Amsterdam University Press
Chapter Title: Condemning Others without Hearing Them
Book Title: Synod on the Freedom of Conscience
Book Subtitle: A Thorough Examination during the Gathering Held in the Year 1582 in
the City of Freetown
Book Author(s): D.V. Coornhert
Published by: Amsterdam University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46mwpb.20
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Amsterdam University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Synod on the Freedom of Conscience
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sixteenth session
Condemning Others without Hearing Them
Participants: Jezonias, Catholic Delegate, Reformed Delegate, Philippe du
Plessis-Mornay, Gamaliel
jezonias: Previously the Lutherans, the Reformed, the Moravian Breth-
ren and others complained strongly about the Catholics, because the
latter condemned them without granting them a proper hearing where
they could legitimately defend themselves. Since the Catholics held the
position of both council and council’s judge, the Protestants regarded
them as suspect and biased, and none of them therefore dared or wished
to appear before them.
Now, on the other hand, we hear the Roman Catholics and others
complain about the Reformed, claiming that the latter have dared con-
demn them without a prior legitimate hearing and while being them-
selves party and judge. Your meeting today, esteemed gentlemen, serves
to examine the truth on this issue and to discuss whether condemnation
in such an important matter without first having given the parties a full
hearing before an impartial judge is acceptable. I hope that you will not
refrain from giving your thoughts frankly as well as modestly.
catholic delegate: I, being the first one up, will certainly do so. And
I declare roundly that in this matter my view is the same as that of the
Catholic church in France. On behalf of that church the orator Quintin
spoke to the king as follows: “These are, Sire, the reasons why we humbly
beseech your majesty not to listen to the crafty expositions of these licen-
tious and frivolous Libertines. It would be better to call them ‘Licentines,’
that is folks who think they have a licence to do anything, judging by
the boundless permissiveness in all things that they preach. | They allow
D
people to do whatever they like, covering and dissimulating their wan-
tonness with the false mask of Christian freedom, contrary to what St.
Peter ordains. All that they strive for is anarchy, no matter what they claim
[C. v.]. { Peter :}.
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
synod on the freedom of conscience
otherwise. They want to be without prince or king, and only seek to be
The Catholics headless.” And at the same meeting at Poissy the doctors of the Sorbonne
request that
the Reformed
petitioned the queen not to hear those of the new religion. But they asked
not be heard that if she had decided to hear them, she would at least not allow the king
to be present, because of the possible danger that in his youth he would be
contaminated with the wrong doctrine, from which it would then be hard
to turn him away later. After all, these people were already condemned of
heresy a long time ago, and therefore they should not be heard.
reformed delegate: How little reason there is for the Roman Catholics
to accuse us of striving for anarchy will be clear to those who know that
they themselves have trodden emperors and kings under foot and placed
themselves above all laws, above all monarchs, indeed even above Christ
himself, as if they were the only sovereign of all sovereigns. We are not
guilty of this, yet of this we are accused by those who are more guilty
of this than anyone else. But those who are informed or have read our
published writings will not accuse us of this, for they know that we also
fear that the wanton freedom of some, these days, appears to pave the way
for this kind of extremely pernicious licentiousness, which gives birth to
a suffering so much greater than that caused by anarchy (that is a state
without a government), and seen as worse than tyranny by the pagans
themselves.
As concerns the examples you bring up, dear doctor, they are not the
same as laws, especially not when we find better ones that do conform
with Holy Scripture. I could cite numerous examples, but I will restrict
Praiseworthy myself to one. This one also hails from a king of France, and it is much
example of not
condemning
more praiseworthy than that which the Catholics at Poissy tried to get
without hearing the king’s descendant to do. This example is from that king of great lords,
the party
Louis xii. The cardinals and bishops pressed him to destroy the inhab-
itants of Mérindol and Cabrières as incestuous sorcerers and heretics.
These people were what was left of the Albigensian Christians who had
been much tormented for a long time for the sake of Christ. When they
got wind of the threat they sent messengers to the king to protest their
innocence. The cardinal warned the king not to grant an audience to
these messenger, saying that canonical law forbade communication with
heretics. Thereupon the king said: “Even if I were at war against the Turk
or the devil, I would still want to hear them first!” That was a truly royal
[C. ]. {Jean Quintin, delegate of the clergy to the States General at Orléans (–
), in La Place, Commentaires, }. | It was actually a different meeting (Quintin
spoke at the States General in Orléans). [A.P. ].
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sixteenth session
response. For to condemn someone without listening to him or allow-
ing him to defend himself is an abuse of the scepter (power) and of one’s
A prerogative. | So Louis summoned these messengers, who respectfully de-
clared that they accepted the Gospel, the twelve articles of faith, God’s
commandments and the sacraments, but that they did not believe in the
pope nor his doctrine. If the king was of a different opinion, they would
submit to the punishment. The king wanted to find out the truth of the
matter, and to this end sent out the magistrate of the tribunal of petitions,
Adam Finneus, and his confessor, the Dominican monk Parvus. These
two traveled to the place, examined everything and returned to the king,
to whom they reported that in said towns people were baptized and were
taught the ten commandments, that Sundays were carefully honored as a
day of worship, and that they did not find fornication nor sorcery among
them. But they also reported that in their churches they did not find any
statues or ornaments belonging to the mass. Now when the king heard
this, did he hastily condemn them or send the army to attack them? Not
at all. But he said, and swore an oath that they were better men than he
and his Catholic people were. Now this is what may be called a royal ex-
ample!
In the same manner the princes ought to protect those who have not
been seduced by error against false accusers, and ought to tolerate them
patiently. It is easy to see, for those endowed with intelligence, what the
value is of a condemnation by princes who do not hear the accused parties
before or after the condemnation. The Catholics themselves acknowledge
that to be their advice to them. Likewise it is easy to see how unsure they
are of their teaching, if they have so little confidence in their defense of
the same that they fear contamination of the king, should the latter hear
them as well as the other party!
philippe du plessis-mornay: In the councils they did not dispute based
on Scripture, nay Scripture has been rejected. And instead of listening to
its living arguments – as had been promised – they went back on their
promise and burned him alive at the stake. And so that we should not
have any reason to expect a free council and should not dare to go there
with any safe-conduct, they decided that one does not have to keep one’s
word to a heretic. And since nonetheless ever since we kept asking for a
free council, they kept condemning us without granting us a hearing.
[folio ]. John Hus, burned at the council of Constance, .
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
synod on the freedom of conscience
reformed delegate: That is true. So many poor innocent people have
thus far been condemned without an examination of their faith and its
reasons and basis. They were burned rather than being heard in their
innocence and righteousness. Before assaulting us so cruelly, they should
have proven that we are heretics who err in our faith and convinced us
with the texts of the Bible and the Gospel. But what is worst is | that such B
prejudice against us occurs today as well, and not only on the part of the
papists, but also on the part of the arch-enemies of the papists, to wit the
Christ’s life ought Lutherans or Confessionalists themselves. After all, they are well aware
to be the law by
which we live
that neither our Lord Jesus Christ, whose life and works are the law and
rule by which we ought to live our lives, nor the prophets and the apostles
have dared to condemn someone unless they had convinced and defeated
them with the word of God. But why should we tell of the examples of
Luther denounces the old Fathers? For those who have heard Luther have heard so often
the Catholics
for condemning
from his mouth how sharply and with what vehemence he used to decry
others without the barbaric tyranny of the Roman pope, because he saw how the pope
hearing them
condemned, without hearing them first, our churches which had cast off
the Roman yoke from their neck.
catholic delegate: Do not be surprised by what the Lutherans did
against you, for they also dare do it against us, against the Roman church
and all the councils and Fathers who came before us. For Brenz persuaded
his prince to condemn us, that is all of Christendom, as idol worship-
pers without hearing us and without any defense, only on the basis of his
denunciations. It is certain that if the prince thought of accepting this ac-
cusation, he should have first convened all of Christendom, heard Brenz
and his accusations as well as all of Christendom in its defense. Only then
could he condemn either the doctrine of Brenz or that of the Catholics.
For in this way he would have upheld at least the appearance of a just ver-
dict, in so far as all the world would be willing to accept his prince as a
judge in this matter. And since Brenz himself has so unjustly arrogated to
himself the judgment, accusing and condemning as the Antichrist all of
Christendom without hearing them, he should be able to understand how
his own coreligionists, drawn by his example, recently also arrogated such
a right to condemn him. Who, among all people, was ever a better Achates
[friend] to Martin Luther than Karlstadt? But this friendship did not even
last two full years. As Luther condemned all of Christendom, Karlstadt
[B.d.g. fol. , verso; fol. ]. [S.d.d. ]. [H. , verso]. {Hosius, Confutatio,
vol. ii, }. [H. ].
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sixteenth session
accused Luther with the same authority, and likewise condemned him as
the Antichrist.
reformed delegate: What the Lutherans do does not concern us or our
followers.
catholic delegate: Not unless you imitated Luther in this, even against
the Lutherans themselves.
reformed delegate: Where did we do that?
C catholic delegate: Do you have to ask? When did your church hear The Reformed
condemn
and convince the Lutherans regarding the Eucharist, and did so in a free others without
gathering before an impartial judge? You know very well that this never hearing them
happened. Does that make you hesitate in calling them, in this regard,
“Capharnaites” and cannibals, yes even to condemn and damn them as
stupid asses? Furthermore, when did you ever hear, convince and legiti-
mately defeat us in a national council or synod before an impartial judge?
You know as well as I do that this never happened. But perhaps you do not
know how nonetheless your followers, acting as prosecutors and judges,
condemn us, who never have been heard, as Antichrists, how they ex-
ecrate our teachings as false and as human invention, and prohibit our
worship as idolatry wherever you are in power? Are you not aware of
this? I do not think so. And if you know this, then it definitely seems that
you utter shameless words here, for you denounce us for having done to
you what you yourselves are now doing to us. If it was unjust for us to
condemn you without hearing you, why then do you imitate us in this
regard? And if what we do is right, then why do you denounce what is
right?
reformed delegate: It is permitted to convince and persuade someone
with the spirit of Christ and with Holy Scripture, even if there is no coun-
cil.
catholic delegate: When and where has a Catholic, mandated and
authorized by the Roman church to defend our teachings, been defeated
by means of the spirit of Christ and the word of God? Who was the judge
that was mutually chosen and who passed the verdict of your triumph?
reformed delegate: You condemn us without possibly having ever read
our writings. You have damned us before you have shown us our errors
Cf. John :–.
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
synod on the freedom of conscience
from the word of God, and you deliver us to death by the verdict of judges
who are on the side of the prosecutors. That is what should be called
“condemning a party without hearing it.” When did we or our followers
ever do the same?
catholic delegate: Few people are unaware of the kind of judge or
prosecutor that was given to Servetus in Geneva. You would need a lot
of water to cleanse your master John Calvin of this stain! Who does not
know that Geneva’s council was on Calvin’s hand? And Calvin himself
does not deny having been Servetus’s accuser. You can fill in the rest – or
if you have words to say in your defense, please do so.
reformed delegate: Does your enormous bias have such an effect on D
you that you now have become a patron and supporter of this Servetus,
who was such a horrible, venomous and devilish heresiarch? Please, doc-
tor, tell me the plain truth: had he fallen into your hands, would you have
treated him differently from how he was treated? Would you not have
burned him alive?
catholic delegate: What we would have done to him or what he de-
served is not the issue here. The issue is the manner in which it was done,
that is: condemning someone without hearing him, and by a judge who
is himself partial. You accuse us of this and I demonstrate that you do the
same thing yourselves. That is why I said and still say: if what we did was
right, then why accuse us? If it was wrong and unjust, then why do you
now imitate us in this regard?
reformed delegate: What was wrong when you did it, is correct when
we do the same.
catholic delegate: If condemning someone without hearing him is
wrong when we do it, how can it be right for you to do the same?
reformed delegate: Because your religion is false and ours is true. That
is why when you imagine to be killing heretics when you kill our brethren,
you do wrong and are actually murdering true Christians in a tyrannical
way. We, on the other hand, rightfully kill only true heretics.
catholic delegate: Let us stop singing the same old song, already. For
we both agree on the matter for which Calvin had Servetus burned alive,
namely the Trinity. Therefore he received justice, and it does not matter
who burned him as a heretic, you or we. But let us assume for a moment
that you alone are the true Christians and all others (including us) repre-
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sixteenth session
sent false churches, but in such a way that this has not yet become evident
beyond reasonable doubt. Let us also assume that Servetus was a horrible
heretic and that the Anabaptists also, whom you have executed, were real
heretics, and that they therefore all deserved to be killed and burned alive,
as we really do believe. What will you thus have accomplished in the way
of proof that you do the right thing when you condemn parties that have
not been heard? What excuse is there for you, that you may be judges
and parties, passing judgment in your own case? The issue here, I repeat,
is not who the heretics are and whether heretics ought to be killed. No,
the issue is whether, in condemning and killing the heretics, you do not
A supply both the judges and the prosecutors | or the parties. You claim that
this is unjust and you denounce us for this, and this is what you yourself
do wherever you are in full power. Do I not therefore have the right to tell
you that you wrongfully accuse us in this, or that, when you imitate us in
what you condemn as being unjust, you are not a whit less guilty than we
are?
Again let us assume for a moment that your doctrine and worship are
true in themselves and ours false, but that the people do not know this
for certain. How can the people, when they see that you condemn our
religion and forbid our worship before we have been heard by any judge
(let alone an impartial one), accept that your judgment is right? For why
should the people not draw the conclusion that your judgment is biased,
false, and tyrannical? The case is that you do not only condemn us without
hearing us, but also the other doctrines and churches. For you only regard
your faith as being true and condemn all the others as false and ban them
wherever you have the power. After all, you have sworn a mutual oath
that you will not allow the practice of any religion except yours.
gamaliel: The abuse on either side is so obvious that it seems hard to find
an excuse for both. This is also true for the common man who is already
talking about this every day, especially for those who have personal expe-
rience of this having been done to them by one of you, that is those who
have been condemned and abused in that manner without being heard.
Indeed even the Catholics themselves, who allow this injustice, appear
to understand and acknowledge it better now that they have to suffer it
than before when they perpetrated it. For it is easy for everyone to see – The persons needed
for a fair judgment
especially for those to whom it applies – that no fair verdict can be given
where there are not three distinct persons, to wit: a judge, a prosecutor,
and a defender. The judge hears the parties, the prosecutor indicts his
party, and the defender speaks for the defendant. Of parties we find far
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
synod on the freedom of conscience
too many today. But where will we find an honest judge in this matter of
religion? Because for him to be honest he has to be impartial and wise.
Who will be accepted as such by all of today’s parties? The pope him-
self against all his parties? None of the others would accept that, for they
would regard him as a double agent in this judgment, that is a judge and
prosecutor. So who shall it be? Possibly he, one might think, whom the
state will choose? But who will be allowed to do the choosing? The Turks?
Or the unbelievers? Or people who do not belong to an external church?
Or people belonging to one of the religions that are in contention? What
do the Turks know, to be able to judge the Christian religion which they
despise? How can the unbelievers judge any religion? Which religion will
choose as a judge people whom they regard as Libertines or atheists, that
is people who do not belong | to any external church? Therefore it will B
have to be someone belonging to the fourth kind, that is to one of the
religions that are in contention. So each state will choose judges in this
case from one of these religions. Then to what religion will those who are
chosen as judges belong? To none other than the one that has a majority
among the states or municipal councils with a vote in the matter. Thus it
follows that those who at that time control the majority will be chosen
as such, be they Reformed, Catholic, Lutheran, Anabaptist or otherwise.
There you have your judges in this matter! My dear, pray tell, will any of
them, no matter what church they belong to, be able to pass a judgment
that does not accord with their opinion? Will they not have to judge that
doctrine to be good and true that they in their bias consider to be such,
and pass judgment accordingly? Do you consider such judges to be im-
partial? Who does not see that here all others have already lost the game
before it has started? Could this then be considered to be the right and
true religion, that is the one that such commissioners have determined
to be right and true? Who can believe such a thing? And yet in this way
the observation of each of these religions would be imposed by the au-
thority of the magistrate, and all other religions would be forbidden. Can
we hope for anything good to come of this? For then the people would
once again be subjected to the constraint of conscience and be forced to
adopt the faith and worship that it would please the magistrate to impose
by such a judgment. Can that be right? That way the majority would be
subjected to a minority, and this in a matter of the greatest importance.
Religion is also For this is what it is all about. The magistrate exists for the sake of the
of concern
to the people
people, but the people do not exist for the sake of the magistrate. There-
fore the people, whose salvation is at stake, also have a voice in the matter.
If they dare take this away from them, it will greatly displease them. Or
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sixteenth session
do you think that the people do not understand that all the warnings
against false prophets and Pharisees that abound throughout Scripture
were also addressed to them? Surely they do. Likewise they would also
have to see that such warnings in Holy Scripture would be entirely in vain
if the people were meant and supposed [simply] to avoid or maintain the
religion that the lawful magistrate should forbid or enjoin upon them.
But who could believe that divine wisdom, which never does anything in
vain, would have given so many careful warnings for no reason? This can-
not possibly be believed by any God-fearing hearts. When the latter hear
the magistrate order or forbid them to do something against or for God,
like the apostles they will frankly tell the magistrate, at the risk of their
lives: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than
to God, you judge.” Thus you immediately get the public disdain for the
government’s laws in religious matters, in the form of non-compliance, or
a bloody and new tyranny over the conscience of all God-fearing Chris-
tians.
Could we finally expect better results from this new constraint of con-
C science than | what we still experience today due to the old constraint, in
the form of damage done to countries and people? For that and for many
other reasons this manner of judgment displeases me as being manifestly
against God, against all justice, and against the common sentiment of all
people. And allow me to express as my view of the matter that we cannot
come to a sound judgment without prior knowledge and that if we judge
falsely in such a weighty matter we risk committing a great transgression.
I therefore propose that during this general eclipse of the sun of truth we
defer for awhile such rash and false judgment until our president, Master
Daniel, will be present so we can hear his definitive judgment on the mat-
ter. And that meanwhile we tacitly allow the exercise of various religions,
thus rendering unto God what belongs to God, to wit the command of
conscience, and also to man what belongs to man, namely the freedom
of conscience: freedom for each to believe and practice his religion.
jezonias: All these discussions proceed in a strange manner. Each one
usually considers right in themselves what they condemn in the other.
No one wants to suffer from another what they themselves will do to the
other if they can. The Roman Catholics condemn all others, consisting
of several parties, without hearing them, saying that they were already
condemned by the councils a long time ago, and that the latter decided
Acts :.
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
synod on the freedom of conscience
that those whom they determined to be heretics would no longer be spo-
ken to or heard. The Reformed complained bitterly about this, saying that
such a judgment without hearing the parties, and then a judgment passed
by one of the parties themselves, is unfair and wrong. But as usual the
Roman Catholic counter again and denounce them. And after hearing
this, Gamaliel blames both sides for this and advises the cessation of such
judgment, since all people are suspected of partisanship, because of the
darkness that now reigns in the world in divine matters. He recommends
that one should tolerate the other until the arrival of Master Daniel, our
president.
This content downloaded from
3.109.112.165 on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 04:18:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
