WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered cover

The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered

Chapter 38: CHAP. XXX.
By Roger Williams
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)Philosophy & EthicsReligion/Spirituality

About This Book

The work mounts a sustained argument against using civil power to enforce religious conformity, grounding its case in scriptural interpretation and practical reasoning. It critiques claims that magistrates should punish religious dissent, examines and replies to a contemporary minister's published letter, and offers addresses aimed at lawmakers and general readers. Interleaving theological exegesis, legal and moral reasoning, and polemical rejoinders, the text advocates freedom of conscience and the separation of church authority from state coercion, while outlining a defense of toleration as consistent with Christian principles.

CHAP. XXX.

Peace. It may be said, that neither the Roman Cæsar, nor Herod, nor Pilate, knew aught of the true God, or of Christ; and it had been in vain to have made complaint to them who were not fit and competent, but ignorant and opposite judges.

Paul’s appealing to Cæsar.

Truth. I answer, first, this removes, by the way, that stumbling-block which many fall at, to wit, Paul’s appealing to Cæsar; which since he could not in common sense do unto Cæsar as a competent judge in such cases, and wherein he should have also denied his own apostleship or office, in which regard, to wit, in matters of Christ, he was higher than Cæsar himself—it must needs follow, that his appeal was merely in respect of his civil wrongs, and false accusations of sedition, &c.[125]

Civil magistrates never appointed by God defenders of the faith of Jesus. Every one is bound to put forth himself to his utmost power in God’s business, and where it stops, the guilt will lie.

Secondly, if it had been an ordinance of God, that all civil magistrates were bound to judge in causes spiritual or Christian, as to suppress heresies, defend the faith of Jesus, although that Cæsar, Herod, Pilate were wicked, ignorant, and opposite, yet the disciples, and the Lord Christ himself, had been bound to have performed the duty of faithful subjects, for the preventing of further evil, and the clearing of themselves, and so to have left the matter upon the magistrates’ care and conscience, by complaining unto the magistrate against such evils. For every person is bound to go as far as lies in his power for the preventing and the redressing of evil; and where it stops in any, and runs not clear, there the guilt, like filth or mud, will lie.

Christ could easily have been furnished with godly magistrates, if he had so appointed.

Thirdly, had it been the holy purpose of God to have established the doctrine and kingdom of his Son this way, since his coming he would have furnished commonweals, kingdoms, cities, &c., then and since, with such temporal powers and magistrates as should have been excellently fit and competent: for he that could have had legions of angels, if he so pleased, could as easily have been, and still be furnished with legions of good and gracious magistrates to this end and purpose.[126]