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. CII. CHAP. CII. Peace. One branch more, viz., the third, remains of this head, and it concerns the hearing of the word; “Unto which,” say they, “all men are to be compelled; because hearing of the word is a duty which even nature leadeth heathens to.” For this they quote the practice of the Ninevites hearing Jonah, and Eglon, king of Moab’s rising up to Ehud’s pretended message from God, Judg. iii. Hearing discussed. Every religion prefers its own priests and ministers before all other. Truth. I must deny that position: for light of nature leadeth men to hear that only which nature conceiveth to be good for it, and therefore not to hear a messenger, minister, or preacher, whom conscience persuades is a false messenger or deceiver, and comes to deceive my soul: as millions of men and women in their several respective religions and consciences are so persuaded, conceiving their own to be true. Jonah’s preaching to the Ninevites, and their hearing of his message, examined. Secondly. As concerning the instances. Jonah did not compel the Ninevites to hear that message which he brought unto them. Besides, the matter of compulsion to a constant worship of the word in church estate, which is the question, comes not near Jonah’s case. Nor did Christ Jesus, or any of his ambassadors, so practise; but if persons refused to hear, the command of the Lord Jesus to his messengers was only to depart from them, shaking off the dust of their feet with a denunciation of God’s wrath against them, Matt. x.; Acts xiv. Eglon’s rising up to Ehud’s message, examined. Concerning Eglon’s rising up: first, Ehud compelled not that king either to hear or reverence, and all that can be imitable in Eglon is a voluntary and willing reverence, which persons ought to express to what they are persuaded comes from God. But how do both these instances mightily convince and condemn themselves, who not only profess to turn away from, but also persecute or hurt, all such as shall dare to profess a ministry or church estate differing from their own, though for personal godliness and excellency of gifts reverenced by themselves. A twofold ministry of Christ, converting and feeding. Thirdly. To the point of compulsion: it hath pleased the Lord Jesus to appoint a twofold ministry of his word. First. For unbelievers and their conversion, according to Matt. xxviii. 19, Mark xvi. 15, 16, and the constant practice of the apostles in the first preaching of the gospel. Secondly. A ministry of feeding and nourishing up such as are converted and brought into church estate, according to Ephes. iv. &c. Now to neither of these do we find any compulsion appointed by the Lord Jesus, or practised by any of his. The compulsion preached and practised in New England, is not to the hearing of that ministry sent forth to convert unbelievers, and to constitute churches, for such a ministry they practise not; but to the hearing of the word of edification, exhortation, consolation, dispensed only in the churches of worshippers. I apply,— When Paul came first to Corinth to preach Jesus Christ, by their rule the magistrates of Corinth ought by the sword to have compelled all the people of Corinth to hear Paul. Paul never used any civil compulsion. Secondly. After a church of Christ was gathered, by their rule, the magistrates of Corinth ought to have compelled the people still, even those who had refused his doctrine (for the few only of the church embraced it) to have heard the word still, and to have kept one day in seven to the Christian’s God, and to have come to the Christian’s church all their days. And what is this but a settled formality of religion and worship, unto which a people are brought by the power of the sword? The New English forcing their subjects to church all their days, and yet forcing them not to any religion (as they say), they force the people then to be of no religion all their days. And however they affirm that persons are not to be compelled to be members of churches, nor the church compelled to receive any: yet if persons be compelled to forsake their religion which their hearts cleave to, and to come to church, to the worship of the word, prayers, psalms, and contributions, and this all their days, I ask, whether this be not this people’s religion, unto which submitting, they shall be quiet all their days, without the enforcing them to the practice of any other religion? And if this be not so, then I ask, will it not inevitably follow, that they not only permit but enforce people to be of no religion at all, all their days? This toleration of religion, or rather irreligious compulsion, is above all tolerations monstrous, to wit, to compel men to be of no religion all their days. I desire all men, and these worthy authors of this model, to lay their hands upon their heart, and to consider whether this compulsion of men to hear the word, as they say, whether it carries men, to wit, to be of no religion all their days:—worse than the very Indians, who dare not live without religion according as they are persuaded. The civil state can no more lawfully compel the consciences of men to church to hear the word, than to receive the sacraments. Lastly, I add—From the ordinance of the Lord Jesus, and practice of the apostles (Acts ii. 42), where the word and prayer is joined with the exercise of their fellowship and breaking of bread, in which exercises the church continued constantly—that it is apparent that a civil state may as lawfully compel men by the civil sword to the breaking of bread, or Lord’s supper, as to the word, or prayer, or fellowship. For, first, they are all of the same nature, ordinances in the church (I speak of the feeding ministry in the church, unto which persons are compelled) and church worship. Secondly, every conscience in the world is fearful, at least shy of the priests and ministers of other gods and worships, and of holding spiritual fellowship in any of their services; which is the case of many a soul, viz. to question the ministers themselves, as well as the supper itself.