of fidelity which the Court thought proper to require of the citizens. Mr. Cotton* states the case thus: “The magistrates and other members of the General Court, upon intelligence of some Episcopal and malignant practices against the country, made an order of Court, to take trial of the fidelity of the people, not by imposing upon them, but by offering to them, an oath of fidelity, that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not betrust them with place of public charge and command. This oath, when it came abroad, he (Mr. Williams) vehemently withstood, and dissuaded sundry from it, partly because it was, he said, Christ's prerogative to have his office established by an oath; partly because an oath was part of God's worship, and God's worship was not to be put upon carnal persons, as he conceived many of the people to be. So the Court was forced to desist from that proceeding."

The reasons assigned by Mr. Cotton for Mr. Williams' opposition to the oath are, we suspect, not all the reasons which really moved him to this course. He probably viewed the act of the Court in absolving the citizens from the oath which they had already taken, and substituting another, as an illegal assumption of power. It might be understood to claim for the Court an authority superior to the charter, for it omitted the clause of the former oath, which required of the subject obedience to laws which should be "lawfully" made by the Court, and, instead of it, obliged men to swear to submit to the "wholesome" regulations which might be established. As the charter prohibited the passage of laws contrary to the laws of England, the first oath bound the citizen to obey the Court only while they adhered to the charter; but the new oath required submission to all the "wholesome" acts of the government, who were, of course, the sole judges of the wholesomeness of their own measures. Mr. Cotton says, that the oath was only offered, not imposed, but it was, by a subsequent act of the Court, enforced on every man above the age of sixteen years, on penalty of punishment at the discretion of the Court.†

To this oath, under such circumstances, Mr. Williams, as a friend of liberty, was opposed. He would not re

* Tenet Washed, pp. 28, 29.

+ Backus, vol. i. p. 62.

nounce an oath which he had taken, and substitute another, which bound him to obey whatever laws the magistrates might deem wholesome. The reason assigned for the new oath, moreover, was to guard against "Episcopal and malignant practices." This gave it the appearance of a law to restrain liberty of conscience; and Mr. Williams' principles were totally opposed to any measure which tended to that result, however specious its professed object might be.

If these views are correct, Mr. Williams' opposition to oaths in this case resolves itself into an inflexible adherence to his great doctrine of unfettered religious liberty; a doctrine which, more than any thing else, drew upon him the jealousy and dislike of the magistrates and the clergy.

In July, he was again summoned to Boston.

“1635, Mo. 5, 8. At the General Court, Mr. Williams, of Salem, was summoned and did appear. It was laid to his charge, that being under question before the magistracy and churches for divers dangerous opinions, viz: 1. that the magistrate ought not to punish the breach of the first table, otherwise than in such cases as did disturb the civil peace; 2. that he ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man; 3. that a man ought not to pray with such, though wife, child, &c.; 4. that a man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament, nor after meat, &c.; and that the other churches were about to write to the church of Salem to admonish him of these errors; notwithstanding, the church had since called him to [the] office of teacher. Much debate was about these things. The said opinions were adjudged by all, magistrates and ministers, (who were desired to be present) to be erroneous and very dangerous, and that the calling of him to office, at that time, was judged a great contempt of authority. So, in fine, time was given to him and the church of Salem to consider of these things till the next General Court, and then either to give satisfaction to the Court, or else to expect the sentence; it being professedly declared by the ministers (at the request of the Court to give their advice) that he who should obstinately maintain such opinions (whereby a church might run into heresy, apostacy, or tyranny, and yet the civil magistrate could not intermeddle) were to be removed, and that the other churches ought to request the magistrates so to do." Vol. i. p. 162.

The first two of these charges have been considered. It will be observed, that the Governor has candidly acknowledged, that Mr. Williams allowed it to be right for the civil magistrate to punish breaches of the first table, when they disturbed the civil peace. This fact exempts him from the charge of opposition to the civil authority.

The third charge, if it is a true representation of the opinion of Mr. Williams, shows that his judgment in this particular was biased, by an idea of the impropriety of uniting in religious worship with those who cannot cordially participate in the service. He thus carried to an extreme a principle, which the state of things in England had frequently called into exercise. He probably recollected, that the book of common prayer implied that all present adopted the petitions as their own; and as he knew that many who pretended to join in the worship were notoriously profligate, he might be impelled to the opposite error.

*In his " Hireling Ministry none of Christ's," he says, on this subject, we may hinder and harden poor souls against repentance, when, by fellowship in prayer with them as with saints, we persuade them of their [already] blessed state of Christianity, and that they are new born, the sons and daughters of the living God." p. 22. This argument is unsound, because we do not "hold fellowship with the impenitent, by praying in their presence; but the argument shows Mr. Williams' conscientious regard for the welfare of men.

It is worthy of remark, here, that while Winthrop states this charge as a general proposition, Hubbard (207) and Morton (153) assert, that Mr. Williams refused to "pray or give thanks at meals with his own wife or any of his family." This was probably an inference from Mr. Williams' abstract doctrine. Several of the charges against him might be thus traced to the disposition to draw inferences. A curious instance is given by Cotton Mather, (Magnalia, b. vii. ch. ii. § 6.) Mr. Williams, he says, "complained in open Court, that he was wronged by a slanderous report, as if he held it unlawful for a father to call upon his child to eat his meat. Mr. Hooker, then present, being moved hereupon to speak something, replied, "Why, you will say as much again, if you stand to your own principles, or be driven to say nothing at all." Mr. Williams expressing his confidence that he should never say it, Mr. Hooker proceeded: "If it be unlawful to call an unregenerate person to pray, since it is an action of God's worship, then it is unlawful for your unregenerate child to pray for a blessing upon his own meat. If it be unlawful for him to pray for a blessing upon his meat, it is unlawful for him to eat it, for it is sanctified by prayer, and without prayer unsanctified. (1 Tim. iv. 4, 5.) If it be unlawful for him to eat it, it is unlawful for you to call upon him to eat it, for it is unlawful for you to call upon him to sin." Our fathers were adepts in

The fourth charge seems too frivolous for notice. What right have men to insist on ceremonies which the Bible does not enjoin, and which are in themselves indifferent? If, as is not improbable,* there was an attempt to introduce among the churches a uniformity touching these little observances, it is not wonderful that Mr. Williams resisted them. He had seen too much of this system in England, to be willing to submit to it in America.

As the Salem church adhered to Mr. Williams, notwithstanding the well-known displeasure of the magistrates and the clergy, a singular mode of punishing them for their contumacy was soon adopted. Three days after the session of the Court just mentioned, we are told by Winthrop, that the "Salem men had preferred a petition at the last General Court, for some land in Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as belonging to their town; but, because they had chosen Mr. Williams their teacher, while he stood under question of authority, and so offered contempt to the magistrates, &c. their petition was refused till, &c. Upon this the church of Salem write to other churches to admonish the magistrates of this as a heinous sin, and likewise the deputies; for which, at the next General Court, their deputies were not received until they should give satisfaction about the letter." Vol. i. p. 164.

Here is a candid avowal, that justice was refused to Salem, on a question of civil right, as a punishment for the conduct of the church and pastor. A volume could not more forcibly illustrate the danger of a connection between the civil and ecclesiastical power. The land, in question, was granted, after Mr. Williams was banished.

The

logic. Mr. Hooker's syllogisms do not now seem very convincing, but they must have puzzled Mr. Williams, if he held the notions ascribed to him. Accordingly, Cotton Mather adds, that "Mr. Williams chose to hold his peace, rather than to make any answer." We may wonder, nevertheless, that Mr. Williams has not been accused of starving his children, to the horror of succeeding generations!

*The Court, in March, 1634-5, passed an act, "entreating of the brethren and elders of every church within their jurisdiction, that they will consult and advise of one uniform order of discipline in the churches, agreeable to the Scriptures, and then to consider how far the magistrates are bound to interpose for the preservation of that uniformity and the peace of the churches."

postponement was evidently designed, and probably had some effect, to induce the people of Salem to consent to their pastor's removal.

The church at Salem felt this to be a flagrant wrong, and they naturally wrote to the other churches, to warn them of this dangerous attack upon their liberty, and to request them to admonish the magistrates, as members of the churches, of the criminality of their conduct. It is difficult to see, why the church at Salem were not fully justified in this procedure.

The health of Mr. Williams failed under the pressure of his trials and duties. He declared, "that his life was in danger, by his excessive labors, preaching thrice a week, by labors night and day in the field; and by travels night and day, to go and come from the Court." We need not be surprised, therefore, at the next notice of him by Winthrop, under the date of August 16 :

"Mr. Williams, pastor of Salem, being sick and not able to speak, wrote to his church a protestation, that he could not communicate with the churches in the Bay; neither would he communicate with them, except they would refuse communion with the rest: but the whole church was grieved herewith." Vol. i. p. 166.

Solomon has said, that "oppression maketh a wise man mad;"* and it is not wonderful that it should impel a sick man to write such a letter as the one here alluded to. Mr. Williams felt deeply that he had been injured, and that the spiritual fellowship between him and the churches had suffered a melancholy interruption. He therefore declared, that he could not commune with them, and he insisted that the church in Salem should refuse such a communion. In this conduct he was doubtless wrong, yet who will venture to say, that if he had been placed in the situation of Mr. Williams, he would have maintained a more subdued spirit?

Matters now rapidly approached a crisis. The magistrates punished with rigor the offence of the Salem church, or rather of Mr. Williams, in writing the letter to the other churches. Mr. Endicott was committed, for justifying that letter, and was not discharged, till he acknowledged his offence. The following extract from the records of the Court shows a case, which savours much of the English Court of

* Ecclesiastes, vii. 7.