Williams remained the one resolute, stubborn, incorrigible offender. Eliot, Stoughton, and Endecott, and even Williams's fellow-elder, Sharpe, and the whole church at Salem, might be argued into conformity by the sharp dialectics of the clergy, or bullied out of their convictions by the sharper logic of the magistrates, but Roger Williams could not be overborne. Individualist in his very nature, his self-reliant spirit was able to face isolation or excommunication. The great Hooker was set to dispute with him. Hooker's refined arguments were drawn out by inferences linked to inferences. He proved to the satisfaction of everybody but the culprit that it was not lawful for Williams, with his opinions, to set food before his unregenerate child, since he did not allow an irreligious child to go through the form of giving thanks. But the wire-drawn logic of Hooker, though Williams could not always answer it, had no more influence with him than the ingenious sophistications of the pious Cotton; Williams constantly fell back upon the "rockie strength" of his principles. On the 9th of October, 1635, he was sentenced to banishment. After the manner of that curious age, his banishment was based on charges of great importance mixed with charges utterly trivial. His denial of the authority of the magistrate to regulate the orthodoxy of the churches and the belief of individuals is, however, made one of the cardinal offenses in all the trustworthy accounts given at the time. With this were joined in the proceedings, but not in the sentence, such things as the denial of the propriety of grace after meat. All the elders but one advised his banishment. [Sidenote: Williams banished.] [Sidenote: Note 13.] [Sidenote: Note 14.] [Sidenote: Note 15.] [Sidenote: Note 16.] [Sidenote: Savage's Winthrop, i, 209, 210.]