As to the practice of the apostles,[[425]] Beza mentions two instances to vindicate the punishment of heretics. The first is that of Ananias and Sapphira, struck dead by Peter; and the other that of Elymas the sorcerer, struck blind by Paul. But how impertinently are both these instances alledged? Heresy was not the thing punished in either of them. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for hypocrisy and lying; and for conspiring, if it were possible, to deceive God. Elymas was a jewish sorcerer, and false prophet; a subtle, mischievous fellow, an enemy to righteousness and virtue, who withstood the apostolic authority, and endeavoured, by his frauds, to prevent the conversion of the deputy to the christian faith. The two first of these persons were punished with death. By whom? What, by Peter? No: by the immediate hand of God. Peter gave them a reproof suitable to their wickedness; but as to the punishment, he was only the mouth of God in declaring it, even of that God who knew the hypocrisy of their hearts, and gave this signal instance of his abhorrence of it in the infancy of the christian church, greatly to discourage, and, if possible, for the future to prevent men thus dealing fraudulently and insincerely with him. And, I presume, if God hath a right[a right] to punish frauds and cheats in another world, he hath a right to do so in this; especially in the instance before us, which seems to have something very peculiar in it.
Peter expressly says to Sapphira, [[426]]“How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?”[Lord?”] What can this tempting of the spirit of the Lord be, but an agreement between Ananias and his wife, to put this fraud on the apostle, to see whether or no he could discover it by the spirit he pretended to? This was a proper challenge to the spirit of God, which the apostles were endued with, and a combination to put the apostolic character to the trial. Had not the cheat been discovered, the apostle’s inspiration and mission would have been deservedly questioned; and as the state of christianity required that this divine mission should be abundantly established, Peter lets them know that their hypocrisy was discovered; and, to create the greater regard and attention to their persons and message, God saw fit to punish that hypocrisy with death.
As to Elymas the sorcerer,[[427]] this instance is as foreign and impertinent as the other. Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, had entertained at Paphos one Barjesus, a jew, a sorcerer; and hearing also that Paul and Barnabas were in the city, he sent for them to hear the doctrine they preached. Accordingly they endeavoured to instruct the deputy in the christian faith, but were withstood by Elymas, who by his subtleties and tricks, endeavoured to hinder his conversion. St. Paul therefore, in order to confirm his own divine mission, and to prevent the deputy’s being deceived by the frauds and sorceries of Elymas, after severely rebuking him for his sin, and opposition to christianity, tells him, not that the Proconsul ought to put him in jail, and punish him with the civil sword, but that God himself would decide the controversy, by striking the sorcerer himself immediately blind; which accordingly came to pass, to the full conviction of the Proconsul.
Now what is there in all this to vindicate persecution? God punishes wicked men for fraud and sorcery, who knew their hearts, and had a right to punish the iniquity of them. Therefore men may punish others for opinions they think to be true, and are conscientious in embracing, without knowing the heart, or being capable of discovering any insincerity in it. Or God may vindicate the character and mission of his own messengers, when wickedly opposed and denied, by immediate judgments inflicted by himself on their opposers. Therefore the magistrate may punish and put to death, without any warrant from God, such who believe their mission, and are ready to submit to it, as far as they understand the nature and design of it. Are these consequences just and rational? or would any man have brought these instances as precedents for persecution, that was not resolved, at all hazards, to defend and practise it?
But doth not St. Paul command to [[428]]“deliver persons to satan for the destruction of the flesh?” Doth he not [[429]]“wish that they were even cut off who trouble christians, and enjoin us to mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to his doctrine, and to avoid them, and not to eat with them?” Undoubtedly he doth. But what can be reasonably inferred from hence in favour of persecution, merely for the sake of opinions and principles? In all these instances, the things censured are immoralities and vices. The person who was delivered by St. Paul to satan, was guilty of a crime not so much as named by the gentiles themselves, the incestuous marriage of his father’s wife; and the persons we are, as christians, commanded not to keep company and eat with, are men of scandalous lives; such as fornicators, or covetous, or idolaters, or railers, or drunkards, or extortioners, making a profession of the christian religion, or, in St. Paul’s phrase, “called brethren;” a wise and prudent exhortation in those days especially, to prevent others from being corrupted by such examples, and any infamy thrown on the christian name and character. As to those whom the apostle “wishes cut off,” they were the persecuting Jews, who spread contention amongst christians, and taught them to bite and devour one another, upon account of circumcision, and such like trifles; men that were the plagues and corrupters of the society they belonged to. Men who caused such divisions, and who caused them out of a love to their own belly, deserved to have a mark set upon them, and to be avoided by all who regarded their own interest, or the peace of others.
What the apostle means by delivering to satan, I am not able certainly to determine. It was not, I am sure, the putting the person in jail, or torturing his body by an executioner, nor sending him to the devil by the sword or the faggot. One thing included in it, undoubtedly was his separation from the christian church; [[430]]“put away from amongst yourselves that wicked person:” which probably was attended with some bodily distemper, which, as it came from God, had a tendency to bring the person to consideration and reflection. The immediate design of it was the destruction of the flesh, to cure him of his incest, that, by repentance and reformation, his “spirit might be saved in the day of Christ;” and the power by which the apostle inflicted this punishment, was peculiar to himself, which God gave him [[431]]“for edification, and not for destruction:” So that whatever is precisely meant by delivering to satan, it was the punishment of a notorious sin: a punishment that carried the marks of God’s hand, and was designed for the person’s good, and was actually instrumental to recover and save him. 2 Cor. ii.
But what resemblance is there in all this to persecution, in which there is no appearance of the hand of God, nor any marks but those of the cruelty and vengeance of men; no immorality punished, and generally speaking, nothing that in its nature deserves punishment, or but what deserves encouragement and applause. And it is very probable that this is what St. Paul means by his “wishing those cut off” who disturbed the peace of the Galatian christians, by spreading divisions amongst them, and exciting persecutions against them; though I confess, if St. Paul meant more, and prayed to God that those obstinate and incorrigible enemies to christianity, who, for private views of worldly interest, raised perpetual disturbances and persecutions wherever they came, might receive the just punishment of their sins, and be hereby prevented from doing farther mischief, I do not see how this would have been inconsistent with charity, or his own character as an inspired apostle.
It may possibly be urged, that though the things censured in these places are immoralities, yet that there are other passages which refer only to principles; and that the apostle Paul speaks against them with great severity: as particularly, [[432]]“If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” And again, [[433]]“A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” As to the first of these, nothing can be more evident, than that the apostle pronounces an anathema only against those who subverted the christian religion; such who taught that it was insufficient to salvation, without circumcision, and submission to the Jewish law. As the gospel he taught was what he had received from Christ, he had, as an apostle, a right to warn the churches he wrote to against corrupting the simplicity of it: and to pronounce an anathema, i. e. to declare in the name of his great Master, that all such false teachers should be condemned who continued to do so: And this is the utmost that can be made of the expression; and therefore this place is as impertinently alledged in favour of persecution, as it would be to alledge those words of Christ, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” The anathema pronounced was the divine vengeance; it was Anathema Maranatha, to take place only when the Lord should come to judgment, and not to be executed by human vengeance.
As to heresy, against which such dreadful outcries have been raised, it is taken indifferently in a good or a bad sense in the scripture. In the bad sense, it signifies, not an involuntary error, or mistake of judgment, into which serious and honest minds may fall, after a careful inquiry into the will of God; but a wilful, criminal, corruption of the truth for worldly ends and purposes. Thus it is reckoned by [[434]]St. Paul himself amongst the works of the flesh, such as adultery, fornication, variance, strifes, and the like; because heresy is embraced for the sake of fleshly lusts, and always ministers to the serving them. Thus St. Peter: [[435]]“There were false prophets also amongst the people, even as there shall be false teachers amongst you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction; and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of; and through covetousness shall they, with feigned words, make merchandize of you; whom he farther describes as walking after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness,” and as given to almost all manner of vices. This is heresy, and “denying the Lord that bought us,” and the only meaning of the expression, as used by the apostle; though it hath been applied by weak or designing men to denote all such as do not believe their metaphysical notion of the Trinity, or the Athanasian creed. Hence it is that St. Paul gives it, as the general character of an heretic, that [[436]]“he is subverted,” viz. from the christian faith; “sinneth,” viz. by voluntarily embracing errors, subversive of the gospel, in favour of his lusts, on which account he is “self-condemned,” viz. by his own conscience, both in the principles he teaches, and the vile uses to which he makes them serve. So that though sincere and honest inquirers after truth, persons who fear God, and practise righteousness, may be heretics in the esteem of men, for not understanding and believing their peculiarities in religion; yet they are not and cannot be heretics, according to the scripture description of heresy, in the notion of which there is always supposed a wicked heart, causing men wilfully to embrace and propagate such principles as are subversive of the gospel, in order to serve the purposes of their avarice, ambition, and lust.
Such heresy as this is unquestionably one of the worst of crimes, and heretics of this kind are worthy to be rejected. It must be confessed, that heresy hath been generally taken in another sense, and to mean opinions that differ from the established orthodoxy, or from the creeds of the clergy, that are uppermost in power: who have not only taken on them to reject such as have differed from them, from their communion and church, but to deprive them of fortune, liberty, and life. But as St. Paul’s notion of heresy entirely differs from what the clergy have generally taught about it, theirs may be allowed to be a very irrational and absurd doctrine, and the apostle’s remain a very wise and good one; and though they have gone into all the lengths of wickedness to punish what they have stigmatized with the name of heresy, they have had no apostolic example or precept to countenance them; scripture heretics being only to be rejected from the church, according to St. Paul; and, as to any farther punishment, it is deferred till the Lord shall come.