[76]. Since these remarks were written, the author has found in Mr. Williams’ “Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s,” an “Appendix as touching oaths, a query.” This Appendix is as follows: “Although it be lawful (in case) for Christians to invocate the name of the Most High in swearing; yet since it is a part of his holy worship, and therefore proper unto such as are his true worshippers in spirit and in truth; and persons may as well be forced unto any part of the worship of God as unto this, since it ought not to be used but most solemnly, and in solemn and weighty cases, and (ordinarily) in such as are not otherwise determinable; since it is the voice of the two great lawgivers from God, Moses and Christ Jesus, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses (not swearing) every word shall stand: Whether the enforcing of oaths and spiritual covenants upon a nation, promiscuously, and the constant enforcing of all persons to practise the worship in the most trivial and common cases in all courts (together with the ceremonies of book and holding up the hand, &c.) be not a prostituting of the holy name of the Most High to every unclean lip, and that on slight occasions, and a taking of it by millions, and so many millions of times in vain, and whether it be not a provoking of the eyes of his jealousy who hath said, that he will not hold him (what him or them soever) guiltless, that taketh his name in vain.” It seems, from this paragraph, that he considered taking an oath to be an act of worship; that a Christian might take one on proper occasions, though not for trivial causes; that an irreligious man could not sincerely perform this act of worship; and that no man ought to be forced to perform this act, any more than any other act of worship. His own practice was agreeable to his theory. He says, in his George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, (Appendix, pp. 59, 60) “cases have befallen myself in the Chancery in England, &c. of the loss of great sums, which I chose to bear, through the Lord’s help, rather than yield to the formality (then and still in use) in God’s worship, [alluding, perhaps, to the use of a book, holding up the hand, &c.] though I offered to swear, in weighty cases, by the name of God, as in the presence of God, and to attest or call God to witness; and the judges told me they would rest in my testimony and way of swearing, but they could not dispense with me without an act of Parliament.”
[77]. Tenet Washed, pp. 28, 29.
[78]. Backus, vol. i, p. 62.
[79]. 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 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!
[80]. 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.”
[81]. Ecclesiastes, vii. 7.
[82]. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 167, note.
[83]. Winthrop places the banishment under the date of October, but the Colonial Records, (I. 163) state, that it took place, November 3, 1635.
[84]. See Appendix C.