Jus Gladii Nor is there any Law in the Gospel which so much as mentions much less prohibits the Civil Supreme Magistrate to pardon condemn'd Malefactors 2. For the Mosaical Laws Ceremonial and Judicial they were such as were given by God himself for the good Government of the Jewish Common-wealth Now concerning these Laws it is certain 1. That they were given only to the Jews as is confess'd and fully proved by the Schoolmen and Casuists 2. It is certain that no positive Law Divine or humane does or can bind any save those to whom it is given and sufficiently promulgated and made known A sufficient Promulgation is absolutely necessary to the Obligation of any positive Law 3. And hence it follows that those Mosaical Laws never bound the Gentiles before our blessed Saviour's time much less Christians since as will anon appear And therefore if that Law in Numb 35. 31. but now mention'd or any other Mosaical Law had absolutely forbid and made the pardoning of Murder unlawful to the Jews yet it will not hence follow that it should be by that Law unlawful for Gentiles or Christians to pardon it seeing it is manifest that those Mosaical Laws were never given to nor any way obliged them For the Transgression of any Law does necessarily presuppose its Obligation It being impossible I should transgress a Law which never bound me to Obedience 4. The obligation of the Ceremonial Laws ceased even to the Jews to whom they were given at the death of our Blessed Saviour They were Types and Shadows of his Death and our Redemption by him and when the Substance and thing typified by them was come the Shadows ceased Whence it is that Divines both Ancient and Modern truly say That at our Blessed Saviours Death the Jewish Ceremonial Law was Mortua as to its obligation it was abrogated and the observation of it not necessary tho for some time to gain the Jews even the Apostles did voluntarily observe it But when the Gospel was more fully published it became Mortifera and the observation of it inconsistent with the Gospel 5. For the Judicial Law of the Jews it is certain that the Obligation of it ceas'd at least at the destruction of Jerusalem when the Jewish Government and their Commonwealth was utterly destroy'd 6. And hence it evidently follows that all those Mosaical Laws Judicial and Ceremonial have been abrogated and null and have neither bound Jew or Gentile above this 1600 years last past and therefore it is impossible that any of them should now bind any Christian Supreme Power not to pardon any condemned malefactor And what is said of the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws given to the Jews by Moses that none of them ever did or could bind any Gentiles or Christians the same we say of the Moral Law as to punishing or pardoning Murderers that it never prohibited Supreme Princes to reprive or pardon any person condemned for Murder That this may appear it must be considered that there are two Editions of the Moral Law both writ by the Omnipotent and Gracious Author of it by God himself 1. In the heart of Adam where it was most intirely and perfectly writ His Understanding being clear and abundantly able to know and distinguish good from evil quid faciendum quid fugiendum and his will obsequious to follow those dictates of right Reason But by the fall of Adam this Writing and perfect Edition of the Moral Law was much blotted corrupted and defac'd both in Adam and all his Posterity For although the substance of that Law did after the fall continue writ in their nearts yet so defac'd by the Fall that ignorance having blinded the Under standing it was in many places not legible nor sin having corrupted the will practicable 2. The second Edition of the Moral Law in respect of the writing of it which remain'd in the hearts of men after the fall was multo auctior emendatior And this Edition of the Moral Law is that which God by Moses gave only to his own Church and People the Jews In which he gave them 1. A just and perfect Compendium of that whole Law in two Tables of Stone containing Ten Precepts 2. A full and more perfect explication of those Precepts and the particular duties required by them 3. An addition of many Gracious promises and blessings to those who sincerely observ'd those Laws and many threats and punishments for those who transgress'd any of those Laws This Edition of the Moral Law with the many promises and punishments annext was as I said given only to the Jews not to the Gentiles And this appears by that memorable passage in St. Paul wherein he tells the Romans in these words The Gentiles which HAVE NOT THE LAW do BY NATURE These HAVING NOT THE LAW are a law to themselves which shews the work of the Law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS In which words we have the two Editions of the Moral Law afore mentioned expresly set down and that the Gentiles had only the first Edition and that the second and more perfect Edition was given only to the Jews For the Apostle says 1. That the Gentiles HAD NOT THE LAW to wit as it was Lex scripta in Lapide and given to the Jews with the Addition of many Promises and many several punishments annext to the transgressions of particular Precepts 2. That the Gentiles HAD THE LAW writ IN CORDE for so all men by nature had it And 't is the Moral Law he means for no positive Law of God or man is by nature writ in any mans heart Now what is said in the second and more perfect Edition of the Moral Law as it was given by Moses only to the Jews is either 1. De Officiis 2. Or de poenis promissis I. De Officiis quid faciendum aut fugiendum What good we are to do in obedience to the Affirmative Precepts As in that Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy Honour thy Father and Mother c. And what evil we are to avoid in obedience to the Negative Precepts such as these Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit Adultery c. In short the sum of all those Duties which the Moral Law requires of us is this That we love God with all our heart and our neighbour as our selves Now as to all these duties the obligation of the Moral Law is Universal Eternal and Indispensable It binds all men Jews and Gentiles and that indispensably 2. De promissis poenis concerning the Promises and punishments which are annext to the Moral Law as it was given to the Jews by Moses And here I. For the Promises it is certain that they were given only to the Jews For the Apostle expresly tells us That the Gentiles were aliens and strangers to the promises For instance the promise added to the fifth Commandment Honour thy Father and thy Mother that thy days may be long in the land
admit the Jews into this Common-weal and of the conveniences and inconveniences of their admission he only and not the People is to judge and by a Law authorize their admission then as to the Subjects their admission is no more a thing of indifferency but necessity No more matter of Offence or Scandal but Obedience such as we who are Subjects should not dispute but obey So that if any Man take offence or be scandalized at it it will certainly be Scandalum acceptum non datum And so not the fault of the Magistrate but of the Men if there be any such who are irrationally offended And this will manifestly appear if we consider 1. The Magistrate in reference to the People under him 2. The People in reference to the Magistrate and in reference one to another 1. For the Magistrate as he stands in Relation to the People it is certain by virtue of that supreme authority with which he is entrusted he is to judge what things are convenient or inconvenient for the People 2 When after serious Debate and mature Deliberation all circumstances considered he shall really think and judge that this which before was indifferent and no way enjoyned is hic nunc best for the publick good then he justly may by his legislative Power enjoyn the doing of it and by a positive Law bring a just Obligation upon the Subjects to do accordingly 3. Nor is this all he not only may but is bound and if he will do his Duty must do so and that by the Law of Nature and from the very first Principles of his Duty and that Magistracy he is intrusted with for it being certain that Salus Populi suprema Lex est and by his great and sacred Office an Obligation lies upon him by all honourable and honest means to procure their good so far as in him lies if he see such things though at present indifferent would much conduce to the Publick Good if they were enjoyned and obey'd accordingly I say in this case if he do not command them he neglects his Duty and violates that sacred Obligation which binds him to it So in this present case if all things maturely considered he impartially judge the readmission of the Jews will really and indeed tend to the good of the Publick he is bound to readmit them and he should be wanting to his Duty in promoting the Interest and Good of the Common-weal if he should do otherwise 4. Nor is it possible that any Scandal or Offence taken by the People should be of that moment as to hinder him And the Reason of this is manifest because the Obligation of doing his Duty and procuring the Peoples Good lies so indispensably upon him that he must not omit it though they be never so much displeased seeing if it must be so that one party will be displeased it is far more rational to hazard the Peoples than Gods Displeasure For if he do it and the People be scandalized and offended at it that Scandal is only Scandalum acceptum groundless and on his part altogether causless But if he neglect his Duty and do it not God is really and justly offended So that in short if after all things considered the Wisdom of the State shall judge it convenient and beneficial for the Publick to readmit the Jews and we are bound in Charity to think that unless they judge so they will not admit them then they are in Duty bound to do it notwithstanding any Displeasure or pretended Scandal which their Subjects will or can conceive against them for so doing It being evident that no supreme Magistrate is to neglect the doing of his Duty or using his just and lawful Liberty and Authority in putting that in Execution which upon impartial judgment and deliberation he conceives convenient for the good of the Common-wealth It is I confess to be wished and heartily prayed for that all Men would with a charitable Opinion and obsequious Obedience rest satisfied with the deliberate resolutions and constitutions of their Magistrates really intended for the publick Good and no doubt all sober and moderate Persons will do so But this is rather to be wished than hoped for The understandings aimes and interest of Men being so different that supreme Governours in no Age or Country did ever satisfie all no not with their best Actions and therefore it is not to be expected now But this pretended Scandal and Dissatisfaction of some should in reason be no Remora or Hinderance to the Magistrate to go on and according to his best Skill and Judgment promote the Good of all And if this be not admitted it will unhinge and enervate all Governments whatsoever For the Command of no King ever pleased all his Subjects of no General all his Souldiers of no Fatherof a Family all his Children and Servants of no Schoolmaster all his Scholars and yet this never did or indeed should hinder any King or General or Father or Master to give Commands such as in prudence they thought convenient and being given to put them in Execution The truth is it were impossible for any Government to subsist if supreme Magistrates should make no Law or civil Sanction till all their Subjects were satisfied 5. And as evident Reasons may in this Case of readmitting the Jews be drawn for the Liberty which by the Law of Nature and Scripture is inherent in the supreme Magistrate's and his just Authority to determine of indifferent things to prove that he gives no Scandal in case he use that Liberty and Authority in readmitting and giving Priviledges such as in prodence he shall think fit to the Jews So there may be further Reasons drawn for the same purpose from the consideration of the Subjects in relation to the supreme Magistrate For as they stand in this Relation there lies an Obligation upon them by the Law of God and Nature to yield cheerful and willing Obedience to all the just Commands of their Governours as this undoubtedly is and then where Obedience is morally due Offence and Scandal is in vain pretended It is irrational and irreligious too to pretend Scandal for the neglect of my Duty and so evidently disobey God and my Governours upon pretence I am afraid so to do But enough if not too much of this He that would have more Reasons from the Nature of Scandal may find enough in the best Casuist of our Nation and may be of any Nation else where although his Discourse in Hypothesi be applied to other particulars and a different Case of Scandal from this now in question yet what he hath said there in Thesi is as applicable to this as that 6. Now concerning this Toleration of the Jews we may further enquire 1. What Power is to give this Toleration 2. In what things they are to give it 3. For what Reasons and Motives they are to do it 4. How far and with what Restrictions and Limitations this should be
includes both an acknowledgment and worship of a Deity II. Toleration of Religions presupposeth several Religions or different Opinions Respectu Doctrinae Disciplinae or both for without such disserent Religions cannot be different III. Now amongst several Religions in any Nation all cannot be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Jamblichus tells us truly Truth is one and cannot differ from it self and that which is owned and established by the just Authority of any Nation is supposed to be the True Religion It follows that Toleration must necessarily relate to those Religions and ways of Worship which are at least supposed false as being different from that which the Nation that tolerates them owns and establishes as true I say supposed to be false For it may and many times does happen that the False Religion may be established and the true only tolerated So in France Popery is the Religion owned and Protestancy only tolerated in England contrary VI. Now this Toleration or Establishment must relate to some and the same Authority That Authority which establishes the True must tolerate the Religion or Religions which are supposed false for we speak of an Authoritative and Legal Toleration So that as the Supream Legislative Power must and only can legally establish the True so it only can tolerate those ways of Worship which are supposed to be false V. And here further As this Legal Establishment brings a two-fold obligation on those who submit to it 1. An obligation to Obedience and a conformity in their Practice to the Established Law And 2. An obligation to the Punishments mentioned in the Law in case of Disobedience So on the other side a publick and Legal Toleration exempts those to and for whom it is granted 1. From the obligation to Obedience and conforming themselves to the established way of Worship For Toleration intrinsecally notes the taking off such Obligation 2. It exempts them from those Punishments which are to those who have submitted to such a way of Worship the consequents of non-obedience and non-conformity to the Established Religion For no man can be justly punished for non-obedience to any Law who is not under the obligation of it VI. Once more As those to whom such Toleration is granted may justly expect impunity and exemption from all penal Sufferings tho they conform not to the way of Worship publickly established so on the other side they cannot reasonably expect the Rewards and Encouragements which a Prince distributes to those who chearfully obey and give conformity to the Religion established For as Rewards and Punishments are the Sepimenta Legis the great Mounds and Hedges to keep men to their duty and obedience to any Law of God or Man hope of Reward incouraging men to obedience and fear of Punishment frighting them from disobedience so they go together and are inseparable and belong only to those who are under the obligation of such Law So that he to whom the Law is not given and to these who have a Toleration it is not as he need not fear punishment for Non-conformity the Law not obliging him to it so he cannot expect or hope for those Rewards which are the encouragements of that obedience which he refuseth to give Those then who are under the obligation of such Law are in one respect in a better condition because they may justly expect from their Prince Rewards and Encouragements proportionable to the measure of their Obedience So on the other side those who have the Toleration are in another respect in a better condition because they need not fear any Punishment for their Non-conformity 7. It must be remembred that it is a Toleration we speak of not an Approbation of those Religions or ways of Worship which differ from the Religion established in a Nation For the Established Religion being always supposed to be true and as such owned by the Authority establishing it the ways of Worship tolerated only must of necessity be supposed at least to be false and so cannot be approved by that Authority which for just Reasons does and may tolerate them For such an approbation of the False would be a condemnation of the True Religion and so if they approve what they tolerate they condemn what they establish which is such a contradictory piece of Indiscretion and Injustice as hardly any Authority can be guilty of VIII This premised the grand Query will be Whether and how far the Supream Power may and ought to grant such a Toleration to Religions and ways of Worship differing from that established Now seeing the granting of such a Toleration as almost all other humane Actions may be good or bad according to the various Circumstances and several Conditions 1. Of the Power that grants 2. Of the Persons to whom the Grant is made 3. Of the Religions tolerated 4. And of the time in which such Toleration is granted It cannot be expected that I or any body else should give one Absolute and Categorical Answer to the intite Query and therefore I shall crave leave to say something towards an Answer by several steps and degrees in these following Positions 1. Then it is to be considered who they are who desire such a Toleration their number and quality at home and what Friends and Assistants they may have abroad For if the Persons desiring such Toleration be so considerable for number and strength at home or for their assistance abroad that a War or dangerous Insurrections and Seditions may follow if a Toleration be denied to the hazard of the publick Peace and safety of the Common-weal Then I think the Magistrate in Prudence and Conscience may and ought to grant their Desires and rather tolerate a False Religion with such prudent Qualifications and for such time as shall be agreed upon than hazard the unsettlement and ruine of the True For as in the Body Natural we endure a Gangrened Member with much pain and patience tho without hopes of cure when it cannot be cut off without endangering the whole so in the Body Politick or Ecclesiastical an erring part may and ought to be endured and tolerated when the cutting off would hazard the weal of the whole And indeed such a Toleration in such a Case is rather necessary than voluntary in the Magistrate only he in this case makes a vertue of necessity giving that by way of favour and kindness freely which probably they might have by force Thus he secures the publick Peace and the Religion established obliges the Dissenters by the civility and courtesie of a moderate Toleration and yet all this is indeed but granting impunity when he cannot punish And this is most consonant to the Principles of right Reason and the perpetual Practice of all Nations For Quod multis peccatur inultum est when Seditions have happened in a Common-weal or Mutinies in an Army if the Seditious and Mutineers were many it hath ever been thought more prudent to pardon than punish
for 't is no man's duty to believe any positive truth of Christian Religion till it be sufficiently revealed a sufficient revelation of truth being absolutely necessary and antecedent to an obligation to believe it and so to the duty of believing and when that is the Magistrate cannot certainly know and therefore he cannot compell any to the belief of these or those opinions as a part of their duty seeing he cannot certainly know whether it be their duty or no. Sir These Adversaria tumultuarily put together will need your pity and pardon being neither in a just order or method nor having that evidence of proof which otherwise they might have had had either my parts been better or my time for Meditation more As they are you freely have them and an absolute power to approve or condemn them Given you by SIR Your most Obliged humble Servant c. THE CASE OF MURDER The Case of MURDER GEN. ix 6. An Objection from the said Text That Kings have not power to pardon Murder Answered FOR the clearing and further Evidence of the truth of this Position That Kings and Supreme Powers may in some Cases pardon Murder there remains one and for ought yet appears but one Objection to be answered 't is grounded on the Law given to Noah after the Flood and about 796 years before the Mosaical Law which says that the Murderer shall surely be put to death The Law given to Noah was in these words He that sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed Wherein God Almighty appoints death to be the punishment of Murder Now if it be granted that the Mosaical Law binds only the Jews to whom it was given yet this Law given to Noah and in him to all his Posterity must bind Jews and Gentiles too who are all equally his Posterity Sol. In answer to this Objection and the reason of it which no way proves what is pretended I say 1. It is confess'd that this Law given to Noah did bind him and all his Posterity There were three men and but three who could make Positive Laws to bind all the World 1. Adam 2. Noal 3. Our Blessed Saviour Whatever Laws any of them made after sufficient Promulgation oblig'd the whole World and what Laws God gave to Adam or Noah all such Laws after sufficient Promulgation oblig'd their Posterity that is the whole World for as before the Flood all the men in the World came from Adam so after the Flood from Noah and it must be confess'd that although this Law given to Noah does not bind many to whom it was never promulg'd or made known yet God has sufficiently made it known to all Jews and Christians in the holy Scriptures and therefore we must confess our selves under the Obligation of it 2. It is certain that this Law given to Noah was as all Penal Laws are a Positive Law and that all such Laws are capable of Dispensation and that in several Cases without any dispensation their Obligation ceases of which more anon 3. It is certain that by these words By man shall his blood be shed By man there the Magistrate is meant who had Jus Gladii Power of Life and Death and so Authority to condemn and execute a Murderer which no Private Person had or could upon any just Grounds pretend to 4. When it is said That the Murderers blood shall be shed by man The Proposition is not Universal that every Murderer shall be put to death For if Noah or any Supreme Power had been a Murderer as even David the best of Kings was he could not by this or any other Law be put to death 1. Because it is evident that the Supreme Power has no Superior and therefore none to punish him especially not with death the greatest Punishment man can suffer 2. Nor could he do it himself for although Kings and Supreme Powers have Authority to take away other mens lives when they are Capital Offenders and do things worthy of death yet they cannot take away their own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Self-murder being in no case lawful 3. And as they could not without sin and great Impiety kill themselves so they could not give Commission to any to do it It being impossible that I should give another Power to do that which I had no power to do my self 5. And as this Law extends not to Supreme Powers whose Blood cannot be shed by man although man's Blood have been shed by them so it extends not to all Subjects and Inferior persons who have Lawful Magistrates This the infinitely wise and just Lawgiver God himself has told us in the Text That if a Master had slain his Man-servant or Maid-servant and they die immediately under his hand then he was to be punish'd but if that Servant lived a day or two 24 hours say the Rabbins the Jews accounting 12. hours for a day his Master who kill'd him was not to die So that though a Master had shed the blood of his Man-servant or Maid-servant yet his blood by this Law given to Noah could not be shed for it 6. Other Cases there may be and are wherein a man may shed man's blood and yet his blood may not be shed for it For instance The Law required two Witnesses to put any Murderer to death and therefore if Sempronius had shed Titius his blood yet if there was but one Witness legally to prove it Sempronius his blood could not be shed by any man By the Premisses I think it is evident that this Law given to Noah He that sheds blood by man shall his blood be shed is not so universally obligatory as some may think it is Seeing there may be many persons and cases wherein man's blood may be shed and yet he who did it cannot be put to death for so doing The Query then will be Whether the Supreme Power who as to have his blood shed by any man is not under the Obligation of this Law may not in some cases pardon a person condemn'd for Murder For a distinct answer to this Query it is to be considered 1. That it is certain that this Law given to Noah nor any Law de poenis is not a Natural or Moral Law all which Laws were ab Origine at the Creation writ in the Heart of Adam and from him in the Hearts of all his Posterity and their Obligation eternal and indispensable But it was a positive Law given to Noah 1658. years after the Creation 2. It is certain That all such Positive and Penal Laws are capable of Dispensations and many Cases may happen in some times and circumstances of which the Supreme Power is the only or at least the Supreme Judge wherein the Obligation of such Laws ceaseth so that no man is bound to execute or undergo the Punishments appointed by those Laws That this may evidently appear I shall give some few Instances 1. It was a Divine
of a Father sufficient to Null the consent and matrimonial contract of his Daughter neither is nor can be pretended Secondly For humane Laws the Civilians and Canonists tell us That the fear of a Father makes not the Marriage or Consent of his Daughter a Nullity Plane metust reverentialis sive obsequium reverentiae Paternae debitum matrimonium non impedit uti nec Consensum No not when the Daughter gives her consent Patre suadente admodum urgente hortante And the law it self tells us That if a Father compell or force his Son to marry a Wife there is the same reason for his Daughter to marry a Husband which otherwise he would not have Married yet the marriage is valid and by reason of that force no Nullity si Filius Patre cogente ducit uxorem quam non duceret si sui arbitrij esset contraxit tamen matrimonium quod inter invitos non contrabitur maluisse hoc videtur So that even according to Human Civil and Canon Laws it is not all Co-action force or fear from a Father which makes the consent of a Daughter in a Matrimonial contract invalid or Nullity and therefore 't is impertinently pretended for such in our present Case 5. I confess the Canonists and Civilians say That fear makes the consent Involuntary and so indces a Nullity Locum non habet consensus ubi metus vel co-actio intercedit c. So saies that Law and the Lawyers consent and say further Quod Matrimonium per metum vel minis contractum deficiente consensu est ipso jure nullum But it is certain first That they do not mean a Reverential Fear a fear of displeasing a Father for the same Men in the same places say That such a fear does not vitiate the consent or make a Nullity Now all the fear pretended by Gallina in our Case was from her Father Secondly If the fear arise from the many and severe Threats of a Father yet this cannot make the consent involuntary and so a Nullity I confess that if a Father should Command and Threaten his Daughter to Marry an impious and unworthy Person the Law will warrant her disobedience for in that Case she is not by Law bound to obey her Father's commands or threatnings But in our Case no such indignity or incapacity of Patrimoniale's person is complain'd of or so much as pretended for a cause why Gallina's consent should be involuntary and the conjugal contract a Nullity Now if this be true and the Law it self says it That tum solum dissentiendi a Patre licentia Filie conceditur cum indignum moribus aut turpem sponsum ei Pater eligat If the Law allow a Daughter to disobey her Father's commands proposing a Huband to her only in such Case then if he chuse and propose a Person better qualified and no way unworthy of her and give his consent and command that she shall marry him as the matter of Fact was in our Case then she is bound to obey him For if it be Lawful for a Daughter to disobey her Father onely when he proposes and unworthy Husband then when he proposes one worthy she is bound to obey him Seeing then the Husband propos'd to Gallina by her Father was no way unworthy of her but she bound upon her Father's consent and command to marry him it follows Thirdly That her actual marrying him upon her Father's command and fear to displease him was an act of filial Obedience and Duty and therefore could not possibly vitiate her consent and make the conjugal contract involuntary invalid and as pretended a Nullity Nay Fourthly 't is certain that a Father hath a just Authority by the Law of God and Nature to consider and judge what is good for his Children and not only to command their Obedience but to use Threats and Menaces yea and Castigations and Whippings too to make them do their Duty and obey his just commands so our Heavenly Father commands us to obey his Laws useth Menaces threatens Death and Damnation if we do not and these Means he has appointed Threatnings as well as Promises to make us willing to do what he commands our Duty And therefore to say that such Paternal Commands and Threatnings whether of our Heavenly or Earthly Parents can be a just ground to make our consents to such commands involuntary which he has ordain'd to make us give a willing and voluntary Obedience is to Blaspheme his infinitely wise Providence and to say that the means which he has appointed to produce a willing and voluntary consent in us to obey his Commands and do our Duty has a necessary and contrary effect and makes them involuntary So that it being granted that Gallina's Father commanded her to marry Patrimoniale and to make her to do it added many and severe Threatnings for fear of which she did and without them would not have done it marry him this may prove that in those circumstances and to avoid her Father's displeasure she willingly made that conjugal contract but neither is not can be any ground to prove that her consent was involuntary and so the contract in valid as is pretended and a Nullity Fifthly And this may further appear that such Actions are not involuntary by the consent of Christendom thus In the Primitive Church and times of Persecution some Christians suffer'd Imprisonment and many Torments for their Religion yet at last for fear of Death threatned by their Pagan Persecutors they offered Incense in the Idol Temple and yet all those Imprisonments Torments and Threatnings of Death did not make that act of theirs Involuntary for then it had not been Sin peccatum utique non est peccatum nisi sit voluntarium and yet the Church and Christian World judg'd it to be a great Sin and Ecclesiastical Punishments and long Penances were imposed on them for it as appears by the for it as appears by the Antient and approved Canons Now if all these Sufferings and Fears of present Death did not make their act of Sacrificing in a Pagan Temple Involuntary then neither will the like if any such had been make Gallina's act of marrying in a Christian Church involuntary nor consequently invalid and a Nullity Sixthly But let it be further granted that Gallina was unden very great force and fear from her Father as is pretended and that that force and fear was of such a Nature and Degree as the Canon and Civil Laws judge sufficient to make a conjugal contract invalid and a Nullity Yet seeing in this case Idem est non esse non apparere till this do legally appear by just proofs no judge can as least none should give sentence for a Nullity nor can Mr. Cottington with any Security Quiet or Peace of Conscience Co-habit with her as with his legal Wife And in this and such other Matrimonial Cases of Nullity and Divorce our
Christianae militi ae Sacramento liberè obligati as a good Author tells me to be Christians is to be in Covenant with Christ which cannot be compell'd 't is essentially consensus mutuus and where such free consent is wanting there is no Covenant or real and true Christianity It is Tertullian who tells us Hoc ad Irreligiositatis elogium concurrit ut non liceat mihi colere quem velim sed cogar credere quem Nolim It seems to him irreligious to compell Religion Piae religionis est non cogere sed suadere saith Athanasius And again Dominus non cogens sed libertatem suam voluntati permittens dicebat quidem vulgo omnibus Si quis vult venire post me Apostolis vero Numquid ae vos abire vultis And Chrysostome on the same place of John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Interrogat an ipsi velint discedere quod omnem est amoventis vim ac necessitatem It is an excellent passage in Hilary to this purpose Intelligit singularis sapientia tua non decere non oportere cogi compelli in vitos ac repugnantes c. Idcirco laboratis ut omnes quibus imperatis dulcissimâ libertate potiantur Nec alia ratione quae turbata sunt componi quae divulsa sunt coerceri possunt nisi unus quisque nulla servitutis necessitate adstrictus integrum habeat vivendi arbitrium And again Permittat lenias tua populis ut quos Voluerint quos Elegerint audiant Docentes divina Mysteriorum solennia concelebrent c. And a little after Deus cognitionem sui Docuit potius quà m Exegit coactam confitendi se aspernatus est voluntatem Deus universitatis est obsequio non eget necessario non requirit coactam confessionem non fallendus est non promerendus nolit nisi Volentem recipere nisi orantem audire nisi profitentem signare Lactantius thus Defendenda Religio non occidendo sed moriendo non saevitiâ sed patientiâ illa enim Malorum sunt haec bonorum necesse est bonum in Religione versari non malum Nam si sanguine si tormentis si malo Religionem defendere velis jam non defendetur illa sed Polluetur violabitur Nihil enim est tam voluntarium quà m Religio And the same Lactantius elsewhere Non expetimus ut Deum nostrum velit nolit colat aliquis invitus nec si non coluerit irascimur Quis imponit mihi Necessitatem vel colendi quod Nolim vel quod Velim non colendi St. Augustine was at first against all Persecution for Religion and would not have the Emperor sollicited to punish the Donatists with Secular and Temporal punishments At last as he confesseth he was of another opinion yet even then he was against punishing any even the worst Hereticks with death Ita enim lex fuerat promulgata saith he ut tantae immanitatis Haeresis Donatistarum cui crudelius parci videbatur quà m ipsa saeviebat non tantum violenta esse sed omnino non fineretur esse impunè non tamen supplicio capitali propter servandam etiam circa indignos mansuetudinem Christianam sed pecuniariis damnis c. There is in Eusebius an Edict of Constantine and Licinius which gives a Toleration to all Religions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ut tum Christianis tum aliis omnibus liberam optionem omnino daremus eam Religionem sequendi quam ipsi in animos inducerent And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Consilio rectissimo decrevimus ut nemini prorsus libertas negetur Christianorum cultum imitandi Cuique detur copia suam mentem ei Religioni addicendi quam ipse sibi maximè convehire censuerit And he gives the reason of this Indulgence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quia nostrorum temporum tranquillitati quieti revera accommodatum est ut quisque facultatem habeat deligendi eam in Deo colendo rationem quae sibi maximè placuerit hocque à nobis factum ut nullius Religionis authoritas à nobis ulla ex parte imminui videatur Afterwards such Toleration was not granted but as we see in the Imperial Laws sometimes more or less according to the Constitution of the Emperors and the fierceness and importunity of the Bishops But enough if not too much of this and therefore manum de Tabula He that desires more either sayings of Fathers or Imperial Edicts or Constitutions of particular Churches and Nations concerning Persecution or Toleration of several Religions may have them Collected to his Hand by many Authors Qui plura vellet illos videat Quer. 1. Whether he that would give a Toleration to several Religions should not in prudence and conscience first know what these Religions are what Points they hold different from that Established that so he may knowingly judg how far he may or may not grant Impunity For if he Tolerate a Religion before he know it he Tolerates he knows not what Which cannot be an act of prudence in any Magistrate Seeing in this case he grants a Toleration to that Religion which for ought he knows he ought not to Tolerate Quer. 2. Whether he that does and justly may Tolerate a Religion different from that Legally established and so compells none to be of his Religion may not yet compell his Subjects to those Media and the use of them by which may be informed of the reasons and truth of his Religion As for instance whether our King though he should grant a Toleration to Papists and so no way compell them to be Protestants may not compel them to come to Sermons and hear Disputations by which they may be informed of those Truths we hold and the Grounds and Reasons of them As Parents compell their Children to go to School for Information though they should not cannot compell them to an assent and belief of what they are taught Seeing by the Law of Nature and Scripture we and all men are bound to Try all things and hold fast that which is good and so may by our Lawful Governours be compell'd to an examination and rational trial of several Religions though not to the belief of any Now the reason of this difference in this 1. It is evident and confessed that 't is every man's duty to make such trial of the truth of several Religions that so he may be of the best Religion by choice and not only by chance 2. It is as evident that the end of Magistracy is to bring all men under their Jurisdiction to do their duty either by suasory allurements or if that will not do by compulsory punishments and so by consequence he may compell them to such trial of the truth 2. But after such trial made by hearing Sermons and Disputations the Magistrate cannot tell certainly when it is their duty of several Religions to believe this or that in particular