Refutation of the Errors Toleration Erastianism Independency and Separation, Part · Section 2
SECT: II.
A BRIEF REFUTATION OF THE ERROR OF Tolleration.
WE shall begin with the Error of Tolleration; of all Opinions in the matter of Religion, a Doctrine that is much cryed up among Sectaries, and a Doctrine that is very taking; what (thinks People) if they get leave to serve God according to their own Conscience, they need not trouble themselves what others do. Our purpose is to show that this Doctrine, though it pretend to the Spirit, is not of God: and for this end we have read these places of Scripture whereupon we are to ground the most of what is to be said against this Error.*The Author did in the beginning of his Sermon read several Texts of Scripture.
I begin to refute this Error of Tolleration First, because it is the Sectaries main refuge, it is their Holy of Holys wherein they shelter themselves in their grossest Errors: what, say they, it is our Conscience and who dare meddle with Conscience but the God of Conscience. Secondly, we think it needfull to begin with it; First, because of all other Errors it is the most dangerous and damnable, in so far as other Errors do only evert these particular Truths of Scripture to which they are contrary; but by this one Error (this Monster of Tolleration) way is made to evert all the Truths contained in Scripture, and to the setting up all Errors contrary to every Jote of Truth: and in the mean time there shall be no power on earth to hinder it, or take order with it,
In prosecuting of this, we shall follow this Method First, we shall clear the state of the question Secondly, we shall bring our Arguments for confirming the Truth, and vindicate them from the Adversaries exceptions. Thirdly, We shall bring forth their Arguments, and shall refute them from Scripture and Reason. And Fourthly, We shall apply the whole to some practical use.
First, For the state of the question, what a thing this Tolleration is that we Labour to refute: There is a two-fold Tolleration of Error: There is a Church Tolleration and a State Tolleration. A Church Tolleration is, That whereby it is pleaded that Error and Heresy should have liberty to be vented and go free even from Church Censure; such as suspension from the Sacraments or Excommunication. There are but few Sectaries of any note that plead for Tolleration in this Latitude, and that because the Scripture is so plain against it. Paul sayes, An Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject. Therefore they are content that Church-censures such as Excommunication be inflicted on Hereticks, providing, First, that they be free from Civil censure. Secondly, That Excommunication be inflicted for no Error, but for these that are contrary to fundamental points of Truth, or as some say contrary to the very light of Nature: Upon these and no other will they have Excommunication to strike.
Though this be not the main question which we are to insist upon: Yet we shall lay down some assertions contrary to their Doctrine, even in this point. And First, we do not see what reason can be brought to exeem Hereticks from civil Censure; but the same may be brought to exeem them from Church Censures also; If Conscience, as they say, be free from the one, what reason but it should be free from the other also? And if fear of civil Censure against those who Err do as they say enforce the Conscience, and make People Hypocrites; we see not but the fear of Church Censures may do the same: Or if, notwithstanding of Church Censures, the Conscience is not forced, the Service not constrained, which they grant, then notwithstanding of Civil Censure it is not forced, or the Service constrained either: And so from their own grounds this vast Tolleration of Error falls to the ground. Secondly, We cannot assent to that which they affirm, that Excommunication is not to be inflicted for any Error; but these which are contrary to fundamental points of Religion; and that because Christ gives us a rule upon what faults Excommunication should strick; to wit, on every scandalous Fault done against a Brother, or the Church wherein the Offender persists obstinate, and will not be reclaimed: So Matth. 18. 17. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Pubican. That is, Excommunicate him. Now, for what faults he is to be Excommunicate, they are set down v. 15. Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee &c. So it is a scandalous Trespass wherein the offender does persist and remain obstinate, on which according to Christ's Rule, Excommunication should strick: Now sure it is, there are many Errors not contrary to fundamental Truths: such as many points of Arminianism, Antinomianism &c. which yet persisted in are Scandalous both to particular Christians and the Church; and therefore according to Christs Rule, Excommunication should strick upon other Errors than those contrary to the fundamental Points of Religion, which is contrary to their assertion. Thirdly, Neither can we assent that Excommunication should strick on no other Errors but those contrary to the light of Nature, and that not only because of what is presently said, that Excommunication should strick against every scandalous Sin done against a Brother, or the Church wherein the offender does persist and remain obstinate; but also according to that Rule whereby they maintain that Excommunication should strick on no other Error, but these that are contrary to the very Light of Nature; it would follow that the publisher of these Errors following (or the like against fundamental Truths) should not be censured: to wit, That the Scriptures are not the word of God. That Jesus Christ was an Impostor, a Deceiver: That we are not justified by free Grace; say according to that rule, such Hereticks should not be censured, no not Ecclesiastically; because these Errors are not against Natures Light, but Scripture Light only; for Natures Light teacheth not the Truths which are contrary to these Errors. This much for Church Tolleration, but, as said is, concerning this is not the present Contraversy.
The main question then is, concerning State Tolleration. Concerning which some do affirm. That whatever the Church may do in Inflicting Church Censures on Hereticks, Maintainers of Heterodox Opinions: Yet, say they, no civil Punishment, such as Death, Imprisonment, Mulcts, or Fines, should be inflicted on any Error or Blasphem whatsoever; providing the Maintainers of them carry themselves peaceably, do not trouble the State, or do evil against the Commonwealth in civil Things: We again on the contrary do hold, That it is the Duty of the Civil Magistrate to suppress Error, Heresie, and every sin against the First Table, as well as it is his Duty to suppress Adultery, Fornication, Sedition, and other sins against the second Table: And that he is not only bound to suppress Errors and Blasphemies, that are contrary to fundamental Truths, or the Light of Nature; but all Error contrary to other points of Truth.
Now for clearing the State of this Question, and freeing it from some odious Imputations that may be cast upon it: Before we come to Arguments we shall lay down these Assertions: First, We do not say that the Magistrate is bound to punish Hereticks at the first step; Pains should first be taken to inform them, the Judgement of the Church is Antecedent, and their Labour is to convince Gainsayers: So this must go before the Magistrates Duty, they must be found Obstinate before the Magistrate medle with them, or punish them Civilly; Especially if their Errors be not horrid Blasphemies against God and Natures Light, in such the Magistrate is not bound to give so much Forbearance. Secondly, We do not say that all Errors and Heresies are to get alike punishment; but according to the degrees of the guilt that is in them, even as it is in sins committed against the Second Table: Murder is a more hainous Fault than Fornication, and therefore the Magistrate is bound to punish it more highly. Even so is it in Sins done against the First Table; Blasphemies done against God, or a denying of the true God, is a higher Sin than Worshiping of the true God after a false manner; and therefore the Magistrate is bound to punish it more severely. Thirdly, As we do not say, that every Error and Heresie is to receive the like punishment; so neither do we say that every one that maintains the same Error is to be alike punished, for there are some that are Seducers, or Drawers on of others to Error, Disturbers of the Peace of the Church, Ring-leaders; there are others again that are only seduced and drawn away to Error; and these last, although they should not be Tollerate, yet the power of the Magistrate is to be exercised more sparingly towards them. So Secondly, There are some rooted in Error, confirmed in it, who will not hear Instruction: There are others that are but weak, and are seeking Light, whose way evidenceth them to be Conscientious, only for the time they are Ignorant, and in Humility seeking after Light; and these last, the Magistrate, as all other Christians, is to bear much with, according to Rom. 15. 1. We then that are strong, ought to bear the Infirmities of the weak, &c.
Now this being said to clear the question, we come to Arguments to make out this Truth, to wit, That the Magistrate is bound to suppress and punish Error, Heresie, and other sins against the First Table, as well as he is bound to punish Adultery, Theft, and other sins against the Second Table.
The First Argument we bring is, from the approven practice of Kings and Magistrates under the Old Testament, from which we form an Argument thus: If it was the approven practice of Kings and and Magistrates under the Old Testament to suppress Error, Heresie and Blasphemy, then Magistrates under the New Testament are bound to do the like: But, so it is that it was the approven practice of Kings and Magistrates under the Old Testament to suppress Error, Heresie and Blasphemy and other sins against the first Table: Therefore, Magistrates under the New Testament are bound to do the like: For confirming of this Argument there are two things to be made out: First, That it was the practice of the Magistrate under the Old Testament to suppress Error and Heresie. Secondly, As it was their practice, so their practice herein is approven of God, otherwise it were not binding unto others; for Kings and Magistrates did several things wherein they were not approven, and so not binding unto us now: The first thing then we are to clear is, that this was the practice of Magistrates under the Old Testament: And we shall begin First with Abraham's practice, Genes. 18. 19. For I know him, that he will command his Children, and his Houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do Iustice and Iudgement, &c. Secondly, with Jacob who was a Magistrate in his own Family: And we shall see him employing his Power to suppress false Religion. In the 35 of Gen. vers. 2. Then Jacob said unto his Houshold, and to all that were with him, put away the strange Gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your Garments. And in the 4 verse, And they gave unto Jacob all the strange Gods which were in their Hands, and all their Ear-rings which were in their Ears, and Jacob hid them under the Oak which was by Scechem. The Third practice which we shall observe, is that of Asa in the 2 Chron. 14. vers. 2. And Asa did that which was good and Right in the Eyes of the Lord his God. verse 3. For he took away the Altars of the strange Gods, and the high places, and broke down the Images, and cut down the Groves. Verse 4. And commanded Judah to seek the Lord God of their Fathers, and to do the Law and the Commandment. And in the 5 Verse Also he took away out of the Cities of Judah, the High-places and the Images, &c. And we shall find it in chap. 15. vers. 12, 13. And they entred into a Covenant to seek the Lord God, &c. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. And in the 16. v. he employes his power in this point against his own Mother Maachah. And also concerning Maachah the Mother of Asa the King, he removed her from being Queen, because she had made an Idol, in a Grove: and Asa cut down her Idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron. The Fourth practice shall be of King Manasseth. 2 Chron: 33, 15. (ye would mark such places for ye may have need of them) And he took away the strange Gods, and the Idol out of the house of the Lord, and all the altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the Lord, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the City. v. 16—And commanded Judah to serve the Lord God of Israel. The last practice that we shall name is, that of Josiah 2 Chron: 34. v. 31, 32, 33. And the King stood in his place, and made a Covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord. &c. And he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamen, to stand to it. &c. And Josiah took away all the Abominations out of all the countries, that pertained to the Children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God; Let this suffice to make out the first point, That such were the practices of Kings and Magistrates under the Old Testament.
The Second thing to be cleared is, That as these were their practices; so they were approven practices: And this is clear; First from Gods approbation given to them in that place before cited, 2 Chron. 14. 23. Asa gets a Testimony, That He did that which was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God. And wherefore? For he took away the Altars of the strange Gods, and the high Places, and broke down the Images, &c. And Secondly, We find that Jehu, although he was Hypocritical, was rewarded of God, for suppressing of False Worship: In 2 Kings 10. 30. And the Lord said unto Jehu, because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the House of Ahab, according to all that was in mine heart, thy Children of the fourth Generation, shall sit on the throne of Israel. We might bring several other evidences, that these their practices were approven of God, but what is already said may suffice.
The patrons of Tolleration bring several exceptions to weaken the strengh of this Argument, which we shall propone in as full strength as they come to our hand; and take them off: And the First exception is this, say they, The practice of Judah and Israel under the Old Testament cannot be binding to Magistrats under the New, because they were Typical Kings, and the actions they did were Typical of somewhat to be done by Christ, and so not binding to us. To this we reply. First, That however this our hold concerning the practices of the Kings of Judah and Israel after they entered Canaan who were Typical Kings (as they say) of this Typical Land, that they could not be binding to Magistrats now; yet we find it was the practice of Jacob before the the Kingdom of Israel was erected, and so what he did was not done by him as a Type of Christ, but a moral duty; and he was approven in it; we find also when heathen Kings came to the Knowledge of God, they employed their power this way and were approven in so doing; and surely they will not call Heathen Kings Types of Christ: We shall give one instance of this in the seventh chap: of Ezra v. 26. There a decree comes out from Atraxerxes a heathen King. Whosoever will not do the Law of thy God, and the Law of the King, let Judgment be executed speedily upon him, whither it be unto Death, or to Banishment or to confiscation of Goods, &c. Now lest it should be said this was a rash Act, and so not binding: therefore there is something in the Text equivalent to God's Approbation of it; to wit, Ezra's Blessing the Lord that he had made such an Act Verse 27. But we give a Second Answer, to the Objection: Although it were granted that all the King's of Israel were Types of Christ, as we do not grant it in all, especially in those who were wicked and Godless men, it does not follow that what they did in punishing false Doctrine, they Acted therein as Types of Christ: And if so, then it does not follow, that it is not binding now; except they will say that whatever was done by any who were Types of Christ in no wayes binding unto others; and if so they may as well argue, that what Magistrates under the Old Testament did in punishing sins against the second Table, such as Adultery, Murder, were done by them as they were Types of Christ; and so not binding to Magistrates now: Yea, upon the same ground they may infer that Davids Prayers and Tears for sin were no copy for us to follow; why these were Acts of one who was a Type of Christ. Yea by the same Reason, they may reject the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, as not binding unto us, because forsooth, it was written by the Prophets, and such as were Types of Christ, and so not binding to us. Thus we see what absurdity the giving way to such an exception will draw unto, and therefore it is to be rejected.
But their Second Exception seems more plausible and it is this, say they, The practice of the Kings of Israel doth not argue up fully to that which we do hold, because their practice did not strike on every Error against Truth, but only Idolatry; and not all Idolaters, but those that made Apostacy and served false Gods; and not all of those, but these only that seduced and drew away others to serve the false God. Now it does not follow from their punishing of Idolaters, who worshiped a false God; that therefore Magistrates are bound to punish Hereticks worshipping the true God though in a false way, This is the strength of their exception; to which we reply. First, That though it were true which they say that the practice of the Kings of Israel did extend but to Idolaters, and those that seduced and drew away others to serve false Gods, yet it does not follow but it may be binding to Magistrates now to punish Hereticks worshipping a true God in a false way, and that because of this rule necessarly to be admitted in expounding of Scripture, that when the command of God does strick against any one sin most usual in the time, by rule of proportion, it stricks against all sins of that kind, As in the second Command there is nothing expresly forbidden but the Worshipping of God by graven Images; and that because the worshipping of God by Images was the sin most in use at that time; yet under graven is forbidden all wayes of worshipping of God invented by men; and so although it were true that the practice of Godly Kings did strick but against Idolatry, yet by rule of proportion all sins of that kind should be suppressed: To which add, that when the high degree of any sins by divine Law is to be punished by death, common equity will infer, that lesser degrees of sin are to be punished by a lesser punishment at least. Secondly, to what they say, that the Magistrate did only punish Idolatry under the Old Testament. We Answer that it is false, they did punish other Errors also, and such as would be thought light of now; and this we shall instance in several particulars. First, They punished will worship in serving the true God, and this we see by comparing two places of Scripture: The first is the 2 Kings 23, 8, 9. Speaking of Josiah, And he brought all the Priests out of the Cities of Judah, and defiled the high places, where the Priests had burnt incense: So he employes his Power against the high places, for the removal of their way of worship. The other place of Scripture to be compared with, is the 2 Chrov: 33. 17. (Which tells us the nature of their high places) Nevertheless, the People did sacrifice still in the high places, yet unto the Lord their God only. So that this worshipping on the high places, was not that kind of Idolatry whereby a false God was worshipped; but a way of their own, whereby they worshipped the true God, and yet Josiah suppresseth even this kind of false worship. Secondly, we find that Magistrates did employ their power for suppressing of the breakers of the Sabbath day, and and punishing those that Married strange wives, which yet were not Idolaters and Apostats from the true God; a noble example whereof is in Nehemiah 13. from verse 15, to 21. There is a large History what pains he took to reform the People to keep the Sabbath day, therefore in the 21. v. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, why lodged ye about the wall? If ye do so again I will lay hands on you. He threatens to employ the Civil power for suppressing of that Error, and this is not Idolatry. And Secondly, we find that the Magistrates employed their power generally, for suppressing any Error that was contrary to any Article of the Covenant: So where we read in the 2 Chron: 34. 31, 32. And the King stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord—&c. And he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And the heads of the Covenant are not only against those who were Seducers, but also against those that were seduced: So we find it in Exodus 32, v. 20. In that Idolatry of worshipping the Golden Calf, when Moses came down from the mount in his zeal to the Glory of God, he not only punished Aaron, but also the People: and more than this, he Armes the Levits, as the avengers of God's Justice, and proclaims that every man should avenge the Lord upon his very Brother: Thus we have made out in the first Argument taken from the practice of the Kings of Israel and Judah, and have vindicated it by Scripture from their exceptions brought against it.
The Second Argument shall yet be grounded on the Old Testament, and it is taken from the many commands and precepts, that are given in Scripture to Godly Kings and Magistrates and others to punish Blasphemers, False Prophets and Idolaters, Hereticks, Sabbath Breakers, and Seducers, from whence we form this Argument: That whatever was commanded to be done by Magistrates under the Old Testament as a part of their duty, this Magistrates under the New Testament are oblidged to as a part of their duty also: But Magistrates were commanded under the Old Testament to suppress Idolatry, Blasphemy, and Heresy and that they were to do as a part of their duty as Magistrates: And therefore it is a duty lying on Magistrates under the New. The thing we have to prove is, that this was a command given to Magistrates under the Old Testament and that as a part of their duty as Magistrates. And for this look over these places of Scripture Exod. 22. 20. He that sacrificeth unto any God, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. There is a command given to the Magistrates. And so in Levit. 24, 15. And thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God, shall bear his sin. v. 16. And he that Blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death. So in the 13. of Deut: 1. If there arise among you a Prophet, or dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder. &c. Through the whole Chapter there are Commands given to the Magistrate to punish false worship. We shall only add another, and that is taken from the fourth Command, where a charge is laid on the Magistrate as well as the Master of a Family to make use of his power for keeping of the Sabbath, and to see to the keeping of it by others also. Thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, nor they son, nor they daughter —This Command is given to the Magistrate as well as to the Master of the Family, as appears from those things. First, By vertue of this Command Nehemiah the Magistrate of God's People, did make use of his power to punish Sabbath Breakers in that place we cited in Nehemiah 13. 21. Secondly, It appears from this that the Gates spoken of their, Nor any thing that is within thy Gates, is a term which aggreeth not to a single Family, but a whole City, even to the circuit of a whole Kingdom: of the word [Gates] is taken in Scripture Gene…: 22. 17—and thy seed shall possess the Gate of his enemies: It followeth as in that respect, therefore he speaks to the Magistrate, no Master of a Family having such large power. And Thirdly, The power there spoken of, is to be extended to Strangers: now the chief care of Stangers did belong to the Magistrate, and not to the Master of a Family, therefore Nehemiah the Magistrate extends this power of his to the Strangers that came to buy and sell on the Sabbath day, Nehem: 13, 20
The Adversary brings several exceptions against this Argument which we shall propone and take off. The First Exception is, say they, Those were Judicial Laws, and so now are expired with their Common-wealth: Answer, This is a common refuge to Sectaries where any practice is brought from the Old Testament against them, presently they cast at it upon this account as not binding to us under the New: Therefore we shall speak so much the more unto this point: By a judicial Law is meaned a Civil Law, so the force of their Argument is this: The Civil Law of one Kingdom is not binding to another, but these were Civil Lawes belonging to that Kingdom; Therefore, they are not binding to us. To this we Answer, First, That they cannot say this of all the Laws instanced, particularly of that Law of the fourth Command: It is a Moral Law binding to all, Secondly, we Answer, the rest of these Laws are Moral and binding to all Magistrates, yea and that for these Reasons: Because First, Abraham, and Jacob, and other Magistrates that were among the Jews did practice these Laws even before the Judicial Law was given out by Moses; and so they behooved to be Moral. Yea Heathen Kings that were not under the Judicial Law of Moses, as not being Members of their Commonwealth, when they came to the knowledge of God, they made use of their Power to suppress Idolatry, which certainly was through vertue of the Moral Law, commanding them so to do: Not the Judicial Law, that they were not under. A Third Answer we give, that though what is said were true. viz. That these Laws were Judicial: Yet it does not follow that they are not now binding to Magistrates. To understand this, there were two things in their Judicial Laws, as in our Civil Laws. Yet, there was somewhat that concerned the Kingdom in particular as that Law, that Servants should be freed from their service at the seven years end. And the Law of inheritance to be keept within the Tribe, and this part of the Law did fall with their Common-wealth. But their was another thing in their Judicial Laws, and that is somewhat of Common Equity belonging unto all, such as Laws for punishing sins done against the Moral Law; and in this far the Judicial Law is binding to us: because there is not a syllable in the New Testament for abrogating of it, and so must bind, being given by God. And Jesus Christ and his Apostles Reason from this Judicial Law; as in 1 Corinth: 9. 9. It is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treade thout the corn: And in several other places: so is it in the Civil Laws in other Kingdoms: as for example, That Witches should be punished by death, and burnt to Ashes, is a Civil Law in Scotland: Now there is somewhat there of Common Equity, to wit, that they should be punished by death; but the particular way of putting them to death, to wit, whither by strangling drowning &c. or the burning of their Bodies to Ashes, is not of Common Equity: Other Kingdoms may use another way of Execution, as pleaseth them best.
There is a Second Exception they bring against this Argument, say they: If their Laws were binding to us, then they would be binding according to all their circumstances: and if so, then all persons, whole Cities, yea beasts behoved to be stoned to death: For so is the Command Deutro: 13. Now say they, what Massacring would this be. To take off this exception, we Answer: There are two things in a Law, there is first, The substance of the Law, Secondly, The Circumstances of it: Now a Law may hold according to the main substance, and yet not according to these circumstances: We shall clear it in an Example, The Law of Hospitality binds all nations as to the substance of the things commanded by it, but there were some circumstances joyned with this Law, according to the nature of the people to whom it was given; such as the washing of feet, and kisses of Charity; and according to these it is not binding; And so that command, That false worship should be punished, is substantial and binding unto all; but that it should so be punished as to put Children, Women, Beasts, young and old to death, was suited according unto the temper of that People unto whom it was given, being so naturally prone to Idolatry, and therefore were by more fearful punishments to be scarred from it, and so in that respect is not binding unto others. We may add where this Law is repeated, as Exod: 22. 18. Deutr: 17. 2. 5. and Cap: 18. 20. It is only repeated in the substance of it, and the way and manner is not mentioned. Secondly, we find that Jacob and other Magistrates who were before the Law did not Execute it according to thir Circumstances; Yea and the Jewish Magistrates as Moses and Josiah Ezod: 31. and 2 King 23, Did not tye themselves precisely to Execute the Law according to all these Circumstances; And so it remaines that though these Circumstances do not bind the Magistrate yet the Law according to its substance is yet binding.
There is a Third Exception they bring, say they, the Magistrate under the Old Testament had an infallible Rule whereby he might know what was Heresy and what not, to wit his consulting the Lord by Vrim and Thummim. But the Magistrates under the New Testament have not this infallible Rule, and so it does not follow from the duty of Magistrates under the Old Testament, that the same should be done by the Magistrates under the New. To which we Answer, This exception suppones First, That Magistrates under the New Testament may punish those whom they know certainly to be Hereticks, and surely there are sundry Hereticks of this kind, which he may know as well as if he had consulted with Vrim and Thummim. Secondly, this exception of theirs doth suppone, that the Magistrate under the New Testament hath no way left him how to come to know infallibly what is Heresy, what not, which is false; he hath the word of God, his Spirit speaking by it, which is more infallible than that of the Priests getting their Answer from Vrim and Tummim: For it might be doubted whither the Priest had taken up the Answer right or not; or if he was Faithful in giving it, according as he had received it. Yea Peter sayes the word is more sure than any voice from Heaven, 2 Peter 1. Thirdly, This exception does suppone that the Magistrate under the Old Testament took this course of consulting with Vrim and Thummim, for knowing who was Hereticks, Idolaters, and who not: But this is false▪ it was only the written Word which they consulted with, for knowing what was Heresy, what not Is…: 8. 20. To the Law, and to the Testimony, &c. And for the application of the rule to persons, that they might know who were the Hereticks, we never read that they consulted Vrim and Thummim, but used a judicial Process against the person challenged, and proved the Fact by Witnesses: So Deut. 17. 4. There must be a scandal of Idolatry upon the man challenged, And if it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, &c. And it must be proved on him by Witnesses, verse 6. As the mouth of two Witnesses, or three Witnesses, shall he that is worthy of Death, he put to death.
They except Fourthly, That in the Infancy and Nonage of the Church God Typed out things Spiritual by things Earthly, and so those Punishments were Types of Spiritual Censures, Excommunication and Hell, and therefore are not now to be put in practice: We answer First, Excommunication and Damnation were things present to the Jewish Church, and so they had no Types of them. Secondly, This is to turn Scripture to Allegories, and by this same reason we may cast at punishments of Sins against the Second Table, as being Types of Spiritual Censures, Hell and Damnation, and there is as much ground for affirming the one as the other. This much for Arguments from the Old Testament.
We shall next hint at some Arguments from the New Testament. First, If so be that it were unusual for Magistrates to meddle with men in matters of Religion, then certainly Jesus Christ and his Apostles should have used this legal Defence, when the Magistrate called them before him to answer about their Doctrine, They would have said, ye have no place to challenge us for our profession, for matters of Opinion are free; but we do not hear that they declined the Judge, or used any such Defence, for sure Christ and his Apostles would have left no lawful mean unessayed.
There is a second Argument taken from Rom. 13. 4. Where speaking of the Civil Magistrate the Apostle sayeth, For he is the Minister of God to thee far good, but if thou do that which is evil be afraid, There is set down the object of the Magistrates Power and the extent of it, and it is set down indefinitly, upon him that doth evil. And therefore if Hereticks, Maintainers of falle Worship, be doers of evil, they fall under the Magistrates Power. Now that spreaders of Heresie are doers of evil, we did prove in the second Doctrine raised from this Verse, where we shew that Heresy and Error was as much to be eschewed, as Adultery and other Sins against the Second Table; and the Magistrate as Magistrate should put forth his zeal against them as much; and all the places commanding zeal against Error (which are not few) in the New Testament proves this, for they bind every one according to his place; the Minister according to his place, and the Magistrate according to his.
There is one Exception they make much of against this Argument, and it is this; say they, By doers of evil, cannot be meaned these that are taken with Error and Heresy, and other Sins against the First Table: And that because the evil that is here spoken of, is the evil that is mentioned in the beginning of the Verse, But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, It is an evil, say they, that any that were guilty of it had need to be afraid of the Magistrate because of it, and so it is not meaned the evil of Error and Heresy against Christian Truths: For the Magistrate here spoken of, is the Roman Emperor and Senate, who themselves were Enemies to Christian Religion, and so none needed to be afraid of them for spreading Errors, but rather for mantaining Truths; and therefore the doers of evil here meaned, must be the controveeners of the Emperors Civil Laws, and not Hereticks and such like. For Answer, This exception is grounded on a wrong supposition; for by the Magistrate is here meaned, not only the Roman Magistrate, but all Magistrates in general doing their Duty as they ought. Paul indeed takes occasion from the Roman Magistrate to speak here what is the Duty of all Magistrates; and it is clear from several Circumstances of the Text: We shall mark one of them from the first words of the Text, For he is the Minister of God to thee, Now sure it is, this must be meaned of Magistrates in general, and not astricted only to the Roman Magistrate; he not being the Minister of God unto every one who was to make use of this Scripture. There is another Circumstance of the Text, proving this in the 3 V…rse, For Rulers are not a Terror to good Works. Now sure this must be expounded of the Office of Magistracy in general, and of that which Magistrates should be, and not of the Roman Magistrate, who then was well known to be a Terror unto many good Works, not only unto Christian, but also unto Moral Vertues.
We shall give you only another Argument shortly taken from that Prophecy, Revel: 17. 16. A Prophecy t…at the Civil Magistrate shall bring down the Antichrist, and that Error of the Roman Religion, as a most acceptable work to God: And so the Magistrates Hand is not bound up from punishing Error and Heresy against the First Table, no more than from punishing other Sins done against the Second Table. And this much for our Arguments brought in defence of the Truth.
In the Third place, we promised to bring forth some of their Arguments and solve them; Herein we need not spend much time for this being Truth, there can be nothing said against it, which is Truth: Yet there being some nimble Spirits to propone Arguments which every one cannot answer; we shall stay a little on this Third point also.
The First thing they object is this: If so be that it were the Magistrates Duty to punish Error and Heresy then Jesus Christ would have reproved the Jews for Tollerating the Pharisees and Saduces: But so it is he never reproves the Jews for so doing: Nothing of that kind is recorded by any of the Evangelists.
To this we Answer, First, That it does not follow that Christ did not reprove the Jews, because it is not written: For John sayes Chap. 20. 30. He did speak many things which are not written; so it follows not. But Secondly, we say, although it be granted that Christ did not reprove them, yet it follows not that their neglect was not a Sin. For First, by that reason we might say that the Mgistrate should not punish Theft, because Christ speaks nothing of the punishment of it in the New Testament: Neither, Secondly, reproveth he the Church for not Censuring them, and yet it followeth not but that they ought to be Censured that way. And Thirdly, God had revealed his Will before. And Fourthly, It would have been for no purpose to have stired up the Magistrate to this Duty then, for the Sectarie… themselves had the Power that was of it. And Lastly, the Jews at this time had not the Power of Civil Punishment in their Hands, but the Romans, and so it was not in their Power to punish.
There is a Second Objection which they bring from the Apostle Paul's words in the Epistle to the Philipp: 3. 15. where speaking of Differences among Christians, he sayes, Let us therefore as many as be perfect, …e thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Say they, we see what was Paul's Judgement, That notwithstanding of Differences, there should be Heart Waling or Uniting; and therefore the Magistrate should not be stired up to Censure those who Err. To this we Answer, Paul speaks nothing there of State Toll…ration; for then the Civil Powers were not for Christ, but of Church Toll…ration in respect of that meekness and tenderness which Christs Servants should have in inflicting of Church Censures, for fear of breaking Love: Secondly, He commandeth not all Errors to be thus Tollerated; for so he should contradict himself in another place, where he sayes, An Heretick after the first and second admonition reject. And Thirdly, Paul limits that Tolleration that he would have here; and that in two things. First, As to the time, how long, God shall reveal even this unto you. And Secondly, He supposes the persons differing from them should walk with them in things wherein they differ not, according to the same rule, and so make no separation. Now it does not follow that those who remained Obstinate in their Error should be still Tollerated, and that the Censure of the Church should not strick on them at all; chiefly if it be such an Error as causes Rents and Schisms, for he sayes, Take heed to those that cause Divisions and Offences, and avoid them, Rom. 16. 17.
Their Third Objection is, That this is contrary to the way the Apostles took with those that Erred, their way was to watch against them that Erred, Acts 20. 29. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous Wolves enter in among you, not sparing the Flock. Verse 31. Therefore watch—That which the Apostle commands is, to watch against them. And in Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you, Brethren, mark them which cause Divisions and Offences—and avoid them. And in the 2 Timoth: 2. 24. it is said, And the Servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient. Now, say they, this is a far other way than to stir up the Civil Magistrate against those who differ from us, This Savors not of the meek Spirit of Christ. I answer, It is the Duty of Ministers to watch against Error, and that is one mean for suppressing of Error and Heresy; but one mean destroyes not another: it does not follow that this which is in controversy is not another mean also, neither is it contrary to that meekness commanded to wait on them, more than to deliver to Satan, or to Curse, and Excommunicate Apostates, with that great Curse called, Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16. 22. They may as well say, It is contrary to Christs meek Spirit to establish the Sword in the Hands of the Christian Magistrate, according to Rom: 13. 4. For punishing Sins against the Second Table, and so under this pretence, Adulteters, Murderers, Seducers, Thieves, and all should go free unpunished. But they do far mistake the Meekness of Jesus Christ, Christs Meekness is not to let people live in their Sin, to let vile Hereticks trample on Truth, destroying Souls: And in the mean time binding up the Hand of the Magistrate, that he dare not hinder it; this were a disrespect to Truth, and cruelty to poor Souls in danger to be carried away; which our Lord was very tender of.
There is a Fourth Objection from Matth. 13. 24. Taken from the Parable of the Tares; where the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a man that sowed Wheat, and the wicked one comes and sowes his Tares among it, and both is bidden let grow till the Harvest. Now, say they, by these Tares is meaned Hereticks; therefore they should not be plucked up by the Sword of the Civil Magistrate. We Answer, If they astrict the Word Tares to Hereticks, in this sense, That the Sword of the Civil Magistrate should not be used against them; by the same reason they may say, that they should not be disputed against, for that is a plucking up of them also. Secondly, We answer, That by the Tares that are commanded here to be suffered let grow up to the Harvest, is no more meaned Hereticks than other Scandalous Livers: And this we shall make out from Christs exponding the Parable, Verse 41—And they shall gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend▪ Now Hereticks are not all things that offend, other scandalous Livers offend also. Thirdly, By the Tares is meaned, Them that do Iniquity, vers. 41. Now others besides Hereticks are such. And Fourthly, If by the Tares were here meaned Hereticks, then by the [Wheat] are meaned only the Orthodox, and so every man that is Orthodox should—Shine forth as the Sun in the Kingdom of Heaven, vers. 43 But there are many who are Orthodox▪ who yet are evil Livers, and so will never go to Heaven. And therefore by the [Wheat] must only be meaned the truly Regenerate; and so by the [Tares▪ ] must not only be meaned Hereticks, but all other Evildoers.
And further, By this it would follow that Hereticks should not be Excommunicate, for that is a rooting out. But what can be meaned by the Tares then: for whatever be meaned by them, it will follow that by this Parable Verse 30▪ they should be tollerated; and to say that all vile scandalous Persons should be tollerated, is more absurd than that only Hereticks should be tollerated. Answer, If we narrowly observe Christs exposition of the Parable, we will find that part where he bids, Let both grow together until the Harvest, is not exponed, although he expone the rest, which doubtless he would not have omitted, if it had been his mind that we should have built any Doctrine of this kind on it; therefore we say this is not Christs meaning, that he would have all men (how Godless and Scandalous soever) let alone; for that were contrary to other places of Scripture: But that Christ is to show that when all pains are taken by Christs Officers for purging the Church, yet there will be alwayes some Hypocrites in it, and it is Christs mind, though he hath given order to Censure scandalous Offenders, yet that his Servants should not press after such a separation of the precious from the vile, as to have all the Weeds and wicked in heart to be cast out; lest when they gather out the Graceless Tares, they should root out also the Gracious [Wheat] with them.
Object. 5. There is a Fifth Objection from Luk: 9. 54: Where Christ reproves James and John for seeking fire to come down from Heaven to consume the Samaritans; and from this they argue: That when People refuse Christ in his Person, much less when they oppose him in his Doctrine, it is not his mind that they should be punished, but admonished and waited on: But before we Answer they must prove the Quarrel was for Religion. Now this cannot be made out for the Reason why James would have …ire coming down from Heaven, was, because of an Act of Inhumanity in denying lodging to Christ; and that because of the great envy and hatred betwixt these two people the Jews and Samaritans. The Second Answer we give is, although the Quarrel had been for Religion, yet it makes not against this Doctrine; because they were wholly Idolaters, utterly ignorant of the Gospel; and our Doctrine is not that when a Nation is lying in Idolatry, that the first thing that should be done is the Magistrates sword to slay them, or to seek fire from Heaven to consume them: We say it is utterly unlawful to goe with fire and sword to force the Indians to embrace the Christian Faith; only they should be taught, instructed and restrained from spreading Blasphemies, reproaching the Son of God &c. Our Question is whether or not a People that are Members of the visible Church, that have bound themselves by Covenant to adhere to the Christian Truths, whether or not when they fall away from Truth to damnable Error, the Magistrate may make them stand to their Covenant, as Josiah did 2 Chron: 34. 31. And he caused all that were present, to stand to it.
Object. 6. The Sixth Objection is this; say they, If Magistrates may punish Error and Heresy, then he may force the Conscience; for what they hold, is as they profess, according to the light of their Conscience: Now to force the Conscience is a fearful sin, who dare meddle with Conscience but the God of Conscience. Answer: This Argument seems plausible; but for Answer to it we say, Conscience cannot be forced properly, Only we say that the Magistrate may punish for, or restrain sin in such outward motions as come from an evil informed Conscience, and if this be a sinful forcing of the Conscience then it were a sin to punish those who from Conscience killed the Apostles John 16, 2.—the time cometh, that whosoever Killeth you, will think that he doeth God Service. Yet we hope none will say the punishment of such would be a sinful forcing of the Conscience; so it were a sinful thing to punish those who made their Children to pass through the fire unto Molech, under the name of Conscience… These and many other absurdities would follow on this Tenet of theirs, that none ought to be punished for any thing they do following the indytments of a deluded Conscience. What have there not been, and yet are, Hereticks who pretend Conscience for the vilest villanies of the World? The Jesuits pretend Conscience for stobbing Kings and Magistrates. The G…ost…cks to have Wives common. And ancient Hereticks hath made it a point of Conscience to practice Adultery, and some present Hereticks to Marry their Sisters, so that the …igher in Blood the Persons Married are, the Marriage is to them the more spiritual, and a number of such like villanies. Now will any think it a sinful forcing of Conscience to punish such, whatever they tatle of Conscience. But Secondly, To what they say, for the Magistrate to punish men for Error, is a persecuting of men for Conscience. To this we Answer: Then it should follow that God commanded sin to the Godly Magistrates under the Old Testament, for it is clear they had a command to punish men for Idolatry. Thirdly, if this be a persecuting of Conscience then it is a persecuting of Conscience to Preach against Error, to refute it by good Reason. To make this Consequence clear, know as there is a Persecution with the hand, so with the Tongue, and it is the bitterest Persecution that is, called job 5. 21▪ The scourge of the Tongue. And the mocking of Christ was one of the fearfullest Persecutions he met with he trusted in God &c. And so according to this Doctrine it were unlawful to Preach against them &c. Why? For it is a sin to persecute them for Concience. But Fourthly, our Answer is; It is not the hurt inferred that makes sinful Persecution, but it is the cause for which the punishment is inflicted.
There is a Seventh Objection they bring against this Truth, and it is this, say they, If Magistrates were bound to punish Error and Heresy, it would lay a tye on Magistrate; to know what is Truth, and what is Error; Now, say they, there are many intricate Questions about the nature of Error and Truth, which the Generality of Magistrates are ignorant of, and therefore say they according to this Doctrine, we put power in the hand of the Magistrate whereby he may punish those that profess the Truth, if the Magistrate mistake, and take Truth for Error. A dangerous Doctrine, If Magistrates turn ignorant or corrupt. This seemeth plausible: But we shall Answer to it. If this Argument hold strong then it would follow that the Civil Magistrate hath no power to punish sins against the second Table; for there are a number of difficult Questions even about these, as in some cases of Murther, Incest, matters of false Witness: And the Lord sayeth Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgement, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, &c. Which suppones there are many doubtful questions even about things Civil which the generality are ignorant of: and so it may fall out they may punish the honest man for the knave; and yet this doth not evert the ordinance of Magistracy, neither doth it follow that he hath no power to punish for Civil crimes▪ Secondly, they may argue as well against what is commanded to Masters of Families, That he receive not an Heretick within his house 2 John v. 10. and 2 Timoth: 3, 6. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, &c. Rom: 16. 17, 18. Now I beseech you Brethren mark them which cause divisions—and avoid them. &c. By all which he supposeth certainly they have some knowledge to judge who are Hereticks and who not; else how could they elchew them; and so they may argue as well against these commands, as against this Doctrine: For may they say, this is to put it on Masters of Families to know who are Hereticks, who not, to know what is Truth and what not, and this the generality of Masters of Families are ignorant of; and so a power put on them to barr the door on honest men, in stead of an Heretick: Now when they free these Commands from these consequences we shall free this Doctrine from them also. Thirdly, Neither the word nor this Doctrine putteth a power on Magistrates to punish Truth, their power is only to punish Error: They may indeed so abuse their power, but it followeth not that therefore they have no power to punish Error: no more than because that a Godless Magistrate as Nero was, may abuse his power to oppress, Murther honest Citizens, and do other Acts of Injustice against the second Table; that therefore the Magistrate hath no power to punish Theeves, Robbers, Murderers, because either through mistake or wickedness, he may abuse it to punish innocent Men; whatever remedy is left for the Magistrates abusing of his power under the one, the same is left under the other, as insome cases suffering, in others resisting.
There is an Eighth Objection they have against this Truth, say they, we make the mean unproportionate to the end, no outward force can convert a man and br…ng him to Christ, it makes men but Hypocrites, the blast of the Kings horn or outlawry can make no man a member of Christs body, that must be done willingly, not by compulsion, and this were to cudgell People out of their opinions. To this we Answer, That our Doctrine doth not hold forth that the power of the Magistrate is any mean to convert Souls: Only this it doth hold forth that the power of the Magistrate is a mean to restrain men from doing sinful Acts against Christ; as Asa made use of his Civil Power to keep down Idolatry, it puts People indeed on the profession of outward Obedience, and to this it is very proportioned. And therefore Secondly, Though the blast of the Kings horn cannot make a Member of Christs invisible Body, by working Grace; Yet it may be a mean in its own kind for making a Member of the Church visible, by with-holding from sinful Acts, and putting them on Acts of outward Obedience. A Third Answer we give, That the power of the Magistrate doth not make men Hypocrites of it self, but through the corruption of Man's heart, who makes himself an Hypocrite. The end of this ordinance, what it is in it self is set down in Deut: 13. 11. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is, among you. That is the end, that they being moved by their Example, should abstain from such like worke: but that they do this Hypocritically, is from their corrupt nature, who fears him more who can kill the Body, than him who after he hath killed the Body can cast both Soul and Body into Hell. We Answer lastly if this were a good Argument why a Magistrate should not make use of his power to punish for false Doctrine because throw occasion thereof many turn Hypocrites: then say we, It should follow that the Magistrate should not make use of his power to punish Incests, Adulteries, Murders, Thefts &c. because it is the occasion of many Hypocrites, who abstain more from such, for the fear of punishment, than for the fear of God; yea according to this Doctrine it should follow, That the Preaching of the word should be unlawful, because through the occasion of it many turn Hypocrites under it.
There is a Ninth Objection they have against this Truth, and it is this, say they, By this power we give to the Magistrate to punish Error and Heresy, we give him the Power of Church Judicatories, to judge of Doctrines, Error and Heresy. In Answer to this we shall speak more fully in the … Doctrine, only for the present this giving Power to the Magistrate to punish Error and Heresy, gives him not a publick Judgement to discern, what is Error, and what not, as a Judge in Church matters; but only a Judgement of Discretion in relation to his own Act: As for Example, when the Lord gives Power to Masters of Families, not to let Hereticks come into their House, it is not a putting the Power of Church Judicatories in their Hands.
IV. The last thing we promised to speak to you of, was to give you some use of this: And the First is, to reprove those who think Opinions are free, and that none ought to be punished for such, We grant as we said that there would be a difference amongst Errors, some more damnable, some less; and so to be less punished: and there is a difference to be put amongst persons, some are seduced, some whose Conscience is Seared, some venting their Darkness, some seeking Light: In such there should be a difference observed. Again the Magistrate is to deal one way with a Community, another way with some persons, before it come to such an hight. And Lastly, He is to deal otherwise with Errors that cannot be mantained without troubling the Peace of the Church and State, and those that break not Love, nor strike not at any material point of Truth; the last happily may be Tollerate, if the Maintaine…s of them do not evidence contempt: But not so the first. These and such like Distinctions may be to qualify this Power; but to deny it altogether, is the most damnable Doctrine that ever was vented, the Devil cannot take a shorter course to undoe Religion, and there can be no heart zealous for God but he must loath it; and therefore look so on it: Think not, what is that to you what others do, if ye get leave to serve God your self: Is that all your zeal for God, that if ye get leave to serve him, ye care not that all beside you Spit on his Face, and serve the Devil.
Vse 2. Hence see what an Account those Magistrates have to make, who make no use of their Power this way for God, if they get their own Houses built, cares not for his, if Rebellion against themselves be curbed, cares not for the curbing of Rebellion against God. This was the Sin of the Parliament of England, though they entred into a Covenant with the most high God, That they would suppress Error and Heresy, they never employed their Power that way; and that because they durst not for angring of their Army, and therefore God hath suffered their Army to overturn them, and set themselves and whom they please in their place; And now they by their practice give Tollerat…on to all; and this is the way to strengthen them. I say in the Name of the Lord, if they repent not, it shall be the way to ruine them, A people Swearing in their low condition to root out Heresy, &c. And God blessing them from that day; and within a few years carrying themselves as if they had Sworn to do the contrary, to suffer all, encourage all, invite all the Devils in Hell to vent what Blasphemies they please; and for their encouragement to give them Surety that no Power in Brittain shall hinder them, Was there ever such an affront done to God? Think ye that he will sit with it? No, if he should make the one half avengers of a broken Covenant against the other, He will not. It is noted of Asa, 2 Chron. 14. 5. Gods way, to keep Magistrates sure, and their Kingdoms quiet, is to be zealous against false Worship: No, but (say they the way is not to anger Hereticks, they are the surest Pillars of our Commonwealth, but woe to, and will be to, that Common-wealth that is builded on such Pillars. And if Scotland, or any party in it, joyn with them on these terms, our woe is but coming. He is a jealous God chiefly in the matter of his Service, as is clear from the Second Command.
The Third use is, If this be an Ordinance of God to put Power in the Magistrates hand to punish Error, it should make you scar at Error and labour to be grounded in the Truth: For we see Error is a sin that God hates, and it is a sin that God will have the Magistrate to punish, and so a sin that he himself will punish if the Magistrate do neglect it. It is natural to men to think, If they can live a good Life, it is the less matter what be their Opinion; but the Lord Judges not so; for as he will have other sins punished by the Magistrate, so he will have these punished also. And such as he usually punisheth himself, by fearful Plagues, when the Magistrate neglecteth his Duty, in punishing other sins, so doth he in those. We might speak much from History of fearful Judgements sent immediatly by God upon Hereticks, but we shall here close.