passed,' a great [illegible] was made of it, by complicating Mr. Endicott and others, probably with an intention that it should operate against Mr. Williams;-as if it would be taken as an act of rebellion against the king's authority. The people of every town [illegible] one of their body, and the magistrates chose four who were appointed a committee to consider of the offence, and the censure due against it. The committee reported to the court that ["they found the offence of Mr. Endicott" to be great, viz. rash and without discretion, taking upon him more authority than he had, and in not asking advice of the court, &c. ; unwarrantable,* in that, he, judging the cross to be a sin, did content himself "to have it reformed" at Salem, not taking care that others might be brought out of it also ; laying a blemish also upon the rest of the magistrates, as if they would suffer idolatry, &c,, and giving occasion to the state of England to think ill of [the colony] ;-for which they adjudged him worthy admonition, and to be disabled for one year from bearing any publick office, declining any heavier sentence, because they were persuaded he did it out of tenderness of conscience; and not of any evil intent."] Mr. Endicott was admonished and removed from office accordingly.*** * Mr.

(1)It was laid over from the sessions of Nov. 5, 1634, Nov. 27, 1634, and March 4, 1634-5, to that of May 6, 1635.

(2) A commission had been appointed by the king, with power to call in previous patents. [See Hubbard's "General History of New England," I. 226-33.] It is not remarkable that a matter like this should cause apprehension.

(3) WINTHROP'S JOURNAL, I. 189.

(4) This is the word as given in the 1790 edition of Winthrop, which was here followed. Mr. Savage, however, (2d ed. I. 158), changes it to‘uncharitable."

(5) The annual election for governor and assistants occurred on the same day, (May 6, 1635); and Mr. Endicott, who had served as an assistant since 1630 was “left out." (Winthrop, I. 158). His name appears again in the list of assistants in 1637.

(6) This incident furnished Nathaniel Hawthorne with the material for his picturesquely told narrative of "The red cross," (in his "True stories from history and biography").

Williams

was "never satisfied that the princes of Europe had right to take possession of the American continent, and to grant its territories, piece by piece, to their subjects, without making compensation for it to the native owners." He had formerly, at the request of some of his friends, written some treatises' on this subject, which were sent to the governor and council of Plymouth at their requests :-wherein2 [he disputed "their right to the land they possessed here" and concluded, "that claiming by the king's grant" "they could have no title," nor otherwise, except they compounded with the natives].” And on their being sent for from Plymouth, he also sent a copy to the governor and assistants of Massachusetts, who met at Boston, Dec. 27, 1633, to take them into consideration. And ["taking advice from some of the most judicious ministers, (who much condemned Mr. Williams's errour and presumption), they gave order"] that he should be proceeded against therefor at the next court. Mr. Williams now wisely yielded to the circumstances of the times, and wrote to Gov. Winthrop, to Mr. Endicott, and the rest of the council, that the books which had given offence had been formerly written for the private gratification of some of his friends;-without further purpose, if the Governor of Plymouth had not required a copy of him; and declared ["that he would burn them with his own hands, if such an act would quiet the public fears]." This concession was con

(1) These "treatises" are also mentioned by William Coddington, (in the Appendix to Fox and Burnyeat's "New-England's firebrand quenched," p. 246: also in a letter from Winthrop to Endicott, dated Jan. 3, 1633-4. ("Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings," 1871-73, p. 343). (2) These manuscripts probably never appeared in print. See WINTHROP, I. 145.

(3) It would have been strange indeed if these "treatises" of Mr. Williams had not touched the Massachusetts colonists in a sensitive spot, The history of Rhode Island from 1663 to 1790, however furnishes an even more striking instance of sensitiveness as regards charter rights.

(4) WINTHROP, I. 145.

(5) BENTLEY, p. 247. One of his volumes actually was burned in England in or about 1644. This was his "Bloudy tenent of persecution." See his statement in 1671. (Narragansett Club Pub., VI. 353).

sidered sufficient, and at the next court' he privately gave such satisfaction that nothing further was done in the business. Mr. Williams then had rest till after the death of Mr. Skelton, which happened August 2d, 1634.

Mr. Skelton [says Bentley] had been "a rigid disciplinarian, but inclined to the utmost equality of privileges in church and state." This had produced a personal friendship between [them] in Mr. Skelton's lifetime, and they unitedly ["sought opportunities to retaliate upon the churches, which so freely remonstrated against their errors. They admitted the justice of some accusations, that they might require the same confes sions. The church under their care justified them."] Every opportunity was sought to remove Mr. Williams. In Feby. 1635, he was called before the governor and assistants, to answer because ["he had taught publickly that a magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man,* for that we thereby have communion with a wicked man, in the worship (1) Jan. 24, 1633-4. (Winthrop, I. 147).

(2) See BENTLEY, p. 247.

(3) Bentley cites still another occasion of disagreement, omitted here. He says: "Mr. Skelton and Williams did not view with indifference the frequent meetings of the ministers."

*

"Skelton thought he forespirit to express a fear of it, (Bentley, p. 248). Another

saw the power of Presbyteries, and he had
though exercised under another name."
instance of the sensitiveness to the dictation of synods, manifested by the
Salem church later on in its history, is cited by Upham, ("Second cen-
tury lecture," p. 47-49). He remarks: "The church in Salem dreaded
the consequences of these assemblies in the beginning, and has more
than once refused to submit to their enactments". It would seem that
when in 1710 another Essex county minister, the Rev. John Wise, so
forcibly contended for the theory of democracy in the Christian church,
in a treatise which has been pronounced "a piece of triumphant logic,
brightened by wit, and ennobled by imagination; a master-specimen of
the art of public controversy," (Tyler's "History of American litera-
ture," II. 110), he would have been justified in looking back to Roger
Williams and Samuel Skelton for some part of his inspiration.

(4) Mr. Williams himself never took the freeman's oath. For its form, see the "Records of the governor and company of Massachusetts Bay," I. 115, 117. There was another Roger Williams who took the oath, May 18, 1631. Mass. Col. Records, I. 366. See note in Dexter's "As to Roger Williams," p. 28-29).

of God, and cause him to take the name of God in vain."] Winthrop says: "He was heard before all the ministers, and very clearly confuted."1

5

[And before the meeting of the General Assembly [sic]" in May, it happened that he was sick "and unable to perform the duties of his pulpit," when his opinions respecting communion "were again demanded, and his answers were not employed for the most generous purposes. Every hateful tale was reported. He had asked, whether it was not absurd to give an oath to a man whom the church, by exclusion, had declared to be a man of no religion; and this was to condemn the magistrates."]

8

On the 8th of May," 1635, he was summoned and appeared before the General Court; When, [says Winthrop'], he was charged with holding ["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 public 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 the church of Salem was censured for that when the other churches were about to write to that church to admonish him of these errors, yet that church had called him to the office of teacher.10 (1) Winthrop, I. 188. This was Apr. 30, 1635.

(2) The passage in these brackets is struck out, in the manuscript. (3)"General Court" is of course meant.

(4) "May" should of course be July. (Winthrop, I. 193).

(5) BENTLEY, p. 248.

(6) The true date is July 8, 1635. (Winthrop, I. 193).

(7) WINTHROP, I. 193–94

(8) The "First table" comprises the first four commandments of the decalogue. The limiting clause of Mr. Williams's opinion on this point is of essential importance, and should not be overlooked.

(9) Some curious and probably unwarrantable inferences from this statement of Mr. Williams may be seen in Mather's "Magnalia," book 7, ch. 2, sect. 6.

(10) Winthrop's language is: "The other churches were about (July 8, 1635), to write to the church of Salem, to admonish him of these errors; not

3

"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 of him to office at that time was adjudged a great contempt of authority." Bu tit 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 was ["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, [sic] 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."] Mr. Williams, however, was of a make not to be intimidated. He acted from principle. "Every person in Salem, [says Bentley]' loved Mr. Williams." He had there no personal enemies, under any pretence. All valued his friendship. Kind treatment could win him, but opposition could not conquer him. He was not afraid to stand alone for truth against the world; and he had always address enough with his firmness, never to be forsaken by the friends he had ever gained." It was therefore not to be expected that the threatening of the General Court would have the effect they wished. So far from it that when he was sick in the month of

withstanding the church had since called him to [the] office of a teacher. (Winthrop, I. 194). This would seem to fix the date of this "calling" in the months of May, or June, 1635. See Note 7, p. 16, ante. (1) WINTHROP, I. 194.

(2) Quoted from Winthrop, I. 194.

(3)"that he

* * *

were to be removed." The grammatical coustruction of this sentence, (Winthrop's), might be clearer. It obviously means: "should be removed."

(4) BENTLEY, p. 249-50.

(5) "It was his good fortune," says Mr. Upham, "to find in John Endicott, and in many others of his congregation in Salem, kindred spirits, ready and willing to take the same noble and magnanimous stand. They adhered to him long and faithfully, and sheltered him from all assaults." ("Second century lecture" at Salem, 1829, by Charles Wentworth Upham, p. 43).