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. CIX. Peace. Dear Truth, what dark and dismal bloody paths do we walk in? How is thy name and mine in all ages cried up, yet as an English flag in a Spanish bottom, not in truth, but dangerous treachery and abuse both of truth and peace! Eleventh head. We are now come to the eleventh head, which concerns the magistrates’ power in worship? “First, they have power,” say they, “to reform things in the worship of God in a church corrupted, and to establish the pure worship of God, defending the same by the power of the sword against all those who shall attempt to corrupt it. “For first, the reigning of idolatry and corruption in religion is imputed to the want of a king, Judges xvii. 5, 6. “Secondly, remissness in reforming religion is a fault imputed to them who suffered the high places in Israel, and in Gallio who cared not for such things, Acts xviii. 17. “Thirdly, forwardness this way is a duty not only for kings in the Old Testament, but for princes under the New, 1 Tim. ii. 2; Rom. xiii. 4; Esay. xlix. 23. Neither did the kings of Israel reform things amiss as types of Christ, but as civil magistrates, and so exemplary to all Christians. And here reformation in religion is commendable in a Persian king, Ezra vii. 23. And it is well known that remissness in princes of Christendom in matters of religion and worship, devolving the care thereof only to the clergy, and so setting the horns thereof upon the church’s head, hath been the cause of anti-christian inventions, usurpations, and corruptions, in the worship and temple of God. “Secondly, they have not power to press upon the churches stinted prayers, or set liturgies, whether new or old, popish or others, under colour of uniformity of worship, or moral goodness of them both for matter and form, conceiving our arguments sent to our brethren in England concerning this question to evince this truth.[219] “Thirdly, they have no power to press upon the churches, neither by law, as hath been said before, nor by proclamation and command, any sacred significant ceremonies, whether more or less popish or Jewish rite, or any other device of man, be it never so little in the worship of God, under what colour soever of indifferency, civility, using them without opinion of sanctity, public peace, or obedience to righteous authority, as surplice, cross, kneeling at sacrament, salt and spittle in baptism, holy days; they having been so accursed of God, so abused by man, the imposing of some ever making way for the urging of more, the receiving of some making the conscience bow to the burden of all. “Fourthly, they have not power to govern and rule the acts of worship in the church of God. “It is with a magistrate in a state in respect of the acts of those who worship in a church, as it is with a prince in a ship, wherein, though he be governor of their persons, else he should not be their prince, yet is not governor of the actions of the mariners, then he should be pilot: indeed if the pilot shall manifestly err in his action, he may reprove him, and so any other passenger may: or if he offend against the life and goods of any, he may in due time and place civilly punish him, which no other passenger can do; for, it is proper to Christ, the head of the church, as to prescribe so to rule the actions of his own worship in the ways of his servants, Esay. ix. 6, 7. The government of the church is upon his shoulder, which no civil officer ought to attempt. And therefore magistrates have no power to limit a minister, either to what he shall preach or pray, or in what manner they shall worship God, lest hereby they shall advance themselves above Christ, and limit his Spirit.”[220] Truth. In this general head are proposed two things. First, what the magistrate ought to do positively, concerning the worship of God. Secondly. What he may do in the worship of God. What he ought to do is comprised in these particulars:— First. He ought to reform the worship of God when it is corrupted. Secondly. He ought to establish a pure worship of God. Thirdly. He ought to defend it by the sword: he ought to restrain idolatry by the sword, and to cut off offenders, as former passages have opened. For the proof of this positive part of his duty, are propounded three sorts of scriptures. First. From the practice of the kings of Israel and Judah. Secondly. Some from the New Testament. Thirdly. From the practice of kings of other nations. Unto which I answer,— The argument from the Babylonian and Persian kings reminded. First. Concerning this latter, the Babylonian and Persian kings—Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes—I conceive I have sufficiently before proved, that these idolatrous princes making such acts concerning the God of Israel, whom they did not worship nor know, nor meant so to do, did only permit, and tolerate, and countenance the Jewish worship; and out of strong convictions that this God of Israel was able to do them good, as well as their own gods, to bring wrath upon them and their kingdoms, as they believed their own also did, in which respect all the kings of the world may be easily brought to the like; but [they] are no precedent or pattern for all princes and civil magistrates in the world, to challenge or assume the power of ruling or governing the church of Christ, and of wearing the spiritual crown of the Lord, which he alone weareth in a spiritual way by his officers and governors after his own holy appointment. Secondly. For those of the New Testament I have, as I believe, fully and sufficiently answered. So also that prophecy of Isa. xlix. [23.] The precedent of the kings and governors of Israel and Judah, examined. The state of Israel relating to spiritual matters proved typical. Lastly. However I have often touched those scriptures produced from the practice of the kings of Israel and Judah, yet, because so great a weight of this controversy lies upon this precedent of the Old Testament, from the duties of this nature enjoined to those kings and governors and their practices, obeying or disobeying, accordingly commended or reproved, I shall, with the help of Christ Jesus, the true King of Israel, declare and demonstrate how weak and brittle this supposed pillar of marble is, to bear up and sustain such a mighty burden and weight of so many high concernments as are laid upon it. In which I shall evidently prove, that the state of Israel as a national state, made up of spiritual and civil power, so far as it attended upon the spiritual, was merely figurative, and typing out the Christian churches consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, enjoying the true power of the Lord Jesus, establishing, reforming, correcting, defending in all cases concerning the kingdom and government.