The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered, by Roger Williams 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. [64] See p. 36. [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.” [68] See p. 189. [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.]