with pagan consciences.1 It is clearly evident, then, that Williams's view of the state was decidedly secular in character. He limited its activity in religious affairs to what were called at that time "breaches of the second table."2 Transgression of any of the last six commandments might be punished by the state, but over violations of the commandments in the first table they should have no jurisdiction. "Scandalous (offence) against parents," he said, "against magistrates in the fifth command, and so against the life, chastity, goods, or good name in the rest, is properly transgression against the civil state and common weal, or the worldly state of men."3 Such offences the government may rightfully punish, but those crimes which concern the relations of man to God it should not attempt to suppress. They are spiritual in nature, and civil penalties cannot properly affect them. On this ground Williams denounced in vigorous terms the treatment to which he and others had been subjected as wholly unwarranted and unjustifiable.

Cotton replied to these arguments that "it is a carnal and worldly, and, indeed, an ungodly imagination, to confine the magistrate's charge to the bodies and goods of the subjects, and to exclude

1 The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, Chap. XCII.

2 The first four commandments, covering the duties of man to God, were called the "first table"; the last six, covering the relations of men to each other, constituted the "second table."

Ibid. Chap. LVI.

them from the care of their soules." 1 He main tained that it is the evident duty of the magistrates to use all available means to prevent the pollution and corruption of the church, and to strive in every way to preserve its purity.2. He even attempted to show that laws about religion are, strictly speaking, civil laws. "Whatsoever concerneth the good of the city and the propulsing of the contrary," is a civil law, said he. "Now religion is the best good of the city, and therefore laws about religion are truly called civil lawes." 8 But Cotton's reasoning would have been inadequate and ineffective from the Puritan point of view, unless supported by scriptural authority. Unable to find any express warrant in the New Testament, Cotton met the difficulty by showing that there was not authority in that part of the Bible, even for the punishment of such crimes as adultery and murder, and that consequently it must be assumed that a rule of action is elsewhere contained in the Scriptures. Such authority is found in the "Laws of Moses and the Prophets who have expounded them in the Old Testament." He maintained that all the capital laws of the Mosaic Code are of universal validity, and that whatever the kings of Israel inflicted on transgressors of either the first or the second table,

1 The Bloudy Tenent washed and made white, Chap. XXXIII. 2 Ibid. Chap. XXXV. 8 Ibid. Chap. LXVII. 4 Ibid. Chap. LXXIII.

was a pattern and example to Christian magistrates.1 Thus basing himself on the Mosaic Law, Cotton found abundant sanction for any measures required to preserve the peace and purity of the church. Such phrases as, "Thou shalt surely kill him . . . because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God," seemed to him to justify almost any means that might be used.

It is evident, then, that Cotton was a thorough believer in the doctrine that it is the right and duty of the magistrates to punish transgressions against the commandments contained in either of the "tables." In addition to the offences specified by Williams, Cotton included many others. He declared that one who holds an “erroneous doctrine or practise" is a violator of the civil law; "he who refuseth to subject his spirit to the spirit of the Prophets in a holy Church of Christ" comes under the same category. Even such offences as the ❝censorious reproach" of one who rebukes our spiritual error, or "rejecting communion" before one is convicted, may be looked upon as a disturbance of the peace and hence as falling under the jurisdiction of the civil magistrates. In short, Cotton's theory was that the state should guarantee the observance of church law and ceremony, just as if they were its own enactment, and that to accomplish this purpose any exercise of force 1 Ibid. Chap. XXXV. 2 Ibid. Chap. VII.

would be perfectly justifiable. As he phrased it on one occasion, "legall terrours are ordinary meanes blessed of God to prepare hard and stout hearts to conversion.'

" 1

He was far from admitting, however, that he ustified persecution "for cause of conscience," as Williams alleged. On the contrary, he declared that the conscience is sacred and inviolable and not to be disturbed, whether it be conscience "rightly informed" or "conscience misinformed."2 A significant exception was made, however, in case "it may appear that the erroneous party suffereth not for his conscience, but for his sinning against his conscience." 3 In other words, individuals are not punished because they follow conscience, but because they refuse to obey its dictates; not because they are blind, but because they wilfully shut their eyes. Of the same character is the argument that "to persecute is to punish an Innocent; but a heretic is a culpable and damnable person." Cotton realized that the action of the magistrates might result in the production of hypocrites; but "better tolerate Hypocrites and Tares than Bryars and Thornes."5 Or as elsewhere expressed: "Better a dead soule be dead in body, as well as in Spirit, than to live and be lively in the flesh."6 Based on like logic was the argument that in reality men are never compelled to worship, for, "though teach

1 Ibid. Chap. IX.

4 Ibid. Chap. LXV,

2 Ibid. Chap. X.
5 Ibid. Chap. XXXIX.

8 Ibid.
6 Ibid. Chap. XL

ing and being taught in a Church estate be Church worship, yet it is not a Church worship but to such as are in a Church estate.” 1

Such was the character of Cotton's theory, and it was typical of Puritanism in the early days of settlement in America. It was the theory of men to whom the preservation of the Puritan religion was an object of paramount importance—an end for which they had already given up much and for which they were ready to sacrifice still more. They were thoroughly convinced that it was the duty of the state to uphold and support the church at every possible point, and they acted on this conviction.2 In so doing they were neither in advance of nor behind the theory and practice of their time, but simply followed the custom of all the states of that day. From one point of view it may seem strange that the Puritans, fleeing from persecution in England, should prove so ready to persecute in turn those who dissented from Puritanism. What the Puritans objected to, however, was not the use of force to maintain a religion, but

1 Ibid. Chap. LXX.

2 In the Massachusetts Body of Liberties it was declared that "Civill Authoritie hath power and libertie to see the peace, ordinances and Rules of Christ observed in every church, according to his word, so it be done in a Civill and not in an Ecclesiastical way." Sec. 58. The converse right was not given to the church, however. It was provided that, "No church censure shall degrade or depose any man from any Civill dignitie, office or Authoritie he shall have in the Commonwealth." Sec. 60.