TO ANSWER SOME MAIN OBJECTIONS.
And first, that it is no prejudice to the commonwealth if liberty of conscience were suffered to such as do fear God indeed, as is or will be manifest in such men’s lives and conversations.
Abraham abode among the Canaanites a long time, yet contrary to them in religion, Gen. xiii. 7, and xvi. 13. Again: he sojourned in Gerar, and king Abimelech gave him leave to abide in his land, Gen. xx. 21, 23, 24.
Isaac also dwelt in the same land, yet contrary in religion, Gen. xxvi.
Jacob lived twenty years in one house with his uncle Laban, yet differed in religion, Gen. xxxi.
The people of Israel were about 430 years in that infamous land of Egypt, and afterwards seventy years in Babylon, all which time they differed in religion from those States, Exod. xii. and 2 Chron. xxxvi.
Come to the time of Christ, where Israel was under the Romans, where lived divers sects of religions, as Herodians, Scribes and Pharisees, Sadducees and Libertines, Theudæans and Samaritans, beside the common religion of the Jews, Christ, and his apostles. All which differed from the common religion of the state, which is like the worship of Diana, which almost the whole world then worshipped, Acts xix. 20.
All these lived under the government of Cæsar, being nothing hurtful unto the commonwealth, giving unto Cæsar that which was his. And for their religion and consciences towards God he left them to themselves, as having no dominion over their souls and consciences. And when the enemies of the truth raised up any tumults, the wisdom of the magistrate most widely appeased them, Acts xviii. 14, and xix. 35.
THE ANSWER OF MR. JOHN COTTON,
OF BOSTON, IN NEW ENGLAND,
TO THE AFORESAID ARGUMENTS AGAINST PERSECUTION FOR CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE,
PROFESSEDLY MAINTAINING
PERSECUTION FOR CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE.
The question which you put is, whether persecution for cause of conscience be not against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the King of kings?
Now, by persecution for cause of conscience, I conceive you mean, either for professing some point of doctrine which you believe in conscience to be the truth, or for practising some work which in conscience you believe to be a religious duty.
Now in points of doctrine some are fundamental, without right belief whereof a man cannot be saved; others are circumstantial, or less principal, wherein men may differ in judgment without prejudice of salvation on either part.
In like sort, in points of practice, some concern the weightier duties of the law, as, what God we worship, and with what kind of worship; whether such as, if it be right, fellowship with God is held; if corrupt, fellowship with him is lost.
Again, in points of doctrine and worship less principal, either they are held forth in a meek and peaceable way, though the things be erroneous or unlawful: or they are held forth with such arrogance and impetuousness, as tendeth and reacheth (even of itself) to the disturbance of civil peace.
Finally, let me add this one distinction more: when we are persecuted for conscience’ sake, it is either for conscience rightly informed, or for erroneous and blind conscience.
These things premised, I would lay down mine answer to the question in certain conclusions.
1.
First, it is not lawful to persecute any for conscience’ sake rightly informed; for in persecuting such, Christ himself is persecuted in them, Acts ix. 4.
2.
Secondly, for an erroneous and blind conscience, (even in fundamental and weighty points) it is not lawful to persecute any, till after admonition once or twice; and so the apostle directeth, Tit. iii. 10, and giveth the reason, that in fundamental and principal points of doctrine or worship, the word of God in such things is so clear, that he cannot but be convinced in conscience of the dangerous error of his way after once or twice admonition, wisely and faithfully dispensed. And then, if any one persist, it is not out of conscience, but against his conscience, as the apostle saith, ver. 11, He is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself; that is, of his own conscience. So that if such a man, after such admonition, shall still persist in the error of his way, and be therefore punished, he is not persecuted for cause of conscience, but for sinning against his own conscience.
3.
Thirdly. In things of lesser moment, whether points of doctrine or worship, if a man hold them forth in a spirit of Christian meekness and love, though with zeal and constancy, he is not to be persecuted, but tolerated, till God may be pleased to manifest his truth to him, Phil. iii. 17; Rom. xiv. 1-4.
4.
But if a man hold forth, or profess, any error or false way, with a boisterous and arrogant spirit, to the disturbance of civil peace, he may justly be punished according to the quality and measure of the disturbance caused by him.
Now let us consider of your reasons or objections to the contrary.
Your first head of objections is taken from the scripture.
Object. 1. Because Christ commandeth to let alone the tares and wheat to grow together unto the harvest, Matt. xiii. 30, 38.
Answ. Tares are not briars and thorns, but partly hypocrites, like unto the godly, but indeed carnal, as the tares are like to wheat, but are not wheat; or partly such corrupt doctrines or practices as are indeed unsound, but yet such as come very near the truth (as tares do to the wheat), and so near, that good men may be taken with them; and so the persons in whom they grow cannot be rooted out but good will be rooted up with them. And in such a case Christ calleth for toleration, not for penal prosecution, according to the third conclusion.
Object. 2. In Matt. xv. 14, Christ commandeth his disciples to let the blind alone till they fall into the ditch; therefore he would have their punishment deferred till their final destruction.
Answ. He there speaketh not to public officers, whether in church or commonweal, but to his private disciples, concerning the Pharisees, over whom they had no power. And the command he giveth to let them alone, is spoken in regard of troubling themselves, or regarding the offence which they took at the wholesome doctrine of the gospel. As who should say, Though they be offended at this saying of mine, yet do not you fear their fear, nor be troubled at their offence, which they take at my doctrine, not out of sound judgment, but out of their blindness. But this maketh nothing to the cause in hand.
Object. 3. In Luke ix. 54, 55, Christ reproveth his disciples, who would have had fire come down from heaven to consume the Samaritans, who refused to receive Him.
Object. 4. And Paul teacheth Timothy, not to strive, but to be gentle towards all men, suffering evil patiently.
Answ. Both these are directions to ministers of the gospel, how to deal, not with obstinate offenders in the church that sin against conscience, but either with men without, as the Samaritans were, and many unconverted Christians in Crete, whom Titus, as an evangelist, was to seek to convert: or at best with some Jews or Gentiles in the church, who, though carnal, yet were not convinced of the error of their way. And it is true, it became not the spirit of the gospel to convert aliens to the faith of Christ, such as the Samaritans were, by fire and brimstone; nor to deal harshly in public ministry, or private conference, with all such contrary-minded men, as either had not yet entered into church-fellowship, or if they had, yet did hitherto sin of ignorance, not against conscience.
But neither of both these texts do hinder the ministers of the gospel to proceed in a church-way against church-members, when they become scandalous offenders either in life or doctrine; much less do they speak at all to civil magistrates.
Object. 5. From the prediction of the prophets, who foretold that carnal weapons should cease in the days of the gospel, Isa. ii. 4, and xi. 9; Mic. iv. 3, 4. And the apostle professeth, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, 2 Cor. x. 4. And Christ is so far from persecuting those that would not be of his religion, that he chargeth them, when they are persecuted themselves they should pray, and when they are cursed they should bless. The reason whereof seemeth to be, that they who are now persecutors and wicked persons, may become true disciples and converts.
1.
Answ. Those predictions in the prophets do only show, first, with what kind of weapons he will subdue the nations to the obedience of the faith of the gospel, not by fire and sword, and weapons of war, but by the power of his word and Spirit, which no man doubteth of.
2.
Secondly. Those predictions of the prophets show what the meek and peaceable temper will be of all the true converts to Christianity, not lions or leopards, &c., not cruel oppressors, nor malignant opposers, nor biters of one another. But [they] do not forbid them to drive ravenous wolves from the sheepfold, and to restrain them from devouring the sheep of Christ.
And when Paul saith, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual, he denieth not civil weapons of justice to the civil magistrate, Rom. xiii., but only to church officers. And yet the weapons of such officers he acknowledgeth to be such, as though they be spiritual, yet are ready to take vengeance of all disobedience, 2 Cor. x. 6; which hath reference, amongst other ordinances, to the censure of the church against scandalous offenders.
3.
When Christ commandeth his disciples to bless them that curse them and persecute them, he giveth not therein a rule to public officers, whether in church or commonweal, to suffer notorious sinners, either in life or doctrine, to pass away with a blessing; but to private Christians to suffer persecution patiently, yea, and to pray for their persecutors.
Again, it is true Christ would have his disciples to be far from persecuting, for that is a sinful oppression of men, for righteousness’ sake; but that hindereth not but that he would have them execute upon all disobedience the judgment and vengeance required in the word, 2 Cor. x. 6; Rom. xiii. 4.
4.
Though it be true that wicked persons now may by the grace of God become true disciples and converts, yet we may not do evil that good may come thereof. And evil it would be to tolerate notorious evil doers, whether seducing teachers, or scandalous livers. Christ had something against the angel of the church of Pergamos for tolerating them that held the doctrine of Balaam, and against the church of Thyatira for tolerating Jezebel to teach and seduce, Rev. ii. 14, 20.
Your second head of reasons is taken from the profession and practice of famous princes, king James, Stephen of Poland, king of Bohemia.
Whereunto a treble answer may briefly be returned.
First, we willingly acknowledge that none is to be persecuted at all, no more than they may be oppressed for righteousness’ sake.
Again, we acknowledge that none is to be punished for his conscience, though misinformed, as hath been said, unless his error be fundamental, or seditiously and turbulently promoted, and that after due conviction of his conscience, that it may appear he is not punished for his conscience, but for sinning against his conscience.
Furthermore, we acknowledge, none is to be constrained to believe or profess the true religion till he be convinced in judgment of the truth of it; but yet restrained he may [be] from blaspheming the truth, and from seducing any unto pernicious errors.
2. We answer, what princes profess or practise, is not a rule of conscience. They many times tolerate that in point of state policy, which cannot justly be tolerated in point of true Christianity.
Again, princes many times tolerate offenders out of very necessity, when the offenders are either too many, or too mighty for them to punish; in which respect David tolerated Joab and his murders: but against his will.
3. We answer further, that for those three princes named by you, who tolerated religion, we can name you more and greater who have not tolerated heretics and schismatics, notwithstanding their pretence of conscience, and arrogating the crown of martyrdom to their sufferings.
Constantine the Great, at the request of the General Council of Nice, banished Arius, with some of his fellows.[87] The same Constantine made a severe law against the Donatists. And the like proceedings against them were used by Valentinian, Gratian, and Theodosius, as Augustine reporteth.[88] Only Julian the Apostate granted liberty to heretics as well as to pagans, that he might, by tolerating all weeds to grow, choke the vitals of Christianity; which was also the practice and sin of Valens the Arian.
Queen Elizabeth, as famous for her government as any of the former, it is well known what laws she made and executed against papists. Yea, and king James, one of your own witnesses, though he was slow in proceeding against papists, as you say, for conscience’ sake, yet you are not ignorant how sharply and severely he punished those whom the malignant world calleth Puritans, men of more conscience and better faith than he tolerated.
I come now to your third and last argument, taken from the judgment of ancient and later writers, yea, even of papists themselves, who have condemned persecution for conscience’ sake.
You begin with Hilary, whose testimony we might admit without any prejudice to the truth; for it is true, the Christian church doth not persecute, but is persecuted. But to excommunicate an heretic, is not to persecute; that is, it is not to punish an innocent, but a culpable and damnable person, and that not for conscience, but for persisting in error against light of conscience, whereof it hath been convinced.
It is true also what he saith, that neither the apostles did, nor may we, propagate [the] Christian religion by the sword; but if pagans cannot be won by the word, they are not to be compelled by the sword. Nevertheless, this hindereth not but if they or any others should blaspheme the true God, and his true religion, they ought to be severely punished; and no less do they deserve, if they seduce from the truth to damnable heresy or idolatry.
Your next writer, which is Tertullian, speaketh to the same purpose in the place alleged by you. His intent is only to restrain Scapula, the Roman governor of Africa, from the persecution of Christians, for not offering sacrifice to their gods: and for that end fetcheth an argument from the law of natural equity, not to compel any to any religion, but to permit them either to believe willingly, or not to believe at all. Which we acknowledge, and accordingly permit the Indians to continue in their unbelief. Nevertheless, it will not therefore be lawful openly to tolerate the worship of devils, or idols, or the seduction of any from the truth.
When Tertullian saith, “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 a 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 of Asia, Rev. ii.
Your next author, Hierom, crosseth not the truth, nor advantageth your cause; for we grant what he saith, that heresy must be cut off with the sword of the Spirit. But this hindereth not, but that being so cut down, if the heretic still persist in his heresy to the seduction of others, he may be cut off by the civil sword to prevent the perdition of others. And that to be Hierom’s meaning, appeareth by his note upon that of the apostle, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump; “therefore,” saith he, “a spark, as soon as it appeareth, is to be extinguished, and the leaven to be removed from the rest of the dough, rotten pieces of flesh are to be cut off, and a scabbed beast is to be driven from the sheepfold, lest the whole house, mass of dough, body, and flock, be set on fire with the spark, be soured with the leaven, be putrified with the rotten flesh, perish by the scabbed beast.”[89]
Brentius, whom you next quote, speaketh not to your cause. We willingly grant him and you, that man hath no power to make laws to bind conscience. But this hindereth not, but that men may see the laws of God observed which do bind conscience.
The like answer may be returned to Luther, whom you next allege. First, that the government of the civil magistrate extendeth no further than over the bodies and goods of their subjects, not over their souls; and therefore they may not undertake to give laws to the souls and consciences of men.
Secondly, that the church of Christ doth not use the arm of secular power to compel men to the faith or profession of the truth, for this is to be done by spiritual weapons, whereby Christians are to be exhorted, not compelled.
But this hindereth not that Christians sinning against light of faith and conscience, may justly be censured by the church with excommunication, and by the civil sword also, in case they shall corrupt others to the perdition of their souls.
As for the testimony of the popish book, we weigh it not, as knowing whatsoever they speak for toleration of religion where themselves are under hatches, when they come to sit at stern, they judge and practise quite contrary: as both their writings and judicial proceedings have testified to the world these many years.
To shut up this argument from testimony of writers. It is well known Augustine retracted this opinion of yours, which in his younger times he had held, but in after riper age reversed and refuted, as appeareth in the second book of his Retractations, chap. 5, and in his Epistles, 48, 50. And in his first book against Parmenianus, chap. 7, he showeth, that if the Donatists were punished with death, they were justly punished. And in his eleventh Tractate upon John, “They murder,” saith he, “souls, and themselves are afflicted in body: they put men to everlasting death, and yet they complain when themselves are put to suffer temporal death.”[90]
Optatus, in his third book,[91] justifieth Macarius, who had put some heretics to death; that he had done no more herein than what Moses, Phineas, and Elias had done before him.
Bernard, in his sixty-sixth Sermon in Cantica:[92] “Out of doubt,” saith he, “it is better that they should be restrained by the sword of him, who beareth not the sword in vain, than that they should be suffered to draw many others into their error. For he is the minister of God for wrath to every evil doer.”
Calvin’s judgment is well known, who procured the death of Michael Servetus for pertinacity in heresy, and defended his fact by a book written of that argument.[93]
Beza also wrote a book, De Hæreticis Morte Plectendis, that heretics are to be punished with death.[94] Aretius likewise took the like course about the death of Valentinus Gentilis; and justified the magistrate’s proceeding against him, in a history written of that argument.[95]
Finally, you come to answer some main objections, as you call them, which yet are but one, and that one objecteth nothing against what we hold. It is, say you, no prejudice to the commonwealth, if liberty of conscience were suffered to such as fear God indeed, which you prove by the examples of the patriarchs and others.
But we readily grant you, liberty of conscience is to be granted to men that fear God indeed, as knowing they will not persist in heresy, or turbulent schism, when they are convinced in conscience of the sinfulness thereof.
But the question, is, whether an heretic, after once or twice admonition, and so after conviction, or any other scandalous and heinous offender, may be tolerated, either in the church without excommunication, or in the commonwealth without such punishment as may preserve others from dangerous and damnable infection.
Thus much I thought needful to be spoken, for avoiding the grounds of your error.
I forbear adding reasons to justify the truth, because you may find that done to your hand, in a treatise sent to some of the brethren late of Salem, who doubted as you do.
The Lord Jesus lead you by a Spirit of truth into all truth, through Jesus Christ.