Controversy Concerning Liberty of Conscience in Matters of Religion, Text 2
The Anſwer of Mr. John Cotton of Buſton in New-England to the aforeſaid Arguments againſt perſecution for cauſe of conſcience.
THe queſtion which you put is, whether perſecution for cauſe of conſcience be not againſt the doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt the King of Kings.
Now by perſecution for cauſe of conſcience, I conceive you mean either for profeſſing ſome point of doctrine; which you believe in conſcience to be a truth, or for practiſing ſome work which in conſcience you believe to be a Religious duty.
Now in points of Doctrine ſome are fundamentall, without right beliefe whereof a man cannot be ſaved; others are circumſtantiall or leſſe principall, wherein men may differ in judgment without prejudice of ſalvation on either part. In like …o…, in points of practiſe, ſome concern the weightier duties of the Law, as, what God we worſhip, and with what kind of worſhip; whether ſuch, as if it be right, Fellowſhip with God is held; if corrupt, Fellowſhip with him is loſt.
Again, in points of Doctrine and Worſhip leſſe principall, either they are held forth in a meek and peaceable way, though the King be erroneous or unlawfull, or they are held forth with ſuch arrogance and impetuouſneſſe, as tendeth and reacheth (even of it ſelfe) to the diſturbance of civill peace.
Finally, let me add this one diſtinction more; when we are perſecuted tor conſcience ſake, it is either for conſcience rightly informed, or for erronious and blind conſcience. Theſe things premiſed, I would lay down my anſwer to the queſtion in certain concluſions.
Firſt, It is not lawfull to perſecute any for conſcience ſake rightly informed, for in perſecuting ſuch, Chriſt himſelfe is perſecuted in them, Acts 9.4.
Secondly, for an erroneous and blind conſcience, (even in fundamentall and weighty points) it is not lawfull to perſecute any, untill after admonition once or twice, and ſo the Apoſtle directeth, Titus 3.10. and giveth the reaſon that in fundamentall and principall points of Doctrine, or Worſhip, the Word of God is ſo clear, that he cannot but be convinced in conſcience of the dangerous error of his way, after once and twice admonition wiſely and faithfully diſpenſed. And then if any one perſiſt it is not out of conſcience, but againſt his conſcience, as the Apoſtle ſaith Ver. 11. he is ſubverted and ſinneth, beidg condemned of himſelfe, viz. of his own conſcience: So that if ſuch a man after ſuch admonition, ſhall ſtill perſiſt in the errour of his way, and be therefore puniſhed, he is not perſecuted for cauſe of conſcience, but for ſinning againſt his own conſcience.
Thirdly, in things of leſſer moment, whether points of Doctrine or Worſhip, if a man hold them forth in a ſpirit of Chriſtian meekneſſe and love (though with zeal and conſtancy) he is not to be perſecuted, but tolerated, till God may be pleaſed to manifeſt his truth to him, Phil. 3.17. Rom. 14.1, 2, 3, 4.
Fourthly, but if a man hold forth, or profeſſe any errour, or falſe way, with a boiſterous and arrogant ſpirit, to the diſturbance of civill peace, he may juſtly be puniſhed according to the quality and meaſure of his diſturbance cauſed by him.
Now let us conſider of your reaſons or objections to the contrary.
1. Object. Your firſt head of Objections is taken from the Scripture, becauſe Chriſt commandeth to let alone the tares and wheat to grow together till the harveſt, Mat. 13.30. &c.
Anſw. Tares are not briars and thorns, but partly hypocrites, like unto the godly, but indeed carnall, as the tares are like the wheat, but are not wheat: or partly ſuch corrupt doctrine or practiſes as are indeed unſound, but yet ſuch as come very near the truth, (as tares do to the wheat) and ſo near, that good men may be taken with them, and ſo the perſons in whom they grow, cannot be rooted out, but good will be rooted up with them. And in ſuch a caſe Chriſt calleth for toleration, not for penall proſecution, according to the third concluſion.
2. Object. In Mat. 15.14. Chriſt commandeth his Diſciples to let the blind alone till they fall into the ditch, therefore he would have their puniſhment deferred till their finall deſtruction.
Anſw. He there ſpeaketh not to publike Officers, whether in Church or Common-wealth, but to his private Diſciples, concerning the Phariſees, over whom they had no power: And the command he giveth to let them alone, is ſpoken in regard of troubling themſelves, or regarding the offence which they took at the wholſome Doctrine of the Goſpel; as who ſhould ſay, though they be offended at this ſaying of mine, yet do not you fear their fear, nor be troubled at their offence which they take at my Doctrine, not out of ſound judgment but, out of their blindneſſe. But this maketh nothing to the matter in hand.
3. Object. In Luk. 9.54. Chriſt reproveth his Diſciples, who would have had fire come downe from heaven, ſo conſume the Samaritans, who refuſed to receive him.
And Paul teacheth Timothy, not to ſtrive, but to be gentle towards all men, ſuffering evill patiently.
Anſw. Both theſe are directions to Miniſters of the Goſpel, how to deal (not with obſtinate offenders in the Church that ſin againſt conſcience, but) either with men without, as the Samaritans were, and many unconverted Chriſtians in Creet, whom Titus (as an Evangeliſt) was to ſeek to convert, or at beſt with ſome Jewes or Gentiles in the Church, who though carnall, yet were not convinced of the error of their way: And it is true, it became not the ſpirit of the Goſpell to convert Aliens, to the faith of Chriſt (ſuch as the Samaritans were) by fire and brimſtone, nor to deale harſhly in publike Miniſt… or private conference with all ſuch contrary-minded men, as either had not entred into Church-fellowſhip, or if they had yet did hitherto ſin of ignorance, not againſt conſcience: But neither of both theſe doe hinder the Miniſters of the Goſpell to proceed in a Church-way againſt Church-Members, when they become ſcandalous offenders, either in life or doctrine, much leſſe do they ſpeak at all of the civill Magiſtrates.
4. Object. From the prediction of the Prophets who fore-told, that carnall weapons ſhould ceaſe in the daies of the Goſpell, Eſa. 2.4. & 11.9. Micah 4.3.4. And the Apoſtle profeſſeth, the weapons of our warfare are not carnall, 2. Cor. 10.4. and Chriſt is ſo far from perſecuting thoſe that would not be of his Relgion, that he chargeth his Diſciples when they are perſecuted themſelves they ſhould pray, when they are curſed they ſhould bleſſe: the reaſon whereof, ſeemed to be, that they who are now perſecutors, and wicked perſecutors, may become true Diſciples and converts.
Anſw. Thoſe predictions in the Prophets do only ſhew, firſt with what kind of weapons he will ſubdue the Nations, to the obedience of the faith of the Goſpel, not by fire and ſword, and weapons of war, but by the power of the Word and Spirit, which no man doubteth of. Secondly, thoſe predictions of the Prophets, ſhew what the meek and peaceable temper will be of all the true converts to chriſtianity, not Lions, or Leopards, &c. not cruell oppreſſors, nor malignant oppoſers or biters of one another: but doth not forbid to drive ravenous wolves from the ſheepfold, and to reſtrain them devouring the ſheep of Chriſt.
And when Paul ſaith, the weapons of our warfare are not carnall, but ſpirituall, he denieth not civill weapons of Juſtice to the civill Magiſtrate, but only to Church-Officers; and yet the weapons of ſuch of ſuch Officers he acknowledgeth to be ſuch, as though they be ſpirituall, yet are ready to take vengeance of all diſobedience, 2. Cor. 10.6. which hath reference (amongſt other Ordinances) to the cenſure of the Church againſt ſcandalous offenders.
When Chriſt commandeth his Diſciples to bleſſe them that curſe them, and perſecute them, he giveth not a rule to Publike Officers either in Church or Common-wealth, to ſuffer notorious ſinners either in life or doctrine, to paſſe away with a bleſſing, but to private Chriſtians to ſuffer perſecution patiently, yea and to pray for their perſecu…rs.
Again, Chriſt, it is true, would have his Diſciples to be farre from perſecuting (for that is a ſinfull oppreſſion of men) for righteouſneſſe ſake, but that hindreth not but that he would have them execute upon all diſobedience the judgment and vengeance required in the Word, 2 Cor. 10.6. Rom. 13.4. Fourthly, though it be true, that wicked perſons now may by the grace of God, become true Diſciples, and Converts, yet we may not do evil, that good may come thereof, and evill it would be to tolerate notorious evill doers, whether ſeducing teachers, or ſcandalous livers. Chriſt had ſomthing againſt the Angell of the Church of Pergamus, for tolerating them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, and againſt the Church of Thiatira, for tolerating Jezabell to teach and ſeduce, Rev. 2.14.20.
Your ſecond head of reaſons is taken from the profeſſion and practiſe of famous Princes, King James, Stephen of Boland, King of Bohemia. Whereunto a treble Anſwer may brieflie be returned.
1. VVe willinglie acknowledge that none is to be perſecuted at all, no more then they may be oppreſſed for righteouſneſſe ſake.
Again, we acknowledge that none is to be puniſhed for his conſcience, though miſ-informed, as hath been ſaid, unleſſe his error be fundamentall, or ſediciouſlie and turbulentlie promoted, and that after due conviction of conſcience, that it may appear he is not puniſhed for his conſcience, but for ſinning againſt his conſcience.
Furthermore, we acknowledge none to be conſtrained to believe or profeſſe the true Religion till he be convinced in judgment of the truth of it; but yet reſtrained he may from blaſpheming the truth, and from ſeducing any into pernicious errors.
2. We anſwer, what Princes profeſſe and practiſe, is not a rule of conſcience, they many times tolerate that in point of Srate policy, which cannot be juſtly tolerated in point of true chriſtianitie.
Again, Princes many times tolerate offenders out of very neceſſity, when the offenders are too many or too mightie for them to puniſh; in which reſpect David tolerated Joab and his murthers, but againſt his will.
3. We anſwer, that for thoſe three Princes, named by you, who tolerated Religion, we can name you more and greater, who have not tolerated Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, notwithſtanding their pretence of conſcience: For example, Conſtantine the great, at the requeſt of the generall Councell of Nice, baniſhed Arrius with ſome of his fellowes, Sozom. lib. 1. Eccleſ. Hiſt. cap. 29.20. The ſame Cooſtantine made a ſevere law againſt the Donatiſts, and the like proceedings were uſed againſt them by Valentinian, Gratian and Theodoſius, as Auguſtine reporteth in Epiſt. 166 only Julian the Apoſtle granted liberty to Hereticks, as well as unto Pagans, that he might by tolerating all weeds to grow, choak the vitals of Chriſtianity, which was alſo the practiſe and ſin of Valens the Arrian.
Queen Elizabeth as famous for Government as any of the former, it is well known what Lawes ſhe made, and executed againſt Papiſts: yea and King James (one of your own witneſſes) though he was ſlow in proceeding againſt Papiſts (as you ſay) for conſcience ſake, yet you are not ignorant how ſeverely and ſharply he puniſhed thoſe whom the malignant word calls Puritans, men of more conſcience and better faith, then he tolerated.
I come now to your third and laſt argument taken from the judgment of ancient writers, yea even of Papiſts themſelves, who have condemned perſecution for conſcience ſake.
You begin with Hilary, whoſe teſtimony we might admit without any prejudice to the truth; for it is true the Chriſtian Church doth not perſecute, but is perſecuted, but to excommunicate a Heretique is not to perſecute, that is not to puniſh an innocent, but a culpable and damnable perſon, and that not for conſcience, but for perſiſting in error againſt light of conſcience whereof it hath been convinced.
It is true alſo what he ſaith, that the Apoſtles did, neither may we propagate Chriſtian Religion by the Sword, but if Pagans cannot be won by the Word, they are not to be compelled by the Sword: Nevertheleſſe this hindreth not, but that if they or any other ſhould blaſpheme the true God and his true Religion, they ought not to be ſeverely puniſhed, and no leſſe do they deſerve, who ſeduce from the truth to damnable Hereſie or Idolatry.
Your next writer, (which is Tertullian) ſpeaketh to the ſame purpoſe in the place alledged by you, his intent was only to reſtrain Scapula the Romane Governor of Affrica from the perſecution of Chriſtians, for not offering ſacrifice to their Gods; and for that end fetcheth an Argument from naturall equity not to compell any to any Religion, but to permit them either to believe willingly, or not to believe at all; which we acknowledge, and accordingly permit the Indians to continue in their unbeliefe: Nevertheleſſe it will not therefore be lawfull openly to tollerate the Worſhip of Devils or Idols; or the ſeduction of any from the truth.
When Tertullean ſaith, anothers mans Religion neither hurteth nor profitteth any: It muſt be underſtood of private worſhip, and Religion profeſſed in private, otherwiſe a falſe Religion profeſſed by the Members of a Church, or by ſuch as have given their names to Chriſt, will be the ruine and deſolation of the Church, as appeareth by the threats of Chriſt to the Churches of Aſia, Rev. 2.
Your next Author Jerome croſſeth not the truth, nor advantageth not your cauſe, for we grant what he ſaith, that hereſie muſt be cut off with the ſword of the ſpirit: But this hindreth not but that being ſo cut down, if the Heretique will ſtill perſiſt in his hereſie to the ſeducing of others, he may be cut off by the civill ſword, to prevent the perdition of others. And that to be Jeromes meaning appears by his note upon that of the Apoſtle [a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe] therefore ſaith he, a ſparke aſſoone as it appeareth, is to be extinguiſhed, and the leaven to be removed from the reſt of the dough, rotten pieces of fleſh are to be cut off, and a ſcabbed beaſt is to be driven from the ſheep-fold, leaſt the whole houſe, maſſe of dough, body and flock, be ſet on fire with the ſpark, be ſowred with the leaven, be putrified with the rotten fleſh, periſh with the ſcabbed beaſt.
Brentius (whom you quote next) ſpeaketh not to your cauſe, we willingly grant him and you, that man hath no power to make Lawes to bind the conſcience: out this hindreth not, but that men may ſee the Lawes of God obſerved, which do bind conſcience.
The like anſwer may be returned to Luther, whom you next alledge.
Firſt, The government of the civill Magiſtrate reacheth no further then over the bodies and goods of their ſubjects, not over their ſoules, and therefore they may not undertake to give lawes to the ſoules and conſciences of men.
Secondly, That the Church of Chriſt doth not uſe the Arms of ſecular power to compell men to the faith, or profeſſion of the truth, for this is to be done by ſpirituall weapons, whereby Chriſtians are to be exhorted, not compelled. But this hindreth not that Chriſtians ſinning againſt light of faith and conſcience, may juſtly be cenſured by the Church by excommunication, and by the civill ſword alſo, in caſe they ſhall corrupt others to the perdition of their ſoules.
As for the teſtimony of the Popiſh book, we weigh it not, as knowing (whatſoever they ſpeak for toleration of Religion, where themſelves are under the hatches) when they come to ſit at Sterne, they judge and practiſe quite contrary, as both their writing and judiciall proceedings have teſtified to the world theſe many years.
To ſhut up this Argument from teſtimony of Writers; It is well known, that Augustine retracted this opinion of yours, which in his younger times he had held, but after in riper age reverſed and refuted, as appears in his ſecond book of retractations, cap. 5. and in his Epiſtles 48.50. and in his firſt book againſt Parmenianus, cap. 17. he ſheweth that if the Donatiſts were puniſhed with death, they were juſtly puniſhed, and in his 1. Tractate upon John, they murther ſaith he ſoules, and themſelves are afflicted in body, they put men to everlaſting death, and yet they complain when themſelves are put to ſuffer temporall death.
Opta…s in his third book, juſtifieth Macharius, who had put ſome Heretiques to death, that he had done no more herein, then what Moſes, Phineas, and Elias had done before him.
Bernard in his 66. Sermon in Cantica, out of doubt (ſaith he) it is better they ſhould be reſtrained by the ſword of him who beareth not the ſword in vain, then that they ſhould be ſuffered to draw many others into their error, for be is the Miniſter of God for wrath to every evill doer.
Calvins judgment is well known, who procured the death of Michaell Servetus for pertinacie in hereſie, and defended his fact by a book written of that Argument.
Beza alſo writ a book de Haereticis morte plectendis, that Heretiques are to be puniſhed with death, Arelius likewiſe took the like courſe about the death of Valentius Gentilis, and juſtified the Magiſtrates proceeding againſt him, in a hiſtory written of that Argument.
Finally, you come to anſwer an objection, that it is no prejudice to the Common-wealth if liberty of conſcience were ſuffered to ſuch as fear God indeed, which you prove by the example of the Patriarches and others.
But we readily grant you, libertie of conſcience is to be granted to men that fear God indeed, as knowing they will not perſiſt in hereſie, or turbulent ſchiſme, when they are convinced in conſcience of the ſinfulneſſe thereof.
But the queſtion is whether an Heretique after once or twice admonition (and ſo after conviction) or any other ſcandalous or heinous offender, may be tolerated either in the Church without excommunication, or in the Common-wealth, without ſuch puniſhment as way preſerve others, from dangerous and damnable infection.
Thus much I thought needfull to be ſpoken, for avoiding the grounds of your Errour.
I forbear adding reaſons to juſtify the contrary, becauſe you may find that done to your hand, in a Treatiſe ſent to ſome of the brethren late of Salem, who doubted as you doe.
The Lord Jeſus lead you by a ſpirit of truth in all truth. JOHN COTTON.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Cotton, Controversy Concerning Liberty of Conscience in Matters of Religion (1646)