RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Liberius Liberty
quet, once a Roman Catholic priest, and by others. Their teaching was to the effect that all visible existence is but a manifestation of the one Spirit; hence nothing can be essentially bad; the regenerate man is he who recognizes that the distinction between good and bad is baseless, and consequently has attained the innocence which Adam had before he knew good and evil. In France those who held these views found protection under Margaret, Queen of Navarre, at Nerac; but they met a stern opponent in Calvin, whose influence with Margaret and other measures probably brought about the extinction of the party. In 1547 Calvin warned the Christians of Rouen against a Franciscan monk who expounded the dogma of predestination after the method of the Libertines. The latter replied in Bouclier de defence, which Farel answered in Glaive de la parole veritable (Geneva, 1550). Calvin speaks of two anonymous French writings which he ascribes neither to Quintin nor to Pocquet, which seem to be of a mystical Libertine cast. Some writings of this character were collected by C. Schmidt, Traites mystiques ecrits 1547-49
(Geneva, 1876), and by E. Picot, Theatre mystique de Pierre Du Vol et des Libertins spirituels de Rouen au 16. siecle (ib. 1882; cf. G. Jaujard, Essai sur les Libertins spirituels de Geneve [?], Paris, 1890). See also Loists. E. Choisy.
Bibliography: On 1: Schiirer, Geschichte, ii. 65, 431, iii. 84, Eng. transl., II., i. 49, ii. 56-57, 276; EB, iii. 2793- 2794; DB, iii. 110; and the commentaries on the passage. On 2: A. Roget, Hist, du peuple de Geneve, vols, ii.-iv., 7 vols., Geneva, 1871-84; E. Choisy, La Theocratie a Geneve au temps de Calvin, Geneva, 1897. On 3: CR, vii. 145, 341; Calvin, Institutes, III., iii. 14; F. Trechsel, Die protestantischen Antitrinitarier, i. 177, Heidelberg, 1839; Hundeshagen, in TSK, xviii (1845), 866 sqq.; A. Jundt, Hist, du pantheisme populaire, Strasburg, 1875. For further information on 2-3 consult also the works on the life of Calvin given under Calvin, John, e.g., W. Walker, pp. 293-295, New York, 1906.
LIBERTY, RELIGIOUS.
I. General Development.
Historical Survey (§1).
The Evangelical Spirit, Especially in England (§ 2).
In America (§ 3).
Humanistic Influences (§ 4). II. In Germany.
The Theory of Non-Toleration (§ 1).
The Situation at and During the Reformation (§ 2).
Toleration of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed (§ 3).
Change in the Political Theory of the Church (§4).
Present Legal Status of Churches (§ 5).
Roman Catholic Attitude (§ 6).
I. General Development: Religious liberty is, in the fullest sense of the term, unrestricted freedom to believe, practise, and propagate any religion whatever or none.
The Edict of Milan (see Constantine the Great and his Sons, I., § 4) issued by Constantine and Licinius in 313 seems to be the only ancient proclamation by a civil government of absolute religious liberty. The edict grants " both to the Christians and to all men freedom to follow I. His- the religion which they choose," " each torical one should have the liberty of wor- Survey. shiping whatever deity he pleases." " This has been done by us in order that we might not seem in any way to discriminate against any rank or religion." This action was taken
in the interest of Christianity and the edict contains instructions for the restitution of all church property taken from Christians in the Diocletian persecution. Constantine's later policy in relation to non-Catholic Christian parties and paganism was inconsistent with the declarations of the edict. From this time onward nothing more liberal than toleration appears in civil legislation until modern times. Pleas for religious liberty were frequently made by persecuted minorities; but neither civil governments nor dominant ecclesiastical parties paid heed to them. Luther pleaded for liberty in the most thoroughgoing way (1519-20); yet when confronted with religious radicalism (1521 onward) he became convinced that only drastic measures of repression could save the situation and urged the rulers to spare not. Humanists and Socinians argued for a broad toleration, and some of them no doubt would have rejoiced to see absolute liberty of conscience incorporated in the civil constitutions and in the confessions of faith; but they were not optimistic enough even to hope for such a consummation. Balthasar Huebmaier (q.v.), when his life was being sought by the Austrian government and he was in imminent danger, wrote in 1524 a tract " Concerning Heretics and their Burners " (cf. H. C. Vedder, Balthasar Hubmaier, pp. 84-88, New York, 1905) in which he sought to show the heresy, antichristian character, and futility of persecution for conscience's sake. Calvin was from the beginning an avowed antitolerationist. Regarding the Old- Testament theocracy as in an important sense a model for the Christian state, he thought it the duty of the church authorities to detect, convict, and denounce heretics and open sinners of every type, and of Christian magistrates to execute Church censures even to the extent of inflicting capital punishment in extreme cases. For the Christian minister or magistrate to allow a heretic to disseminate his errors was as little allowable as it would be to permit a miscreant to go about spreading the pestilence. Calvin had the full sympathy of Melanchthon, Butzer, Bullinger, Knox, and other leading reformers in his antagonism to religious liberty. In this he was followed for more than a century by English and American Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians, and by Reformed and Lutheran Churches in general. The progress of religious liberty has been greatly impeded also by the general conviction that the divergent religious opinions of minorities are malignant and inspired by the devil and that no treatment is too severe for the disseminators of diabolical error; that two forms of religion can not exist in the same state without disastrous consequences; that civil rulers have a right to determine the religion of their subjects (see Territorialism) ; that the established order is of divine right and that innovation is ipso facto evil. The Peace of Augsburg (1555; see Augsburg, Religious Peace of) and the Peace of Westphalia (1648; see Westphalia, Peace of) each in turn confirmed the states of Europe in territorialism.
The two lines of influence already mentioned wrought mightily for the breaking down of the intolerance of conservatism, for a long time separately and at last cooperatively, namely the old
Liberty, Religious