UCSB LIBRARY PERSECUTION AND TOLERANCE BY THE SAME AUTHOR. HISTORY OF THE PAPACY DURING THE PERIOD OF THE REFORMATION. 8vo. Voh.I.andll.'^'a.'E. GREAT SCHISM THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE THE COUNCIL OF BASEL THE PAPAL RE- STORATION, 1378-1464. 3Zf. Voh. HI. and IV. THE ITALIAN PRINCES, 1464-1518. 245. Vol.V. THE GERMAN REVOLT. 1517-1527. 15.?. LONDON AND NEW YORK LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. PERSECUTION AND TOLERANCE BEING THE HULSEAN LECTURES PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE IN 1893-4 M. CREIGHTON, D.D., Oxox. AND CAM. LORD BfSHOP OP' PETERBOROUGH Late Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Cambridge; Hon. Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, and Emmanuel College, Cambridge; LL.D. of Glasgow and Harvard; D.C.L. of Durham; Litt.D. of Dublin; Fellow of the Societa Romana di Storia Patria LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST i6th STREET 1895 All rights reserved PREFACE No one can feel more strongly than myself the triviality of this book as a contribution to the investigation of a large subject. It is only published in the hope that it may inspire some one to enter upon that subject with the thoroughness that it deserves. I have merely put together some conclusions which, in the course of my reading, came before my mind. They are fragmentary and incomplete ; but I found that any serious attempt at expansion would en- tirely alter the form of the book. All that I have done, in preparing them for the press, is to divide the second lecture into two parts for greater clearness, and to expand the first portion of it. I have also put into the Introduction the substance of recapitulations which were necessary to vi Preface. carry on the argument after intervals. In this revision I have been greatly helped by the Rev. J. O. F. Murray, Fellow of Emmanuel College. M. PETEIBURG. THE PALACE, PETERBOROUGH, 3th January, 1895. Preface - Contents - INTRODUCTION. Statement of the subject ------ 1 The conclusions set forth in this treatise - 2 Their difference from the current opinion, that perse- cution arose from the sense of exclusive salvation through Christ ------- 3-5 But Christianity was not propagated by the sword - 5 Persecution was directed only to the maintenance of the Church 6 Nor was persecution peculiar to Christianity, but was advocated by Plato for political expediency 7 And was so used in the Roman Empire ... 8 Suppression of opinion always a matter of State policy ----.-.. 9 The harmlessness of divergent opinions was a dis- covery in politics - 9-10 Politics, when founded on principles, appeal to religion -------- 10 Religion, not the cause, but the cloak of political contests - ... 11 The spirit of Christianity hostile to persecution 12 viii Contents. I. THE PERSECUTING SPIRIT. St. Luke ix. 54-6. PAGE Textual criticism of the passage Its meaning obvious, yet neglected - Question, Why ? to be answered by considering the incident recorded - 16 (1) The zeal of the Apostles prompted them to action 17 (2) But their motive a desire for revenge - (3) Cloaked by patriotism (4) Stimulated by personal inconvenience 20 (5) Sheltered behind precedent - Rebuked by Jesus Their precedent not sound Their error moral, not intellectual 25 The Church, in persecuting, followed their example and forgot the Lord's rebuke - 26 Allied itself with the State and grasped at power 27 The errors of the Church to be admitted - 28-9 Moral errors not to be excused as intellectual mistakes 30 If men had thought, they might have known 31 Statesmen too frequently judged by their success 32 Church to be judged by its fidelity to its Master 33 Was it misled by Old Testament precedents ? - 34 Meaning of the Old Testament history to us - 35-6 Understood in the same sense by St. Chrysostom 37 The Church, in persecuting, assumed that the wrath of man could work the righteousness of God - 37 Result of this assumption in the writings of Paramo 38-41 But persecution not confined to any particular form of the Church - 41 It misrepresents God's attitude to man - 42 Springs from man's natural desire to have his own way 43-4 Was rebuked by Jesus and is in open contradiction to the principles of Christianity - 45 Contents. ix II. THE INTOLERANCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Gal. i. 9. PAGE Persecution defined as the infliction of punishment for erroneous opinions as such .... 46 The New Testament contains condemnation of false opinions, which must be considered 47 (1) In the Gospels our Lord denounces religious teachers for abuse of their position, for sub- stituting tradition, for insincerity and selfishness 48 But He iised no weapons save words 49 (2) St. Paul xmmasks impostors who pervert the truth through unworthy motives - - - 50-1 He asserts that there is a definite Gospel which may not be changed ------ 52-3 His method is unsparing denunciation of error - 54 St. John agrees, and makes the Incarnation the test of Christianity ------ 54 (3) Visible punishment accompanied some cases of discipline 56 As that of the Corinthian adulterer - 57 And Hymenaeus and Alexander .... 57 These cases rare, and the punishment came from God 58 Wrong opinion is denounced but not punished - 59-60 No ground for the claim of coercive authority by the Church 60 (4) Need for some sternness to keep Christianity free from pagan and Jewish errors .... 61 These warnings necessary for all times 62 For the truth has an exclusive claim on man's allegiance 63 There are always dangers of compromising it - 64-5 The world wishes to fit Christianity to its own purposes 65-6 x Contents. . PAGE But the historic Christ must be maintained 67 And the Church, as it holds the truth, must guard it against error, though not with worldly weapons - 68-9 III. THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO PERSECUTION. The early history of the Church was a struggle, first against the power of the world, then the wisdom of the world ..... 70 Imperfections visible even in martyrs - 71 More in controversialists - - 72 Yet no wish to constrain opinion - 72 Persecution came from desire for uniformity by State 73 At first shocked the Christian conscience in the case of PrisciUian 74-5 Yet this case quoted with approbation by Pope Adrian V. - - 76 Early protest soon forgotten, and Church accepts the position of defender of the social order - 77 Which was the function of the State 78-9 Thus the system of the Church, as educator of man- kind, suffered 80 And its discipline became legal ... 81 Heresy regarded as high treason - 81 Spiritual work of Church distinct from its temporal authority 82 And always felt to be so - - - 83 But power more convenient than influence 84 And hardened into a system which was used for political ends 85-7 Yet the Christian consciousness struggled against the system, as in the Mendicant Orders 87 Which were, however, enslaved by it after a time - 88-9 Contents. xi IV. THE EVOLUTION OF TOLERANCE. St. John xii. 32. PAGE The contradictory attitude of men's minds about per- secution illustrated by St. Louis - - - 91-3 " The faith in honest doubt " recognised - - - 93-4 Intellectual grounds for tolerance fully expressed by Marsiglio of Padua ------ 94-8 Though known to Liberalism were not acted upon - 99 Example of Gerson - - - 100-4 Of Thomas More - - 104-10 Of Luther- - 110-12 Of Calvin and Melanchthon 112 The Eeformation in Protestant countries made per- secution avowedly a matter of expediency - - 113-4 By changes in political relations tolerance became more expedient 114-5 Thus tolerance grew from public expediency - - 115 A testimony to the solidarity of common life - - 116 Tolerance can only be maintained by being elevated to a principle 117 This principle found in the work of the Incarnation - 118-20 V. THE NATURE OF TOLERANCE. Phil. iv. 5. Tolerance arose from a denial of the right to persecute 121 Like other protests has rested on various grounds - 122 Regarded as a virtue, it is a just attitude towards the opinions of others 123 This excludes alike coercion and indifference - - 123-4 For the indifferent man is not really tolerant - - 125 xii Contents. t'AGE Absolute freedom of opinion impossible, for freedom implies responsibility 126 Every organisation must define its basis - 127 The Church cannot alter the Divine purpose for which it exists - - - -- --128 And ought not to be accused of intolerance for refus- ing to do so - 129-30 Indeed it alone fosters a spirit of independent judg- ment of events 131 Tolerance rests on the respect for man as a spiritual being 132-4 Embodies the idea of forbearance while waiting for the judgment of God 135-6 Faith in Him alone saves us from the temptations of self-will 137-8 The lessons of the past history of the Church enforce this 139 Liberty is always unsafe in the world, and must be guarded by the Church, which alone knows man's destiny ........ 140 INTRODUCTION. THE existence of persecution in the Christian Church is a fact which is more frequently com- mented on than explained. Greater attention has been paid to the methods and extent of persecu- tion than to the causes which produced it, or the causes which brought it to an end. It is indeed difficult to approach the subject in an impartial spirit. Those who write the history of any period of persecution tend either to exag- gerate or to apologise. On the one side, there is a desire to represent persecution as especially inherent in all religious systems, or it may be, as especially inherent in Christianity. On the other side, there is a tendency to plead the generally beneficent action of a particular form of religious organisation in relation to the world's progress as an extenuation of its particular misdoings. The history of persecution is a large subject, and requires accurate discrimination of its separ- 2 Persecution and Tolerance, ate phases. The meaning of tolerance, its basis, and the causes which produced it, form a neces- sary complement to any such inquiry. On so wide a field it is presumptuous to enter without complete equipment. Yet I feel that it may be possible to turn attention to some aspects of the question which have been overlooked ; and I am not without hopes that even a few fragmentary thoughts may perhaps awaken an interest in the rnind of some one who may be enabled to pursue the subject more systematically. It seemed to me that, sometimes at least, the object of the founder of this lecture might be fulfilled by propounding a large question, rather than by working out some point of detail. It may be well, for the sake of clearness, to state at once the main conclusions which I have en- deavoured to set forth in the following pages. These are (1) that persecution, or the infliction of punishment for erroneous opinions, was contrary to the express teaching of Christ, and was alien to the spirit of Christianity ; (2) was adopted by the Church from the system of the world, when the Church accepted the responsibility of main- taining order jn^ihe community ; (3) was really Introduction. 3 exercised for political rather than religious ends ; (4) was always condemned by the Christian conscience ; (5) was felt by those who used it to land them in contradictions ; (6) neither origin- ated in any misunderstanding of the Scriptures nor was removed by the progress of intellectual enlightenment, but (7) disappeared because the State became conscious that there was an ade- quate basis for the maintenance of political society in those principles of right and wrong which were universally recognised by its citizens, apart from their position or beliefs as members of any religious organisation. Such opinions differ materially from those which are generally current on this subject. The origin of persecution is commonly found in the overwhelming claim which Christianity makes on its adherents. Christianity, it is said, regards man's life on earth as but the beginning of an eternal destiny, and asserts that eternity can only bring happiness to those who are with- in the fold of the Church. Consequently the maintenance of right opinion about religious matters is a point of primary importance for human happiness, rightly understood, and ought 4 Persecution and Tolerance. in the interests of mankind to be enforced even at the cost of immediate suffering to obdurate and misguided individuals. 1 This is doubtless a logical position and is warranted by the language of the advocates of persecution. But a line of dis- tinction must be drawn between the motives which prompted to persecution, and the argu- ments by which it was defended, when once it was undertaken. It is obvious that this reasoning was the only one by which persecution could be de- fended, and it is equally obvious that persecution needed a defence. But persecution^ was never upheld asjbeing a method of general a.p_p|jpa,tinn ; it was always described as a surgical operation, as cutting out plague spots that the health of the body politic might be preserved. Its object was not the salvation of the greatest number, in spite of themselves, but the protection of the purity of the Church, on the basis which it had laid down for itself. In fact persecution was directed against heretics and schismatics rather than against un- believers. 1 This is briefly the position taken up by Mr. Lecky, History of Rationalism, chap, iv., which is probably the best statement of the current view of the subject. Introduction. 5 Now if the motive of persecution had been the overpowering sense of exclusive salvation through the Church, the whole history of Christianity would have been different. In the first place, it would have been bound to spread its dominion by the sword ; and this it did not attempt to do. Its missionary enterprise was great ; but even the ideal motive of the crusades was not the forcible conversion of the Mussulman, but the recovery of an heirloom of Christendom. More- over, even within the limits of Christendom itself, coercion was not employed against those who were not Christians. Let me quote the words of one who believes that persecution arose from mistaken zeal, but recognises facts that make against his view : " Man is seldom wholly consistent in the practical application of his principles, and the persecutors of the thirteenth century made one concession to humanity and common-sense which was fatal to the completeness of the theory on which they acted. To carry it out fully they should have proselytised with the sword among all non- Christians whom fate threw in their power ; but from this they abstained. Infidels who had 6 Persecution and Tolerance. never received the faith, such as Jews and Saracens, were not to be compelled to Christi- anity. Even their children were not to be baptised without parental consent, as this would be contrary to natural justice, as well as dangerous to the purity of the faith. It was necessary that the misbeliever should have been united to the Church by baptism in order to give her jurisdic- tion over him." : There is no inconsistency in these opinions, which are quoted from the writings of St. Thomas, if we recognise that persecution was used for the maintenance of the organisation of the Church ; and that the opinions of the heretics, against whom persecution was directed, were regarded by the State as endangering social order. Jews and Saracens were not citizens, but aliens who might be expelled at any moment. Their existence within the limits of Christendom constituted no menace to the framework of civil society. Moreover, this theory of the basis of persecution assumes that persecution had its origin purely in the Christian belief. But this was not so. The 1 H. C. Lea, History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, i., 242. Introduction. j ancient conception of the State as a community for the purpose of civilised life accepted man as . he was, recognised the operative motives of conduct, and tried to bring them under State control. It was a matter of political expediency that men should at least profess to hold the same religious opinions. The language of Plato did not materially differ from that of the Inquisitor: " Let this then be the law : No one shall possess shrines of the Gods in private houses, and he who is found to possess them, and perform any sacred rites not publicly authorised, shall be inr formed against to the guardians of the law ; and let them issue orders that he shall carry his private rites to the public temples, and if he do not obey, let them inflict a penalty until he comply. And if a person be proven guilty of impiety, not merely from childish levity, but such as grown-up men may be guilty of, let him be punished with death." 1 These were the matured principles of Plato, after he had seen them applied in some degree to the case of Socrates. Yet Plato had no belief in exclusive salvation, but was concerned only with 1 Plato, Laws, 908-10 ; Jowett's translation. 8 Persecution and Tolerance. the problem of a well-ordered State. I need riot recall the existence of similar principles in the Roman Empire. Roman religion was willing to make a place for every cult which could be trusted not to outstep the bounds of political convenience : but it had its illicitae religiones, and Christianity was one of them. Roman civili- sation fell, because the old motives for patriotism, public spirit, duty, and helpfulness were worn out, and could not be renewed from any elements which the State had at its command. It was conquered by Christianity, because Christianity had a new power of binding men together. Then came the temptation to the Christian Church to permit the State to make this power the outward | framework, as well as the inner principle, of J social life. I am concerned only with persecution in its ecclesiastical aspect. But the considerations which I have just put forward, lead into a larger field. Persecution is supposed to be an iniquity peculiar to ecclesiastical institutions. I have not striven, in the folio wing pages, to extenuate the evil doings of Church or Churchmen ; theymust bear the responsibility of allowing the struggle for liberty of Introduction. g opinion to be fought on religious grounds. But the struggle in itself was inevitable. Those re- sponsible for the maintenance of any form of social order, think it wise to prevent new opinions from finding premature expression. They seek to keep them within harmless limits, and constitute themselves judges of what is harmful. The con- scious and deliberate expression of man's attitude towards the great issues of life will always awaken discord. Political sagacity is always employed in preventing the possibility of a revolution. There would have been suppression of opinion, if there had been no Christian Church. But this does not lessen the responsibility of the Church, which set up Inquisitors in aid of the civic police. I have spoken so fully of the evils of persecu- tion, that I may be allowed to dwell for a moment on some faint gleams of compensation. If we attempt a general survey of political progress, it may be said that persecution is concerned with that period of social development in which the in- dividual made good his right to form his own opinions ; but he made it good by proving that a great diversity of npjnjrmfL-Wfl-s cornpfl.tihlft the existence of social order. It must be remem- -"* io Persecution and Tolerance. bered that this was a discovery to be made, a truth to be proved. States and individuals alike needed training before it could be accepted. From the point of view of the Church, it is abso- lutely indefensible that she should have allowed the conflict to be waged round her teaching or her organisation. But the battle on such a ground was at least fruitful of results ; and the cry of liberty of conscience raised the issue in its noblest form. The combatant, or the sufferer, for such an object knew the responsibility attach- ing to freedom ; and the struggle brought to light great principles of common life, which had to be recognised before the fight was won. Dreadful as are the records of war s_of_ religion, it must be admitted that thesewar^jiajd^au^es_ which were entirely independent of religion, and corresponded to national aspirations, which found expression in religious differences, but were not religious in their real origin. In fact religion is almost the necessary covering for principles; and war must be waged in behalf of a principle, if it is not waged merely for greed. Parties formed for the maintenance of a principle rest after all on a nobler basis than do shifting combinations for Introduction. 1 1 material ends. The wars of the fifteenth century, when princes and people, emancipated from all re- ligious and moral considerations, pursued an ever- changing policy of personal, or national, aggran- disement, were not so fruitful for the future as were the religious wars of the sixteenth century. " Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum " is an old exclamation, which has ofttimes been repeated. But there are evils in the world even where there is no religion. Any form of religion implies some limitation on arbitrary caprice. It must always be remembered, in surveying the past, that the contrast is not between oppression, in the particular form which it took, and freedom ; but between one form of oppression and another. Mediaeval England was singularly free from religious persecution, but it was not free from injustice. Persecution only began in England when new forces in society made themselves felt ; and religious differences, in this country, have always been closely connected with social distinc- tions. But these are considerations which lead be- yond my immediate subject, which is, to main- tain that Christianity cannot justly be charged 12 Persecution and Tolerance. with persecution. It arose from impulses of human nature, common at all times, which Christianity did not immediately succeed in sub- duing, and which succeeded for a time in cloaking themselves with the semblance of doing God service by promoting the common welfare. The spirit of Christianity never ceased to protest, and finally supplied the force before which persecution fell. Though persecution, as expressed in legal penal- ties, may be a thing of the past, the temper which produced it may still survive in altered forms. The desire to have one's own way, because it is one's own, may still wear the appearance of zeal for the common good, or care for the purity of an institution. Penalties may still be inflicted after trial with closed doors. Discussion may be pre- maturely checked by means as efficacious as the threat of the faggot and the stake. In surveying the mistakes of the past, it is well to remember that their causes are not removed. - I. THE PERSECUTING SPIRIT. " When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt Thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven and consume them ? But He turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village." (St. Luke ix. 54-6) Revised Version. SUCH is the account of this remarkable incident in the simple form to which it has been reduced by recent criticism of the sacred text. It is better known to us in the more elaborate form in which it has been current in the Church, probably since the end of the second century. 1 The fact that this passage was selected as needing expansion and explanation is in itself significant of the im- portance which was in very early times attached 1 " When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did ? But He turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." (St. Luke ix. 54-6) A.V. B 14 Persecution and Tolerance. to it. "He turned and rebuked them ;" though the evangelist did not record the nature of the rebuke, it may well be that tradition treasured the weighty words, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of," and they were added to the original. A further expansion was given by the adaptation of recorded utterances of Jesus : " For the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." 1 In the same way the cause of the apostles' zeal was at a later period rendered more obvious and in- . telligible by the explanatory reference to the pro- phet of the Old Dispensation, whom they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration ; and the words, " as Elijah did," made explicit what was before implied in the question : " Wilt Thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven and con- sume them?" 2 In this way, it would seem, the original narrative of St. Luke was enriched by a careful commentary, calculated to impress its meaning more forcibly on the mind, and leave no room for misunderstanding. I have dwelt upon the history of the text, 1 St. John iii. 17 ; St. Luke xix. 10. 2 For the history of the text see Westcott & Hort, New Testament, Appendix, 59-60. The Persecuting Spirit. 15 because it seems to indicate a progressive anxiety to grasp and explain the purport of the incident here recorded. A suggestion was made to the Lord that He should use His supernatural power for the purpose of punishing those who refused to receive Him. He not only repudiated the suggestion, but rebuked the spirit from which it sprang, as being alien to the method of His teach- ing and repugnant to the spirit of His mission. Such an incident, emphasised in such a way, was admirably fitted to guide His Church in all ages. A great principle could not have been expressed more clearly, or in a form better cal- culated to arrest attention. Not only was perse- cution itself condemned, but also the temper from which it sprang, and the arguments by which it was supported. Yet in spite of all this, the history of the Christian Church shows us that this solemn warning failed of its purpose, so much so that the spirit of Christianity is some- times represented as essentially a persecuting spirit. In early days the Christian consciousness went out of its way to make clear the proclamation of its Master that the kingdom of heaven was to 1 6 Persecution and Tolerance. spread from within, and was to find its home in the hearts and consciences of ransomed and re- generate men. In latter days a dominant organi- sation caught at every argument which could enable it to hold men subject to its sway, and welcomed compulsion as an aid to its efforts. We may well ask ourselves how such a change was wrought. For the purpose of answering this question let us return to the incident recorded in the text, and consider it as an illustration of the motives which prompt to persecution, and their relation to the arguments to which they turn for support. Jesus was churlishly refused hospitality in a village of the Samaritans because His face was set to go to Jerusalem. The refusal was an out- rage, and an insult : an outrage to the great Teacher, who at least deserved respect ; an insult to the national sentiment of His followers. It came at a time when the hearts of the apostles had been uplifted by the splendid vision of the Mount of Transfiguration. The great lawgiver, and the foremost prophet of the law, had sub- mitted themselves to Jesus and acknowledged that He was sent to accomplish and perfect their The Persecuting Spirit. 17 mission. For a moment the kingdom of heaven had seemed to have a local habitation upon earth. Never before had those who saw that vision been so deeply impressed with a sense of their Master's greatness. It is true that He had spoken of im- pending disaster, but this counted for little ; so far as the hearers attended to His forebodings they were only an incitement to their zeal. Dan- gers yes, there were dangers ; but surely they could be overcome by One whose power was so far-reaching and so deeply seated. Courage and resoluteness were the qualities necessary for success. So the affront to their Master and to their nation seemed doubly intolerable. Why possess power and not use it ? Why have a policy and not give it effect? The sense of power, the consciousness of a noble and far-reaching policy, created in their minds a desire for strong and vigorous action ; and action involved the overthrow of gainsayers. Is not this natural reasoning ? Does it not apply to the conduct of great affairs ? Does it not express the necessary method of success ? But there was more than a desire for action in the minds of the energetic apostles. Con- 1 8 Persecution and Tolerance. siderations of policy might enable them to explain their action to themselves and give it a fair colour; but the motive was one of human im- patience, irritation and desire for revenge. Their sense of right and wrong was shocked by the insult offered them by the Samaritans. Doubt- less it seemed to them that they were free from selfish feeling ; for they were moved only in behalf of their Master, and of their nation. But their Master's cause was after all their own. They had left all and followed Him ; but if they were prepared to share His hardships at first, it was partly in the hope that one day they might share His glory. When He was welcomed with respect, some reflection of the honour paid to Him fell upon themselves. They felt resting upon them the blessing of Moses and Elijah ; was not that to be realised by some form of human recognition, which should brighten their path through life ? When they were brought into sudden contact with human churlishness they experienced a sense of personal wrong, of deprivation of an undoubted right. The extent of this personal feeling was hidden from them by the fact that it was concealed beneath the veil of a further insult The Persecuting Spirit. ig to their nation. The Samaritan villagers expressed their immemorial hatred for the Jews by refusing to admit to hospitality one who was journeying towards the Holy City. Personal resentment cloaked itself behind the cover of patriotic zeal for the national honour. Surely " salvation was of the Jews " : should not that truth be placed beyond dispute? Nothing is better for the world's progress than to make its great issues clear. A nation conscious of a mission must assert its right to fulfil its mission. A timely resort to force is the shortest and most humane method in the long run. A signal act of vengeance on a handful of insolent peasants would be a warning to the rest, and would doubtless lead to the submission of the whole Samaritan people. There was a good oppor- tunity for a decisive act which, though severe in its outward appearance at first sight, would be seen on reflection to be entirely merciful in its end. Moreover, while thus they seemed to them- selves to reason, while great considerations of future good flashed through their excited minds, they scarcely stopped to think of the immediate 2O Persecution and Tolerance. cause of their perturbation. Indeed who, without a resolute struggle, ever faces the truth about in- dividual self, or the pettiness of his individual frailty? The disciples were wearied with a day's journey. They had for some time been walking on with the assured confidence that rest was close at hand. They had consoled themselves with expectations of honourable reception and grateful repose. Their hopes were suddenly dashed ; their pleasant visions faded away. What was to be done ? It was a practical question. They shrank from the miserable prospect of resuming their journey aimlessly, amid the jeers of the inhuman folk who triumphed over their discom- fiture. Could not that ignominious ending be averted? AVas it not a time for vengeance? Were there not good reasons for vengeance? The desire came first from the promptings of purely human frailty. The reasons came after- wards, almost unsought for and unasked. And the reasons were so grand, so noble, so satis- factory, so convincing, so easily expressed in stately phrases, that anger at the loss of a lodging was in a moment draped with the dignity of lofty patriotism ; wounded vanity became zeal The Persecuting Spirit. 21 for the Master's service ; vindictiveness claimed the high sounding title of deliberate policy. These are motives, this is a method, common to all human affairs. There is nothing peculiarly ecclesiastical about them. They apply to any body of men who have a leader, and an object, and believe themselves to be in the possession of power. But when the apostles proceeded to formulate a course of action, they seem to have felt the need of sheltering themselves under precedent, and claiming a divine sanction. " They said, Lord, wilt Thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" The refer- ence is clear enough, without the explanatory addition " even as Elijah did." They had in their minds the life of the prophet whom they had just seen. He had overthrown his enemies by the power which God committed to him : surely Jesus also was possessed of a like power which might be called to their aid. At first they gazed on the untroubled face of their Master, and felt some difficulty in framing their thoughts. They were dimly conscious that it was useless to ask Him to take action in His own behalf. Yet 22 Persecution and Tolerance. He had once committed some of His powers to their hands ; might He not do so now ? So the question was asked: "Lord, wilt Thou, that we call down fire from heaven?" They wished for permission from Him to do on His behalf what they felt He would not do for Himself. It might be that the time had come when the Master would cast aside His strange reserve, and boldly advance His claims on men's allegiance. At all events, sheltering themselves behind precedent, and offering themselves as the willing agents for a new departure, they preferred their request. It must have been with stammering tongues, and with a quick sense of shame before they reached the end of the sentence. They read the answer on the Lord's face, even before He " turned and rebuked them." It may be said: "Did not the precedent to some extent justify them? Was not their mistake, if mistake it was at that time, natural ? " We can- not admit that this was so ; for Jesus did not explain, as He would have done in the case of pardonable ignorance : " He turned and rebuked them." Indeed, a little reflection will show that there was ample reason for rebuke. First of all, it The Persecuting Spirit. 23 was presumptuous on their part to interfere at all, still more to suggest a line of action which experi- ence had sho\vn them to be contrary to the whole tenor of their Master's teaching. But more than this, we know that the rebukes of Jesus were of the nature of revelations ; they tore away the trappings of plausibility and left men face to face with their real motives. The Boanerges brethren had taken their stand on precedent. The rebuke of Jesus tore away that plea. It was not the thought of precedent which prompted the suggestion ; on the other hand, the precedent had been hastily and thoughtlessly caught at to give colour to their own passionate desires ; and they knew it, but tried to act as though they thought otherwise. They assumed a precedent to enable them to be at once advocates and judges of their own cause. For how did the precedent they hinted at bear on the case before them ? A body of wayfarers asked for hospitality, and it was re- fused them, ungraciously and insolently, by those from whom they asked it. What parallel was there in this to the case of a solitary man, sur- rounded by a body of soldiers who were ordered to lead him before a threatening king ? There 24 Persecution and Tolerance. was in their case no imperious motive of self- preservation, nothing save disappointment and inconvenience. Moreover, the action of Elijah, which they quoted, was part of a method of teaching which God applied to the circumstances of a particular time. It was part of a stern protest against national apostasy. It was a continuation of the warning, decisively given and shamefully neglected, on Mount Carmel, when it was proved that Baal was unreal and that Jehovah alone could send down fire on the sacrifice. The warning which Elijah was empowered to give at the beginning of his mission was repeated at its close. Nothing but fire from heaven could appeal to an age which preferred the corrupt nature-worship of Baal to the pure worship of Jehovah. Again there was no parallel between the two cases, and the apostles had ample means of knowing it. They had followed their Master for long ; they had seen His method, and listened to His teaching. Nothing that He had done or said afforded them a shred of reason for suggesting recourse to violence. What they did was really this. They yielded to a sudden access of resentment, and then picked up The Persecuting Spirit. 25 an isolated fact in the past, which happened to have heen lately brought before their minds, and proposed to Jesus that they should imitate it. "He turned and rebuked them." Did men wish to know the significance of that rebuke ? It was because the apostles were entirely wrong, wrong from the very beginning ; they had lost all hold of their Master's meaning. Human frailty had for the time put them utterly out of sympathy with Him, had made them forget all that they had learned from Him. The gust of human passion had blown away all the gentle atmosphere with which the companionship of Jesus had surrounded them. His spirit which usually sheltered them was gone : the spirit of the world had driven it away, and they hastened to clothe its promptings in some garb which might seem to bear God's mark upon it. " Ye know not," ye do not stop to think, "what manner of spirit ye are of." It was not intellectual error that caused moral confusion ; it was moral error which welcomed intellectual con- fusion as an ally. They knew not, when they ought to have known; for the god of this world had blinded their eyes, so that they had no wish to see. 26 Persecution and Tolerance. So then we have in this passage the account of a great mistake which the apostles made, for which they were rebuked. It was a moral mis- take, in its origin, and only made a flimsy pretence of concealing its true nature by retreating under the covert of intellectual confusion. As such it was rebuked by Jesus in terms of unmistakable clearness. How, then, we ask again, has the Church of Christ ever dared to persecute ? There can only be one answer : because it was exposed to the same insidious temptations as beset the apostles, and it closed its ears to the Lord's rebuke. For we must recognise that persecution is not merely some- thing horrible and hideous, but something which is terribly natural in itself. The desire of every man to have his own way becomes all the stronger when he knows that his way is a good way. It is appallingly easy to cover this natural desire with a fair appearance, to claim as from God authority which He has not conferred, and to misapply Scripture in justification of such a claim. This is what the Church unfortunately did in the fourth century, and I do not see that any extenuation can be pleaded for its misdoing. The Church was in The Persecuting Spirit. 27 possession of an abiding and unalterable standard by which to judge its motives and try its actions. It was untrue to itself if it did not always act up to its knowledge. It was wrong when it deliberately abandoned its standard from reasons of expediency or self-interest. Its aims were higher than those of the world, and the two powers came into inevitable collision. The Church conquered by suffering, and then, in the moment of victory, yielded to the attraction of an alliance with the world to put down the foes who were undermining the faith within. The alliance, it is true, failed of its purpose ; and the power of the State was invoked by both parties in turn. But none the less the precedent was established. Orthodoxy prevailed by its inherent truth. But the weapons once grasped remained in the Church's armoury, where for long intervals of peace they lay unused. When battle was impending they were furbished up anew, and it was claimed that they had received God's consecration. Popes and prelates, with their minds made up on purely worldly grounds, sought for precedents and rejoiced to find them. They perverted God's message, with which they were entrusted, to the level of the 28 Persecution and Tolerance. world's maxims. They stifled conscience, they drowned the voice of understanding, they went far to quench the shining of the Light of the world, they certainly obscured its power to illu- minate the dark places of politics and society. Does this seem to be too harsh a judgment, too sweeping a condemnation of many great men in the past, who were in their day and generation benefactors to mankind? God forbid that we should rejoice in any false sense of superior enlightenment, or boast of freedom from like temptations. It is not without terror that we can face the awful lessons to be drawn from the imperfections of good men. It is only in a spirit of profound humility that we can approach such a subject, and its teaching ought to sink deep into our souls. But in considering the ways of man in the past, we are also considering the ways of God ; and when these ways parted, we may neither shrink from saying so nor from estimating the true cause of their divergence. It may be natural to frame apologies for man; but that is only possible by lessening the fulness of God's revelation. " They were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were without The Persecuting Spirit. 29 faith ? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God ? God forbid : yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar." l We are judging man's execution of God's pur- poses. We have only too pressing need to learn how man's want of faith is ever striving " to make of none effect the faithfulness of God." It is well to learn this lesson in a ground where all right-minded men are agreed. It is well to abandon every shred of attempted palliation, and discover the root of bitterness, growing not in any particular age, or any parti- cular institution, but inherent in human nature itself, and so stubbornly obstinate to spiritual influences that it even turns them from their purpose and perverts them to its own. But, it may be urged, ought not some allow- ance to be made for intellectual error? It is a thought borne home to the mind of any one who reflects upon the past, that the sphere of human error in matters of morality is smaller than is generally supposed, and the sphere of sin is greater. We must not be misled by the . success of nations, of movements, or of indivi- 1 Kom. iii. 2, 3. C 3o Persecution and Tolerance. duals, to condone their misdoings. We must not be overcome by the glamour of great names. "It is not history which teaches conscience uprightness, it is conscience which teaches it to history. The accomplished fact is corrupting : it is for us to correct it by persisting in our ideal. The soul moralises the past that it may not be demoralised by it. Like the alchemists of the Middle Ages, it only finds in the crucible of experience the gold which itself has poured in before." 1 Men did wrong, not because they erred through ignorance, but because they took the shortest and most obvious means to secure their own immediate objects. This is seen clearly enough in the case of individuals. The rule, " Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you," is in some form or other universally known and recognised. If it were universally acted upon, the world would be a very different place. But man waives it, as agent, and only pleads for its observance as patient. His desires are his own, and his first struggle is to attain their fulfilment. The severity of others' judgment on this outburst of selfishness tends to vary in proportion as they 1 Amiel, Journal Intime, i., o'2. The Persecuting Spirit. 31 feel themselves personally menaced by it. They feel in themselves a certain kinship with the of- fender, which prompts them to plead in his behalf when his endeavour does not threaten any danger to themselves. "He was ignorant," they say, " ignorant of the amount of punishment which his act might bring upon himself, ignorant of the amount of suffering which it would entail on others. Had he known this, he would have paused ; there is hope that the more perfect realisation of these things may bring into play counteracting motives which may be powerful enough to restrain him in the future." This may be true. But it cannot be pleaded that he was ignorant that his act was wrong, that he would not have condemned it if it had been wrought upon himself. If he had thought he might have known ; but he did not wish for knowledge lest it might restrain him. Chris- tianity comes to man's help by developing this knowledge. It sets over against what man is, an ideal of what he may become; against desires pressing from without, a sense of possibilities within ; against the natural self, the spiritual self ; against the tempter, the vision of the Incarnate Lord. It creates a consciousness which acts as 32 Persecution and Tolerance. instantaneously as the evil against which it is directed. In the case of a society such as the State, the same holds good as holds good of the individual. The State aims at satisfying the dominant inter- ests of the community, and is generally judged simply by reference to its immediate success. Statesmen are counted great if they did what they intended to do. The rightness or wrongness of their aims or methods is only taken into account when they result in ultimate failure. Whatever succeeds is assumed to be a step in human pro- gress ; and it is justified by reference to some general principle which resolves itself into grate- ful acceptance of the accomplished fact. The actors in great affairs are, as a rule, leniently dealt with, till the results of their activity have been out- lived. Their public crimes are often less harshly judged than their private vices. They are some- times condemned as individuals, but extolled as bodies of men. Their misdeeds are obscurely palliated by reference to some supposed standard of morality peculiar to their age and generation. But, it may be asked, did mankind in Christian times ever think that deceit, treachery, violence or The Persecuting Spirit. 33 murder were other than sinful ; or that their criminality diminished if they were perpetrated on a sufficiently large scale ? The standard of ethical judgment in dealing with secular history needs raising ; but in treating the history of the Christian Church we are con- cerned with the actions of a body which possessed principles above the motives of temporary ex- pediency. It is some satisfaction to find that men's consciences are more sensitive when they judge the Church, than when they judge the State. They are ready to admit, with sorrow or with exultation according as they approach the subject, the discrepancy, too frequently apparent, between the professed aims of the religious organisation and the actual means by which those aims were pur- sued. I do not think it right to shrink from learning the lessons which the contrast teaches. I think it well that they should be accepted to the full, and that no extenuation should be pleaded on the ground of ignorance of principles. Men failed because they did not wish to apply the principles which they professed. " But," it may be said, " there were in the Old Testament precedents for persecution, and there 34 Persecution and Tolerance. were severe sayings in the New Testament, which may have lent themselves to misunderstanding." Reserving for the present the question of the influence of the New Testament, let us consider if the Church had any ground for finding in the Old Testament a sanction for persecution. Now the citation of precedent is always a forensic method of procedure. The man who cites a precedent claims, by doing so, that he has thought the matter over, and is not arguing merely from utility, but from reference to some principle, which is more apparent in another instance of a parallel kind. It is obvious that it is not enough to plead, " This was once done, therefore I do it again." It must be shown that the same law applies to both cases with the same authority and the same sanction. A knowledge of the principles of legal interpretation was not wanting when persecution first began. Did men misunderstand or did they misuse the Old Testament Scriptures? Was their ignor- ance pardonable, because they lacked guidance, or did they wilfully neglect the guidance which they amply enjoyed ? Nowadays we are familiar with the conceptiom The Persecuting Spirit. 35 of the Old Testament as being a record of man's gradual training to apprehend spiritual know- ledge. We see in it the history of God's work for man's restoration. We trace the process of selection, and of gradual discipline within the selected sphere. The historical books of the Old Testament contain the annals of a nation's life. That national life passed through the phases and incidents with which we are familiar in the his- tory of other nations ; but it was animated by a divine purpose, which in times of national forget- fulness was recalled to the popular mind by sig- nificant manifestations, in forms intelligible to the conditions into which they had sunk. What we learn from this record is the difficulty attending on man's restoration. What strikes us is not the frequency or the continuousness of divine inter- position, but its rarity. A body of men were raised from savagery to industry by the stern dis- cipline of slavery, then were trained into a nation by the hardships of wandering and the severities of military life. At great crises God manifests His presence for their encouragement; for long periods they are left to work out their problems by themselves ; appeals are made to their intelli- 36 Persecution and Tolerance. gence and their moral sense by purely human means. Only when all else had failed and national apostasy was imminent, only when the remnant that did not bow the knee to Baal was scanty, isolated and depressed, only then was a manifes- tation of God's power vouchsafed for a brief period to check the threatened corruption of the nation. Then that nation, somewhat invigorated from within, was left to learn from the miseries of political downfall, and from the sufferings and yearnings of the exile, which again selected a remnant sufficiently resolute to take in hand a restoration of the national life, based on a firm .hold of the national religion. Such are the les- sons which we learn from the Old Testament. Was there ever any reason why it should have been regarded as a collection of examples, to be imitated in the letter without any consideration of circumstance or occasion ? I can only answer that writers of the fourth century regarded the Old Testament much as we do now ; and that St. Chrysostom laid down principles for its practical use which apply forcibly to the question before us. Commenting on the Sermon on the Mount, he discusses the educational The Persecuting Spirit. 37 value of the Old Testament, and concludes : " Let us then not merely look at the facts, but also care- fully investigate the occasion, the cause, the motive, the difference of persons, and all the surrounding circumstances : for only so can we reach the truth." l It was not defective exegesis of the Old Testament which led men to adopt persecu- tion. They acted from the same motives as did James and John in my text, and like them caught at precedents to justify their actions without considering " the manner of spirit they were of." The fairest statement of their error would perhaps be this. They knew that there was a wrath of God working for righteousness ; they chose to assume that their own wrath, the wrath of man, could work the righteousness of God. Yet it was precisely this assumption which our Lord rebuked in the case of two of His apostles. When once the false assumption had been made, men ceased to turn to God's Word for guidance, but used it to give sanction to their own devices. When a men sets up idols in his heart, God 1 Chrysostom, Homil. in Matthceum, xvii., quoted by Mr. Gore in Lux Mundi, 830, where other references also are given. 38 Persecution and Tolerance. answers him according to his idols. Eebellion against the Holy Spirit is punished by increasing deadness of conscience. These reflections are prompted by the fact that the passage which I have taken for my text is actually quoted by a writer of the sixteenth century as an argument in favour of persecution. This may seem an act of incredible audacity, but it is in accordance with the whole tenor of a bulky volume. The Spanish theologian, Paramo, re- gards the development of the Inquisition as the central fact in human history. It was instituted by God Himself in the case of Adam and Eve. The call, "Adam, where art thou?" was a formal summons to the accused. On his appearance the court was opened, and he was interrogated about the facts of the accusation laid to his charge. Adam accused Eve, who was called in turn ; Eve accused the serpent, who was not called, as incapable of repentance. Then Adam was condemned, on his own admission, on seven counts : pride, immoderate love of his wife, unbelief, curiosity, particular disobedience, false excusation, and finally wrong-doing to his neigh- bour, for "in Adam all die." The Persecuting Spirit. 39 Paramo shows how the Inquisitors follow this procedure. They cite the accused, who, like Adam, try to hide themselves, and give, as their reason, fear of the court, which is in itself a sign of guilt. Then they confess their offence like Adam, " not humbly seeking pardon, but proudly excusing themselves, and casting the blame on others." The Inquisitor follows the Divine ex- ample in pursuing all who are thus inculpated, so as to reach the origin and source of evil. As God judged by Himself, not in the presence of the angels, so the Inquisitors hold their court in secrecy. As God made for Adam and Eve coats of skins, so the Inquisitors clothe their culprits in san benitos. As God expelled Adam and Eve from Paradise, so the Inquisitor confiscates the goods of heretics. After this Paramo has no need of precedent drawn from human history. He pays little heed to the records of the Old Testament, but claims our Lord Himself as " the head of the present Inqui- sition, and the producer of the most complete results " ; because the authority of the Inquisition proceeds from that which was committed by Christ to St. Peter and his successors. Its legal 4