West Port Experiment

The following passages from from Samuel Rutherford’s A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience (1649).

* * * *

2. The sword did not force the conscience of any then, more then now; nor could it cudgell an Idolater, or a blasphemer, into the sound faith then, more then now, and weapons of the Prophets in the Old Testament, as well as the Apostles in the New, were not carnall but spirituall, and mighty through God. Prophets, as Prophets, no more used the sword against mens consciences of old, than Christ, his Apostles, and Ministers doe now, Mat. 28.19,20. And as Christ saith now, preach the Gospel, but kill none, use neither staffe nor sword, nor miraculous power to destroy hereticks, or burn Samaria, so he said to his Prophets, speake my word to Israel and Judah and the Nations, to Ninive and others, but kill none, and use the sword against none of the rebellious who will not heare, that they may be converted. Yet he commanded the Magistrate to use the sword against the seducing Prophet, nor can the Libertines shew us of a Ceremoniall death inflicted for the transgression of a morall law, which transgression is now made free from all bodily punishment, indeed the man that refused to raise up seed to his brother was put to shame by the law, and we are freed from both the law, and the penalty thereof, and the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was put to death by an answer from God no doubt, but the breach of the holy Sabbath instituted before the fall is no Ceremoniall transgression, nor doe we thinke that every violation of the Sabbath was punished by death, but that the Magistrate, Masters and Fathers, are not to punish with bodily coercive power the transgressours of the fourth command, is most false. For what the Magistrate commands the Subject, the Master the servant, the Father the sons, and which they have warrant from the Morall law to command in these relations, that they command in order to the sword and rodde, if their commandements find no other welcome but rebellion, for the power of Magistrate, and Master, yea, and of the Father now in the state of sin is essentially coercive; they may compell their inferiours by strong hand, either to doe or suffer the will of God, which is sufficient to prove our point. Though it be true, some morall transgressions Moses punished with death, as Sabbath-breaking, it followeth not therefore the godly Prince may now punish it with death, but it followes not therefore, such transgressours are made free, through Christ, of all bodily punishment, as Libertines inferre, for though the temporarines of the punishment be only in the measure of punishment, yet not in the punishment it selfe. [189-191]

Libertines alledge, Luke 9. 51, 52, 53. &c. When Christ by a Village of the Samaritans, was refused and denied lodgings, James and John say, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But Christ rebuked them and said, ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them. Therefore (say they) no violence is to be used against Idolaters, obstinate Jews, and Heathens; this example is not proper to compare the Samaritans with hereticks, or the Apostles with the Magistrate; nor is it true, that the benign and meek engine of Christ, in matters of Religion, is to be managed with cruelty, in matters of Religion, for if the Apostle had made the same question touching hereticks at that time, Christ would have given the same answer. The Holland Arminians say, If Christ suffered not his Disciples to conceive a desire of revenge from heaven for men who refused to hear of Religion against the Samaritans that denied lodging to him, far less ought men believe that he will suffer, that in matters of Religion, for mere conscience any manifest violence should be exercised; for Christ saith, the spirit that leads you is raging, vehemency, fiery, the spirit of my Disciples is not so.

Ans. First, the Libertines must prove from this, that the Disciples made Religion the quarrel, why they would have the Samaritans burnt, and not an inhumane fact of denying against the Law of nature, an act of hospitality to poor strangers; and that because of the envy between the Jews and Samaritans, Christ seeming to grace Jerusalem, with his presence, then the Samaritans have had a high esteem of Christ, and were offended that so mighty a Prophet should visit their hatefull enemies; this was an act of envy rather then an heterodoxy in the faith, or opposing the doctrine of the Gospel.

2. The Samaritans were yet in their Idolatry and utterly ignorant of the Gospel; now we had never a question with Libertines, whether the first thing to be done to such as will not admit Christ or his messengers within their houses, and for the first act of refusing to hear the Gospel, before they be instructed, we are to call for the Magistrates sword to kill them, or for fire from heaven to destroy them: we think no; we should think this no way of God to convert them (we plainly say) It is not lawfull to us to goe, with fire and sword, to force the Indians, Samaritans, or any heathen to embrace the the Christian faith; the weapons of our warfare are not carnall; if they be within our power, we may restraine them, 1. From spreading their blasphemies to hurt and seduce the soules of the people of God. 2. We may hinder them from reproaching God or his Son Christ in the hearing of the people of God, as David fought against Goliath, who blasphemed the living God. 3. If they do Nationall injuries, and acts of hostility, we may raise armes against them, and in these warres in case of subduing, we may intend the propagating of the Gospel to them, as the Master is to command and teach his servants, Gen. 18.18. Deut. 6.6,7. so the victors having made the subdued people their servants, doe now acquire some masterly power over them to see them instructed in the knowledge of the true God. Nor is the intention of overcoming in a lawfull warre, the more unlawfull, but rather more spirituallized by the accession of a spirituall intention to doe good to their soules; whether wee may by force take their children from them, and train them up in the Christian Religion, is disputable, since their condition of being subdued denudes them not of the naturall relation of fathers to sonnes, or because in so robbing them of their children, we should but spoyle them of the actuall abuse of that paternall right, which is now conveyed to runne in a right channell, to traine up young ones in a right way, whereas their parents would imploy it to a wrong end, it would seeme no violence to the soules of young ones, since nothing is done, but by gracious education and instruction.

4. If they joyne with us in one Religious Covenant, and we sweare with our lives and goods to defend one another, we may cause them stand to the oath of God they were under. As Asa compelled not onely Judah but those of Israel that fell in to him, to stand to the oath; for the Covenant, when it is mutuall, giveth a reciprocation of Rights to each Kingdome over the other, for if he that makes a promise to another, much more he that sweares a Covenant to another, makes over a right to the other, to plead for the fulfilling thereof, omnis qui promittit facit jus alteri, cui est facta promissio, ad requirendam promissi impletionem. This is cleare in the Kings covenanting at his coronation with his people, and the people with the King, in the compacts between the master and the hired servant, between two merchants; if this were not, the nerves of all societies, and lawfull confederations between man and man, nation and nation should bee broken. 2. Omne promissum cadit in debitum; promise becomes debt, and so doth a Covenant.

But before I say more of compulsion of heathen, that are without. A word to the wise of forcing within, and of the Covenant, endeavouring of uniformity, not the Prelaticall in Ceremonies and canonicall obedience, which Familists impute to the Covenant, but Scripturall uniformity in the same faith and forme of wholesome words, and externall worship and ordering of it, which is not indifferent, as Libertines and Familists, who in this are brethren against Presbyterians, the Authors of their breathing in England, (but we intended good to men, not to sects) endeavouring of nearest uniformity in the three Kingdomes, which we did sweare is contrary to actuall tollerating of all sects and Religions; but the Sectaries endeavour the latter, and have compassed it, ergo, the Sectaries are gone contrary to their Oath and Covenant. The Proposition is evident, setting up of all sects and Religions by a Law-tolleration, is an endeavouring, yea and actuall erecting of the widest multiformity that is, Iea but the Ordinance provides against Antitrinitarians, Socinians, Papists. [248-251]

But nurse-fathers and civill Tutors must do something for the defense of the truth from errors; for Constantine the great closed the Temples of Heathen Gods, to the end that heathenish Idolatry might be abolished. [305]