Roger Williams was not regularly ordained until after the death of Mr. Skelton. Then, in defiance of the magistrates, who were greatly displeased, the Salem church welcomed him as pastor. The people to whom he ministered had something of his own courageous spirit in holding out for the appointment. The Indian question was not the only one for which the General Court rebuked Roger Williams. On one charge or another, he was repeatedly in disgrace. One of his offences was the stand he took in regard to oaths. He held “that a magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man.” To us, this taking of an oath seems a simple enough duty and one to which there could be no objection. With Roger Williams, however, it meant an act of worship and, as such, should not be forced upon anybody, least of all upon one to whom it had no real meaning. Believing as he did that the Lord’s name should never be taken in vain, was it not wrong to require a man who did not fear God to take such phrases on his lips as, “I therefore do swear by the great and dreadful name of the ever living God,” and “So help me, God in the Lord Jesus Christ”? To him this was nothing less than profanity. The solemn words quoted above are to be found in what was known as the Freeman’s Oath, which was a pledge of loyalty and support to the government. The person taking the oath agreed to submit to the “wholesome laws” established by that government. Now Roger Williams had found some of these laws anything but wholesome. Then, too, the Freeman’s Oath seemed to transfer allegiance from the King to the government of Massachusetts and was, therefore, contrary to the charter. Thus there were reasons why Roger Williams objected to oath-taking in general and may have objected to this oath in particular. Heading the list of “divers dangerous opinions” brought against the once “godly minister” by the General Court in July, 1635, was this: “That the magistrates ought not to punish the breach of the first table, otherwise than in such cases as did disturb the civil peace.” The words have a familiar sound. Denial of the civil power to exert authority over a man’s conscience--the true Roger Williams principle! It was this, as we have seen, which caused a breach with the authorities almost as soon as the troublesome preacher landed in New England. At this court, he was plainly told that at the next court he must either “give satisfaction or else expect the sentence.”