lose the comfort of truth because he beleeves it upon indirect insufficient and incompetent arguments and as his desire it should be so is his best argument that it is so so the pleasing of men is his best reward and his not being condemned and contradicted all the possession of a truth SECT XIIII Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons disagreeing and when persecution first came in ANd thus this truth hath been practiced in all times of Christian Religion when there were no collaterall designes on foot nor interests to be served nor passions to be satisfied In S. Pauls time though the censure of heresie were not so loose and forward as afterwards and all that were called Heretiques were cleerly such and highly criminall yet as their crime was so was their censure that is spirituall They were first admonished once at least for so a l. 3. cap. 3. Irenaeus b de prescript Tertullian c lib. ad Quirinum Cyprian d in hunc locum Ambrose and e ibidem Hierome read that place of Titus 3. But since that time all men and at that time some read it Post unam alteram admonitionem reject a Heretique Rejection from the communion of Saints after two warnings that 's the penalty Saint John expresses it by not eating with them not bidding them God speed but the persons against whom he decrees so severely are such as denyed Christ to become in the flesh direct Antichrists and let the sentence be as high as it lists in this case all that I observe is that since in so damnable doctrines nothing but spirituall censure separation from the communion of the faithfull was enjoyned and prescribed we cannot pretend to an Apostolicall precedent if in matters of dispute and innocent question and of great uncertainty and no malignity we should proceed to sentence of death For it is but an absurd and illiterate arguing to say that excommunication is a greater punishment and killing a lesse and therefore Numb 2. whoever may be excommunicated may also be put to death which indeed is the reasoning that Bellarmine uses for first excommunication is not directly and of it self a greater punishment then corporall death Because it is indefinite and incompleat and in order to a further punishment which if it happens then the excommunication was the inlet to it if it does not the excommunication did not signifie halfe so much as the losse of a member much lesse death For it may be totally ineffectuall either by the iniquity of the proceeding or repentance of the person and in all times and cases it is a medicine if the man please if he will not but perseveres in his impiety then it is himselfe that brings the Censure to effect that actuates the judgement and gives a sting and an energy upon that which otherwise would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly but when it is at worst it does not kill the Soule it onely consignes it to that death which it had deserved and should have received independently from that sentence of the Church Thirdly and yet excommunication is to admirable purpose for whether it referres to the person censured or to others it is prudentiall in it selfe it is exemplary to others it is medicinall to all For the person censured is by this meanes threatned into piety and the threatning made the more energeticall upon him because by fiction of Law or as it were by a Sacramentall representment the paines of hell are made presentiall to him and so becomes an act of prudent judicature and excellent discipline and the best instrument of spirituall Government Because the neerer the threatning is reduced to matter the more present and circumstantionable it is made the more operative it is upon our spirits while they are immerged in matter And this is the full sense and power of excommunication in its direct intention consequently and accidentally other evills might follow it as in the times of the Apostles the censured persons were buffeted by Satan and even at this day there is lesse security even to the temporall condition of such a person whom his spirituall parents have Anathematiz'd But besides this I know no warrant to affirme any thing of excommunication for the sentence of the Church does but declare not effect the finall sentence of damnation Whoever deserves excommunication deserves damnation and he that repents shall be saved though he dye out of the Churches externall Communion and if he does not repent he shall be damn'd though he was not excommunicate But suppose it greater then the sentence of corporall death yet Numb 3. it followes not because hereticks may be excommunicate therefore kill'd for from a greater to a lesse in a severall kind of things the argument concludes not It is a greater thing to make an excellent discourse then to make a shooe yet he that can doe the greater cannot doe this lesse An Angell cannot beget a man yet he can doe a greater matter in that kind of operations which we terme spirituall and Angelicall And if this were concluding that whoever may be excommunicate may be kill'd then because of excommunications the Church is confessed the sole and intire Judge she is also an absolute disposer of the lives of persons I beleeve this will be but ill doctrine in Spaine for in Bullâ Coenae Domini the King of Spaine is every year excommunicated on Maunday Thursday but if by the same power he might also be put to death as upon this ground he may the Pope might with more ease be invested in that part of S. Peters patrimony which that King hath invaded and surpriz'd But besides this it were extreme harsh Doctrine in a Roman Consistory from whence excommunications issue for trifles for fees for not suffering themselves infinitely to be oppressed for any thing if this be greater then death how great a tyrannie is that which does more then kill men for less then trifles or else how inconsequent is that argument which concludes its purpose upon so false pretence supposition Well however zealous the Apostles were against hereticks yet none were by them or their dictates put to death The death of Numb 4. Ananias and Saphira and the blindnesse of Elymas the Sorcerer amount not to this for they were miraculous inflictions and the first was a punishment to Vow-breach and Sacriledge the second of Sorcery and open contestation against the Religion of Jesus Christ neither of them concerned the case of this present question or if the case were the same yet the authority is not the same For he that inflicted these punishments was infallible and of a power competent But no man at this day is so But as yet people were converted by Miracles Preaching and Disputing and Hereticks by the same meanes were redargued and all men instructed none tortured for their opinion And this continued till Christian people were vexed by disagreeing
hearty perswasion to the weaknesse of humanity and the difficulty of things for God hath not left those truths which are necessary for conservation of publike societies of men so intricate and obscure but that every one that is honest and desirous to understand his duty will certainly know that no Christian truth destroyes a mans being sociable and a member of the body Politick co-operating to the conservation of the whole as well as of it selfe However if it might happen that men should sincerely erre in such plaine matters of fact for there are fooles enough in the world yet if he hold his peace no man is to persecute or punish him for then it is meare opinion which comes not under Politicall Cognisance that is that Cognisance which onely can punish corporally but if he preaches it he is actually a Traytor or Seditious or Author of Perjury or a destroyer of humane Society respectively to the nature of the Doctrine and the preaching such Doctrines cannot claime the priviledge and immunity of a meare opinion because it is as much matter of fact as any the actions of his disciples and confidents and therefore in such cases is not to be permitted but judg'd according to the nature of the effect it hath or may have upon the actions of men Fifthly But lastly In matters mearly speculative the case is wholly altered because the body Politick which only may lawfully Numb 8. use the sword is not a competent Judge of such matters which have not direct influence upon the body Politick or upon the lives and manners of men as they are parts of a Community not but that Princes or Judges Temporall may have as much ability as others but by reason of the incompetency of the Authority And Gallio spoke wisely when he discoursed thus to the Jewes If it were a matter of wrong or Act. 18. 14. wicked lewdnesse ô ye Jewes reason would that I should hear you But if it be a question of words and names and of your Law look ye to it for I will be no Judge of such matters The man spoke excellent reason for the Cognisnance of these things did appertain to men of the other robe but the Ecclesiasticall power which only is competent to take notice of such questions is not of capacity to use the Temporall sword or corporall inflictions The meare doctrines and opinions of men are things Spirituall and therefore not Cognoscible by a temporall Authority and the Ecclesiasticall Authority which is to take Cognisance is it selfe so Spirituall that it cannot inflict any punishment corporall And it is not enough to say that when the Magistrate restraines Numb 9. the preaching such opinions if any man preaches them he may be punished and then it is not for his opinion but his disobedience that he is punish'd for the temporall power ought not to restraine Prophecyings where the publick peace and interest is not certainly concern'd And therefore it is not sufficient to excuse him whose Law in that case being by an incompetent power made a scruple where there was no sinne And under this consideration come very many Articles of the Church of Rome which are wholly speculative which doe Numb 10. not derive upon practise which begin in the understanding and rest there and have no influence upon life and government but very accidentally and by a great many removes and therefore are to be considered only so farre as to guide men in their perswasions but have no effect upon the persons of men their bodies or their temporall condition I instance in two Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of Transubstantion these two to be instead of all the rest For the first This Discourse is to suppose it false and we are Numb 11. to direct our proceedings accordingly And therefore I shall not need to urge with how many faire words and gay pretences this Doctrine is set off apt either to conzen or instruct the conscience of the wisest according as it is true or false respectively But we finde sayes the Romanist in the History of the Maccabees that the Jewes did pray and make offerings for the dead which also appeares by other Testimonies and by their forme of prayers still extant which they used in the Captivity it is very considerable that since our blessed Saviour did reprove all the evill Doctrines and Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees and did argue concerning the dead and the Resurrection against the Sadduces yet he spake no word against this publick practise but left it as he found it which he who came to declare to us all the will of his Father would not have done if it had not been innocent pious and full of charity To which by way of consociation if we adde that S. Paul did pray for Onesiphorus That God would shew him a mercy in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. that is according to the stile of the New Testament the day of Judgement The result will be that although it be probable that Onesiphorus at that time was dead because in his salutations he salutes his houshold without naming him who was the Major domo against his custome of salutitions in other places Yet besides this the prayer was for such a blessing to him whose demonstration and reception could not be but after death which implies clearly that then there is a need of mercy and by consequence the dead people even to the day of Judgement inclusively are the subject of a misery the object of Gods mercy and therefore fit to be commemorated in the duties of our piety and charity and that we are to recommend their condition to God not only to give them more glory in the reunion but to pitty them to such purposes in which they need which because they are not revealed to us in particular it hinders us not in recommending the persons in particular to Gods mercy but should rather excite our charity and devotion For it being certaine that they have a need of mercy and it being uncertain how great their need is it may concern the prudence of charity to be the more earnest as not knowing the greatnesse of their necessity And if there should be any uncertainty in these Arguments Numb 12. yet its having been the universall practise of the Church of God in all places and in all Ages till within these hundred yeares is a very great inducement for any member of the Church to believe that in the first Traditions of Christianity and the Institutions Apostolicall there was nothing delivered against this practise but very much to insinuate or enjoyn it because the practise of it was at the first and was universall And if any man shall doubt of this he shewes nothing but De corona milit c. 3. de monogam c. 10. that hee is ignorant of the Records of the Church it being plaine in Tertullian and S. * Ep. 66. Cyprian who were the
2 de quinto praecepto Decal n. 12. Filliucius t tom 3. disp 4. q 8. dub 3 n. 32. Adam Tanner and their great u opusc 20. lib. 1. de regim Praecip c. 6. Thomas Aquinas All these and many more that I have seene teach the lawfulnesse of killing Kings after publike sentence and then to beautify the matter professe that they deny the lawfulnesse of Regicidium by a private authority For if the Pope sentence him then he is no longer a King and so the killing of him is not Regicidium and if any man doth kill him after such sentence then he kills him not privatâ Authoritate or sinè judicio publico which is all they affirm to be unlawfull And thus they hope to stop the clamour of the world against them yet to have their opinions stand intire the way to their owne ends fair but the Prince no jot the more secure of his life I doe them no wrong I appeale to the Authors themselves there I will be tryed For that either the People or that a Company of learned men or to be sure the Pope may license a man to kill the King they speake it with one voyce and tongue And now after all this we may better guesse what manner of counsell or threatning for I know not which to call it that In lib. sub nomine Torti edit Colon. Agrip 1610. pag 21. was which Bellarmine gave sometimes to K. Iames of B. M. Si securus regnare velit Rex si vitae sitae suorum consulere cupiat sinat Catholicos frist religione suâ If this be good counsell then in case the Catholiques were hindred from the free profession of their Religion at the best it was full of danger if not certaine ruine But I will no more rake this Augaean Stable in my first Part I shewed it was too Catholique a Doctrine and too much practis'd by the great Cisalpine Prelate I adde no more least truth it selfe should blush fearing to become incredible Now if we put all these things together and then we should prove to be Heretiques in their account we are in a faire case both Prince and people if wee can but guesse rightly at this wee shall need I thinke to looke no further why fire was called for to consume both our King and Country nor why we may feare it another time The Author of the Epistle of comfort to the Catholiques in prison printed by authority in the year of the Powder Treason is very earnest to perswade his Catholiques not to come to our Churches or communicate with us in any part of our divine service affrighting them with the strange terriculamenta of halfe Christians Hypocrites Denyers of Christ in case they joyn'd with us in our Liturgy Strange affrightments these yet not much more then what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 36 Can. Apost 33. Laodic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 true if they esteeme us Heretiques For if they thinke us so we are so to them and they communicating with us doe as much sinne as if wee were so indeed But if wee be not Heretiques what need all this stirr permissu Superiorum the Counsell of Recusancy was unreasonable dangerous schismaticall and as the case then stood very imprudent In charity to their discretion wee cannot but thinke them uncharitable in their opinion of us But there is no need we should dispute our selves into a conjecture themselves speake out and plaine enough Heare Bellarmine under the visor of Tortus affirming that the Kings Edict commanded the Catholiques Apol ad â—â— Angl. to goe to Heretiques Churches speaking of ours But more plaine is that of Champ the Sorbonist Cap. 11. pag. 149 Doway 1616. in his Treatise of Vocation of Bishops Therefore as Arrianisme is a condemn'd Heresy the Professors thereof be Heretiques so likewiseis Protestantisme a condemn'd Heresy and those that Professe it be also Heretiques By this time wee see too plainly that the state of Protestant Princes is full of danger where these men have to doe They may be deposed and expelled from the Government of their Kingdomes they must be deposed by the Catholiques under perill of their soules it may be done any way that is most convenient they may be rebelled against fought with slaine For all this it weresome ease if here we might fixe a Nonultrà For perhaps these Princes might put in a Plea for themselves and goe neere to prove themselves to be no Heretiques All 's one for though they doe yet unlesse they can perswade his Holinesse not to judge them so or declare them Heretiques all is to no purprse for to him they must stand or fall Nam iudicare an Rex pertrahat ad haeresim necne pertinet ad Pontificem So Bellarmine They need not stay till his Heresy be of it selfe manifest he is then to be us'd like a Heretique when by the Pope of Rome he shall be judg'd Hereticall But what matter is it if the Pope be judge for if they may be deposed as good he as any else What greivance then can this be to the state of Princes more then the former Yes very much 1. Because the Pope by his order to spiritualls may take away Kingdomes upon more pretences then actuall heresy It is a large title and may doe any thing Bellarmine expresses it handsomely and it is the doctrine Vbi supra of their great Aquinas The Pope saith he by De regim Princip his Spirituall power may dispose of the Temporalties of all the Christians in the World when it is requisite to the end of the Spirituall power The words are plain that he may doe it for his own ends for his is the Spirituall power that is for the advancement of the See Apostolike and thus to be sure he did actually wish Frederick Barbarossa Iohn of Navarre the Earle of Tholouse and our own King Iohn 2. The Pope pretends to a power that to avoid the probable danger of the increase of heresy he may take away a Territory from the right owner as is reported by the Cardinall D'Ossat and this is soon pretended for who is there that cannot make probabilities especially when a Kingdome is at stake 3. We finde examples that the Pope hath excommunicate Princes and declar'd them hereticks when all the heresy hath been a not laying their crownes at the feet of S. Peter The case of Lewis the fourth is every where known whom Iohn the twenty third Excommunicated Platina tels the reason He called himselfe In Clement quinto Emperour without the Popes leave and aided the Italian deputies to recover Millaine Doubtlesse a most damnable and fundamentall heresy 4. How if it proves in the Popes account to be a heresy to defend the immediat right of Princes to their Kingdomes dependant only on God not on the See Apostolike If this be no heresy nor like heresy to say it I would faine learn the meaning of
the precept gather not the tares by themselves but let them both grow together till the harvest that is till the day of Judgement This Parable hath been tortur'd infinitely to make it confesse its meaning but we shall soone dispatch it All the difficulty and variety of exposition is reducible to these two questions What is meant by Gather not and what by Tares That is what kind of sword is forbidden and what kind of persons are to be tolerated The former is cleare for the spirituall sword is not forbidden to be used to any sort of criminals for that would destroy the power of excommunication The prohibition therefore lyes against the use of the temporall sword in cutting off some persons Who they are is the next difficulty But by tares or the children of the wicked one are meant either persons of ill lives wicked persons onely in re practicâ or else another kind of evill persons men criminall or faulty in re intellectuali One or other of these two must be meant a third I know not But the former cannot be meant because it would destroy all bodies politique which cannot consist without lawes nor lawes without a compulsory and a power of the sword therefore if criminalls were to be let alone till the day of Judgement bodies politique must stand or fall ad arbitrium impiorum and nothing good could be protected not Innocence it selfe nothing could be secure but violence and tyrannie It followes then that since a kind of persons which are indeed faulty are to be tolerated it must be meant of persons faulty in another kind in which the Gospell had not in other places cleerely established a power externally compulsory and therefore since in all actions practically criminall a power of the sword is permitted here where it is denyed must meane a crime of another kind and by consequence errors intellectuall commonly call'd heresie Numb 7. And after all this the reason there given confirmes this * Vide S. Chrysost homil 47. in Cap. 13. Matth. et S. August interpretation for therefore it is forbidden to cut off these tares lest we also pull up the wheat with them which is the summe of these two last arguments For because Heresie is of so nice consideration and difficult sentence in thinking to root up heresies Quest. in cap. 13 Mat. S. Cyprian Ep. lib. 3 Ep. 1. we may by our * S. Hieron in cap 13. Matth. ait per hanc parabolam significari ne in rebus aubâ—is praecepâ— fiat judicium mistakes destroy true doctrine which although it be possible to be done in all cases of practicall question by mistake yet because externall actions are more discernable then inward speculations and opinions innocent persons are not so Theophyl in 13. Matth. easily mistaken for the guilty in actions criminall as in matters of inward perswasion And upon that very reason Saint Martin was zealous to have procured a revocation of a Commission granted to certaine Tribunes to make enquiry in Spaine for sects and opinions for under colour of rooting out the Priscilianists there was much mischiefe done and more likely to happen to the Orthodox For it happened then as oftentimes since Pallore potius veste quam fide haeretieus dijudicari solebat aliquando per Tribunos Maximi They were no good inquisitors of hereticall pravity so Sulpitius witnesses But secondly the reason sayes that therefore these persons are so to be permitted as not to be persecuted lest when a revolution of humane affaires sets contrary opinions in the throne or chaire they who were persecuted before should now themselves become persecutors of others and so at one time or other before or after the wheat be rooted up and the truth be persecuted But as these reasons confirme the Law and this sense of it so abstracting from the Law it is of it selfe concluding by an argument ab incommodo and that founded upon the Numb 8. principles of justice and right reason as I formerly alledged 4. We are not onely uncertaine of finding out truths in matters disputable but we are certaine that the best and ablest * Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum inveniatur quam difficilè caveantur errores Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quam rarum et arduum sit carnalia phantasmatae piae mentis serenitaete supevare Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quibus suspiriis gemitibus fiat ut exquantulaÌ„cunque parte possit intelligi Deus Postremo illi in vos saeviant qui nullo tali errore decepti sunt quali vos deceptos vident Doctors of Christendome have been actually deceived in matters of great concernment which thing is evident in all those instances of persons from whose doctrines all sorts of Christians respectively take liberty to dissent The errors of Papias Irenaeus Lactantius Iustin Martyr in the Millenary opinion of Saint Cyprian Firmilian the Asian and African Fathers in the question of Re-baptization Saint Austin in his decretory and uncharitable sentence against the unbaptized children of Christian parents the Roman or the Greek Doctors in the question of the procession of the holy Ghost and in the matter of images are examples beyond exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now if these great personages had been persecuted or destroyed for their opinions who should have answered the invaluable losse the Church of God should have sustained in missing so excellent so exemplary and so great lights But then if these persons erred and by consequence might have been destroyed what should have become of others whose understanding was lower and their security lesse their errors more and their danger greater At this rate all men should have passed through the fire for who can escape when Saint Cyprian and Saint Austin cannot Now to say these persons were not to be persecuted because although they had errors yet none condemned by the Church at that time or before is to say nothing to the purpose nor nothing that is true Not true because Saint Cyprians S. August Contr. Ep. Fund error was condemned by Pope Stephen which in the present sense of the prevailing party in the Church of Rome is to be condemned by the Church Not to the purpose because it is nothing else but to say that the Church did tolerate their errors For since those opinions were open and manifest to the world that the Church did not condemne them it was either because those opinions were by the Church not thought to be errors or if they were yet she thought fit to tolerate the error and the erring person And if she would doe so still it would in most cases be better then now it is And yet if the Church had condemned them it had not altered the case as to this question for either the persons upon the condemnation of their error should have been persecuted or not If not why shall they
persons and were impatient and peevish by their owne too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatize any thing which might intrench upon their reputation or their interest And it is observable that no man nor no age did ever teach the lawfullnesse of putting hereticks to death till they grew wanton with prosperity But when the reputation of the Governours was concerned when the interests of men were indangered when they had something to lose when they had built their estimation upon the credit of disputable questions when they began to be jealous of other men when they over-valued themselves and their owne opinions when some persons invaded Bishopricks upon pretence of new opinions then they as they thrived in the favour of Emperours and in the successe of their disputes sollicited the temporall power to banish to fine to imprison and to kill their adversaries So that the case stands thus In the best times amongst the Numb 5. best men when there were fewer temporall ends to be served when Religion and the pure and simple designes of Christianity were onely to be promoted in those times and amongst such men no persecution was actuall nor perswaded nor allowed towards disagreeing persons But as men had ends of their owne and not of Christs as they receded from their duty and Religion from its purity as Christ anity began to be compounded with interests and blended with temporall designes so men were persecuted for their opinions This is most apparent if we consider when persecution first came in and if we observe how it was checked by the holiest and the wisest persons The first great instance I shall note was in Priscillian and his Numb 6. followers who were condemned to death by the Tyrant Maximus Which instance although S. Hierom observes as a punishment and judgement for the crime of heresie yet is of no use in the present question because Maximus put some Christians of all sorts to death promiscuously Catholike and Heretick without choyce and therefore the Priscilianists might as well have called it a judgement upon the Catholiques as the Catholiques upon them But when Ursatus and Stacius two Bishops procured the Priscilianists death by the power they had at Court S. Martin Numb 7. was so angry at them for their cruelty that he excommunicated them both And S. Ambrose upon the same stock denyed his communion to the Itaciani And the account that Sulpitius gives of the story is this Hoc modo sayes he homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati sunt The example was worse then the men If the men were hereticall the execution of them however was unchristian But it was of more authority that the Nicene Fathers supplicated Numb 8. the Emperour and prevailed for the banishment of Arius Sozom. l. 1. c. 20 of this we can give no other account but that by the historie of the time we see basenesse enough and personall misdemeanour Socrat. l. 1. c. 26 Cont. Crescon Grammat lib. 3. c. 50. vide etiam Epist. 61. ad dulcilium et Epist. 158. et 159. et lib. 1. c. 29. cont tit petilian vide etiam Socrat. li. 3. c. 3 et c. 29. and factiousnesse of spirit in Arius to have deserved worse then banishment though the obliquity of his opinion were not put into the ballance which we have reason to beleeve was not so much as considered because Constantine gave toleration to differing opinions and Arius himselfe was restored upon such conditions to his country and office which would not stand with the ends of the Catholiques if they had been severe exactors of concurrence and union of perswasions I am still within the scene of Ecclesiasticall persons and am considering what the opinion of the learnedest and the holiest prelates were concerning this great question If we will beleeve Lib. 2. Cap. 5. retractat vide Epist. 48. ad vincent script post retract et Epist. 50. ad Bonifac. Saint Austin who was a credible person no good man did allow it Nullis tamen bonis in Catholicâ hoc placet si usque ad mortem in quenquam licet haereticum saeviatur This was S. Austins finall opinion For he had first been of the mind that it was not honest to doe any violence to mis-perswaded persons and when upon an accident happening in Hippo he had altered and retracted that part of the opinion yet then also he excepted death and would by no means have any meere opinion made capitall But for ought appears S. Austin had greater reason to have retracted that retractation then his first opinion For his saying of nullis bonis placet was as true as the thing was reasonable it should be so Witnes those known testimonies of a ad S capulaÌ„ Tertullian b lib. 3. Ep. 1. Epist Cyprian c Lib. 5. c. 20. Lactantius d in cap 13. Matth. et in cap. 2. hos Hierom e in vit S. Martin Severus Sulpitius f O ctav Minutius g cont Auxent Arr. Hilary h 3. sect C. 32. Damascen i in cap. 13. Matth. hom 47. Chrysostome k in cuang Matth. Theophylact and l in verba Apost fides ex auditu Bernard and divers others whom the Reader may find quoted by the Arch-Bishop of Spalato Lib. 8. de rep Eccles. cap. 8. Against this concurrent testimony my reading can furnish me with no adversarie nor contrary instances but in Attious of C. P. Theodosius of Synada in Stacius Ursaeus before reckoned Only indeed some of the later Popes of Rome began to be busie and unmercifull but it was then when themselves were secure and their interests great and their temporall concernments highly considerable For it is most true and not amisse to observe it that no man who was under the ferula did ever think it lawfull to have opinions Numb 11. forced or heretiques put to death and yet many men who themselves have escaped the danger of a pile and a faggot have changed their opinion just as the case was altered that is as themselves were unconcern'd in the suffering Petilian Parmenian and Apud Aug li. 1. c. 7. coat Epist. Parmenian l. 2. c. 1â— coat tit Petilian Gaudentius by no means would allow it lawfull for themselves were in danger and were upon that side that is ill thought of and discountenanc'd but * Epist. 1. ad Tuâ—bium Gregory and * Lib. 1. cp 72. Leo Popes of Rome upon whose side the authority and advantages were thought it lawfull they should be punished and persecuted for themselves were unconcerned in the danger of suffering And therefore S. Gregory commends the Exarch of Ravenna for forcing them who dissented from those men who called themselves the Church And there were some Divines in the Lower Germany who upon great reasons spake against the tyrannie of
us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie And thus in these two Instances I have given account what Numb 20. is to be done in Toleration of diversity of opinions The result of which is principally this Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Common-wealth be safe For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a question rather Politicall then Religious for as for the concernments of Religion these instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular and by one of these all particulars may be judged And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jewes in Numb 21. a Common-wealth whose interest is served by their inhabitation and yet upon equall grounds of State and Policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian as if they be turn'd from Christian to Iew as many are daily in Spaine and Portugall And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no Numb 22. power over them qui foris sunt as Iewes are For it is true the Church in the capacity of Spirituall regiments hath nothing to doe with them because they are not her Diocesse Yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be kild because they are not of the Christian Communion but they are living persons parts of the Common-Wealth infinitely deceived in their Religion and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their opinions and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose Service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintaine And when the Question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword but the Prince whose Subjects equally Christians and Iewes are hath equall power over their persons for a Christian is no more a subject then a Iew is The Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death so that the Iew by being no Christian is not foris or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is And yet in all Churches where the secular power hath temporall reason to tolerate the Iewes they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion which thing is of more consideration because the Iewes are direct Blasphemers of the Sonne of God and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capitall And might with greater reason be inflicted upon them who acknowledge its obligation then urg'd upon Christians as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidentall and consequutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively which yet they hate and disavow with much zeale and heartinesse of perswasion And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children and if they were not what hath the Mother to doe with them any more then with the Iewes they are in some relation or habitude of the Family for they are consigned with the same Baptism professe the same Faith delivered by the Apostles are erected in the same hope and look for the same glory to be reaveled to them at the comming of their Common Lord and Saviour to whose Service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans yet not worse Have no company with them that 's the worst that is to be done to such a man in S. Pauls judgement Yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother SECT XXI Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion FRom these premises we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulnesse or duty respectively of Christian Communion Numb 1. which is differently to bee considered in respect of particular Churches to each other and of particular men to particular Churches For as for particular Churches they are bound to allow Communion to all those that professe the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion For whatsoever preserves us as Members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints and whatsoever Faith or beliefe that is to which God hath promised Heaven that Faith makes us Members of the Catholick Church Since therefore the Iudiciall Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God To make the way to Heaven straighter then God made it or to deny to communicate with those whom God will vouchsase to be united and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our opinions and believe not every thing necessary which we over-value is impious and Schismaticall it inferres Tyranny on one part and perswades and tempts to uncharitablenesse and animosities on both It dissolves Societies and is an enemy to peace it busies men in impertinent wranglings and by names of men and titles of factions it consignes the interessed parties to act their differences to the height and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a goodlife bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and Societies And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis and indeed the whole Numb 2. Church accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground Cap. 11. Vid. Pacian Epist. ad Sempron 2. because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion whereas the Authors of that opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect because they did not break the Churches peace nor magisterially prescib d to others were in that disagrecing and errour accounted Catholicks Divisio enim disunio facit vos haereticos pax unit as L. 2. c. 95. contra liter Petilian faciunt Catholicos said S. Austin and to this sense is that of S. Paul If I had all faith and had not charity I am nothing He who upon confidence of his true beliefe denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward of both And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and S. Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so bitterly reprov'd and condemn'd as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Euseb. l. 5. c. 25 26. Irenaeus Concordia enim quae est charitat is effectus est unio