to exalt Christ; but not attending to the command of Christ Jesus, to
permit the tares to grow in the field of the world, they make the garden
of the church and field of the world to be all one; and might not only
sometimes, in their zealous mistakes, persecute good wheat instead of
tares, but also pluck up thousands of those precious stalks by commotions
and combustions about religion, as hath been since practised in the great
and wonderful changes wrought by such wars in many great and mighty
states and kingdoms, as we heard even now in the observation of the King
of Bohemia.
CHAP. LXV.
_Peace._ Dear Truth, before you leave this passage concerning the
emperors, I shall desire you to glance your eye on this not unworthy
observation, to wit, how fully this worthy answerer hath learned to speak
the roaring language of lion-like persecution, far from the purity and
peaceableness of the lamb, which he was wont to express in England. For
thus he writes:—
“More and greater princes than these you mention,” saith he, “have not
tolerated heretics and schismatics, notwithstanding their pretence
of conscience, and their arrogating the crown of martyrdom to their
sufferings.”
[Sidenote: The language of persecutors—the wolves and hunters of the
world.]
_Truth._ Thy tender ear and heart, sweet Peace, endure not such
language. It is true, that these terms, heretics (or wilfully obstinate)
and schismatics (or renders) are used in holy writ. It is true also,
that such pretend conscience, and challenge the crown of martyrdom to
their suffering. Yet since, as King James spake in his mark of a false
church on Rev. xx., the wicked persecute and besiege, and the godly
are persecuted and besieged, this is the common clamour of persecutors
against the messengers and witnesses of Jesus in all ages, viz., you are
heretics, schismatics, factious, seditious, rebellious. Have not all
truth’s witnesses heard such reproaches? You pretend conscience: you say
you are persecuted for religion: you will say you are martyrs?
Oh! it is hard for God’s children to fall to opinion and practice of
persecution, without the ready learning the language thereof. And
doubtless, that soul that can so readily speak Babel’s language, hath
cause to fear that he hath not yet in point of worship left the gates or
suburbs of it.
_Peace._ Again, in blaming Julian and Valens the Arian, for tolerating
“all weeds to grow, he notes their sinful end, that thereby they might
choke the vitals of Christianity;” and seems to consent, in this and
other passages foregoing and following on a speech of Jerome, that the
weeds of false religion tolerated in the world, have a power to choke and
kill true Christianity in the church.
[Sidenote: Christ’s lilies may flourish in his church, notwithstanding
the abundance of weeds (in the world) permitted.]
_Truth._ I shall more fully answer to this on Jerome’s speech, and show
that if the weeds be kept out of the garden of the church, the roses and
lilies therein will flourish, notwithstanding that weeds abound in the
field of the civil state. When Christianity began to be choked, it was
not when Christians lodged in cold prisons, but down-beds of ease, and
persecuted others, &c.
CHAP. LXVI.
_Peace._ He ends this passage with approbation of Queen Elizabeth for
persecuting the papists, and a reproof to King James for his persecuting
the puritans, &c.
[Sidenote: The persecutions of Queen Elizabeth and King James compared
together.]
_Truth._ I answer, if Queen Elizabeth, according to the answerer’s tenent
and conscience, did well to persecute according to her conscience, King
James did not ill in persecuting according to his.[174] For Mr. Cotton
must grant, that either King James was not fit to be a king, had not
the essential qualifications of a king, in not being able rightly to
judge who ought to be persecuted, and who not: or else he must confess
that King James, and all magistrates, must persecute such whom in their
conscience they judge worthy to be persecuted.
I say it again, though I neither approve Queen Elizabeth or King James
in such their persecutions, yet such as hold this tenent of persecuting
for conscience, must also hold that civil magistrates are not essentially
fitted and qualified for their function and office, except they can
discern clearly the difference between such as are to be punished and
persecuted, and such as are not.
Or else, if they be essentially qualified, without such a religious
spirit of discerning, and yet must persecute the heretic, the
schismatic, &c., must they not persecute according to their consciences
and persuasion? And then doubtless, though he be excellent for civil
government, may he easily, as Paul did ignorantly, persecute the Son of
God instead of the son of perdition.
Therefore, lastly, according to Christ Jesus’ command, magistrates
are bound not to persecute, and to see that none of their subjects
be persecuted and oppressed for their conscience and worship, being
otherwise subject and peaceable in civil obedience.
CHAP. LXVII.
In the second place, I answer and ask, what glory to God, what good
to the souls or bodies of their subjects, shall princes, or did these
princes bring in persecuting? &c.
[Sidenote: In his opening of the seven vials, in print, Mr. Cotton
confesseth that Queen Elizabeth’s persecuting the papists had almost
ruined the English nation.]
_Peace._ Mr. Cotton tells us, in his discourse upon the third vial,[175]
that Queen Elizabeth had almost fired the world in civil combustions by
such her persecuting: for though he bring it in to another end, yet he
confesseth that it “raised all Christendom in combustion; raised the
wars of 1588 and the Spanish Invasion;” and he adds, both concerning the
English nation and the Dutch, “that if God had not borne witness to his
people and their laws, in defeating the intendments of their enemies,
against both the nations, it might have been the ruin of them both.”
[Sidenote: The wars between the papists and the protestants.]
_Truth._ That those laws and practices of Queen Elizabeth raised those
combustions in Christendom, I deny not: that they might likely have cost
the ruin of English and Dutch, I grant.
That it was God’s gracious work in defeating the intendments of their
enemies, I thankfully acknowledge. But that God bore witness to such
persecutions and laws for such persecutions, I deny: for,
First, event and success come alike to all, and are no argument of love,
or hatred, &c.
Secondly, the papists in their wars have ever yet had, both in peace and
war, victory and dominion; and therefore, if success be the measure, God
hath borne witness unto them.
It is most true, what Daniel in his eighth, and eleventh, and twelfth
chapters, and John in his Revelation, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth
chapters, write of the great success of anti-christ against Christ Jesus
for a time appointed.
[Sidenote: Eventus omnis belli incertus.]
Success was various between Charles V. and some German princes: Philip of
Spain and the Low Countries; the French king and his protestant subjects:
sometimes losing, sometimes winning, interchangeably.
[Sidenote: The wars and success of the Waldensian witnesses against three
popes and their popish armies.]
But most memorable is the famous history of the Waldenses and Albigenses,
those famous witnesses of Jesus Christ, who rising from Waldo, at Lyons
in France (1160), spread over France, Italy, Germany, and almost all
countries, into thousands and ten thousands, making separation from the
pope and church of Rome. These fought many battles with various success,
and had the assistance and protection of divers great princes against
three succeeding popes and their armies; but after mutual slaughters and
miseries to both sides, the final success of victory fell to the popedom
and Romish church, in the utter extirpation of those famous Waldensian
witnesses.
[Sidenote: God’s people victorious overcomers, and with what weapons.]
God’s servants are all overcomers when they war with God’s weapons, in
God’s cause and worship: and in Rev. second and third chapters, seven
times it is recorded—To him that overcometh, in Ephesus; to him that
overcometh, in Sardis, &c.; and Rev. twelfth, God’s servants overcame the
dragon, or devil, in the Roman emperors by three weapons—the blood of the
Lamb, the word of their testimony, and the not loving of their lives unto
the death.
CHAP. LXVIII.
[Sidenote: The third head of arguments from ancient and later writers.]
_Peace._ The answerer, in the next place, descends to the third and last
head of arguments produced by the author, taken from the judgment of
ancient and later writers, yea, even of the papists themselves, who have
condemned persecution for conscience’ sake: some of which the answerer
pleaseth to answer, and thus writeth:—[176]
[Sidenote: The Christian church doth not persecute but is persecuted.]
“You begin with Hilary, whose testimony without prejudice to the truth we
may admit: for it is true, the Christian church doth not persecute, but
is persecuted. But to excommunicate a heretic, is not to persecute, that
is, it is not to punish an innocent but a culpable and damnable person,
and that not for conscience, but for persisting in error against light of
conscience, whereof he hath been convinced.”
_Truth._ In this answer there are two things:—
First. His confession of the same truth affirmed by Hilarius, to wit,
that the Christian church doth not persecute, but is persecuted: suiting
with that foregoing observation of King James from Rev. xx.
_Peace._ Yet to this he adds a colour thus: “which,” saith he, “we may
admit without prejudice to the truth.”
[Sidenote: Persecuting churches cannot be Christ’s churches.]
_Truth._ I answer, If it be a mark of the Christian church to be
persecuted, and of the anti-christian, or false church, to persecute,
then those churches cannot be truly Christian, according to the first
institution, which either actually themselves, or by the civil power of
kings and princes given to them, or procured by them to fight for them,
do persecute such as dissent from them, or be opposite against them.
_Peace._ Yea; but in the second place he addeth, “that to excommunicate
a heretic is not to persecute, but to punish him for sinning against the
light of his own conscience,” &c.
_Truth._ I answer, If this worthy answerer were thoroughly awaked from
the spouse’s spiritual slumber (Cant. v. 3), and had recovered from the
drunkenness of the great whore who intoxicateth the nations, Rev. xvii.
2, it is impossible that he should so answer: for—
[Sidenote: The nature of excommunication.]
First. Who questioneth whether to excommunicate a heretic, that is, an
obstinate gainsayer, as we have opened the word upon Tit. iii.,—I say,
who questioneth whether that be to persecute?—excommunication being of a
spiritual nature, a sentence denounced by the word of Christ Jesus, the
spiritual King of his church; and a spiritual killing by the most sharp
two-edged sword of the Spirit, in delivering up the person excommunicate
to Satan. Therefore, who sees not that his answer comes not near our
question?[177]
_Peace._ In the answerer’s second conclusion, in the entrance of this
discourse, he proves persecution against a heretic for sinning against
his conscience, and quotes Tit. iii. 10, which only proves, as I have
there made it evident, a spiritual rejecting or excommunicating from the
church of God, and so comes not near the question.
[Sidenote: What persecution, or hunting, is.]
Here, again, he would prove churches charged to be false, because they
persecute; I say, he would prove them not to be false, because they
persecute not: for, saith he, excommunication is not persecution.
Whereas the question is, as the whole discourse, and Hilary’s own
amplification of the matter in this speech, and the practice of all ages
testify, whether it be not a false church that doth persecute other
churches or members, opposing her in spiritual and church matters, not
by excommunications, but by imprisonments, stocking, whipping, fining,
banishing, hanging, burning, &c., notwithstanding that such persons in
civil obedience and subjection are unreprovable.
[Sidenote: Christ’s spouse no scratcher or fighter.]
_Truth._ I conclude this passage with Hilarius and the answerer, that the
Christian church doth not persecute; no more than a lily doth scratch the
thorns, or a lamb pursue and tear the wolves, or a turtle-dove hunt the
hawks and eagles, or a chaste and modest virgin fight and scratch like
whores and harlots.[178]
And for punishing the heretic for sinning against his conscience after
conviction—which is the second conclusion he affirmeth—to be by a civil
sword, I have at large there answered.
CHAP. LXIX.
_Peace._ In the next place, he selecteth one passage out of
Hilary—although there are many golden passages there expressed _against_
the use of civil, earthly powers in the affairs of Christ. The passage is
this:—
[Sidenote: Who cannot be won by the word, must not be compelled by the
sword.]
“It is true also what he saith, that neither the apostles nor we may
propagate Christian religion by the sword; but if pagans cannot be won by
the word, they are not to be compelled by the sword. Nevertheless, this
hindereth not,” saith he, “but if they or any other should blaspheme the
true God and his true religion, they ought to be severely punished; and
no less do they deserve, if they seduce from the truth to damnable heresy
or idolatry.”
_Truth._ In which answer I observe, first, his agreement with Hilary,
that the Christian religion may not be propagated by the civil sword.
Unto which I reply and ask, then what means this passage in his first
answer to the former speeches of the king,[179] viz., “We acknowledge
that none is to be constrained to believe or profess the true religion,
till he be convinced in judgment of the truth of it?”[180] implying two
things.
First. That the civil magistrate, who is to constrain with the civil
sword, must judge all the consciences of their subjects, whether they be
convinced or no.
Secondly. When the civil magistrate discerns that his subjects’
consciences are convinced, then he may constrain them _vi et armis_,
hostilely.
[Sidenote: Constraint upon consciences in Old and New England.]
And accordingly, the civil state and magistracy judging in spiritual
things, who knows not what constraint lies upon all consciences, in old
and New England, to come to church, and pay church duties,[181] which
is upon the point—though with a sword of a finer gilt and trim in New
England—nothing else but that which he confesseth Hilary saith true
should not be done, to wit, a propagation of religion by the sword.[182]
Again, although he confesseth that propagation of religion ought not to
be by the sword, yet he maintaineth the use of the sword, when persons,
in the judgment of the civil state, for that is implied, blaspheme the
true God, and the true religion, and also seduce others to damnable
heresy and idolatry. Which, because he barely affirmeth in this place, I
shall defer my answer unto the after reasons of Mr. Cotton and the elders
of New English churches; where scriptures are alleged, and in that place,
by God’s assistance, they shall be examined and answered.
CHAP. LXX.
[Sidenote: Tertullian’s speech discussed.]
_Peace._ The answerer thus proceeds:[183] “Your next writer is
Tertullian, who speaketh to the same purpose in the place alleged by
you. His intent is only to restrain Scapula, the Roman governor of
Africa, from persecuting the Christians, for not offering sacrifice
to their gods: and for that end, fetched an argument from the law of
natural equity, not to compel any to any religion, but permit them to
believe [willingly], or not to believe at all. Which we acknowledge; and
accordingly we judge, the English may permit the Indians to continue in
their unbelief. Nevertheless, it will not therefore be lawful [openly] to
tolerate the worship of devils or idols, to the seduction of any from the
truth.”
_Truth._ Answ. In this passage he agreeth with Tertullian, and gives
instance in America of the English permitting the Indians to continue
in their unbelief: yet withal he affirmeth it not lawful to tolerate
worshipping of devils, or seduction from the truth.
[Sidenote: The Indians of New England permitted by the English not only
to continue in their unbelief (which they cannot cure) but also in their
false worship which they might by the civil sword restrain.]
I answer, that in New England it is well known that they not only permit
the Indians to continue in their unbelief, which neither they nor all the
ministers of Christ on earth, nor angels in heaven, can help, not being
able to work belief: but they also permit or tolerate them in their
paganish worship, which cannot be denied to be a worshipping of devils,
as all false worship is.[184]
And therefore, consequently, according to the same practice, did they
walk by rule and impartially, not only the Indians, but their countrymen,
French, Dutch, Spanish, Persians, Turks, Jews, &c., should also be
permitted in their worships, if correspondent in civil obedience.
_Peace._ He adds further, “When Tertullian saith, ‘That another man’s
religion neither hurteth nor profiteth any;’ it must be understood of
private worship and religion professed in private: otherwise a false
religion professed by the members of the church, or by such as have given
their names to Christ, will be the ruin and desolation of the church, as
appeareth by the threats of Christ to the churches, Rev. ii.”
_Truth._ I answer: passing by that unsound distinction of members of the
church, or those that have given their names to Christ, which in point of
visible profession and worship will appear to be all one, it is plain—
First. That Tertullian doth not there speak of private, but of public
worship and religion.
[Sidenote: In two cases a false religion will not hurt the true church or
the state.]
Secondly. Although it be true in a church of Christ, that a false
religion or worship permitted, will hurt, according to those threats of
Christ, Rev. ii., yet in two cases I believe a false religion will not
hurt,—which is most like to have been Tertullian’s meaning.
First. A false religion out of the church will not hurt the church, no
more than weeds in the wilderness hurt the enclosed garden, or poison
hurt the body when it is not touched or taken, yea, and antidotes are
received against it.
Secondly. A false religion and worship will not hurt the civil state,
in case the worshippers break no civil law: and the answerer elsewhere
acknowledgeth, that the civil laws not being broken, civil peace is not
broken: and this only is the point in question.[185]
CHAP. LXXI.
[Sidenote: The seducing or infecting of others, discussed.]
_Peace._ “Your next author,” saith he,[186] “Jerome, crosseth not the
truth, nor advantageth your cause; for we grant what he saith, that
heresy must be cut off with the sword of the Spirit: but this hinders
not, but that being so cut down, if the heretic will persist in his
heresy to the seduction of others, he may be cut off also by the civil
sword, to prevent the perdition of others. And that to be Jerome’s
meaning, appeareth by his note upon that of the apostle, _A little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump_. Therefore,” saith he, “a spark as soon
as it appeareth, is to be extinguished, and the leaven to be removed
from the rest of the dough; rotten pieces of flesh are to be cut off,
and a scabbed beast is to be driven from the sheepfold; lest the whole
house, body, mass of dough, and flock, be set on fire with the spark, be
putrefied with the rotten flesh, soured with the leaven, perish by the
scabbed beast.”
[Sidenote: The answerer trusteth not to the sword of the Spirit only, in
spiritual causes.]
_Truth._ I answer, first, he granteth to Jerome,[187] that heresy must
be cut off with the sword of the Spirit; yet, withal, he maintaineth
a cutting off by a second sword, the sword of the magistrate; and
conceiveth that Jerome so means, because he quoteth that of the apostle,
_A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump_.
Answ. It is no argument to prove that Jerome meant a civil sword, by
alleging 1 Cor. v. 6, or Gal. v. 9, which properly and only approve a
cutting off by the sword of the Spirit in the church, and the purging out
of the leaven in the church, in the cities of Corinth and Galatia.
[Sidenote: The absolute sufficiency of the sword of the Spirit.]
And if Jerome should so mean as himself doth, yet, first, that grant of
his, that heresy must be cut off with the sword of the Spirit, implies an
absolute sufficiency in the sword of the Spirit to cut it down, according
to that mighty operation of scriptural weapons, 2 Cor. x. 4, powerfully
sufficient, either to convert the heretic to God, and subdue his very
thoughts into subjection to Christ, or else spiritually to slay and
execute him.
[Sidenote: The church of Christ to be kept pure.]
Secondly. It is clear to be the meaning of the apostle, and of the Spirit
of God, not there to speak to the church in Corinth, or Galatia, or any
other church, concerning any other dough, or house, or body, or flock,
but the dough, the body, the house, the flock of Christ, his church: out
of which such sparks, such leaven, such rotten flesh, and scabbed sheep,
are to be avoided.
[Sidenote: A national church not instituted by Christ Jesus.]
Nor could the eye of this worthy answerer ever be so obscured, as to run
to a smith’s shop for a sword of iron and steel to help the sword of
the Spirit, if the Sun of righteousness had once been pleased to show
him, that a national church, which elsewhere he professeth against, a
state-church, whether explicit, as in old England, or implicit, as in
New, is not the institution of the Lord Jesus Christ.[188]
[Sidenote: The national church of the Jews. 1 Sam. xiii.]
The national, typical state-church of the Jews, necessarily called for
such weapons; but the particular churches of Christ in all parts of the
world, consisting of Jews or Gentiles, are powerfully able, by the sword
of the Spirit to defend themselves, and offend men or devils, although
the state or kingdom, wherein such a church or churches of Christ are
gathered, have neither carnal spear nor sword, &c.; as once it was in the
national church of the land of Canaan.
CHAP. LXXII.
[Sidenote: Man hath no power to make laws to bind conscience.]
_Peace._ “Brentius, whom you next quote,” saith he,[189] “speaketh not to
your cause. We willingly grant you, that man hath no power to make laws
to bind conscience; but this hinders not, but men may see the laws of God
observed which do bind conscience.”
_Truth._ I answer, In granting with Brentius that man hath not power
to make laws to bind conscience, he overthrows such his tenent and
practice as restrain men from their worship according to their conscience
and belief, and constrain them to such worships, though it be out of a
pretence that they are convinced, which their own souls tell them they
have no satisfaction nor faith in.[190]
Secondly. Whereas he affirmeth that men may make laws to see the laws of
God observed:—
I answer, as God needeth not the help of a material sword of steel
to assist the sword of the Spirit in the affairs of conscience, so
those men, those magistrates, yea, that commonwealth which makes such
magistrates, must needs have power and authority from Christ Jesus to
sit as judge, and to determine in all the great controversies concerning
doctrine, discipline, government, &c.
[Sidenote: Desperate consequences unavoidable.]
And then I ask, whether upon this ground it must not evidently follow,
that—
Either there is no lawful commonwealth, nor civil state of men in the
world, which is not qualified with this spiritual discerning: and then
also, that the very commonweal hath more light concerning the church of
Christ, than the church itself.
Or, that the commonweal and magistrates thereof, must judge and punish
as they are persuaded in their own belief and conscience, be their
conscience paganish, Turkish, or anti-christian. What is this but to
confound heaven and earth together, and not only to take away the being
of Christianity out of the world, but to take away all civility, and the
world out of the world, and to lay all upon heaps of confusion?
CHAP. LXXIII.
[Sidenote: Luther’s testimony in this case discussed.]