There is a paper on this debate in the British Record Office indorsed by Archbishop Laud, "Rec: Octob: 7. 1637," "Propositions wch have devided Mr. Hooker & Mr. Cotton in Newe England. 1. That a man may prove his justification by his works of sanctification, as the first, best, and only cheife evidence of his salvation. 2. Whither fayth be active or passive in justification. 3. Whither there be any saving preparation in a Christian soule before his unyon with Christ. This latter is only Hooker's opinion, the rest of the ministers do not concurr with him: Cotton and the rest of the contrary opinion are against him and his party in all." Colonial Papers, ix, 71. In the next paper in the same volume, also indorsed by Laud, the controversy is more fully set forth. Copies of both are in the Bancroft collection of the New York Public Library. Laud indorsed these papers respectively October 7 and 15, 1637. The Cambridge Synod, which met August 30th, had adjourned late in September, and the debates which divided the two divines must have preceded it, and perhaps preceded the migration of Hooker to Connecticut in 1636. When Haynes was Governor of Massachusetts he had pronounced the sentence of banishment against Williams. But some years later, while Governor of Connecticut, he relented a little and wrote to Williams: "I think, Mr. Williams, I must now confesse to you, that the most wise God hath provided and cut out this part of his world for a refuge and receptacle for all sorts of consciences. I am now under a cloud, and my brother Hooker, with the bay, as you have been, we have removed from them thus far, and yet they are not satisfied." Quoted by Williams in a letter to Mason, 1st Massachusetts Historical Collections, i, 280. [Sidenote: Note 2, page 322.] The abstract of Hooker's sermon of May 31, 1638, as deciphered and published by Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, is in the Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, i, 20, 21, and the Fundamental Laws of 1639 are in Hinman's Antiquities, 20, and ff., and in Trumbull's Blue Laws, 51. Compare also the remarkable letter of Hooker to Winthrop in Connecticut Historical Society Collections, i, 3-15. Hooker objects strongly to the right of arbitrary decisions by the magistrate: "I must confess, I ever looked at it as a way which leads directly to tyranny, and so to confusion, and must plainly profess, if it was in my liberty, I would choose neither to live nor leave my posterity under such government." This letter exhibits Hooker's intellect to great advantage. One is inclined to rank him above most of his New England contemporaries in clearness and breadth of thought. [Sidenote: Note 3, page 325.]