Memoir of Roger Williams, the Founder of the State of Rhode-IslandKnowles, James D. (James Davis)
History
Memoir of Roger Williams, the Founder of the State of Rhode-Island
Knowles, James D. (James Davis)
Rhode Island -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775; Williams, Roger, 1604?-1683
Such cases as those specified present no difficulty. There is a broad,
clear line, running between religious opinions and actions. The actions,
and not the opinions, are the subjects of law. If it is alleged, that
the opinions necessarily lead to illegal conduct, the reply is, wait
till the actions are attempted or performed. They, then, come within the
cognizance of civil law. If, indeed, a case could be supposed to happen,
in which a religious sect avowed it as their creed, that they were
required, or permitted, to murder their fellow-citizens, or burn their
dwellings, the magistrates would be bound to take the necessary
precautions to prevent such results. In such a case, the creed would
involve a criminal design, against which the community would have a
right to guard itself; but the mere design could not be punished; just
as a purpose to commit murder cannot be punished, though it justifies
the magistrate in taking measures to prevent its execution.
Liberty of conscience, however, has some limitations. It does not
prohibit churches from excluding members whose opinions or conduct are
inconsistent with the principles on which the church is founded. The
Bible makes it the duty of churches to maintain suitable discipline. A
church is a voluntary society, founded on certain fundamental rules, to
which every member assents, when he enters it. If he adopts other
principles, or in any way violates the rules, he makes himself liable to
expulsion from the church, as from any other voluntary association.
Neither does liberty of conscience imply, that a man has a claim to our
confidence, our patronage, our votes, whatever may be his religious
opinions. I would not intrust my children to the care of an infidel, but
I do not deprive him, by such refusal, of any right; yet a law
forbidding infidels to be employed as instructors, would be unjust. I
would not vote for a man holding certain principles, but I do not
thereby invade his privileges, for he has no title to my vote; yet a
law, making men ineligible to office, on account of certain opinions,
would be an invasion of their civil rights.[374] Every man must bear the
responsibility of his principles. Those principles cannot impair his
positive rights; but they may, and will, affect the opinions and
feelings of his fellow men. To their confidence, their patronage, or
their votes, he has no natural right, and no civil injustice is done to
him, if these are withheld.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account