2cll7/. That the persons holding the error are convinced, when per- haps they have been only confuted ; between which two there is a wide difference. He that holds the tnith may be confuted ; but a man cannot be convinced but by the truth. That a man shoidd be said to be convinced of a truth, and yet that truth not shine in upon his understanding to the expelling of the contrary error, to me is strange. To be convinced, is to be overpowered by the evidence of that which before a man knew not. I myself once knew a scholar invited to a dispute with another man about something in contro- versy in religion. In his own, and in the judgment of all the by- standers, the opposing person was utterly confuted; and yet the scholar, within a few months, was taught of God, and clearly con- vinced that it was an eiror which he had maintained, and the truth which he opposed : and then, and not till then, did he cease to won- der that the other person was not convinced by his strong arguments, as before he had thought. May not a Protestant be really worsted
OF TOLERATION. 199
in a dispute by a Papist? liatli it not so ere now fallen out? — if not, tlie Jesuits are egregious liars. To say a man is convinced, when, eitlier for want of skill and ability or the like, he cannot maintain his opinion to and against all men, is a mere conceit. The truth is, I am so far from this morose severity of looking upon all erring per- sons as convinced that have been confuted, that I rather, in charity, incline to believe that no erring person, whilst he continues in his error, is convinced. It will not easily enter into my dull apprehen- sion, how a man can be convinced of an en'or that is enlightened with a contraiy truth, and yet hold that error still. I am loath to charge more conxipt and vile affections upon any than do openly ap- pear. That of Paul, affinning that some men are self-condemned, is quite of another nature. I think a person is said to be convinced, not when there is sufficiency in the means of conviction, but when there is such an efficacy in them as to lay hold upon his understand- ing.
odly. That they are obstinate and pertinacious is also a cheap sup- posal, taken up without the price of a proof. What we call obsti- nacy, they call constancy ; and what we condemn thein for as perti- nac}^, they embrace as perseverance. As the conviction is imposed, not ov,rned, so is this obstinacy. If we may be judges of other men's obstinacy, all will be plain ; but if ever they get uppermost, they will be judges of ours. Besides, I knoAv not what good it will do us, or how it will advantage our cause, to suppose men obstinate and convinced before we punish them, — no such qualifications being anywhere in the book of God urged in persons deserving punishment: — if they have committed the crime whereunto the penalty is annexed, be they obstinate or not, they shall be punished.
[2.] But nov;, supposing all this, — that we are clear in all funda- mentals,— that we are convinced that they are convinced, and doubt not but that they are obstinate ; — if they keep themselves in the for- mer bounds, what is to be done ? I say, besides what we spake at the entrance of this discourse, I shall, as to any ways of corporeal co- action and restraint, oppose some few things.
1st The non-constitution of a judge in case of heresy is a thing civilly criminal. As to spiritual censures, and an ecclesiastical judg- ment of errors and false doctrines, we find them appointed, and a lawful judge as to the determining concerning them divinely insti- tuted ; so that in such ways they may be waiTantably proceeded against. Rev. xxii. 15. But now, for any judge that should make dis- quisition concerning them, or proceed against them, as things criminal, to be punished with civil censures, I conceive the Scripture is silent. And indeed, who should it be ? The custom of former ages was, that some persons of one sort should detenaiine of it as to right, — viz., that
200 OF TOLERATION.
such or such a thing was heresy, and such or such a one a heretic, — which was the work of priests and prelates ; and persons of another sort should " de facto " punish, and determine to be jounished, those so adjudged by the former, — and these were, as they called them, the secular magistrates, officers of this world. And indeed, had not the god of this world blinded their eyes, and the God of the spirits of all flesh hardened their hearts, they would not have so given up their power to the man of sin as to be made so sordidly instiximental to his bloody cruelty. We read, Jer. xxvi. 10, 11, that the priests and prophets assemble themselves in judgment, and so pronounce sentence upon the projDhet Jeremiah that he should die for a false prophet ; verse 12, Jeremiah makes his appeal to the secular magistrate, and all the people; who, taking cognizance of the cause, pronounce sen- tence in the behalf of the condemned person against the priests and prophets, and deliver him whether they will or not, verse 16. I spare the application of the story : but that princes and magistrates should, without cognizance of the thing or cause, proceed to punish- ment or censure of it, upon the judgment of the priests condemning such or such a man for a heretic or a false prophet, — blessed be the Lord, we have no warrant. Had this proceeding been regular, Jere- miah had died without mercy for a false prophet, as thousands since, standing before the Lord in his spirit, have done. This covtrse, then, that the civil magistrate should proceed to sentence of corporeal punish- ment upon others judging of the fault, is vile, sordid, unwan-antable, and exceedingly unworthy of any rational man, much more such as are set over the people of the land. That the same persons must determine of the cause and appoint the punishment is clear.