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.