Note 79 — Chapter V

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!