Mr. Wheelwright changed his religious sentiments, and appears to have become too much tinged with antinomianism. Never were any communities, it is said, in more alarming danger than the churches of Massachusets about this time; and seldom have any measures, to allay a public frenzy, been more successful than those now adopted. The cause of these evils was as singular as the effects were alarming. "Mrs. Hutchinson, a member of the church at Boston, a woman of ready wit and a bold spirit, had adopted two remarkable opinions:-1. That the person of the Holy Ghost dwells in those who are justified.-2. That sanctification is no evidence of justification. From these two sentiments spread numerous branches: as, that our union with the Holy Ghost is such, that we are dead to every spiritual action, having no gifts nor graces more than hypocrites, nor sanctification, but the Holy Ghost himself, &c. Mr. Wheelwright, who was her brother, joined with her.” The news of these things soon spread abroad; and the ministers who attended the general court in October, 1636, made it an object of their attention to converse with Mr. Wheelwright and others, who had adopted these opinions, when they appeared to discover an accommodating spirit. Soon after, certain of the members of the church at Boston, who adopted the new opinions, publicly moved that Mr. Wheelwright should be called to be their teacher. This fanned the flame of opposition. The new opinions still rapidly spreading, the general court, in December, called together the ministers of the churches to advise with them respecting the existing divisions. As their passions grew warmer by constant disputation, they became more sanguine in their belief, bold in their expressions, and multiplied in their novelties. On public occasions it was now said, that the Holy Ghost dwelt in believers, as he is in heaven; that a man is justified before he believes; that the letter of scripture holds forth nothing but a covenant of works; that the covenant of grace was the spirit of the scripture, which was known only to believers; and that the ground of all religion was an assurance by immediate revelation. These, and many other things, being so complete a jumble of nonsense and impiety, as appears almost too tedious to be read, were accounted of the very first importance; and all the congregation of Boston, except four or five, espoused most of these new opinions. At the next election it was agreed to put off all lectures for three weeks, that they might bring these dissentions to an issue. Previous to this, a general fast was appointed to be kept in all the churches; the occasion of which, beside other things, was," the dissentions in the churches."* On the day of public fasting, Mr. Cotton, it is said, preached a very healing sermon from Isa. Iviii. 4. ; but Mr. Wheelwright, the other preacher at Boston,+ filled his sermon with bitter invectives against the magistrates and ministers of the country, telling the people," that they walked in such a way of salvation as was no better than a covenant of works." Under his third use, he said, "The second sort of people that are to be condemned, are all such as do set themselves against the Lord Jesus Christ: such are the greatest enemies to the state that can be. If they can have their wills, you will see what a lamentable state both church and commonwealth will be in: then we shall have need of mourning. The Lord cannot endure those that are enemies to himself, and kingdom, and people, and his church." He compared them to Jews, Herods, Philistines, and exhorted such as were under a covenant of grace to combat them as their greatest enemies. The above fast was held January 19, 1637. March 9th following, being the next court-day, Mr. Wheelwright was brought before the magistrates, who, after hearing what he could say in defence of his sermon, condemned it as seditious, and tending to disturb the public peace. They endeavoured to convince him of his offence, but without effect; and allowed him till the next session to consider whether he would make his submission or abide the sentence of the court. In the mean time, nearly all the church of Boston presented a petition to the court, declaring, "That ́ Mr. Wheelwright had not been guilty of any sedition; that his doctrine was not seditious, being no other than the expressions of scripture; that it had produced no seditious effects, for his followers had not drawn their swords, nor endeavoured to rescue their innocent brother: they desired the court, therefore, to consider the danger of meddling with the prophets of God, and to remember, that even the Apostle Paul himself had been called a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, and the ringleader of a sect."" petition was presented in the court presently after Mr. Wheelwright's censure, signed by above sixty hands, some of whom were members of the court; but it was rejected by the * Morse and Parish's Hist. of New Eng. p. 61, 142. This + Mr. Wheelwright was preacher to a branch of the Boston church, which assembled at Braintree, a place near Boston.-Backus's Hist. of New Eng. Bap. vol. i. p. 81. majority, and the chief petitioners were severely punished for it the next session.* In the above petition two things were requested: "That as free men they might be present in cases of judicature, and that the court would declare, whether they might deal in cases of conscience before the church." The members of the court considered this as a reflection upon them, and replied, that their proceedings had been always open. Mr. Wheelwright was accused of calling those by the name of antichrist, who believed sanctification to be an evidence of justification, and of stirring up the people with bitterness and vehemence. He endeavoured to justify himself; but the court adjudged him guilty of sedition and contempt. Many pamphlets were published on both sides of the question. Mr. Wheelwright published a "Treatise in Defence of his Sermon," to which the ministers answered, and Mr. Cotton replied. Mr. Wheel'wright appeared before the court to hear his sentence; but they gave him respite till the next session, in August, that he might have time, it is said, for cool reflection. But he appeared bold and confident; and to the court he said, that, if he had been guilty of sedition, he ought to die; that he should retract nothing, but should appeal to the king; adding, that he had been guilty neither of sedition nor contempt; that he had delivered nothing but the truth of Christ, and the application of his doctrine was made by others, and not by himself." At length, in October, 1637, the court sentenced him to be disfranchised, to be banished from the colony, and to be taken into immediate custody, unless he would give security for his departure. He was, therefore, banished, with several others, and he continued in a state of banishment seven years.t Mr. Wheelwright afterwards growing wiser, renounced his errors, begged pardon of God and the country, was restored to his people, and lived many years a useful minister of Christ, at Hampton, in New Hampshire. "He was literally a wandering star. At Boston, at Quincy, at Exeter, at Salisbury, and at Wells, difficulties pursued him." From this last place he wrote to the government of Massachusets, whence he had been banished, a very humble confession, which was accepted, and he had the liberty to return. In * Backus's Hist. of New Eng. Bap. vol. i. p. 81.-Neal's Hist. of New Eng. vol. i. p. 169, 170. + Morse and Parish's Hist. of New Eng. p. 87, 143-145.-Neal's Hist. of New Eng. vol. i. p. 174. Mrs. Hutchinson, his sister, was sent inte banishment about the same time, and was afterwards murdered by the Indians.-Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 75. this confession, he said, "It is the grief of my soul, that I used such vehement and censorious speeches. I repent me that I did adhere to persons of corrupt judgments, to the countenancing and encouraging of them in any of their errors or evil practices." The order of the court for taking off the sentence of his banishment, and receiving him as a member of the commonwealth, is dated Boston, May 29, 1644.* His difficulties taught him wisdom. After his confession and restoration he lived nearly forty years "a valued servant of the church;" and he died about the year 1680, being an old man and full of years. ROGER WILLIAMS.-This remarkable person was born in Wales, in the year 1599, and educated in the university of Oxford. He became a subject of divine grace at ten or twelve years of age. In early youth he attracted the attention, and obtained the patronage, of Lord Chief Justice Coke; who, seeing him at some place of public worship, was struck with the attentive behaviour of one so young, and his taking notes of the sermon. When the service was over, he sent for young Williams, and desired to see his notes, and, finding them very judiciously taken, took him under his patronage, and sent him to Oxford. Having finished his studies at the university, he entered into the ministerial office, and was some years minister in the established church. He afterwards joined the puritans, and became a zealous nonconformist; but the intolerable oppressions of Bishop Laud forced him from his native country, when he fled to New England.‡ Mr. Neal says he was a rigid Brownist, precise, uncharitable, and of most turbulent and boisterous passions. passions. But Mr. Hubbard, who lived in those times, denominates him "a godly and zealous preacher."|| Mr. Williams arrived in New England February 5, 1631, and was immediately called by the church at Salem to be assistant to Mr. Samuel Skelton. His settlement was, however, opposed by the magistrates, "because he refused to communicate with the church at Boston, unless they would make a public declaration of their repentance, for having held communion with the church of England when in their native country; and because he declared it as his opinion, " * Backus's Hist. of Baptists, vol. i. p. 154. + Morse and Parish's Hist. p. 101. MS. Account. Neal's Hist. of New Eng. vol. i. p. 140, 141. C that the civil magistrate might not punish any branch of the first table." In consequence of this, he was called by the church of Plymouth to assist Mr. Ralph Smith; where, says Governor Bradford," he was freely entertained, according to our poor ability, and exercised his gifts among us; and, after some time, was admitted a member of the church, and his teaching well approved; for the benefit whereof I still bless God; and am thankful to him even for his sharpest admonitions and reproofs." He continued assistant to Mr. Smith two or three years; but finding some of the leading members of the church to be of different sentiments from himself, and having received an invitation to succeed Mr. Skelton as pastor of the church at Salem, he requested his dismission to that church. After some demur, his request was granted. He preached at Salem, it is said, all the time of Mr. Skelton's sickness, and insinuated himself so far into the affections of the people, by his vehement manner of delivery, that he was chosen pastor after the other's death. His request was granted by the particular persuasion of Mr. Brewster, the venerable elder, who signified his fears "that Mr. Williams would run the same course of rigid separation and anabaptistry, which Mr. ̈* John Smyth had done at Amsterdam." Those who adhered to him were also dismissed and removed to the church at Salem. Though his settlement was still opposed by the magistrates, he became their pastor, and laboured among them about two years. We are, indeed, informed," That in one year's time he filled that place with the principles of rigid separation, tending to anabaptism."+ At Mr. Williams never withheld his opinions, but openly and publicly declared whatever appeared to him to be the truth. This exposed him to the censure of his enemies, and involved him in troubles even soon after his settlement at Salem. length, July 8, 1635, he was summoned before the general court, and was charged with maintaining, "That it is not lawful for godly men to have communion in family prayer with such as they judge unregenerate; that it is not lawful for an unregenerate man to pray; that the magistrate has nothing to do in matters of the first table, only in cases of disturbance to the civil peace; that he ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man; that a man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament, nor after meals; that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of all religions; that to punish a man for following the dictates of his conscience is persecution; Neal's New Eng. vol. i. p. 141. + Backus's Hist. vol. i. p. 54-57. |