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. LXX. Tertullian’s speech discussed. CHAP. LXX. Tertullian’s speech discussed. Peace. The answerer thus proceeds:[183] “Your next writer is Tertullian, who speaketh to the same purpose in the place alleged by you. His intent is only to restrain Scapula, the Roman governor of Africa, from persecuting the Christians, for not offering sacrifice to their gods: and for that end, fetched an argument from the law of natural equity, not to compel any to any religion, but permit them to believe [willingly], or not to believe at all. Which we acknowledge; and accordingly we judge, the English may permit the Indians to continue in their unbelief. Nevertheless, it will not therefore be lawful [openly] to tolerate the worship of devils or idols, to the seduction of any from the truth.” Truth. Answ. In this passage he agreeth with Tertullian, and gives instance in America of the English permitting the Indians to continue in their unbelief: yet withal he affirmeth it not lawful to tolerate worshipping of devils, or seduction from the truth. The Indians of New England permitted by the English not only to continue in their unbelief (which they cannot cure) but also in their false worship which they might by the civil sword restrain. I answer, that in New England it is well known that they not only permit the Indians to continue in their unbelief, which neither they nor all the ministers of Christ on earth, nor angels in heaven, can help, not being able to work belief: but they also permit or tolerate them in their paganish worship, which cannot be denied to be a worshipping of devils, as all false worship is.[184] And therefore, consequently, according to the same practice, did they walk by rule and impartially, not only the Indians, but their countrymen, French, Dutch, Spanish, Persians, Turks, Jews, &c., should also be permitted in their worships, if correspondent in civil obedience. Peace. He adds further, “When Tertullian saith, ‘That another man’s religion neither hurteth nor profiteth any;’ it must be understood of private worship and religion professed in private: otherwise a false religion professed by the members of the church, or by such as have given their names to Christ, will be the ruin and desolation of the church, as appeareth by the threats of Christ to the churches, Rev. ii.” Truth. I answer: passing by that unsound distinction of members of the church, or those that have given their names to Christ, which in point of visible profession and worship will appear to be all one, it is plain— First. That Tertullian doth not there speak of private, but of public worship and religion. In two cases a false religion will not hurt the true church or the state. Secondly. Although it be true in a church of Christ, that a false religion or worship permitted, will hurt, according to those threats of Christ, Rev. ii., yet in two cases I believe a false religion will not hurt,—which is most like to have been Tertullian’s meaning. First. A false religion out of the church will not hurt the church, no more than weeds in the wilderness hurt the enclosed garden, or poison hurt the body when it is not touched or taken, yea, and antidotes are received against it. Secondly. A false religion and worship will not hurt the civil state, in case the worshippers break no civil law: and the answerer elsewhere acknowledgeth, that the civil laws not being broken, civil peace is not broken: and this only is the point in question.[185]