Jeremiah Burroughs on Religious Liberty
Puritan preacher and Westminster divine, Jeremiah Burroughs, has an excellent couple of chapters in his work, Irenicum: To the Lovers of Truth and Peace, regarding the tolerance of religion. I aim to summarize the main points of those chapters here, as well as provide a few comments of my own. As always, I commend to you to read it yourself in full, for I will not be covering everything.
The Position
Burroughs begins with briefly articulating the position that he will be refuting, namely that "there is to be an absolute liberty in the things of Religion." This position is supported by two overarching points.
- "First, That Magistrates have nothing to do with men in the matters of Religion."
- "Secondly, Conscience is a tender thing, and must have liberty; nothing must be done to men, who plead their consciences for what they do."
Burroughs now begins his refutation.
The Refutation
Burroughs begins with three reasons why this "principle is dividing":
- It is against nature. "First, It is abhorring to nature. Is it not an abhorring thing to any mans heart in the world, that men should suffer that God to be blasphemed, whom they honour? and that nothing should be done for the restraining any, but to ask them why they do so, and to persuade them to do otherwise?"
- It is against Scripture. Burroughs quotes Deuteronomy 13, where the law of Israel had commanded the stoning to death of one who enticed others to "go and serve other gods."
- It lets loose all kinds of wantonness. Burroughs states that if there be nothing to restrain men, "the wantonness and pride of mens hearts will carry them forth to infinite jarrings, contentions and divisions."
Burroughs briefly considers the potential response that Christ has left spiritual means, rather than political/civil means, to address the third point above. Burroughs acknowledges that spiritual means do work upon the outward man as a secondary effect, of course first working upon the heart to change it. Even so, "external means may keep evil from breaking forth in the outward man; Christ hath not left the outward man at absolute liberty to do what it will, till spiritual means be made effectual to the heart."
He now moves on to addressing the two main overarching points that we saw in the previous section above.
Magistrates have nothing to do in the matters of Religion
The first thing that Burroughs does is distinguish that the magistrate is not an officer of Christ the Mediator in His mediatory kingdom (the Regnum Mediatorium) but is rather an officer of God "in the general Government of the world." As Romans 13:4 states, "[the ruler] is the minister of God to thee for good." If the magistrate is a Christian, there is not additional authority granted to him. His Christianity merely helps him to execute his work in a better manner.
Seeing that the magistrate's authority comes not from Christ the Mediator, "doth not this exclude him from the exercise of any power in the matters of Christian Religion?" This is an objection raised to this day; since the magistrate's authority comes from Christ as the Son, the magistrate ought only to deal with matters concerning the Son's rule, which includes heathens. Since Christ's mediatory kingdom is not over heathens, the things of the mediatory kingdom should be excluded.
Burroughs turns to the testimony of Scripture, in which the examples of magistrates (specifically kings of Judah and Israel) dealing with matters of religion in the Old Testament are so full and clear, "that to name particulars would almost make a volume." Yet, even on this point, there are objections. He lists five:
- The power of these Old Testament kings was typical (as in typology). These kings exercising such power were types of the kingly power of Christ.
- Priests and Levites had power in temporal/civil things, yet none would say that ministers should today have civil authority. Likewise, just because magistrates had power in spiritual things in the times of the Old Testament does not follow they should have the like today.
- The church (spiritual body) and the commonwealth (political body) of the Jews were one. To be a heathen was to be excluded from the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12). Because of this, the magistrates necessarily had to be church officers as well.
- The Jews "were brought up in a more servile way then [sic] Christ would have his Church, in the times of the Gospel, brought up in." Compulsion in matters of religion was suitable to them but not to us today.
- The whole church then was under one political government whose laws were by divine appointment and kings chosen by God. Christ today chooses His church from all the nations with separate governments, laws, and magistrates.
Rather than answer each objection one by one, Burroughs argues directly for magistrates having power in matters of religion.
First, it is the dictate of nature. That is, seeing that the consent of the nations (Burroughs uses the phrase "generality of all people" to get at the same concept) has seen it fitting to punish those who would blaspheme their gods, it is right and according to the natural law. The patterns of civilization manifest the principles of nature.
Second, "there is a necessity of it as truly now as there was [in Old Testament Israel]," for we would be "in a most miserable condition if we had no external civil power to restrain from any kinds of blasphemies and seducements." What a lamentable thing it is if we can only but watch and attempt to persuade those wicked men who blaspheme God, mislead those dearest to us away from the faith, and race headlong towards eternal destruction themselves.
Even further yet, for those who still be not convinced, Burroughs brings forth the testimony of the Scriptures and does now here enumerate various instances of pagan kings/rulers interesting themselves in matters of religion, as well as other Scripture texts that speak more generally of magistrates promoting true religion. A few examples:
- Artaxerxes decrees that all should obey what Ezra commands (Ezra 7:21). Ezra commands all to obey the law of God lest they be punished, and he blesses God for this (Ezra 7:26-28).
- Nebuchadnezzar decrees that all men who speak against God shall be destroyed (Daniel 3:29). The Scripture records this as a part of the king's repentance.
- The King of Nineveh proclaims a fast and tells all to cry out to God in repentance (Jonah 3).
- Isaiah 49:23 speaks of kings and queens being nursing fathers and mothers. A magistrate who merely keeps civil peace without promoting the Christian religion can hardly deserve to be described as "nursing."
- The civil magistrate is to punish evil according to Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Seeing that it speaks generally of punishing evil, why should we distinguish where the Scripture does not?
Though civil power has no spiritual efficacy in and of itself to work in a spiritual way upon a man's soul, it can restrain men from external acts of evil or direct men towards external good.
"But we do not see a positive mandate in the New Testament for civil magistrates to promote true religion." How common an objection this is today, and Burroughs addresses it. We find in the Old Testament Scriptures the positive use of the magistracy in matters of religion; the light of nature also testifies to the legitimacy of this. Seeing that the New Testament contains no prohibition of this but reveals to us that God has appointed civil magistrates for our good and to be a terror to evil in the general, we ought to conclude that the power of the magistracy can be used to promote true religion. Burroughs makes a fascinating observation that when the apostles convened before civil authorities regarding matters of the Christian religion that they were preaching and practicing, they never pleaded that the magistracy has no power to meddle in the things of religion. "No, their only plea was the justness of their cause, that what they professed and preached was the truth of God."
Burroughs ends this section by addressing the objection that to give the magistrate the power to meddle in the things of religion makes the magistrate a judge in all causes of religion. Burroughs responds by pointing out there is much that is able to be known about God and the rules of human justice via the light of nature common to all men. Though he be not a physician, the magistrate may still judge physicians if they commit malpractice. It is the same with the things of religion.
Conscience is a tender thing, and must not be meddled with