umati mzima wa Waprotestanti uliumizwa kwa kiasi fulani. Hili litaonekana ukielekeza makini kwenye amri ambazo tangu wakati huo zimetolewa na Mfalme Mkuu kwa kusudi la kuchelewesha kazi ya Matengenezo ya Kanisa. Katika amri hizi Wakristo wote waliojitenga na Kanisa la Kirumi waliitwa Waanabaptisti. . . . Mfalme Mkuu na wanasiasa wake wote walijua kwamba Wabaptisti kwa ujumla walikuwa wameshuhudia, kwa neno na kwa tendo, kwamba mioyo yao ya kupenda amani ilichukia mwenendo wa uasi wa Waanabaptisti. . . .Here is a most important point brought out clearly. If the Lutherans and Zwinglians were confounded with the 'wicked Anabaptists,' as our authors call the Münster men, how much more easily did both Catholics and Protestants come to confound the honest 'Baptists' with these madmen? The Dutch historians go on to state that: 'The Baptists suffered the most, yet the entire mass of the Protestants were more or less injured. This will appear if attention be directed to the edicts which since that time have been issued by the Emperor for the purpose of retarding the work of the Reformation. In these all Christians who separated from the Romish Church were called Anabaptists. . . . The Emperor and all his statesmen knew that the Baptists generally had, both by word and deed, testified that their peace-loving hearts abhorred the seditious conduct of the Anabaptists. . . .
Kwa njia hii jaribio lilifanywa kuwatupia mchanga machoni wafikiriaji wa juu juu miongoni mwa Warumi. Haikuwa kazi ngumu sana kufanya hivyo. Kwa kuwa serikali iliwajumuisha Waprotestanti wote chini ya jina la jumla la Waanabaptisti, Warumi wenye macho mafupi, wakiamini uelewa wake wa hali ya juu, wangeweza kwa urahisi kuletwa kwenye mtazamo uleule usiofaa [haisomeki]. . . . Waanabaptisti walionekana kwao kuwa watu wasio na sheria, wakiwa na sehemu ya Wabaptisti, sehemu ya Wazwingli, sehemu ya Walutheri — watu waliokuwa wameshikamana zamani na imani ya kale ya Kikatoliki, lakini sasa walikuwa wameikana dini kabisa. . . . Hawakutaka kuona kile ambacho wangeweza kukiona. Ilikuwa dhahiri jinsi gani kwamba ingawa Wabaptisti walionekana kukubaliana na Waanabaptisti katika swali la ubatizo, wale wa kwanza walikataa kabisa mwenendo uliofuatwa na wale wa pili.In this manner the attempt was made to throw sand in the eyes of the superficial thinkers among the Romanists. It was no very difficult task to do this. Since the government comprehended all the Protestants under the general name of Anabaptists, the short-sighted Romanists, confiding in its superior discernment, could easily be brought to the same unfavorable [illegible] of view. . . . The Anabaptists seemed to them to be a lawless people, consisting partly of Baptists, partly of Zwinglians, partly of Lutherans — men who formerly adhered to the old Catholic faith, but who had now entirely renounced religion. . . . They would not see that which they might have seen. How evident it was that although the Baptists appeared to agree with the Anabaptists in respect to the baptismal question, the former entirely disapproved of the course pursued by the latter.
Kwa maana ilikuwa, na inaendelea kuwa, fundisho la Wabaptisti kwamba kubeba silaha hakumfai Mkristo kabisa. Je, Waanabaptisti hawakufuata mwenendo kinyume kabisa na huu? . . . Nani angeweza kudhani kwamba kusudi kama hilo lilienea miongoni mwa Wabaptisti, waliokuwa wapole kuliko Wakristo wote? Na bado Warumi, bila upinzani, wanakubaliana kuwahusisha Wabaptisti wote na mambo haya. Hatujaona mahali popote ushahidi ulio wazi zaidi wa ushawishi wa madhara wa chuki, wala hatujakutana mahali popote na kutotaka kwa ukaidi zaidi kupewa habari sahihi, na tabia dhahiri zaidi ya kuwanyamazisha wale walioelewa vizuri ukweli wa jambo hilo. Chuki, mara inapofyonzwa kwa kina, hupofusha jicho, huchanganya ufahamu, hunyamazisha silika za moyo na huharibu upendo wa kweli na unyofu.For it had been, and continued to be, a doctrine of the Baptists, that the bearing of arms was very unbecoming to a Christian. Did not the Anabaptists pursue a course directly the opposite of this? . . . Who could have imagined that such a purpose prevailed among the Baptists, who were the meekest of Christians? And yet the Romanists, without dissent, agree in ascribing these things to all the Baptists. We have nowhere seen clearer evidences of the injurious influence of the prejudice, nowhere have we met with a more obstinate unwillingness to be correctly informed, and a more evident disposition to silence those who better understood the truth of the matter. Prejudice, when once deeply imbibed, blinds the eye, perplexes the understanding, silences the instincts of the heart and destroys the love of truth and rectitude.
Sasa tutaendelea kwa urefu zaidi kuzingatia utetezi wa Wabaptisti wanaostahili. Wabaptisti ni Wakristo Waprotestanti tofauti kabisa na Waanabaptisti kwa tabia. Walikuwa wazao wa Wawaldensia wa Kale, ambao mafundisho yao yalikuwa ya kiinjili na safi kwa kiasi cha kuridhisha, na waliotawanywa na mateso makali katika nchi mbalimbali, na muda mrefu kabla ya wakati wa Matengenezo ya Kanisa walikuwa wakiishi Uholanzi. Katika kukimbia kwao walikuja huko mwishoni mwa karne ya kumi na mbili. Katika nchi hii na Flanders, Holland na Zealand waliishi kama wakazi wa utulivu, bila kuingilia mambo ya Kanisa na Serikali, vijijini wakilima ardhi, na mijini wakifanya kazi ya ufundi fulani au kujishughulisha na biashara, ambako kila mmoja alipata mahitaji yake vizuri na kwa njia yoyote hakuwa mzigo kwa jamii. Namna yao ya maisha ilikuwa rahisi na ya mfano.We shall now proceed more at length to notice the defense of the worthy Baptists. The Baptists are Protestant Christians entirely different from the Anabaptists in character. They were descendants from the Ancient Waldenses, whose teachings were evangelical and tolerably pure, and who were scattered by severe persecutions in various lands, and long before the time of the Reformation of the Church were existing in the Netherlands. In their flight they came thither in the latter part of the twelfth century. In this country and in Flanders, in Holland and Zealand they lived as quiet inhabitants, not intermeddling with the affairs of Church and State, in the villages tilling the land, and in the cities working at some trade or engaged in traffic, by which means each one was well supplied and in no respect burdensome to society. Their manner of life was simple and exemplary.
Hakuna uhalifu mkubwa uliojulikana miongoni mwao. Mafundisho yao ya kidini yalikuwa rahisi na safi, na yalidhihirishwa katika mwenendo wao wa kila siku.’ Mwaka 1524-25 Münster ilikuwa imeinuka na kutiishwa pamoja na miji mingine ya Ujerumani ya Kusini na ya Kati, na mambo yakatiririka tena katika mkondo wa zamani. Kisha mwaka 1532, Rothmann, mchungaji Mlutheri mwenye nguvu sana wa Münster, aliichochea kwa ufanisi kiasi kwamba mitaa sita ya kikanisa nzima iliangukia mikononi mwa Walutheri na [haisomeki] kujaza uongozi wa mahakimu, kutoka kwa viapo na upanga. Huko Uswisi, ambako Vita vya Wakulima viliwaka kwa ukali kama Ujerumani, walikataa kabisa kuunganisha hatima zao na wakulima, na mwenendo wao huko unatoa mwanga juu ya mwenendo wao Ujerumani. Grebel na Simon Stumpf, kwa heshima yao, waliwahurumia watu waliokandamizwa, lakini kanuni zao hazikuwaruhusu kuchomoa upanga.No great crime was known among them. Their religious teaching was simple and pure, and was exemplified in their daily conduct.' In 1524-25 Münster had risen and been subdued with the other cities of Southern and Central Germany, and things flowed once more in the old channel. Then in 1532, Rothmann, a very powerful Lutheran pastor of Münster, stirred it so effectually that six entire parishes fell into the hands of the Lutherans and [illegible] filling the magistracy, from oaths and the sword. In Switzerland, where the Peasants' War raged as violently as in Germany, they positively refused to unite their fortunes with the peasants, and their course there throws light upon their conduct in Germany. Grebel and Simon Stumpf, to their honor, sympathized with the down-trodden people, but their principles would not allow them to draw the sword.
Grebel aliwaita wakandamizaji ‘madhalimu wa mababu zetu,’ lakini alikana kwamba wakati wowote alikuwa amefikiria kupindua serikali. Wakulima wa Uswisi walipoasi katika wilaya ya Grüningen, walishambulia monasteri za Bubikon na Rüti pamoja na wachungaji wao wa Kizwingli wakiwa katika safu zao. Majirani zao Wabaptisti, wakati huo, waliwapa msaada wao wa kimaadili, lakini waliuacha upanga ndani ya ala kwa ajili ya dhamiri. Walitegemea roho na maadili ya Injili kuangaza nafsi za watu, wakiamini kwamba hilo lingeleta uhuru wao wa kijamii pia. Hubmeyer aliwasaidia wakulima huko Waldshut kwa njia hiyohiyo kwa kiasi kikubwa. Zimmerman, mwanahistoria wa Vita vya Wakulima, anasema: ‘Huko Waldshut na katika Udugu wa Kiinjili walikuwepo vichwa vyenye uwezo wa kuelewa wazo la ujasiri na kubwa la kuunganisha nguvu za wakulima, zilizokuwa zimegawanyika chini ya viongozi wasiohesabika, katika kusudi na lengo moja: yaani, kurejesha uhuru wa zamani wa ufalme, na kupindua ukandamizaji uliopo usio wa Kikristo.Grebel branded the oppressors as 'the tyrants of our forefathers,' but he denied that he had ever thought of subverting government. When the Swiss peasantry revolted in the Grüningen district, they attacked the cloisters of Bubikon and Rüti with their Zwinglian pastors in their ranks. Their Baptist neighbors, meanwhile, gave them their moral support, but left the sword sheathed for conscience' sake. They relied upon the spirit and morals of the Gospel to enlighten the souls of the people, believing that this would work out their social liberties too. Hubmeyer aided the peasants at Waldshut much in the same way. Zimmerman, the historian of the Peasants' War, says: 'In Waldshut and the Evangelical Brotherhood there were heads capable of grasping the bold and great thought of uniting the forces of the peasants, split up as they were among countless leaders, in one purpose and aim: namely, the restoration of the old liberty of the empire, and the overthrow of existing un-Christian oppression.
Kwa kusudi hili udugu uliundwa na kuwekewa silaha kote katika ufalme wote wa Ujerumani, na mawasiliano kwa njia ya barua na wajumbe yalidumishwa mara kwa mara.’ Udugu huu uliingiwa na miji 138, na makhesabu, mashujaa na maaskofu wasiohesabika, lakini na Wabaptisti wachache. Tawi lilianzishwa Waldshut, mji ambao Muller aliingia nao pamoja na wakulima 1,200; lakini Wabaptisti walioteswa huko waliposhtakiwa kwa uzushi na uasi, walikana daima shtaka la pili, ingawa walifurahia shtaka la uzushi wa kimafundisho walilotuhumiwa. Jacob Gross, mwanafunzi wa Hubmeyer, alikimbia Waldshut badala ya kubeba silaha. Bruppacher alipohojiwa kwenye gurudumu la mateso huko Zurich, alisema ‘kwamba hajawahi kusikia ndugu zake wakifundisha kwamba kusiwe na mahakimu; au kwamba wakifanikiwa wangepindua Serikali.’ Na walikana daima kwamba walikuwa na jambo lolote la kufanya na uasi, huku mafundisho na si uasi ndiyo mzigo wa mijadala yao ya mdomo na maandiko yao.To this end brotherhoods were formed and armed throughout the entire German empire, and communication by means of correspondence and messengers was regularly sustained.' This Brotherhood was entered by 138 cities, and by counts, knights and bishops innumerable, but by few Baptists. A branch was organized at Waldshut, which city Muller entered with 1,200 peasants; but when the persecuted Baptists there were charged with heresy and sedition, they uniformly denied the second charge, although they delighted in the doctrinal heresy charged upon them. Jacob Gross, a disciple of Hubmeyer, fled from Waldshut rather than bear arms. When Bruppacher was examined on the rack at Zurich, he said 'that he had never heard his brethren teach that there should be no magistracy; or that in case they should be successful they would overthrow the State.' And they uniformly denied that they had any thing to do with sedition, while doctrine and not sedition was the burden of their oral discussions and literature.
Kwa bahati nzuri, katika nyakati za kisasa, kashfa kwamba Wabaptisti walihusika na machukizo ya Münster imepoteza makali yake na ukweli umepata njia ya kujitokeza. Brandt anayahusisha na ‘baadhi ya Waanabaptisti wenye bidii kupita kiasi,’ lakini anaongeza kwa uangalifu: ‘Si kwa Wabaptisti wenye nia njema.’ Schaff anatamka kuwa ni ‘Dhuluma kubwa kuliko zote kuwafanya Waanabaptisti, kama hivyo, kuwajibika kwa upuuzi uliosababisha msiba wa Münster.’ Uhlhorn anasema kwamba ‘Uasi, au wito wa kuasi, hauwezi kushtakiwa dhidi ya Waanabaptisti wa Ujerumani ya Kusini wakati huu; sijapata dalili yoyote ya ushirika na wakulima waasi.’Happily, in modern times, the calumny that the Baptists were responsible for the horrors of Münster has lost its edge and the truth has found its way to the surface. Brandt attributes them to 'some enthusiastical Anabaptists,' but is careful to add: 'Not to the well-meaning Baptists.' Schaff pronounces it 'The greatest injustice to make the Anabaptists, as such, responsible for the extravagances that led to the tragedy of Münster.' Uhlhorn says that 'Sedition, or a call to sedition, is not chargeable against the Anabaptists of Southern Germany at this time; I have found no trace of any fellowship with the seditious peasants.'
[…][…]
Watu wa Münster hawakuwahi kuwa na ndoto, mivuto, maono, mizuka na kuzimia kiroho kama watakatifu waliotangazwa wa Roma. Wala Luther hakuwasaidia wenye wazimu kufikia mafundisho yenye afya zaidi alipomwona shetani katika ‘umbo la mbwa,’ ‘kishada cha majani,’ nguruwe-mwitu na ‘nyota;’ wala alipotupa wino wa kalamu kichwani pake. Kuhusu vurugu: Wakatoliki na Waprotestanti waliwafundisha kwamba mapokeo, akili na Maandiko vilifanya kuwa wajibu wa kimungu wa watakatifu kuwatesa na kuwachoma watu kama wazushi kwa upendo mtupu kwa utakatifu wao na wokovu wao. Waprotestanti waliwaambia kwamba ni wajibu mtakatifu kuwachinja wale kama wafarakanishi, wanamadhehebu, na wabaya waliolipotosha Kanisa na hawakutaka kuishi kwa amani na Walioregeshwa. Ni nani aliyewaelimisha washupavu hawa katika upendo na upole wa Kikristo? Sheria ya nyakati zao ilikuwa kurudisha nguvu kwa nguvu.The Münster men never had such dreams, raptures, apparitions, phantasms and ecstasies as the canonized saints of Rome. Neither did Luther help the lunatics to sounder doctrine when he saw the devil in the 'form of a dog,' 'a whisp of straw,' a wild boar and 'a star;' nor when he threw the inkstand at his head. As to violence: Catholics and Protestants taught them that tradition, reason and Scripture made it the pious duty of saints to torture and burn men as heretics out of pure love for their holiness and salvation. Protestants told them that it was sacred duty to slaughter those as schismatics, sectaries, malignants who corrupted the Church and would not live in peace with the Reformed. Who educated these fanatics in Christian love and gentleness? The law of their times was to repel force with force.
Watu wa Münster walipoingia madarakani walitumia hoja za walimu wao katika ukatili, wakisema: ‘Wajibu wetu wa lazima sasa ni kuuondoa ulimwengu wa maadui wa Kristo na wetu, kama wao wangetuondoa sisi.’ Na ni nani atakayesema kwamba wauaji hawa wote hawakusimama kwenye kiwango kilekile cha dhuluma na unyama kwa jambo hili? Kuhusu maovu ya kiadili: Kila akili safi inarudi nyuma kwa machukizo ya uchafu wa Münster. Na ni nani aliyewawekea mfano huu? Walifanya ndoa za wake wengi; lakini miaka kumi mirefu kabla ya hapo, 1524, Luther alikuwa ameandika: ‘Mume lazima ahakikishiwe katika dhamiri yake mwenyewe na kwa neno la Mungu kwamba mitala inaruhusiwa kwake. Kwa upande wangu, nakiri kwamba siwezi kujiweka kinyume cha watu kuoa wake kadhaa, wala kudai kwamba mwenendo huo unapingana na Maandiko Matakatifu.’When the Münster men came into power they applied the reasoning of their tutors in atrocity, saying: 'Our bounden duty is now to rid the earth of Christ's enemies and ours, as they would rid it of us.' And who will say that all these murderers did not stand on the same plane of outrage and barbarity in this respect? As to immoralities: Every pure mind shrinks from the abhorrent indecencies of Münster. And who had set them this example? They practiced polygamy; but ten long years before this, 1524, Luther had written: 'The husband must be certified in his own conscience and by the word of God that polygamy is permitted to him. As for me, I avow that I cannot set myself in opposition to men marrying several wives, or assert that such a course is repugnant to the Holy Scripture.'
Karibu wakati huohuo alihubiri mahubiri yake maarufu juu ya ‘Ndoa,’ ambayo usafi wa moyo unaweza kuyapita kimya, zaidi ya usemi huu mmoja: ‘Mradi mtu ana imani, uzinzi si dhambi.’ Haikuwa wazimu wa Münster bali Martin Luther aliyesema: ‘Chochote kinachoruhusiwa katika sheria ya Musa kuhusu ndoa hakijakatazwa na Injili.’ Mwenendo wake katika jambo lile la aibu la Philip, Landgrave wa Hesse, unaonyesha kwamba ingawa hakutaka kuona ‘desturi hii (mitala) ikianzishwa miongoni mwa Wakristo,’ hata hivyo alishikilia maoni yake ya zamani. Kwa hiyo, mwaka 1539, miaka minne baada ya chukizo la Münster, Philip alimwambia, kwa kile Michelet anachokiita ‘uwazi wa kuthubutu,’ kwamba lazima aoe mke mwingine au aendelee na uzinzi wake, akisema: ‘Nimesoma kwa makini sana Agano la Kale na Jipya, na siwezi kugundua njia nyingine isipokuwa ya kuchukua mke mwingine; kwa maana siwezi wala sitaki kubadilisha mwenendo wa maisha yangu; namwita Mungu kuwa shahidi wa maneno yangu.’About the same time he preached his famous sermon on 'Marriage,' which chastity may well pass in silence, beyond this one expression: 'Provided one has faith, adultery is no sin.' It was not the madmen of Münster but Martin Luther who said: 'Whatever is allowed in the law of Moses as to marriage is not forbidden by the Gospel.' His course in the shameful affair of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, shows that although he did not wish to see 'this practice (polygamy) introduced among Christians,' yet he held to his old views. Hence, in 1539, four years after the Münster abomination, Philip told him, with what Michelet calls 'a daring frankness,' that he must marry another wife or continue his adulteries, saying: 'I have read with great attention the Old and New Testaments, and I can discover no other resource save that of taking another wife; for I neither can nor will change my course of life; I call God to witness my words.'
Hata hivyo, ikiwa na paji la uso lisilo na haya mbele yake, Luther, pamoja na Melanchthon, Bucer na wengine wanne, walitia sahihi na muhuri hati, wakijaribu kumzuia Landgrave, lakini wakishindwa, walimaliza kwa kusema: ‘Hata hivyo, ikiwa Mtukufu wako ameamua kabisa kuoa mke wa pili, tunaona kwamba ifanywe kwa siri.’ Antony Corvinus, mtia sahihi wa nne wa jibu hili kwa Philip, anatoa maelezo ya kuhojiwa kwa John wa Leyden, ambamo alikuwepo, ambamo John alitoa vifungu vyake saba vya imani. Alijificha nyuma ya msimamo wa Luther, akisema kwamba walifuata ‘mfano wa mababu wa imani,’ akatangaza ndoa kuwa ‘taasisi ya kisiasa,’ kisha akaweka hoja ileile kama Philip. Katika barua ya Philip kwa wanatheolojia wa Wittenberg alisema: ‘Tangu ndoa yangu nimeishi daima katika hali ya uzinzi na uasherati, na kwa kuwa sitaacha mwenendo huu wa maisha nimezuiwa kupokea ushirika mtakatifu; kwa maana Mt. Paulo anasema waziwazi, “Mzinzi hataona ufalme wa mbinguni.” John wa Leyden alikubali hoja hii, akisema, katika kifungu chake cha saba: ‘Ni afadhali kuwa na wake wengi kuliko wingi wa makahaba. Mungu na atuhukumu.’Yet with that unblushing brow before him, Luther, with Melanchthon, Bucer and four others, signed and sealed a document, attempting to dissuade the Landgrave, but failing of that, closed by saying: 'If, however, your Highness is utterly determined upon marrying a second wife, we are of opinion that it ought to be done secretly.' Antony Corvinus, the fourth signer of this reply to Philip, gives an account of the examination of John of Leyden, at which he was present, in which John gave his seven articles of faith. He intrenched himself behind Luther's position, saying that they followed 'the example of the patriarchs,' declared marriage a 'political institution,' and then put in the same plea as Philip. In Philip's letter to the Wittenberg divines he said: 'Ever since my marriage I have lived constantly in a state of adultery and fornication, and as I will not forego this course of life I am interdicted from taking the holy communion; for St. Paul expressly says, 'The adulterer shall not see the kingdom of heaven.' John of Leyden adopted this plea, saying, in his seventh article: 'It is better to have a plurality of wives than a multitude of prostitutes. God be our judge.'
Henry, Duke wa Brunswick, alimkemea Luther kwa kuidhinisha ndoa ya wake wawili ya Philip; Luther alipojibu, kwa upole wake wa kawaida, katika makala yake maarufu, Against the Buffoon: ‘Duke humeza mashetani kila siku, na amefungwa kuzimu kwa minyororo ya hukumu ya kimungu.’ Kisha anawahimiza wachungaji wamlaani duke kutoka mimbarini kama mtu ‘aliyehukumiwa kwa hukumu ya kimungu.’ Lakini alipoyapitia upya kijitabu chake, alimwambia Melancthon kwamba alikuwa mpole kupita kiasi kabisa. Na ni mifano gani bora zaidi ambayo Wakatoliki waliwawekea watu wa Münster katika mstari wa usafi? Kuanzia karne ya tisa kuendelea, kama Bowden asemavyo, katika Life of Hildebrand: ‘Aibu zilizoenea miongoni mwa makasisi zinapaswa kutajwa, si kuelezwa kwa kina. Uasherati wa wazi wa mapapa ulikuwa wa kutisha. Mapapa wa karne ya kumi na tano walikuwa wapotovu na walioporomoka kimaadili zaidi ya kuaminika.’Henry, the Duke of Brunswick, berated Luther for his approval of Philip's bigamy; when Luther replied, with his usual mildness, in his famous article, Against the Buffoon: 'The duke has daily swallowed devils, and he is chained in hell with the chains of divine judgment.' He then exhorts the pastors to denounce the duke from the pulpit as one who 'has been damned by divine judgment.' But when he revised his pamphlet, he said to Melancthon that he had been altogether too moderate. And what better examples had the Catholics set the Münster men in the line of purity? From the ninth century down, as Bowden says, in his Life of Hildebrand: 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy are to be alluded to, not detailed. The open licentiousness of the popes was appalling. The popes of the fifteenth century were profligate and debased beyond belief.'
[…][…]
Motley anawaita watu wa Münster ‘washupavu wenye hasira, wanaostahili hospitali ya wendawazimu badala ya jukwaa la kunyongea;’ na Wakatoliki au Waprotestanti walikuwa bora kiasi gani, kwa kufanya mambo hayohayo! Haifai kuwapeleka mashetani wa Münster kwenye uharibifu peke yao, wapende wasipende, kwa unyama usiovumilika. Kulikuwa na tofauti hii kati ya uchinjaji wao na mauaji halali ya Waprotestanti na Wakatoliki, yanayoitwa kufia dini, yaani: kwamba yao yalikuwa matendo ya vurugu yaliyotendwa katika wazimu wa kidini au hasira, ilhali mengine yalikuwa matokeo ya kutunga sheria kwa makusudi, yaliyowekwa kwenye kitabu cha sheria, katika ukuu baridi unaojivika sura ya sheria ya kibinadamu na ya kimungu. Lakini historia itawapimia pande zote hizi haki ile ya kuchelewa ambayo itakubaliwa kwa unyofu na wote kwa wakati wake.Motley calls the Münster men 'furious fanatics, who deserved the mad-house rather than the scaffold;' and how much better were Catholics or Protestants, in practicing the same things! It is hardly worth while sending the Münster fiends to perdition alone, nolens volens, for unbearable beastliness. There was this difference between their butchery and the legal murders of Protestant and Catholic, called martyrdoms, namely: that theirs were acts of violence perpetrated in a religious craze or frenzy, while the others were the result of deliberate legislation, put on the statute-book, in that icy sublimity which dresses itself in the guise of human and divine law. But history will mete out to all these parties that tardy justice which will be honestly accepted by all in due time.
3. John Bunyan: Mfungwa, Mhubiri, na Swali la Ubatizo wa Watoto Wachanga3. John Bunyan: Prisoner, Preacher, and the Question of Infant Baptism
Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Sura ya IV, “Wabaptisti wa Uingereza—John Bunyan” (takriban uk. 475–510). Imefupishwa; sehemu zilizoachwa zimewekwa alama […]. Maandishi ya Kiingereza yametoka kwa OCR isiyolinganishwa na nakala nyingine; mgawanyo wa aya umewekwa na CTS. Tafsiri za mambo ni za mwandishi.Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Chapter IV, “British Baptists—John Bunyan” (about pp. 475–510). Abridged; omissions marked […]. English text from uncollated OCR; paragraph divisions supplied by CTS. The interpretations are the author’s.
Dokezo la CTS: John Bunyan (1628–1688), mwandishi wa The Pilgrim’s Progress (Safari ya Msafiri), alikuwa mshiriki na baadaye mchungaji wa kusanyiko la Bedford lililokusanywa na John Gifford, kanisa la uanachama wazi lililopokea wale waliobatizwa kama waumini na wale waliobatizwa wakiwa watoto wachanga. Wanahistoria bado wanajadili kama Bunyan anapaswa kuitwa Mbaptisti. Sehemu kubwa ya sura hii inamjibu John Brown, mwandishi wa wasifu wa Bunyan na mchungaji wa baadaye huko Bedford, aliyesoma maandishi ya mwaka 1672 katika daftari la usajili la parokia ya St. Cuthbert kuwa ni ubatizo wa mtoto (christening) wa mwana wa Bunyan, Joseph; Armitage anasema kwamba yanamhusu mjukuu wake. Swali hilo bado liko wazi. Maneno yake makali kuhusu makasisi wa Kanisa la Uingereza yanaonyesha migogoro mikali ya kipindi cha Urejesho (Restoration). Mafundisho ya Bunyan juu ya nafasi ya wake yanaonyesha mitazamo ya karne ya kumi na saba kuhusu ndoa; Wakristo wa leo wanasoma maandiko ya Biblia kwa njia tofauti. OCR inapoteza au kuharibu kurasa kadhaa, zimewekwa alama [haisomeki]; sehemu ndefu kuhusu sheria ya usajili, mti wa ukoo wa Bunyan na ibada ya Kitabu cha Sala zimeachwa.CTS note: John Bunyan (1628–1688), author of The Pilgrim’s Progress, was a member and later pastor of the Bedford congregation gathered by John Gifford, an open-membership church that received both those baptized as believers and those baptized as infants. Historians still debate whether Bunyan should be called a Baptist. Much of this chapter answers John Brown, Bunyan’s biographer and a later pastor at Bedford, who read a 1672 entry in the register of St. Cuthbert’s parish as the christening of Bunyan’s son Joseph; Armitage argues that it refers to his grandson. The question is still open. His harsh words about the Church of England clergy reflect the bitter conflicts of the Restoration period. Bunyan’s teaching on the place of wives reflects seventeenth-century views of marriage; Christians today read the biblical texts in different ways. The OCR loses or garbles several pages, marked [illegible]; long sections on registration law, the Bunyan family tree and the Prayer-book service have been omitted.
Sura ya IV. Wabaptisti wa Uingereza—John BunyanChapter IV. British Baptists—John Bunyan
Sasa lazima tuwatazame Wabaptisti baada ya Urejesho, ambaye maarufu zaidi kati yao ni John Bunyan. Alizaliwa Elstow, karibu na Bedford, mwaka 1628, mwaka maarufu ambao Mfalme Charles I alilazimika kukubali Ombi la Haki (Petition of Right). Elimu yake haikuwa karibu na kitu, hata hivyo alipendelewa juu ya wavulana wa kijiji chake, kwa kuwa alihudhuria shule ya sarufi iliyoanzishwa na Sir William Harper huko Bedford; kwa muda gani haijulikani, lakini kwa kiwango bora kabisa mafanikio yake ya kielimu yalikuwa haba sana. Maumbile yalimpa moyo wa joto, mwepesi, wa furaha, uliomfanya awe tayari kwa kila aina ya vicheko na vituko, na katika hali tofauti ulimfanya aathirike si na huzuni ya kutafakari tu, bali pia na kukata tamaa. Mapema alimwogopa Mungu na alitamani kumpenda, lakini wepesi wake wa kichwa na upendo wa kufurahi vilimvuta katika dhambi, hadi akazoea kutenda mabaya, hasa kusema uongo na kuapa.We must now look at the Baptists after the Restoration, the most noted of whom is John Bunyan. He was born at Elstow, near Bedford, in 1628, the famous year in which Charles I was forced to yield the Petition of Right. His education was next to nothing, yet he was favored above the boys of his village, for he attended the grammar school founded by Sir William Harper at Bedford; how long is not known, but at the best his educational attainments were quite scanty. Nature had given him a warm, light, frolicsome heart, which held him ready for any sort of glee and mischief, and under reversed circumstances subjected him not only to the pensive, but the desponding. He early feared God and longed to love him, but his giddiness and love of fun drew him into sin, until he became addicted to wrong-doing, principally lying and swearing.
Kwa kuwa baba yake na yeye mwenyewe walikuwa wafua bati wa kuzunguka (tinkers), na Wagypsi huko Uingereza wamekuwa wafua bati tangu zamani, kwa muda mrefu alidhaniwa kuwa wa damu ya kigeni. Lakini kumbukumbu za familia yake sasa zinaweza kufuatiliwa hadi karibu B.K. 1200, na jina lenyewe, kama lilivyojulikana wakati ule, Buignon, linaonyesha kwamba familia ilikuwa ya asili ya Norman. Mzao huyu mkuu wa nyumba hiyo alikuwa mtu mwenye hisia kali kuhusu mambo yote. Dini ya zama zake ilikuwa ya dhati kabisa, ya hisia, ya kina, karibu ya ushupavu, na moyo wa Bunyan ulipoanza kuhangaikia Bwana Yesu, tabia yake yote ilipata moto. Tukichukua kisa chake mwenyewe kama alivyokisimulia neno kwa neno, angetulazimisha kuamini kwamba alikuwa kijana mkorofi mwenye huzuni na mtu mhalifu wa kukata tamaa katika ujana wake wa mapema. Hata hivyo, anatuambia kwamba hakuwahi kulewa wala kuwa mzinzi, na hakika hakuwa mwizi wala jambazi wa barabarani. Alivunja Sabato, alipenda kucheza dansi, [haisomeki]Because his father and himself were tinkers, and Gipsies in England have been tinkers from time immemorial, he was long supposed to be of this alien blood. But the records of his family are now traceable to about A. D. 1200, and the name itself, as then known, Buignon, indicates that the family was of Norman origin. This great descendant of that house was a man of intense feeling on all subjects. The religion of his times was of the most earnest nature, emotional, deep, almost fanatical, and when Bunyan's heart began to yearn after the Lord Jesus, his whole nature was inflamed. If we should take his own version of his case literally, he would compel us to believe that he was a sad scamp in youth and a desperate villain in early manhood. He tells us, however, that he was never drunk nor unchaste, and certainly he was never a thief nor a highwayman. He broke the Sabbath, loved dancing, [illegible]
[…][…]
Waimbaji wakuu wa siku zake walikuwa Herbert na Milton, Dryden na Shakespeare. Na wahubiri wenye nguvu walikuwa Howe na Henry, Charnock na Owen, Tillotson na South, Sherlock na Stillingfleet. Uchunguzi wa Bunyan ulikuwa mkali na mpana; aliishi katikati kabisa ya Uingereza, alikuwa mshiriki katika baadhi ya matukio yake yenye msisimko mkubwa zaidi, na haiwezekani kwamba roho ya nyakati haikumsukuma kila hatua. Katika siku zake, fasihi ya Kiingereza ilikuwa imejaa kikamilifu vipengele vyote vya ushairi na hadithi za kubuni; naam, hata za kimapenzi. Hivi vilikuwa vimeshuka kupitia uandishi wa juu wa Kiitaliano. Si tu kwamba Kiingereza cha mazungumzo kilikuwa kimeshuka kupitia Wyckliff, na fasihi yake ya juu kupitia Chaucer, bali vilikuwa vimechanganywa sana katika Biblia, ambayo Bunyan aliijua vizuri sana; hivi kwamba Kiingereza rahisi cha Kisaksoni cha misemo ya kawaida kilikuwa tayari mikononi mwake; kikiwa kimejaa picha na hofu ya heshima, ajabu na ukuu, ambavyo angeweza kuvieleza kwa akili ya watu wengi kwa mtindo wa kuvutia sana.The great singers of his day were Herbert and Milton, Dryden and Shakespeare. And the mighty preachers were Howe and Henry, Charnock and Owen, Tillotson and South, Sherlock and Stillingfleet. Bunyan's observation was keen and extensive; he lived in the very heart of England, was an actor in some of its most exciting scenes, and it is impossible but that the spirit of the times moved him at every step. In his day, English literature had become thoroughly imbued with all the elements of poetry and fiction; nay, even of romance. These had come down through high Italian authorship. Not only had the colloquial English descended through Wyckliff, and its higher literature through Chaucer, but they had been largely blended in the Bible, with which Bunyan was most familiar; so that simple idiomatic Saxon English was prepared to his hand; being full of image and awe, of wonder and grandeur, which he could express to the popular mind in a very racy style.
Bila kujua alihisi nguvu ya lugha yake ya mama; ilichochea kipaji chake, ikawa msingi wa fikira zake na kielelezo cha usemi wake; chaguo ambalo linamweka bega kwa bega na Shakespeare na Biblia ya Kiingereza, kama mmoja wa walinzi wakuu wa lugha yetu yenye nguvu. Katika mlipuko wa uaminifu usio na busara, watu wa Uingereza, katika [haisomeki], walimweka Charles II kwenye kiti cha enzi, bila kudai dhamana zinazofaa kwa uhuru ule waliokuwa wameununua kwa damu yao wenyewe. Alikuwa ametoa neno lake kwa heshima kuwalinda raia wake wote katika uhuru wao wa kidini; kisha, kama Mstuart wa kweli, aliuza heshima hiyo kwa tamaa yake ya madaraka. Alipokuwa ameketi tu kwenye kiti cha enzi, uasi mdogo wa Venner ulitoa kisingizio cha kulipiza kisasi dhidi ya wapinzani wake wote, na hasa wale wa madhehebu yaliyokataa kufuata Kanisa rasmi, bila kujali walionyesha uaminifu wao kiasi gani. Miongoni mwa waathirika wa kwanza wa dhuluma yake tunamkuta Bunyan, akishtakiwa kwa ‘kujizuia kwa kishetani na kwa madhara kutoka kwenda kanisani,’ ‘kama mdumishaji wa kawaida wa mikutano iliyo kinyume cha sheria za mfalme,’ na kwa ‘kufundisha watu kuabudu kinyume cha sheria.’Unconsciously he felt the force of his mother-tongue; it stimulated his genius, became the groundwork of his thought and the model of his utterance; a choice which places him side by side with Shakespeare and the English Bible, as one of the great conservators of our powerful language. In a burst of unreasoning loyalty the English people, in [illegible], placed Charles II on the throne, without exacting proper guarantees for that liberty which they had bought with their own blood. He had given his word on honor to protect all his subjects in their religious freedom; and then, like a true Stuart, he sold that honor to his lust of power. Hardly was he seated on the throne when Venner's petty insurrection furnished a pretext for vengeance upon all his opponents, and especially those in the dissenting sects, no matter how much they proved their loyalty. Amongst the first victims of his tyranny we find Bunyan, charged with 'devilishly and perniciously abstaining from going to church,' 'as a common upholder of meetings contrary to the laws of the king,' and with 'teaching men to worship contrary to law.'
Alihukumiwa kifungo katika gereza la Bedford kwa miezi mitatu, na mwishoni mwa kipindi hicho afukuzwe nchini ikiwa angekataa kufuata. Lakini mahakimu wake walimweka gerezani kwa miaka sita: na alipoachiliwa mara moja alianza kuhubiri tena, ndipo akafungwa kwa miaka mingine sita. Alipoachiliwa tena, alianza kuhubiri mara moja, na alikamatwa kwa mara ya tatu, lakini alizuiliwa kwa miezi michache tu. Mahakimu wake walikuwa wakali kwake, lakini wakandamizaji wake halisi kwa miaka hii kumi na miwili ya uchovu walikuwa mfalme na Bunge, waliofanya kuwa kosa la jinai kwa mtu yeyote kuhubiri isipokuwa kuhani wa Kanisa la Uingereza. Kwa muda mrefu ilidhaniwa kwamba alifungwa zaidi katika gereza la mji wa Bedford, kwenye daraja juu ya mto Ouse, lakini sasa ni wazi kwamba kifungo chake kirefu kilikuwa katika gereza la kaunti, ambapo [haisomeki] mwandishi wa wasifu asiyejulikana wa mwaka 1700 anasema kwamba alimsikia akihubiri kwa Wasiokubaliana (dissenters) sitini na wahudumu watatu. Hata hivyo, kuna msingi mzuri wa kuamini kwamba anapita [haisomeki]He was sentenced to Bedford jail for three months, and at the end of that time to be transported if he refused to conform. But his judges kept him in prison for six years: and when released he instantly began to preach again, whereupon he was imprisoned for another six years. Being released still again, he began to preach at once, and was arrested for the third time, but was detained only a few months. His judges were harsh with him, but his real oppressors for these twelve weary years were the king and Parliament, who made it a crime for any one to preach but a priest of the Church of England. It was long supposed that he was imprisoned mostly in the town jail of Bedford, on the bridge over the river Ouse, but it is now clear that his long imprisonment was in the county jail, where [illegible] the anonymous biographer of 1700 says, that he heard him preach to sixty dissenters and three ministers. There is good ground for believing, however, that he passes [illegible]
[haisomeki] ya maisha, kutoka uzee hadi utoto, vimefanya kitabu hicho kuwa, baada ya Biblia, hadithi ya maisha yao. Katika nafsi zote kimeumba maono, kimefasiri ndoto, na kuamsha furaha iliyonifanya niandike.’ Matoleo manane yaliyochapishwa kwa miaka thelathini yalitoa ahadi ndogo ya maendeleo ya safari yake tangu hapo. Hakuna kitabu kilichotafsiriwa katika lugha nyingi hivyo, isipokuwa neno la Mungu lenyewe. Kwa wengi ambao sasa wako ‘juu katika furaha juu ya milima ya Mungu,’ kilikuwa cha kwanza kupiga kengele za furaha katika mji wa makao. Maskini na ombaomba wa London wamekisoma katika barabara na viwanja, na kufuata mwongozo wake kupitia Soko la Ubatili (Vanity Fair). Mwitaliano ameinama chini ya kivuli cha Vatikani, na kutetemeka kutazama juu asije akamwona Jitu Papa. Mburma wa ngozi nyeusi amekichukua katika msitu mnene, ili kimwonyeshe mawe ya kukanyagia katika Kinamasi cha Kukata Tamaa. Mwafrika mweusi zaidi amejificha nacho katika njia ya pembeni ya misitu ya porini, na chini ya mnazi ameota ndoto ya Mbingu ya mzungu.[illegible] of life, from old age to childhood, have made it next to the Bible, the story of their lives. In all souls it has created visions, interpreted dreams, and awakened the joy that made me write.' The eight editions through which it passed in thirty years gave but small promise of the progress of its pilgrimage since. No book has been rendered into so many languages, except the word of God itself. To many who are now 'high in bliss upon the hills of God,' it first set the joy-bells ringing in the city of habitation. The pauper and beggar of London have read it in thorough-fares and squares, and threaded their way by its guidance through Vanity Fair. The Italian has crouched beneath the shade of the Vatican, and trembled to look up lest he should see Giant Pope. The dusky Burman has taken it into the deep jungle, to show him stepping-stones through the Slough of Despond. The darker African has stolen with it into a by-path of the wild woods, and, under the palm-tree, has dreamed of the white man's Heaven.
Mwana wa Abrahamu na binti wa Yerusalemu wamesoma kurasa zake kwa mnong’ono wa upepo kati ya mizeituni na mkondo wa Kidroni; na Mhindu, akiwa na Bunyan mkononi, ameazimia kuwa jasiri alipovuka ‘mto mzito;’ kwa kuwa malaika, kama wale wasiongoja kwenye kingo za Ganges yake takatifu, wanamwita kuvuka. Si ajabu kwamba Bw. Brown, mhudumu wa kusanyiko la Bunyan, alipotembelea Scotland hivi karibuni, Mskoti mmoja mstahiki alishtuka alipotambulishwa kwake kama ‘mrithi wa Bunyan.’ Akirudi nyuma na kumpima tangu kichwani hadi miguuni, alishangaa: ‘Eh, mwenzangu! utakuwa na kazi ngumu kujaza viatu vyake!’ Dean Stanley anasema: ‘Nilipokutana mapema maishani na kifungu ambamo Msafiri anachukuliwa ndani ya Nyumba Nzuri kuona “ukoo wa Mzee wa Siku, na aina na historia za mahali pale, za kale na za kisasa,” niliazimia kwamba wakati ukifika nitakapokuwa profesa wa historia ya kanisa, haya yangekuwa maneno ya kufungua ambayo ningeeleza hazina za ghala hiyo kuu.The son of Abraham and the daughter of Jerusalem have read its pages to the sigh of the wind amongst the olives and the ripple of Kedron; and the Hindoo, with Bunyan in his hand, has resolved on courage when he crossed the 'deep river;' for angels, such as do not wait upon the banks of his sacred Ganges, beckon him over. No wonder that when Mr. Brown, the minister of Bunyan's meeting, lately visited Scotland, a worthy Highlander was startled when introduced to him as 'Bunyan's successor.' Starting back and measuring him from head to foot, he exclaimed: 'Eh, mon! but ye'll ha' hard work to fill his shoon!' Dean Stanley says: 'When in early life I lighted on the passage where the Pilgrim is taken into the House Beautiful to see 'the pedigree of the Ancient of Days, and the varieties and histories of that place, both ancient and modern,' I determined that if ever the time should arrive when I should become a professor of ecclesiastical history, these should become the opening words in which I would describe the treasures of that magnificent store-house.
Kwa hiyo, miaka mingi baadaye, ilipotokea hivyo, sikuweza kupata njia bora ya kuanza kozi yangu huko Oxford kuliko kutimiza ahadi hiyo ya mapema; na kozi ilipokwisha, nilipotaka kuchora picha ya matarajio yaliyobaki kwa siku zijazo za Ukristo, nilipata tena kwamba maneno bora niliyoweza kutoa ni yale ambayo, wakati wa kuondoka Nyumba Nzuri, Mkristo alionyeshwa mbali mandhari ya Milima ya Kupendeza, “ambayo, walisema, ingeongeza faraja yake kwa kuwa ilikuwa karibu zaidi na bandari aliyoitamani.”’ Huu ulikuwa ushuru unaostahili na wa moyoni kutoka Westminster kwa mfua bati mwenye ndoto ambaye sanamu yake sasa inapamba Baraza la Commons, bega kwa bega na wasemaji, mashujaa na wanasiasa kwa heshima ya mtu ambaye, ingawa ‘alijizuia kwa kishetani kuhudhuria kanisa kinyume cha sheria za mfalme,’ ameshahubiri katika mimbara zote na majumba ya kifalme tangu hapo. Baada ya kuachiliwa kwa mwisho kwa Bunyan mwaka 1672, alikuwa mchungaji wa Kanisa la Bedford, na akajitosa katika kazi ya Injili kiasi kwamba umaarufu wake kama mhubiri uliongezeka hadi akawa, pengine, mhudumu maarufu zaidi wa siku zake. Mahubiri machache [haisomeki]Accordingly, when, many years after, it so fell out, I could find no better mode of beginning my course at Oxford than by redeeming that early pledge; and when the course came to an end, and I wished to draw a picture of the prospects still reserved for the future of Christendom, I found again that the best words I could supply were those in which, on leaving the Beautiful House, Christian was shown in the distance the view of the Delectable Mountains, "which, they said, would add to his comfort because they were nearer to the desired haven."' This was a worthy and heart-felt tribute from Westminster to the dreaming tinker whose effigy now adorns the House of Commons, side by side with those of orators, heroes and statesmen in honor of the man, who, though he 'devilishly abstained from attending the church contrary to the laws of the king,' has preached in all pulpits and palaces ever since. After Bunyan's final release in 1672, he became pastor of the Church at Bedford, and so threw his life into Gospel labor, that his fame as a preacher increased until he was, perhaps, the most famous minister of his day. The few sermons [illegible]
[haisomeki] Matthew Hale, Chester na Twisden. Kwa urahisi wote wa upendo wa mwanamke alisimulia hadithi yake isiyo na hila. Alisema kwamba mume wake alikuwa ‘mtu wa amani,’ na alitaka kuitegemeza familia yake. Walikuwa na watoto wanne wasio na msaada, mmoja wao kipofu, na alipokuwa gerezani ilibidi waishi kwa sadaka. Hale alimtendea kwa upole, Twisden kwa ukali, na akadai kama angeacha kuhubiri akiachiliwa. Kwa unyofu wa kitoto alijibu kwamba hathubutu kuacha kuhubiri ‘maadamu anaweza kusema.’ Ombi lake lilikataliwa naye aliondoka Mahakamani kwa machozi, ‘si kwa sababu,’ alisema, ‘walikuwa na mioyo migumu dhidi yangu na mume wangu, bali kufikiria hesabu ya huzuni ambayo viumbe maskini kama hao watalazimika kutoa wakati wa kuja kwa Bwana.’ Yesu alilia kwa sababu Yerusalemu iliwapiga manabii kwa mawe, na mke wa Bunyan alifanana naye sana.[illegible] Matthew Hale, Chester and Twisden. With all the simplicity of a woman's love she told her artless story. She said that her husband was 'a peaceable person,' and wished to support his family. They had four helpless children, one of them blind, and while he was in prison they must live on charity. Hale treated her kindly, Twisden harshly, and demanded whether he would leave off preaching if released. In child-like honesty she replied, that he dare not leave off preaching 'so long as he could speak.' Her request was denied and she left the Court in tears, 'not so much,' she said, 'because they were so hard-hearted against me and my husband, but to think what a sad account such poor creatures would have to give at the coming of the Lord.' Jesus wept because Jerusalem stoned the prophets, and Bunyan's wife was much like him.
Lakini jitu hili la kipaji lilikuwa na moyo laini kama mke wake. Tunapata wapi huruma kama hii katika kifungu chochote kama hiki alichoandika gerezani: ‘Kuachana na mke wangu na watoto wangu maskini kumekuwa mara nyingi kwangu mahali hapa kama kuvuliwa nyama yangu kutoka mifupani; na si kwa sababu tu ninapenda sana rehema hizi kubwa, bali pia kwa sababu ningekuwa nikikumbushwa mara kwa mara shida, taabu na mahitaji ambayo familia yangu maskini ilikuwa karibu kukutana nayo kama ningechukuliwa kutoka kwao; hasa mtoto wangu kipofu maskini aliyelala karibu zaidi na moyo wangu kuliko yote niliyokuwa nayo zaidi yake. Mtoto maskini, nilifikiri, ni huzuni gani utakayopata kuwa fungu lako katika ulimwengu huu! Utapigwa, utateseka njaa, baridi, uchi na maafa elfu, ingawa mimi sasa siwezi kuvumilia upepo ukuvukie.But, this giant in genius was just as tender-hearted as his wife. Where do we find such pathos in any passage as this, which he wrote in prison: 'The parting with my wife and poor children hath often been to me in this place as the pulling off my flesh from my bones; and that not only because I am too, too fond of these great mercies, but also because I should have often brought to my mind the hardships, miseries and wants my poor family was like to meet with should I be taken from them; especially my poor blind child who lay nearer my heart than all I had besides. Poor child, thought I, what sorrow art thou like to have for thy portion in this world! Thou must be beaten, suffer hunger, cold, nakedness and a thousand calamities, though I cannot now endure the wind should blow on thee.
Lakini hata hivyo, nilifikiri, lazima nihatarishe yote kwa Mungu, ingawa inagusa moyoni kuwaacha. Nilikuwa kama mtu aliyekuwa akibomoa nyumba yake juu ya kichwa cha mke wake na watoto wake. Hata hivyo, nilifikiri, lazima nifanye hivyo, lazima nifanye hivyo.’ Tabia ya Bunyan ilikuwa ya upendo sana kiasi kwamba iliuweka moyo wa mlinzi wa gereza laini wakati wote. Si tu kwamba alimruhusu kulitembelea kanisa lake mara nyingi, bila msindikizaji, na kuhubiri Injili pia; bali Mary wake kipofu alimtembelea daima, na zawadi ndogo alizoweza kukusanya kwa faraja yake. Alikuwa na wasiwasi mkubwa kwake, asije akahuzunika kupita tumaini lote, na mara nyingi alipoachana naye, angeweka vidole vyake laini machoni na mashavuni mwake, ahisi kama machozi yanatiririka ili ayabusu na kuyaondoa.But yet, thought I, I must venture all with God, though it goeth to the quick to leave you. I was as a man who was pulling down his house upon the head of his wife and children. Yet, thought I, I must do it, I must do it.' So loving was Bunyan's disposition, that he kept the heart of the jailer soft all the time. He not only allowed him to visit his church frequently, unattended, and to preach the Gospel, too; but his blind Mary constantly visited him, with such little gifts as she could gather for his solace. She had great concern for him, lest he sorrowed beyond all hope, and often when parting with him, would put her delicate fingers to his eyes and cheeks, to feel if the tears flowed that she might kiss them away.
Mtoto wake kipofu alikufa na kumwacha gerezani; na, ee, ni baraka ngapi za kibaba juu ya kumbukumbu yake tamu. Ilifaa Mary mdogo kipofu Bunyan aingie Lango la Mbinguni kabla ya shujaa wa ‘pango,’ ‘mng’ao’ wa kweli, akimtazama na kumngojea aje. Wala hakungoja kwa muda mrefu. Mwaka 1688 alikwenda London kupatanisha baba na mwana waliotengana, na akafanikiwa. Lakini safarini dhoruba kali ilimpata, naye alipata ugonjwa wa mauti ambao baada ya siku kumi ulimpeleka kwa Yesu, Mfalme katika uzuri wake, na kwa Mary kipofu, aliyemwona kwa mara ya kwanza macho yake matamu yakiwaka nuru. Hakuweka mkono wake kwenye shavu lake wakati huo, kama ilivyokuwa desturi yake ya zamani Bedford, kwa maana Mungu alikuwa amefuta machozi yote kutoka macho yake; na tangu hapo msafiri mzee na mchanga wanakaa pamoja katika mji wa dhahabu. Bunyan alikufa wakati ule ule alfajiri ya siku ilipochomoza Uingereza wakati Mapinduzi ya pili makuu yangeifanya taifa huru, ambamo Wabaptisti wangeweza kupumua kwa uhuru. Bw. Froude anamhusisha naye pamoja nao hivi, katika wasifu wake wa Bunyan: ‘Katika lugha ya wakati ule, alisadikishwa juu ya dhambi na kujiunga na Wabaptisti, walio kamili kabisa- [haisomeki]His blind babe died and left him in prison; with O, how many fatherly benedictions upon her sweet memory. It was meet that little, blind Mary Bunyan should enter the Celestial Gate before the hero of the 'den,' a true 'shining one,' to watch and wait for his coming. Nor did she wait long. In 1688 he went to London to reconcile an alienated father and son, and succeeded. But on the journey a violent storm overtook him, and he contracted a fatal illness which after ten days took him to Jesus, the King in his beauty and to blind Mary, when he first saw her sweet eyes blaze with light. She raised not a hand to his cheek then, as was her old wont in Bedford, for God had wiped away all tears from his eyes; and since then the old and young pilgrim have dwelt together in the golden city. Bunyan died just as the day dawned on England when the second great Revolution was to make her a free nation, in which Baptists could breathe freely. Mr. Froude couples him thus with them, in his biography of Bunyan: 'In the language of the time, he became convinced of sin and joined the Baptists, the most thorough- [illegible]
[haisomeki] ‘. . . matendo ya kutotii tunayowaruhusu katika hayo? Katika dhambi ya ubatizo wa watoto wachanga? Hatuwaruhusu kwayo, bali tukiamriwa kuvumiliana katika udhaifu wa walio dhaifu, tunaustahimili; ukiwa machoni petu kuwa hivyo, lakini machoni pao, wanasema, ni wajibu, hadi Mungu awashawishi.’ Haijalishi hapa kama Bunyan, alipokwenda na Gifford ndani ya mto Ouse, alizamishwa au la, ingawa Bw. Brown, akihukumu kwa anayoandika Bunyan, ‘ingawa mimi mwenyewe naitwa kwa jina hilo’ (‘Mwanabaptisti’), anasema, ‘Ningesema alizamishwa.’ Hata hivyo, hili ni wazi: kwamba chochote kilichofanywa kwa Bunyan katika Ouse, alikataa hapo hadharani ubatizo wake wa utotoni. Bw. Brown anatuambia (ukurasa 36) kwamba anaona jina la John Bunyan katika orodha ya ubatizo (christenings) kumi na tisa katika Kanisa la Elstow kwa namna ifuatayo: ‘1628, John mwana wa Thomas Bonnionn, Mdogo, tarehe 30 Novemba.’[illegible] '. . . acts of disobedience do we indulge them in? In the sin of infant baptism? We indulge them not, but being commanded to bear with the infirmities of the weak, suffer it; it being in our eyes such, but in theirs, they say, a duty, till God persuade them.' It matters not at this point whether, when Bunyan went with Gifford into the river Ouse, he was immersed or not, though Mr. Brown, judging by what Bunyan writes, 'though I go under that name myself' ('Anabaptist'), says, 'I should say he was immersed.' This much, however, is clear, that whatever was done to Bunyan in the Ouse, he did there publicly repudiate his own infant baptism. Mr. Brown tells us (page 36) that he finds John Bunyan's name in the list of nineteen christenings at Elstow Church in the following form: '1628, John the sonne of Thomas Bonnionn, Junr, the 30th of November.'
Lakini kwa kuwa Bunyan hangeweza kuitwa Mwanabaptisti kwa ubatizo huo wa utotoni, inafuata kwamba alipokwenda na Gifford ndani ya mto alikataa kwa makusudi ubatizo wa watoto wachanga ambao baba yake alimwekea mwaka 1628, katika kutimiza kile alichokiona kuwa ‘wajibu’ wake wa kiwazazi, kama mshiriki wa Kanisa la Uingereza. Linabaki kuonekana kama, mwaka mmoja baada ya kukataa huko, alianguka katika kile anachokiita udhaifu wa ubatizo wa watoto wachanga, na ambao alisema ulikuwa hivyo machoni pake, kwa kumpeleka binti yake mwenyewe kwenye Kanisa lilelile la Uingereza kumbatiza, kwa ‘wajibu, hadi Mungu amshawishi’ vinginevyo. Hili, bila shaka, lingemaanisha kwamba alirudisha nyuma upinzani wake dhidi ya ubatizo wake wa utotoni uliofanywa mwaka mmoja kabla, na kwa upande wake alikana ubatizo wake wa waumini, baada ya kuuchukua juu yake kwa uzito kama ‘Mwanabaptisti.’But as Bunyan could not go under the name of Anabaptist on that christening, it follows that when he went with Gifford into the river he deliberately repudiated the infant baptism which his father had imposed upon him in 1628, in the discharge of what he regarded as his parental 'duty,' as a member of the Church of England. It remains to be seen whether or not, a year after this repudiation, he fell into what he calls the weakness of infant baptism, and which he said was such in his eyes, by taking his own daughter to that same Church of England to christen her, in 'duty, till God persuaded' him otherwise. This, of course, would imply that he recalled his protest against his own infant baptism made a year earlier, and in turn repudiated his believers baptism, after he had solemnly taken it upon himself as an 'Anabaptist.'
Mwenendo huu ungeonyesha kila kitu isipokuwa kwamba hakuwa na hisia kali juu ya swali la ubatizo, kwa maana kwa dhamiri yake laini sana lazima angekuwa na hisia nzito juu ya jambo hilo, kama angeyumbayumba kwa namna hiyo. Hapana; kumbukumbu hii inaonyesha hisia za kina kabisa juu ya swali la ubatizo wa watoto wachanga na ni upinzani wake wa pili wa hadharani dhidi ya utekelezaji wake, ya kwanza ikiwa ndani yake mwenyewe kwa ubatizo wake kama muumini, ya pili katika binti yake mpendwa na rekodi yake rahisi ya kuzaliwa. Tofauti kati ya kumbukumbu hizi mbili, rekodi ya ubatizo ya Mary na rekodi ya kuzaliwa ya Elizabeth, inaonyesha kwamba kati ya miaka 1650 na 1654 mabadiliko yaliyo wazi yalikuwa yametokea katika akili ya baba yao kuhusu ubatizo wa watoto wachanga. Kama angechagua angeweza kumbatiza Elizabeth na ubatizo wake kuandikwa kwa umbo lilelile kama la Mary, lakini alichagua kutofanya hivyo; na kwa kuweka kumbukumbu kwenye kuzaliwa tu, inasema tu kwamba Elizabeth ‘alizaliwa’ tarehe 14 Aprili, 1654.This conduct would show any thing but that he had no strong feeling on the question of baptism, for with his very tender conscience he must have had terrible feelings on the subject, if he backed and filled in that way. No; this entry evinces the deepest feeling on the question of infant baptism and is his second public protest against its practice, the first being in himself by his own baptism as a believer, the second in his beloved daughter and her simple birth record. The difference between these two entries, the baptismal record of Mary and the birth record of Elizabeth, shows that between the years 1650 and 1654 a well defined change had taken place in their father's mind on the subject of christening. Had he chosen he could have had Elizabeth christened and her christening entered in the same form as that of Mary, but he chose not to do that; and limiting the record to her birth, it simply says that Elizabeth was 'borne' on the 14th day of April, 1654.
Ukweli ufuatao unamwaga mwanga mwingi juu ya rekodi hii, kwa kuwa unathibitisha kwamba mwaka 1645 Bunge liliweka uandikishaji wa kuzaliwa mikononi mwa makasisi, kwamba mwaka 1653 usajili huu uliondolewa mikononi mwao, na kwamba chini ya William na Mary ulirudishwa kwao tena, na yote haya kwa sababu nzuri kabisa. 1. Mwaka 1645 Bunge lilikuwa limepiga marufuku matumizi ya Kitabu cha Sala katika kila mahali pa ibada Uingereza na Wales, na kuweka badala yake namna ya ibada iitwayo Mwongozo (Directory). Sheria hii ilidai Vitabu vyote vya Sala vitolewe, na iliwatoza faini wote walioutumia mahali popote pa ibada, kanisa au kanisa dogo, £5 kwa kosa la kwanza, £10 kwa la pili, na kwa kosa la tatu kifungo cha mwaka mzima bila dhamana.’ Pia ilikuwa imetunga sheria kwamba, ‘Kutatolewa kwa gharama ya kila parokia au wilaya ya kanisa katika ufalme wa Uingereza na utawala wa Wales, daftari nzuri la ngozi ya ndama, litakalotunzwa na mhudumu na maafisa wa kanisa, na majina ya watoto wote waliobatizwa, na ya wazazi wao, na ya wakati wa kuzaliwa kwao na kubatizwa, yataandikwa na kuwekwa chini na mhudumu humo.’The following facts throw a flood of light upon this record, as they prove, that in 1645 Parliament put the recording of births into the hands of the clergy, that in 1653 this registration was taken out of their hands, and that under William and Mary it was restored to them again, and all this for the best of reasons. 1. In 1645 Parliament had banished the use of the Prayer-book in every place of worship in England and Wales, and had substituted a form of worship called the Directory. This law required all Prayer-books to be given up, and fined any who used one in any place of worship, church or chapel, £5 for the first offense, £10 for the second, and for the third offense one whole year's imprisonment without bail or mainprise.' It had also enacted, that 'There shall be provided at the charge of every parish or chapelry in the realm of England and dominion of Wales, a fair register book of vellum, to be kept by the minister and officers of the church, and that the names of all children baptized, and of their parents, and of the time of their birth and baptizing, shall be written and set down by the minister therein.'
Sheria hii ilitoa usajili wa kuzaliwa na wa ubatizo wote, na ilikuwa makini kutoyachanganya hayo mawili kuwa moja. 2. Hadi B.K. 1653, mwaka ambao Bunyan alijiunga na Kanisa la Gifford, Waquaker, Wabaptisti na wote waliokataa ubatizo wa watoto wachanga, walipata kila aina ya usumbufu kwa kupuuza kwenda kwa makasisi waandikaji kama ilivyodaiwa, ili watoto wao wabatizwe na kumbukumbu ya kuzaliwa na ubatizo wao iandikwe katika ‘kitabu cha ngozi’ katika kanisa la parokia, Kanisa la Uingereza. Vivyo hivyo ilikuwa kwa ndoa zao na mazishi. 3. Kwa kuwa na nia ya kuwapunguzia mzigo, si katika jambo la ubatizo tu, bali pia ndoa na mazishi, Bunge fupi la Cromwell liliondoa jambo hili lote mikononi mwa makasisi, likifanya ndoa kuwa tendo la kidunia tupu, likiondoa kuzaliwa, ndoa na mazishi kutoka kwa utii wa desturi zote za kikanisa, na kuweka utunzaji wote wa kumbukumbu za parokia mikononi mwa kidunia kwa madhumuni ya kiraia tu.This act provided for the registration of both births and baptisms, and was careful not to confound the two as one. 2. Down to A. D. 1653, the year in which Bunyan united with Gifford's Church, Quakers, Baptists and all who rejected infant baptism, were subjected to every sort of annoyance for neglecting to go to the recording clergy as thus required, to have their children christened and a record of their birth and baptism made in the 'book of vellum' at the parish church, the Church of England. The same was true also of their marriages and burials. 3. Having in view their relief, not only in the matter of baptism, but also in that of marriages and burials, Cromwell's short Parliament took this whole matter out of the hands of the clergy, making marriage a purely secular act, stripping birth, marriage and burial of subjection to all ecclesiastical usages, and put the entire keeping of the parish records into secular hands for civil purposes alone.
Bila shaka, Wabaptisti, Waquaker na raia wengine wote kama hao watiifu kwa mamlaka ya kiraia walifurahia kukombolewa kutoka kwa dharau ya kikanisa kwa njia hii, na kutii kifungu cha kiraia tu, ambacho kwa namna yoyote hakikupingana na imani zao za haki; na walitii kwa furaha sheria iliyowataka tu kuandika kuzaliwa kwa watoto wao kama wajibu kwa Serikali. 4. Ni Sheria hii ambayo Cobbet anaisema katika ‘Historia ya Bunge’ yake, chini ya tarehe 25 Agosti, 1653. Anaandika: ‘Sehemu kubwa ya mwezi huu ilitumika kujadili mswada kuhusu ndoa na usajili wake, na pia wa kuzaliwa na mazishi. Leo ulipitishwa katika baraza kwa swali hili, na uliamriwa kuchapishwa na kutangazwa. Sheria hii ya ajabu iliondoa kabisa ndoa kutoka mikononi mwa makasisi, na kuziweka mikononi mwa Mahakimu wa Amani.’Of course, Baptists, Quakers and all other such subjects loyal to the civil power were delighted to be freed from ecclesiastical contempt in this way, and to comply with a mere civil provision, which in noway conflicted with their convictions of right; and they cheerfully complied with a law which simply required them to record the birth of their children as in duty to the State. 4. It is of this Act that Cobbet speaks in his 'Parliamentary History,' under date of August 25th, 1653. He writes: 'Great part of this month had been taken up in canvassing a bill concerning marriages and the registering thereof, and also of births and burials. This day it passed the house on this question, and was ordered to be printed and published. This extraordinary Act entirely took marriages out of the hands of the clergy, and put them into those of the Justices of the Peace.'
[…][…]
Bila shaka, ilichochea hasira ya makasisi wa Dola hadi hasira kali kabisa. Waliidharau kwa kila namna ya dharau waliyoweza kubuni. Mwongozo ulipoliondoa Kitabu cha Sala katika matumizi, mamia mengi yao, wengine husema maelfu, ama waliacha vyeo vyao au walifukuzwa kwa kuidharau sheria. Ilikataza kabisa kutumia Kitabu cha Sala kwa mazishi ya wafu, kama vile katika makanisa yao. Iliagiza kwamba, ‘Mtu yeyote anapoaga dunia, mwili wa marehemu katika siku ya mazishi usindikizwe kwa heshima kutoka nyumbani hadi mahali palipowekwa kwa mazishi ya umma, kisha uzikwe bila sherehe yoyote. . . . Kwa kuwa kuomba, kusoma na kuimba, wakati wa kwenda na kaburini, kumetumiwa vibaya sana, na hakuna faida zaidi kwa wafu na kumeonekana kuwa na madhara kwa walio hai; kwa hiyo, mambo yote kama hayo yaachwe kando.’Of course, it aroused the wrath of the State clergy to the hottest indignation. They treated it with every form of contempt which they could devise. When the Directory had pushed the Prayer-book out of use, many hundreds of them, some say thousands, either resigned their livings or were ejected for setting the law at defiance. It absolutely forbade them to use the Prayer-book for the burial of the dead, as well as in their churches. It enjoined that, 'When any person departed this life, let the dead body upon the day of burial be decently attended from the house to the place appointed for public burial, and then interred without any ceremony. . . . For that praying, reading and singing, both in going to and at the grave, have been grossly abused, and are no more beneficial to the dead and have proved hurtful to the living; therefore, let all such things be laid aside.'
Hakika, hili lilikuwa yote ambayo nyama na damu ya kikasisi ya siku ile iliweza kuvumilia. Lakini sasa, kufuatilia mapinduzi hayo kwa jingine, ambalo miaka minane baadaye sio tu liliondoa ndoa kabisa mikononi mwao, bali liliwanyima haki ya kuandika kuzaliwa kulikoheshimu ndoa hizo za kidunia, ilikuwa jambo lisilovumilika kwao. Ikiwa mtu yeyote alitaka wawabatize watoto wao wachanga, sheria haikukataza kufanya hivyo, katika matumizi ya haki zao za kidini. Lakini sheria isingeruhusu ubatizo wao uingizwe katika kumbukumbu za umma kama matendo ya riba au jambo lolote la kiraia. Kisha, namna ambavyo haki zao za zamani ziliondolewa ilikuwa ya kuchochea hasira zaidi bado. Wasajili wapya walipaswa kuchaguliwa kwa kura ya wengi ya wanaparokia wao wenyewe, ambao wao walikuwa wamewatawala kwa dhuluma isiyo na dhamiri, na hivyo bila kujali dini ya mgombea au mpiga kura.Surely, this was all that the clerical flesh and blood of that day could bear. But now, to follow up that revolution with another, which eight years later not only took marriage entirely out of their hands, but denied them the right to record the births which honored those secular marriages, was unendurable to them. If any body wanted them to christen their infants, the law did not forbid their doing so, in the exercise of their religious rights. But the law would not have their christenings entered on the public records as acts of any civil interest or concern. Then, the way in which their former prerogatives were taken from them, was more exasperating still. The new Registrars were to be selected by the popular vote of their own parishioners, over whom they had so unconscionably domineered, and that without regard to the religion of either candidate or voter.
Zaidi ya hayo, kumbukumbu ya ndoa zilizoingizwa ilipaswa kuwa ya kidunia kabisa na kuthibitishwa mbele ya Hakimu wa Amani na si na kuhani. Na, mbaya zaidi ya yote, machoni pa kuhani, Sheria hii ya Agosti 25, 1653, iliwaacha wote waliokataa ushirikina wa christening huru kufurahia haki kamili za Waingereza kwa kuandika kuzaliwa kwa watoto wao, na kuwahakikishia faida zote za kisheria ambazo kumbukumbu hiyo ya kiraia ilihakikisha katika haki za mali na mahakama za haki, bila kuathiri kanuni zao kwa kujisalimisha kwa lazima kwa ubatizo wa watoto wachanga. Watoto wao sasa wangeweza kuthibitisha ukoo wao na kupata haki zote za kisiasa ambazo kumbukumbu hiyo iliwastahilisha wakati wa uhai wao, na walipokufa wangeweza kuzikwa kwa adabu katika ardhi ‘iliyotakaswa’ au isiyotakaswa bila kuuliza maagizo ya kubahatisha ya ukuhani wa majivuno.Besides, the record of the marriages entered was to be purely secular and to be attested before a Justice of the Peace and not by a priest. And, worse than all, in the eyes of the priest, this Act of August 25th, 1653, left all who rejected the superstition of christening at liberty to enjoy the full rights of Englishmen by recording the birth of their children, and of securing to them all the legal advantages which such a civil entry secured in property rights and courts of justice, without compromising their principles by a forced submission to infant baptism. Their children could now prove their lineage and derive all the political rights which such entry entitled them to while they lived, and when they died they could be buried decently in ground either 'consecrated' or unconsecrated without anyhow consulting the whimsical dictations of an arrogant priesthood.
Hali ya mambo kama hiyo ingefaa kabisa mawazo ya Bunyan juu ya uhuru. Haki kama hiyo haikuwahi kufurahiwa na Waingereza wasiokubaliana na Kanisa rasmi kabla, na Cobbet anaiita Sheria hiyo vizuri kuwa ‘ya ajabu.’ Kupitishwa kwake kulipingwa kwa ukaidi kama uvumbuzi wa kuthubutu; na anasema kwamba ilishikilia Bunge katika mjadala kwa sehemu kubwa ya mwezi mzima, ambao mjadala huo lazima uliichochea hisia za ufalme wote. Hasa Wabaptisti wote na Waquaker lazima walivutiwa, kwa kuwa iliondoa ndoa zao na mazishi kutoka mikononi mwa makasisi wakandamizaji na wa kuudhi, na kuwaacha huru kuandika ‘kuzaliwa’ kwa watoto wao na kuishia hapo, kadiri ya ubatizo (christening) ulivyohusika; hivi kwamba sasa walisimama mbele ya sheria kwa usawa na majirani zao, huru kutoka kwa marufuku yote ya kikanisa kwa sababu walikataa watoto wao kubatizwa. Kwa ngao hii ya kisheria juu ya kichwa chake, tunaweza kuelewa kwa urahisi kwa nini John Bunyan mwaminifu, aliyesema kwa uhuru katika maandishi yake dhidi ya ubatizo wa watoto wachanga, kama tutakavyoona, aliona ni wajibu wake kama raia huru wa Uingereza kutii sheria kwa kuingiza kuzaliwa kwa mtoto wake katika kumbukumbu ya umma, wakati sheria ya Kiingereza hatimaye ilipojitokeza kwa utakatifu kulinda haki za dhamiri yake huku akitimiza wajibu wake kama raia.Such a state of things would suit Bunyan's ideas of liberty exactly. Such a right had never been enjoyed by dissenting Englishmen before, and Cobbet well characterizes the Act as 'extraordinary.' Its passage was stubbornly resisted as a bold innovation; and he says that it held Parliament to discussion for a great part of the entire month, which canvassing must have stirred the feelings of the entire realm. Especially must all Baptists and Quakers have been interested, as it took their marriages and burials out of the hands of an oppressive and offensive clergy, and left them at liberty to record the 'birth' of their children and to stop there, as far as christening was concerned; so that they now stood before the law on equality with their neighbors, free from all ecclesiastical proscription because they refused to have their children baptized. With this legal shield thrown over head, we can easily understand why honest John Bunyan, who spoke so freely in his writings against infant baptism, as we shall see, felt it his duty as an English freeman to obey the law by entering the birth of his babe on the public record, when English law at last stepped forth sacredly to guard the rights of his conscience while discharging his duty as a citizen.
Hivyo kumbukumbu ya kuzaliwa kwa mtoto wake bila kumbukumbu yoyote ya ubatizo wake inasimama hadi mwisho wa wakati kwenye Daftari la parokia ya Elstow kwa nguvu ya upinzani wake wa hadharani dhidi ya ushirikina wa ubatizo wa watoto wachanga uliolazimishwa na Dola. Je, Elizabeth Bunyan alibatizwa kwa kweli? Hakika la. Bw. Brown ananukuu kumbukumbu hiyo katika Daftari la parokia ya Elstow na anakubali kwamba inathibitisha kuzaliwa kwake tu. Pia anarejelea sheria ya 1653 kwa maneno yafuatayo: ‘Pengine itaonyeshwa kwamba daftari linaandika kwamba Elizabeth Bunyan “alizaliwa” siku ya [haisomeki] ya Aprili, na halisemi lolote kuhusu ubatizo wake. Lakini itakumbukwa kwamba mwaka uliopita Sheria ya Bunge ilikuwa imepitishwa ikidai tarehe ya kuzaliwa iingizwe katika daftari badala ya ile ya ubatizo.’ [haisomeki] Tofauti inayorejelewa na Bw. Copner (ambaye kazi yake yenyewe ya thamani juu ya Bunyan imetajwa mahali pengine katika kurasa hizi) ni tu ile ya matumizi ya ‘borne’ katika asili na ‘christened’ katika nakala.Thus the entry of his child's birth without any entry of her christening stands to the end of time on the Elstow parish Register with the force of his public protest against the superstition of infant baptism enforced by the State. Then was Elizabeth Bunyan christened as matter of fact? Certainly not. Mr. Brown quotes the entry in the Elstow parish Register and concedes that it certifies only to her birth. He also refers to the law of 1653 in the following words: 'It will be pointed out, perhaps, that the register notes that Elizabeth Bunyan was 'borne' on the [illegible] day of April, and says nothing about her baptism. But it will be remembered that the previous year an Act of Parliament had been passed requiring the date of birth to be inserted in the register instead of that of baptism.' [illegible] The discrepancy referred to by Mr. Copner (whose own valuable work on Bunyan is elsewhere cited in these pages) is simply that of the use of 'borne' in the original and 'christened' in the transcript.
Vinginevyo inaonekana kwamba nyaraka zinapatana. Uchunguzi unapungua hadi swali, lipi la kuaminiwa, daftari la asili linalosema kwamba Elizabeth alizaliwa Aprili 14, 1654, au nakala inayosema kwamba alibatizwa siku hiyo? Haiwezekani kabisa kwamba alizaliwa na kubatizwa siku moja, na kwa hiyo kumbukumbu zote mbili haziwezi kuwa kweli. Akizaliwa nyumbani kwa baba yake tarehe 14 Aprili, hata kama angetaka abatizwe, hangeweza kupelekwa kwenye kanisa la parokia siku ya kuzaliwa kwake. Lakini kama alibatizwa tarehe 14 Aprili na kuzaliwa wakati mwingine, basi kumbukumbu ya asili inakuwa fujo tu. Haikuwa kamwe desturi ya Waingereza, wala hata ya Kanisa la Kirumi, kubatiza watoto siku ileile ya kuzaliwa kwao, isipokuwa ilihofiwa kwamba mtoto angekufa mara baada ya kuja ulimwenguni, na hivyo mwili wake ulinyunyiziwa ili kuokoa roho yake.Otherwise it appears that the documents correspond. The investigation reduces itself to the inquiry, which shall be believed, the original register which says that Elizabeth was born on April 14th, 1654, or the transcript which states that she was christened on that day? It is to the last degree improbable that she was both born and christened on the same day, and therefore both records cannot be true. Born in her father's house on the 14th of April, even if he had wished her christened, she could not be taken to the parish church on the day of her birth. But if she was christened on the 14th of April and born at some other time, then the original entry is made a piece of confusion. It was never the custom of the English, or even of the Romish Church, to christen children on the very day of their birth, unless it was feared that the child would die immediately after coming into the world, and so its body was sprinkled to save its soul.
Zaidi ya hayo, haidaiwi kwamba daftari hizi za nakala zilikuwa kumbukumbu huru za ukweli nje ya zile zilizomo katika asili. Nakala hizo zilikuwa nakala za kila mwaka za Daftari la Parokia zilizotumwa kwenye ngozi kwa Askofu Mkuu Msaidizi (Archdeacon) na kasisi au mchungaji wa parokia kwa kufuata kanuni za 1603. Zilitoa majina ya watu wote waliooa, kubatizwa, au kuzikwa mwaka uliopita yaliyonakiliwa kutoka kwenye Daftari, na kutumwa kila Pasaka. Hii ilikuwa kutoa nakala ya pili iwapo daftari la parokia lingepotea. Nakala hizo, kwa hiyo, zilidai daima kuwa nakala sahihi za asili na, katika tofauti, asili bila shaka zingetawala. Hivyo tunaletwa kwenye swali, lipi linastahili kuaminiwa: kumbukumbu ya umma iliyotunzwa na kutayarishwa chini ya uongozi wa sheria ya nchi, kwa taratibu zilizoamriwa, na afisa wa kiraia aliyechaguliwa ipasavyo, au taarifa isiyopatana iliyomo katika hati isiyo rasmi, bila tarehe wala sahihi, inayodai kuwa nakala ya asili na si nakala ya kweli yake?Furthermore, it is not claimed that these transcript registers were independent records of facts outside of those contained in the originals. The transcripts were annual copies of the Parish Register sent up on parchment to the Archdeacon by the vicar or rector of the parish in compliance with the canons of 1603. They gave the names of all persons married, baptized, or buried the previous year copied from the Register, and forwarded each Easter. This was to provide for the existence of a duplicate copy in case the parish register should be lost. The transcripts, therefore, always purported to be exact copies of the originals and, in case of discrepancy, the originals would of course govern. We are thus brought to the question, which is entitled to credence: a public record kept and prepared under direction of the law of the land, with prescribed formalities by a duly elected civil officer, or the inconsistent statement contained in an extra-official document, without date or signature, which purports to be a copy of the original and is not a true copy thereof?
Hapa tena kutaja tu pendekezo kunaruhusu jibu moja tu. Ni kanuni iliyozoeleka ya sheria kwamba, kwa madhumuni ya ushahidi, nakala hairuhusiwi mbele ya asili, na si rahisi kuona kwa nini Bw. Brown alete nakala inayodaiwa pamoja na asili, hasa kwa kuwa asili inasema jambo moja na kinachoitwa nakala jingine. Katika barua ya tarehe 21 Mei, 1886, anasema: ‘Nakala hii ya 1654 iko Bedford katika Nyaraka za Jimbo la Archdeacon pamoja na zile za parokia zote za Bedfordshire. Zile za Kipindi cha Jumuiya (Commonwealth) zilitumwa kwa miaka kumi yote kwa mara moja [1650-1660] baada ya Urejesho na kasisi, Christopher Hall, na ni kamili.’ Ni vigumu kufikiria kusudi lolote la kuendelea kwa desturi ya kutuma nakala ya kila mwaka wakati wa Jumuiya hiyo.Here again the mere statement of the proposition makes only one answer possible. It is a trite rule of the law that, for the purpose of evidence, a copy is not allowable in the presence of the original, and it is not easy to see why Mr. Brown should have brought in a professed copy with the original, especially as the original says one thing and the so-called copy another. In a letter dated May 21st, 1886, he says: 'This Transcript for 1654 is at Bedford in the Archives of the Archdeanery along with those from all the parishes of Bedfordshire. Those for the Commonwealth Period were sent up for the whole ten years at once [1650-1660] after the Restoration by the vicar, Christopher Hall, and are complete.' It is difficult to imagine any motive for the continuation of the custom of sending an annual transcript during the Commonwealth.
[…][…]
Kwa nini alikuwa gerezani kwa karibu miaka kumi na mitatu? Na ajibu swali hilo mwenyewe: ‘Nilishtakiwa kama mdumishaji na mtetezi wa mikutano isiyo halali na mikutano ya siri (conventicles), na kwa kutofuata Kanisa la Uingereza. Hati ya mashtaka ilitolewa dhidi yangu. Kiini chake kilikuwa kama ifuatavyo: “Kwamba John Bunyan wa mji wa Bedford, mfanyakazi, akiwa mtu wa hali kadha wa kadha, ameshajizuia (tangu wakati fulani) kwa kishetani na kwa madhara kutoka kuja kanisani kusikia ibada ya kimungu, na ni mdumishaji wa kawaida wa mikutano kadhaa isiyo halali na mikutano ya siri, kwa usumbufu mkubwa na kuvuruga raia wema wa ufalme huu, kinyume cha sheria za bwana wetu mfalme.”’ Malkia Elizabeth alikuwa amepitisha Sheria ya umwagaji damu ‘Kwa adhabu ya watu wanaokataa kuja kanisani.’ Iliweka kwamba, ‘Mtu yeyote aliye juu ya umri wa miaka kumi na sita aliyekataa kuhudhuria usomaji wa Sala ya Pamoja (Common Prayer) katika kanisa fulani, atafungwa kwanza, kisha kama atakataa kutia sahihi tamko la kufuata ndani ya miezi mitatu atafukuzwa nchini, na kama atarudi Uingereza atapata kifo bila kusamehewa kwa sababu ya cheo cha kikasisi.’Why had he been in prison for nearly thirteen years? Let him answer that question himself: 'I was indicted for an upholder and maintainer of unlawful assemblies and conventicles, and for not conforming to the Church of England. There was a bill of indictment preferred against me. The extent thereof was as followeth: "That John Bunyan of the town of Bedford, laborer, being a person of such and such conditions, he hath (since such a time) devilishly and perniciously abstained from coming to church to hear divine service, and is a common upholder of several unlawful meetings and conventicles, to the great disturbance and distraction of the good subjects of this kingdom, contrary to the laws of our sovereign lord the king."' Queen Elizabeth had passed a sanguinary Act 'For the punishment of persons refusing to come to church.' It provided, that 'Any person above sixteen years of age who refused to attend the reading of Common prayer in some church, should be first imprisoned, then if he refused to sign a declaration of conformity within three months he should be banished, and if he returned to England he should suffer death without benefit of clergy.'
Ilikuwa chini ya Sheria hii ya kikatili ambapo Bunyan alishtakiwa kwa ‘kujizuia kwa kishetani kuja kanisani.’ Zaidi ya hayo, muda mfupi baada ya kuwekwa gerezani, Sheria ya Kufuata (Act of Conformity, 1662) ilifanya Kitabu cha Sala kuwa kipimo cha kitaifa cha imani, kikitekelezwa na sheria za adhabu za tawala zote zilizotangulia. Lakini kwa nini alikaa mbali na kanisa, baada ya kutuambia kwamba alipokuwa mvulana karibu aliabudu mchungaji na mavazi yake na Kitabu cha Sala, akivitazama vyote kwa hofu takatifu kuu? Kwa sababu alikuwa amesadikishwa kwamba makasisi walikuwa wameharibika na sasa aliwatazama kwa dharau kuu. Katika ‘Justification by Faith’ (Kuhesabiwa Haki kwa Imani) yake, iliyotiwa sahihi ‘John Bunyan, Kutoka Gerezani, tarehe 27 ya mwezi wa 12, [haisomeki],’ anamwambia Fowler, kasisi wa Kanisa la Uingereza, aliyemtukana: ‘Unayosema kuhusu “maoni ya mashaka, njia zinazoweza kubadilishwa, desturi, na mazingira katika dini” (uk. 230), sijui mtu yeyote aliyeoana nayo kama ninyi wenyewe, hata kundi lote la makasisi wenu bandia wa kishabiki; ambao kwa ujumla, kama yule nyani unayemtaja, hulala wakipuliza makofi na utukufu wa mapambo yenu ya bure.’It was under this brutal Act that Bunyan was charged with 'devilishly abstaining from coming to church.' Besides, shortly after he was put in prison, the Act of Conformity (1662) made the Prayer-book the national standard of faith, enforced by the penal laws of all preceding reigns. But why did he stay away from church, after telling us that when a boy he almost worshiped the parson and his vestments and the Prayer-book, looking upon them all with the most holy awe? Because he had become convinced that the clergy were corrupt and he now looked upon them with supreme contempt. In his 'Justification by Faith,' signed 'John Bunyan, From Prison, the 27th of the 12th month, [illegible],' he says to Fowler, a clergyman of the Church of England, who had vilified him: 'What you say about "doubtful opinion, alterable modes, rites, and circumstances in religion" (p. 230), I know none so wedded thereto as yourselves, even the whole gang of your rabbling counterfeit clergy; who generally, like the ape you speak of, lie blowing up the applause and glory of your trumpery.'
Hata hivyo, sasa tunaombwa kuamini kwamba ndani ya mwaka mmoja wa kuandika shambulio hili dhidi ya makasisi, alikwenda kwa ‘kundi hili bandia la kishabiki’ ili mtoto wake mchanga abatizwe! Na kwa nini hangesikiliza Kitabu cha Sala? ‘Si taasisi ya Mungu,’ alisema. Dharau yake kwa Kitabu cha Sala ilikuwa chini ya mateso yake yote. Hakimu Keeling, kwa hasira kubwa, kwenye kesi yake, alipouliza kwa nini alikaa mbali na kanisa, alijibu kwa utulivu: ‘Neno la Mungu halinipi amri ya kuomba kwa Kitabu cha Sala cha Pamoja.’ Keeling alimwambia kwa ujuzi kwamba kitabu hiki kilishuka kutoka kwa Mitume! Hili, ‘mfanyakazi’ huyu wa Bedford alithubutu kulitilia shaka, akisema: ‘Nionyeshe mahali katika Nyaraka ambapo Kitabu cha Sala cha Pamoja kimeandikwa, au andiko moja la Maandiko linaloniamuru kukisoma nami nitakisoma.’Yet, now we are asked to believe that within a year of writing this blast against the clergy, he went to this 'counterfeit, rabbling gang' to get his baby christened! And why would he not listen to the Prayer-book? 'It is none of God's institution,' he said. His contempt for the Prayer-book lay at the bottom of all his sufferings. When Judge Keeling, in a towering passion, at his trial, asked why he stayed away from church, he calmly answered: 'The word of God does not command me to pray by the Common Prayer-book.' Keeling learnedly told him that this book had come down from the Apostles! This, the Bedford 'laborer' ventured to doubt, saying: 'Show me the place in the Epistles where the Common Prayer-book is written, or one text in Scripture that commands me to read it and I will read it.'
[…][…]
Maneno haya yalichapishwa kwanza mwaka 1678, miaka sita baada ya ubatizo huu unaodaiwa wa Joseph. Lakini mwaka 1673, mwaka mmoja tu baada ya ubatizo huu unaodaiwa, Kiffin, ambaye tayari ananukuliwa kwa sehemu, alipomwuliza kwa nini aliwaruhusu ‘Wabaptisti’ (yaani, washiriki wa Kanisa la Bedford) ‘katika matendo mengi ya kutotii? Kwa kuwa kuingia kanisani bila kujiandaa ni tendo la kutotii; kuja kwenye Meza ya Bwana bila kujiandaa ni tendo la kutotii.’ Bunyan alikasirikia shtaka hilo kwa ari kubwa, akidai: ‘Lakini ni matendo gani ya kutotii tunayowaruhusu katika hayo? Katika dhambi ya ubatizo wa watoto wachanga? Hatuwaruhusu kwayo; bali tukiamriwa kuvumiliana katika udhaifu wa kila mmoja, tunaustahimili; ukiwa kweli machoni petu hivyo; lakini machoni pao wanasema ni wajibu, hadi Mungu atakapowashawishi vinginevyo.’These words were first published in 1678, six years after this alleged christening of Joseph. But in 1673, only one year after this alleged christening, when Kiffin, already quoted in part, asked him why he indulged 'the Baptists' (that is, the members of the Bedford Church) 'in many acts of disobedience? For to come unprepared into the church is an act of disobedience; to come unprepared to the Supper is an act of disobedience.' Bunyan resented the charge with great spirit, demanding: 'But what acts of disobedience do we indulge them in? In the sin of infant baptism? We indulge them not; but being commanded to bear with the infirmities of each other, suffer it; it being indeed in our eyes such; but in theirs they say a duty, till God shall otherwise persuade them.'
Katika ukurasa huohuo anasema kwamba hawezi ‘kusisitiza ubatizo kwa mtazamo wetu, kwa wale wasioweza kuubeba.’ Hapa, kwa kusema kidogo, anauona ubatizo wa watoto wachanga kama udhaifu wa wale walioufanya, ambao angeweza ‘kuustahimili’ ‘hadi Mungu atakapowashawishi vinginevyo.’ Kama Bunyan hakuwa na mashaka kama hayo juu ya ubatizo wa watoto wachanga kama yanavyotajwa hapa, kama alikuwa na mtoto aliyezaliwa kwake mwaka 1672 na alitaka abatizwe, angeweza kufanya hivyo mwenyewe kama mchungaji wa Kanisa la Bedford, au mhudumu yeyote wa madhehebu ya wasiokubaliana na Kanisa rasmi anayebatiza watoto wachanga nchini Uingereza angefanya hivyo kwa furaha kwa ajili yake. Lakini upuuzi mkuu wa kumpeleka kwenye Kanisa la Taifa kufanya hivyo, unabeba ukinzani wake usoni. Lazima angefanya nini katika kisa kama hicho kama jambo la kawaida tu ili kukidhi madai ya Maelekezo (Rubric) yenyewe? Hili hakika lilihitaji: ‘Kwa kila mtoto wa kiume atakayebatizwa kutakuwa na baba wawili wa ubatizo na mama mmoja wa ubatizo. . . .’On the same page he says, that he cannot 'press baptism in our notion, on those that cannot bear it.' Here, to say the least, he regards infant baptism as the infirmity of those who practiced it, which he could 'suffer' 'till God shall otherwise persuade them.' If Bunyan had had no such scruples on infant baptism as are here stated, if he had a babe born to him in 1672 and he desired him christened, he could have done this himself as pastor of the Bedford Church, or any Pedobaptist dissenting minister in England would have cheerfully done it for him. But the supreme absurdity of sending him off to the National Church to have this done, bears its contradiction on its face. What must he have done in such a case purely as a matter-of-fact in order to meet the demands of the Rubric itself? This certainly it required: 'There shall be for every male-child to be baptized two godfathers and one godmother. . . .'
[…][…]
[haisomeki] Wanawake hawa walikuwa wameunganika kwa dhamiri na Makanisa mengine, na kwa kutofautiana na waume wao katika mitazamo yao ya kidini, walihisi ni wajibu juu yao, kama mama, kufanya kile walichokiona kuwa wajibu wa kidini. Zaidi ya hayo, wahudumu ambao walichukua watoto wao kwao waliwatendea kwa upole, na kaya zao. Lakini kama Elizabeth Bunyan alikuwa Mbaptisti au la, haikuwezekana kwamba angekwenda kwa wanyanyasaji wa waziwazi wa mumewe, ambao walikuwa wameleta huzuni zake zote juu ya kichwa chake na kumtendea mumewe kama mnyama na kuacha watoto wake wafe njaa, kutafuta baraka yao kwa mtoto ambaye walimdharau kwa sababu ya baba yake; kweli, hakuwa mwanamke wa aina hiyo. Alimpenda mumewe mno kumhatarisha kwa njia hiyo. Zaidi ya hayo, kama Joseph aliyebatizwa alikuwa mwanawe, naye alimbatiza kwa siri, kwa imani ya dhamiri, kwa nini hakuwa thabiti na nafsi yake kwa kufanya vivyo hivyo kwa binti yake, Sarah, na kuweka ubatizo wake kwenye rekodi hiyohiyo, kama Sarah alizaliwa katika parokia hiyohiyo?[illegible] These women were conscientiously connected with other Churches, and differing with their husbands in their religious views, they felt it incumbent on them, as mothers, to do what they esteemed a religious duty. Besides, the ministers to whom they took their children treated them and their households kindly. But whether Elizabeth Bunyan were a Baptist or not, she was not likely to go to her husband's open persecutors, who had brought all her sorrows upon her head and had treated her husband like a brute and had left her children to starve, to seek their blessing upon a child whom they despised for his father's sake; indeed, she was not a woman of that stamp. She loved her husband too dearly to compromise him in that way. Besides, if the Joseph who was christened was her son, and she had him christened by stealth, on religious conviction, why was she not consistent with herself in doing the same for her daughter, Sarah, and in putting her christening on the same record, if Sarah was born in the same parish?
Alipokuwa karibu kumwabudu mumewe, naye kwa upande wake alikuwa karibu kumwabudu. Alimwamini na mtazamo wake juu ya Kanisa la Uingereza. Alimtetea mbele ya benchi ya mahakimu na alikwenda London kuomba uhuru wake kupitia Lord Barkwood na Baraza la Mabwana. Na Sir Matthew Hale alipomhurumia, na kuuliza kuhusu kazi ya mumewe, kwaya ya mahakimu wengine walipaza sauti: ‘Mfua bati, bwana wangu!’ ‘Ndiyo,’ alisema mwanamke yule maskini asiye na woga, ‘na kwa sababu ni mfua bati na maskini kwa hiyo anadharauliwa na hawezi kupata haki.’ Mmoja wa mahakimu alijibu kwa hasira kali: ‘Bwana wangu, atahubiri na kufanya apendavyo.’ Mke wake mtukufu alijibu: ‘Hahubiri kitu ila neno la Mungu.’ Hakimu mwenye hasira alipaza sauti: ‘Mafundisho yake ni mafundisho ya shetani!’ ‘Bwana wangu,’ Elizabeth wa kweli alijibu, ‘Hakimu mwenye haki atakapotokea, itajulikana kwamba mafundisho yake si mafundisho ya shetani!’While she almost idolized her husband, he, in turn, almost idolized her. She believed in him and in his view of the Church of England. She pleaded for him before the bench of judges and went to London to pray for his liberty through Lord Barkwood and the House of Lords. And when Sir Matthew Hale pitied her, and asked of her husband's calling, a chorus of the other judges cried out: 'A tinker, my lord!' 'Yes,' said the poor and dauntless woman, 'and because he is a tinker and a poor man therefore he is despised and cannot have justice.' One of the judges responded in great anger: 'My lord, he will preach and do what he lists.' His noble wife replied: 'He preacheth nothing but the word of God.' The angry judge cried out: 'His doctrine is the doctrine of the devil!' 'My lord,' the true Elizabeth replied, 'when the righteous Judge shall appear, it will be known that his doctrine is not the doctrine of the devil!'
Mwanamke wa chuma kama hicho, je, angemvusha kisirisiri mwana wa mumewe ndani ya Kanisa la Dola kinyume cha mahubiri yote ya baba yake, maandishi na mateso? Je, angeweza kuchezea kanuni zake za kidini na ukandamizaji wake mwenyewe kwa kuongezea? Mafundisho ya Bunyan kwake yalikuwa kwamba mke lazima amtazame mumewe ‘kama kichwa chake na bwana wake. Kichwa cha mwanamke ni mwanamume. . . . Ni jambo lisilofaa hata mara moja katika maisha yake yote kujaribu kumpita mumewe; anapaswa katika kila jambo kuwa chini yake, na kufanya yote afanyayo, akiwa na kibali chake, ruhusa na mamlaka kutoka kwake. . . . Mke ni bwana wa pili baada ya mumewe, na kutawala yote asipokuwepo; naam, hata mbele yake anapaswa kuongoza nyumba, kulea watoto; mradi, afanye hivyo ili adui asiwe na nafasi ya kusema kwa dharau. . . .Made of that sort of metal, would she yet smuggle her husband's son into the State Church against all his father's preaching, writing and suffering? Could she thus trifle with his religious principles and with her own oppressions in the bargain? Bunyan's teaching to her was that the wife must look upon her husband 'as her head and lord. The head of the woman is the man. . . . It is an unseemly thing so much as once in all her life-time to offer to overstep her husband; she ought in every thing to be in subjection to him, and to do all that she doeth, as having her warrant, license and authority from him. . . . The wife is master next her husband, and is to rule all in his absence; yea, in his presence she is to guide the house, to bring up the children; provided, she so do it as the adversary have no occasion to speak reproachfully. . . .
Kwa hiyo, tenda na fanya daima; kama aliye chini ya mamlaka ya mume.’ Ukweli ni, kulingana na mwandishi wake wa wasifu wa 1700: ‘Katika familia yake alidumisha nidhamu kali sana, katika sala na maonyo.’ Kwa hiyo, hakuna uwezekano hata kidogo kwamba Elizabeth alimpeleka mtoto wake kwa St. Cuthbert kubatizwa, wala dokezo kwamba alifanya hivyo si kwa heshima ya jina lake kabisa.Therefore, act and do still; as being under the power of the husband.' The fact is, according to his biographer of 1700: 'In his family he kept up a very strict discipline, in prayer and exhortations.' Hence, there is not the slightest probability that Elizabeth took her child to St. Cuthbert's to be christened, nor is the intimation that she did at all to the honor of her name.
[…][…]
Kuhusu mkataba wa kukodisha uliotolewa na Shirika la Bedford kwa John Bunyan Mdogo, mwaka 1705, ni afadhali usitajwe katika jaribio la uaminifu la kubaini mahali alipoishi mwaka 1672, miaka kumi na saba kabla ya mkataba huo kutolewa. Tukizingatia kila kitu kinachohusiana na kaya yake maalum na ya kibinafsi, tunao tu mfululizo huu wa mazingira: Alirithisha nyumba yake katika parokia ya St. Cuthbert kwa mjukuu wake wa kike mwaka 1728, ambamo nyumba hiyo baba yake alikuwa ameishi tangu 1681 hadi 1688; inalingana zaidi na mpangilio wa asili wa mambo kudhani kwamba lilikuwa jina lake ndilo lililoonekana kwenye Orodha ya Kodi ya parokia hiyo kuanzia 1670 hadi 1674, badala ya jina la baba yake aliyekuwa gerezani hadi 1672. Na, tukizingatia mambo yote upande wa Bunyan Mkubwa, kifungo chake kuanzia 1661 hadi 1671, umaskini wake mkubwa miaka hiyo, utegemezi wa sehemu wa familia yake kwa marafiki kwa mkate wao, na kutokuwepo kabisa kwa ushahidi wa mahali walipoishi alipokuwa gerezani; dhana zote zenye busara zinaelekeza kwenye dhana kwamba Joseph wa daftari la ubatizo la 1672 alikuwa mwana wa John Bunyan Mdogo na mjukuu wa John Bunyan Mkubwa. Jina katika kumbukumbu bado ni ‘John,’ lakini ni lazima ithibitishwe kwamba John huyo ndiye aliyehusika na uumbaji wake, kabla ya watu wa busara kushawishika kwamba ni kumbukumbu ya Kufuata kwake kile alichokiita chombo ‘cha Kinyume-Kristo.’As to the lease given by the Corporation of Bedford to John Bunyan, Jr., in 1705, that had better not be mentioned in an honest attempt to determine where he lived in 1672, seventeen years before the lease was given. Taking every thing into the account connected with his special and personal household, we have simply this chain of circumstances: He bequeathed his house in St. Cuthbert's parish to his granddaughter in 1728, in which house his father had lived from 1681 to 1688; it is more in keeping with the natural order of things to infer that it was his name which appeared on the Tax-list of that parish from 1670 to 1674, rather than the name of his father who was in prison till 1672. And, taking all things into consideration on the Senior Bunyan's side of the house, his imprisonment from 1661 to 1671, his abject poverty during those years, the partial dependence of his family on friends for their bread, and the absolute absence of proof as to where they lived while he was in prison; all reasonable conjecture points to the supposition that the Joseph of the baptismal register of 1672 was the son of John Bunyan, Jr. and the grandson of John Bunyan, Sr. The name in the record still stands 'John,' but it must be proven that the John was responsible for its creation, before men of sound judgment can be convinced that it is the record of his Conformity to what he branded as an 'Anti-Christian' body.
4. Roger Williams na Uhuru wa Dhamiri huko Rhode Island4. Roger Williams and Soul Liberty in Rhode Island
Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Sura ya III, “Kuanzishwa kwa Rhode Island” (takriban uk. 641–658). Imefupishwa; sehemu zilizoachwa zimewekwa alama […]. Maandishi ya Kiingereza yametoka kwa OCR isiyolinganishwa na nakala nyingine; mgawanyo wa aya umewekwa na CTS. Tafsiri za mambo ni za mwandishi.Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Chapter III, “Settlement of Rhode Island” (about pp. 641–658). Abridged; omissions marked […]. English text from uncollated OCR; paragraph divisions supplied by CTS. The interpretations are the author’s.
Dokezo la CTS: Roger Williams (takriban 1603–1683) alianzisha Providence mwaka 1636 baada ya kufukuzwa kutoka Massachusetts Bay. Mwaka 1639 alisaidia kuunda kanisa la kwanza la Kibaptisti Amerika, lakini ndani ya miezi michache aliliacha na akaishi maisha yake yote yaliyobaki kama “Mtafutaji” (Seeker). Picha ya kupendeza ya Armitage inakubaliwa na wengi, ingawa wanahistoria huongeza kwamba kufukuzwa huko kulihusisha pia mabishano juu ya hati ya koloni na hati miliki za ardhi ya Wahindi, na kwamba Rhode Island haikuishi kila wakati kulingana na kanuni zake. Kifungu kinachowatenga Wakatoliki wa Kirumi, ambacho Armitage anakichukulia kama kiingizo cha baadaye, kilionekana katika makusanyo ya sheria ya karne ya kumi na nane na kilifutwa mwaka 1783; ni lini kiliongezwa mara ya kwanza bado kinajadiliwa. “Njama ya Kipapa” (Popish Plot) ya mwaka 1678 ilidaiwa dhidi ya Charles II, si William III kama maandishi yanavyosema. Maelezo yake kuhusu Wenyeji wa Amerika yanatumia lugha ya siku zake. Vifungu kuhusu mabaki ya Williams, nukuu ndefu kuhusu maandishi yake, kisa cha unyanyasaji wa nyumbani na kesi ya uraia wa mwaka 1762 vimeachwa.CTS note: Roger Williams (about 1603–1683) founded Providence in 1636 after his banishment from Massachusetts Bay. In 1639 he helped form the first Baptist church in America, but within months he left it and lived the rest of his life as a “Seeker.” Armitage’s admiring portrait is widely shared, though historians add that the banishment also involved disputes over the colony’s charter and Indian land titles, and that Rhode Island did not always live up to its principles. The clause excluding Roman Catholics, which Armitage treats as a later interpolation, appeared in the eighteenth-century law collections and was repealed in 1783; when it was first added is still discussed. The “Popish Plot” of 1678 was alleged against Charles II, not William III as the text says. His descriptions of Native Americans use the language of his day. Passages on Williams’s remains, a long quotation about his writings, a case of domestic violence and the naturalization case of 1762 have been omitted.
Sura ya III. Kuanzishwa kwa Rhode IslandChapter III. Settlement of Rhode Island
Salem ilijaa msisimko na huzuni Williams alipofukuzwa, na iliuliza mchungaji wao mwema alikuwa amefanya nini kustahili ukatili huu kutoka kwa wanafunzi wenzake katika Kristo. John Cotton, aliyekaa vizuri nyumbani kwake Boston, alizungumza kwa ukali juu ya uhamisho wa Williams kuwa chochote isipokuwa ‘kufukuzwa.’ Katika majira hayo ya baridi kali ya New England, ndugu yake alipozama ndani ya vilindi vya misitu, alisema juu yake kama ‘nchi’ kubwa na yenye rutuba, ‘ambamo alifurahia upanuzi mwingi.’ Lakini Cotton alikuwa mwangalifu kutovunja amri kwa kutamani ‘upanuzi’ huo kwa ajili yake mwenyewe, wala hakuvutiwa sana na matunda matamu ya nyika hata afuate ndugu yake, kufurahi pamoja naye katika dhiki yake. Kweli, anauliza kama ilikuwa ‘adhabu hata kidogo,’ na mtu angepata taswira kutokana na maelezo yake kwamba Mahakama ilikuwa imemtuma tu katika matembezi ya mapumziko, ikiacha kabisa wajibu wake wa kuadhibu uhalifu.Salem was filled with excitement and grief when Williams was banished, and asked what its good pastor had done to merit this cruelty at the hands of his fellow-disciples in Christ? John Cotton, snugly housed in his Boston home, severely descanted on Williams's exile as any thing but 'banishment.' In that dreary New England winter, as his brother plunged into the depths of the forests, he spoke of it as a large and fruitful 'land, in which he enjoyed ample enlargement.' But Cotton was careful not to break the command by coveting that 'enlargement' for himself, nor did he so hanker after the delicious fruits of the wilderness as to follow his brother, to rejoice with him in his tribulation. Indeed, he queries whether it was 'a punishment at all,' and one would rather catch the impression from his showing, that the Court had simply sent him on a restful excursion, in absolute dereliction of its duty to punish crime.
Shujaa huyu mashuhuri mwenyewe alifikiri kwamba Cotton angeweza kuliona jambo hilo kwa mtazamo mwingine, ‘kama roho yake ingekuwa katika hali ya roho yangu, iliyo wazi kwa taabu, umaskini, mahitaji, madeni na mateso,’ aliyovumilia. Watu dhaifu wa Salem pia walilia kana kwamba mioyo yao ingevunjika, kwa kuwa alifukuzwa wasikojua, ‘kwa maana walivutiwa sana na hisia ya utauwa wake.’ Neal anasema kwamba mji wote ulikuwa katika ghasia, kwamba walipaza ‘kilio cha mateso,’ na ‘kwamba angewachukua wakazi wengi wa mji, kama wahudumu wa Boston hawangeingilia kati.’ Hawa waliliadhibu Kanisa la Salem kwa kumhurumia mtu aliyefukuzwa nje ya ustaarabu kama mhalifu. Upham, mwanahistoria makini wa Kanisa la Salem, anasema: ‘Walishikamana naye kwa muda mrefu na kwa uaminifu, na kumkinga dhidi ya mashambulizi yote.The illustrious hero himself thought that Cotton might have seen the matter in another light, 'had his soul been in my soul's case, exposed to the miseries, poverties, necessities, debts and hardships,' which he endured. The weak people of Salem also wept as if their hearts would break, that he was driven they knew not where, 'for they were much taken with the apprehension of his godliness.' Neal says, that the whole town was in an uproar, that they raised the 'cry of persecution,' and 'that he would have carried off the greater part of the inhabitants of the town, if the ministers of Boston had not interfered.' These admonished the Church at Salem for sympathizing with one who had been driven out of civilization as a felon. Upham, the careful historian of the Salem Church, says: 'They adhered to him long and faithfully, and sheltered him from all assaults.
Na hatimaye alipohukumiwa na Mahakama Kuu kufukuzwa kutoka koloni kwa sababu ya kanuni zake, hatuwezi ila kustaajabia uaminifu wa urafiki ule uliowasukuma wengi wa kusanyiko lake kuandamana naye uhamishoni, na kushiriki hatima yake alipokuwa mkimbizi duniani.’ Shukrani kwa Salem, hasara yake ilikuwa faida ya ulimwengu. Siku ile, kutoka kwa dhaifu ilitoka nguvu, na kutoka kwa chungu ilitoka utamu. Mji mwema wa zamani wa Wapuritani wa uchawi na kamba za kunyongea, kutoka kwako, kama kutoka [haisomeki] ya zamani, alitoka mhamishwa mashuhuri: wa kwanza kukomboa roho za watu, na yule mwingine kuwapa milioni hamsini kati yao uhuru wa dhamiri. Watu walikusudia maovu tu katika visa vyote viwili, lakini Mungu alibadilisha makusudi yao kuwa mema. Jicho lake lilimtazama mzururaji huyu katika Ulimwengu Mpya, na sauti yake ilimwambia nini cha kufanya na wapi pa kwenda.And when at last he was sentenced by the General Court to banishment from the colony on account of his principles, we cannot but admire the fidelity of that friendship which prompted many of his congregation to accompany him in his exile, and partake of his fortunes when an outcast upon the earth.' Thanks to Salem, its loss was the world's gain. That day, out of the weak came forth strength, and out of the bitter came forth sweetness. Good old Puritan city of witchcraft and halters, out of thee, as from [illegible] of old, went forth an illustrious exile: the first to redeem the souls of men, and the other to give fifty millions of them soul liberty. Men intended only evil in both cases, but God overruled their aims for good. His eye rested on this wanderer in the New World, and his voice told him what to do and where to go.
Sasa tunamfuata Roger Williams kwenye maeneo hayo ya porini ya asili ambapo mbwa-mwitu, dubu na chui walizurura kwa ulafi wao wote. Taabu zisizokoma zilikuwa zimewapa makabila ya porini ya eneo hilo miili iliyoshikamana na yenye nguvu, iliyoweza kuishi siku nyingi kwa konzi ya mahindi. Mbali na hayo, kwa samaki na wanyama wao wa kuwinda, walikuwa na chakula kidogo katika kina cha majira ya baridi, wasijue chochote kuhusu nyama za chumvi, na mara nyingi walibanwa vibaya na njaa. Kadiri inavyoonekana, Williams aliingia jangwani bila silaha, upinde au mshale, mkuki au rungu, shoka au bunduki, ya kuwinda ndege au mnyama, na kila mzizi wa kuliwa ulikuwa umeganda ardhini na kuzikwa chini ya theluji. Majira hayo ya baridi yalikuwa makali sana na alihisi ukali wake mkubwa. Inaonekana ulikaa akilini mwake mwaka 1652, alipotoa kitabu chake ‘Hireling Ministry’ kwa Charles II., katika waraka ambao ndani yake anaiita New England ‘jangwa duni, baridi, lenye kelele za kulia.’ Bila mkate wala kitanda kwa majuma kumi na manne, na akiwa mzungu wa kwanza kuwahi kuzunguka katika mizunguko hiyo ya nyika, alijiona ametunzwa na Mungu kwa muujiza kama Eliya, na aliimba wimbo huu katika safari yake ya upweke:We now follow Roger Williams into those wild tracts of nature where the wolf, the bear and the panther roamed in all their voracity. Perpetual hardships had given the wild tribes of that region compact and well-knit bodies, which could subsist for days on a handful of corn. Aside from this, with their fish and game, they had little food in the depth of winter, knowing nothing of salted meats, and often they were sorely pinched with hunger. So far as appears, Williams entered the desert without a weapon, bow or arrow, spear or club, hatchet or gun, to hunt for bird or beast, and every esculent root was frozen in the ground and buried in the snow. That winter was signally bitter and he felt its keen severity. It seems to have haunted his mind in 1652, when he dedicated his 'Hireling Ministry' to Charles II., in the epistle to which, he calls New England a 'miserable, cold, howling wilderness.' Without bread or bed for fourteen weeks, and the first white man who had ever wandered in those mazes, he regarded himself cared for of God as miraculously as was Elijah, and he sang this song in his desolate pilgrimage:
‘Majaliwa ya Mungu ni tajiri kwa walio wake, / Asiwepo mtu wa kutoamini; / Nyikani, katika dhiki kuu, / Kunguru hawa wamenilisha.’'God's Providence is rich to his, / Let none distrustful be; / In wilderness, in great distress, / These ravens have fed me.'
Washenzi wenye ngozi ya shaba ambao kupitia nchi zao alipita walikuwa na ushirikina, wakali na mara nyingi wasioaminika. Hangekuwa salama kwa saa moja, kama matendo yake mema kwao hayangekuwa yamepigiwa kelele katika makabila yao. Alipokuwa Plymouth alikuwa ametoka kati yao, alikuwa ametembelea vibanda vyao, kujifunza lugha yao, kuwahubiria habari njema ya ufalme; na sasa upendo wake ulitawala hali ya porini mioyoni mwao wakati hakuwa na nguvu juu ya dhoruba kali za majira ya baridi. Aliwajua wakuu wao au sachems, na alipofika kwenye makazi yao kwenye Ghuba ya Narragansett, mateso yake yaliugusa moyo wa kishenzi. Walikumbuka wema wake wa awali, wakamkaribisha kwa ukarimu wa Kihindi, na Massasoit alimchukua kwenye kibanda chake kama ndugu. Hapa alinunua kipande cha ardhi, akasimika hema lake, na kwa kuanza kwa majira ya kuchipua alianza kupanda na kujenga kwenye ukingo wa mashariki wa Mto Seekonk.The bronzed barbarians through whose lands he passed were superstitious, ferocious and often treacherous. He would not have been safe for an hour, had not his kind acts toward them been noised through their tribes. While at Plymouth he had gone forth amongst them, had visited their wigwams, learned their language, preached to them the good news of the kingdom; and now his love governed the wild element in their bosoms when he had no power over fierce winter storms. He knew their chiefs or sachems, and on reaching their settlements on Narragansett Bay, his sufferings touched the savage heart. They remembered his former kindness, welcomed him to Indian hospitality, and Massasoit took him to his cabin as he would a brother. Here he bought a tract of land, pitched his tent, and with the opening spring began to plant and build on the east bank of the Seekonk River.
Hata hivyo, mara moja alipokea barua ya kirafiki kutoka kwa Winslow, Gavana wa Plymouth, ikimshauri avuke mto na kusonga mbele zaidi nyikani, kwa kuwa alikuwa karibu sana na mpaka wa koloni hilo. Akitafuta na kufuata amani, yeye na wenzake walichukua mtumbwi, wakaingia mtoni na kufanya njia yao hadi kwenye ghuba ndogo karibu na India Point, ambapo kundi la Wahindi liliwasalimu kwa salamu ya kirafiki waliyokuwa wameichukua kutoka kwa Waingereza: ‘What cheer?’ Huko walikaa kwa muda, lakini waliendelea kuzunguka Point hadi mdomo wa Mto Moshassuck, ambapo chemchemi tamu ya maji iliwaalika kutua. Wakitafuta mahali pa kupumzika katika msitu mnene, ambapo wanyama wakali na washenzi waliwazunguka mbali na ndugu zao Wakristo, na ambapo walikuwa mbali vya kutosha na Wakristo wanaoteswa ili Ukristo upate nafasi ya haki, walisimama juu ya ardhi takatifu.Immediately, however, he received a friendly letter from Winslow, Governor of Plymouth, advising him to cross the river and push farther into the wilderness, as he was too near the boundary line of that colony. Seeking and pursuing peace, he and his companions took a canoe, shot into the stream and made their way down to a little cove near India Point, when a company of Indians hailed them with a friendly salutation which they had caught from the English: 'What cheer?' There they tarried for a time, but kept on round the Point to the mouth of the Moshassuck River, where a delicious spring of water invited them to land. Casting around for a resting-place in the dense forest, where wild beasts and savages hemmed them in from their Christian brethren, and where they were far enough from persecuting Christians to give Christianity fair play, they stood on holy ground.
Chini ya anga angavu la Juni, wakiwa na udongo uliowazunguka usiochafuliwa na mguu wa dhuluma na chemchemi bikira ikicheka miguuni mwao, kwa mara ya kwanza maishani ‘vifua vyao vilijaa uhuru kuabudu Mungu.’ Huko alisema juu ya ndugu zake wakali: ‘Nilikuwa na nchi mbele yangu, na ningeweza kuwa huru kama wao, na tungekuwa majirani wapendanao pamoja.’ Alijenga madhabahu huko, na akaliita jina la mahali pale Providence; kwa maana alisema, ‘Mungu amenihurumia katika dhiki yangu.’ Huko alinunua ardhi kutoka kwa Wahindi kwa ajili ya mashamba ya Providence, na mnamo Juni, 1636, aliweka jiwe la msingi la mji na Jimbo lenye uhuru zaidi duniani; jamhuri ya uhuru wa kweli, ukumbusho wa kudumu wa Kidole kisichoonekana kilichoonyesha mahali hapo patakatifu. Hadi leo mkondo huo bikira unabaki bila kuchanganywa na chozi lililotolewa jichoni na ukatili wa Kikristo, wala udhalimu wa kidini haujalazimisha tone la damu kutoka kwenye mishipa ya wateule wa Mungu hapo.Under a bright June sky, with a soil around them which was unpolluted by the foot of oppression and a virgin fountain laughing at their feet, for the first time in life 'their bosoms swelled full free to worship God.' There he said of his harsh brethren: 'I had the country before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should be loving neighbors together.' He built an altar there, and called the name of that place Providence; for he said, 'God has been merciful to me in my distress.' There he bought land of the Indians for the Providence plantations, and in June, 1636, laid the foundation-stone of the freest city and State on earth; a republic of true liberty, a perpetual memorial to the unseen Finger that pointed out the hallowed spot. To this day that virgin stream remains unmingled with a tear drawn from the eye by Christian cruelty, nor has religious despotism yet forced a drop of blood there from the veins of God's elect.
Jambo la kwanza lililomhusu mwanzilishi huyu mashuhuri lilikuwa kwamba makao haya mapya yawe kimbilio ‘kwa watu wanaosumbuliwa kwa ajili ya dhamiri.’ Mkataba uliotungwa unasomeka hivi: ‘Sisi ambao majina yetu yameandikwa hapa chini, tukitamani kukaa katika mji wa Providence, tunaahidi kujitiisha katika utii wa kutenda na wa kuvumilia, kwa maagizo au mawakala yote yatakayofanywa kwa manufaa ya umma ya mwili huu kwa njia ya utaratibu, kwa ridhaa ya wengi wa wakazi wa sasa, mabwana wa familia waliounganishwa pamoja kuwa mji, na wengine ambao watawakubali ndani yake, katika mambo ya kiraia tu.’ Hapa tunapata mbegu ya kwanza ya fundisho hilo kuu la kisasa alilolitangaza baadaye katika ‘Bloody Tenet’ yake kwa maneno haya: ‘Mamlaka kuu ya mamlaka yote ya kiraia imejengwa juu ya ridhaa ya watu.’ Pia, mkataba huu rahisi unafagia kwa pigo moja kila madai kwamba alifukuzwa kwa makosa ya kiraia, na kwamba mambo ya kidini ya kesi yake yalikuwa wazo la baadaye.The first concern of its illustrious founder was, that this new home should be a shelter 'to persons distressed for conscience.' The compact drawn reads thus: 'We whose names are here underwritten, being desirous to inhabit in the town of Providence, do promise to submit ourselves in active and passive obedience, to all such orders or agencies as shall be made for public good of the body in an orderly way, by the major consent of the present inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into a township, and such others whom they shall admit into the same, only in civil things.' Here we find the first germ of that great modern doctrine which he afterward avowed in his 'Bloody Tenet' in these words: 'The sovereign power of all civil authority is founded in the consent of the people.' Also, this simple compact sweeps away at a stroke every allegation that he was banished for civil wrongs, and that the religious aspects of his case were an after-thought.
Wale wanaotoa madai hayo wanalazimika na heshima ya nafsi pamoja na haki ya kihistoria kuonyesha kwa msingi gani [haisomeki] wa nia ya kibinadamu Williams, aliyehamishwa kwa vikundi vya fitina na uasi, angeweza, katika kuunda serikali mpya, kudai kwanza kifungo kwamba hakuna mtu chini ya serikali hiyo atakayewahi ‘kusumbuliwa kwa ajili ya dhamiri yake.’ Matukio ya kabla ya kosa linalodaiwa kama hilo yanajieleza vipi katika mfululizo kama huo? Hapana; hapa, kama kwingineko, asili ya mwanadamu ilikuwa kweli kwake yenyewe. Kile kilichokanwa kwa ukatili katika Massachusetts, ambacho kwa ajili yake aliteseka kupoteza vitu vyote, sasa kilipaswa kuhakikishwa kwa hali yoyote. Kila mtu alijiwekea haki za dhamiri, ambazo hakuna idadi ya sehemu ya ‘wengi’ ingeweza kuziguza, na hilo mara moja lilifanywa haki isiyoweza kuondolewa; yote mengine ‘katika mambo ya kiraia’ yangeweza kuhatarishwa kama ya umuhimu mdogo. Tumeona tayari kwamba kutoka kwa Wabaptisti wa Uswisi wa 1527, Wabaptisti wa Uholanzi, ‘Maungamo’ ya 1611 na mengine, fundisho hili lilikuwa limetoka kufanya kazi yake na lilikuwa kanuni kuu kwa Wabaptisti wote.Those who make that allegation are bound by self-respect as well as historic justice to show on what [illegible] of human motive Williams, exiled for faction and sedition, should, in organizing a new government, first exact the bond that no man under that government should ever be 'molested for his conscience.' How do the antecedents of such alleged crime express themselves in such a sequence? No; here, as elsewhere, human nature was true to itself. That which had been cruelly denied in Massachusetts, for which he had suffered the loss of all things, should now be secured at all hazards. Each man reserved to himself the rights of conscience, which no number of the 'major' part might touch, and that at once was made an inalienable right; all else 'in civil things' could be risked as of minor consequence. We have already seen that from the Swiss Baptists of 1527, the Dutch Baptists, the 'Confession' of 1611 and others, this doctrine had gone forth to do its work and had been a cardinal principle with all Baptists.
Pia, kwamba William wa Orange alikuwa wa kwanza wa watawala katika serikali za zamani aliyelijumuisha katika katiba iliyokuwepo; lakini heshima ya kulifanya kuwa jiwe la msingi ambalo juu yake serikali ya kibinadamu ingesimama ilihifadhiwa kwa Roger Williams; kwa sababu dhamiri ndiyo nguvu ya kutawala ambayo wajibu wote unaelekezwa kwake katika mtu mmoja mmoja. Hii ilidai kutoka kwa Bancroft, mwanahistoria wetu mkuu, usemi huo wa kukumbukwa ambao umedhihakiwa kama ‘balagha’ na watu wasiostahili kufungua kamba ya kiatu chake, ingawa kama mwandishi wa kumbukumbu mwaminifu hakuweza kuzuia ushuhuda huu kuhusu Roger Williams: ‘Alikuwa mtu wa kwanza katika Jumuiya ya Wakristo ya kisasa kutangaza kwa ukamilifu fundisho la uhuru wa dhamiri, usawa wa maoni mbele ya sheria. . . . Williams hangeruhusu mateso ya maoni yoyote, dini yoyote, akiacha uzushi bila madhara ya sheria, na usahihi wa mafundisho bila ulinzi wa vitisho vya sheria za adhabu. . . .Also, that William of Orange was the first of rulers in the old governments who embodied it in an existing constitution; but the honor was reserved for Roger Williams of making it the foundation-stone on which human government should stand; because conscience is the regnant power to which all obligation appeals in the individual man. This demanded from Bancroft, our great historian, that memorable utterance which has been sneered at as 'rhetoric,' by men who are unworthy to untie the latchet of his shoe, although as an honest chronicler he could not withhold this testimony concerning Roger Williams: 'He was the first person in modern Christendom to assert in its plenitude the doctrine of the liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law. . . . Williams would permit persecution of no opinion, no religion, leaving heresy unharmed by law, and orthodoxy unprotected by the terrors of penal statutes. . . .
Tunamsifu mtu aliyechambua hewa kwanza, au kugawanya maji katika vipengele vyake, au kuchota umeme kutoka mawinguni, ingawa uvumbuzi huo unaweza kuwa matunda ya wakati kama ya kipaji. Kanuni ya kimaadili ina ushawishi mpana na wa karibu zaidi juu ya furaha ya binadamu; wala hakuna ugunduzi wa kweli unaoweza kuwa wa manufaa ya moja kwa moja zaidi kwa jamii kuliko ule unaoanzisha amani ya kidini ya kudumu, na kueneza utulivu katika kila jamii na kila kifua. Ikiwa Copernicus anaheshimiwa milele, kwa sababu, kitandani cha kufa, alichapisha kwa ulimwengu kwamba jua ndilo kitovu cha mfumo wetu; ikiwa jina la Kepler limehifadhiwa katika kumbukumbu za ubora wa binadamu kwa ujanja wake wa kugundua sheria za mwendo wa sayari; ikiwa kipaji cha Newton kimeabudiwa karibu kwa kuchambua mwale wa mwanga na kupima miili ya mbinguni kwa mizani — na pawepo kwa jina la Roger Williams angalau mahali pa unyenyekevu miongoni mwa wale walioendeleza sayansi ya maadili na kujifanya wafadhili wa wanadamu.’We praise the man who first analyzed the air, or resolved water into its elements, or drew the lightning from the clouds, even though the discoveries may have been as much the fruits of time as of genius. A moral principle has a much wider and nearer influence on human happiness; nor can any discovery of truth be of more direct benefit to society, than that which establishes a perpetual religious peace, and spreads tranquillity through every community and every bosom. If Copernicus is held in perpetual reverence, because, on his death-bed, he published to the world that the sun is the center of our system; if the name of Kepler is preserved in the annals of human excellence for his sagacity in detecting the laws of the planetary motions; if the genius of Newton has been almost adored for dissecting a ray of light and weighing heavenly bodies in a balance — let there be for the name of Roger Williams at least some humble place among those who have advanced moral science and made themselves the benefactors of mankind.'
Mwaka 1872 Bunge la Marekani liliweka kumbukumbu ya Roger Williams katika Capitol ya Taifa, na Seneta Anthony, Januari 9, alitoa sifa ya haki kubwa na uzuri, ambamo alilipa ushuru ufuatao kwa mtetezi huyo asiyekufa wa uhuru wa dhamiri: ‘Katika historia yetu yote hakuna jina linalong’aa kwa nuru safi zaidi kuliko lile ambaye kumbukumbu yake tumeiweka hivi karibuni katika Capitol. Katika historia ya ulimwengu wote hakuna mfano wa kushangaza zaidi wa mtu aliyeshika wazo kuu mara moja, katika vipimo vyake vyote, katika ukamilifu wake wote, na kulitekeleza, bila kusita, hadi matokeo yake ya mbali kabisa yaliyo halali. Roger Williams hakuweka tu misingi ya uhuru wa kidini; alijenga jengo lote, katika nguvu zake zote zisizoshindika, na katika uzuri wake wote usiofifia. Wale waliomfuata kwa roho ile ile hawajaweza kuongeza chochote kwa maneno makuu na rahisi ambayo alitamka kanuni hiyo, wala kumpita katika uaminifu kamili ambao ndani yake aliipunguza hadi biashara ya vitendo ya serikali.In 1872 the Congress of the United States had placed a memorial of Roger Williams in the National Capitol, and Senator Anthony, January 9, delivered a eulogy of great justice and beauty, in which he paid the following tribute to the immortal defender of soul liberty: 'In all our history no name shines with a purer light than his whose memorial we have lately placed in the Capitol. In the history of all the world there is no more striking example of a man grasping a grand idea, at once, in its full proportions, in all its completeness, and carrying it out, unflinchingly, to its remotest legitimate results. Roger Williams did not merely lay the foundations of religious freedom; he constructed the whole edifice, in all its impregnable strength, and in all its imperishable beauty. Those who have followed him in the same spirit have not been able to add any thing to the grand and simple words in which he enunciated the principle, nor to surpass him in the exact fidelity with which he reduced it to the practical business of government.
Uhuru wa kidini, ambao sasa, kwa makubaliano ya jumla, unasimamia kanuni za msingi za serikali iliyostaarabika, wakati huo ulionekana kuwa nadharia ya kichaa kuliko pendekezo lolote, la kimaadili, la kisiasa, au la kidini, ambalo tangu hapo limeshika makini mazito ya wanadamu. Ilichukuliwa kuwa isiyowezekana, inayovuruga, ya kukufuru, na, kama haikuwa inaharibu kabisa utaratibu wa kijamii, haikuwa hivyo kwa sababu tu upuuzi wake dhahiri ungezuia jitihada yoyote makini ya kuitekeleza. Adhabu nyepesi zaidi iliyohesabiwa kuwa inamstahili mkiri wake ilikuwa kumfukuza hadi nyikani yenye kelele za kulia. Kama hangekutana na matibabu ya Kikristo zaidi kutoka kwa watoto wa porini wakali wa msitu kuliko aliyoyapata kutoka kwa “Mpakwa Mafuta wa Bwana,” angeangamia mwanzoni mwa jaribio lake. . . Mtu kama huyo alikuwa Roger Williams. Hakuna wazo la nafsi yake, hakuna wazo la malipo au sifa, lililoingilia kuchafua usafi kamili wa nia yake, kutokuwa na ubinafsi kamili kwa mwenendo wake.Religious freedom, which now, by general consent, underlies the foundation principles of civilized government, was, at that time, looked upon as a wilder theory than any proposition, moral, political, or religious, that has since engaged the serious attention of mankind. It was regarded as impracticable, disorganizing, impious, and, if not utterly subversive of social order, it was not so only because its manifest absurdity would prevent any serious effort to enforce it. The lightest punishment deemed due to its confessor was to drive him out into the howling wilderness. Had he not met with more Christian treatment from the savage children of the forest than he had found from "the Lord's anointed," he would have perished in the beginning of his experiment. . . Such a man was Roger Williams. No thought of himself, no idea of recompense or of praise, interfered to sully the perfect purity of his motives, the perfect disinterestedness of his conduct.
Akifanya kazi kwa manufaa ya juu zaidi ya wenzake, hakujali kabisa sifa zao. Alijua (kwa kuwa Mungu, ambaye alikuwa nabii wake, alimfunulia) kwamba kanuni kuu aliyoipigania, na ambayo kwa ajili yake aliteseka, iliyojengwa juu ya kufaa kwa milele kwa mambo, ingedumu milele. Hakuuliza kama jina lake lingedumu kizazi kimoja. Katika maono yake ya siku zijazo, aliona wanadamu wamekombolewa kutoka utumwa wa ukuhani wa kibinadamu, kutoka upofu wa ushabiki, kutoka ukatili wa kutovumiliana. Aliona mataifa yakitembea katika uhuru ambao Kristo amewafanya huru.’ Hata hivyo taarifa hii haisemi zaidi ya imani ya jumla ya umma wa Marekani. Hivi karibuni, gazeti kuu la kila siku la New York lenye ushawishi mzito lilisema: ‘Wabaptisti wametatua tatizo kubwa. Wanaunganisha imani thabiti zaidi, imani ya ukaidi zaidi katika mafundisho yao maalum, na uvumilivu wa kupendeza zaidi wa imani ya Wakristo wengine.Laboring for the highest benefit of his fellow-men, he was entirely indifferent to their praises. He knew (for God, whose prophet he was, revealed it to him) that the great principle for which he contended, and for which he suffered, founded in the eternal fitness of things, would endure forever. He did not inquire if his name would survive a generation. In his vision of the future, he saw mankind emancipated from the thralldom of priestcraft, from the blindness of bigotry, from the cruelties of intolerance. He saw the nations walking forth in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free.' Yet this statement expresses no more than the general conviction of the American public. Recently, a leading New York daily of weighty influence said: 'Baptists have solved a great problem. They combine the most resolute conviction, the most stubborn belief in their own special doctrines, with the most admirable tolerance of the faith of other Christians.
Na mchanganyiko huu wa imani thabiti na uvumilivu wa neema unafanya iwe rahisi kuwatambua kama wafuasi wa Roger Williams.’ Kweli, wafikiriaji bora wa Ulaya wanaanza kuungana katika hisia hii. Zamani Gervinus, Mjerumani mwenye kina, alisema juu ya Williams, kwamba alianzisha ‘jamii mpya huko Rhode Island juu ya kanuni za uhuru kamili wa dhamiri na mamlaka isiyodhibitiwa ya wengi katika mambo ya kidunia, . . . ambazo kanuni hizo hazijajitunza zenyewe hapa tu, bali zimeenea juu ya Muungano wote, . . . na kutoa sheria kwa robo moja ya dunia, na, zikiogopwa kwa ushawishi wao wa kimaadili, zinasimama nyuma ya kila mapambano ya kidemokrasia Ulaya.’ Williams alikuwa na chaguo mbele yake la uadui wa moja kwa moja kati ya Kanisa na Dola, kama katika siku za kipagani za Ukristo wa mwanzo; muungano kati yao, kama katika siku za Konstantino; ukuu wa Kanisa juu ya Dola, kama katika Zama za Kati: au uhuru kamili wa kila mmoja kutoka kwa mwingine, wa dhati, wa kirafiki, wa kusaidia kwa ustawi wa wote.And this combination of sturdy faith with graceful tolerance makes it easy to recognize them as the followers of Roger Williams.' Indeed, the best thinkers in Europe begin to unite in this sentiment. Long since Gervinus, the profound German, said of Williams, that he founded 'a new society in Rhode Island upon the principles of entire liberty of conscience and the uncontrolled power of the majority in secular concerns, . . . which principles have not only maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole Union, . . . and given laws to one quarter of the globe, and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the background of every democratic struggle in Europe.' Williams had the choice before him of direct hostility between the Church and State, as in the pagan days of early Christianity; an alliance between them, as in Constantine's day; a supremacy of the Church over the State, as in the Middle Ages: or entire independence of each other, earnest, friendly, helpful in the common weal.
Cavour alitamani ‘Makanisa Huru katika Dola huru,’ akiwa ameazima kielelezo cha Roger Williams. Wanasheria wa umma wa kwanza wa zama zetu ndio walio tayari zaidi kumpa yeye na wenzake sifa kwa kuunganisha uhuru na sheria, na kwa kuthibitisha kwamba dini ya hiari ni adui thabiti wa uasi wa sheria kwa upande mmoja na wa dhuluma kwa upande mwingine, wanapotumia maisha yao huru kwa kujitegemea. Hoja hii aliieleza kikamilifu si katika matokeo yake ya vitendo tu, bali aliifafanua na kuitetea bila shaka katika kazi zake. Alipokuwa London, mwaka 1644, alichapisha ‘Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience;’ mwaka 1647 John Cotton alijibu katika ‘Bloody Tenet Washed and Made White;’ na Williams alijibu katika ‘Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody,’ mwaka 1652. Williams alichukua msimamo mpana wakati wote kwamba hakuna mtu anayeweza kuwajibishwa na binadamu mwenzake kwa imani yake ya kidini.Cavour wished for 'Free Churches in a free State,' having borrowed the ideal of Roger Williams. The first publicists of our age are the most ready to credit him and his coadjutors with linking liberty to law, and with proving that a voluntary religion is the determined foe of license on the one hand and of tyranny on the other, when they exercise their free life independently of each other. This point he set forth fully not only in its practical bearings, but he defined and defended it unmistakably in his works. When in London, in 1644, he published his 'Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience;' in 1647 John Cotton replied in his 'Bloody Tenet Washed and Made White;' and Williams rejoined in his 'Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody,' in 1652. Williams took the broad ground throughout that no man can be held responsible to his fellow-man for his religious belief.
Cotton alijaribu kuchukua msimamo mpya, lakini alishindwa, na alilazimika kurudi kwenye mtazamo wa zamani wa Kikatoliki. Alikana haki ya kuwatesa watu kwa ‘dhamiri iliyoelimishwa ipasavyo.’ Lakini kama dhamiri ya mtu ni ‘yenye kosa na kipofu katika mambo ya msingi na mazito,’ basi hakimu anaweza kumwonya juu ya jambo hilo; na akibaki ‘kipofu kwa makusudi na mkaidi kihalifu,’ basi hakimu anaweza kumwadhibu. Hii inafanya mamlaka ya kiraia kuwa mwamuzi pekee wa kosa la msingi, upofu wa kukusudia na ukaidi wa ukatili, na inafunika yote ambayo mamlaka za Kikatoliki zilidai juu ya jambo hilo. Kanuni za Williams zilipopotoshwa na alipotuhumiwa kuunga mkono machafuko kwa uharibifu wa serikali ya kiraia, aliandika barua yake isiyokufa juu ya swali hilo, ambayo imeitwa ‘ya kitambo,’ na haitapotea kwa karne nyingi. Miongoni mwa mambo mengine alisema: ‘Meli nyingi huenda baharini, na mamia mengi ya roho katika meli moja, ambazo ustawi au taabu yao ni ya pamoja, na ni picha ya kweli ya jumuiya ya kitaifa, au muungano wa kibinadamu au jamii.Cotton attempted to take new ground, but failed, and was obliged to fall back upon the old Catholic view. He denied the right to persecute men for 'conscience rightly informed.' But if a man's conscience is 'erroneous and blind in fundamental and weighty matters,' then the magistrate may admonish him on the subject; and if he remains 'willfully blind and criminally obstinate,' then the magistrate may punish him. This makes the civil power the sole judge of fundamental error, willful blindness and cruel obstinacy, and covers all that the Catholic powers ever claimed on the subject. When the principles of Williams were distorted and he was charged with sustaining anarchy to the destruction of civil government, he wrote his immortal letter on the question, which has been denominated a 'classic,' and will scarcely perish for ages. Amongst other things he said: 'There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls on one ship, whose weal or woe is common, and is a true picture of a commonwealth, or a human combination or society.
Imetokea wakati mwingine kwamba Wapapa na Waprotestanti, Wayahudi na Waturuki, wanaweza kupanda meli moja; kwa dhana hiyo nathibitisha kwamba, uhuru wote wa dhamiri ambao nimewahi kuutetea, unazunguka juu ya bawaba hizi mbili: kwamba hakuna wa Wapapa, Waprotestanti, Wayahudi au Waturuki atakayelazimishwa kuja kwenye sala au ibada ya meli, wala kulazimishwa kuacha sala au ibada yao maalum kama wanafanya yoyote. Naongeza zaidi kwamba sijawahi kukana kwamba, licha ya uhuru huu, nahodha wa meli hii anapaswa kuamuru mwelekeo wa meli, naam, na pia kuamuru kwamba haki, amani na kiasi vidumishwe na kutendwa kati ya mabaharia wote na abiria wote. Ikiwa mabaharia yeyote atakataa kufanya huduma yake, au abiria kulipa nauli yake; ikiwa yeyote atakataa kusaidia, kwa mtu au kwa mfuko, kwa gharama za pamoja au ulinzi; ikiwa yeyote atakataa kutii sheria na utaratibu wa pamoja wa meli kuhusu amani yao ya pamoja au uhifadhi; ikiwa yeyote ataasi na kuinuka dhidi ya makamanda na maafisa wao; ikiwa yeyote atahubiri au kuandika kwamba hapapaswi kuwa na makamanda wala maafisa kwa sababu wote ni sawa katika Kristo, kwa hiyo, hakuna mabwana wala maafisa, hakuna sheria wala amri, hakuna marekebisho wala adhabu; nasema, sijawahi kukana, bali katika visa kama hivyo, chochote kinachodaiwa, nahodha au manahodha wanaweza kuhukumu, kupinga, kulazimisha na kuadhibu wakosaji kama hao, kulingana na stahili na ustahili wao.It hath fallen out sometimes that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked in 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 defense; if any refuse to obey the common laws and order 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 or officers because all are equal in Christ, therefore, no masters or officers, no laws or orders, no corrections or 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.
Hili, likizingatiwa kwa dhati na uaminifu, linaweza, ikimpendeza Baba wa nuru, kuingiza mwanga kwa wale ambao hawafumbi macho yao kwa hiari.’ Itakuwa ya kuvutia kufuatilia historia zaidi ya maisha yake na ya Rhode Island katika utetezi na matumizi yao ya uhuru wa dhamiri, lakini inatosha kusema kwamba, kwa siku zake zilizobaki, Williams alibaki mwakilishi na mtetezi wake mwaminifu. Alikuwa amefuata imani yake juu ya suala hilo kutoka kwa Waepiskopali hadi kwa Wakongregationali, kutoka kwao hadi kwa Wabaptisti, na kutoka kwao hadi kwa Watafutaji (Seekers). Katika mabadiliko haya tabia yake ya kidini ilibaki bila doa; ‘alitoa uhuru huo mkubwa kwa wengine wote aliojichukulia mwenyewe,’ aliheshimu nia na imani zao, na katika mabishano yake nao hakuacha alama yoyote ya uchungu. Huduma zake binafsi kwa makoloni yote ya New England, kwa mazungumzo ya ustadi na Wahindi, ambayo mara mbili yaliyaokoa kutoka vita vya jumla ambavyo vingeyaangamiza, hazikadiriki kupita kiasi.This, if seriously and honestly minded, may, if it please the Father of lights, let in some light to such as willingly shut not their eyes.' It would be interesting to trace the further history of his life and of Rhode Island in their defense and application of the liberty of conscience, but it must suffice to say, that during the rest of his days Williams remained its faithful exponent and defender. He had followed his convictions on that subject from the Episcopalians to the Congregationalists, from them to the Baptists, and from them to the Seekers. In these changes his personal religious character remained without a spot; he 'gave the same large liberty to all others which he took for himself,' he respected their motives and convictions, and in his controversies with them left no trace of acerbity. His personal services to all the New England colonies, by skillful negotiations with the Indians, which twice saved them from a general war that might have exterminated them, can hardly be overestimated.
Bancroft kwa haki anaelezea jitihada zake za kuvunja muungano wa Pequod kuwa ‘mafanikio ya kishujaa na ya mafanikio, tendo hatari katika utekelezaji wake kama lilivyokuwa na bahati katika matokeo yake.’ Msomaji kijana atashukuru kwa maelezo zaidi ya ukweli huu, ambayo yanajaribiwa hapa kwa ufupi. Katika vuli ya 1636, miezi sita tu baada ya kukimbia kwa Williams nyikani, aligundua kwamba makabila ya Wahindi yalikuwa yakiunda muungano wa kuwaangamiza Waingereza, na mara moja alimjulisha Gavana wa Massachusetts juu ya njama ili kuwaokoa. Hasira ilipanda juu upande wa koloni hilo na upande wa watu wekundu, na serikali ya Massachusetts ilimwomba aingilie kati kama mpatanishi kati yao. Hili lilikuwa jibu la haraka la mhamishwa: ‘Bwana alinisaidia mara moja kuweka maisha yangu mkononi mwangu, na, bila kumjulisha mke wangu karibu, kupanda peke yangu, katika mtumbwi duni, na kukata upepo wa dhoruba, kwa mawimbi makubwa, kila dakika katika hatari ya maisha, hadi nyumbani kwa sachem.Bancroft justly characterizes his exertions in breaking the Pequod league as 'a most intrepid and successful achievement, an action as perilous in its execution as it was fortunate in its issue.' The youthful reader will be grateful for a fuller detail of these facts, which is here attempted in brief. In the fall of 1636, only six months after the flight of Williams into the wilderness, he found that the Indian tribes were forming a league for the destruction of the English, and at once informed the Governor of Massachusetts of the plot in order to save them. Passion ran high on the part of that colony and on the part of the red men, and the Massachusetts government asked him to step in as mediator between them. This was the exile's prompt reply: 'The Lord helped me immediately to put my life into my hand, and, scarce acquainting my wife, to ship myself alone, in a poor canoe, and to cut through a stormy wind, with great seas, every minute in hazard of life, to the sachem's house.
Siku tatu na usiku wangu ulinilazimu kulala na kuchanganyika na wajumbe wa Pequod wenye damu, ambao mikono na mikono yao, nilidhani, ilinuka damu ya wananchi wenzangu, waliouawa na kuchinjwa nao kwenye Mto Connecticut, na kutoka kwao sikuweza ila kutarajia kila usiku visu vyao vya damu kwenye koo langu pia. Mungu alinihifadhi kwa ajabu, na akanisaidia kuvunja vipande vipande mazungumzo na mpango wa Wapequod; na kufanya na kumaliza, kwa safari nyingi na gharama, muungano wa Waingereza na Wanarragansett na Wamohegan dhidi ya Wapequod.’ Hili lilizaa mkataba wa amani wa kudumu, ulioandikwa kwa Kiingereza, lugha ambayo Wahindi hawakuweza kuielewa, na nakala ilitumwa na Massachusetts kwa Williams, kwa ombi kwamba awafasirie. Hivyo, mhamishwa huyo mashuhuri alitumikia na kuokoa nchi ambayo alifukuzwa kutoka kwake, huku mifupa yake ikiwa bado inauma kwa taabu za safari yake, kwa kielelezo kizuri cha maneno ya Bwana wake, Luka 6:22, 23, 27, 28.Three days and nights my business forced me to lodge and mix with the bloody Pequod ambassadors, whose hands and arms, methought, reeked with the blood of my countrymen, murdered and massacred by them on Connecticut River, and from whom I could not but nightly look for their bloody knives at my own throat also. God wondrously preserved me, and helped me to break to pieces the Pequods' negotiation and design; and to make and finish, by many travels and charges, the English league with the Narragansetts and Mohegans against the Pequods.' This resulted in a lasting treaty of peace, which was written in English, which language the Indians could not understand, and a copy was sent by Massachusetts to Williams, with the request that he would interpret it to them. Thus, the illustrious exile served and saved the country from whence he was banished, while his bones were yet aching with the hardships of his journey, in beautiful illustration of his Master's words, Luke vi, 22, 23, 27, 28.
Kwa unyofu usio na hila wa mtoto, anamwambia Winthrop kuhusu mkutano wake na Canonicus, mkuu mkuu, kwa manufaa ya Massachusetts. Anasema juu ya shujaa huyu kwamba ‘alikuwa mkali sana, na alishutumu Waingereza na mimi kwa kuwaletea tauni miongoni mwao, na kutishia kuniua hasa. Habari kama hizo inaonekana zililetwa masikioni mwake hivi karibuni na baadhi ya wasifiaji wake na wale wanaotutakia mabaya. Niliona sababu ya kujishughulisha na nikakaa muda mrefu zaidi, na hatimaye, kwa rehema ya Aliye Juu, sio tu nilimlainisha roho yake, bali nilimwelimisha kwamba tauni na magonjwa mengine yako mkononi mwa Mungu mmoja peke yake, aliyemuumba yeye na sisi, ambaye, akiwa amechukizwa na Waingereza kwa kusema uongo, kuiba, uvivu na uchafu, dhambi za mlipuko za wenyeji, alipiga maelfu mengi yetu sisi wenyewe kwa vifo vya jumla na vya hivi karibuni.’With the artless simplicity of a child, he tells Winthrop of his interview with Canonicus, the great chief, in the interests of Massachusetts. He says of this warrior that he 'was very sour, and accused the English and myself for sending the plague amongst them, and threatening to kill me especially. Such tidings it seems were lately brought to his ears by some of his flatterers and our ill-willers. I discerned cause of bestirring myself and stayed the longer, and at last, through the mercy of the Most High, I not only sweetened his spirit, but possessed him, that the plague and other sicknesses were alone in the hand of the one God, who made him and us, who being displeased with the English for lying, stealing, idleness and uncleanness, the natives' epidemical sins, smote many thousands of us ourselves with general and late mortalities.'
Na Massachusetts ilimtendeaje, alipokuwa akirundika makaa haya ya moto ya upendo wa Kikristo juu ya kichwa chake? Tuone. Alikwenda Uingereza kupata hati ya koloni, akilazimika kuchukua meli kutoka makazi ya Waholanzi, na aliporudi, mwaka 1644, na hati iliyowapa watu wake serikali huru, ili aweze kutua Boston, wakuu kadhaa na wabunge walimpa barua ya neema ikimpendekeza kwa mamlaka za Massachusetts, lakini walimtendea kwa ukali na bado kama mtu aliyefukuzwa. Hubbard anasema, kwa kuwatetea (uk. 349), kwamba ‘Hawakuona sababu ya kujilaumu wenyewe kwa taratibu zozote za zamani dhidi ya Bw. Williams; lakini kwa huduma zozote za upendo wa Kikristo na wajibu wa kibinadamu walikuwa tayari kudumisha mawasiliano ya pande zote naye. Lakini kuhusu kanuni zake hatari za kujitenga, isipokuwa anaweza kuletwa kuziacha, hawaoni sababu ya kumpa yeye, au mtu yeyote aliyeshawishika hivyo, uhuru kamili wa kuingia na kutoka, wasije watu wao wakavutwa mbali na kanuni zake zenye kosa.’And how did Massachusetts treat him, when he heaped these glowing coals of Christian love on her head? Let us see. He went to England to procure a charter, being obliged to take a ship from the Dutch settlement, and when he returned, in 1644, with the instrument which gave his people an independent government, in order that he might land in Boston, several nobles and Parliament men gave him a gracious letter commending him to the authorities of Massachusetts, but they treated him rudely and as still a banished man. Hubbard says, in their defense (p. 349), that 'They saw no reason to condemn themselves for any former proceedings against Mr. Williams; but for any offices of Christian love and duties of humanity they were willing to maintain a mutual correspondence with him. But as to his dangerous principles of separation, unless he can be brought to lay them down, they see no reason why to concede to him, or any so persuaded, free liberty of ingress and egress lest any of their people should be drawn away from his erroneous principles.'
Vema John Callender, ‘yule mwanafunzi ambaye Yesu alimpenda,’ aseme juu yake kwa njia yake ya kiume: ‘Bw. Williams anaonekana, kutokana na mwenendo mzima na kozi ya maisha yake na tabia yake hapa, kuwa mmoja wa watu wasio na ubinafsi kuliko wote waliowahi kuishi, nafsi yenye utauwa na yenye nia ya mbinguni.’ (Hist. Dis., uk. 17.) Na hukumu hii ya hekima yake, ukarimu wake na wema wake, inashirikiwa na wakuu kila mahali. Southey alimwita ‘mbora na mkuu zaidi wa Wawelisi,’ na Askofu Mkuu Whately, aliyeheshimu kumbukumbu yake kama mfadhili mkuu wa wanadamu, alimlipa sifa inayostahili, kwa kuwa hakumharibu mtu yeyote kwa kalamu wala ulimi, bali alitoa maisha yake marefu kwa baraka ya jamii yake. Tarehe kamili ya kifo chake haijulikani; ilikuwa mapema mwaka 1683, alipokuwa na umri wa takriban miaka themanini na minne, na alizikwa kwa heshima zote ambazo koloni liliweza kuonyesha.Well may John Callender, 'that disciple whom Jesus loved,' say of him in his own manly manner: 'Mr. Williams appears, by the whole course and tenor of his life and conduct here, to have been one of the most disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and heavenly-minded soul.' (Hist. Dis., p. 17.) And this judgment of his wisdom, magnanimity and goodness, is shared by the great everywhere. Southey called him the 'best and greatest of the Welshmen,' and Archbishop Whately, who venerated his memory as a great benefactor of mankind, paid him well-merited praise, for he never corrupted any man by pen or tongue, but devoted his long life to the blessing of his race. The exact date of his death is not known; it was early in 1683, when about eighty-four years of age, and he was buried with all the honors that the colony could show.
[…][…]
Mnara wenye urefu wa futi ishirini na saba, ukiwa na sanamu yenye urefu wa futi saba na nusu juu yake, ulijengwa kwa kumbukumbu yake mwaka 1877 katika Roger Williams Park, Providence, lakini kama mfano wa mtume huyo mkuu ni wa kubuniwa kabisa. Kwa utakatifu mkubwa Rhode Island imelinda amana takatifu iliyokabidhiwa kwake, kwa maana hakuna mtu aliyewahi kuteswa katika enzi hiyo kwa sababu ya maoni na mazoezi yake ya kidini tangu kuanzishwa kwake kwa mara ya kwanza mwaka 1636. Williams alipata hati ya kwanza mwaka 1643-44, na mkusanyo wa kwanza wa sheria uliandikwa chini yake mwaka 1647. Chini ya sheria za miji mbalimbali, ambayo ilikuwa imechipuka kabla ya hati kutolewa, uhuru kamili wa kidini ulihakikishwa kwa kila mkazi; mwaka 1647, mwishoni mwa sheria za kiraia zilizotungwa chini ya hati hii, maneno haya yaliongezwa: ‘Na zaidi ya haya, kile kilichokatazwa humu, watu wote wanaweza kutembea kama dhamiri zao zinavyowashawishi, kila mmoja kwa jina la Mungu wake. Na wana-kondoo wa Aliye Juu watembee katika koloni hili bila kusumbuliwa kwa jina la Yehova Mungu wao milele.’A monument, twenty-seven feet high, crowned by a statue seven and a half feet in height, was erected to his memory in 1877 in Roger Williams Park, Providence, but as a likeness of the great apostle it is purely ideal. Most sacredly has Rhode Island guarded the hallowed trust committed to her charge, for no man has ever been persecuted in that sovereignty for his religious opinions and practices from its first settlement in 1636. Williams obtained the first charter in 1643-44, and the first body of laws was drawn under it in 1647. Under the town legislation of the several towns, which had sprung up before the charter was granted, absolute religious liberty was secured to each inhabitant; in 1647, at the close of the civil enactments made under this charter, these words were added: 'And otherwise than this, what is herein forbidden, all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God. And let the lambs of the Most High walk in this colony without molestation in the name of Jehovah their God forever.'
Mwanzoni, kazi zote za serikali zilitekelezwa na mwili mzima wa wananchi katika mkutano wa mji. Wawakilishi wawili walichaguliwa kutunza amani, kuitisha mkutano na kutekeleza maamuzi yake. Roho hiyohiyo ilizihuisha makoloni mawili ya Rhode Island na Mashamba ya Providence. Kwa kweli, tamko la kwanza la demokrasia lililotungwa Amerika lilitokea kisiwa cha Rhode Island, Machi 16, 1641, wakati ‘Iliamriwa na kukubaliwa kwa kauli moja, kwamba serikali ambayo mwili huu wa kisiasa unaitazama katika kisiwa hiki na mamlaka yake, kwa upendeleo wa mkuu wetu, ni Demokrasia, au serikali ya watu; yaani, ni katika uwezo wa mwili wa watu huru, waliokusanyika kwa utaratibu, au sehemu kubwa yao, kutunga au kuanzisha sheria za haki, ambazo kwazo watatawaliwa, na kuwakilisha kutoka miongoni mwao wahudumu watakaoziona zikitekelezwa kwa uaminifu kati ya mtu na mtu.’ Na vitendo vifuatavyo vilihakikisha uhuru wa kidini hapo: ‘Iliamriwa zaidi, kwa mamlaka ya Mahakama hii ya sasa, kwamba hakuna atakayehesabiwa mkosaji kwa mafundisho, mradi, hayapingani moja kwa moja na serikali au sheria zilizowekwa.’At the first, all the functions of government were exercised by the whole body of citizens in town-meeting. Two deputies were chosen to preserve the peace, call the meeting and execute its decisions. The same spirit animated the two colonies of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. In fact, the first declaration of democracy formulated in America dates from the island of Rhode Island, March 16, 1641, when 'It was ordered and unanimously agreed upon, that the government which this body politic doth attend unto in this island and the jurisdiction thereof, in favor of our prince, is a Democracy, or popular government; that is to say, it is in the power of the body of freemen, orderly assembled, or major part of them, to make or constitute just laws, by which they will be regulated, and to depute from among themselves such ministers as shall see them faithfully executed between man and man.' And the following acts secured religious liberty there: 'It was further ordered, by the authority of this present Court, that none be accounted a delinquent for doctrine, provided, it be not directly repugnant to the government or laws established.'
Mnamo Septemba, 1641, iliamriwa, ‘Kwamba sheria ile ya Mahakama ya mwisho, iliyotungwa kuhusu uhuru wa dhamiri katika suala la mafundisho, idumishwe.’ Iliamriwa Providence mwaka 1647 kwamba kwa kuwa ‘hati yetu inatupa uwezo wa kujitawala wenyewe, na wengine wanaokuja miongoni mwetu, na kwa namna ya serikali ya kiraia ambayo kwa ridhaa ya hiari, n.k., itaonekana kufaa zaidi kwa hali yetu; imekubaliwa na Baraza hili la sasa lililoundwa hivyo, na kutangazwa kwa tendo hili la sasa, kwamba namna ya serikali iliyoanzishwa katika Mashamba ya Providence ni ya Kidemokrasia; yaani, serikali inayoshikiliwa kwa ridhaa huru na ya hiari ya wakazi wote huru au wengi wao.’ Katika Providence, Mei 1638, raia mmoja aliyesumbua haki za dhamiri za mke wake kwa kukataa kumruhusu ahudhurie ibada ya hadharani, alipotaka kufanya hivyo, alinyang’anywa haki ya kupiga kura, kwa maneno haya: ‘Joshua Verin, kwa kuvunja agano la kuzuia uhuru wa dhamiri, atanyimwa uhuru wa kupiga kura, hadi atakapotangaza kinyume.’On September, 1641, it was ordered, 'That that law of the last Court, made concerning liberty of conscience in point of doctrine, be perpetuated.' It was decreed at Providence in 1647 that since 'our charter gives us power to govern ourselves, and such other as come among us, and by such a form of civil government as by the voluntary consent, etc., shall be found most suitable to our estate and condition; it is agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate, and by this present act declared, that the form of government established in Providence Plantations is Democratical; that is to say, a government held by the free and voluntary consent of all or the greater part of the free inhabitants.' At Providence, May, 1638, a citizen who had molested the rights of his wife's conscience by refusing to let her attend public worship, when she desired to do so, was disfranchised, in these words: 'Joshua Verin, for breach of covenant in restraining liberty of conscience, shall be withheld the liberty of voting, till he declare the contrary.'
[…][…]
Mwaka 1745 ilichapishwa marekebisho au mkusanyo wa sheria zote za koloni tangu hati yake ya kwanza, ambayo iliitwa ‘Marekebisho ya 1745.’ Haya yanataja sheria inayosemekana kupitishwa mwaka 1663-64 kwamba, ‘Watu wote wanaokiri Ukristo, na wenye mali ya kutosha na mwenendo wa kiraia (Wakatoliki wa Kirumi tu wakitengwa), watakubaliwa kuwa raia huru, au wanaweza kuchagua au kuchaguliwa kuwa maafisa wa koloni.’ Sheria hii inayodaiwa inatajwa na Chalmers, mwandishi Mwingereza, katika ‘Political Annals’ yake, London (1780). Hakimu Samuel Eddy, mtu wa elimu kubwa na uaminifu wa dhati, aliyekuwa Katibu wa Jimbo huko Rhode Island kuanzia 1797 hadi 1819, na aliyekuwa na kumbukumbu zote mkononi, anasema kwamba alichunguza kwa makini sheria zote za koloni tangu Hati ya kwanza (1643-44) hadi 1719 na kwamba ‘hakuna neno hata moja katika kumbukumbu la sheria inayotajwa na Chalmers’ na iliyomo katika ‘Marekebisho ya 1745’ kabla ya mwaka huo.In 1745 there was printed a revision or compilation of all the laws of the colony since its first charter, which was called the 'Revision of 1745.' This makes reference to a law said to have been passed in 1663-64 to the effect, that 'All men professing Christianity, and of competent estates and civil conversation (Roman Catholics only excepted), shall be admitted freemen, or may choose or be chosen colonial officers.' This alleged act is referred to by Chalmers, an English author, in his 'Political Annals,' London (1780). Judge Samuel Eddy, a man of great learning and scrupulous veracity, who was Secretary of State in Rhode Island from 1797 to 1819, and had all the records at command, says that he carefully investigated all the laws of the colony from the first Charter (1643-44) to 1719 and that 'there is not a word on record of the act referred to by Chalmers' and contained in the 'Revision of 1745' prior to that year.
Hili anaonyesha kwa uhakika: 1. Kwa kutaja Hati ya Kwanza, ambamo uhuru unatolewa kwa walowezi kutunga sheria zao wenyewe, na kupitishwa kwa matokeo mwaka 1647 kwa mkusanyo wa sheria za koloni, zikiweka kwamba ‘Watu wote wanaweza kutembea kama dhamiri zao zinavyowashawishi, kila mmoja kwa jina la Mungu wake.’ 2. Anataja Hati ya Pili (1663), inayoweka kwamba ‘Hakuna mtu ndani ya koloni hilo wakati wowote baadaye atakayesumbuliwa, kuadhibiwa, kunyimwa amani, au kuitwa kuhojiwa kwa tofauti zozote za maoni katika mambo ya dini;’ kwamba wanaweza ‘kwa uhuru na kikamilifu kuwa na kufurahia hukumu na dhamiri zao wenyewe katika mambo ya kidini.’ 3. Anataja usemi wa Baraza, wa Mei, 1665, kwamba ‘Imekuwa kanuni iliyotolewa na kudumishwa katika koloni hili tangu mwanzo wake, kwa hiyo iko sana mioyoni mwao kuwapatia watu wote ndani ya koloni hili uhuru uleule kuhusu ibada ya Mungu humo milele.’This he shows conclusively: 1. By citing the First Charter, in which liberty is granted the colonists to make their own laws, and the consequent passage in 1647 of a body of colonial laws, providing that 'All men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God.' 2. He cites the Second Charter (1663), which provides that 'No person within said colony at any time hereafter shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any differences in opinion in matters of religion;' that they may 'freely and fully have and enjoy their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concernments.' 3. He cites an expression of the Assembly, of May, 1665, that 'It hath been a principle held forth and maintained in this colony from the beginning thereof, so it is much in their hearts to procure the same liberty to all persons within this colony forever as to the worship of God therein.'
Sheria ya kijeshi, iliyopitishwa Mei, 1677, ni ya maana hiyohiyo. 4. Mwaka 1680, Baraza lilisema: ‘Tunamwacha kila mtu kutembea kama Mungu atakavyoshawishi mioyo yao na kwa kutenda na kwa kuvumilia tunatoa utii kwa hakimu wa kiraia.’ Hakimu Eddy anasema: ‘Hivyo mnayo ushahidi chanya na usio na shaka kwamba sheria iliyowatenga Wakatoliki wa Kirumi kutoka kwa haki za raia huru haikupitishwa mwaka 1663-64, bali kwamba wakati huo na kwa muda mrefu baadaye walikuwa na haki ya mapendeleo yote ya raia wengine.’ Anaongeza kwamba ‘utafutaji ulifanywa kwa mtazamo maalum juu ya sheria hii ya kuwatenga Wakatoliki wa Kirumi kutoka kwa haki za raia huru, na hauwezi kupata chochote chenye kurejelea hiyo, wala chochote kinachotoa upendeleo au mapendeleo kwa watu wa seti moja ya maoni ya kidini juu ya wengine hadi Marekebisho ya 1745.’ Roger Williams alikuwa mjumbe wa Baraza la Juu, 1664, 1670-71, na wa Baraza la Chini mwaka 1667, na alikufa 1683.A military law, passed May, 1677, is to the same effect. 4. In 1680, the Assembly said: 'We leave every man to walk as God shall persuade their hearts and do actively and passively yield obedience to the civil magistrate.' Judge Eddy says: 'Thus you have positive and indubitable evidence that the law excluding Roman Catholics from the privileges of freemen was not passed in 1663-64, but that at that time and long after they were entitled to all the privileges of other citizens.' He adds, that 'the search was had with a particular view to this law excluding Roman Catholics from the privileges of freemen, and can find nothing that has any reference to it, nor any thing that gives any preference or privileges to men of one set of religious opinions over those of another till the Revision of 1745.' Roger Williams was a member of the Upper House, 1664, 1670-71, and of the Lower House in 1667, and died 1683.
Eddy anasema: ‘Kwamba sheria kama hiyo ingeweza kupitishwa katika uhai wa walowezi wa kwanza haiaminiki kwa shida,’ na kwamba taarifa katika Marekebisho ya 1745 ni wazi kuwa kosa. Ilikuwa miaka ishirini baada ya kuteuliwa kwa Kamati ya Marekebisho ndipo ripoti yao ilipochapishwa, 1745, kwa kuwa hakukuwa na mashine ya kuchapa katika koloni hadi mwaka huo, wala gazeti hadi 1758. Kuwepo kwa sheria hii dhidi ya Wakatoliki mwaka 1745 hakuonyeshi lazima kwamba sheria ilipitishwa wakati huo, lakini Eddy anaonyesha kwamba lazima ilipitishwa kati ya 1719 na 1745, Marekebisho yakiwa kumbukumbu pekee ya sheria. Hasa mwaka gani ilipitishwa haionekani mahali popote, lakini ilikuwepo kama sheria isiyofutwa mwaka 1745, miongoni mwa sheria zilizochapishwa rasmi na koloni [haisomeki], wakati Eddy anathibitisha kwamba tarehe 1663-64 ni kosa dhahiri.Eddy says: 'That such a law could have been passed in the life-time of the first settlers is hardly credible,' and that the statement in the Revision of 1745 is plainly an error. It was twenty years after the appointment of the Committee on Revision that their report was printed, 1745, there being no printing-press in the colony till that year, and no newspaper till 1758. The existence of this law against Catholics in 1745 does not necessarily show that the law was passed at that time, but Eddy does show that it must have been enacted between 1719 and 1745, the Revision being the only record of the law. Exactly in what year it passed does not anywhere appear, but it existed as an unrepealed statute in 1745, amongst the laws then [illegible] officially printed by the colony, while Eddy proves that the date 1663-64 is plainly a mistake.
Sifa ya jumla ya Rhode Island katika makoloni jirani kwa uhuru mkubwa zaidi katika dini, inaungwa mkono vizuri na sheria hizi, ambazo zinakana kabisa kwamba yeyote aliteswa kwa sababu hiyo, sembuse Wakatoliki wa Kirumi. Cotton Mather anasema kwamba hakukuwa na Wakatoliki wa Kirumi katika koloni mwaka 1695, na Chalmers anasema vivyo hivyo juu ya 1680. Kwa kuona, basi, kwamba kifungu hiki cha mabano dhidi ya Wakatoliki hakipatikani katika sheria yoyote iliyoandikwa kwa mkono ya koloni kabla ya 1663-64, wala baada yake, na muda wowote tarehe haiwezi kutajwa kwa kupitishwa kwake, dhana ya haki inafuata kwamba ni kiingizo. Dhana hii inaimarishwa pia na ukweli wa ziada kwamba ingawa ‘watu wote’ walikuwa tangu kuanzishwa kwa koloni wametembea ‘kama dhamiri zao zinavyowashawishi,’ hata hivyo, kwa miaka ishirini na saba hakuna Mkatoliki wa Kirumi aliyekuja kwenye koloni, wala kuarifiwa kwamba hakuweza kuja, wala Mkatoliki yeyote hajawahi kunyimwa haki zake kamili huko hadi leo.The universal reputation of Rhode Island in the neighboring colonies for the largest freedom in religion, is well sustained by these laws, which completely deny that any were persecuted therefor, much less Roman Catholics. Cotton Mather says, that there were no Roman Catholics in the colony in 1695, and Chalmers says the same of 1680. Seeing, then, that this anti-Catholic, parenthetic clause is not to be found in any manuscript law of the colony either before 1663-64, or after, and so long as no date can be fixed upon for its enactment, the fair presumption follows that it is an interpolation. This presumption is strengthened also by the additional facts, that although 'all men' had from the founding of the colony walked 'as their consciences persuade' them, yet, for twenty-seven years no Roman Catholic had come to the colony, or been notified that he could not come, nor has any Catholic ever been refused his full rights there to this day.
Sheria ya Mei 10, 1647, ilitoa mpango wa wazi wa uhuru wa wote kutembea bila kusumbuliwa kwa jina la Mungu wake, na hata hivyo, kulingana na Chalmers, ilikuwa miaka thelathini na mitatu baada ya sheria hiyo, yaani, mwaka 1680, kabla Mkatoliki yeyote hajatumia uhuru huu. Kwa hiyo, hakukuwa na kitu mwaka 1663-64 kilichohitaji kuingizwa kisheria kwa kifungu kama hicho kinachobadilisha sheria kutoka ilivyokuwa tangu kuanzishwa kwa koloni. Dhana ya jumla ya wanahistoria bora wa Rhode Island ni kwamba iliingizwa katika muhtasari mchanganyiko na usio na utaratibu wa sheria za koloni hilo, ulioonekana Uingereza, na mtu fulani mwenye hofu, aliyeogopa kwamba Waprotestanti Waingereza wangelalamika kwamba Rhode Island ilitoa uhuru mwingi mno kwa Wakatoliki, na hivyo hati yake ingefutwa; kwa hiyo, alithubutu kufanya kiingizo hicho ili kuokoa ugumu.The law of May 10th, 1647, made express provision for the liberty of all to walk unmolested in the name of his God, and yet, according to Chalmers, it was thirty-three years after that enactment, namely, in 1680, before any Catholic availed himself of this freedom. So, then, there was nothing in 1663-64 to call for the legislative insertion of such a clause changing the law from what it had been since the founding of the colony. The general supposition of the best historians of Rhode Island is, that it was introduced into a mixed and irregular digest of the laws of that colony, which appeared in England, by some timid person, who feared that the English Protestants would complain that Rhode Island gave too much liberty to Catholics, and so that her charter would be revoked; hence, he ventured to make the interpolation to save difficulty.
Mwaka 1678 Uingereza ilitumbukizwa katika msisimko mkubwa na imani ya jumla katika ‘njama ya Kipapa’ ya kumuua William III. Wazo la watu lilikuwa kwamba Waprotestanti walikuwa wakabidhiwe kwenye Siku ya Mtakatifu Bartholomayo ya Kiingereza; Duke wa York, Mkatoliki mshabiki, alikuwa atwae kiti cha enzi, na wote walikuwa tayari kwa vita vya kiraia vya damu. Rafiki fulani wa Rhode Island anaweza kuwa alishiriki katika hofu hii, lakini hakuna ushahidi hata kidogo kwamba wabunge wake walishiriki, hasa kwa kuwa walifuta kifungu kilichoingizwa kwa siri walipokigundua. Yafuatayo [haisomeki] sheria mwaka 1798: ‘Kwa kuwa lengo kuu la mababu zetu wenye heshima, katika kuhama kwao kuja nchi hii na kuishi katika Jimbo hili, lilikuwa, kama walivyosema, kutoa jaribio hai kwamba Jimbo la kiraia lenye kustawi sana linaweza kusimama na kudumishwa vizuri kwa uhuru kamili katika mambo ya kidini; Basi na iamriwe na Baraza Kuu, na kwa mamlaka yake imeamriwa, kwamba hakuna mtu atakayelazimishwa kuhudhuria au kutegemeza ibada yoyote ya kidini, mahali au huduma yoyote, wala hatalazimishwa, kuzuiliwa au kuelemewa katika mwili wake au mali yake, wala kuteseka vinginevyo kwa sababu ya maoni yake ya kidini au imani, bali kwamba watu wote watakuwa huru kukiri na kwa hoja kudumisha maoni yao katika mambo ya dini, na kwamba hayo hayatapunguza, kupanua au kuathiri uwezo wao wa kiraia kwa namna yoyote.’ Uwasilishaji huu wote wa kisheria unapatikana katika ‘Appeal’ ya Robert Walsh, oktavo, iliyochapishwa Philadelphia, 1819, uk. 429-435.In 1678 England was thrown into an intense excitement by the general belief in a 'Popish plot' for the assassination of William III. The popular idea was that the Protestants were to be given over to a British St. Bartholomew; the Duke of York, a bigoted Catholic, was to usurp the throne, and all were ready for a bloody civil war. Some friend of Rhode Island may have shared in this panic, but there is not the slightest evidence that its legislators did, especially as they repealed the smuggled clause on discovery. The following [illegible] the law in 1798: 'Whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and settlement in this State, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil State may stand and be best maintained with a full liberty in religious concernments; Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, and by the authority thereof it is enacted, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall he be enforced, restrained or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.' This whole legal presentation is found in Robert Walsh's 'Appeal,' an octavo, published in Philadelphia, 1819, pp. 429-435.
Uhuru wa kidini kwa Wayahudi huko Rhode Island lazima urejelewe hapa. Mwanzoni mwa karne ya kumi na saba, Uholanzi ilikuwa nchi pekee ambapo walifurahia baraka hii. Kusanyiko lao kubwa zaidi la Ulaya lilikuwa Amsterdam, pia Talmud Tora yao, au shule ya vijana wa Kiebrania. Leonard Busher alitoa ombi la kwanza kwa uhuru wao huko Uingereza, mwaka 1614, akisema: ‘Mfalme na Bunge wanaweza kupenda kuruhusu Wakristo wote, naam, Wayahudi, Waturuki na wapagani, maadamu ni wa amani na si wahalifu.’ Ombi la pili lilitolewa na Roger Williams, katika vifungu vitatu vya ‘Bloody Tenet’ yake, iliyochapishwa London, 1644, ambavyo kimoja kinasema hivi, na vingine vina maana ileile: ‘Ni mapenzi na amri ya Mungu, kwamba tangu kuja kwa Mwanawe, Bwana Yesu, ruhusa ya dhamiri na ibada za kipagani zaidi, za Kiyahudi, za Kituruki au za kinyume cha Kristo, itolewe kwa watu katika mataifa yote na nchi. . . .Religious liberty for Jews in Rhode Island must be referred to here. At the opening of the seventeenth century, Holland was the only country where they enjoyed this blessing. Their largest European congregation was in Amsterdam, also their Talmud Tora, or school for Hebrew youth. Leonard Busher made the first plea for their liberty in England, in 1614, saying: 'The king and Parliament may please to permit all Christians, yea, Jews, Turks and pagans, so long as they are peaceable and no malefactors.' A second plea was made by Roger Williams, in three passages of his 'Bloody Tenet,' published in London, 1644, one of which reads thus, and the others are of the same tenor: 'It is the will and command of God, that since the coming of his Son, the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to men in all nations and countries. . . .
Kwamba Dola za kiraia pamoja na maafisa wao wa haki si watawala wala watetezi wa hali ya kiroho na ya Kikristo na ibada.’ Madaktari Featley, Baillie na wengine walimshtaki kwa kufuru ya kushtua zaidi kwa fundisho hili, na hasira ya watu ilikuwa kali kiasi kwamba kitabu chake kilichomwa. Samuel Richardson anauliza, katika kazi yake ‘Necessity of Toleration,’ iliyochapishwa 1647 (uk. 270): ‘Je, makuhani hawakuwa sababu ya kuchomwa kwa kitabu kiitwacho “The Bloody Tenet,” kwa sababu kilikuwa dhidi ya mateso? Na je, dhamiri zao zisingeruhusu kuchomwa kwa mwandishi wake?’ Baillie mwenyewe alisema: ‘Uhuru wa dhamiri, na uvumilivu wa dini zote au yoyote, ni uovu wa kutisha kiasi kwamba Bunge hili la kidini haliwezi ila kuchukia hata kutajwa kwake. Chochote kinachoweza kuwa maoni ya John Goodwin, Bw. Williams na baadhi ya aina hiyo, . . . hata hivyo Bw. Burroughs analipuliza chukizo hilo.’That civil States with their officers of justice are not governors or defenders of the spiritual and Christian state and worship.' Drs. Featley, Baillie and others charged him with the most shocking blasphemy for this doctrine, and popular indignation was so savage that his book was burned. Samuel Richardson demands, in his work on the 'Necessity of Toleration,' published 1647 (p. 270): 'Whether the priests were not the cause of the burning of the book entitled "The Bloody Tenet," because it was against persecution? And whether their consciences would not have dispensed with the burning of the author of it?' Baillie himself said: 'Liberty of conscience, and toleration of all or any religion, is so prodigious an impiety, that this religious Parliament cannot but abhor the very naming of it. Whatever may be the opinions of John Goodwin, Mr. Williams and some of that stamp, . . . yet Mr. Burroughs explodes that abomination.'
Wayahudi walikuwa wamefukuzwa kutoka Uingereza mwaka 1290, na baada ya kufukuzwa kwa miaka 364, waliomba Cromwell na Bunge kwa ruhusa ya kurudi, ili wafanye biashara katika ufalme na kufuata dini yao. Ni ushawishi gani kitabu cha Williams kilitoa kwa kurudi kwao haionekani, lakini karibu miaka sita baada ya kuchapishwa kwake ombi lao lilikubaliwa, na mwaka 1656 walijenga sinagogi lao la kwanza katika King Street, London. Mabishano haya yalihamishwa hivi karibuni hadi Amerika. Edward Winslow alimwandikia Winthrop, tarehe 24 Novemba, 1645, akisema kwamba katika kikao cha hivi karibuni cha Bunge la Sheria walikuwa na mashindano makali juu ya pendekezo: ‘Kuruhusu na kudumisha uvumilivu kamili na huru wa dini kwa watu wote watakaodumisha amani ya kiraia na kujitiisha kwa serikali, na hakukuwa na kikomo wala ubaguzi dhidi ya Mturuki, Myahudi, Mpapa, Arian, Mwana-Socini, Mwana-Nicholayton, Mwana-Familia, au yeyote mwingine, n.k.’The Jews had been driven from England in 1290, and after banishment for 364 years, they petitioned Cromwell and Parliament for permission to return, that they might trade in the realm and follow their religion. What influence Williams's book had exerted in favor of their return does not appear, but about six years after its publication their request was granted, and in 1656 they built their first synagogue in King Street, London. This controversy was soon transferred to America. Edward Winslow wrote to Winthrop, under date of November 24th, 1645, saying that at a late session of the Legislature they had had a violent contest over the proposition: 'To allow and maintain full and free toleration of religion to all men that would preserve the civil peace and submit unto government, and there was no limitation or exception against Turk, Jew, Papist, Arian, Socinian, Nicholayton, Familist, or any other, etc.'
Bw. Winslow anasema kwamba mwasilishaji alimwasilishia, na ‘Baada ya kulisoma, nilimwambia kwamba nilichukia kabisa kama kitu kitakachotufanya tuchukiwe na jumuiya zote za Kikristo. . . . Lakini gavana wetu na wengi wetu tulikuwa tumeeleza kwamba matokeo ya huzuni yangefuata, hasa mimi na Bw. Prence, hata hivyo, ilidaiwa kulingana na utaratibu kupigiwa kura. Lakini gavana hangeruhusu kufikishwa kwa kura, kwa kuwa hilo kweli lingeula nguvu ya utauwa, n.k. . . . Kwa hili mnaweza kuona kwamba taabu zote za New England haziko Massachusetts tu. Bwana kwa rehema atutazame na kutuliza roho hii ya mgawanyiko inayotambaa miongoni mwetu.’ Kwa kupinga moja kwa moja na mafundisho haya na kupatana na mafundisho ya Roger Williams, Baraza Kuu la Rhode Island liliamuru, mwaka 1647, miaka mitatu baada ya kuchapishwa kwake ‘Bloody Tenet,’ na miaka mitatu kabla Uingereza haijaruhusu Wayahudi kurudi katika ufalme, kwamba katika koloni hili, ‘WATU WOTE wanaweza kutembea kama dhamiri zao zinavyowashawishi, kila mmoja kwa jina la Mungu wake.’Mr. Winslow says that the mover submitted it to him, and 'Having read it, I told him I utterly abhorred it as such as would make us odious to all Christian commonweals. . . . But our governor and divers of us having expressed that sad consequences would follow, especially myself and Mr. Prence, yet, notwithstanding it was required according to order to be voted. But the governor would not suffer it to come to vote, as being that indeed would eat out the power of godliness, etc. . . . By this you may see that all the troubles of New England are not at the Massachusetts. The Lord in mercy look upon us and allay this spirit of division that is creeping in amongst us.' In direct opposition to this teaching and in harmony with the teaching of Roger Williams, the General Assembly of Rhode Island decreed, in 1647, three years after his publication of the 'Bloody Tenet,' and three years before England permitted Jews to return to the realm, that in this colony, 'ALL men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God.'
Mwaka 1649 Edward Winslow alichapisha ‘Danger of Tolerating Levelers in a Civil State,’ na mwaka 1652 Roger Williams alichapisha barua yake kwa Endicott, Gavana wa Massachusetts, pamoja na Kiambatisho kilichoelekezwa kwa makundi manne ya makasisi, ‘Wafuasi wa Papa, Wafuasi wa Maaskofu-watawala, Wapresbiteri na Wanaojitegemea (Independents),’ ambamo anasema juu ya wale wanaokataa kuwa Wakristo: ‘Naam, wakikataa, wakikana, wakipinga mafundisho ya Yesu Kristo, kama ni Wayahudi au Mataifa, kwa nini mtaita moto kutoka mbinguni, ambao haupatani na Yesu Kristo, Roho wake na malengo yake. Kwa nini mtawalazimisha kuingia, kwa upanga mwingine wowote isipokuwa ule wa Roho wa Mungu?’ Wakati huo hakukuwa na kusanyiko la Kiyahudi lililopangwa Uingereza wala katika Makoloni yake yoyote ya Amerika. Mapema mwaka 1650 Wayahudi wachache wa Kireno kutoka Uholanzi walikuwa wamefika New York licha ya pingamizi la Peter Stuyvesant, lililotolewa kwa Kampuni ya West India huko Amsterdam mwaka 1654; lakini kwa kuwa Wayahudi walikuwa wanahisa wakubwa katika kampuni hiyo, walisisitiza kwamba mapendeleo fulani yatolewe kwa wenzao wa dini.In 1649 Edward Winslow published his 'Danger of Tolerating Levelers in a Civil State,' and in 1652 Roger Williams published his letter to Endicott, Governor of Massachusetts, with an Appendix addressed to four classes of the clergy, 'Popish, Prelatical, Presbyterian and Independent,' in which he says of those who refuse to be Christians: 'Yea, if they refuse, deny, oppose the doctrine of Jesus Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles, why should you call for fire from heaven, which suits not with Jesus Christ, his Spirit and ends. Why should you compel them to come in, with any other sword but that of the Spirit of God?' At that time there was no organized Jewish congregation in Great Britain or any of her American Colonies. As early as 1650 a few Portuguese Jews from Holland had found their way to New York against the protest of Peter Stuyvesant, made to the West India Company at Amsterdam in 1654; but as the Jews were large stockholders in that company, they insisted on certain privileges being granted to their co-religionists.
Wananchi wa New Amsterdam hawakutaka kufanya mazoezi nao katika Kampuni ya Burgher, na Wayahudi walisamehewa wajibu wa kijeshi kwa sharti la kulipa stivers sitini na tano kwa mwezi. Mwaka 1655 Sheria maalum iliwaruhusu kuishi na kufanya biashara huko, mradi watawategemeza maskini wao wenyewe. Tarehe 27 Julai, 1655, waliomba kiwanja cha makaburi, lakini walikataliwa kwa kisingizio kwamba ‘hawakuhitaji bado;’ mmoja wao alipokufa, tarehe 14 Februari, 1656, walipewa kiwanja ‘kwa mahali pa kuzika,’ nje ya mji. Tarehe 13 Machi, 1656, Stuyvesant, mkurugenzi wa Kampuni, aliagizwa kwamba wafurahie mapendeleo yale yale ya kiraia na ya kisiasa waliyofurahia Uholanzi, lakini kwamba ‘wasithubutu kufanya ibada ya kidini katika masinagogi au mikutano, na walipoomba mapendeleo hayo,’ apeleke ombi kwa wakubwa wake.’The citizens of New Amsterdam would not train with them in the Burgher Company, and the Jews were exempted from military duty on condition of paying sixty-five stivers per month. In 1655 a special Act permitted them to live and trade there, provided that they would support their own poor. On the 27th of July, 1655, they petitioned for a burying ground, but were refused on the pretext that they had 'no need of it yet;' one of their number dying, on the 14th of February, 1656, they were granted a lot 'for a place of interment,' outside the city. On the 13th of March, 1656, Stuyvesant, director of the Company, was instructed that they should enjoy the same civil and political privileges that they enjoyed in Holland, but that 'they should not presume to exercise religious worship in synagogues or meetings, and when they requested that privilege,' he was to refer the petition to his superiors.'
Bado hawakuruhusiwa ‘kufanya ufundi wowote wa mikono au kuweka duka lolote wazi la rejareja,’ lakini walikuwa huru ‘kufanya ibada yao ya kidini kwa utulivu wote ndani ya nyumba zao. Kwa kusudi hilo bila shaka watatafuta kujenga makazi yao pamoja mahali pa urahisi zaidi, upande mmoja au mwingine wa New Amsterdam.’ Katika masika ya 1657 walikubaliwa kwa haki ya uraia, lakini Rabi Lyons mwenye elimu, pengine mamlaka ya juu zaidi ya Kiebrania juu ya jambo hilo, anasema katika ‘Jewish Calendar’ yake (ukurasa 160), kwamba ‘dakika zao za kwanza za mambo ya kusanyiko, zilizoandikwa kwa Kihispania na Kiingereza, zimeandikwa tarehe Tishree 20, 5489—1728,’ na kwamba hizi zinarejelea ‘kanuni na taratibu zilizopitishwa, 5466 — 1706, miaka ishirini kabla.’ Sinagogi lao la kwanza halikuwekwa wakfu hadi 1696, Samuel Brown alipokuwa rabi wao. Kwa mamlaka hiyohiyo ya juu tunapata kwamba kusanyiko la Kiyahudi, Jeshuat Israel, lilianzishwa waziwazi huko Newport, Rhode Island, mwaka 1658, chini ya kifungu pana cha 1647, kwamba ‘watu wote’ katika Koloni hilo ‘wanaweza kutembea kama dhamiri zao zinavyowashawishi, kila mmoja kwa jina la Mungu wake.’Still they were not allowed 'to exercise any handicraft or to keep any open retail store,' but they were at liberty to 'exercise their religious worship in all quietness within their houses. To which end they will, doubtless, seek to build their dwellings together in a more convenient place, on the one or the other side of New Amsterdam.' In the spring of 1657 they were admitted to the right of citizenship, but the learned Rabbi Lyons, possibly the highest Hebrew authority on the subject, says in his 'Jewish Calendar' (page 160), that their 'first minutes of congregational affairs, written in Spanish and English, are dated Tishree 20th, 5489—1728,' and that these refer to 'rules and regulations adopted, 5466 — 1706, twenty years previous.' Their first synagogue was not dedicated till 1696, when Samuel Brown was their rabbi. On the same high authority we find that the Jewish congregation, Jeshuat Israel, was openly organized in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1658, under the broad provision of 1647, that 'all men' in that Colony 'may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God.'
Uhuru kama huo hawakuwa nao mahali pengine popote duniani wakati huo, Uholanzi ikiwa haijatengwa, kwa kuwa hata huko walikatazwa kusema au kuandika kwa kudharau dini ya Kikristo; kufanya wongofu kwa imani yao wenyewe; kufanya ufundi wowote wa mikono au kuendesha biashara ya rejareja; na ndoa kati ya Wakristo na Wayahudi zilikatazwa vikali.’ Hawakuwa chini ya vikwazo hivi vyovyote huko Rhode Island, bali katika mambo haya yote walisimama katika usawa kamili na Wabaptisti, Waquaker na wafuasi wengine wa dini, na kusanyiko hilo limebaki bila kusumbuliwa hadi leo, kipindi cha miaka mia mbili na ishirini na nane, na ni changa kwa miaka kumi na minne tu kuliko Kanisa la kwanza la Kibaptisti la mji huo. Arnold anasema kwamba walifanya mengi kujenga masilahi ya kibiashara ya Newport. Baadhi yao walipanda katika upendeleo wa umma kwa huduma zao kwa Jimbo, na tarehe 20 Agosti, 1750, ‘Moses Lopez, wa Newport, alisamehewa kwa ombi lake mwenyewe kutoka kwa wajibu mwingine wote wa kiraia, kwa sababu ya huduma zake za bure kwa serikali katika kutafsiri nyaraka za Kihispania.’Such liberty they had not elsewhere on this globe at that time, Holland not excepted, for even there they were forbidden to speak or to write disparagingly of the Christian religion; to make converts to their own faith; to exercise any handicraft or carry on retail trade; and marriages between Christians and Jews were strictly prohibited.' They labored under none of these restrictions in Rhode Island, but in all these respects stood upon a perfect equality with Baptists, Quakers and other religionists, and that congregation has remained undisturbed to this day, a period of two hundred and twenty-eight years, and is but fourteen years younger than the first Baptist Church of that city. Arnold says that they did much to build up the commercial interests of Newport. Some of them rose in public favor for their services to the State, and on August 20th, 1750, 'Moses Lopez, of Newport, was excused at his own request from all other civil duties, on account of his gratuitous services to the government in translating Spanish documents.'
Hii inaonyesha kwamba alikuwa amefanya wajibu wote wa kiraia wa raia huru hadi wakati huo. Kufikia mwaka 1760, kusanyiko dogo la Kiyahudi huko Newport lilikuwa limeongezeka hadi familia sitini, mahitaji yao yakidai kujengwa kwa sinagogi, ambalo walianza kujenga mwaka 1762, na ambalo rabi wao, Isaac Touro, aliliweka wakfu kwa Yehova mwaka 1763, kwa ‘fahari na sherehe kuu.’ Ongezeko hili kubwa la idadi yao lilitokana hasa na tetemeko kuu la ardhi la 1755, ambalo kitovu chake kilikuwa Uhispania na Ureno; lilimeza wakazi elfu hamsini wa Lisbon peke yake. Wengi wa Wayahudi, waliokimbia kwa usalama kutoka kwa maadui wakatili zaidi kuliko ardhi iliyopasuka, walikuja Rhode Island, ambapo ndugu zao wenyewe walikuwa wameabudu Mungu kwa amani na usalama kwa miaka mia moja na minane. Ukweli huu unakanusha kabisa ukweli unaodaiwa kwamba mwaka 1663-64 Rhode Island ilipitisha sheria inayopunguza uhuru wa kidini kwa wale ‘wanaokiri Ukristo.’This indicates that he had done all the civil duties of a freeman up to that time. By the year 1760, the little Jewish congregation at Newport had increased to sixty families, their necessities demanding the erection of a synagogue, which they began to build in 1762, and which their rabbi, Isaac Touro, dedicated to Jehovah in 1763, with 'great pomp and ceremony.' This large increase in their number was due chiefly to the great earthquake of 1755, the center of which was in Spain and Portugal; it swallowed up fifty thousand inhabitants of Lisbon alone. Many of the Jews, who fled for safety from more cruel foes than the yawning earth, came to Rhode Island, where their own brethren had worshiped God in peace and safety for one hundred and eight years. These facts entirely disprove the alleged fact that in 1663-64 Rhode Island passed a law restricting religious liberty to those 'professing Christianity.'
[…][…]
Hakuna kundi la watu linalomtambua Roger Williams kwa dhati zaidi na shukrani zaidi kama mtume wa uhuru wao kuliko Wayahudi wa Marekani. Mmoja wa waandishi wao hodari anasema katika kazi ya hivi karibuni: ‘Bingwa wa kwanza wa uhuru wa kidini, au “uhuru wa dhamiri” (soul liberty), kama alivyoita kito hicho cha thamani zaidi cha uhuru wote, alikuwa Roger Williams. . . . Kwake kwa haki kunastahili umaarufu usiokufa wa kuwa mtu wa kwanza katika nyakati za kisasa kutangaza na kudumisha kwa ukamilifu wake wote haki kamili ya kila mtu ya “uhuru kamili katika mambo ya kidini,” na kuanzisha Jimbo ambamo fundisho hili lilikuwa jiwe kuu la sheria zake za msingi. . . . Roger Williams, aina safi ya kwanza ya raia huru wa Marekani, alitangaza sheria za uhuru wa kiraia na wa kidini, kwamba “watu ndio asili ya mamlaka yote huru katika serikali,” kwamba Mungu hajawapa watu mamlaka juu ya dhamiri, wala watu hawawezi kupeana mamlaka hii wao kwa wao; kwamba udhibiti wa dhamiri si mojawapo ya makusudi ambayo kwayo watu huungana katika jamii ya kiraia.No class of people more earnestly and gratefully recognize Roger Williams as the apostle of their liberties than do the American Jews. One of their ablest writers says in a recent work: 'The earliest champion of religious freedom, or "soul liberty," as he designated that most precious jewel of all liberties, was Roger Williams. . . . To him rightfully belongs the immortal fame of having been the first person in modern times to assert and maintain in its fullest plenitude the absolute right of every man to "a full liberty in religious concernments," and to found a State wherein this doctrine was the key-stone of its organic laws. . . . Roger Williams, the first pure type of an American freeman, proclaimed the laws of civil and religious liberty, that "the people were the origin of all free power in government," that God has given to men no power over conscience, nor can men grant this power to each other; that the regulation of the conscience is not one of the purposes for which men combine in civil society.
Kwa kutamka uzushi kama huo, mwanzilishi huyu mkuu wa uhuru wetu alifukuzwa kutoka mamlaka ya Wapuritani huko Amerika. . . . Kwa kumbukumbu ya shukrani ya majaliwa ya rehema ya Mungu kwake katika dhiki yake, alipa (mji huo mpya) jina la Providence. “Nilitamani,” alisema, “iwe kimbilio kwa watu wanaosumbuliwa kwa ajili ya dhamiri.” . . . Jamii changa ya Providence mara moja ilianza kutunga sheria za serikali, kwa kupatana kabisa na roho ya makazi hayo. “Mabwana wa familia waliounganishwa pamoja kuwa mji, na wengine ambao watawakubali ndani yake, katika mambo ya kiraia tu.” Hati hii rahisi ndiyo katiba ya mapema zaidi ya serikali tuliyo na kumbukumbu yake, ambayo si tu ilivumilia dini zote, bali ilitambua kama haki, uhuru kamili wa dhamiri.’For uttering such heresies, this great founder of our liberties was banished out of the jurisdiction of the Puritans in America. . . . In grateful remembrance of God's merciful providence to him in his distress, he gave to it (the new town) the name of Providence. "I desired," said he, "it might be a shelter for persons distressed for conscience." . . . The infant community at Providence at once set about to frame laws for government, in strict accord with the spirit of the settlement. "Masters of families incorporated together into a township, and such others as they shall admit into the same, only in civil things." This simple instrument is the earliest constitution of government whereof we have any record, which not only tolerated all religions, but recognized as a right, absolute liberty of conscience.'
5. Wabaptisti na Uhuru wa Dini katika Katiba za Marekani5. Baptists and Religious Liberty in the American Constitutions
Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Sura ya XII, “Wabaptisti wa Marekani na Uhuru wa Kikatiba” (takriban uk. 796–813). Imefupishwa; sehemu zilizoachwa zimewekwa alama […]. Maandishi ya Kiingereza yametoka kwa OCR isiyolinganishwa na nakala nyingine; mgawanyo wa aya umewekwa na CTS. Tafsiri za mambo ni za mwandishi.Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (1887), Chapter XII, “The American Baptists and Constitutional Liberty” (about pp. 796–813). Abridged; omissions marked […]. English text from uncollated OCR; paragraph divisions supplied by CTS. The interpretations are the author’s.
Dokezo la CTS: Armitage anafuatilia kazi ya Wabaptisti kwa ajili ya uhuru wa dini huko Rhode Island, Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont na South Carolina. Wanahistoria wanakubali muhtasari mpana, na pia wanawapa sifa Wapresbiteri, Waquaker na wanasiasa wa Mwangaza (Enlightenment) kama Jefferson na Madison. Baadhi ya maelezo yana mabishano au yanategemea mapokeo: hadithi kwamba Jefferson alijifunza demokrasia katika kanisa la Kibaptisti haiwezi kuthibitishwa kwa nyaraka; kifungu cha uhuru wa dini cha Tamko la Haki la Virginia (1776) kiliandaliwa na George Mason na kurekebishwa na Madison, na sehemu ya Patrick Henry si hakika; maelezo ya Leland na Madison yanatokana na kumbukumbu za baadaye. Massachusetts ilimaliza kanisa lake rasmi la serikali mwaka 1833. Richard Furman, anayesifiwa mwishoni, pia alikuwa mmiliki wa watumwa na mwaka 1823 alichapisha utetezi wa utumwa, jambo ambalo Armitage halitaji. Maneno yaliyokatwa kwenye ukingo wa ukurasa katika nakala iliyochanganuliwa yamewekwa alama [haisomeki]; vifungu kuhusu “Uaskofu wa Marekani” (American Episcopate), Shauri la Wachungaji (Parsons’ Cause), hotuba ya Wabaptisti kwa Washington na hotuba ya Leland ya mwaka 1811 vimeachwa kwa sababu OCR imeharibika vibaya huko.CTS note: Armitage traces Baptist work for religious liberty in Rhode Island, Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont and South Carolina. Historians accept the broad outline, and also credit Presbyterians, Quakers and Enlightenment statesmen such as Jefferson and Madison. Some details are disputed or rest on tradition: the story that Jefferson learned democracy at a Baptist church cannot be documented; the religious-liberty article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) was drafted by George Mason and amended by Madison, and Patrick Henry’s share is uncertain; the account of Leland and Madison comes from later recollections. Massachusetts ended its church establishment in 1833. Richard Furman, praised at the end, was also a slaveholder who in 1823 published a defense of slavery, which Armitage does not mention. Words clipped at the page edge in the scan are marked [illegible]; passages on the “American Episcopate,” the Parsons’ Cause, the Baptist address to Washington and Leland’s 1811 speech have been omitted because the OCR is badly damaged there.
Sura ya XII. Wabaptisti wa Marekani na Uhuru wa KikatibaChapter XII. The American Baptists and Constitutional Liberty
Dkt. Leonard Bacon anaandika juu ya Wabaptisti katika ‘New England Theocracy’ yake hivi: ‘Imedaiwa kwa Makanisa haya kwamba tangu enzi ya Matengenezo ya Kanisa na kuendelea siku zote wamekuwa mstari wa mbele na thabiti katika kudumisha fundisho la uhuru wa dini. Nisieleweke kama ninatilia shaka haki yao ya heshima kuu kama hiyo.’ Lakini hadi Mapinduzi ya Marekani walikuwa na njia chache, kwa kulinganisha, za kuonyesha uthabiti wa vitendo wa dai hili. Hata hivyo, uwanja ulipofunguliwa kwa ushahidi wa majaribio kwamba lilikuwa na msingi mzuri, hawakukutwa na ukosefu wa uaminifu katika uhusiano wao na katiba huru za Majimbo mbalimbali wala ile ya Marekani. Walikuwa na matumaini kidogo kutoka kwa wengi wa wakoloni wenzao, ambao walikuwa wamefikia ukomo wa uwezo wao katika kutumia nguvu zote za kijamii na kisheria kuwatesa na kuwaangamiza kama shirika la kidini, na kipengele hicho cha swali kilizingatiwa na wao kwa uzito.Dr. Leonard Bacon writes of the Baptists in his 'New England Theocracy' thus: 'It has been claimed for these Churches that from the age of the Reformation onward they have been always foremost and always consistent in maintaining the doctrine of religious liberty. Let me not be understood as calling in question their right to so great an honor.' But until the American Revolution they had scant means, comparatively, to demonstrate the practical soundness of this claim. Yet when the field was open for experimental proof that it was well founded, they were not found faithless in their relations either to the free constitutions of the several States or to that of the United States. They had little to hope from most of their fellow-colonists, who had gone to the verge of their power in using all social and legal forces to persecute and destroy them as a religious body, and that phase of the question was solemnly considered by them.
Dkt. Samuel Jones alipoenda kama mmoja wa kamati yao kuwasilisha ombi lao kwa Bunge la Bara alisema: ‘Ilionekana kwetu kuwa si busara kwamba tuitwe kusimama pamoja nao katika kutetea uhuru, kama, baada ya yote, ilikuwa uhuru kwa upande mmoja kumdhulumu mwingine.’ Koloni dogo la Kibaptisti la Rhode Island lilikuwa na mengi ya kupoteza na machache ya kupata kutokana na mapinduzi kuliko makoloni mengine kumi na mawili ya dada yake. Tofauti na Massachusetts na Virginia, halikuwa na Gavana aliyeteuliwa na Taji, ambaye angeweza kupiga kura ya turufu juu ya sheria zake. Bancroft anatuambia kwamba Jimbo hili lilifurahia baada ya mapinduzi, ‘namna ya serikali chini ya hati yake iliyo ya kijamhuri kikamilifu hivi kwamba hakuna mabadiliko yaliyohitajika zaidi ya kukataa jina la Mfalme, katika mtindo wa matendo yake ya umma.’ Mapinduzi yangehatarisha uhuru wake mkubwa, ilhali mafanikio kamili katika jaribio la kupata uhuru kutoka Uingereza yangeongeza kidogo kwa haki alizokuwa nazo tayari.When Dr. Samuel Jones went as one of their committee to present their appeal to the Continental Congress he said: 'It seemed unreasonable to us that we should be called to stand up with them in defense of liberty, if, after all, it was to be a liberty for one party to oppress another.' The little Baptist colony of Rhode Island had more to lose and less to gain by revolution than any of her twelve sister colonies. Unlike Massachusetts and Virginia, she had no Governor appointed by the Crown, who could veto her acts of legislation. Bancroft tells us that this State enjoyed after the revolution, 'a form of government under its charter so thoroughly republican that no change was required beyond a renunciation of the King's name, in the style of its public acts.' Revolution would imperil her largest liberties, while complete success in the attempt to secure independence of Britain would add little to the rights which she already possessed.
Lakini kama lingeshindwa ilibidi liachie hata hizi, kwa kuwa Taji ingeliteulia Gavana na kudhibiti sheria zake, angalau kwa uwezo wa turufu. Hata hivyo, hakuna kuzingatia kwa ubinafsi wa namna hii kulikopima uzito kwa Wabaptisti wa Rhode Island. Waliona ndugu zao wa makoloni mengine wakionewa kuliko wao, na kwa kuwa upendo wao wenyewe wa uhuru ulikuwa ukuaji wa kweli, waliudai kama haki ya kuzaliwa ya wote. Kwa hiyo, walikuwa tayari mara moja kupinga uvamizi wa uhuru wa kiraia wa makoloni yote kama walivyokuwa tayari kupinga madai yasiyo ya haki ya udhalimu wa kiroho juu yao wenyewe. Kwa hiyo, walibeba pamoja nao katika mapambano dhidi ya ukandamizaji wa kiraia roho ileile iliyowasukuma katika kupinga uvamizi wowote wa uhuru wa roho. Miezi miwili kabla ya Tamko la Uhuru, na siku thelathini na mbili kabla Virginia haijakana utii kwa Taji, Rhode Island ilikana utii wote kwa George III., Mei 4, 1776; na mara baada ya kurudi nyuma kwa Jenerali Gage kutoka Concord na Lexington Bunge lake la Sheria lilipiga kura ya kutuma watu 1,500 mahali pa mapambano.But should she be conquered she must relinquish even these, for the Crown would appoint her a Governor and control her legislation, at least by the power of the veto. Yet no selfish consideration of this sort weighed with the Baptists of Rhode Island. They saw their brethren of other colonies oppressed more than they were, and as their own love of liberty was a genuine growth, they demanded it as the birthright of all. Hence, they were as ready at once to resist encroachment upon the civil liberties of all the colonies as they had been to defy the unjust exactions of a spiritual tyranny upon themselves. They, therefore, carried with them into the struggle against civil oppression the same spirit which had moved them in resisting all encroachment upon the liberties of the soul. Two months before the Declaration of Independence, and thirty-two days before Virginia renounced allegiance to the Crown, Rhode Island repudiated all allegiance to George III., May 4th, 1776; and immediately after the retreat of General Gage from Concord and Lexington her Legislature voted to send 1,500 men to the scene of conflict.
Kwa hiyo, ni ushuhuda wa maana kwa tabia ya mafundisho ya Williams na Clarke kwamba baraka waliyowapa Wana-Rhode Island, kwanza mkutano wa mji kisha Baraza la Koloni lililovuliwa nguvu zote za kugusa swali la ‘dhamiri’ na kufungiwa kwenye ‘mambo ya kiraia,’ lilipaswa katika karne iliyofuata kuzaa matunda mazuri kama hayo. Karibu vizazi vitano vilikuwa vimepita tangu koloni lilipopandwa kwa mara ya kwanza, na sasa lilikuwa tayari kuhatarisha uhuru wake wa kidini ili kuendeleza uhuru wa kisiasa wa jamii nyingine. Hili halikuleta mkazo mdogo kwa uzalendo wake usio na ubinafsi. Wabaptisti wa Virginia walichukua hatua ya uthabiti vilevile kwa ajili ya uhuru, ingawa katika mazingira tofauti, bila kupungua hata nukta kwa heshima. Licha ya mateso yao na Koloni lenyewe, wakati ule ule Mkutano wa Jimbo ulipokutana kuamua wajibu wa Koloni, makanisa sitini ya Kibaptisti yalisema kwa baraza hilo la kiraia: ‘Piga pigo!It is, therefore, a significant testimony to the character of the teaching of Williams and Clarke that the boon which they had given the Rhode Islanders, first the town-meeting and then the Colonial Assembly shorn of all power to touch the question of 'conscience' and shut up to 'civil things,' should in the next century have borne such good fruit. Nearly five generations had passed since the colony was first planted, and now it was willing to imperil its own religious freedom in order to advance the political liberties of other communities. This brought no small strain upon its unselfish patriotism. The Baptists of Virginia took an equally resolute step in favor of independence, but though under different circumstances, not a jot less honorable. Notwithstanding their persecutions by the Colony itself, the moment that the State Convention met to determine the duty of the Colony, sixty Baptist Churches said to this civil body: 'Strike the blow!
Fanyeni upinzani wa kijeshi dhidi ya Uingereza, katika uvamizi wake usio wa haki, ukandamizaji wake wa kidhalimu na uhasama wake wa mara kwa mara, nasi tutawaunga mkono, wahudumu na watu.’ Virginia haikuwa na huruma kwa Upuritani, na katika kujitoa kwake kwa zamani kwa Wastuart ilikuwa imekataa kutambua mamlaka ya Jumuiya (Commonwealth). Kwa sababu hii Massachusetts ilikuwa imepiga marufuku mawasiliano yote nayo, na chini ya utawala wa George III., Patrick Henry alipowasilisha Azimio lake maarufu la Tano kwenye Bunge la Sheria la Virginia, lililokuwa na fundisho la mapinduzi, likilaani Sheria ya Stempu, na kukataa kodi bila uwakilishi, watu wakuu wa baraza hilo walipaza kilio kwa hofu, ‘Uhaini! uhaini!’ Campbell, katika historia yake ya Virginia, anasema: ‘Spika Robinson, Peyton Randolph, Richard Bland, Edward Pendleton, George Wythe, na viongozi wote katika Baraza na wamiliki wa mashamba makubwa walifanya upinzani mkali.’ Kweli, ufasaha wa ajabu wa Henry ulipata wengi kwa azimio hilo, lakini watu waliolipigia kura waliogopeshwa sana na kilio cha uhaini kilichochochea hivi kwamba siku iliyofuata walipata kufutwa kwake kutoka kwenye kumbukumbu.Make military resistance to Great Britain, in her unjust invasion, tyrannical oppression and repeated hostilities, and we will sustain you, minister and people.' Virginia had no sympathy with Puritanism, and in her old devotion to the Stuarts had refused to recognize the authority of the Commonwealth. For this Massachusetts had prohibited all intercourse with her, and under the administration of George III., when Patrick Henry introduced his famous Fifth Resolution into the Virginia Legislature, containing the doctrine of revolution, denouncing the Stamp Act, and refusing taxation without representation, the leading men of that body cried with horror, 'Treason! treason!' Campbell, in his history of Virginia, says: 'Speaker Robinson, Peyton Randolph, Richard Bland, Edward Pendleton, George Wythe, and all the leaders in the House and proprietors of large estates made a strenuous resistance.' True, the wonderful eloquence of Henry secured a majority for the resolution, but the men who voted for it were so alarmed by the cry of treason which it provoked that the next day they secured its erasure from the records.
Moja ya mafumbo ya historia ya Marekani imekuwa kwamba, licha ya hisia za wengi wa watu wake wakuu waliokuwa watiifu kwa Taji hivyo, Virginia hatimaye ilichukua nafasi ya mbele miongoni mwa makoloni yaliyoasi. Jefferson, katika ‘Notes on Virginia’ yake, anatoa kwa bahati ufunguo wa tatizo hili. Anasema kwamba wakati wa Mapinduzi theluthi mbili za idadi ya watu wake walikuwa Wasiokubaliana na Kanisa rasmi (Dissenters); kwa sehemu kubwa walikuwa Waquaker, Wapresbiteri na Wabaptisti. Kwa mateso yasiyovumilika na kazi zisizochoka za wahubiri Wabaptisti walikuwa wameupenda na kuueneza upendo wao wa uhuru katika koloni zima kwa nusu karne. Ombi lao kwa Mkutano lilikuwa na mizizi ya kina kuliko hisia za saa hiyo; lilikuwa limejengwa juu ya imani za kiinjili zilizoshirikiwa na wengi wa watu wa Virginia. Kwamba Virginia [haisomeki] iliweka kando mizizi yake ya Kifalme na kuunga mkono kwa uaminifu jambo la mapinduzi [haisomeki] kwa kiasi kikubwa kulitokana na ukweli kwamba mateso ya Wabaptisti, mahubiri na mazoezi ya kidemokrasia [haisomeki] yaliwaelimisha watu wake kwa ajili ya jambo hilo.One of the paradoxes of American history has been that, despite the sentiment of many of its leading men thus loyal to the Crown, Virginia should have finally taken front rank amongst the revolting colonies. Jefferson, in his 'Notes on Virginia,' incidentally supplies the clue to this problem. He states that at the time of the Revolution two-thirds of her population had become Dissenters; for the most part they were Quakers, Presbyterians and Baptists. By the intolerable sufferings and indefatigable labors of the Baptist preachers they had cherished and diffused their own love of liberty throughout the whole colony for half a century. Their memorial to the Convention had deeper root than the feeling of the hour; it was grounded in those evangelical convictions which were shared by a majority of the people of Virginia. That Virginia [illegible] her Royalist antecedents aside and loyally espoused the cause of the revolution [illegible] largely due to the fact that Baptist suffering, preaching and democratic practice [illegible] educated her people for the issue.
Thomas Jefferson, pengine Mwanayunitarian wa hali ya juu; Patrick Henry, Mpresbiteri mcha Mungu; na James Madison, aliyedhaniwa [haisomeki] Mwaepiskopali huria, walihisi mapigo ya moyo wa umma, wakaona kwamba uzalendo wake [haisomeki] umejengwa juu ya imani ya kidini, na, kama watu wenye busara, badala ya kuzuia [haisomeki] mkondo mkali walilipa uongozi wao, chini yake ulipita mbele, licha ya upinzani wa wachungaji wa Kiingereza na mapokeo yanayonasa ya uongozi wa kikuhani unaosaga. Hata hivyo Wabaptisti wa Virginia hawakukimbilia mapambano haya kwa haraka, wala hawakuwa bila kusudi lililo wazi; walihesabu gharama na walitazamia [haisomeki] matokeo halali ya msimamo wao. Kumbukumbu za Mkutano wa Koloni, [haisomeki] 20, 1776, zinasema kwamba: ‘Ombi la watu kadhaa wa Kanisa la Kibaptisti, katika Kaunti ya [haisomeki] William, ambao majina yao yametiwa sahihi humo, liliwasilishwa kwa Mkutano na kusomwa, likieleza kwamba wakati [haisomeki] ambapo koloni hili, pamoja na mengine, linapigania haki za kiraia za wanadamu, dhidi ya mipango ya kutumbukiza utumwani ya adui mwenye nguvu, wanashawishika kwamba umoja mkali kabisa ni muhimu miongoni mwetu, na kwamba kila sababu iliyobaki ya mgawanyiko iondolewe, ikiwezekana, wanaona ni wajibu wao kuomba mapendeleo yafuatayo ya kidini, ambayo [haisomeki] bado hawajapewa katika sehemu hii ya ulimwengu, yaani: Kwamba waruhusiwe kumwabudu Mungu kwa njia yao wenyewe, bila kukatizwa; kwamba waruhusiwe kuwategemeza wahudumu wao wenyewe na si wengine; kwamba waweze kuoa, kuzika na kadhalika bila kulipa makasisi wa madhehebu mengine; kwamba, mambo haya yakitolewa, watajiunga kwa furaha na ndugu zao, na [haisomeki] kwa uwezo wao wote kuendeleza jambo la pamoja.Thomas Jefferson, possibly an advanced Unitarian; Patrick Henry, a devout Presbyterian; and James Madison, thought to [illegible] liberal Episcopalian, felt the throb of the public heart, saw that its patriotism [illegible] founded upon religious conviction, and, like wise men, instead of stemming [illegible] strong tide they gave it their leadership, under which it swept on, notwithstanding the opposition of English rectors and the entangling traditions of a grinding hierarchy. The Baptists of Virginia, however, did not rush hastily into this struggle, nor were they without a definite purpose; they counted the cost and anticipated [illegible] legitimate result of their position. The records of the Colonial Convention, [illegible] 20th, 1776, say that: 'A petition of sundry persons of the Baptist Church, in the County of [illegible] William, whose names are thereunto subscribed, was presented to the Convention and read, setting forth that at [illegible] time when this colony, with the others, is contending for the civil rights of mankind, against the enslaving schemes of a powerful enemy, they are persuaded the strictest unanimity is necessary among ourselves, and that every remaining cause of division may, if possible, be removed, they think it their duty to petition for the following religious privileges, which they have [illegible] yet been indulged with in this part of the world, to wit: That they be allowed to worship God in their own way, without interruption; that they be permitted to maintain their own ministers and none others; that they may be married, buried and the like without paying the clergy of other denominations; that, these things granted, they will gladly unite with their brethren, and [illegible] the utmost of their ability promote the common cause.
Iliamriwa, kwamba ombi hilo lipelekwe kwa Kamati ya Mapendekezo na Malalamiko; kwamba wachunguze madai yake na waripoti hayo, pamoja na maoni yao juu yake, kwa Mkutano.’ Wabaptisti hawakuficha kitu. Kwa uhuru kamili, wa kiraia na wa kidini, [haisomeki] tayari kutoa maisha yao na yote waliyokuwa nayo, lakini kwa pungufu ya hayo hawangehatarisha chochote; wangeweza vilevile kuwa watumwa wa kiraia wa Uingereza kama watumwa wa kidini wa [haisomeki] huko Virginia. Hili lilieleweka pande zote, na kwa hiyo walikuwa na wawakilishi wenye ushawishi wanaohudhuria daima Bunge la Sheria na Mikutano ya Jimbo kuanzia mwanzo hadi mwisho wa mapambano ya uhuru kamili wa kidini; [haisomeki] kama Askofu Meade anavyosema, haki zao kamili zilipopatikana: ‘Vita vilivyoanzishwa na Wabaptisti miaka ishirini na saba iliyopita sasa vimekwisha.’Ordered, that the said petition be referred to the Committee of Propositions and Grievances; that they inquire into the allegations thereof and report the same, with their opinions thereupon, to the Convention.' The Baptists concealed nothing. For full liberty, civil and religious, they [illegible] ready to give their lives and all that they had, but for less they would risk nothing; they might as well be the civil vassals of Britain as the religious vassals of a [illegible] in Virginia. This was understood all around, and hence they kept influential commissioners in constant attendance on the Legislature and Conventions of the State from the beginning to the close of the struggle for perfect religious freedom; [illegible] as Bishop Meade expresses it, when their full rights were secured: 'The war begun by the Baptists seven and twenty years before was now finished.'
Walikuwa na faida kubwa kwa kuwa watu watatu ambao walikuwa [haisomeki] wanaohusishwa waziwazi na jambo la Mapinduzi huko Virginia waliunga mkono jambo lao na kushirikiana nao — Jefferson, Henry na Madison. Hii ilitokana, labda, kwa upande wao, na imani ileile ya kina ya kidini iliyoendesha [haisomeki] Wabaptisti. Lakini katika upana wao mkubwa wa akili, kushikamana kwa kimantiki na hitimisho zilizotolewa kutoka kwa misingi ile iliyohalalisha Mapinduzi, kuliwafikisha watu hawa wenye nguvu katika misimamo ileile. Jefferson alielewa malengo ya Wabaptisti kikamilifu, kwa kuwa alikuwa katika mawasiliano ya daima na viongozi wao wakuu, nao walimkabidhi dhamana ya nyaraka zao za umma. Mama yake alikuwa Mwaepiskopali, lakini shangazi yake mpendwa, dada yake, Bi. Woodson, alikuwa Mbaptisti. Dada hawa wawili walikuwa mabinti wa Isham Randolph, Bi. Woodson akiishi katika Kaunti ya Goochland. Alipokuwa kijana alipenda kutembelea nyumba yake na kuandamana naye kwenda Kanisa la Kibaptisti, ambalo yeye na mumewe walikuwa washiriki.They had a great advantage in the fact that the three men who were the [illegible] prominently identified with the Revolutionary cause in Virginia espoused their cause and co-operated with them — Jefferson, Henry and Madison. This was due, perhaps, on their part, to the same deep religious conviction which actuated [illegible] Baptists. But in their immense breadth of mind, logical adherence to conclusions drawn from those premises which justified the Revolution, brought these mighty men to the same positions. Jefferson comprehended Baptist aims perfectly, for he was in perpetual intercourse with their leading men, and they intrusted him with the charge of their public documents. His mother was an Episcopalian, but his favorite aunt, her sister, Mrs. Woodson, was a Baptist. These two sisters were the daughters of Isham Randolph, Mrs. Woodson residing in Goochland County. When young he loved to visit her house and accompany her to the Baptist Church, of which she and her husband were members.
Ni kupitia washiriki wa familia ya mjomba wake na shangazi yake, na pia kupitia akina Madison, kwamba mapokeo yameshuka kwamba alipata maoni yake ya kwanza ya namna ya serikali ya kidemokrasia alipohudhuria mikutano hii. Barua iko mbele ya mwandishi kutoka kwa Bi. O. P. Moss, wa Missouri, ambaye mumewe alikuwa mzao wa moja kwa moja wa familia ya Woodson; mama yake alimjua Jefferson kwa karibu, na ameendeleza mapokeo hayo hai katika familia. Anasema kwamba ‘alipokuwa mtu mzima hisia hizi zilikuwa zimeimarika hivi kwamba juu yake alitunga mpango wa serikali huru na kujenga Tamko la Uhuru.’ Jefferson mwenyewe anazungumza juu ya ukaribu wake wa karibu na Wabaptisti katika waraka ufuatao, ambao tayari umetajwa katika Sura ya VIII: ‘Kwa washiriki wa Kanisa la Kibaptisti la Buck Mountain, Albemarle; Monticello, Aprili 18, 1809: Nawashukuru, marafiki zangu na majirani, kwa pongezi zenu za fadhili kwa kurudi kwangu nyumbani kwangu kwa asili, na kwa fursa zitakazonipa kufurahia, katikati ya mapenzi yenu, faraja za kustaafu na mapumziko.It is through the members of his uncle's and aunt's family, as well as through the Madisons, that the tradition has come down that he caught his first views of a democratic form of government while attending these meetings. A letter lies before the writer from Mrs. O. P. Moss, of Missouri, whose husband was a direct descendant of the Woodson family; his mother knew Jefferson intimately, and has kept the tradition alive in the family. She says that 'when grown to manhood these impressions became so fixed that upon them he formulated the plan of a free government and based the Declaration of Independence.' Jefferson himself speaks of his close intimacy with the Baptists in the following epistle, already referred to in Chapter VIII: 'To the members of the Baptist Church of Buck Mountain, in Albemarle; Monticello, April 18th, 1809: I thank you, my friends and neighbors, for your kind congratulations on my return to my native home, and of the opportunities it will give me of enjoying, amidst your affections, the comforts of retirement and rest.
Kibali chenu kwa mwenendo wangu kinathaminiwa zaidi kwa kuwa mmenijua vizuri zaidi, na ni zawadi tele kwa huduma zozote nilizoweza kutoa. Tumetenda pamoja tangu mwanzo hadi mwisho wa mapinduzi ya kukumbukwa, na tumechangia, kila mmoja katika mstari tuliopangiwa, jitihada zetu kufanya matokeo yake kuwa baraka ya kudumu kwa nchi yetu. Kwamba ushirika wetu wa kijamii, hadi jioni ya siku zetu, ufurahishwe na kuunganishwa kwa kushuhudia uhuru na furaha ambayo tumefanyia kazi, utakuwa ombi langu la daima. Pokeeni sadaka ya heshima na staha yangu ya upendo.’ Mzee John Leland anazungumza juu ya ukaribu wake na Jefferson. Katika Hotuba yake juu ya Mahakama ya Kuchaguliwa, aliona ni lazima kukanusha mashtaka fulani dhidi ya mwanasiasa wake bora, na anasema: ‘Niliishi Virginia, kuanzia Desemba 1770, hadi Aprili, 1791, si mbali na Monticello; hata hivyo sikuwahi kusikia silabi hata moja ya uhalifu huo wowote.’Your approbation of my conduct is the more valued as you have best known me, and is an ample reward for any services I may have rendered. We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable revolution, and we have contributed, each in the line allotted to us, our endeavors to render its issues a permanent blessing to our country. That our social intercourse may, to the evening of our days, be cheered and cemented by witnessing the freedom and happiness for which we have labored, will be my constant prayer. Accept the offering of my affectionate esteem and respect.' Elder John Leland speaks of his intimacy with Jefferson. In his Address on an Elective Judiciary, he found it necessary to repel certain charges against his beau ideal statesman, and says: 'I lived in Virginia, from December 1770, until April, 1791, not far from Monticello; yet I never heard a syllable of either of these crimes.'
Kulikuwa na umoja wa maoni na heshima ya pande zote katika yote yanayohusu uhuru wa dini kati yake na Wabaptisti. John Leland alikuwa katika mawasiliano ya daima naye juu ya mada hii, na alisema tu hisia zao aliposema juu ya Jefferson, kwamba ‘Kwa maandishi yake na utawala wake, amejipatia kwa haki cheo cha Mtume wa Uhuru.’ Majibu ya Jefferson kwa Miungano mitatu ya Kibaptisti, na kwa Wabaptisti wa Virginia katika Mkutano Mkuu uliokusanyika, yanazungumza juu ya kuridhika ambako mapitio ya nyakati zake yalimpa, katika kukumbuka ushirikiano wake wa muda mrefu na wa dhati nao katika kupata uhuru wa kidini wa Marekani. Mapema katika maisha yake Patrick Henry alionyesha huruma yake ya kina kwao juu ya jambo hilohilo, kwa kuwa Semple anasema juu ya mzalendo na msemaji asiyekufa na juu ya jitihada za kupata uhuru kamili wa dhamiri: ‘Ilikuwa katika kufanya majaribio haya ndipo walikuwa na bahati ya kumvutia kwa upande wao Patrick Henry mashuhuri; akiwa siku zote rafiki wa uhuru, alihitaji tu kujulishwa juu ya dhuluma yao — bila kusita, alijitokeza kuwasaidia.There was a oneness of views and a mutual esteem in all that relates to religious liberty between him and the Baptists. John Leland was in constant communication with him on this subject, and he only spoke their sentiments when he said of Jefferson, that 'By his writing and administration, he has justly acquired the title of the Apostle of Liberty.' The replies of Jefferson to three Baptist Associations, and to the Baptists of Virginia in General Meeting assembled, speak of the satisfaction which the review of his times gave him, in remembering his long and earnest cooperation with them in achieving the religious freedom of America. Early in his life Patrick Henry evinced his deep sympathy with them on the same point, for Semple says of the immortal patriot and orator and of the efforts to attain full liberty of conscience: 'It was in making these attempts that they were so fortunate as to interest in their behalf the celebrated Patrick Henry; being always the friend of liberty, he only needed to be informed of their oppression — without hesitation, he stepped forward to their relief.
Kutoka wakati huo, hadi siku ya ukombozi wao kamili kutoka minyororo ya dhuluma, Wabaptisti walimpata Patrick Henry rafiki asiyeyumba.’ Inadhaniwa kwamba aliandaa ombi tukufu la Presbytery ya Hanover, lililoelekezwa kwa Mkutano wa Koloni wa Virginia, kwa ajili ya uhuru wa dini, Okt. 7, 1776, na kama alifanya hivyo, inatosha kulifanya jina lake lisife, kwa kuwa hakuna hati yenye uwezo zaidi juu ya mada hiyo iliyowahi kuwasilishwa kwa baraza hilo au lingine lolote. William Wirt Henry, mjukuu wake, anadai kwamba babu yake mashuhuri alikuwa mwandishi halisi wa kifungu cha kumi na sita cha Tamko la Haki la Virginia, kinachohakikisha uhuru kamili wa kidini. George Mason, Edmund Randolph na Patrick Henry wote walikuwa wajumbe wa Kamati iliyolitunga; na Randolph anasema kwamba Mason alipowasilisha rasimu yake kwa kuzingatiwa na Kamati, hakuwa ameweka masharti ya kutosha kwa uhuru wa kidini.From that time, until the day of their complete emancipation from the shackles of tyranny, the Baptists found in Patrick Henry an unwavering friend.' It is supposed that he drew up the noble petition of the Presbytery of Hanover, addressed to the Virginia Colonial Convention, in favor of religious liberty, Oct. 7th, 1776, and if he did, it is enough to render his name immortal, for no abler document on the subject was ever submitted to that or any other body. William Wirt Henry, his grandson, claims, that his renowned ancestor was the real author of the sixteenth section of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which guarantees perfect religious liberty. George Mason, Edmund Randolph and Patrick Henry were all members of the Committee that framed it; and Randolph says, that when Mason submitted his draft for the consideration of the Committee, he had not made proper provisions for religious liberty.
Ndipo Patrick Henry alipopendekeza vifungu vya kumi na tano na kumi na sita kwa maneno haya: ‘Kwamba hakuna serikali huru, wala baraka za uhuru, zinazoweza kuhifadhiwa kwa watu wowote ila kwa kushikamana imara na haki, wastani, kiasi, ukali wa matumizi, na wema, na kwa kurudi mara kwa mara kwenye kanuni za msingi. Kwamba dini, au wajibu tulio nao kwa Muumba wetu na namna ya kuutimiza, vinaweza kuelekezwa tu kwa akili na usadikisho, na si kwa nguvu au vurugu; na, kwa hiyo, kwamba watu wote wanapaswa kufurahia uvumilivu kamili zaidi katika kutekeleza dini, kulingana na maagizo ya dhamiri, bila kuadhibiwa na bila kuzuiliwa na mahakimu, isipokuwa, kwa kisingizio cha dini, mtu yeyote atavuruga amani, furaha, au usalama wa jamii; na kwamba ni wajibu wa pande zote kutenda uvumilivu wa Kikristo, upendo, na hisani kwa kila mmoja.’ Hata hivyo Bw. Madison, ambaye pia alikuwa mjumbe wa Kamati, aligundua hatari kubwa iliyojificha katika neno ‘uvumilivu,’ na akapendekeza marekebisho haya, ambayo yalipitishwa, kwanza na Kamati, na Mei 6, 1776, na Mkutano: ‘Kwamba dini, au wajibu tulio nao kwa Muumba wetu, na namna ya kuutimiza, vinaweza kuelekezwa tu kwa akili na usadikisho, si kwa nguvu au vurugu; na kwa hiyo watu wote wana haki sawa ya kutekeleza dini kwa uhuru kulingana na maagizo ya dhamiri; na kwamba ni wajibu wa pande zote kutenda uvumilivu wa Kikristo, upendo na hisani kwa kila mmoja.’Whereupon, Patrick Henry proposed the fifteenth and sixteenth sections in these words: 'That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrates, unless, under the color of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or the safety of society; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.' Mr. Madison, however, who was also a member of the Committee, detected serious danger lurking in the word 'toleration,' and moved this amendment, which was adopted, first by the Committee, and on May 6, 1776, by the Convention: 'That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other.'
Jefferson hakuwa katika Mkutano ulioitunga Tamko hili, lakini miaka tisa baadaye alihudumu katika Kamati ya Bunge Kuu ya kurekebisha sheria kwa Jimbo jipya, ambapo aliwasilisha yafuatayo, ambayo yalipitishwa, Des. 16, 1785, na bado ni sheria ya msingi ya Virginia: ‘Sheria ya Kuanzisha Uhuru wa Dini: Na iamriwe na Bunge Kuu, Kwamba hakuna mtu atakayelazimishwa kuhudhuria au kutegemeza ibada yoyote ya kidini, mahali, au huduma yoyote, wala hatalazimishwa, kuzuiliwa, kusumbuliwa, au kuelemewa katika mwili wake au mali yake, wala hatateseka vinginevyo kwa sababu ya maoni yake ya kidini au imani; bali kwamba watu wote watakuwa huru kukiri na kwa hoja kudumisha maoni yao katika mambo ya dini, na kwamba hayo hayatapunguza, kupanua, au kuathiri uwezo wao wa kiraia kwa namna yoyote.’Jefferson was not in the Convention which framed this Bill, but nine years afterwards he served on a Committee of the General Assembly to revise the laws for the new State, when he submitted the following, which was adopted, Dec. 16, 1785, and is still the fundamental law of Virginia: 'An Act to establish Religious Freedom: Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.'
James Madison alikuwa na uhusiano wa karibu na Wabaptisti kama wenzake wawili mashuhuri, na alijifahamisha kwa undani na mitazamo yao ya msingi juu ya suala la usawa wa kidini. John Leland mwaminifu anasema juu yake: ‘Tangu utoto, alikuwa kielelezo cha utulivu, haki thabiti na isiyoyumba. Kutokana na kumjua kwa karibu, nimeridhika kwamba Jimbo lote la Massachusetts, kwa rushwa, lisingenunua kura yake hata moja. Usemi wake mmoja bado ni mpya kumbukumbuni mwangu: “Ni upuuzi kwa mtu kutumia njia za kificho kufikisha hoja, ingawa angejua hoja hiyo ni nzuri; ingekuwa ni kutenda uovu ili mema yaje.” Usemi huu wake unamwelezea mtu huyo vizuri kuliko kalamu yangu.’ Jenerali Madison, ndugu yake, alikuwa mshiriki wa Kanisa la Kibaptisti, na familia yao ilipendezwa sana na mapambano ya madhehebu hayo.James Madison had as close relationship to the Baptists as his two illustrious peers, and made himself intimately acquainted with their radical views on the subject of religious equality. Honest John Leland says of him: 'From a child, he was a pattern of sobriety, sturdy and inflexible justice. From an intimate acquaintance with him, I feel satisfied that all the State of Massachusetts, for a bribe, would not buy a single vote of him. A saying of his is fresh in my memory: "It is ridiculous for a man to make use of underhand means to carry a point, although he should know the point is a good one; it would be doing evil that good might come." This saying of his better describes the man than my pen can do.' General Madison, his brother, was a member of a Baptist Church, and their family took a deep interest in the struggles of the denomination.
James alikuwa mmoja wa wajumbe vijana kuliko wote wa Mkutano uliopitisha Tamko la Haki, na ilihitaji busara na ujasiri usio mdogo kupinga wazo la ‘uvumilivu’ kwa kanuni dhahania huko, au kuunga mkono kanuni kwamba ‘watu wote wana haki ya kutekeleza dini kwa uhuru, kulingana na dhamiri zao wenyewe.’ Hatua moja ilifuata nyingine, kupinga dini iliyoanzishwa kisheria ya Virginia, ambamo Wabaptisti walichukua nafasi ya uongozi nyakati fulani, na katika hatua nyingine walisimama peke yao kabisa, hadi hasa kupitia ushawishi wa wanasiasa hawa wakuu watatu hatua ya mwisho ilichukuliwa mwaka 1802; ardhi za kanisa (glebes) ziliamriwa kuuzwa kulipa deni la umma, kwa msingi kwamba zilikuwa zimenunuliwa kwa kodi ya umma na zilikuwa mali ya Jimbo. Hivyo ndivyo mapambano ya uhuru wa dini yalimalizika Virginia, na kwa kutoweka kwa Kanisa Lililoanzishwa, alama ya mwisho ya dhuluma ya kikanisa ilifutwa kwenye vitabu vya sheria vya Jimbo hilo.James was one of the youngest members of the Convention which adopted the Bill of Rights, and it required no small judgment and nerve to oppose the idea of 'toleration' on abstract principles there, or to support the tenet that 'all men are entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to their own consciences.' One measure succeeded another, in opposition to the legally established religion of Virginia, in which the Baptists took the leading part at times, and on some measures stood entirely alone, until in the main through the influence of these three great statesmen, the last step was taken in 1802; the glebes were ordered to be sold in payment of the public debt, on the ground that they had been purchased by a public tax, and belonged to the State. Thus ended the struggle for religious liberty in Virginia, and with the disappearance of the Established Church, the last vestige of ecclesiastical tyranny was wiped from the statute-books of that State.
Waandishi Wabaptisti wanaostahili zaidi hawajawahi kudai kwamba baba zao Wabaptisti walipata matokeo haya makuu peke yao, wala dai kama hilo halingeweza kutetewa. Walikuwa kundi kubwa zaidi la Wasiokubaliana na Kanisa rasmi huko Virginia, na walikuwa kitu kimoja katika jitihada hii, lakini walisaidiwa kwa dhati na Waquaker wote na Wapresbiteri wengi, kama makundi madogo lakini yenye ushawishi. ‘Watorii’ na ‘wasaliti’ walikuwa na thamani ndogo sana katika madhehebu yote mawili, na walikuwa wachache. Kweli, kadiri inavyoonekana, Wapresbiteri ishirini na saba waliokutana Charlotte, N. C., Mei, 1775, kuwakilisha Kaunti ya Mecklenburg katika mkutano wa kizalendo walikuwa kundi la kwanza la Marekani lililojitangaza kuwa ‘watu huru na wa kujitegemea; (ambao) ni, na kwa haki wanapaswa kuwa, shirika huru lenye kujitawala, lisilo chini ya udhibiti wa nguvu yoyote isipokuwa ile ya Mungu wetu na serikali kuu ya Bunge.’ Zaidi ya hayo, wakati huo, kulikuwa na sababu nzuri za Waquaker, Wapresbiteri na Wabaptisti kusimama imara pamoja kwa ajili ya uhuru wa dini. Tangu 1749, mpango ulikuwa unasukumwa waziwazi Uingereza, kulazimisha Uaskofu wa Marekani kwa Makoloni yote ya Marekani; ulichochea hofu kuu zaidi katika Makanisa yote yasiyo ya Kiaskofu, na ulifanya mengi kuchochea moto wa mapinduzi.The most worthy Baptist writers have never claimed that their Baptist fathers achieved this grand result alone, nor could such a claim be sustained. They were the most numerous body of dissenters in Virginia, and were a unit in this effort, but they were earnestly aided by all the Quakers and most of the Presbyterians, as lesser but influential bodies. 'Tories' and 'traitors' were held at a large discount in both these denominations, and there were few of them. Indeed, so far as appears, the twenty-seven Presbyterians who met at Charlotte, N. C., May, 1775, to represent the County of Mecklenburg in patriotic convention were the first American body which declared itself 'a free and independent people; (who) are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under the control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of the Congress.' Besides, at that time, there were good reasons why the Quakers, Presbyterians and Baptists should stand firmly together in favor of religious liberty. From 1749, a plan had been openly pushed in England, to force an American Episcopate on all the American Colonies; it excited the deepest alarm in all the non-Episcopal Churches, and did much to fan the revolutionary flame.
[…][…]
Swali hili liliwaleta Wapresbiteri na Wabaptisti kwenye msingi wa pamoja, isipokuwa machache. Wapresbiteri hawakuwa waaminifu kwa kanuni ya uhuru kamili wa dini katika Ulimwengu wa Kale kuliko Wakongregationali walivyokuwa katika Mpya, na maelfu yao walikuwa wamepata makao Virginia mapema kama [haisomeki], chini ya ahadi ya ulinzi kutoka koloni hilo. Walifikia kuwa na kiasi cha hisia ya ushirika na ndugu zao Wabaptisti wanaoteseka, kwa hiyo waliweza kusema katika Hati yao ya Hanover, ya 1777: ‘Katika zama hizi zenye mwanga, na katika nchi ambayo wote wa kila madhehebu wameungana katika jitihada kuu zaidi za kuwa huru, tunatumaini na kutarajia kwamba wawakilishi wetu watakubaliana kwa furaha kuondoa kila aina ya utumwa wa kidini na wa kiraia. Ni hakika kwamba kila hoja ya uhuru wa kiraia hupata nguvu ya ziada inapotumika kwa uhuru katika mambo ya dini.’This question brought the Presbyterians and Baptists to common ground, with slight exceptions. The Presbyterians had not been true to the principle of full religious liberty in the Old World more than the Congregationalists had been in the New, and thousands of them had found a home in Virginia as early as [illegible], under the promise of protection from that colony. They came to have a touch of fellow-feeling with their suffering Baptist brethren, hence they were able to say in their Hanover Memorial, of 1777: 'In this enlightened age, and in a land where all of every denomination are united in the most strenuous efforts to be free, we hope and expect that our representatives will cheerfully concur in removing every species of religious as well as civil bondage. Certain it is, that every argument for civil liberty gains additional strength when applied to liberty in the concerns of religion.'
‘Heshima kwa astahiliye heshima,’ Biblia inadai. Wakati mashindano haya yakiendelea, hata hivyo, mwingine, wenye joto vilevile na muhimu kwa kiasi kikubwa zaidi, ulipiganwa kuhusu Katiba ya Marekani, na hasa kupitia mawakala walewale. Waraka huu mkuu wa kiraia ulipitishwa na Mkutano wa Katiba na kuwasilishwa kwa Majimbo mbalimbali kuidhinishwa, Septemba 17, 1787, Majimbo tisa yakihitajika kuidhinisha. Mara moja ulikutana na upinzani mkali kutoka kwa Majimbo yote, wengine kwa sababu moja na wengine kwa nyingine. Kifungu chake pekee kuhusu dini kilipatikana katika Ibara ya VI, hivi: ‘Hakuna Mtihani wa kidini utakaodaiwa kamwe, kama Sifa ya cheo chochote au Dhamana ya umma chini ya Marekani.’ Kutoridhika kuu kulienea kwa wengi kuhusu vifungu vyake vingi, na kulikuwa na hatari kubwa ya kukataliwa kwake kwa muda.'Honor to whom honor,' the Bible demands. While this contest was in progress, however, another, quite as warm and vastly more important, was waged in regard to the Constitution of the United States, and chiefly through the same agencies. This great civil document was adopted by the Constitutional Convention and submitted for ratification to the several States, September 17th, 1787, nine States being needed to ratify the same. Immediately it met with strong opposition from all the States, some for one reason and some for another. Its only provision on the subject of religion was found in Article VI, thus: 'No religious Test shall ever be required, as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.' Great dissatisfaction prevailed with many of its provisions, and there was serious danger of its rejection for a time.
Kutoridhika na kifungu hiki kulikaa na Wabaptisti katika Majimbo yote, lakini Virginia ikawa uwanja wao mkuu wa vita. Tarehe 7 Machi, 1788, wawakilishi wa Makanisa yao yote walikutana katika Kamati yao Kuu huko Goochland, na kumbukumbu za mkutano zinasema: ‘Jambo la kwanza la Kidini na Kisiasa lililochukuliwa lilikuwa: Kama Katiba mpya ya Shirikisho, iliyokuwa imeonekana hivi karibuni hadharani, ilitoa masharti ya kutosha kwa kufurahia kwa usalama uhuru wa dini; kuhusu hilo ilikubaliwa kwa kauli moja kwamba haikufanya hivyo.’ Viongozi wengi wa kisiasa na kijamii wa Virginia walipinga Katiba, na miongoni mwao Patrick Henry, ambaye alipinga kupitishwa kwake katika Mkutano wa Virginia, kwa sababu, kama alivyoeleza ugumu wake, ‘ilitazama kwa kuficha kuelekea ufalme,’ na haikutoa dhamana ya uhuru wa dini. Hapa tukio la kupendeza linaweza kuzingatiwa, ambamo John Leland anaonekana kwa heshima kubwa.Dissatisfaction with this provision lodged with the Baptists in all the States, but Virginia became their great battle-field. On the 7th of March, 1788, the representatives of all their Churches met in their General Committee in Goochland, and the minutes of the meeting say: 'The first Religious Political subject that was taken up was: Whether the new Federal Constitution, which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that it did not.' Many of the political and social leaders of Virginia were opposed to the Constitution, and amongst them Patrick Henry, who resisted its adoption in the Virginia Convention, because, as he phrased his difficulty, it 'squinted toward monarchy,' and gave no guarantee of religious liberty. Here a pleasant incident may be noticed, in which John Leland figures very honorably.
James Madison aliongoza chama cha Virginia kilichopendelea kuidhinisha, lakini alikuwa Philadelphia wakati wa uchaguzi wa wajumbe kwa Mkutano wa Jimbo, akijishughulisha na John Jay na Alexander Hamilton katika kuandaa mfululizo ule wa kukumbukwa wa makala za kisiasa, zilizoandikwa kutetea Katiba, na zinazojulikana kama ‘Federalist.’ Aliporudi Virginia, alikuta kwamba Leland alikuwa amependekezwa katika Orange, kaunti yake mwenyewe, na chama kilichopinga kuidhinisha, dhidi yake yeye mwenyewe, kama mjumbe wa kuunga mkono hatua hiyo. Gavana George N. Briggs, wa Massachusetts, anasema kwamba Leland alimwambia kwamba Madison alimtembelea na kumweleza kwa makini madhumuni ya Katiba pamoja na hoja zake za kuiunga mkono. Wagombea wapinzani walikutana hivi karibuni kwenye mkutano wa kisiasa, mbele ya wapiga kura wengi, wakati Madison alipopanda pipa kubwa la tumbaku, na kwa saa mbili alihutubia wananchi wenzake kwa njia tulivu, ya wazi na ya kisiasa, akiwasilisha upande wake wa kesi na kujibu hoja zote za wapinzani wake. Ingawa hakuwa mfasaha, watu walisikiliza kwa heshima kuu, na Leland alisema: ‘Aliposhuka kwenye pipa, na marafiki zangu wakaniita, nilipanda, na nikaingia kwa Bw. Madison.’ ‘Mzalendo Mkristo mtukufu,’ anasema Gavana Briggs; ‘tendo hilo moja, pamoja na nia [haisomeki]James Madison led the Virginia party which favored ratification, but was in Philadelphia during the election of delegates to the State Convention, engaged with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in preparing that memorable series of political papers, written in defense of the Constitution, and known as the 'Federalist.' When he returned to Virginia, he found that Leland had been nominated in Orange, his own county, by the party opposed to ratification, against himself, as the delegate in favor of that measure. Governor George N. Briggs, of Massachusetts, says, that Leland told him that Madison called on him and carefully explained the purposes of the Constitution with his arguments in its support. The opposing candidates soon met at a political meeting, in the presence of most of the voters, when Madison mounted a hogshead of tobacco, and for two hours addressed his fellow-citizens in a calm, candid and statesmanlike manner, presenting his side of the case and meeting all the arguments of his opponents. Though he was not eloquent, the people listened with profound respect, and said Leland: 'When he left the hogshead, and my friends called for me, I took it, and went in for Mr. Madison.' 'A noble Christian patriot,' remarks Governor Briggs; 'that single act, with the motives [illegible]
[…][…]
Kulikuwa na upinzani uleule huko Massachusetts dhidi ya kuidhinishwa kwa Katiba ya Marekani kama ule wa Virginia, na kwa sababu nyingi zilezile. Isaac Backus alichukua msimamo uleule karibu na ule wa Patrick Henry huko Virginia, kwa sababu hakuweza kuona kwamba inahakikisha uhuru wa dini vya kutosha. Manning na Stillman walikuwa na hekima zaidi katika kizazi chao. Stillman [haisomeki] alikuwa amechaguliwa mjumbe kutoka Boston kwa Mkutano wa Jimbo la Massachusetts, uliokuwa ukikubali au kukataa waraka huu, mwili wa karibu wajumbe 400. Manning alikimbilia Massachusetts, na kwa majuma mawili alikuwa hachoki [haisomeki] hoja na ombi la kuwashawishi wajumbe wote Wabaptisti na Wabaptisti wengine wenye ushawishi kusaidia kupata kwanza yote ambayo Katiba isiyorekebishwa ilihakikisha. Ilikuwa [haisomeki] mgogoro mzito sana, roho ya umma ilikuwa katika hali ya homa, na hawa wawili wakuu [haisomeki] walikuwa na mikono yao imejaa kupata msaada kamili wa ndugu zao wenyewe.There was the same opposition in Massachusetts to the ratification of the United States Constitution that there was in Virginia, and much for the same reasons. Isaac Backus took about the same ground that Patrick Henry had taken in Virginia, because he could not see that it sufficiently guaranteed religious liberty. Manning and Stillman were wiser in their generation. Stillman [illegible] been chosen a delegate from Boston to the State Convention of Massachusetts, which was to accept or reject this instrument, a body numbering nearly 400 members. Manning hastened to Massachusetts, and for two weeks was indefatigable [illegible] argument and appeal to induce all Baptist delegates and other Baptists of influence to aid in securing first all that the unamended Constitution did secure. It [illegible] very grave crisis, the public spirit was in a feverish state, and these two great [illegible] had their hands full to secure the full support of their own brethren.
Walijua [haisomeki] kwamba waraka huu haukuwa umehakikisha kila kitu kilichohitajika kwao, lakini pia [haisomeki] kwamba mapinduzi kama hayo hayawezi kurudi nyuma isipokuwa kwa kutengana kati ya Majimbo. Mkutano ulikaa mwezi mmoja, nusu yake [haisomeki] Stillman na Manning walikuwa wakifanya kazi, na kura ya mwisho ilipopigwa Katiba iliidhinishwa kwa kura 187 dhidi ya 168. Massachusetts ilipitisha Katiba ya Marekani Februari 6, 1788. Baada ya kura, ambayo ndani yake Wabaptisti [haisomeki] urari wa nguvu, John Hancock, Rais wa Mkutano, alimwalika Dkt. Manning kutoa shukrani kwa Mungu, na inasemekana kwamba roho kuu ya utauwa [haisomeki] uzalendo iliyoashiria sala yake ilijaza Mkutano heshima na [haisomeki] Kadiri ilivyowahusu Wabaptisti wa Massachusetts, fursa hii kuu [haisomeki] haikukosekana wala kuharibiwa, bali ilifanywa hatua muhimu kuelekea uhuru.They knew [illegible] this document had not secured everything needful to them, but they also [illegible] that such a revolution could not go backward excepting through alienation between the States. The Convention was in session for a month, half of which [illegible] Stillman and Manning were at work, and when the final vote was taken the Constitution was ratified by 187 to 168 votes. Massachusetts adopted the Constitution of the United States February 6th, 1788. After the vote, in which the Baptists [illegible] the balance of power, John Hancock, the President of the Convention, invited Dr. Manning to return thanks to God, and it is said that the lofty spirit of piety [illegible] patriotism which marked his prayer filled the Convention with reverence and [illegible] So far as the Massachusetts Baptists were concerned, this great opportunity [illegible] neither missed nor mismanaged, but was made an important step toward freedom.
Massachusetts ilikuwa imeunda Katiba ya Jimbo mwaka 1780, na katika Mkutano ule Wabaptisti walishindania kwa ukaidi haki zao za kidini. Noah Alden, mzao wa moja kwa moja wa familia ya Plymouth, alikuwa mjumbe wa Mkutano huu, na wakati huo mchungaji wa Kanisa la Kibaptisti huko Bellingham. Pia alikuwa mjumbe wa Mkutano ulioandaa Katiba ya Marekani. Tamko maarufu la Haki la Massachusetts liliporipotiwa alipendekeza [haisomeki] kurudisha kifungu cha tatu, kilichowapa watawala mamlaka katika mambo ya dini, [haisomeki] alifanywa mjumbe wa kamati ya saba kuzingatia jambo hilo na ingawa hakuweza kupata usawa mbele ya sheria kwa madhehebu yote huko Massachusetts, yeye [haisomeki] alipata nafuu kiasi cha kuamsha mshangao wakati ule, ilikuwa mbele sana kuliko kitu chochote ambacho Jimbo hili lilikuwa limejua hapo awali katika ukarimu wa kidini.Massachusetts had formed a State Constitution in 1780, and in that Convention the Baptists contended with pertinacity for their religious rights. Noah Alden, a lineal descendant of the Plymouth family, was a member of this Convention, and at that time pastor of the Baptist Church at Bellingham. He was also a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States. When the famous Massachusetts Bill of Rights was reported he moved [illegible] recommit the third article, which gave power to the rulers in religious affairs, [illegible] was made a member of a committee of seven to consider the subject and although he could not secure equality before the law for all sects in Massachusetts, he [illegible] procure so much concession as to excite marvel at the time, it was so far in advance of anything that this State had previously known in religious liberality.
Ilikuwa [haisomeki] uwezo wa watawala wa kiraia kutoa msaada kwa dini katika miji ambako msaada kama huo haukutolewa kwa hiari; ilidai kuhudhuria ibada ya hadharani, ‘kama kulikuwa na walimu wowote wa kidini ambao mafundisho yao wanaweza kuhudhuria kwa dhamiri na kwa urahisi’; iliweka kwamba watu wawe na [haisomeki] haki ya pekee ya kuchagua walimu wao wa umma, na kufanya mkataba nao kwa kuwategemeza na kuwatunza; ilitoa haki kwa msikilizaji kutumia malipo yake ya umma ya kodi ya kidini ‘kwa kumtegemeza mwalimu wa umma au walimu wa umma wa kikundi chake mwenyewe cha kidini au madhehebu, mradi yupo yeyote ambaye mafundisho yake anahudhuria,’ na kila madhehebu ya Wakristo, wanaojiendesha kwa amani na kama raia wema wa jumuiya, watakuwa sawa chini ya ulinzi wa sheria, na hakuna kuwekwa chini ya madhehebu au kikundi chochote kwa kingine kutaanzishwa kamwe kwa sheria.’It [illegible] the power of the civil rulers to provide for the support of religion in towns where such provision was not made voluntarily; it required attendance on public worship, 'if there were any religious teachers on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend'; it provided that the people should have [illegible] exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance; it gave the right of the hearer to apply his public payments of religious tax 'to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instruction he attends,' and every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the common wealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law, and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.'
Faida hii ya ajabu katika Tamko la Haki haikulivunja Kanisa rasmi huko Massachusetts, ambalo bado lililindwa chini ya vighairi mbalimbali vya kifungu hicho, lakini ilivunja nguvu yake ya dhuluma, na katika zaidi kidogo ya nusu karne ilileta utengano kamili wa Kanisa na Dola huko Massachusetts. Ilikutana na upinzani mkali zaidi katika Mkutano, na kiongozi wa upinzani alisema: ‘Tunaamini katika dhamiri zetu kwamba njia bora ya kumtumikia Mungu ni kuwa na dini inayolindwa na wahudumu wa Injili wanaotegemezwa kwa sheria, na tunatumaini kwamba hakuna bwana humu atakayetaka kujeruhi dhamiri zetu nyeti.’ ‘Kiingereza kisicho na kificho cha hayo,’ anasema Leland, ‘ni, dhamiri zetu zinaamuru kwamba jumuiya yote ya Massachusetts lazima ijisalimishe kwa hukumu zetu, na kama haitafanya hivyo itajeruhi dhamiri zetu nyeti.’This wonderful gain in the Bill of Rights did not dis-establish the Church in Massachusetts, which was still protected under the several exceptions of the article, but it broke its tyrannical power, and in a little more than half a century it wrought the entire separation of Church and State in Massachusetts. It met with the most violent resistance in the Convention, and a leader of the opposition said: 'We believe in our consciences that the best way to serve God is to have religion protected and ministers of the Gospel supported by law, and we hope that no gentleman here will wish to wound our tender consciences.' 'The plain English of which,' says Leland, 'is, our consciences dictate that all the common-wealth of Massachusetts must submit to our judgments, and if they do not they will wound our tender consciences.'
Alden alitegemezwa kwa heshima katika Mkutano huu na Dkt. Asaph Fletcher, ambaye pia alikuwa mjumbe, na mtetezi hodari wa hatua hii. Chini ya vifungu vyake mambo mengi yasiyo na adabu yalitendwa, na kila aina ya kisingizio, udhuru na hoja ambazo kiburi cha ujanja lakini kilichojeruhiwa kingeweza kubuni zilitumiwa kuwakera Wabaptisti, lakini Tamko hili lilipiga pigo la kifo kwa mateso halisi huko Massachusetts. Katiba mpya ilijaribiwa hivi karibuni, kwa kuwa watu kadhaa walitozwa kodi huko Attleboro, mwaka 1780, kutegemeza Kanisa la parokia, ingawa walihudhuria mahali pengine. Elijah Balkom alikamatwa, na akiwa amewashtaki wakadiriaji kwa fidia, hukumu ilitolewa dhidi yake; lakini, kwa rufaa kwa Mahakama ya Kaunti huko Taunton, alipata fidia na gharama. Mwaka 1783 kisa kama hicho, kwa njia nyingi, kilitokea Cambridge, ambako Wabaptisti walishtakiwa kutegemeza Utaratibu Uliosimama (Standing Order), na fedha zao kunyang’anywa, lakini walishtaki kurudishiwa nazo na zililipwa.Alden was nobly sustained in this Convention by Dr. Asaph Fletcher, who was also a member, and a strong advocate of this measure. Under its provisions many ungracious acts were perpetrated, and all sorts of quibbles, pretexts and pleas that ingenious but wounded pride could invent were invoked to annoy the Baptists, but this Bill struck a death-blow at persecution proper in Massachusetts. The new Constitution was soon put to the test, for several persons were taxed at Attleboro, in 1780, to support the parish Church, although they attended elsewhere. Elijah Balkom was seized, and having sued the assessors for damages, judgment was had against him; but, on an appeal to the County Court at Taunton, he obtained damages and costs. In 1783 a similar case, in many respects, occurred in Cambridge, where Baptists were sued to support the Standing Order, and their money extorted, but they sued for its return and it was paid back.
Usumbufu huu uliendelea na wakati mwingine ulikuwa wa uchungu wa kutosha. Katika barua kutoka kwa Dkt. Backus kwa William Richards, ya Mei 28, 1796, anasema: ‘Ingawa walimu na watawala katika chama cha juu kabisa huko Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire na Vermont wana bidii kama Farao alivyowahi kuwa kushikilia Kanisa la Kristo chini ya uwezo wa kutoza kodi wa ulimwengu, hata hivyo uwezo huo unaliwa kila siku na roho ya kinywa cha Mungu.’ Ili kukabiliana na kuzuia majaribio haya Muungano wa Warren (Warren Association) uliweka kamati ya uangalizi ikifanya kazi. Mwaka 1797 ilikuwa na Madaktari Stillman, Smith na Backus, pamoja na Bw. Baldwin na Bw. Grafton, ambao Makanisa yaliyoonewa yaliwaomba ushauri na msaada, nao walitoa huduma nzuri kweli. John Leland alisema, 1801: ‘Katika mwaka 1800 karibu dola mia sita zilichukuliwa kutoka kwa Wabaptisti, katika Partridge-field, kwa kujenga nyumba ya mkutano katika mji huo kwa ajili ya madhehebu mengine.These annoyances continued and sometimes were grievous enough. In a letter from Dr. Backus to William Richards, dated May 28th, 1796, he says: 'Though the teachers and rulers in the uppermost party in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont are as earnest as ever Pharaoh was to hold the Church of Christ under the taxing power of the world, yet that power is daily consuming by the spirit of God's mouth.' To meet and thwart these attempts the Warren Association kept a vigilant committee in existence. In 1797 it consisted of Drs. Stillman, Smith and Backus, with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Grafton, to whom the oppressed Churches appealed for counsel and help, and they did good service indeed. John Leland said, 1801: 'In the year 1800 about six hundred dollars were taken from the Baptists, in Partridge-field, for the building of a meeting-house in said town for another denomination.
Kesi sasa iko katika sheria, imesimamishwa, na tukio litakuwa nini hatujui.’ Matumaini makubwa yalikuwapo kwamba Mkutano uliofanyika Novemba [haisomeki], 1820, kurekebisha Katiba, ungeivunja kabisa kifungo cha mwisho cha muungano kati ya Kanisa na Dola huko Massachusetts; lakini hili lilishindwa, hasa na [haisomeki] ya kudhamiria ya John Adams, ambaye alikuwa mjumbe wa baraza hilo. Isaac Backus alikufa mwaka 1806, baada ya maisha ya shughuli ya kushangaza katika [haisomeki] uhuru wa kidini.The case is now in law, hung up, and what the event will be we know not.' Great hopes were entertained that the Convention held November [illegible], 1820, to amend the Constitution, would entirely dissolve the last bond of union between Church and State in Massachusetts; but this was defeated, chiefly by the determined [illegible] of John Adams, who was a member of that body. Isaac Backus died in 1806, after a life of astonishing activity in the [illegible] religious freedom.
[…][…]
Mwaka 1811 Hakimu Parsons alitoa uamuzi kwamba hakuna kusanyiko [haisomeki] jamii isiyoundwa kisheria inaweza kudai [haisomeki] mapendeleo ambayo [haisomeki] ilidai chini ya Tamko la Haki, na hofu iliwaamsha kote Jimboni. Maombi yalisambazwa kila mahali na kutumwa kwa Bunge la Sheria, yakiomba marekebisho ya sheria za kidini, na watu wa Cheshire walimchagua Mzee Leland [haisomeki] baraza hilo kwa madhumuni ya kutetea jambo lao.In 1811 Judge Parsons gave a decision to the effect, that no congregation [illegible] society not incorporated by law could claim [illegible] the privileges which the [illegible] claimed under the Bill of Rights, and alarm awakened them throughout the State. Petitions were circulated everywhere and sent to the Legislature, praying for a revision of the religious laws, and the people of Cheshire elected Elder Leland [illegible] that body for the purpose of pleading their cause.
[…][…]
Lakini maombi yao hayakusikilizwa, na jitihada zao kali zaidi za mageuzi hazikufua dafu, hadi watu waliposimama kwa nguvu zao na kurekebisha Tamko la Haki mwaka 1833 hivi kwamba Kanisa na Dola vilitengwa milele, tangu wakati huo kile alichokiita Leland ‘kanuni ya uhalifu’ imefukuzwa kutoka vitabu vya sheria vya Majimbo yote, na, kwa kuwa Leland hakufa hadi 1841, alipumua hewa huru kwa miaka saba ya mwisho ya maisha yake, kwa afya yake nzuri na furaha yake kuu. Aliishi hadi umri wa miaka themanini na saba, na alistahili miaka kumi ya hewa safi baada ya kufanya kazi kwa miaka sitini na saba kutetea haki ya kiraia na ya kidini ya watu wote. Pumzika, shujaa mzee wa kifalme, pumzika kwenye vilima vya Cheshire, ulivyofanya mengi kuvifanya huru! Huko Vermont mapambano hayakuwa marefu wala makali hivyo. Ardhi zinazounda Vermont sasa zilidaiwa kwa sehemu na New Hampshire na kwa sehemu na New York, na awali zilijulikana kama ‘ruzuku za New Hampshire.’But their prayers were not heard, and their most strenuous efforts at reform were unavailing, until the people arose in their might and so amended the Bill of Rights in 1833 that the Church and State were forever separated, since which time what Leland called the 'felonious principle' has been banished from the statute books of all the States, and, as Leland did not die until 1841, he breathed free air for the last seven years of his life, to his great health and delectation. He lived to be eighty-seven years of age, and deserved ten years of fresh air after he had labored sixty-seven years to vindicate the civil and religious right of all men. Rest, royal old warrior, rest on the Cheshire hills, which thou didst so much to make free! In Vermont the contest was neither so long nor so severe. The lands which now form Vermont were claimed in part by New Hampshire and in part by New York, and were originally known as the 'New Hampshire grants.'
Wakazi wake waliomba Bunge la Bara kukubaliwa katika shirikisho mwaka 1770, lakini, New York ikipinga, walijiondoa. Mwaka uliofuata walijitangaza huru na kuunda Katiba, na wakakubaliwa katika Muungano mwaka 1791. Dkt. Asaph Fletcher alikuwa amehama kutoka Massachusetts hadi Cavendish, Vermont, mwaka 1787, na alikuwa mjumbe wa Mkutano uliomba kukubaliwa kwa Jimbo katika Muungano. Pia alikuwa mjumbe wa Mkutano wa 1793 wa kurekebisha Katiba ya Jimbo, ambapo alishindania utengano wa Kanisa na Dola, lakini wazo kinyume lilishinda. Jambo muhimu kama hilo halingeweza kutulia kwa muda mrefu, hasa na Dkt. Fletcher akiwa katika huduma hai kama mjumbe wa bunge la sheria, Hakimu wa Mahakama ya Kaunti, mjumbe wa Baraza, na mteuzi wa Rais wa Jimbo. Mwaka 1780, miaka miwili baada ya Fletcher kukaa Vermont, alifuatwa na Mch. Aaron Leland, kutoka Bellingham, Mass. Hisia zake huria za kisiasa zilimpendekeza hivi karibuni kwa wananchi wenzake, naye alichaguliwa kwa Bunge Kuu.Their inhabitants applied to the Continental Congress for admission into the confederacy in 1770, but, New York opposing, they withdrew. The next year they proclaimed themselves independent and formed a Constitution, and were admitted into the Union in 1791. Dr. Asaph Fletcher had removed from Massachusetts to Cavendish, Vermont, in 1787, and was a member of the Convention which applied for the admission of the State into the Union. He was also a member of the Convention of 1793 to revise the State Constitution, when he contended for the separation of Church and State, but the contrary idea prevailed. Such a vital subject could not long rest, however, especially with Dr. Fletcher in active service as a member of the legislature, a Judge of the County Court, a member of the Council, and a State Presidential elector. In 1780, two years after Fletcher's settlement in Vermont, he was followed by Rev. Aaron Leland, from Bellingham, Mass. His liberal political sentiments soon commended him to his fellow-citizens, and he was elected to the General Assembly.
Huko alihudumu kama Spika wa Baraza kwa miaka mitatu, na kwa miaka minne alikuwa mmoja wa Baraza la Gavana. Kwa miaka mitano pia alikuwa Naibu Gavana wa Jimbo, na kwa kumi na minane alikuwa Hakimu Msaidizi katika Mahakama ya Kaunti. Alikuwa na ushawishi mkubwa miongoni mwa Wabaptisti wa Jimbo, na vilevile kwa wananchi wake kwa ujumla, na mwaka 1828 alikataa uteuzi wa kuwa Gavana, akihofia kwamba ofisi hiyo ingeingilia sana majukumu yake ya kichungaji. Alikuwa mwanachama wa baraza la Chuo cha Middlebury (Fellow), alikuwa na nguvu kubwa ya akili, na alikuwa mjadili hodari sana. Alipokuwa Spika wa Baraza pendekezo lililetwa mbele yake kwa kuvunja muungano wa Kanisa na Dola, na katika mjadala mtu fulani [haisomeki] dhaifu kiasi cha kusema kwamba Ukristo ungeanguka kama Dola ingeondoa msaada wake. Hili lilichochea bidii yote ya roho yake.There he served as Speaker of the House for three years, and for four years he was one of the Governor's Council. For five years, also, he was Lieutenant-Governor of the State, and for eighteen he was an Assistant Justice in the County Court. He had large influence amongst the Baptists of the State, as well as with its citizens generally, and in 1828 he declined a nomination for Governor, fearing that the office would interfere too much with his pastoral duties. He was a Fellow of Middlebury College, possessed great mental power, and was a very forcible debater. While he was Speaker of the House a proposition came before it for a dissolution of Church and State, and in the discussion some one [illegible] weak enough to say that Christianity would go down if the State withdrew its support. This stirred all the fervor of his spirit.
Aliondoka kiti na kushiriki mjadala, akitoa mojawapo ya hotuba kali zaidi zilizowahi kusikika Vermont kwa ajili ya uhuru wa dini, nguvu kuu ya msimamo wake ikiwa kwamba Mungu alikuwa amelijenga Kanisa lake juu ya mwamba, na kwamba malango ya kuzimu hayatalishinda. Bingwa wa tatu wa Kibaptisti wa Vermont wa uhuru wa dini anapatikana katika Ezra Butler, ambaye, mwaka 1785, alihama kutoka Claremont, N. H., hadi Waterbury, Vt., ambapo, karibu mwaka 1800, alikuwa Mbaptisti na akaunda Kanisa, alilolihudumia kama mchungaji kwa zaidi ya miaka thelathini. Vipaji vyake na tabia yake ya juu viliwafanya wananchi wenzake kumkabidhi ofisi ya kiraia, kwanza kama karani wa mji, hakimu wa amani, kisha kama mjumbe wa Bunge la Sheria, [haisomeki] pia kama Jaji Mkuu wa Kaunti ya Washington. Mwaka 1813-15 alihudumia Jimbo lake katika Bunge la Marekani, na kuanzia 1826 hadi 1828 [haisomeki] Gavana wa Vermont, pamoja na Aaron Leland kama Naibu Gavana, wote wawili wakiwa wahudumu Wabaptisti wakati huo.He left the chair and took part in the debate, delivering one of the strongest speeches ever heard in Vermont in favor of religious liberty, the main strength of his position being that God had founded his Church upon a rock, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. A third Vermont Baptist champion of religious freedom is found in Ezra Butler, who, in 1785, removed from Claremont, N. H., to Waterbury, Vt., where, about 1800, he became a Baptist and formed a Church, which he served as pastor for more than thirty years. His talents and high character induced his fellow-citizens to intrust him with civil office, first as town clerk, justice of the peace, then as member of the Legislature, [illegible] also as Chief Justice for Washington County. In 1813-15 he served his State in Congress, and from 1826 to 1828 he [illegible] Governor of Vermont, with Aaron Leland as Lieutenant-Governor, both Baptist ministers at the time.
Chini ya viongozi hawa wakuu na wenzao maoni ya umma hatimaye yalitupilia mbali muungano wa Kanisa na Dola huko Vermont, yakiipita Massachusetts kwa miaka kadhaa katika mbio hizo. Wabaptisti wa South Carolina walisimama imara kwa ajili ya uhuru wa dini. Jimbo [haisomeki] Katiba yake mwaka 1776, na kuirekebisha mwaka 1778 na 1790; lakini Wabaptisti [haisomeki] waliamka mapema kwa hitaji la kuhakikisha haki zao, na mapema kama 1779 Muungano wa Charleston (Charleston Association) uliifanya kuwa wajibu wa kamati ya kudumu ‘kufanya kazi kwa usawa kamili wa watu wote wa kidini mbele ya sheria, na kwa madhumuni haya walikuwa [haisomeki] kushughulika na serikali kwa niaba ya Makanisa.’ Hakuna aliyechangia zaidi kwa matokeo ya uhuru wa kiraia na wa kidini huko Georgia kuliko Richard Furman maarufu, D.D., ambaye wasifu mfupi unaweza kutolewa hapa. Alizaliwa [haisomeki] Esopus, N. Y., mwaka 1755, lakini, akiwa mtoto mchanga, wazazi wake walihamia South Carolina na kukaa kwenye Milima ya Juu ya Santee.Under these great leaders and their compeers public sentiment finally threw aside the union of Church and State in Vermont, distancing Massachusetts by a number of years in that race. South Carolina Baptists stood firmly for religious liberty. The State [illegible] its Constitution in 1776, and amended it in 1778 and 1790; but the Baptists [illegible] early awake to the need of securing their rights, and as early as 1779 the Charleston Association made it the duty of a standing committee 'to labor for the perfect equality of all religious people before the law, and for this purpose they were [illegible] treat with the government in behalf of the Churches.' No one contributed more to the result of civil and religious liberty in Georgia than did the noted Richard Furman, D.D., of whom a brief sketch may here be given. He was born [illegible] Esopus, N. Y., in 1755, but, while an infant, his parents removed to South Carolina and settled on the High Hills of Santee.
Hapa, baada ya elimu nzuri ya awali, akawa Mkristo, na akiwa na umri wa miaka kumi na minane alianza kuhubiri, kwa kiwango cha ajabu cha uwazi, ibada na nguvu, kwa kijana. Wilaya ambayo [haisomeki] alifanya kazi ilikuwa mashariki na kaskazini mwa mito ya Wateree na Santee, ambako uovu ulikithiri. Aliunda Makanisa mengi, yaliyojiunga na Muungano wa Charleston. Alikuwa mnyenyekevu sana, lakini bidii yake isiyo na majivuno, pamoja na ukomavu wa hukumu yake katika kufasiri Maandiko, na ukali wake usio wa kawaida wa mwito, viliamsha mshangao na staha ya wote. Alikuwa karibu na umri wa miaka ishirini na miwili wakati Mapinduzi yalipoanza, na alijitangaza mara moja kuwa Mwanachama thabiti wa Whig na akaweka nguvu zake zote katika jambo la Marekani. Waingereza walipovamia South Carolina alilazimika kustaafu kwenda North Carolina na Virginia, na baadaye Cornwallis aliweka bei juu ya kichwa chake. Huko Virginia alikuwa rafiki wa karibu wa Patrick Henry, ambaye alimpa vitabu fulani, vinavyohifadhiwa kwa upendo katika familia ya Furman hadi leo.Here, after a good early education, he became a Christian, and at the age of eighteen began to preach, with a remarkable degree of clearness, devotion and force, for a youth. The district where [illegible] labored lay to the east and north of the rivers Wateree and Santee, where wickedness abounded. He formed many Churches, which united with the Charleston Association. He was extremely modest, but his unassuming ardor, with his ripeness of judgment in interpreting Scripture, and his uncommon pungency of appeal, awakened universal surprise and admiration. He was scarcely twenty-two when the Revolution commenced, and he avowed himself at once a firm Whig and threw all his powers into the American cause. When the British invaded South Carolina he was obliged to retire into North Carolina and Virginia, and afterwards Cornwallis put a price on his head. In Virginia he became intimate with Patrick Henry, who presented him with certain books, which are cherished in the Furman family to this day.
Mwaka 1787 alikubali dhamana ya kichungaji ya Kanisa la Kibaptisti huko Charleston, ambako alibaki kwa miaka thelathini na minane, na akawa rafiki wa karibu wa familia hizo za wazalendo, akina Pinckney, Rutledge na Sumter, ambao pamoja nao alifanya kazi kwa bidii kwa jambo la Mapinduzi. Uhuru ulipopatikana, na watu wakuu wa Jimbo walipochaguliwa kukutana katika mkutano na kuunda Katiba mpya, kura zao zilimfanya mjumbe wa baraza hilo, ambamo alishindania kwa bidii dhidi ya kuwatenga wahudumu wa Kikristo kutoka ofisi fulani za kiraia, na alifanya mengi kuhakikisha uhuru wa dhamiri katika Jimbo. Kwa heshima kubwa sana alikuwa ameunganisha uzalendo wake na ustaarabu na upole wa tabia takatifu, hivi kwamba wakati wa kifo cha Washington na Hamilton aliteuliwa na Cincinnati na Jumuiya ya Mapinduzi kutoa hotuba za heshima kwa kumbukumbu zao: Kwa jumla, alikuwa mtumishi mashuhuri zaidi wa Mungu na wa nchi yake.In 1787 he accepted the pastoral charge of the Baptist Church in Charleston, where he remained for eight and thirty years, and became intimate with those patriot families, the Pinckneys, Rutledges and Sumters, together with whom he labored earnestly for the Revolutionary cause. When independence was achieved, and the leading men of the State were selected to meet in convention and form a new Constitution, their suffrages made him a member of that body, in which he contended earnestly against the exclusion of Christian ministers from certain civil offices, and did much to secure soul-liberty in the State. So nobly had he blended his patriotism with the refinement and urbanity of a holy character, that on the death of Washington and Hamilton he was appointed by the Cincinnati and the Revolution Society to deliver orations in tribute to their memory: Taken altogether, he was a most eminent servant of God and of his country.
Marehemu Dkt. W. R. Williams alisema: ‘Kuhusu mtumishi huyu mashuhuri wa Bwana ni vigumu kueleza kilicho cha haki na sahihi bila kuonekana upendeleo kupita kiasi. Kumwakilisha kwa maneno ya kawaida ya sifa, au kuonyesha fadhila zake kwa viwango vyovyote vya kawaida vya maelezo, ingekuwa njia ya moja kwa moja ya kukosa ukweli. Majaliwa ya Mungu hutoa watu wachache kama hao kwa ulimwengu kama Dkt. Furman. . . . Mahali ambapo wengine walikuwa wakuu yeye alikuwa wa juu zaidi, na mahali ambapo wengine walikuwa wazuri na thabiti katika tabia, alisimama mpendwa na mwenye mng’ao katika sifa zote bora za mwanadamu. . . . Katika elimu ya jumla alikuwa amefikia maendeleo ambayo yangemweka miongoni mwa watu wa akili ya kwanza katika nchi yoyote. . . . Masomo yake yalikuwa hasa katika hisabati, metafizikia, fasihi nzuri, mantiki, historia na teolojia; Pia alikuza ufahamu wa vitabu vya kale vya kitamaduni, hasa Homer, Longinus na Quintilian, ambao uzuri na mafundisho yao aliyajua vizuri.The late Dr. W. R. Williams said: 'Of this eminent servant of the Lord it is difficult to express what is just and proper without the appearance of excessive partiality. To represent him in the ordinary terms of eulogy, or to depict his virtues by any of the common standards of description, would be the direct way to fall short of the truth. The Providence of God gives few such men to the world as Dr. Furman. . . . Where others were great he was transcendent, and where others were fair and consistent in character, he stood forth lovely and luminous in all the best attributes of man. . . . In general learning he had made such progress as would have ranked him among men of the first intelligence in any country. . . . His studies were chiefly confined to mathematics, metaphysics, belles-lettres, logic, history and theology; He cultivated also an acquaintance with the ancient classics, particularly Homer, Longinus and Quintilian, with whose beauties and precepts he was familiar.
Alisoma kwa makini ya kudumu waandishi wote wa enzi ya Augusto ya fasihi ya Kiingereza, na chochote ambacho lugha ilikuwa nacho cha thamani katika uhakiki na kisichokufa katika ushairi. Wako wachache, inaaminika, ambao akili zao zimejazwa kwa utajiri zaidi na vifungu bora vya Milton, Young, Pope, Addison, Butler na waandishi wengine wakuu kuliko Dkt. Furman. Kutoka kwao angeweza kunukuu ipasavyo, na kwa mwafaka kwa karibu kila tukio, kilichokuwa kizuri na chenye ufasaha zaidi. Alikuwa na kipaji kisicho cha kawaida katika kuona manufaa ya masomo hayo yanayohusiana na akili, na katika kuyabana kuwa muhtasari ili kuyafanya yaeleweke wazi kwa kila uwezo. Kwa njia hii angeweza kuchambua na kufafanua kanuni za falsafa ya maadili na mantiki, kwa wepesi ambao ungeweza tu kutokana na ustadi tayari juu ya masomo hayo. Lakini kile kilichotoa mvuto kwa maisha yake yote ni ladha ya utauwa iliyoenea na kutamisha vipaji na sifa zake zote za juu. Nguvu zote za akili yake tukufu ziliwekwa wakfu kwa Mungu. Matunda yote yaliyokomaa ya uzoefu wake mrefu yalikuwa sadaka kwa Baba wa Rehema. Aina zote za mafanikio yake, na upana wote wa akili yake iliyojaa vizuri, ziliungana katika azimio moja lililoshinda la kutojua chochote ila Kristo aliyesulibiwa.’He read with sedulous attention all the writers of the Augustan age of English literature, and whatever the language possessed valuable in criticism and immortal in poetry. There are few men, it is believed, who have had their minds more richly stored with the fine passages of Milton, Young, Pope, Addison, Butler and other great authors than Dr. Furman. From them he could quote properly, and appositely for almost every occasion, what was most beautiful and eloquent. He possessed uncommon talent in discerning the utility of those studies connected with the mind, and in condensing them into such abstracts as to make them clearly intelligible to every capacity. In this way he could analyze and expound the principles of moral philosophy and logic, with a facility which could only have resulted from a ready mastery over the subjects. But that which imparted a charm to his whole life was the godly savor which pervaded and sweetened all his superior endowments and qualifications. All the vigor of his noble intellect was consecrated to God. All the matured fruit of his long experience was an oblation to the Father of Mercies. All the variety of his acquirements, and all the vastness of his well-furnished mind, were merged in one prevailing determination to know nothing save Christ crucified.'