thority which was so dear to magistrates and ministers. The account of the proceedings of the court, at this time, in the words of Winthrop, is as follows:

"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 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 a 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 the calling 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."*

This then was the opinion which deserved removal, that “the civil magistrate could not intermeddle to prevent heresy, &c. in the churches." The other charges were thrown in, probably, for popular effect, but this was the unpardonable sin.

The Church of Salem is here condemned, though it does not appear they were called upon to answer except in the person of their minister. But what is the doctrine thus promulgated? That the churches ought to request the magistrates to remove a minister of another independent church for his opinions. Let us now go back

* Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1, p. 162.

a little, and behold how consistency, and the liberties of the church were sacrificed for the removal of Mr. Williams.

In November, 1633, Governor Winthrop informs us that "the ministers in the Bay and Saugus did meet, once a fortnight, at one of their houses, by course, where some question of moment was debated. Mr. Skelton, the pastor of Salem, and Mr. Williams, who was removed from Plymouth thither, (but not in any office, though he exercised by way of prophecy,) took some exception against it, as fearing it might grow in time to a presbytery or superintendency, to the prejudice of the churches' liberties. But this fear was without cause; for they were all clear in that point, that no church or person can have power over another church; neither did they in their meetings exercise any such jurisdiction, &c."*

"No church or person can have power over another church." Such was the unanimous opinion of the ministers in 1633. In 1635 there is the same unanimity, but the doctrine is: The church in Salem, was guilty of a great contempt of authority, in choosing and ordaining their own minister; that this minister ought to be removed for his opinions, and the other churches have a right to take cognizance of these opinions, and to request the magistrates to remove him. Can we wonder if the clear-sighted Roger Williams beheld here the same spirit of anti-christ which he so much abhorred in England? And is it strange that he should refuse communion with churches that sanctioned such doctrines?

The time allowed Mr. Williams, and the Salem church, to consider of these things, and give satisfaction or expect sentence, was productive only of more difficulty. The town of Salem had petitioned the Court for some land which they claimed on Marblehead Neck, "but, (says Winthrop,) 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.” (meaning, no doubt, till they had given the satisfaction required of them.) "Upon this, the church of Salem wrote to the 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."+

* Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1. p. 117. + Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1, p. 164.

Sad times, indeed, for the liberties and the rights of Salem! They are deprived of the right to choose their minister! For asserting this right they were outlawed and their land withheld from them, and for appealing to the churches in relation to this infringement upon their liberties, they were deprived of their deputies.

Under this complication of tyranny it is not surprising that Mr. Williams, in August, 1635, "being sick, and unable to speak, (as Winthrop informs us,) wrote his church a protestation that he could not communicate with the churches in the Bay; neither could he communicate with them, except they would refuse communion with the rest; but the whole church was grieved herewith."*

The able biographer of Roger Williams condemns this act somewhat unadvisedly, saying, in excuse: "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 ?"†

Under these circumstances, the spirit of most men would, indeed, have been subdued, and pastor and people made their peace by submission. But such was not the spirit of Roger Williams; though sick, he saw that he must separate himself from his church if they submitted, or himself submit to the tyranny which had been erected over them. He was not prepared for the latter, and his letter was intended to test how far his church would resist such tyranny; it was a trial they were not able to bear, but their weakness could not shake his determination, for he was a man, says Dr. Bentley," that was not afraid to stand alone for truth against the world." We are therefore prepared to behold him, for the last time, before the magistrates "and all the ministers in the Bay," happy if there had been transmitted to us a portion of that truth and glowing eloquence with which he defended himself on that occasion. It was in November, 1635, and the proceedings are thus narrated by Winthrop.

"At this general assembly, Mr. Williams, the teacher of Salem, was again convented; and all the ministers in the Bay being desired to be present, he was charged with the said two letters,-that to the churches complaining of the magistrates for injustice, extreme oppression, &c.; and the other to his own church, to persuade them

* Savage's Winthrop, vol. 1. p. 166.

+ Knowles's Memoir of Roger Williams, page 71.

to renounce communion with all the churches in the bay, as full of anti-christian pollution, &c. He justified both these letters, and maintained all his opinions; and being offered further conference or disputation, and a month's respite, he chose to dispute presently. So Mr. Hooker was appointed to dispute with him, but could not reduce him from any of his errors. So, the next morning, the court sentenced him to depart out of our jurisdiction within six weeks, all the ministers, save one, approving the sentence; and his own church had him under question also, for the same cause; and he, at his return home, refused communion with his own church, who openly disclaimed his errors, and wrote an humble submission to the magistrates, acknowledging their fault in joining with Mr. Williams in that letter to the churches against them, &c."*

Thus triumphed power, and thus was consummated an act of oppression, by an union of church and state, by which a beloved pastor was again separated from his people, and the liberties of the church prostrated, to guard it from "heresy, apostacy and tyranny!" Neal says, "when Mr. Williams was banished, the whole town of Salem was in an uproar, for he was esteemed an honest, disinterested man, and of popular talents in the pulpit."

In the account of Winthrop, it might seem that the letters were the principal cause of banishment. It must be remembered, however, that Mr. Williams had given no satisfaction, to the court, in relation to his fundamental heresy, in denying the authority of magistrates in things spiritual, and that the sentence for this was suspended over him when these letters were written, in vindication of his conduct in this respect. The sentence yet remains of record, dated November 3d, 1635, and runs thus: "Whereas Mr. Roger Williams, one of the elders of the church of Salem, hath broached and dyvulged, dyvers newe and dangerous opinions against the authoritie of magistrates, as also writt Lrs. of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here, and that before any conviction, and yet maintaineth the same without retraccon; It is therefore ordered, that the said Mr. Williams shall depte out of this jurisdiction within six weekes nowe next ensueinge, which if hee neglect to performe, it shall be lawfull for the Govn', and two of the Magistrates to send him to some place out of

*Winthrop, vol. 1, page 171.

C

this jurisdiction, not to returne any more without licence from the Court."

Mr. Williams had liberty granted him to remain at Salem until spring, probably owing to the excitement which was produced there by his sentence of banishment. But, in January, he was driven from his home, into the wilderness, to escape being transported to England, under pretence that he had violated the injunction laid upon him not " to go about to draw others to his opinion," and the fact alleged in proof of this, was, that he entertained company in his house, and preached unto them, it was said, on points he had been censured for. But "the reason was," says Winthrop, and it is worthy of our special notice, " because he had drawn about twenty persons to his opinion, and they were intended to erect a plantation about the Narragansett Bay, from whence the infection would easily spread into the churches, (the people being, many of them, much taken with the apprehension of his godliness.) Whereupon a warrant was sent to him to come presently to Boston to be shipped, &c. He returned answer, (and divers of Salem came with it,) that he could not come without hazard of his life, &c. Whereupon a pinnace was sent with commission to Captain Underhill, &c. to apprehend him, and carry him on board the ship, (which then rode at Natuscutt,) but when they came at his house, they found he had been gone three days before; but whither they could not learn.”*

Every Englishman considers his house as his castle, and Mr. Williams might have supposed that he had liberty of speech in his own house, without subjecting himself to the charge of going about to draw others to his opinion; be this as it may, no opportunity was given him to defend himself against this charge, and, it would seem, it was made a pretence to cover a most tyrannical attempt against his liberty and rights. What right had these magistrates beyond the bounds of their patent? and, if they chose to withdraw the liberty they had granted Mr. Williams, under pretence that he had forfeited it, what right had they to do any thing more than give him notice to depart out of their jurisdiction, agreeably to the sentence? But Mr. Williams had committed a sin which was to be punished by transportation; he was guilty of being beloved by many of the people, and he designed to lead them into the wilderness, and erect a

* 1. Winthrop, p. 177.