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 CHAP. XCIV. CHAP. XCIV. Peace. Their fifth head is concerning the magistrates’ power in making of laws. “First, they have power to publish and apply such civil laws in a state, as either are expressed in the word of God in Moses’s judicials—to wit, so far as they are of general and moral equity, and so binding all nations in all ages—to be deducted by way of general consequence and proportion from the word of God. “For in a free state no magistrate hath power over the bodies, goods, lands, liberties of a free people, but by their free consents. And because free men are not free lords of their own estates, but are only stewards unto God, therefore they may not give their free consents to any magistrate to dispose of their bodies, goods, lands, liberties, at large as themselves please, but as God, the sovereign Lord of all, alone. And because the word is a perfect rule, as well of righteousness as of holiness, it will be therefore necessary that neither the people give consent, nor that the magistrate take power to dispose of the bodies, goods, lands, liberties of the people, but according to the laws and rules of the word of God. “Secondly, in making laws about civil and indifferent things about the commonweal, “First, he hath no power given him of God to make what laws he please, either in restraining from or constraining to the use of indifferent things; because that which is indifferent in its nature, may sometimes be inexpedient in its use, and consequently unlawful, 1 Cor. ii. 5, it having been long since defended upon good ground, Quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet. “Secondly, he hath no power to make any such laws about indifferent things, wherein nothing good or evil is shown to the people, but only on principally the mere authority or will of the imposer, for the observance of them, Col. ii. 21, 22; 1 Cor. vii. 23, compared with Eph. vi. 6. “It is a prerogative proper to God to require obedience of the sons of men, because of his authority and will. “The will of no man is regula recti, unless first it be regula recta. “It is an evil speech of some, that in some things the will of the law, not the ratio of it, must be the rule of conscience to walk by; and that princes may forbid men to seek any other reason but their authority, yea, when they command frivola et dura. And therefore it is the duty of the magistrate, in all laws about indifferent things, to show the reasons, not only the will: to show the expediency, as well as the indifferency of things of that nature. “For we conceive in laws of this nature, it is not the will of the lawgiver only, but the reason of the law which binds. Ratio est rex legis, et lex est rex regis. “Thirdly, because the judgment of expedient and inexpedient things is often difficult and diverse, it is meet that such laws should not proceed without due consideration of the rules of expediency set down in the word, which are these three: “First, the rule of piety, that they may make for the glory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31. “Secondly, the rule of charity, that no scandal come hereby to any weak brother, 1 Cor. viii. 13. “Thirdly, the rule of charity, that no man be forced to submit against his conscience, Rom. xiv. 14, 23, nor be judged of contempt of lawful authority, because he is not suddenly persuaded of the expediency of indifferent things; for if the people be bound by God to receive such laws about such things, without any trial or satisfaction to the conscience, but must judge them expedient because the magistrate thinks them so, then the one cannot be punished in following the other, in case he shall sin in calling inexpedient expedient; but Christ saith the contrary, If the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall.” The authors’ large confession of the liberty of conscience, from the laws of civil authority in spiritual cases. Truth. In this passage these worthy men lay down such a ground as the gates of hell are not able to shake, concerning the magistrates’ walking in indifferent things: and upon which ground that tower of Lebanon may be raised, whereon there hang a thousand shields and bucklers, Cant. iv. 4, to wit, that invincible truth, that no man is to be persecuted for cause of conscience. The ground is this, “The magistrate hath not power to make what laws he please, either in restraining or constraining to the use of indifferent things.” And further they confess, that the reason of the law, not the will of it, must be the rule of conscience. And they add this impregnable reason, viz. “If the people be bound to receive such laws without satisfaction to conscience, then one cannot be punished for following the other, in case he shall sin contrary to Christ Jesus, who saith, If the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall.” Civil magistrates confessed not to have power to urge the conscience in indifferent things. Hence I argue, if the civil magistrate have no power to restrain or constrain their subjects in things in their own nature indifferent, as in eating of meats, wearing this or that garment, using this or that gesture; but that they are bound to try and examine his commands, and satisfy their own reason, conscience, and judgment before the Lord, and that they shall sin, if they follow the magistrate’s command, not being persuaded in their own soul and conscience that his commands are according to God: it will be much more unlawful and heinous in the magistrate to compel the subjects unto that which, according to their consciences’ persuasion, is simply unlawful, as unto a falsely constituted church, ministry, worship, administration, and they shall not escape the ditch, by being led blindfold by the magistrate; but though he fall in first, yet they shall [fall] in after him and upon him, to his greater and more dreadful judgment. In particular thus, if the magistrate may restrain me from that gesture in the supper of the Lord which I am persuaded I ought to practise, he may also restrain me by his commands from that supper of the Lord itself in such or such a church, according to my conscience. If he cannot, as they grant, constrain me to such or such a garment in the worship of God, can he constrain me to worship God by such a ministry, and with such worship, which my soul and conscience cannot be persuaded is of God? If he cannot command me in that circumstance of time to worship God, this or that day, can he command me to the worship itself? A threefold guilt lying upon civil powers commanding the subject’s soul in worship. Peace. Methinks I discern a threefold guilt to lie upon such civil powers as impose upon and enforce the conscience, though not unto the ministration and participation of the seals,[208] yet either to depart from that worship which it is persuaded of, or to any exercise or worship which it hath not faith in. First. Of an appearance of that Arminian, popish doctrine of free-will, as if it lay in their own power and ability to believe upon the magistrate’s command, since it is confessed that what is submitted to by any without faith it is sin, be it never so true and holy, Rom. xiv. 23. Secondly. Since God only openeth the heart and worketh the will, Phil. ii. [13,] it seems to be a high presumption to suppose, that together with a command restraining from or constraining to worship, that God is also to be forced or commanded to give faith, to open the heart, to incline the will, &c. Thirdly. A guilt of the hypocrisy of their subjects and people, in forcing them to act and practise in matters of religion and worship against the doubts and checks of their consciences, causing their bodies to worship when their souls are far off, to draw near with their lips, their hearts being far off, &c. Persons may with less sin be forced to marry whom they cannot love, than to worship where they cannot believe. With less sin ten thousand-fold may a natural father force his daughter, or the father of the commonweal force all the maidens in a country to the marriage-beds of such and such men whom they cannot love, than the souls of these and other subjects to such worship or ministry, which is either a true or false bed, Cant. i. 16. Truth. Sweet Peace, your conclusions are undeniable, and oh! that they might sink deep into those noble and honourable bosoms it so deeply concerns! But proceed.