“Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jews or Gentiles.”
Without examining the numerous arguments and texts, with which Mr. Williams fortifies his doctrine, we will briefly state the general principles of liberty of conscience.
All men are bound by the laws of God, and are responsible to Him for their conduct. He requires them to love, worship and obey Him. From this duty, they cannot be released. The conscience cannot be freed from this obligation. God has not granted any liberty to disobey His commands.
As God is the Supreme Ruler, He may prescribe the modes in which He chooses to be worshipped, and may enforce conformity by temporal penalties. This he did in the Jewish commonwealth. He established a system of rites, and armed the magistrate with power to coerce the consciences of the Jews. The civil sword was rightly used to maintain the national religion, because the magistrate acted in the name and by the authority of Jehovah. The destruction of several heathen nations, by the Jews, was just, because God commanded the act. He uses what instruments he pleases to punish men, and the chastisement was deserved, whether it was inflicted by the Jewish sword, or by famine or pestilence.
But since the introduction of the christian system, the case is altered. The obligation to love God and obey the Gospel, binds the conscience of every man; but he is responsible to God alone. His fellow men have no right to interfere. God has not delegated to any man this authority over the conscience.
All human laws, therefore, which either prescribe or prohibit certain doctrines or rites, that are not inconsistent with the civil peace, are unjust, and are an invasion of the prerogatives of God. They are consequently null and void, and no man is bound to obey them. The reasons are obvious:
Such laws are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the New Testament. The Saviour gave no intimation to his ministers, that force should be employed in the diffusion of his Gospel. He appointed, on the contrary, the preaching of the truth, an appeal to the understandings and hearts of men, as the means by which his kingdom was to be established. His apostles accordingly went abroad among the nations, proclaiming the Gospel, and by moral suasion, endeavoring to bring men to the obedience of faith. They represented themselves to be ambassadors, commissioned to declare the will of their Sovereign, but not authorized to employ force. “We are ambassadors for Christ; as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.”[[368]] The great commission of the ministers of the Gospel is, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.”[[369]] The only legitimate means, therefore, of operating on the wills of men, in reference to religion, are the affecting truths, the precious promises, and the terrific threatenings of the word of God. These are to be presented to the minds and hearts of men, with solemnity and urgent affection; but here the agency of man ceases. If men choose to disobey the Gospel, they do it on their responsibility to God, who will bring them into judgment for the deeds done in the body.
The early believers acted on this principle; and after Christians obtained possession of the civil power, the employment of force to constrain the conscience was not introduced, till the purity of Christianity became corrupted by her alliance with the state.[[370]] The remark of Tertullian,[[371]] expresses the feelings of the early Christians: “It is the natural civil right of every man to worship whatever he pleases. It is inconsistent with the nature of religion to propagate it by force, for it must be received by voluntary consent, not by coercion.”
This remark suggests another argument. Religion essentially consists in love to God. Its seat is the soul. External acts of worship are merely manifestations of this inward principle, and derive from it all their value. When they do not spring from it, they are not acceptable to God. The principle may exist, in vigor and purity, without any external expressions; and much of the intercourse of every Christian with God consists in this silent communion of his soul with the great Invisible. But, from the nature of man, he needs external modes of manifesting his feelings, in order to preserve those feelings in healthful action. God accordingly requires worship, and obedience to certain rites. The social principle is brought into action, and individual Christians increase their own strength, by union with their fellow Christians in acts of devotion.
But when force is employed, to constrain men to the performance of religious duties, the end proposed is not attained. Men may be made to assume attitudes, and to repeat words, and to visit certain places; but they cannot be forced, by human power, to love God. They cannot thus be made religious. The soul is not subject to human constraint. Men cannot penetrate the interior sanctuary, where she resides, in the awful presence of God alone. It is absurd, therefore, to attempt to accomplish, by human laws, what they are incompetent, from their nature, to effect. No legislator ever enacted a law, requiring the citizens to love the state. The law provides for the punishment of actions inconsistent with this love; but beyond the external manifestations of the inward feelings, it does not attempt to extend its jurisdiction. Laws requiring men to perform religious duties are vain, as well as unjust. They attempt an impossibility, because the duty is not performed, unless it springs from love to God; which love no human power can create in the soul.