TREATISE

OP

CIVIL POWER IN ECCLESIASTICAL CAUSES;

SHEW.NG

THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY POWER ON EARTH TO
COMPEL IN MATTERS OF RELIGION.

[FIRST PUBLISHED 1659.]

TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND, WITH THE DOMINIONS THEREOF.

I HAVE prepared, Supreme Council! against the much-member to have heard often for several years, at a expected time of your sitting, this treatise; which, council next in authority to your own, so well joining though to all christian magistrates equally belonging, religion with civil prudence, and yet so well distinand therefore to have been written in the common lan-guishing the different power of either; and this not guage of christendom, natural duty and affection hath confined and dedicated first to my own nation; and in a season wherein the timely reading thereof, to the easier accomplishment of your great work, may save you much labour and interruption: of two parts usually proposed, civil and ecclesiastical, recommending civil only to your proper care, ecclesiastical to them only from whom it takes both that name and nature. Yet not for this cause only do I require or trust to find acceptance, but in a twofold respect besides: first, as bringing clear evidence of scripture and protestant maxims to the parliament of England, who in all their late acts, upon occasion, have professed to assert only the true protestant christian religion, as it is contained in the Holy Scriptures: next, in regard that your power being but for a time, and having in yourselves a christian liberty of your own, which at one time or other may be oppressed, thereof truly sensible, it will concern you while you are in power, so to regard other men's consciences, as you would your own should be regarded in the power of others; and to consider that any law against conscience is alike in force against any conscience, and so may one way or other justly redound upon yourselves. One advantage I make no doubt of, that I shall write to many eminent persons of your number, already perfect and resolved in this important article of Christianity. Some of whom I re

only voting, but frequently reasoning why it should be so, that if any there present had been before of an opinion contrary, he might doubtless have departed thence a convert in that point, and have confessed, that then both common wealth and religion will at length, if ever, flourish in christendom, when either they who govern discern between civil and religious, or they only who so discern shall be admitted to govern. Till then, nothing but troubles, persecutions, commotions can be expected; the inward decay of true religion among ourselves, and the utter overthrow at last by a common enemy. Of civil liberty I have written heretofore, by the appointment, and not without the approbation, of civil power: of christian liberty I write now, which others long since having done with all freedom under heathen emperors, I should do wrong to suspect, that I now shall with less under christian governors, and such especially as profess openly their defence of christian liberty; although I write this, not otherwise appointed or induced, than by an inward persuasion of the christian duty, which I may usefully discharge herein to the common Lord and Master of us all, and the certain hope of his approbation, first and chiefest to be sought: in the hand of whose providence I remain, praying all success and good event on your public councils, to the defence of true religion and our civil rights.

JOHN MILTON.

A TREATISE

OF

CIVIL POWER IN ECCLESIASTICAL CAUSES.

bably make appear, is according to the will of God and his Holy Spirit within us, which we ought to follow much rather than any law of man, as not only his word every where bids us, but the very dictate of reason tells us. Acts iv. 19. "Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken to you more than to God, judge ye." That for belief or practice in religion, according to this conscientious persuasion, no man ought to be punished or molested by any outward force on earth whatsoever, I distrust not, through God's implored assistance, to make plain by these following arguments.

First, it cannot be denied, being the main foundation of our protestant religion, that we of these ages, having no other divine rule or authority from without us, warrantable to one another as a common ground, but the Holy Scripture, and no other within us but the illumination of the Holy Spirit so interpreting that scripture as warrantable only to ourselves, and to such whose consciences we can so persuade, can have no other ground in matters of religion but only from the Scriptures. And these being not possible to be understood without this divine illumination, which no man can know at all times to be in himself, much less to be at any time for certain in any other, it follows clearly, that no man or body of men in these times can be the infallible judges or determiners in matters of religion to any other men's consciences but their own. And therefore those Bereans are commended, Acts xvii. 11, who after the preaching even of St. Paul, “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Nor did they more than what God himself in many places commands us by the same apostle, to search, to try, to

Two things there be, which have been ever found | working much mischief to the church of God, and the advancement of truth; force on one side restraining, and hire on the other side corrupting, the teachers thereof. Few ages have been since the ascension of our Saviour, wherein the one of these two, or both together, have not prevailed. It can be at no time, therefore, unseasonable to speak of these things; since by them the church is either in continual detriment and oppression, or in continual danger. The former shall be at this time my argument; the latter as I shall find God disposing me, and opportunity inviting. What I argue, shall be drawn from the Scripture only; and therein from true fundamental principles of the gospel, to all knowing Christians undeniable. And if the governors of this commonwealth, since the rooting out of prelates, have made least use of force in religion, and most have favoured christian liberty of any in this island before them since the first preaching of the gospel, for which we are not to forget our thanks to God, and their due praise; they may, I doubt not, in this treatise, find that which not only will confirm them to defend still the christian liberty which we enjoy, but will incite them also to enlarge it, if in aught they yet straiten it. To them who perhaps hereafter, less experienced in religion, may come to govern or give us laws, this or other such, if they please, may be a timely instruction: however, to the truth it will be at all times no unneedful testimony, at least some discharge of that general duty, which no Christian, but according to what he hath received, knows is required of him, if he have aught more conducing to the advancement of religion, than what is usually endeavoured, freely to impart it. It will require no great labour of exposition, to un-judge of these things ourselves: and gives us reason fold what is here meant by matters of religion; being as soon apprehended as defined, such things as belong chiefly to the knowledge and service of God; and are either above the reach and light of nature without revelation from above, and therefore liable to be variously understood by human reason, or such things as are enjoined or forbidden by divine precept, which else by the light of reason would seem indifferent to be done or not done; and so likewise must needs appear to every man as the precept is understood. Whence I here mean by conscience or religion that full persuasion, whereby we are assured, that our belief and practice, as far as we are able to apprehend and pro

also, Gal. vi. 4, 5, "Let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another: for every man shall bear his own burden." If then we count it so ignorant and irreligious in the papist, to think himself discharged in God's account, believing only as the church believes, how much greater condemnation will it be to the protestant his condemner, to think himself justified, believing only as the state believes? With good cause, therefore, it is the general consent of all sound protestant writers, that neither traditions, councils, nor canons of any visible church, much less edicts of any magistrate or civil session, but the Scripture only, can

themselves as a civil papacy assuming unaccountable supremacy to themselves, not in civil only, but in ecclesiastical causes. Seeing then that in matters of religion, as bath been proved, none can judge or determine here on earth, no not church-governors themselves, against the consciences of other believers, my inference is, or rather not mine but our Saviour's own, that in those matters they neither can command nor use con

be the final judge or rule in matters of religion, and that only in the conscience of every christian to himself. Which protestation made by the first public reformers of our religion against the imperial edicts of Charles the fifth, imposing church-traditions without Scripture, gave first beginning to the name of Protestant; and with that name hath ever been received this doctrine, which prefers the Scripture before the church, and acknowledges none but the Scripture sole inter-straint, lest they run rashly on a pernicious consequence, preter of itself to the conscience. For if the church be not sufficient to be implicitly believed, as we hold it is not, what can there else be named of more authority than the church but the conscience, than which God only is greater, 1 John iii. 20? But if any man shall pretend that the Scripture judges to his conscience for other men, he makes himself greater not only than the church, but also than the Scripture, than the consciences of other men: a presumption too high for any mortal, since every true Christian, able to give a reason of his faith, hath the word of God before him, the promised Holy Spirit, and the mind of Christ within him, 1 Cor. ii. 16; a much better and safer guide of conscience, which as far as concerns himself he may far more certainly know, than any outward rule imposed upon him by others, whom he inwardly neither knows nor can know; at least knows nothing of them more sure than this one thing, that they cannot be his judges in religion. 1 Cor. ii. 15, "The spiritual man judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no man." Chiefly for this cause do all true protestants account the pope Antichrist, for that he assumes to himself this infallibility over both the conscience and the Scripture; "sitting in the temple of God," as it were opposite to God, "and exalting himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped," 2 Thess. ii. 4. That is to say, not only above all judges and magistrates, who though they be called gods, are far beneath infallible; but also above God himself, by giving law both to the Scripture, to the conscience, and to the Spirit itself of God within us. Whenas we find, James iv. 12, "There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: Who art thou that judgest another?" That Christ is the only lawgiver of his church, and that it is here meant in religious matters, no well-grounded Christian will deny. Thus also St. Paul, Rom. xiv. 4, " Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth but he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand." As therefore of one beyond expression bold and presumptuous, both these apostles demand, "Who art thou," that presumest to impose other law or judgment in religion than the only lawgiver and judge Christ, who only can save and destroy, gives to the conscience? And the forecited place to the Thessalonians, by compared effects, resolves us, that be he or they who or wherever they be or can be, they are of far less authority than the church, whom in these things as protestants they receive not, and yet no less Antichrist in this main point of Antichristianism, no less a pope or popedom than he at Rome, if not much more, by setting up supreme interpreters of Scripture either those doctors whom they follow, or, which is far worse,

forewarned in that parable, Matt. xiii. from the 29th to
the 31st verse: "Lest while ye gather up the tares, ye
root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow to-
gether until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I
will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the
tares," &c. Whereby he declares, that this work
neither his own ministers nor any else can discern-
ingly enough or judgingly perform without his own
immediate direction, in his own fit season, and that
they ought till then not to attempt it. Which is
further confirmed, 2 Cor. i. 24, "Not that we have
dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your
joy." If apostles had no dominion or constraining
power over faith or conscience, much less have ordinary
ministers, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, "Feed the flock of God, &c.
not by constraint, neither as being lords over God's
heritage." But some will object, that this overthrows
all church-discipline, all censure of errours, if no man
can determine. My answer is, that what they hear is
plain Scripture, which forbids not church-sentence or
determining, but as it ends in violence upon
the con-
science unconvinced. Let whoso will interpret or de-
termine, so it be according to true church-discipline,
which is exercised on them only who have willingly
joined themselves in that covenant of union, and pro-
ceeds only to a separation from the rest, proceeds never
to any corporal inforcement or forfeiture of money,
which in all spiritual things are the two arms of Anti-
christ, not of the true church; the one being an inqui-
sition, the other no better than a temporal indulgence
of sin for money, whether by the church exacted or
by the magistrate; both the one and the other a
temporal satisfaction for what Christ hath satisfied
eternally; a popish commuting of penalty, corporal
for spiritual; a satisfaction to man, especially to the
magistrate, for what and to whom we owe none: these
and more are the injustices of force and fining in
religion, besides what I most insist on, the violation of
God's express commandment in the gospel, as hath
been shewn. Thus then, if church-governors cannot
use force in religion, though but for this reason, be-
cause they cannot infallibly determine to the conscience
without convincement, much less have civil magis-
trates authority to use force where they can much less
judge; unless they mean only to be the civil execu-
tioners of them who have no civil power to give them
such commission, no, nor yet ecclesiastical, to any
force or violence in religion. To sum up all in brief,
if we must believe as the magistrate appoints, why not
rather as the church? If not as either without con-
vincement, how can force be lawful? But some are
ready to cry out, what shall then be done to blas-

phemy? Them I would first exhort, not thus to terrify | ture?
and pose the people with a Greek word; but to teach
them better what it is, being a most usual and common
word in that language to signify any slander, any ma-
licious or evil speaking, whether against God or man,
or any thing to good belonging: Blasphemy or evil
speaking against God maliciously, is far from con-
science in religion, according to that of Mark ix. 39,
"There is none who doth a powerful work in my
name, and can lightly speak evil of me." If this suf-
fice not, I refer them to that prudent and well delibe-
rated act, August 9, 1650, where the parliament de-
fines blasphemy against God, as far as it is a crime be-
longing to civil judicature, plenius ac melius Chrysippo
et Crantore; in plain English, more warily, more ju-
diciously, more orthodoxally than twice their number
of divines have done in many a prolix volume: al-
though in all likelihood they whose whole study and
profession these things are, should be most intelligent
and authentic therein, as they are for the most part, yet
neither they nor these unerring always, or infallible.
But we shall not carry it thus; another Greek appari-
tion stands in our way, Heresy and Heretic; in like
manner also railed at to the people as in a tongue un-
known. They should first interpret to them, that he-
resy, by what it signifies in that language, is no word
of evil note, meaning only the choice or following of
any opinion good or bad in religion, or any other
learning: and thus not only in heathen authors, but in
the New Testament itself, without censure or blame;
Acts xv. 5, "Certain of the heresy of the Pharisees
which believed;" and xxvi. 5, "After the exactest he-
resy of our religion I lived a Pharisee." In which
tense presbyterian or independent may without re-
proach be called a heresy. Where it is mentioned
with blame, it seems to differ little from schism; 1
Cor. xi. 18, 19, "I hear that there be schisms among
you," &c. for there must also heresies be among you,
&c. Though some, who write of heresy after their
own heads, would make it far worse than schism;
whenas on the contrary, schism signifies division, and
in the worst sense; heresy, choice only of one opinion
before another, which may be without discord. In
apostolic times, therefore, ere the Scripture was writ-
ten, heresy was a doctrine maintained against the doc-
trine by them delivered; which in these times can be
no otherwise defined than a doctrine maintained against
the light which we now only have, of the Scripture.
Seeing therefore, that no man, no synod, no session o
men, though called the Church, can judge definitively
the sense of Scripture to another man's conscience,
which is well known to be a general maxim of the
protestant religion; it follows plainly, that he who
holds in religion that belief, or those opinions, which
to his conscience and utmost understanding appear
with most evidence or probability in the Scripture,
though to others he seem erroneous, can no more be
justly censured for a heretic than his censurers; who
do but the same thing themselves, while they censure
him for so doing. For ask them, or any protestant,
which hath most authority, the church or the Scrip-

As

They will answer, doubtless, that the Scripture: and what hath most authority, that no doubt but they will confess is to be followed. He then, who to his best apprehension follows the Scripture, though against any point of doctrine by the whole church received, is not the heretic; but he who follows the church against his conscience and persuasion grounded on the Scripture. To make this yet more undeniable, I shall only borrow a plain simile, the same which our own writers, when they would demonstrate plainest, that we rightly prefer the Scripture before the church, use frequently against the papist in this manner. the Samaritans believed Christ, first for the woman's word, but next and much rather for his own, so we the Scripture: first on the church's word, but afterwards and much more for its own, as the word of God; yea, the church itself we believe then for the Scripture. The inference of itself follows: if by the protestant doctrine we believe the Scripture, not for the church's saying, but for its own, as the word of God, then ought we to believe what in our conscience we apprehend the Scripture to say, though the visible church, with all her doctors, gainsay: and being taught to believe them only for the Scripture, they who so do are not heretics, but the best protestants: and by their opinions, whatever they be, can hurt no protestant, whose rule is not to receive them but from the Scripture: which to interpret convincingly to his own conscience, none is able but himself guided by the Holy Spirit; and not so guided, none than he to himself can be a worse deceiver. To protestants, therefore, whose common rule and touchstone is the Scripture, nothing can with more conscience, more equity, nothing more protestantly can be permitted, than a free and lawful debate at all times by writing, conference, or disputation of what opinion soever, disputable by Scripture: concluding, that no man in religion is properly a heretic at this day, but he who maintains traditions or opinions not probable by Scripture, who, for aught I know, is the papist only; he the only heretic, who counts all heretics but himself. Such as these, indeed, were capitally punished by the law of Moses, as the only true heretics, idolaters, plain and open deserters of God and his known law: but in the gospel such are punished by excommunion only. Tit. iii. 10, "An heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject." But they who think not this heavy enough, and understand not that dreadful awe and spiritual efficacy, which the apostle hath expressed so highly to be in church-discipline, 2 Cor. x. of which anon, and think weakly that the church of God cannot long subsist but in a bodily fear, for want of other proof will needs wrest that place of St. Paul, Rom. xiii. to set up civil inquisition, and give power to the magistrate both of civil judgment, and punishment in causes ecclesiastical. But let us see with what strength of argument; "let every soul be subject to the higher powers." First, how prove they that the apostle means other powers, than such as they to whom he writes were then under; who meddled not at all in ecclesiastical causes, unless as tyrants and persecutors? And from them, I hope, they will not derive either. the right of