And in the ancient histories it is recorded that some emperors tolerated heretics alongside the catholics. But it is also recorded that the Christian emperors who had always adhered to Christianity tolerated no heretical churches. Thus it is written in the Historia Tripartita,* book 3, chapter 11 [1f.]: “The doctrine of Arius, although many had exalted it in disputations, nevertheless did not yet mark off a separate group that was known by the name of its founder, but rather all came together in the churches and took part there except for the Novitians and those who were called Phrygians and the Valentinians and the Marcionites and the Paulianists and whoever practised other heresies. Against all of these the emperor issued a decree commanding that their houses of prayer be taken from them, that they be forced into the churches, and that they hold no assemblies either in private houses or in public” etc. Again, in the same Historia, book 9, chapter 7 [2f.]: “Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the city of Constantinople. It is our will that all the peoples who live under our gracious rule abide in that religion” etc. Justinian included this mandate in his Codex under the title “Concerning the Most High Trinity and the Catholic Faith.”** A parallel example of an imperial mandate is recorded in the same Historia Tripartita, book 9, chapter 10, and again in book 9, chapter 19 [16]: “The emperor decreed that the heretics were neither to have churches nor to teach concerning their faith nor to ordain bishops or others. Some of them were driven from the cities while others he allowed to remain there without honour or the benefits of citizenship. Moreover, he included in the same decree some cruel punishments against them which, however, were not enforced. For his aim was to move them to unity [with the orthodox] rather than to inflict suffering” etc. In the same book, chapter 25 [5]: “Hearing this, the emperor, amazed at his words and deeds, hastily published a law whereby the councils of the heretics were forbidden” etc. From this it is clear that the pious emperors intervened at various times in the assemblies of the heretics and forbade them. And, as far as I am aware, they were not on that account denounced as godless by any pious bishop, which would certainly have happened if the bishops had deemed their behaviour unjust and beyond the authority of secular government.
I must also briefly answer some of the claims and objections of the author of the memorandum. First of all, he says the following: “Nowhere does one find that the apostles, if someone did not adhere to their doctrine and preaching but rather believed or taught some other faith, appealed to the secular government” etc. It is true that the apostles did not invoke the secular government against those who believed falsely. Nor does any Christian preacher do so. I will go even further: the apostles never invoked a secular government against a thief or a murderer, and no true preacher does so either. But does it then follow that a true preacher may not advise the government concerning its office and, if it should come to that, instruct the government that it may with good conscience punish thieves and murderers and that it is indeed obligated to do so? Therefore, if it happens that a Christian government for conscience’ sake asks the preachers if it may with good conscience abolish in its territory the self-constituted assemblies and the self-appointed preachers of a competing faith, should it be tantamount to invoking the government if a preacher so asked instructs and teaches the government concerning its office? Paul teaches concerning government that is ordained of God to punish the wicked [Rom. 13:4.] and to enable its subjects to lead a quiet and peaceable life. [1 Tim. 2:2.] Should he on that account be accused of invoking the government against his opponents, who day and night sought to kill him? Far be it! Accordingly, there is a great difference between these two things: instructing a government concerning its office and petitioning or calling on the government for help and deliverance. The former pertains to all preachers, the latter to all subjects in dire, secular need.
To argue that one does not find in the New Testament that any secular government was praised on that account is pointless, for the argument from silence is invalid. Besides, neither does one find that any government was denounced for having refused to tolerate the assembly of a false faith. Moreover, at the time when the New Testament was written, governments were not Christian, so that no one could either praise or blame them on this account in any case.
Next, although Christ says in Matthew 13[:29-30] that one should not pull up the tares but let them grow, etc., that does not mean that one should remain quiet or do nothing but rather that in this passage Christ has set a limit to the apostolic office. He saw and noticed that his apostles were too inclined to resort to sword and fist, as was apparent in Luke 9[:54], when they wanted him to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans, and also when Peter resisted with the sword while Christ was being taken prisoner. [Matt. 26:51.] Therefore he teaches them that their office does not extend to the use of the secular sword. Nevertheless, it is fitting that they should pull up the tares in manner appropriate to their office, for if it were not so, then no preacher could preach against heresy, and Paul would have behaved unjustly when he wrote against the circumcisers and other heretics. But does not writing or preaching against false faith or teaching constitute pulling up tares? It most certainly does! Just as it is fitting for a preacher to act according to the precepts of his calling, that is, by using the word of God, so it is also fitting for a secular government to do the same according to the principles of its office, i.e., each office does as befits it. Otherwise, according to this passage no secular government would be entitled to punish robbers, murderers, or blasphemers. Is not murder a tare? Are not blasphemy and public cursing tares? Is not adultery a tare? I gather then [from the memorandist’s reading of the text] that the government would have to permit these tares to grow until the harvest and could not punish anyone for them. Consequently, Christ in this passage forbids the apostles to employ force in the conduct of their office, but at the same time leaves each office, both the spiritual and the secular, free to act according to the precepts and principles of its mandate and, to the extent possible, to pull up the tares.
* The Historica Ecclesiastica Tripartita, compiled from the works of the Greek church historians Theodoretus, Socrates, and Sozomenus and translated into Latin at the instigation of the sixth-century Roman writer Cassiodorus. It covers the period A.D. 306–439.
** Corpus juris civilis, Codex Iustinianus 1.1.
print version
return to list
previous document