FOOTNOTES
[1] Bancroft’s Hist. of U. S. i. 342. Knowles’ Life of R. Williams, p. 31.
[2] See Broadmead Records, Introd. p. xxii.
[3] Neal’s Hist. of N. England, i. 141, 144. Baillie’s Dissuasive, p. 66. Mather’s Magnalia, i. 19.
[4] Neal, i. 144. Bancroft, i. 350. Cotton Mather’s Magnalia, book i. p. 19. Backus’ Hist. of Baptists in New England, i. 45.
[5] Knowles, p. 37.
[6] Bancroft, i. 367.
[7] Knowles, p. 23, 391. Backus, i. 508.
[8] “Master Cotton may call to mind that the discusser [Williams], riding with himself and one other of precious memory, Master Hooker, to and from Sempringham, presented his arguments from scripture, why he durst not join with them in their use of Common Prayer.” Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 12. See also pp. [43] and [374] of the present volume. Baillie’s Dissuasive, p. 55.
[9] In his letter to Major Mason, he refers to “King James, whom I have spoke with.” Knowles, p. 31.
[10] Such is Governor Winthrop’s testimony. Knowles, p. 46.
[11] Welde’s Answer to W. R. p. 10. 4to. 1644.
[12] Backus, i. 54, 57.
[13] See pp. [287], [247], [353]. Knowles, pp. 45, 49. Backus, i. 49. Bancroft, i. 360. At Taunton, the minister, Mr. Streete, “publicly and earnestly persuaded his church members to give land to none but such as might be fit for church members: yea, not to receive such English into the town.” Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 283. By a subsequent law no church could be constituted without the sanction of the magistrates: and the members of any church formed without it, were deprived of the franchise. Backus, i. 77.
[14] See pp. [247], [287], [353], &c. “Mr. Cotton effectually recommended, that none should be elected nor electors therein, except such as were visible subjects of our Lord Jesus Christ, personally confederated in our churches.” Mather’s Magnalia, b. iii. p. 21.
[15] Backus, i. 54. Knowles, p. 50.
[16] Knowles, p. 53. Mr. Cotton, in his Answer to Roger Williams, tells us that “elder Brewster warned the whole church of the danger of his spirit, which moved the better part of the church to be glad of his removal from them into the Bay.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 4.
[17] Mather’s Magnalia, iii. 20. Cotton’s Way of Cong. Churches, pp. 16, 30.
[18] Knowles, pp. 42, 43. “It was requested of Mr. Cotton,” says his descendant Cotton Mather, “that he would from the laws wherewith God governed his ancient people, form an abstract of such as were of a moral and lasting equity; which he performed as acceptably as judiciously.... He propounded unto them, an endeavour after a theocracy, as near as might be to that which was the glory of Israel, the peculiar people.” Magnalia, iii. 20. Backus, i. 79.
[19] Knowles, p. 57, 61. Master John Cotton’s Answer to Master Roger Williams, p. 4. This is usually bound up with the “Bloudy Tenent Washed,” and cited as part II.: it is, however, a separate piece, and separately paged, and is Cotton’s Answer to the second treatise in this volume.
[20] Cotton’s Answer, p. 4. Knowles, p. 61. Mather, vii. 7. Backus, i. 57.
[21] Knowles, p. 66.
[22] So Winthrop. Knowles, pp. 68-70. Backus, i. 67, 68. See also p. [422] of this volume. Cotton’s Answer, p. 4.
[23] See p. [372]. Cotton’s Answer, pp. 5, 9. Cotton treats his sickness as a “check from the hand of God,” p. 56.
[24] See pp. [387], [388]. Bancroft, i. 373.
[25] Knowles, pp. 71, 72. The sentence was as follows:—“Whereas Mr. Roger Williams, one of the elders of the church of Salem, hath broached and divulged divers new and dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates; as also writ letters of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here, and that before any conviction, and yet maintaineth the same without any retractation; it is therefore ordered that the said Mr. Williams shall depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks, now next ensuing, which, if he neglect to perform, it shall be lawful for the governor and two of the magistrates to send him to some place out of this jurisdiction, not to return any more without licence from the Court.” Backus, i. 69, 70.
[26] Cotton’s Answer, p. 26.
[27] Cotton’s Answer, pp. 27-30.
[28] Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 276.
[29] Bancroft, i. 327.
[30] See pp. [249], [257], [262]. Mr. Cotton pleads that anabaptists and others were not compelled against conscience; nor were they punished for conscience’ sake; but for sinning against conscience. Tenent Washed, pp. 165, 189; Backus, i. 98.
[31] See pp. [186], [331]; Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 122. By the law of September 6, 1638, the time was extended to six months. Backus, i. 45, 98; Bancroft, i. 349.
[32] “The Lady Moody, a wise and amiable religious woman, being taken with the error of denying baptism to infants, was dealt withal by many of the elders and others, and admonished by the church at Salem.” To avoid more trouble, she went amongst the Dutch; but was excommunicated. In 1651, the Rev. J. Clarke and Mr. O. Holmes, of Rhode Island, for visiting a sick baptist brother in Massachusetts, were arrested, fined, imprisoned, and whipped. At an earlier period, they had been compelled to leave Plymouth for their opinions. Mr. Cotton approved of this. Backus, i. 146, 207, 225.
[33] Williams’s Letter to Endicot. Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 305. See p. [245].
[34] “Whilst he lived at Salem, he neither admitted, nor permitted any church members but such as rejected all communion with the parish assemblies, so much as in hearing the word amongst them.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 64. See p. [397] of this volume.
[35] “The substance of the true estate of churches abideth in their congregational assemblies.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 109. Cotton refers here to the parish congregations.
[36] See pp. [243], [244], [392]. Mather’s Magnalia, i. 21.
[37] Cotton charges Williams with attempting to draw away the Salem church from holding communion with all the churches of the Bay, “because we tolerated our members to hear the word in the parishes of England.” Tenent Washed, p. 166.
[38] See p. [246]. Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 230.
[39] It must have reached Williams after his settlement at Providence. Cotton, in 1647, says he wrote it about “half a score years ago,” which would give the date of 1637.
[40] See p. [377]. Cotton’s Answer, p. 8, 9, 13, 36-39. “I did never intend to say that I did not consent to the justice of the sentence when it was passed.”
[41] Cotton says, “Some of his friends went to the place appointed by himself beforehand, to make provision of housing and other necessaries against his coming.” Answer p. 8. This, however, is very doubtful.
[42] See p. [388]. Knowles, p. 73. Backus, i. 70. Governor Winthrop had privately advised him to leave the colony. The friendship of this eminent man was of frequent service to our exile. Cotton declares that the officer who served the warrant saw “no sign of sickness upon him.” Answer, p. 57. This he might not choose to see.
[43] See p. [370]. Knowles, p. 395.
[44] Now called Rehoboth.
[45] Quoted from his “Key,” &c., by Knowles, p. 101.
[46] The land at this spot still bears the designation of “What Cheer.”
[47] The vivid and dramatic poem of Judge Durfee, entitled “What Cheer?” is founded on the supposed events of his journey through this howling wilderness, and amid its savage inhabitants.
[48] Letter to Major Mason. Knowles p. 394, Benedict, p. 449.
[49] This view has been ably advocated by General Fessenden, from whose manuscript some of the above particulars are taken by Benedict, in the new edition of his Hist. of the Baptists, p. 449.
[50] Knowles, p. 103, 112. Backus, i. 90, 94.
[51] Letter to Mason. Knowles, p. 398.
[52] Backus, i. 95, 115. Knowles, p. 148.
[53] Knowles, p. 149, 395.
[54] Knowles, p. 165. Benedict, p. 441. Backus, i. 105.
[55] Backus, i. 107. Knowles, p. 176. Hanbury, iii. 571.
[56] Backus, i. 107, 108. Knowles, p. 170.
[57] As p. [40]. Cotton says, he fell “from all ordinances of Christ dispensed in any church way, till God shall stir up himself, or some new apostles, to recover and restore all ordinances, and churches of Christ out of the ruins of anti-christian apostacy.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 2. The insinuation in this passage is both unjust and untrue.
[58] Pp. [4], [379]. Knowles, p. 172. Callender’s Historical Discourse, by Dr. R. Elton, p. 101.
[59] Cotton’s Answer, p. 9.
[60] Knowles, p. 181. Callender, p. 159. Backus, i. 112. Bancroft, i. 380. The attachment of the Rhode Islanders to this great principle receives a curious illustration in the case of one Joshua Verin, who was deprived for a time of his franchise for refusing to his wife liberty of conscience, in not permitting her to go to Mr. Williams’s meeting as often as requisite. Backus, i. 95.
[61] Backus, i. 147.
[62] Backus, i. 148. Knowles, p. 198.
[63] Elton, in notes to Callender, p. 230. Knowles, p. 208.
[65] See Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, pp. 214-225.
[66] Bloudy Tenent Washed, p. 1.
[67] Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody, pp. 4, 290. The only edition known to us of the prisoner’s arguments with Mr. Cotton’s reply, is of the date 1646, with the following title: “The Controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience in Matters of Religion, truly stated, and distinctly and plainly handled by Mr. John Cotton of Boston in New England. By way of answer to some arguments to the contrary sent unto him, wherein you have, against all cavils of turbulent spirits, clearly manifested wherein liberty of conscience in matters of religion ought to be permitted, and in what cases it ought not, by the said Mr. Cotton. London. Printed for Thomas Banks. 1646.” It is a quarto pamphlet of fourteen pages, and signed John Cotton, and agrees with Williams’s copy of it in the “Bloudy Tenent.”
[69] Bloody Tenent Washed, pp. 150, 192.
[70] Bloody Tenent more Bloody, pp. 222, 291.
[71] Mather’s Magnalia, iii. 128, v. 22.
[72] Backus, i. 66.
[73] Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 38.
[74] Tracts on Liberty of Conscience and Persecution, 1614-1661. Hanserd Knollys Society, 1846.
[75] The Second Part of the Vanity and Childishness of Infants’ Baptism. By A. R. p. 27. London, 1642.
[76] In “M. S. to A. S. with a Plea for Liberty of Conscience in a Church Way, &c.” London, 1644. 4to. pp. 110. Also in “Θεομαχία; or, the grand imprudence of fighting against God,” &c., 4to. 1644.
[77] London, 4to. 1644, p. 13. Cotton’s Answer, p. 2. Orme’s Life of Owen, p. 100.
[78] Tracts on Lib. of Conscience, p. 270.
[79] These differences are stated by Mr. Gammell in his Life of Williams, p. 215, to exist in the two copies he has seen in America. The only copies we have seen in this country, are those in the Bodleian Library, and the British Museum; both of which have the table of errata.
[80] Baillie’s Dissuasive. Epist. Introd. ed. 1645. Hanbury’s Memorials, ii. 403; iii. 110, 127.
[81] Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 38.
[82] The two parts of this work are quoted in the notes to this volume, as “Cotton’s Reply,” and “Cotton’s Answer.”
[83] [See Tracts on Liberty of Conscience and Persecution, p. 217. Hanserd Knollys Society, 1846.]
[84] Essay of Religion. [Eos qui conscientias premi, iisque vim inferri suadent, sub illo dogmate, cupiditates suas subtexere, illamque rem sua interesse, putare. De Unitate Ecclesiæ.]
[85] It is rarely seen that ever persons were persecuted for their conscience, but by such persecution they were confirmed and hardened in their conscience.
[86] [See Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, pp. 214-224.]
[87] Sozom. lib. 1. Eccles. Hist. chap. 19, 20. [Fleury, Eccles. Hist. Liv. xi. c. 23. “The impious Arius was banished into one of the remote provinces of Illyricum.... The emperor had now imbibed the spirit of controversy, and the angry, sarcastic style of his edicts was designed to inspire his subjects with the hatred which he had conceived against the enemies of Christ.” Gibbon, Decline and Fall, p. 317. 8vo. edit.]
[88] In Epist. 166. [Tunc Constantinus prior contrá partem Donati severissimam legem. Hunc imitati filii ejus talia præceperunt. Quibus succedens Julianus deserto Christi et inimicus, supplicantibus vestris Rogatiano et Pontio libertatem perditioni partis Donati permisit—Huic successit Jovianus—Deinde Valentinianus, legite quam contra vos jusserit. Inde Gratianus et Theodosius—Veri Christiani non pro heretico errore pœnas justissimas sicut vos, sed pro catholica veritate passiones gloriosissimas pertulerunt. S. Aug. Opera, Tom. ii. fol. 156. Ed. Venetiis, 1552.]
[89] [Igitur et scintilla statim ut apparuerit, extinguenda est, et fermentum a massæ vicinia se movendum, secandæ putridæ carnes, et scabiosum animalia caulis ovium repellendum, ne tota domus, massa, corpus, et pecora ardeat, corrumpatur, putrescat, intereant. Arius in Alexandria una scintilla fuit, sed quia non statim oppressa est, totum orbem ejus flamma populata est. S. Hieronymi Opera. Tom. iii, p. 927. Parisiis, 1609. ed.]
[90] [Sunt duo libri mei, quorum titulos est contra partem Donati. In quorum primo libro dixi non mihi placere ullius seculari potestatis impetu schismaticos ad communionem violenter arctari. Quod (et) vere mihi non placebat, qua nondum expertus eram, vel quantum mali eorum auderet impunitas, vel quantum eis in melius mutandis conferre posset diligentia disciplinæ. Retract. ii. Opera, tom. i. fol. 10. To the same effect in Epist. 48, 50, tom. ii. fol. 35, 45. Quid enim non isti juste patiuntur, cum ex altissimo dei presidentis, et ad cavendum ignem æternum flagellis talibus admonentis judicio patiuntur, et merito criminum, et ordine potestatum? Contra Epist. Parmen. tom. vii. fol. 4. Tract xi. in Evang. Joann. tom. ix.]
[91] [Vindicavit (diximus) Moyses, vindicavit Helias, vindicavit Phinees. Vindicavit Macarius. Si nihil offenderant, qui occisi esse dicuntur, fit Macarius reus, in eo quod solus nobis nescientibus, et vobis provocantibus fecit. S. Optati Opera, p. 75. Parisiis, 1679.]
[92] [Melius proculdubio gladio coercentur, illius videlicet qui non sine causa gladium portat, quam in suum errorem multos trajicere permittantur. Dei enim minister ille est, vindex in iram ei qui male agit. Opera, tom. iii. p. 369. edit. Parisiis, 1836.]
[93] [Fidelis expositio errorum Mich. Serveti et brevis eorundem refutatio, ubi docetur, jure gladii coercendos esse hæreticos. Calvini Tract. Theol. p. 686. edit. 1597.]
[94] [Beza Tract. Theol. tom. i. p. 85. edit. 1582.]
[95] [Aretius. Hist. Val. Gentilis. Geneva, 1567.]
[96] [“Thus a man may find a knot in a bulrush, yea, thus a man that were disposed might find fault with the comforts of God for not being full and complete.” Reply of Cotton in The Bloudy Tenent Wash’d and made White in the Bloud of the Lambe, p. 4, edit. 1647.]
[97] [“Fundamental doctrines are of two sorts: some hold forth the foundation of Christian religion—others concern the foundation of the church. I speak of the former sort of these only—the other sort I look at as less principal, in comparison of these.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 5.]
[98] [“It is not truly said, that the Spirit of God maketh the ministry one of the foundations of Christian religion, for it is only a foundation of church order, not of faith, or religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 8.]
[99] [In his Reply, Mr. Cotton affects to have forgotten these admonitions and arguments; but Mr. Williams, in his rejoinder, reminds him that once, when riding together in company with Mr. Hooker to and from Sempringham, Mr. Williams did thus address Mr. Cotton, whose reply was to the effect, “that he selected the good and best prayers in his use of that book, as the author of the Council of Trent used to do.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 8; Williams’ Bloudy Tenent made yet more Bloudy, p. 12.]
[100] It pleaseth God sometimes, beyond his promise, to convey blessings and comfort to His, in false worships.
[101] [“Though I say, that it is not lawful to persecute any, though erring in fundamental and weighty points, till after once or twice admonition, I do not therefore say, that after once or twice admonition, then such consciences may be persecuted. But that if such a man, after such admonition, shall still persist in the error of his way, and be therefore punished, he is not persecuted for cause of conscience, but for sinning against his conscience.... It was no part of my words or meaning, to say, that every heretic, though erring in some fundamental and weighty points, and for the same excommunicated, shall forthwith be punished by the civil magistrate; unless it do afterwards appear that he break forth further, either into blasphemy, or idolatry, or seducement of others to his heretical pernicious ways.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 27.]
[102] [“In alleging that place, I intended no other persecution, but the church’s against such an heretic by excommunication.... Verily excommunication is a persecution, and a lawful persecution, if the cause be just offence; as the angel of the Lord is said to persecute the wicked, Psal. xxxv. 6.... Sure it is the Lord Jesus accounteth it a persecution to his disciples, to be delivered up into the synagogues, and to be cast forth out of the synagogues, Luke xxi. 12, with John xvi. 2.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 32.]
[103] [“And for the civil state, we know no ground they have to persecute Jews, or Turks, or other pagans, for cause of religion, though they all err in fundamentals. No, nor would I exempt anti-christians neither from toleration, notwithstanding their fundamental errors, unless after conviction they still continue to seduce simple souls into their damnable and pernicious heresies: as into the worship of false gods, into confidence of their own merits for justification, into seditious conspiracies against the lives and states of such princes as will not submit their consciences to the bishop of Rome.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 33.]
[104] [“This is too vast an hyperbole: as if murderers, seditious persons, rebels, traitors, were none of them such as did break the city’s or kingdom’s peace at all; but they only who are too sharp against corruptions in religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 36.]
[105] [“What hurt do they get by being caught? Hypocrites, and corrupt doctrines and practices, if they be found like unto good Christians, or sound truths, what hurt do they catch when I say such are to be tolerated to the end of the world? But—I acknowledge—that by tares are meant such kind of evil persons as are like unto the good.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 37.]
[106] [“If the Discusser had cast his eye a little lower, he might have found that Christ interpreteth the tares not only to be persons, but things, πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα, all things that offend, as well as those that do iniquity. But I shall not stick upon that at all. Let the tares be persons, whether hypocrites, like unto true Christians, or holders forth of scandalous and corrupt doctrines and practices like unto sound.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 38.]
[107] Hence were the witnesses of Christ, Wickliff and others, in Henry the Fourth’s reign, called Lollards, as some say, from Lolia, weeds known well enough, hence taken for sign of barrenness: Infelix lolium et steriles dominantur avenæ. Others conceive they were so called from one Lollard, &c.; but all papists accounted them as tares because of their profession.
[108] [“It is not true that ζιζάνια signifieth all those weeds that grow up with the corn. For they be a special weed, growing up chiefly amongst the wheat, more like to barley.... Neither is it true, that tares are commonly and generally known as soon as they appear.... Yea, the servants of the husbandman did not discern the tares from the wheat, till the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit. It is like enough, they did not suspect them at all by reason of the great likeness that was between them whilst they were both in the blade.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 40.]
[109] [“1. It is true, Christ expoundeth the field to be the world; but he meant not the wide world, but, by an usual trope, the church scattered throughout the world.... 2. If the field should be the world, and the tares anti-christians and false Christians: it is true, Satan sowed them in God’s field, but he sowed them in the church.... 3. It is not the will of Christ, that anti-christ and anti-christians, and anti-christianity, should be tolerated in the world, until the end of the world. For God will put it into the hearts of faithful princes, in fulness of time, to hate the whore, to leave her desolate and naked, &c. Rev. xvii. 16, 17.” Cotton’s Reply, pp. 41, 42.]
[110] [“It is no impeachment to the wisdom of Christ to call his elect churches and saints throughout the world, by the name of the world.... It is no more an improper speech, to call the church the world, than to speak of Christ as dying for the world, when he died for his church.” Ib. p. 43.]
[111] [“1. Did not Christ preach and sow the seed of the word to all those four sorts of hearers? And yet he was the minister of the circumcision, and preached seldom to any, but to church members, members of the church of Israel.... 2. If the children of church members be in the church, and of the church, till they give occasion of rejection, then they growing up to years become some of them like the highway side, others like the stony, &c.... 3. It is the work of the church to seek the changing of the bad into the good ground. For is it not the proper work of the church, to bring on the children to become the sincere people of God?... 4. There is not such resemblance between highway-side ground and good ground, as is between tares and wheat. Nor would the servants ever ask the question, whether they should pluck up weeds out of the highway-side, &c.” Cotton’s Reply, pp. 44, 45.]
[112] [“1. These tares are not such sinners as are contrary to the children of the kingdom; for then none should be opposite to them but they. 2. The tares were not discerned at first till the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 45.]
[113] [“Neither is it true that anti-christians are to be let alone by the ordinance of Christ, till the end of the world. For what if the members of a Christian church shall some of them apostate to anti-christian superstition and idolatry, doth the ordinance of Christ bind the hands of the church to let them alone? Besides, what if any anti-christian persons, out of zeal to the catholic cause, and out of conscience to the command of their superiors, should seek to destroy the king and parliament, should such an one by any ordinance of Christ be let alone in the civil state?” Cotton’s Reply, p. 47.]
[114] [“Let it be again denied, that hypocrites, when they appear to be hypocrites, are to be purged out by the government of the church. Otherwise they may soon root out, sometime or other, the best wheat in God’s field, and the sweetest flowers in the garden, who sometimes lose their fatness and sweetness for a season.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 48.]
[115] [“Not every hypocrite, but only such, who either walk inordinately without a calling, or idly and negligently in his calling.” Ib. p. 49.]
[116] [“But what if their worship and consciences incite them to civil offences? How shall then the civil state keep itself safe with a civil sword?” Cotton’s Reply, p. 50.]
[117] [“But if their members be leavened with anti-christian idolatry and superstition, and yet must be tolerated—will not a little leaven, so tolerated, leaven the whole lump? How then is the safety of the church guarded?” Ib. p. 50.]
[118] [“The elect of God shall be saved: but yet if idolaters and seducers be tolerated—the church will stand guilty before God of the seduction and corruption of the people of God.” Ib. p. 50.]
[119] [“There is no fear of plucking up the wheat, by rooting out idolaters and seducers—the censures inflicted (upon God’s people), would be blessed of God to their recovery and healing.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 51.]
[120] [“It would as well plead for the toleration of murderers, robbers, adulterers, extortioners, &c., for all these will the mighty angels gather into bundles, &c.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 51.]
[121] [“Certain it is from the word of truth, that the anti-christian kingdom shall be destroyed and rooted up by Christian princes and states long before the great harvest of the end of the world.... And either such princes must perform this great work without prayer, and then it were not sanctified to God, or if it be a sacrifice sanctified to God, they must pray for their desolation before they inflict it.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 53.]
[122] [“It might as truly be said the ministers of Christ are forbidden to denounce present or speedy destruction to any murderers, &c.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 54.]
[123] [“It is moral equity, that blasphemers, and apostate idolaters seducing others to idolatry, should be put to death, Levit. xxiv. 16.... The external equity of that judicial law of Moses was of moral force, and bindeth all princes to express that zeal and indignation, both, against blasphemy in such as fall under their just power, which Ahab neglected; and against seduction to idolatry, which Ahab executed, or else Elijah, or some others, by his consent.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 55.]
[124] [“It was no just cause for the civil magistrate to punish the Pharisees, for that they took unjust offence against Christ’s wholesome doctrine. For neither was the doctrine itself a fundamental truth; nor was their offence against it a fundamental error, though it was dangerous. Besides, the civil magistrates had no law established about doctrines, or offences of that nature. And therefore, they could take no judicial cognizance of any complaint presented to them about the same.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 57.]
[125] [“Paul’s appeal to Cæsar, was about the wrongs done unto the Jews. The wrongs to them were not only civil, but church offences, which Paul denied.... A man may be such an offender in matters of religion, against the law of God, against the church, as well as in civil matters against Cæsar, as to be worthy of death.... Paul, or any such like servant of Christ, if he should commit any such offence, he would not refuse judgment unto death.” Ib. p. 59.]
[126] [“We do not say, It is the holy will and purpose of God to establish the doctrine and kingdom of his Son only this way, to wit, by the help of civil authority. For it is his will also to magnify his power in establishing the same ... by the sufferings of his saints, and by the bloody swords of persecuting magistrates: ... but it is the duty of magistrates to know the Son, acknowledge his kingdom, and submit their thrones and crowns to it, &c.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 61.]
[127] [“We do not allege that place in Isaiah, to prove kings and queens to be judges of ecclesiastical causes; but to be providers for the church’s well-being, and protectors of it.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 61.]
[128] [“We do not hold it lawful for a Christian magistrate to compel by civil sword either Pharisee, or any Jew, or pagan, to profess the religion, or doctrine, of the Lord Jesus, much less do we think it meet for a private Christian to provoke either Jewish or pagan magistrates to compel Pharisees to submit to the doctrine or religion of Christ Jesus.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 64. On this Mr. Williams observes, that Mr. Cotton believes “it is no compulsion to make laws with penalties for all to come to church and to public worship.” Bloudy Tenent yet more Bloudy, p. 87.]
[129] [“When the corruption, or destruction of souls, is a destruction also of lives, liberties, estates of men, lex talionis calleth for, not only soul for soul, but life for life.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 64.]
[130] [“Yet it is not only every man’s duty, but the common duty of the magistrates to prevent infection, and to preserve the common health of the place, by removing infectious persons into solitary tabernacles.” Ib. p. 65.]
[131] [“That hindereth not the lawful and necessary use of a civil sword for the punishment of some such offences, as are subject to church censure.... It is evident that the civil sword was appointed for a remedy in this case, Deut. xiii.... For he (the angel of God’s presence) did expressly appoint it in the Old Testament: nor did he ever abrogate it in the New.... The reason is of moral, i. e., of universal and perpetual equity to put to death any apostate seducing idolater, or heretic ... the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain, to execute vengeance on such an evil doer.” Cotton’s Reply, pp. 66, 67.]
[132] [“It is a carnal and worldly, and indeed an ungodly imagination, to confine the magistrates’ charge to the bodies and goods of the subject, and to exclude them from the care of their souls.... They may and ought to procure spiritual help to their souls, and to prevent such spiritual evils, as that the prosperity of religion amongst them might advance the prosperity of the civil state.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 68.]
[133] [“The matter of this answer, it is likely enough, was given by me; for it suiteth with my own apprehension, both then and now. But some expressions in laying it down, I do not own, nor can I find any copy under my own handwriting, that might testify how I did express myself, especially in a word or two, wherein the discusser observeth, in cap. 38, some haste, and light, sleepy attention.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 74. Mr. Williams replies, “It is at hand for Master Cotton or any to see that copy which he gave forth and corrected in some places with his own hand, and every word verbatim here published.” Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody, p. 114. See ante, p. [22].]
[134] [“It is far from me to say, that it is lawful for civil magistrates to inflict corporal punishments upon men contrary-minded, standing in the same state the Samaritans did. No such thought arose in my heart, nor fell from my pen—that it is lawful for a civil magistrate to inflict corporal punishments upon such as are contrary-minded in matters of religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 76. To this Mr. Williams expresses his surprise as to the meaning Mr. Cotton puts upon the words contrary-minded, seeing the whole argument of his book is to show that heretics may be lawfully punished by the civil magistrate. P. [115].]
[135] [“Let it not seem strange to hear tell of unconverted Christians or unconverted converts. There is no contradiction at all in the words. When the Lord saith, that Judah turned unto him, not with all her heart, but feignedly, was she not then an unconverted convert? converted in show and profession, but unconverted in heart and truth?” Cotton’s Reply, p. 78.]
[136] [“I have not yet learned that the children of believing parents born in the church, are all of them pagans, and no members of the church: or that being members of the church, and so holy, that they are all of them truly converted. And if they be not always truly converted, then let him not wonder, nor stumble at the phrase of unconverted Christians.” Ib. p. 78.]
[137] [“If opposition rise from within, from the members of the church, I do not believe it to be lawful for the magistrate to seek to subdue and convert them to be of his mind by the civil sword; but rather to use all spiritual means for their conviction and conversion. But if the opposition still continue in doctrine and worship, and that against the vitals and fundamentals of religion, whether by heresy of doctrine or idolatry in worship, and shall proceed to seek the seduction of others, I do believe the magistrate is not to tolerate such opposition against the truth in church members, or in any professors of the truth after due conviction from the word of truth.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 81.]
[138] [“Yet it is not more than befell the church of Judah, in the days of Ahaz and Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah; yet the prophets never upbraided them with the civil magistrate’s power in causes of religion, as the cause of it.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 82.]
[139] [“A civil magistrate ought not to draw out his civil sword against any seducers till he have used all good means for their conviction, and thereby clearly manifested the bowels of tender commiseration and compassion towards them. But if after their continuance in obstinate rebellion against the light, he shall still walk towards them in soft and gentle commiseration, his softness and gentleness is excessive large to foxes and wolves; but his bowels are miserably straitened and hardened against the poor sheep and lambs of Christ.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 83.]
[140] [Eusebii Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. c. xiii. The rescript is also found appended to the second apology of Justin Martyr, Opera, tom. i. p. 100, edit. Coloniæ, 1686. By modern writers it is deemed spurious, although in spirit consonant with the well known temper of the emperor. Neander Ch. Hist. i. p. 141. Gieseler, i. 130. Clark’s For. and Theol. Lib.]
[141] [“Though the same arm may with a staff beat a wolf, yet it will not with the same staff beat a sheep. The same voice from heaven that calleth the sheep by name into the sheepfold, and leadeth them by still waters, the same voice hath said, that anti-christian wolves and seducers shall drink of blood, for they are worthy.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 86. To this Mr. Williams replies, that if civil power may force out of the church, it may also force in. “If civil power, to wit, by swords, whips, prisons, &c., drives out the spiritual or mystical wolf, the same undeniably must drive in the sheep.” The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody, p. 128.]
[142] [“If those be peaceable and quiet subjects, that withdraw subjects from subjection to Christ: if they be loving and helpful neighbours, that help men on to perdition: if they be fair and just dealers, that wound the souls of the best, and kill and destroy the souls of many, if such be true and loyal to civil government, that subject it to the tyranny of a foreign prelate, then it will be no advantage to civil states, when the kingdoms of the earth shall become the kingdoms of our Lord; and they may do as good service to the civil state, who bring the wrath of God upon them by their apostasy, as they that bring down blessings from heaven by the profession and practice of the true religion in purity.” Cotton’s Reply, pp. 87, 88.]
[143] [“Magistrates ought to be so well acquainted with matters of religion, as to discern the fundamental principles thereof, and the evil of those heresies and blasphemies as do subvert the same. Their ignorance thereof is no discharge of their duty before the Lord. Such wolfish oppressors, and doctrines, and practices as they cannot discern with their own eyes, it will be their sin to suppress them, because they cannot do it of faith: or to tolerate them, because they are destructive to the souls of the people.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 89.]
[144] [“It is no dishonour to Christ, nor impeachment of the sufficiency of the ordinances left by Christ, that in such a case his ministers of justice in the civil state, should assist his ministers of the gospel in the church state.” Ib. p. 91.]
[145] [“Elders must keep within the bounds of their calling; but killing, and dashing out of brains, which is all one with stoning, was expressly commanded in such a case to the people of God, by order from the judges. Deut. xiii. 10.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 91.]
[146] [“Nor is it a frustrating of the sweet end of Christ’s coming, which was to save souls, but rather a direct advancing of it, to destroy (if need be) the bodies of those wolves, who seek to destroy the souls of those for whom Christ died.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 93.]
[147] [“This is not unfitting nor improper, that a magistrate should draw his sword, though not in matters spiritual, yet about matters spiritual, to protect them in peace, and to stave off the disturbers and destroyers of them.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 94.]
[148] [Saker is the peregrine hawk; but was applied to a piece of ordnance of three inches and a half bore, carrying a ball of five pounds and a half weight.]
[149] [“It is far from me to allow the civil magistrate to make use of his civil weapons to batter down idolatry and heresy in the souls of men, ... but if the idolater or heretic grow obstinate ... now the magistrate maketh use, not of stocks and whips, but of death and banishment.... Heretics and idolaters may be restrained from the open practice and profession of their wickedness by the sword of justice, and such weapons of righteousness.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 95.]
[150] [“This inference will not here follow: That, therefore, magistrates have nothing to do to punish any violation, no, not of the weightiest duties of the first table.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 96.]
[151] [Comment. in Rom. xiii. 5, tom. v. p. 200, ed. Tholuck.]
[152] [“But how far off Calvin’s judgment was to restrain civil magistrates from meddling in matters of religion, let him interpret himself in his own words, in his answer to Servetus, who was put to death for his heresies at Geneva by his procurement:—Hoc uno, saith he, contentus sum, Christi adventu; nec mutatum esse ordinem politicum, nec de magistratuum officio quicquam detractum.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 98.]
[153] [Comment. in vers. 8, 10, tom. v. pp. 201, 202.]
[154] [Bezæ Nov. Test. in loc. edit. Londini, 1585.]
[155] [“Though idolatry, and blasphemy, and heresy, be sins against the first table: yet to punish these with civil penalties is a duty of the second table.... It was neither the word nor judgment of Calvin or Beza, so to interpret Rom. xiii. as to exempt magistrates from power of punishing heresy and idolatry.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 99.]
[156] [“In giving them a power and charge to execute vengeance on evil doers, it behoved them to inquire and listen after true religion, to hear and try all, and upon serious, deliberate, and just scrutiny, to hold fast that which is good, and so prevent the disturbance thereof by the contrary.... The cases of religion, wherein we allow civil magistrates to be judges are so fundamental and palpable, that no magistrate, studious of religion,—but, if he have any spiritual discerning, he cannot but judge of such gross corruptions as are insufferable in religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 101.]
[157] [“Paul did submit to Cæsar’s judgment-seat the trial of his innocency, as well in matters of religion as in civil conversation. For he pleadeth his innocency, that he was guilty of none of those things whereof they did accuse him, and for trial hereof he appealeth to Cæsar. Now the things whereof they did accuse him, were offences against the law of the Jews, and against the temple, as well as against Cæsar. And offences against the law of the Jews, and against the temple, were matters of religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 103.]
[158] [“What though the sword be of a material and civil nature?... It can reach to punish not only the offenders in bodily life and civil liberties, but also the offenders against spiritual life and soul-liberties.... If the sword of the judge or magistrate be the sword of the Lord, why may it not be drawn forth, as well to defend his subjects in true religion, as in civil peace?... What holy care of religion lay upon the kings of Israel in the Old Testament, the same lieth now upon Christian kings in the New Testament, to protect the same in their churches.” Cotton’s Reply, pp. 104, 105.]
[159] [In “A Model of Church and Civil Power—sent to the Church at Salem,” examined at length by Mr. Williams, in some subsequent chapters of this volume.]
[160] [“When we say, the magistrate is an avenger of evil, we mean of all sorts or kinds of evil: not every particular of each kind. Secret evils, in thought, or affection, yea, in action too, but neither confessed, nor proved by due witnesses, the magistrate cannot punish.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 110.]
[163] Upon this point hath Mr. John Goodwin excellently of late discoursed. [In “M. S. to A. S., with a Plea for Libertie of Conscience in a Church Way,” &c. Lond. 1644. 4to. pp. 110. See Introduction to this volume.]
[164] [“I willingly grant, it may be lawful for a civil magistrate to tolerate notorious evil doers in two cases, under which all the examples will fall, which the discusser allegeth; ... when the magistrates’ hand is too weak and feeble, and the offenders’ adherents too great and strong ... and an evil may be tolerated to prevent other greater evils.... In ordinary cases it is not lawful to tolerate a seducing false teacher. The commandment of God is clear and strong, Deut. xiii. 8, 9.... Capitalia Mosis politica sunt æterna.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 113.]
[165] [“It will be hard for the discusser to find anti-christian seducers clear and free from disobedience to the civil laws of a state, in case that anti-christ, to whom they are sworn, shall excommunicate the civil magistrate, and prescribe the civil state to the invasion of foreigners.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 115.]
[166] [See before, p. [22]. “The letter denieth the lawfulness of all persecution in cause of conscience, that is, in matter of religion: I seek to evince the falsehood of it, by an instance of lawful church-prosecution in case of false teachers.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 117.]
[167] [“I intended to apply the scriptures written to the churches, and to the officers thereof, no further than to other churches and their officers. The scriptures upon which we call in the magistrate to the punishment of seducers, are such as are directed to civil states and magistrates, of which divers have been mentioned and applied before.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 118.]
[169] [“This will no ways follow, unless all men’s consciences in the world did err fundamentally and obstinately after just conviction, against the very principles of Christian religion, or unless they held forth other errors ... and that in a turbulent and factious manner. For in these cases only, we allow magistrates to punish in matters of religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 120.]
[171] [“The answer which I gave to his argument is not taken from the like number of princes, but from the greater piety and presence of God with those princes who have professed and practised against toleration. It is truly said, suffragia non sunt numeranda, sed ponderanda.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 123.]
[172] [“If the discusser had well observed, he would have found, it was not the speech of the king, but of the prisoner.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 129.]
[173] [“Though the unknowing zeal of the one was sinful, yet it was the fruit of human frailty,—error amoris; but the rage of the others was devilish fury,—amor erroris. Besides the unknowing zeal of the good emperors, lay not in punishing notorious heretical seducers ... it was toleration that made the world anti-christian.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 132.]
[174] [“It followeth not. For Queen Elizabeth might do well in persecuting seditious or seducing papists, according to conscience rightly informed, and King James do ill according to conscience misinformed.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 136.]
[175] [The Third Vial, pp. 6, 7. The object of Mr. Cotton in this work was to justify the persecution of the papists by Queen Elizabeth, and the imitation of that conduct in the Low Countries. He says, “This phrase, out of the altar, holds forth some under persecution.... Duke D’Alva boasts that 36,000 protestants were put to death by him, and in 1586 the Jesuits were banished the country.... They [the protestants] justly say Amen, to the queen’s law—that as she gave the popish emissaries blood to drink—the angel says, Even so, Amen. They acknowledge God’s almighty power, that had given them power to make that law against them—‘all states rang of these laws, and it raised all Christendom,’” &c., &c. The Pouring out of the Seven Vials: or an Exposition of Rev. xvi. By the learned and reverend John Cotton, B.D. London, 1642. 4to.]
[177] [“If it be unlawful to banish any from the commonwealth for cause of conscience, it is unlawful to banish any from the church for cause of conscience.... If the censure of a man for cause of conscience by the civil sword be persecution, it is a far greater persecution to censure a man for cause of conscience by the spiritual sword.... Sure I am, Christ Jesus reckoneth excommunication for persecution, Luke xxi. 12.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 143.]
[178] [“I see no reason why the chaste and modest eye of a Christian church should any more spare and pity a spiritual adulterer that seeketh to withdraw her from her spouse to a false Christ, than the eye of a holy Israelite was to spare and pity the like tempters in days of old, Deut. xiii. 8.” Ib. p. 144.]
[180] [“Thus far he may be constrained, by withholding such countenance and favour from him, such encouragement and employment from him, as a wise and discerning prince would otherwise grant to such as believe the truth and profess it.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 145.]
[181] [By the 35th of Elizabeth, all subjects of the realm above sixteen years of age, were compelled to attend church under the penalties of fine and imprisonment. Collier’s Eccles. Hist. vii. 163. The pilgrim fathers of New England adopted a similar obnoxious and persecuting law. In the year 1631, it was enacted by their general court, “that no one should enjoy the privileges of a freeman, unless he was a member of some church in the colony.” “Every inhabitant was compelled to contribute to the support of religion, and the magistrates insisted on the presence of every man at public worship.” Knowles’s Memoir of Roger Williams, p. 44. Bancroft’s Hist. of U. States, i. 369.]
[182] [“I know of no constraint at all that lieth upon the consciences of any in New England, to come to church.... Least of all do I know that any are constrained to pay church duties in New England. Sure I am, none in our own town are constrained to pay any church duties at all. What they pay they give voluntarily, each one with his own hand, without any constraint at all, but their own will, as the Lord directs them.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 146. Mr. Williams thus rejoins, “If Mr. Cotton be forgetful, sure he can hardly be ignorant of the laws and penalties extant in New England that are, or if repealed have been, against such as absent themselves from church morning and evening, and for non-payment of church duties, although no members. For a freedom of not paying in his town (Boston) it is to their commendation and God’s praise. Yet who can be ignorant of the assessments upon all in other towns, of the many suits and sentences in courts.” &c. Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody, p. 216.]
[184] [“It is not true that the New English do tolerate the Indians, who have submitted to the English protection and government, in their worship of devils openly.... It hath been an article of the covenant between such Indians as have submitted to our government, that they shall submit to the ten commandments.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 148. On the contrary Mr. Williams re-asserts, that certain tribes of the Indians “who profess to submit to the English, continue in the public paganish worship of devils—I say openly, and constantly,” and that their practices are in utter opposition to the ten commandments they had professed to receive. Bloody Tenet, &c. p. 218.]
[185] [But “that is a civil law whatsoever concerneth the good of the city, and the propulsing of the contrary. Now religion is the best good of the city: and, therefore, laws about religion are truly called civil laws, enacted by civil authority, about the best good of the city.... Here will be needful the faithful vigilancy of the Christian magistrate, to assist the officers of the church in the Lord’s work: the one to lay in antidotes to prevent infection, the other to weed out infectious, noisome weeds, which the sheep of Christ will be touching and taking.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 151.]
[186] [See before, p. [27]. Also, Tracts on Lib. of Conscience, p. 220.]
[187] [In this paragraph Mr. Williams refers the above quotation to Tertullian, but by an evident mistake or slip of the pen; we have, therefore, inserted in the text “Jerome,” instead of “Tertullian,” as in the copy.]
[188] [“The Lord, through his grace, hath opened mine eye many a year ago to discern that a national church is not the institution of the Lord Jesus.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 156.]
[190] [“It is an untruth, that either we restrain men from worship according to conscience, or constrain them to worship against conscience; or that such is my tenet and practice.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 157. “I earnestly beseech,” says Mr. Williams, “every reader seriously to ponder the whole stream and series of Mr. Cotton’s discourse, propositions, affirmations, &c., through the whole book, and he shall then be able to judge whether it be untrue that his doctrine tends not to constrain nor restrain conscience.... And a cruel law is yet extant [in New England] against Christ Jesus, muffled up under the hood or veil of a law against anabaptistry.” Bloody Tenet yet, &c., p. 233.]
[192] [“Though the government of the civil magistrate do extend no further than over the bodies and goods of his subjects, yet he may and ought to improve that power ... to the good of their souls; yea, he may much advance the good of their outward man also.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 162.]
[194] [“When the wolf runneth ravenously upon the sheep, is it against the nature of the true sheep to run to their shepherd? And is it then against the nature of the true shepherd to send forth his dogs to worry such a wolf, without incurring the reproach of a persecutor.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 171.]
[196] [“The murder of the soul is not the only proper cause of a heretic’s capital crime, but chiefly his bitter root of apostasy from God: not only falling off himself from God, but seducing others.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 175.]
[197] [“Yet the very murderous attempt of killing a soul, in abusing an ordinance of God, in corrupting a religion, is a capital crime, whether the soul die of that wound or no.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 175.]
[198] [“As for such as apostate from the known truth of religion, and seek to subvert the foundation of it, and to draw away others from it, to plead for their toleration, in hope of their conversion, is as much as to proclaim a general pardon for all malefactors; for he that is a wilful murderer and adulterer now, may come to be converted and die a martyr hereafter.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 176.]
[199] [“It appeareth he meant not that passage of Deut. xiii., but of Exod. xxxii., where he put to death idolaters; and that of Levit. xxiv., where he put the blasphemers to death.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 178.]
[200] [“The text numbereth them 450 and he numbereth them 850.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 179.]
[201] [“Is it a miracle for Elijah, with the aid of so many thousand people of Israel, to put to death 450 men, whose spirits were discouraged, being convinced of their forgery and idolatry?” Ib. p. 179.]
[204] [An answer to thirty-two questions by the elders of the churches in New England. Published by Mr. Peters; Lond., 1643.]
[205] [“If princes be nursing fathers to the church, then they are to provide that the children of the church be not nursed with poison instead of milk. And in so doing they keep the first table.... Princes sit on the bench over the church in the offensive government of the church: and yet may themselves, being members of the church, be subject to church censure in the offensive government of themselves against the rules of the gospel.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 194.]
[206] [Under the influence of Calvin the legislation of Geneva was entirely theocratic. Idolatry, adultery, cursing and striking parents, were punishable with death. Imprisonment was inflicted for every immorality at the instance of the church courts. Women were forbidden to wear golden ornaments, and not more than two rings on their fingers. Even their feasts were regulated: but three courses were allowed, and each course to consist of only four dishes. Great efforts were also made, which gave rise to many civil commotions, to remove from office under the state persons excommunicated by the church. Henry’s Das Leben Calvins, p. 173, edit. 1843.]
[207] Chamier. De Eccles. p. 376. Parker, part. polit. lib. i. cap. 1.
[208] [That is, baptism and the Lord’s supper.]
[209] [See Broadmead Records, Introd. pp. xli., lxxxvii.]
[210] [“If a prince should, by covenant and oath, make his whole kingdom a national church, he should do more than he hath any word of Christ to warrant his work.” A Survey of the Sum of Ch. Discipline, &c., part 2, Argument 12.]
[211] [Among the early settlers were two brothers of the name of Brown, who, still attached to the rites of the church of England, set up a separate assembly, and when summoned before the governor, accused the ministers of departing from the usages of that church, adding that they were separatists, and would soon become anabaptists. To this the ministers made reply, “That they were neither separatists nor anabaptists, that they did not separate from the church of England, nor from the ordinances of God there, but only from the corruptions and disorders of that church; they came away from the Common Prayer and ceremonies ... because they judged the imposition of these things to be sinful corruptions of the word of God.” Neal’s Hist. of New England, i. p. 144. The two brothers were sent back to England in the same ship that brought them over.]
[212] [The law concerning heresy stood thus in New England: “Whoever denies the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, or the evil done by the outward man is sin, or that Christ gave himself a ransom for sins, or that we are justified by his righteousness, or the morality of the fourth command, or the baptizing of infants, or the ordinance of magistracy, or their authority to make war, or punish offenders against the first table; whoever denies any of these, or seduces others to do so, must be banished the jurisdiction.” Neal’s Hist. of New England, ii. p. 344.]
[213] [See note before, p. 164.]
[214] [Diana, in the original copy.]
[215] [“I do not disapprove of the use frequently made of it by St. Augustine against the Donatists, to prove that godly princes may lawfully issue edicts to compel obstinate and rebellious persons to worship the true God, and to maintain the unity of the faith; for although faith is a voluntary thing, yet we see that such means are useful to subdue the obstinacy of those who will not until compelled obey.” Calvin in loc. tom. ii. 43. edit. Tholuck.]
[216] [In the Platform of Church Discipline, agreed upon at Cambridge in New England in 1648, it is provided that not only members of churches, but hearers of the word also, shall contribute to the maintenance of the ministry: if the deacons failed to obtain it, recourse was then to be had to the magistrate, whose duty it was held to be to see that the ministry be duly provided for. C. Mather’s Magnalia, book v. p. 31. Neal’s Hist. of New England, ii. p. 301.]
[217] [Mr. Henry Ainsworth, the most eminent of the Brownists, was the author of a very learned commentary on the Pentateuch and Canticles, as also of several other minor works. “He was,” says Mr. Cotton, “diligently studious of the Hebrew text, hath not been unuseful to the church in his exposition of the Pentateuch, especially of Moses’s rituals.” Way of Cong. Churches, p. 6. Stuart’s edit. of his Two Treatises, p. 55.]
[218] [The composition of the first book of Homilies is generally attributed to Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hopkins, and Becon. Jewel is said to have had the largest share in the second, although Archbishop Parker speaks of them as “revised and finished, with a second part, by him and other bishops.” The first edition of the first book appeared in July, 1547, 1 Edward VI. The use of the Apocrypha in the church service was an early complaint of the Puritans. The apocryphal books were commanded to be bound up with the other books of scripture by Archbishop Whitgift. Short’s Hist. of Church of England, p. 239. Strype’s Whitgift, i. 590. Neal, i. 427.]
[219] [A Letter of many Ministers in Old England requesting the judgment of their reverend brethren in New England concerning nine positions: written A.D. 1637. Together with their answer thereto returned, anno 1639, &c. Published 1643, 4to. pp. 90. For a condensed view of it, see Hanbury’s Hist. Memorials, ii. pp. 18-39.]
[220] [Sentiments precisely similar to the above were embodied in the seventeenth chapter of the Cambridge Platform, and continued to be for many years the ruling principles of the congregational churches of New England. See C. Mather’s Magnalia, book v. p. 37.]
[221] [See Tracts on Lib. of Conscience, Introd. p. xxxii.]
[222] [The Assembly of Divines was at this time engaged in forming a directory of worship for the entire nation.]
[223] [The central part of a target, which anciently was painted white.]
[224] [There are two chapters numbered CXX. in the original copy.]
[225] Nero and the persecuting emperors were not so injurious to Christianity, as Constantine and others who assumed a power in spiritual things. Under Constantine Christianity fell into corruption, and Christians fell asleep.
[226] [Martial, De Spectaculis Libellus, Ep. ix.]
[227] [See Neal’s Hist. of Puritans, i. 353, edit. 1837.]
[228] Is not this too like the pope’s profession of servus servorum Dei, yet holding out his slipper to the lips of princes, kings, and emperors?
[229] [For elucidations of the references made by Mr. Williams in this preface to his sufferings, and for Mr. Cotton’s reply, see the Biographical Introduction.]
[230] [It is] a monstrous paradox, that God’s children should persecute God’s children, and that they that hope to live eternally together with Christ Jesus in the heavens, should not suffer each other to live in this common air together, &c. I am informed it was the speech of an honourable knight of the parliament: “What! Christ persecute Christ in New England?”[231]
[231] [“Though God’s children may not persecute God’s children, nor wicked men either, for well-doing: yet if they be found to walk in the way of the wicked—their brethren may justly deprive them in some cases not only of the common air of the country, by banishment, but even of the common air of the world by death, and yet hope to live eternally with them in the heavens.” Master John Cotton’s Answer to Master Roger Williams, p. 14.]
[232] [That is, of the church at Salem, of which Mr. Williams was then the pastor.]
[233] [This should be four hundred and fifty. See 1 Kings xviii. 19-22:—or including the “prophets of the groves,” 850.]
[234] [“The truth is, I did not publish that discourse to the world—A brief discourse in defence of set forms of prayer was penned by Mr. Ball—that a religious knight sent over with desire to hear our judgment of it. At his request I drew up a short answer, and sent one copy to the knight and another to Mr. Ball divers years ago. How it came to be published I do not know.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 23. See Hanbury’s Hist. Mem. ii. 157, for an abstract of it.]
[235] [See also [Biographical Introduction] to this volume.]
[236] [“The scope of my letter was, not to confirm the equity of his banishment, but to convince the iniquity of his separation.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 41.]
[237] [“He that shall withdraw or separate the corn from the people, or the people from the corn; the people have just cause to separate either him from themselves, or themselves from him. And this proportion will hold as well in spiritual corn as bodily.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 44.]
[238] [“If men hinder the enjoyment of spiritual good things, may they not be hindered from the enjoyment of that which is less, carnal good things?” Ib. p. 46.]
[239] [“I spent a great part of the summer in seeking by word and writing to satisfy his scruples, until he rejected both our callings, and our churches. And even then I ceased not to follow him still, ... whereof this very letter is a pregnant and evident demonstration.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 47.]
[240] [“I intended not a cordial of consolation to him, ... but only a conviction, to abate the rigour of his indignation against the dispensation of divine justice.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 48.]
[241] [“I bless the Lord from my soul for his abundant mercy in forcing me out thence, in so fit a season.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 49.]
[242] [Mr. Cotton was at one time much inclined to Antinomianism, which, in the hands of Mrs. Hutchinson, led to no small disturbance in New England. He however denied that he wished to separate on the ground of the legal teaching of the churches with whom he held communion, but thought of removing to New Haven, “as being better known to the pastor and some others there, than to such as were at that time jealous” of him in Boston. A timely perception of Mrs. Hutchinson’s errors led him to renounce her fellowship, and he remained at Boston. Neal’s Hist. of N. E., i. 183; Mather’s Magnalia, iii. 21; Knowles’s Life of R. Williams, p. 140.]
[243] [“I have been given to understand, that the increase of concourse of people to him on the Lord’s days in private, to the neglect or deserting of public ordinances, and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations, provoked the magistrates, rather than to breed a winter’s spiritual plague in the country, to put him a winter’s journey out of the country.” Notwithstanding, Mr. Cotton asserts that Mr. Williams was treated most tenderly by the officer, James Boone, “who dare not allow that liberty to his tongue, which the examiner often useth in this discourse.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 57.]
[244] [“This Confession may be found in Crosby, but without the ‘story of his life and death,’ which we have never yet been able to find.” Hist. of Eng. Baptists, ii. App. No. 1.]
[245] [“As for Mr. Smith he standeth and falleth to his own master. Whilst he was preacher to the city of Lincoln, he wrought with God then: what temptations befel him after, by the evil workings of evil men, and some good men too, I choose rather to tremble at, than discourse of.” The fault of this “man fearing God,” appears to have been first his becoming a baptist, and then his acceptance of the opinions of certain Dutch baptists, with whom he held communion in Amsterdam. The early baptists held generally opinions which became known after the Synod of Dort as Arminian. In addition to these Mr. Smith held peculiar views on the nature of spiritual worship, which brought him into great disrepute with his fellow exiles, the Brownists and Independents. Cotton’s Answer p. 58, Smith’s Differences of the Ch. of the Separation, part i. edit. 1608.]
[246] [See Smith’s Parallels and Censures, p. 9, &c. edit. 1609.]
[247] [“It is not because I think such persons are not fit matter for church-estate; but because they yet want a fit form, requisite to church estate.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 63.]
[248] [“The answer to that question and to all the other thirty-two questions, were drawn up by Mr. Mader—however, the substance of that answer doth generally suit with all our minds, as I conceive. I have read it, and did readily approve it to be judicious and solid. But his answer ... is notoriously slandered and abused by the examiner.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 63. Lechford, in his “Plain Dealing,” &c., however tells us of a minister, who “standing upon his ministry as of the church of England, and arguing against their covenant, and being elected at Weymouth, was compelled to recant some words.” One of his friends for being active in his election was fined £10, and uttering some cross words, £5 more, “and payed it down.” P. 22.]
[249] [“It was his doctrines and practices which tended to the civil disturbance of the commonwealth, together with his heady and busy pursuit of the same, even to the rejection of all churches here; these they were that made him unfit for enjoying communion in the one state or in the other.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 64.]
[250] [“His distinction, in the general I do approve it, and do willingly acknowledge that a godly person may be, through ignorance or negligence, so far enthralled to anti-christ, as to be separate from Christ, taking Christ as head of the visible church.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 66.]
[251] [“What if ecclesiastical stories be deficient in telling us the times and places of their church assemblies? Is therefore the word of God deficient, or the church deficient, because human stories are deficient?... Yet sometimes their own inquisitors confess, that the churches of the Waldenses, or men of that way, have been extant a tempore apostolorum.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 69.]
[252] [“My words are misreported: and the contradiction ariseth from his misreport. For God’s people and godly persons are not all one. Any church members may be called God’s people, as being in external covenant with him, and yet they are not always godly persons. God’s people may be so enthralled to anti-christ, as to separate them utterly from Christ, both as head of the visible and invisible church; but godly persons cannot be so enthralled.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 71.]
[253] [“He requireth that we should cut off ourselves from hearing the ministry of the parishes in England, as being the ministry of a national, or parishional church, whereof both the church estate is falsely constituted, and all the ministry, worship, and government thereof false also. If he speak of the national church government, we must confess the truth, there indeed is truth fallen and falsehood hath prevailed much.—All of them are forsaken of Truth, and can challenge no warrant of truth but falsely.” Cotton’s Answer, pp. 77, 84.]
[254] [“If the examiner had been pleased to have read Mr. Brightman on Rev. xviii. 4, he might find I was not the first that interpreted either that place in Isaiah, or this in Revelation, of a local separation.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 87.]
[255] [“The two causes of God’s indignation against England—I would rather say Amen to them, than weaken the weight of them. Only I should so assent to the latter, as not to move for a toleration of all dissenters, dissenters in fundamentals.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 89.]
[256] [“Our joining with the ministers of England in hearing of the word and prayer, doth not argue our church-communion with the parish churches in England, much less with the national church.” Mr. Cotton then proceeds to deny that Mr. Williams was persecuted, or that he admonished them humbly and faithfully. His banishment was no persecution; his statement of his opinions no admonition. Cotton’s Answer, p. 101.]
[257] [“Who seeth not, that in these words I express not mine own reasoning or meaning, but his; and that I expressly say, the true meaning of the text will nothing more reach to his purpose; and so bring in his reason in form of an enthymeme, which he draws from it?” Cotton’s Answer, p. 105.]
[258] [“Sure I am, we look at infants as members of our church, as being federally holy, but I am slow to believe that all of them are regenerate, or truly godly.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 108.]
[259] [“These are palpable mistakes of those words of mine, which I expressed as the sum of his words, which he through haste conceived to be mine.” Ib. p. 108.]
[260] [“We wholly avoid national, provincial, and diocesan government of the churches by episcopal authority; we avoid their prescript liturgies, and communion with open scandalous persons in any church order; ... it is a continual sorrow of heart, and mourning of our souls that there is yet so much of those notorious evils which he nameth ... suffered to thrust themselves into the fellowship of the churches, and to sit down with the saints at the Lord’s table. But yet I count all these but remnants of pollution, when as the substance of the true estate of churches abideth in their congregational assemblies.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 108.]
[261] [“Mr. Williams probably refers to the refusal by the General Court to listen to a petition from Salem relative to a piece of land which was claimed as belonging to that town. But according to Winthrop, ‘because they had chosen Mr. Williams their teacher, while he stood under question of authority, and so offered contempt to the magistrates, their petition was refused,” &c. Knowles, p. 70.]
[262] [“His banishment proceeded not against him or his for his own refusal of any worship, but for seditious opposition against the patent, and against the oath of fidelity offered to the people; ... he also wrote letters of admonition to all the churches whereof the magistrates were members, for deferring to give present answer to a petition of Salem, who had refused to hearken to a lawful motion of theirs.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 113.]
[263] [“It seemeth he never read the story of the classes in Northamptonshire, Suffolk, Essex, London, Cambridge, discovered by a false brother to Doctor Bancroft.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 116, Neal’s Puritans, i. 226, 319.]
[264] [Udall had been a tutor to Queen Elizabeth in the learned languages, yet for writing a little book against Diocesan Church Government and Ceremonies he was condemned to die, and would have been executed but for the queen’s feelings of respect to her aged tutor. A copy of this exceedingly rare book is in Mr. Offor’s library.]
[265] [“He died by the annoyance of the prison: when the coroner’s jury came to survey the dead body of Mr. Udall in prison, he bled freshly, though cold before, as a testimony against the murderous illegal proceedings of the state against him.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 116, Neal, i. 339.]
[266] [Mr. Cotton says, that Penry confessed that he deserved death for having seduced many to separation from hearing the word in the parish churches, so that their souls were justly required at his hand. Ibid. p. 117. This can scarcely be correct if we judge from the general tenor of Penry’s character. See Hanbury’s Hist. Memorials, i. 79, note e.]
[267] [See Broadmead Records, Intro. p. xxxviii. Hanbury, i. 35, 62. Mr. Cotton endeavours to throw no little obloquy and discredit on these two witnesses to the truth; but most unjustly. Answer p. 117.]
[268] [In “A Necessitie of Separation from the Church of England proved by Nonconformist Principles, &c.” By John Canne, pastor of the Ancient English Church at Amsterdam, 1634, 4to. pp. 264.]
[269] [“Mr. Ainsworth’s name is of best esteem, without all exception, in that way who refused communion with hearing in England. And if his people suffered him to live on ninepence a week, with roots boiled, surely either the people were grown to a very extreme low estate, or else the growth of their godliness was grown to a very low ebb.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 122. The remarks of Mr. Hanbury, with the quotation he produces from the preface, by a friend of Ainsworth, to his Annotations on Solomon’s Song, do not appear in the least to invalidate the statement of Williams. In the earlier part of his exile, in common with Johnson and the other separatists, he was exposed to great straits and difficulties, and it may be to that period that Mr. Williams refers. See Hanbury, i. 433.]
[270] [“This I speak with respect to Mr. Robinson and to his church, who grew to acknowledge, and in a judicious and godly discourse to approve and defend, the lawful liberty of hearing the word from the godly preachers of the parishes in England.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 123.]
[271] [Mr. Robinson’s book was published nine years after his death. It was entitled, “Of the Lawfulness of Hearing of the Ministers in the Church of England: penned by that Learned and Reverend Divine, Mr. John Robinson, late pastor to the English Church of God in Leyden, and Printed Anno 1634.” Mr. Canne’s work in reply was entitled “A Stay against Straying,” 4to. 1639.]
[272] [“If this be all the conclusion he striveth for, I shall never contend with him about it. But this is that I deny, a man to participate in a church-estate, where he partaketh only in hearing and prayer, before and after sermon; and joineth not with them, neither in their covenant, nor in the seals of the covenant.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 129.]
[273] [That is, as Mr. Cotton explains it, because “being cast out by the usurping power of the prelacy, and dismissed, though against their wills, by our congregations, we looked at ourselves as private members, and not officers to any church here, until one or other church might call us unto office.” Any other sense is either a mistake, or a “fraudulent expression of our minds.” Answer p. 131.]
[274] [“We are not so masterly and peremptory in our apprehensions; and yet the more plainly and exactly all church-actions are carried on according to the letter of the rule, the more glory shall we give unto the Lord Jesus, and procure the more peace to our consciences and to our churches, and reserve more purity and power to all our administrations.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 132.]
[275] [See Broadmead Records, Intro. p. lxxix.]
[276] [“The world is taken in scripture more ways than one, and so is separation; as when the apostle exhorteth the Romans, not to conform their church-bodies according to the platform of the Roman monarchy, into œcumenical, national, provincial, diocesan bodies, Rom. xii. 2. From the world, as taken for civil government of it, we are to separate our church-bodies, and the government thereof in frame and constitution.” Cotton’s Answer, pp. 135, 136.]
[277] [“Our not receiving all comers unto the communion of the Lord’s table, and other parts of church fellowship, saving only unto the public hearing of the word and presence at other duties, it argueth indeed that such persons either think themselves unfit materials for church fellowship, or else that we conceive them to be as stones standing in need of a little more hewing and squaring before they be laid as living stones in the walls of the Lord’s house.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 139.]
[278] [“Our practice in suppressing such as have attempted to set up a parishional way, I never heard of such a thing here to this day. And if any such thing were done before my coming into the country, I do not think it was done by forcible compulsion, but by rational conviction.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 139. It is difficult to reconcile this disclaimer with facts, unless we attribute ignorance to Mr. Cotton. See before, p. [233], note 8.]
[279] [Mr. Cotton calls this an untruth, yet he adds, “I hold that the receiving all the inhabitants in the parish into the full fellowship of the church, and the admitting of them all unto the liberty of all the ordinances, is an human corruption, and so if he will, an human invention.” Answer, p. 140.]
[280] [“The answer is near at hand.... Those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before my face, Luke xix. 27. And yet I would not be so understood as if Christ did allow his vicegerents to practise all that himself would practise in his own person. For not all the practices or acts of Christ, but the laws of Christ, are the rules of man’s administrations.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 144.]
FINIS.
J. HADDON, PRINTER, CASTLE STREET, FINSBURY.