The True Resolution of a Present Controversy Concerning Liberty of Conscience

THE TRUE RESOLUTION of a present Controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience.

Concerning this Question there are three opinions; two extreams, and one in the middle. So it is resolved not only by Doctor Voctius, in his late Disputations De libertate conscientiae, but long before by Calvin, in his Refutation of the errours of Servetus, where he disputeth this very question, Whether Christian Judges may lawfully punish Hereticks.

The first opinion is that of the Papists, who hold it to be not only no sin, but good service to God, to extirpate by fire and sword, all that are adversaries to, or opposers of the Church and Catholick Religion. Upon this ground Gregorius de Valentia tells us there were 180 of the Albigenses burnt under Pope Innocentius the third; and in the Councell of Constance were burnt John Hus and Hierome of Prague.

Suarez de triplice virtute, Tract. 1. disp. 23. sect. 2. layeth downe these Assertions. 1. That all Hereticks who after sufficient instruction and admonition, still persist in their error, are to be without mercy put to death. 2. That all impenitent Hereticks, though they professe to be Catholicks, being convict of heresie, are to be put to death. 3. That relapsing Hereticks, though penitent, are to be put to death without mercy. 4. That it is most probable, that Heresiarchs, Dogmatists, or the authors of an heresie, though truly penitent, yet are not to be received to favor, but delivered to the civil sword. 5. That a heretick who has not relapsed, if before sentence past against him, he convert of his owne accord, he is not to bee punished with death, but with some smaller punishment, such as perpetuall imprisonment, or the like. Ibid. Tract. 3. disp. 12. sect. 12. hee says, that Schismaticks may be punished with almost all the punishments of Hereticks.

Azor. Institut. moral. Tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 14. Utrique verò, tum relapsi, tum alii, quando pertinaces sunt, vivi igne exuruntur: si verò pertinaces non sint, prius strangulari solent, & postea comburi. See the like, Becan. Summa part. 3. Tract. 1. quaest. 6. & 9. Turrian. in 2am 2• disp. 56. dub. 1. Some of them also maintaine the compelling of Infidels to be baptized, as Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. dist. 4. quaest. 9. and they who follow him.

The second opinion does fall short, as farre as the former does exceed: that is, that the Magistrate ought not to inflict any punishment, nor put forth any coercive power uppon Hereticks or Sectaries, but on the contrary grant them liberty and toleration. This was the opinion of the Donatists, against which Augustine has written both much and well, in divers places: though himselfe was once in the same error, till he did take the matter into his second and better thoughts, as is evident by his Retractations, lib. 2. cap. 2. & epist. 48. In the same error are the Socinians and Arminians. See Peltii Harmonia, Artic. 21. Nic. Bodecher. Sociniano. Remonstrantismus. cap. 25. See also Grotii Apologeticus, cap. 6. pag. 130. Theoph. Nicolaid. Refut. Tractat. de Ecclesia, cap. 4. p. 33. The very same is maintained in some Bookes printed among our selves in this yeare of confusion: namely, The bloudy Tenent: Liberty of Conscience: The Compassionate Samaritan: John the Baptist: and by Mr. Goodwin in his [•]EOMAXIA, pag. 50. and in his Innocencies Triumph, pag. 8. In which places he denyeth that the Magistrate, and particularly that the two Houses of Parliament may impose any thing pertaining to the service and worship of God under mulcts or penalties. So M. S. to A. S. pag. 53. 54. 55. &c. disputeth against the coercive power of the Magistrate to suppresse Heresies and Sects. This power the Presbyterians doe ascribe to the Magistrate, as I shall shew by and by: Therefore I still averre, that M. Goodwin in denying and opposing this power, does herein (as in divers other particulars) ascribe much lesse to the Magistrate then the Presbyterians doe: which overthroweth that insinuation of the five Apologists pag. 19.

The third opinion is, that the Magistrate may and ought to exercise his coercive power, in suppressing and punishing Hereticks and Sectaries, lesse or more, according as the nature and degree of the error, schisme, obstinacy, and danger of seducing others, does require. This as it was the judgement of the orthodox Ancients, (vide Optati opera, edit. Albaspin. pag. 204. 215.) so it is followed by our soundest Protestant Writers; most largely by Beza against Bellius and Monfortius, in a peculiar Treatise De Haereticis à Magistratu puniendis. And though Gerhard, Brochmand, and other Lutheran Writers, make a controversie where they need not, alledging that the Calvinists (so nicknamed) hold as the Papists doe, that all Hereticks without distinction are to be put to death: The truth is, they themselves say as much as either Calvin or Beza, or any other whom they take for adversaries in this Question, that is, that Hereticks are to be punished by mulcts, imprisonments, banishments, and if they be grosse idolaters or blasphemers, and seducers of others, then to be put to death. What is it else that Calvin teacheth, when he distinguisheth three kindes of errors: some to be tolerated with a spirit of meeknesse, and such as ought not to separate between brethren: others not to be tolerated, but to be suppressed with a certaine degree of severity: a third sort so abominable and pestiferous, that they are to be cut off by the highest punishments?

And lest it be thought that this is but the opinion of some few, that the magistrate ought thus by a strong hand, and by civil punishments suppress heretics and sectaries: let it be observed what is held forth and professed concerning this business, by the Reformed Churches in their public Confessions of Faith. In the latter Confession of Helvetia, cap. 30. it is said that the magistrate ought to root out lies and all superstition, with all impiety and idolatry. And after; Let him suppress stubborn heretics. In the French Confession, art. 39. Therefore he has also delivered the sword into the hands of the magistrates, to wit, that offences may be repressed, not only those which are committed against the second Table, but also against the first. In the Belgick Confession, art. 36. Therefore has he armed the magistrate with the sword for punishing them that do evil, and for defending such as do well. Moreover it is their duty not only to be careful and watchful for the preservation of the civil government, but also to defend the holy ministry, and to abolish and overthrow all idolatry, and counterfeit worship of God. Beza de haeret, à magistr. puniend, tells us in the beginning, that the ministers of Helvetia had declared themselves to be of the same judgement, in a book published of that argument. And toward the end he cites the Saxon Confession, Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucerus, Wolfangus Capito, and Bullinger. The Synod of Dort, Ses. 138. in their sentence against the Remonstrants does not only interdict them of all their ecclesiastical and academical functions, but also beseech the States General by the secular power further to suppress and restrain them.

The arguments whereby this third or middle opinion is confirmed (that we may not build upon human authority) are these.

First, the law (Deuteronomy 13:6, 7, 8, 9) concerning the stoning and killing of him, who shall secretly entice people, saying, Let us go after other gods. If it be said, that this law did bind the Jews only, and is not moral nor perpetual. I answer, Jacobus Acontius, though he be of another opinion concerning this question than I am, yet he candidly and freely confesses, that he sees nothing in that law, which does not belong to the New Testament, as well as the Old; for says he, the reason and ground of the law, the use and end of it, is moral and perpetual (ver. 11): All Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness, as this is among you. But yet, says Acontius, this law does not concern heretics, who believe and teach errors concerning the true God or his worship; but only apostates who fall away to other gods. In this I shall not much contend with him; only thus far, if apostates are to be stoned and killed according to that law, then surely seducing heretics are also to receive their measure and proportion of punishment. The moral equity of the law requires thus much at least, that if we compare heresy and apostasy together, look how much less the evil of sin is in heresy, so much and no more is to be remitted of the evil of punishment, especially the danger of contagion and seducement, being as much or rather more in heresy than in apostasy; yes, that which is called heresy being oftentimes a real following after other gods. But the law (Deuteronomy 13) for punishing with death as well whole cities as particular persons, for falling away to other gods, is not the only law for punishing even capitally gross sins against the first Table. See Exodus 22:20: He that sacrifices to any god, save to the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 31:14: Every one that defiles the Sabbath, shall surely be put to death. Leviticus [illegible]:16: And he that blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:2, 3, 4, 5: If there be found among you within any of your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, man or woman, that has wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his Covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, &c. You shall bring forth that man or that woman to your gates, even that man or that woman, and shall stone them with stones till they die.

It will be asked, But how does it appear that these or any other judicial laws of Moses do at all appertain to us, as rules to guide us in like cases? I shall wish him who scruples this, to read Piscator his Appendix to his Observations upon the 21, 22, 23. Chapters of Exodus, where he excellently disputes this question, Whether the Christian magistrate be bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish magistrate was. He answers by the common distinction, he is obliged to those things in the judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all nations: but not to those things which are mutable, or proper to the Jewish republic. But then he explains this distinction, that by things mutable, and proper to the Jews, he understands the emancipation of a Hebrew servant or handmaid in the seventh year, a man's marrying his brother's wife and raising up seed to his brother, the forgiving of debts at the Jubilee, marrying with one of the same tribe, and if there be any other like to these; also ceremonial trespasses, as touching a dead body, &c. But things immutable, and common to all nations are the laws concerning moral trespasses, sins against the moral law, as murder, adultery, theft, enticing away from God, blasphemy, striking of parents. Now that the Christian magistrate is bound to observe these judicial laws of Moses which appoint the punishments of sins against the moral law, he proves by these reasons.

1. If it were not so, then it is free and arbitrary to the magistrate to appoint what punishments himself pleases. But this is not arbitrary to him, for he is the minister of God (Romans 13:4), and the judgement is the Lord's (Deuteronomy 1:7; 2 Chronicles 19:6). And if the magistrate be keeper of both Tables, he must keep them in such manner as God has delivered them to him.

2. Christ's words (Matthew 5:17), Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill, are comprehensive of the judicial law, it being a part of the law of Moses. Now he could not fulfill the judicial law, except either by his practice, or by teaching others still to observe it; not by his own practice, for he would not condemn the adulteress (John 8:11), nor divide the inheritance (Luke 12:13, 14). Therefore it must be by his doctrine for our observing it.

3. If Christ in his Sermon (Matthew 5) would teach that the moral law belongs to us Christians, in so much as he vindicates it from the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees; then he meant to hold forth the judicial law concerning moral trespasses as belonging to us also: for he vindicates and interprets the judicial law, as well as the moral (Matthew 5:38), an eye for an eye, &c.

4. If God would have the moral law transmitted from the Jewish people to the Christian people; then he would also have the judicial law transmitted from the Jewish magistrate to the Christian magistrate: there being the same reason of immutability in the punishments, which is in the offences; Idolatry and Adultery displeases God now as much as then; and Theft displeases God now no more than before.

5. Whatever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning (Romans 15:4), and what shall the Christian magistrate learn from those judicial laws, but the will of God to be his rule in like cases? The ceremonial law was written for our learning, that we might know the fulfilling of all those types, but the judicial law was not typical.

6. Do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31; Matthew 5:16). How shall Christian magistrates glorify God more than by observing God's own laws, as most just, and such as they cannot make better?

7. Whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Now when the Christian magistrate punishes sins against the moral law, if he does this in faith and in assurance of pleasing God, he must have his assurance from the Word of God, for faith can build upon no other foundation: it is the Word which must assure the conscience, God has commanded such a thing, therefore it is my duty to do it, God has not forbidden such a thing, therefore I am free to do it. But the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses. This therefore must be the surest prop and stay to the conscience of the Christian magistrate.

These are not my reasons (if it be not a word or two added by way of explaining and strengthening) but the substance of Piscator's reasons: to which I add, 1. Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament for abolishing the ceremonial law yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and to show some scripture for it. 2. That judicial law for having two or three witnesses in judgement (Deuteronomy 19:15; Hebrews 10:28) is transferred even with an obligation to us Christians, and it concerns all judgement, as well ecclesiastical as civil (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1), and some other particulars might be instanced in which are pressed and enforced from the judicial law, by some who yet mind not the obligation of it. To conclude therefore this point, though other judicial or forensical laws concerning the punishments of sins against the moral law, may, yes, must be allowed of in Christian republics and kingdoms; provided always, they be not contrary or contradictory to God's own judicial laws: yet I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now; and so much for the first argument from the law of God.

A second argument we have from divers laudable examples in the Old Testament; Moses drew the sword against idolaters (Exodus 32:27), the children of Israel resolved to go out to war against the Reubenites and Gadites, when they understood that they were building another altar (Joshua 22:12), Elijah commanded to slay the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18:40), in Asa his time there was a covenant for putting to death such as would not seek the Lord God of their fathers (2 Chronicles 15:13), Jehu slew the priests of Ahab, and the worshippers of Baal (2 Kings 10:11, 24), first, searching and making sure that there were none of the servants of the Lord among them (ver. 23), Josiah sacrificed the priests of Samaria upon their own altars (2 Kings 23:20), Nebuchadnezzar, though a heathen, being convinced that there was no god like the God of Israel, made a decree, that whoever speaks blasphemy, or utters any error against God, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses made a dunghill (Daniel 3:29). As for those whose errors and corruptions in religion were not so great, there was some (though not the highest) severity used against them: Moses was so angry with the people that were seduced into idolatry, that he burnt the calf which they had worshipped, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel to drink of it (Exodus 32:20), thereby teaching them (as Jerome and others give the reason) to abhor that idolatry, while their idol did pass from them among their own excrements. Asa did remove his mother Maachah from being queen, because of an idol which she had made in a grove (1 Kings 15:13). Josiah caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to the covenant (2 Chronicles 34:32), which could not be without either threatening or inflicting punishment upon the transgressors; there being many at that time disaffected to the Reformation.

O but says M. S. to A. S. pag. 51, 52. Idolatry and idolaters were the adequate object of that coercive power in matters of religion, whereof we read in the Old Testament. Nor do we read that ever the Jewish Kings or Magistrates attempted any thing against Sectaries or Schismaticks. I answer, 1. The object of that coercive power of Josiah (2 Chronicles 34:32) was generally the matter of the Covenant, that is, the taking away not only of Idolatry, but of all abominations, and a walking after the Lord, and keeping of his Testimonies, and Statutes, and Commandments, ver. 31, 33. Nehemiah did drive away the son of Eliashib the high Priest, not for Idolatry, but for marrying the daughter of Sanballat, and thereby defiling the Covenant of the Priesthood (Nehemiah 13:28, 29). Ezra made the Chief Priests, the Levites, and all Israel to enter into a Covenant and to swear, that they would put away the strange wives, and that it should be done according to the Law (Ezra 10:3, 5), and whoever would not come to Jerusalem for this thing, was not only himself excommunicated from the Church, but all his goods forfeited (v. 8). Artaxerxes decreed punishment for all who should oppose the Law of God, and the building of the Temple: wherein he is so far approved, as that Ezra blesses God for it (Ezra 7:26, 27). Whoever will not do the law of your God, and the law of the King, let judgement be executed speedily upon him, whether it be to death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or imprisonment, &c. which does not concern Idolatry only, but generally the laws of God, v. 25. Set Magistrates and Judges which may judge all the people, all such as know the laws of your God. He who wrote Liberty of Conscience, p. 27, 28, is so far confounded with this laudable Decree of Artaxerxes, that he can say no more to it, but that it was the commandment of God, not an invention of men which Artaxerxes did thus impose, which is as much as we desire. But 2. Sects and Schisms are to be punished as well, though not as much as Heresy and Idolatry. There are degrees of faults, and accordingly degrees of punishments. Augustine wrote an Epistle to Bonifacius upon this occasion, to show that the Donatists had nothing to do with the Arrians, and so were not to be punished with such rigour and severity; yet he advises that moderate mulcts and punishments may be laid upon them, and that their Bishops or Ministers may be banished. In his 127 Epistle he intercedes most earnestly with the proconsul of Africa, that he might not put to death the Donatists, but repress them some other ways. We have also a scripture example for punishing Sectaries who are not Heretics. It is agreed among interpreters, there were in Judah two sorts of high places, some on which God was worshipped, others on which idols were worshipped, and it is most manifest from 2 Chronicles 33:17, and from the reconciling of 2 Chronicles 15:17 with ch. 14:3, 5, the one sort was the high places of Idolatry, the other, the high places of will-worship; yet the Priests of the latter, as well as of the former, were punished by Josiah, as Tostatus proves from 2 Kings 23. And the text itself is clear, for he put to death the Priests of Sama[r]ia, who had sacrificed in the high places of Idolatry, vers. 20. But as for those who sacrificed in the high places of will-worship, because they sacrificed to the Lord only (as the word is, 2 Chronicles 33:17), therefore Josiah did not put them to death, only he caused them to go out of all the Cities of Judah, and to cease from the Priests office, so that they durst not come up to the Altar of the Lord at Jerusalem, only they were permitted to eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren, ver. 8, 9. This is parallel to that law (Ezekiel 44:10, 11, 12, 13, 14), a prophecy concerning the Christian Temple, and the times of the New Testament, which reaches a blow to another silly and short-sighted evasion, used both in the Bloody Tenent, and in M. S. to A. S., that all this coercive power exercised in the Old Testament was typical, and therefore not imitable now in the New Testament. To which I further reply, 1. The reason of all that coercive severity was moral and perpetual, as was showed before from Deuteronomy 13:11. Next, why did they not prove that it was typical? Shall we take their fancy for a certainty? They have neither Scripture nor Interpreters for it. 3. They confound the Judicial laws of Moses with the Ceremonial, making the Judicatories and Justice typical no less than the Ceremonies. 4. They do utterly overthrow the investiture of Christian Princes and Magistrates with any power at all in matters of religion, from the Old Testament. So that one may not argue thus: The godly Kings of Judah did remove the monuments of Idolatry and Superstition, therefore so should the Christian Magistrate do. The most arrant malignant may answer in the words of Mr. Williams, chap. 109, that the Civil power or State of Israel, so far as it attended upon the spiritual, was merely figurative: or in the words of M. S. pag. 51, there are two reasons very considerable why the Kings of Judah might be invested by God with a larger power in matters of religion, than Kings or Magistrates under the Gospel have any ground or warrant to claim from them. First, they were types of Christ (but by the way how does he prove that Asa, Jehu, and Josiah were types of Christ?) which no King under heaven at this day is. Secondly, not the people only, but the very land over which they ruled were typical. 5. The punishment of persons was a part of their reformation, as well as the destruction of monuments, and why must we follow their example in the one, more than the other? If we smart under both their diseases, we must apply both their remedies, or neither.

The third argument is drawn from the New Testament. The magistrate bears not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil (Romans 13:4). But I assume; Hereticks and Sectaries do evil, yes much evil, especially when they draw many others after them in their pernicious ways. It was the observation of one of the greatest politicians of this kingdom, that heresies and schisms are of all others the greatest scandals: yes more than corruption of manners. One of his reasons is, because every sect of them has a diverse posture or cringe by themselves, which cannot but move derision in worldlings, and depraved politics, who are apt to contemn holy things. I know it will be answered, If any Sectary make a breach of peace, or disturb the State, then indeed the magistrate ought to redress it by a coercive power. So John the Baptist, pag. 57. So Mr. Williams, chap. 52. answers (Romans 13:4) is not meant of evil against the Christian estate, but of evil against the Civil State. M. S. pag. 53. 54. tells us that he is not for the toleration of Sects and Schisms, except only upon this supposition, that the professors or maintainers of them be otherwise peaceable in the State, and every ways subject to the laws and lawful power of the civil magistrate. I answer, the experience of former times may make us so wise as to foresee that heresy and schism tends to the breach of the civil peace, and to a rupture in the State as well as in the Church. What commotions did the Arrians make in all the Eastern parts? The Macedonians in Greece? The Donatists in Africa? How did the Anabaptists raise and foment the bloody war of the Boers in Germany, wherein were killed above 100,000 men?