Chapter VII: Part 7

_Truth._ I answer: far be it from me to deny either. And yet, in two things, I shall discover the great evil of this joining and coupling seducing teachers and scandalous livers, as one adequate or proper object of the magistrates’ care and work to suppress and punish.

First, it is not an homogeneal (as we speak), but an heterogeneal commixture of joining together of things most different in kinds and natures, as if they were both of one consideration.

[Sidenote: Seducing teachers, either pagan, Jewish, or anti-christian, may yet be obedient subjects to the civil laws.]

For who knows not but that many seducing teachers, either of the paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-christian religion, may be clear and free from scandalous offences in their life, as also from disobedience to the civil laws of a state? Yea, the answerer himself hath elsewhere granted, that if the laws of a civil state be not broken, the peace is not broken.[165]

Again, who knows not that a seducing teacher properly sins against a church or spiritual estate and laws of it, and, therefore, ought most properly and only to be dealt withal in such a way, and by such weapons, as the Lord Jesus himself hath appointed; gainsayers, opposites, and disobedients—either within his church or without—to be convinced, repelled, resisted, and slain withal?

[Sidenote: Scandalous livers against the civil state, who they are.]

Whereas, scandalous offenders against parents, against magistrates in the fifth command, and so against the life, chastity, goods, or good name in the rest, is properly transgression against the civil state and common weal, or the worldly state of men: and, therefore, consequently, if the world, or civil state, ought to be preserved by civil government or governors, such scandalous offenders ought not to be tolerated, but suppressed, according to the wisdom and prudence of the said government.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton’s tenet justifies all the cruel proceedings against Christ and Christians.]

Secondly, as there is a fallacious conjoining and confounding together persons of several kinds and natures, differing as much as spirit and flesh, heaven and earth, each from other: so is there a silent and implicit justification of all the unrighteous and cruel proceedings of Jews and Gentiles against all the prophets of God, the Lord Jesus himself, and all his messengers and witnesses, whom their accusers have ever so coupled and mixed with notorious evil doers and scandalous livers.

Elijah was a troubler of the state; Jeremy weakened the hand of the people; yea, Moses made the people neglect their work; the Jews built the rebellious and bad city; the three worthies regarded not the command of the king; Christ Jesus deceived the people, was a conjuror and a traitor against Cæsar in being king of the Jews—indeed He was so spiritually over the true Jew, the Christian—therefore, he was numbered with notorious evil doers, and nailed to the gallows between two malefactors.

Hence Paul and all true messengers of Jesus Christ, are esteemed seducing and seditious teachers and turners of the world upside down: yea, and to my knowledge—I speak with honourable respect to the answerer, so far as he hath laboured for many truths of Christ—the answerer himself hath drunk of this cup, to be esteemed a seducing teacher.

CHAP. LVII.

_Peace._ Yea, but he produceth scriptures against such toleration, and for persecuting men for the cause of conscience: “Christ,” saith he, “had something against the angel of the church of Pergamos, for tolerating them that held the doctrine of Balaam, and against the church of Thyatira, for tolerating Jezebel to teach and seduce,” Rev. ii. 14, 20.

_Truth._ I may answer, with some admiration and astonishment, how it pleased the Father of lights and most jealous God to darken and veil the eye of so precious a man, as not to seek out and propose some scriptures, in the proof of so weighty an assertion, as at least might have some colour for an influence of the civil magistrate in such cases: for—

[Sidenote: Toleration. Rev. ii. 14, 20, examined.]

First, he saith not that Christ had aught against the city Pergamos, where Satan had his throne, Rev. ii. 14, but against the church at Pergamos, in which was set up the throne of Christ.

Secondly, Christ’s charge is not against the civil magistrate of Pergamos, but the messenger, or ministry, of the church in Pergamos.

Thirdly, I confess, so far as Balaam’s or Jezebel’s doctrine maintained a liberty of corporal fornication, it concerned the cities of Pergamos and Thyatira, and the angel or officers of those cities, to suppress not only such practices, but such doctrines also: as the Roman emperor justly punished Ovid the poet, for teaching the wanton art of love, leading to and ushering on lasciviousness and uncleanness.

Fourthly. Yet so far as Balaam’s teachers, or Jezebel, did seduce the members of the church in Pergamos or Thyatira, to the worship of the idolaters in Pergamos or Thyatira, which will appear to be the case—I say, so far I may well and properly answer, as himself answered before those scriptures, brought from Luke ix. and 2 Tim. ii., to prove patience and permission to men opposite, viz., “these scriptures,” saith he, “are directions to ministers of the gospel;” and in the end of that passage he adds, “Much less do they speak at all to civil magistrates.”[166]

[Sidenote: Christ’s ministers and churches, have power sufficient from Christ to suppress Balaam and Jezebel seducing to false worship.]

Fifthly. Either these churches and the angels thereof had power to suppress these doctrines of Balaam, and to suppress Jezebel from teaching, or they had not:—

That they had not cannot be affirmed, for Christ’s authority is in the hands of his ministers and churches, Matt. xvi. and xviii., and 1 Cor. v.

If they had power, as must be granted, then, I conclude, sufficient power to suppress such persons, whoever they were, that maintained Balaam’s doctrine in the church at Pergamos—although the very magistrates themselves of the city of Pergamos (if Christians): and to have suppressed Jezebel from teaching and seducing in the church, had she been lady, queen, or empress, if there were no more but teaching without hostility. And if so, all power and authority of magistrates and governors of Pergamos and Thyatira, and all submitting or appealing to them in such cases, must needs fall, as none of Christ’s appointment.

[Sidenote: The Christian world hath swallowed up Christianity.]

Lastly. From this perverse wresting of what is writ to the church and the officers thereof, as if it were written to the civil state and officers thereof, all may see how, since the apostasy of anti-christ, the Christian world (so called) hath swallowed up Christianity; how the church and civil state, that is, the church and the world, are now become one flock of Jesus Christ; Christ’s sheep, and the pastors or shepherds of them, all one with the several unconverted, wild, or tame beasts and cattle of the world, and the civil and earthly governors of them: the Christian church, or kingdom of the saints, that stone cut out of the mountain without hands, Dan. ii. 45, now made all one with the mountain, or civil state, the Roman empire, from whence it is cut or taken: Christ’s lilies, garden, and love, all one with the thorns, the daughters, and wilderness of the world, out of which the spouse or church of Christ is called; and amongst whom, in civil things, for a while here below, she must necessarily be mingled and have converse, unless she will go out of the world, before Christ Jesus, her Lord and husband, send for her home into the heavens, 1 Cor. v. 10.[167]

CHAP. LVIII.

[Sidenote: The second head of reasons against such persecution, viz., the profession of famous princes, King James, Stephen of Poland, and King of Bohemia.]

_Peace._ Having thus, by the help of Christ, examined those scriptures, or writings of truth, brought by the author against persecution, and cleared them from such veils and mists, wherewith Mr. Cotton hath endeavoured to obscure and darken their lights: I pray you, now, by the same gracious assistance, proceed to his answer to the second head of reasons, from the profession of famous princes against persecution for conscience, King James, Stephen of Poland, King of Bohemia, unto whom the answerer returneth a treble answer.[168]

“First,” saith he, “we willingly acknowledge that none is to be persecuted at all, no more than they may be oppressed for righteousness’ sake.

“Again, we acknowledge that none is to be punished for his conscience, though misinformed, as hath been said, unless his error be fundamental, or seditiously and turbulently promoted, and that after due conviction of his conscience, that it may appear he is not punished for his conscience, but for sinning against his conscience.

“Furthermore, we acknowledge, none is to be constrained to believe or profess the true religion, till he be convinced in judgment of the truth of it; but yet restrained he may be from blaspheming the truth, and from seducing any unto pernicious errors.”

[Sidenote: Isa. xl. 6; 2 Pet. ii.]

_Truth._ This first answer consists of a repetition and enumeration of such grounds or conclusions, as Mr. Cotton in the entrance of this discourse laid down; and I believe that, through the help of God, in such replies as I have made unto them, I have made it evident what weak foundations they have in the scriptures of truth, as also that, when such conclusions, excepting the first, as grass and the flower of the grass shall fade, that holy word of the Lord, which the author against such persecution produces, and I have cleared, shall stand for ever, even when these heavens and earth are burnt.

_Peace._ His second answer is this:—“What princes profess and practise, is not a rule of conscience. They many times tolerate that in point of state-policy, which cannot justly be tolerated in point of true Christianity.

“Again, Princes many times tolerate offenders out of very necessity, when the offenders are either too many or too mighty for them to punish; in which respect David tolerated Joab and his murders, but against his will.”

CHAP. LIX.

_Truth._ Unto those excellent and famous speeches of those princes, worthy to be written in golden letters, or rows of diamonds, upon all the gates of all the cities and palaces in the world, the answerer, without any particular reply, returns two things.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton’s unequal dealing with princes.]

First, that princes’ profession and practice is no rule of conscience: unto this, as all men will subscribe, so may they also observe how the answerer deals with princes.

One while they are the nursing fathers of the church, not only to feed, but also to correct, and, therefore, consequently bound to judge what is true feeding and correcting: and, consequently, all men are bound to submit to their feeding and correcting.

Another while, when princes cross Mr. Cotton’s judgment and practice, then it matters not what the profession or practice of princes is: for, saith he, their profession and practice is no rule to conscience.

I ask then, unto what magistrates or princes will themselves, or any so persuaded, submit, as unto keepers of both tables, as unto the antitypes of the kings of Israel and Judah, and nursing fathers and mothers of the church?

First. Will it not evidently follow, that by these tenents they ought not to submit to any magistrates in the world in these cases, but to magistrates just of their own conscience? and—

Secondly. That all other consciences in the world, except their own, must be persecuted by such their magistrates?[169]

And lastly. Is not this to make magistrates but steps and stirrups, to ascend and mount up into their rich and honourable seats and saddles; I mean great and settled maintenances, which neither the Lord Jesus, nor any of his first messengers, the true patterns, did ever know?

CHAP. LX.

_Truth._ In the second place, he saith, that princes out of state-policy tolerate what suits not with Christianity, and out of state-necessity tolerate (as David did Joab) against their wills.

To which I answer,—

[Sidenote: The answerer acknowledgeth a necessity of some toleration.]

First. That although with him, in the first, I confess that princes may tolerate that out of state-policy which will not stand with Christianity, yet, in the second, he must acknowledge with me, that there is a necessity sometimes of state-toleration, as in the case of Joab, and so his former affirmation, generally laid down (viz., that it is evil to tolerate seducing teachers or scandalous livers), was not duly weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, and is too light.

[Sidenote: Christ Jesus the deepest politician that ever was, and yet he commands a toleration of anti-christians.]

Secondly. I affirm that the state-policy and state-necessity, which, for the peace of the state and preventing of rivers of civil blood, permit the consciences of men, will be found to agree most punctually with the rules of the best politician that ever the world saw, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, in comparison of whom Solomon himself had but a drop of wisdom compared to Christ’s ocean, and was but a farthing candle compared with the all and ever glorious Sun of righteousness.

That absolute rule of this great politician for the peace of the field which is the world, and for the good and peace of the saints who must have a civil being in the world, I have discoursed of in his command of permitting the tares, that is, anti-christians, or false Christians, to be in the field of the world, growing up together with the true wheat, true Christians.

CHAP. LXI.

_Peace._ His third answer is this:—[170]

“For those three princes named by you, who tolerated religion, we can name you more and greater who have not tolerated heretics and schismatics, notwithstanding their pretence of conscience, and their arrogating the crown of martyrdom to their sufferings.”

“Constantine the Great at the request of the general council at Nice, banished Arius, with some of his fellows, _Sozom._ lib. i. _Eccles. Hist._ cap. 19, 20.

“The same Constantine made a severe law against the Donatists: and the like proceedings against them were used by Valentinian, Gratian, and Theodosius, as Augustine reports in _Ep._ 166. Only Julian the Apostate granted liberty to heretics as well as to pagans, that he might, by tolerating all weeds to grow, choke the vitals of Christianity: which was also the practice and sin of Valens the Arian.

“Queen Elizabeth, as famous for her government as most of the former, it is well known what laws 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 sharply and severely he punished those whom the malignant world calls puritans, men of more conscience and better faith than the papists whom he tolerated.”

[Sidenote: The princes of the world seldom take part with Christ.]

_Truth._ Unto this, I answer: First, that for mine own part I would not use an argument from the number of princes, witnessing in profession of practice against persecution for cause of conscience; for the truth and faith of the Lord Jesus must not be received with respect of faces, be they never so high, princely and glorious.

Precious pearls and jewels, and far more precious truth, are found in muddy shells and places. The rich mines of golden truth lie hid under barren hills, and in obscure holes and corners.

[Sidenote: Princes not persecuting are very rare.]

The most high and glorious God hath chosen the poor of the world, and the witnesses of truth (Rev. xi.) are clothed in sackcloth, not in silk or satin, cloth of gold or tissue: and, therefore, I acknowledge, if the number of princes professing persecution be considered, it is rare to find a king, prince, or governor like Christ Jesus, the King of kings, and Prince of the princes of the earth, and who tread not in the steps of Herod the fox, or Nero the lion, openly or secretly persecuting the name of the Lord Jesus; such were Saul, Jeroboam, Ahab, though under a mask or pretence of the name of the God of Israel.[171]

[Sidenote: Buchanan’s item to King James.]

To that purpose was it a noble speech of Buchanan, who, lying on his death-bed, sent this item to King James:—“Remember my humble service to his majesty, and tell him that Buchanan is going to a place where few kings come.”

CHAP. LXII.

_Truth._ Secondly. I observe how inconsiderately—I hope not willingly—he passeth by the reasons and grounds urged by those three princes for their practices; for, as for the bare examples of kings or princes, they are but like shining sands, or gilded rocks, giving no solace to such as make woful shipwreck on them.

[Sidenote: King James’s sayings against persecution.]

In King James’s speech, he passeth by that golden maxim in divinity, “that God never loves to plant his church by blood.”

Secondly. That civil obedience may be performed from the papists.

Thirdly. In his observation on Rev. xx., that true and certain note of a false church, to wit, persecution: “The wicked are besiegers, the faithful are besieged.”

[Sidenote: King Stephen’s, of Poland, speech against persecution.]

In King Stephen’s, of Poland, speech, he passeth by the true difference between a civil and a spiritual government: “I am,” said Stephen, “a civil magistrate over the bodies of men, not a spiritual over their souls.”

Now to confound these is Babel; and Jewish it is to seek for Moses, and bring him from his grave (which no man shall find, for God buried him) in setting up a national state or church, in a land of Canaan, which the great Messiah abolished at his coming.

[Sidenote: Forcing of conscience is a soul-rape. Persecution for conscience, the lancet that letteth blood of kings and kingdoms.]

Thirdly. He passeth by, in the speech of the King of Bohemia, that foundation in grace and nature, to wit, “That conscience ought not to be violated or forced:” and indeed it is most true, that a soul or spiritual rape is more abominable in God’s eye, than to force and ravish the bodies of all the women in the world. Secondly. That most lamentably true experience of all ages, which that king observeth, viz., “That persecution for cause of conscience hath ever proved pernicious, being the causes of all those wonderful innovations of, or changes in, the principallest and mightiest kingdoms of Christendom.” He that reads the records of truth and time with an impartial eye, shall find this to be the lancet that hath pierced the veins of kings and kingdoms, of saints and sinners, and filled the streams and rivers with their blood.

[Sidenote: All spiritual whores are bloody.]

Lastly. That king’s observation of his own time,[172] viz., “That persecution for cause of conscience was practised most in England, and such places where popery reigned:” implying, as I conceive, that such practices commonly proceed from that great whore the church of Rome, whose daughters are like their mother, and all of a bloody nature, as most commonly all whores be.

CHAP. LXIII.

Now thirdly. In that the answerer observeth, “That amongst the Roman emperors, they that did not persecute were Julian the Apostate, and Valens the Arian; whereas the good emperors, Constantine, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, they did persecute the Arians, Donatists,” &c:—

[Sidenote: The godly sometimes evil actors, and the ungodly good actors.]

_Answ._ It is no new thing for godly, and eminently godly men to perform ungodly actions: nor for ungodly persons, for wicked ends, to act what in itself is good and righteous.

[Sidenote: Polygamy, or the many wives of the fathers.]

Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, &c. (as well as Lamech, Saul, &c.) lived in constant transgression against the institution of so holy and so ratified a law of marriage, &c.; and this not against the light and checks of conscience (as other sins are wont to be recorded of them), but according to the dictate and persuasion of a resolved soul and conscience.

[Sidenote: David’s advancing of God’s worship against God’s order.]

David, out of zeal to God, with thirty thousand of Israel, and [with] majestical solemnity, carries up the ark contrary to the order God was pleased to appoint: the issue was both God’s and David’s great offence, 2 Sam. vi.

David in his zeal would build a house to entertain his God! What more pious? and what more (in show) seriously consulted, when the prophet Nathan is admitted counsellor? 2 Sam. vii.

And probable it is, that his slaughter of Uriah was not without a good end, to wit, to prevent the dishonour of God’s name in the discovery of his adultery with Bathsheba. Yet David was holy and precious to God still, though like a jewel fallen into the dirt. Whereas King Ahab, though acting his fasting and humiliation, was but Ahab still, though his act, in itself, was a duty, and found success with God.

CHAP. LXIV.

_Peace._ I have often heard that history reports, and I have heard that Mr. Cotton himself hath affirmed it, that Christianity fell asleep in Constantine’s bosom, and [in] the laps and bosoms of those emperors professing the name of Christ.

[Sidenote: Constantine and the good emperors, are confessed to have done more hurt to the name and crown of the Lord Jesus, than the persecuting Neros, &c. The garden of the church, and field of the world, made all one by anti-christianism.]

_Truth._ The unknowing zeal of Constantine and other emperors, did more hurt to Christ Jesus’s crown and kingdom, than the raging fury of the most bloody Neros.[173] In the persecutions of the latter, Christians were sweet and fragrant, like spice pounded and beaten in mortars. But these good emperors, persecuting some erroneous persons, Arius, &c., and advancing the professors of some truths of Christ—for there was no small number of truths lost in those times—and maintaining their religion by the material sword—I say, by this means Christianity was eclipsed, and the professors of it fell asleep, Cant. v. 2. Babel, or confusion, was ushered in, and by degrees the gardens of the churches of saints were turned into the wilderness of whole nations, until the whole world became Christian, or Christendom, Rev. xii. and xiii.

Doubtless those holy men, emperors and bishops, intended and aimed right 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.]

_Peace._ “The like answer,” saith he,[191] “may be returned to Luther, whom you next allege.

“First. That the government of the civil magistrate extendeth no further than over the bodies and goods of their subjects, not over their souls; and, therefore, they may not undertake to give laws unto the souls and consciences of men.

“Secondly. That the church of Christ doth not use the arm of secular power to compel men to the true profession of the truth, for this is to be done with spiritual weapons, whereby Christians are to be exhorted, not compelled. But this,” saith he, “hindereth not that Christians sinning against light of faith and conscience, may justly be censured by the church with excommunication, and by the civil sword also, in case they shall corrupt others to the perdition of their souls.”

_Truth._ I answer, in this joint confession of the answerer with Luther, to wit, that the government of the civil magistrate extendeth no further than over the bodies and goods of their subjects, not over their souls: who sees not what a clear testimony from his own mouth and pen is given, to wit, that either the spiritual and church estate, the preaching of the word, and the gathering of the church, the baptism of it, the ministry, government, and administrations thereof, belong to the civil body of the commonweal, that is, to the bodies and goods of men, which seems monstrous to imagine? Or else that the civil magistrate cannot, without exceeding the bounds of his office, meddle with those spiritual affairs?[192]

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton’s positions evidently proved contradictory to themselves.]

Again, necessarily must it follow, that these two are contradictory to themselves, to wit,—

The magistrates’ power extends no further than the bodies and goods of the subject, and yet—

The magistrate must punish Christians for sinning against the light of faith and conscience, and for corrupting the souls of men. The Father of lights make this worthy answerer, and all that fear him, to see their wandering in this case: not only from his fear, but also from the light of reason itself, their own convictions and confessions.

Secondly. In his joint confession with Luther, that the church doth not use the secular power to compel men to the faith and profession of the truth, he condemneth, as before I have observed,—

First. His former implication, viz., that they may be compelled when they are convinced of the truth of it.

Secondly. Their own practice who suffer no man of any different conscience and worship to live in their jurisdiction, except that he depart from his own exercise of religion and worship, differing from the worship allowed of in the civil state, yea, and also actually submit to come to their church.

[Sidenote: Hearing of the word of God in a church estate a part of God’s worship.]

Which, however it is coloured over with this varnish, viz., that men are compelled no further than unto the hearing of the word, unto which all men are bound, yet it will appear, that teaching and being taught in a church estate is a church worship, as true and proper a church worship as the supper of the Lord, Acts ii. 46.

Secondly. All persons, papist and protestant, that are conscientious, have always suffered upon this ground especially, that they have refused to come to each other’s church or meeting.

CHAP. LXXIV.

[Sidenote: Papists’ plea for toleration of conscience.]

_Peace._ The next passage in the author which the answerer descends unto, is the testimony of the papists themselves, a lively and shining testimony, from scriptures alleged both against themselves and all that associate with them (as power is in their hand) in such unchristian and bloody both tenents and practices.

“As for the testimony of the popish book,” saith he,[193] “we weigh it not, as knowing whatever they speak for toleration of religion where themselves are under hatches, when they come to sit at stern they judge and practise quite contrary, as both their writings and judicial proceedings have testified to the world these many years.”

_Truth._ I answer, although both writings and practices have been such, yet the scriptures and expressions of truth alleged and uttered by them, speak loud and fully for them when they are under the hatches, that for their conscience and religion they should not there be choked and smothered, but suffered to breathe and walk upon the decks, in the air of civil liberty and conversation, in the ship of the commonwealth, upon good assurance given of civil obedience to the civil state.

[Sidenote: The protestants partial in the case of persecution.]

Again, if this practice be so abominable in his eyes from the papists, viz., that they are so partial as to persecute when they sit at helm, and yet cry out against persecution when they are under the hatches, I shall beseech the righteous Judge of the whole world to present, as in a water or glass where face answereth to face, the faces of the papist to the protestant, answering to each other in the sameness of partiality, both of this doctrine and practice.

When Mr. Cotton and others have formerly been under hatches, what sad and true complaints have they abundantly poured forth against persecution! How have they opened that heavenly scripture, Cant. iv. 8, where Christ Jesus calls his tender wife and spouse from the fellowship with persecutors in their dens of lions and mountains of leopards?

But coming to the helm, as he speaks of the papists, how, both by preaching, writing, printing, practice, do they themselves—I hope in their persons lambs—unnaturally and partially express towards others the cruel nature of such lions and leopards?

[Sidenote: A false balance in God’s matters abominable to God.]

Oh! that the God of heaven might please to tell them how abominable in his eyes are a weight and a weight, a stone and a stone, in the bag of weights!—one weight for themselves when they are under hatches, and another for others when they come to helm.

Nor shall their confidence of their being in the truth, which they judge the papists and others are not in, no, nor the truth itself, privilege them to persecute others, and to exempt themselves from persecution, because (as formerly)—

[Sidenote: Sheep cannot hunt, no, not the wolves.]

First, it is against the nature of true sheep to persecute, or hunt the beasts of the forest: no, not the same wolves who formerly have persecuted themselves.[194]