beholden to Hierome Grotius and Justellus for it that such an Heretick as the Apostle here speaks of might be known well enough and punished too 4. That this may appear I say 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is as all know vox mediae significationis sometimes taken in a good sometimes in a bad sense The several Sects of Philosophers were anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hippobotus writ a Book de sectis seu Haeresibus Philosophorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. So Christianity is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by St. Luke And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Luke signifies the Heresie or Sect of the Pharisees On the other side sometimes it is taken in the worse sense See Gal. 5. 20. Heresies are reckoned amongst the works of the flesh and in this of Titus also 2. Concerning Heresie in the worse sense I believe it true which Grotius observes Ubi Haeresis in malam partem sumitur significat idem quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi quod illa generalitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 limitatur ad eas partes quae fiunt ex opinionum diversitate Est ergo Haereticus hîc is qui per opinionem de Ecclesiâ partes facit He is an Heretick here in the Apostles sense who not only imbraces and maintains an erroneous opinion but makes a schism in the Church by separating himself from the Communion and drawing others after him and so disturbs the publick peace This is the opinion of Grotius and Justellus and long before them of St. Hierome Inter Haeresin Schisma hoc interesse arbitramur quod Haeresis perversum Dogma habet Schisma propter Episcopalem Dissensionem ab Ecclesiâ Pariter separet Quod quidem in principio aliquâ ex parte intelligi potest diversum caeterum nullum Schisma non sibi aliquam confingit Haeresin ut rectè ab Ecclesiâ recessisse videatur In his opinion Heresie and Schism do both agree in this that they make a rent in the Church Pariter separant and so break the bond of Peace and Ecclesiastical Union Whence it is that the Apostle calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned so we render it amiss I believe for the Apostle speaks of such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as men may know see and be sensible of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. knowing that such an Heretick is subverted being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not self-condemned for who is so none does or can know It being impossible for any man to know when an Heretick maintains his Heresie against the light of his own Conscience none being able to know that save he who knows the heart And therefore I conceive that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here should be rendered à seipso separatus rather than à seipso condemnatus One that broaches an error and separates from the Church This self-separation may be known but self-condemnation cannot and therefore the Apostle speaks not of this but that And I am the rather induced to be of this opinion 1. Because the word will very well bear this signification for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes originally and properly signifies seccrno separo as well as judico And if Stephanus mistake not to separate is the prime signification of it 2. Because I find Justellus and Grotius of the same opinion Grotius on these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith thus Non dicit Excommunica nam ipsi ultro Communionem deserunt And St. Hierome more fully Propterea à seipso dicitur damnatus quia fornicator homicida adulter caetera vitia per sacerdotes de Ecclesia pelluntur Haeretici autem in semetipsos sententiam ferunt suo arbitrio de Ecclesia recedentes c. So that in St. Hierom's opinion the Heretick Saint Paul speaks of is such a one who besides his Erroneous opinion is Schismatical and not only makes a separation from the Church himself but seduces others to the disturbance of the publick peace which crime is visible and confessedly punishable However t is certain we may know and avoid all familiarity with such a person which is all which that Apostolical Injunction Haereticum devita signifies And so much for that passage in St. Paul 3. For the practice of the Primitive Church in punishing those they call'd Hereticks with Excommunications I confess t is true they did so But then 1. It will not hence follow they did well and justly in doing so Afacto ad jus non sequitur argumentum We cannot infer Illos justè fecisse ex eo quod fecerint Nay he that reads the ancient Church-story will find that even those ancient Christian Bishops though otherwise good men were oft times too precipitate and passionately hot and fierce against their Brethren and too free of their Anathematismes and Excommunications although they were not then come to the now practised Popish cruelty of confuting Hereticks with fire and faggot As is evident in that famous story of Pope Victor to omit others Excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their Observation of Easter though no Law of God or man obliged them to keep it otherwise than they then did 2. Yet I grant that the Church anciently did and still justly may punish an erring person with Excommunication altho they cannot be certain how far and in what measure such persons err culpably and yet neither Church or State can justly punish such persons with loss of Livelihood Liberty or Life So I suppose an Arian or one who denies the Resurrection though otherwise peaceable neither separating himself nor factiously seducing others may justly be Excommunicated by the Church because he does not keep the Conditions on which he had the Christian Communion He that has the grant of any Communion Sacred or Civil upon Conditions cannot be Excommunicated justly while he keeps those Conditions but if he do not then conditione non praestitâ he may be justly Excommunicate Now Christians anciently and in ours and all Churches were received into the Communion of the Church on Condition of believing the Creed or Faith into which they were Baptized The Priest at Baptism asked Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty c. The party Baptized answered by himself if he were of age by his Sureties if not All this I stedfastly believe Then the Priest demands further Wilt thou be Baptized into this Faith He answers That is my desire c. Upon these Conditions he was received into the Church and admitted into the Christian Communion Now if after Baptism and this promise he deny any of those Fundamental Articles into the belief of which he was Baptized though otherwise he lived never so peaceably he might justly be Excommunicated by the Church 'T is a good and true Rule in Morality and Divinity too Volenti non fit injuria he desired and had the
which the Lord thy God GIVETH THEE Canaan is the Land promised and given to the Jews only not to the Gentiles nor ever intended for them it being indeed impossible that all Jews and Gentiles should live in that little Land But to pass by the promises which do not so properly belong to our present business I say 2. That it is as certain that all the Mosaical Laws de Poenis are not natural but Positive and Judicial Laws which never bound any save the Jews or those who became Proselytes and voluntarily submitted to them to whom only they were given That this may further and more distinctly appear it is to be confidered as certain and consessed I. That the Law of Nature as all just Laws do binds all men 1. Ad Obedientiam to a willing and perfect Obedience And 2. upon supposition of sin ad Poenam But the Punishment to which the Law of Nature binds is Death and that Eternal Death For as in Adam by reason of sin all die so they had died eternally had not God most graciously sent his Son to redeem them from that death Every sin how small soever by the Covenant of Works of which the Moral Law was the condition on mans part to be perform'd was a capital crime and Death the Wages or punishment by that law due to it But those many various laws de Poenis which occur in the Mosaical law which he gave to the Jews are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non leges nobiscum nataE in cord naturalitere inscriptae not Natural laws writ in our hearts and born with us But they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leges à Deo datae positive Laws which neither do nor ever did bind any but the Jews As may appear 2. Because they were given only to the Jews and that after they came out of Egypt which was after the Fall of Adam above 2450 years But those Mosaical Laws de Poenis of which we speak were never given nor publish'd to the Gentiles But had those Laws de Poenis been Natural Laws as the Precepts in the Decalogue are they would have bound all mankind from the Creation to this day and that indispensably and then all Christians should be bound to obey and practise those Penal laws and punish all Malefactors with such punishments only as in those laws are appointed which is evidently untrue as may appear 3. By the judgment and consent of the Christian World for no Christian Church or State did ever think themselves bound to observe those Mosaical Poenal Laws and to punish transgressors of the Divine Law with those punishments which are prescribed by Moses For instance That the stealing of a Sheep should be punish'd with restitutio in quadruplum with restoring four sheep for one if the thief had sold or kill'd the sheep he stole but if the sheep was found in his hand who stole it he was only to restore two sheep for one That the stealer of an Ox should restore five Oxen. That he who curseth or who smiteth his father or mother or will not obey them should be punished with death and stoned with stones That to do any of our own work so much only as to gather a few sticks on the Sabbath day should be capital and the offender in any one of these things surely put to death although these and such other Laws de Poenis were Divine given to the Jews by Moses and obliged them yet no Christian Church or State did ever think themselves obliged to the observation and practice of them And they had good ground in the Gospels to think so For 4. Our Blessed Saviour in his Sermon on the Mount explains and confirms all the Moral Laws de Officiis yet those severe Mosaical Laws de Poenis he did not confirm But expresly declares that legal severity to be inconsistent with the Charity of the Gospel For though by the Mosaical law a Jew might justly require and the Judge give an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth yet our Blessed Saviour expresly declares against such legal severity You have heard saith he it has been said in the Law of Moses an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth But I say unto you Resist not evil c He does not allow that severity in poenis in the Gospel which Moses allow'd the Jews under the Law and therefore we may be sure that it was not any Moral or Natural Law which required those punishments appointed for several sins in the Law of Moses for then they had been unalterable nor would our Blessed Saviour have contradicted them but it was the positive law of Moses which required them of the Jews to whom only these Laws were given and obligatory And here for further evidence of this truth it is to be considered 1. That in that Mosaical Law which is ignorantly or maliciously urged to prove that our Gracious Soveraign cannot pardon murder the strictest binding words are these The Murderer SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH Therefore say they he cannot be pardon'd They who reason thus did not well consider the consequence of such arguing from the Penal Laws in Moses For if this argument be good Moses says The Murderer shall surely be put to death Ergo He cannot be pardon'd Then this grounded on the same law of Moses will be every way as good and concluding The same Moses says Whosoever doth ANY work on the Sabbath-day he shall SURELY be put to death Ergo He cannot be pardon'd If such Logick were good it would conclude all men to be unpardonably guilty of death seeing I believe there is no man who on some Lords-day has not done some work and therefore by such Logick as this must be unpardonably guilty of death But enough of this for indeed such arguments do not deserve any serious answer or confufutation Sure I am that never any Christian Church or State did or had any reason to believe That the severe Jewish Law for the observation of the Sabbath did oblige Christians and therefore there neither is nor can be any more reason why their severe Law against Murder should be now obligatory to Gentiles or Christians to whom it was never given 2. When the Law says The Murderer shall SURELY die our best Commentators out of the Rabbins say that this is spoken to the Judges before whom such Causes regularly came Now those Judges in the Jewish Commonwealth were appointed by the Supreme Power and by his Authority judged and determined Causes under him Admit then that the Judges who were Magistrates Subordinate to the Supreme Power were to take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer but were by that Law oblig'd to condemn and execute him yet it does not hence follow that the Supreme Power who made them Judges might
not only Unchristianly but Inhumanely and Barbarously used and then seeing Common-wealths and Societies never die though particular Persons do it may be a Query whether the Common-wealth of England now are not bound in Conscience and Equity to make some Satisfaction by real Kindness and Civility to the present Jews for the Injuries the same Common-wealth did to their Progenitors then Dub. The main Objection against them why they were banished was their Usury and the Mischief that came thereupon as appears by the Preamble of the Statute by which they were banished To this I say these things Sol. 1. That Usury is tollerated in all Christian Common-weals even in ours and therefore to expel Jews for that which is tollerated in Christians is irrational 2. The State may limit their modus usurae not to exceed that allow'd by Statutes and then no more Fault in them then us 3. If you consider the Tolleration and Readmission of the Jews respectu Ecclesiae there are only Three things which may rationally hinder a Toleration and Readmission of them into a Christian Common-wealth as Christian. 1. Inhonestum 2. Incommodum 3. Scandalum 1. Inhonestum I conceive that for Jews to live among Christians or Christians amongst Jews is not Inhonestum or Malum per se as being against no Law of God natural or positive either that of Nature or Scripture Because 1. Our Saviour and his Apostles after him lived amongst Jews unconverted which they would not have done had it been unlawful 2. The Apostles and primitive Christians lived amongst Pagan Idolaters who were far worse than Jews yet made no Scruple of Conscience nay the Apostles approving it For the Apostle commands the Christians to live so that they might gain the Pagans to the Faith by their Pious and Christian Conversation and therefore they supposed they might live amongst them for it were not Sense to suppose that they could gain those by their Conversation with whom they might not converse 3. It is certain and an undoubted Principle That Domium non fundatur in gratiâ and therefore a Jew nay a Turk or Pagan hath a just Right and Propriety in their Estates as well as Christians And having so when some of the Jews were turned Christians they were neither bound to quit their Inheritance or Country to avoid the company and conversation of those Jews who were not nor when they were multiplied so that the major and ruling Part were Christians could they by any Law of God or Man without manifest Injustice disquiet the Unconverted Jews in their Possessions or banish them from their Inheritance 4. In the Jewish Church by Gods express approbation and command their Gezim Advenae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the 70 Interpreters and Hellenists call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Caldee Giorim even those which they call'd Proselyti Portae who were neither circumcised nor submitted to the Law of Moses were permitted to live and God expresly commands that the Jews should use them kindly provided that they abstained from Idolatry and worship't the God of Israel Now if these might live in the Jews Church though not circumcised nor submitting to Moses's Law why may not Jews live in the Christian Church though they be not baptized and submit not to the Gospel 5. The Practice of the Christian World in all Ages and the Imperial and Canon Laws approve the living of Jews amongst Christians and why it should be thought unlawful amongst us I know not 6. Our Merchants live and converse with Jews nay Turks and Pagans abroad and therefore why may not Jews converse with them here seeing that there is less Danger that a few Jews should live amongst many Christians here than that a few Christians should live amongst many Jews Turks and Pagans abroad 2. Incommodum The Second thing proposed which might render the admission or toleration of the Jews unreasonable was the Incommodum the Harm or Disadvantages which might come to Christianity or Christians by their company and conversation For if indeed the admission and tolleration of them were disadvantageous to the Gospel and really tended to the abolition or diminution of the true Faith or the subversion and hinderance of Christianity it were certainly neither pious in the supreme Magistrate nor prudent to admit them but he ought in this case rather to expell them if they were here than re-admit them now they are away seeing he is Non solùm Reipublicae sed Ecclesiae Nutricius qui non solùm Civilia sed Sacra procuraret being Custos utriusque Tabulae a sacred Obligation lying upon him by the Law of Nature and Nations to be vigilent and cautious Ne quid detrimenti capiat Ecclesiae But on the other side if the civil State may be advantaged by their admission and the Church secured against such pretended Danger then ex hoc capite there is no Reason but they may be admitted And that there is no such Danger which might rationally hinder their admission I am induced to believe 1. Because if there had been any such Danger the Apostles would never which yet they did have permitted and approved the Christians living and conversing amongst the Jews 2. It hath been the constant and continued Practice of Christendom ever since to this Day to admit Jews to live amongst Christians and why we should pretend more Danger in this particular than either the Apostles or the Christian World ever since I understand not 3. 'T is true they have been Banished out of England and France and some other Countries but it was not for matter of Faith but Fact not for their Religion that they were Religione Jud aei but for other crimes and enormities as their Blaspheming Jesus Christ Crucifying Children in opprobrium Christi Vilating the Pacta conventa and Capitulations of their Admission c. as plainly appears by the Preamble to the Statute of their Banishment and by our Historians generally 3. It is the Judgment of an eminent Divine both for Learning and Moderation that there is not much Danger that the Jews will subvert any or much endeavour the seducing of others to their Religion and he hath it out of Osiander and Capito two Persons of eminent Note in their time and he gives his Reason Quia Judaei antiquitus etiam stante eorum Politiâ ante Christum natum si Civitatem aliquam aut Populum bello devicissent legem Mosaicum ipsis non imponebant legem enim illam ad Gentes pertinere non put abant sed solum ut relictis Idolis Deum unum colerent praecepta Noachida observarent And indeed as we find not in any Story that the Jews have been active to gain Proselytes so we do not find any considerable number of Men in any Country which have apostated from Christianity to Judaism And the Reason of this may be besides the senceless
irrationality of their Worship and Pretences for it and the Odium that lies upon them universally as being hateful to the Christian World because they are a dispersed and vagabond People Slaves where-ever they come obnoxious to the Will of those Princes and States in whose Territories they live and so want all those temporal advantages which might allure Proselytes having no Jurisdiction or Authority any where to Protect themselves much less others who shall desert their own Profession to embrace theirs So that in all likelihood considering the Evidence of Truth and the very many Advantages which the Professors of Christianity have above that of Judaism by the Readmission of the Jews the cohabitation and conversation amongst Christians they may be sooner converted to Christianity God blessing the means than Christians seduced into Judaism And something we have to this purpose in Sacred and Prophane Story In the time of Queen Esther the Jews by her means had infinite Honour and Priviledges in the Persian Monarchy gained for them by her of Ahassuerus Darius Hystaspis was the Man her Husband Adeo ut musti ex populis terrae facti sunt Judaei saith the Text and the Reason is rendered Quoniam pavor Judaeorum super eos erat It was their great Priviledge and secular Advantages which made many turn Jews But now as their Religion is absolutely out of Date and their Misery more so the Fear that any should turn to them is less Nor do I find that when that Jewish Common-wealth was in its Glory they compelled any to be of their Religion no not those who lived amongst them and were uncircumcised for such did live quietly and were permitted so to do amongst them Nor only so but they were very scrupulous in admitting those Proselytes which did voluntarily come unto them As will fully appear by a large Discourse of Mr. Selden's to that purpose And though we find in Josephus that Johannes Hyrcanus commanded the whole Nation of the Idumeans to be circumcised yet that was because they were of the Seed of Abraham and so as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Posterity bound to be circumcised Whence it is that even Strabo Stephanus and Ammonius do reckon them for Jews But if it should be otherwise with the Jews now if they should be sollicitous and busie to seduce any to their Religion the Prudence of the State may by the Capitulations of their Admission tye them to the contrary and make such Seduction if voluntarily attempted by them a Forfeiture for their Priviledges and so secure the Publick as to that particular 3. Scandalum For the third thing which might make the admission of the Jews unlawful to wit Scandal I conceive the case will be more plain than the former For though I know not what Scandal some may take who are hardly pleased with any thing the Publick Magistrates do which suits not with their ends and interest yet I do not see any colourable Reason why the Readmission of the Jews into this Nation should by any sober and intelligent Person be thought Scandalous Scandalum datum I mean or be a ground of just Offence to any And that this may appear I reason thus If the supreme Magistrate by readmiting the Jews give a just ground of Scandal then it is either to Foreign States abroad or their own Subjects at home but neither of both can rationally be said 1. Not to Foreign States abroad for there neither is nor hardly ever was any Kingdom or State in Christendom which sometime or other hath not admitted them Sure I am most do now and certainly such States have no just Reason nor can have to condemn us for that which they do themselves 2. Not to their own Subjects at home and that this may more distinctly appear I consider 1. That in relation to humane actions to be done or not to be done by us all things in the World are and of necessity must be ranked in one of these three Particulars 1. Some things are absolutely good 2. Some are absolutely bad 3. Some are Res mediae and indifferent 1. Things absolutely good are such as are Sub praecepto divino affirmativo naturali vel positivo and these of necessity necessitas praecepti is meant must be done and without sin cannot be left undone by any Man in the World no one rational individuum excepted For I speak not of Children or natural Fools who want the use of Reason if they be juris naturalis nor if they be juris positivi can they without sin be left undone by any Man to whom that positive divine Law is sufficiently reveal'd Now I take it for manifest and a truth which I believe will be granted by all sober Men that neither the admission or exclusion of the Jews is absolutely good or sub praecepto divino affirmativo naturali vel positivo For 1. If their admission were a thing absolutely good and sub praecepto divino then all those who admit them not and much more they who eject them would be found guilty of a manifest violation of the Law of God which no Man ever said nor with any congruity of Reason can say 2. If their exclusion were absolutely good and sub praecepto divino then all those who have admitted them and the Christian Churches in all ages even those of the Apostles themselves have done so will be found guilty of a great sin and manifest transgression of the Law of God and then the primitive Christians and the Apostles themselves must of necessity be guilty of this Crime which neither is nor can justly be affirmed 2. Things absolutely bad are such as are sub praecepto Dei negativo naturali vel positivo forbidden by God and and so absolutely unlawful for us and that the admission of the Jews into this or any other Christian Common-wealth should be thus unlawful and so malum per se I believe is not and I am sure cannot with any congruity be asserted 1. Because there appears no Law of God natural or positive against such admission he that thinks otherwise let him shew it 2. If admission of the Jews into a Christian Common-wealth if cohabitation and an outward and civil conversation with them had been an evil of this high nature then as is before said the primitive Christians and Apostles nay our blessed Saviour himself which is impious to think had been guilty of it who all their lives permitted and practise such communion and outward conversation with the unconverted Jews 3. Well then let the admission and exclusion of the Jews be as most manifestly they are amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Res mediae those things we call indifferent and in themselves neither morally good or bad but such as may be either according as they are cloathed with several circumstances Then I say if the supreme Magistrate who is trusted with the managing of publick affairs think it fit to
done For the First notwithstanding what Erastus with his Followers and Selden of late have said I believe it to be a manifest Truth That in every Christian Nation there are or should be two divine distinct Powers 1. Sacred or Spiritual 2. Civil or Temporal In both which Powers we may consider 1. Principium a quo the Principle and immediate Cause from whence they flow and from whence they are derived to Men and thus the Temporal Power is immediately from God as he is the great Maker and Monarch of the World by whom Kings reign who communicates his Power and Name to Magistrates so that they are not only Rom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Delegates and Substitutes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods too Psal. 82. I have said ye are Gods 2. The Spiritual Power is from Christ as Head of his Church his Father gave him All Power in Heaven and earth and some of that Power he hath communicated to his Apostles and Ministers who are his Ambassadors Pastors of his People and Stewards of his Houshold 2. Subjectum in quo the civil Power in the civil Magistrate the sacred Power in the Ministers 3. Finis in quem tendunt the one being ordained to procure our temporal Good here the other our eternal Good hereafter This premised I say That the Jews neither desiring nor intending to be Members of our Church but only of our Common-weal their Admission or Exclusion depends only on the Civil Power For the Command of the Common-weal as it is a civil Society being solely in the Civil Magistrate to him only it will belong to judge whether it be fit to admit or exclude them and to do accordingly 'T is true the Kingdom of Christ his Church is not a Temporal but a Spiritual Society which he rules inwardly by his Spirit outwardly by his Ministers Bishops or Presbiters or Pastors call them what you will who are his Ambassadours and Stewards who have a Law to rule by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To these he hath committed the Keys of his House and Kingdom so that they and they only can admit Men into it by Baptism and exclude by Excomunication The end and use of a Key being to open and shut and these Keys committed to them they only have the use of them and according to the best of their Skill are to use them accordingly On which Principles it follows that the Jews neither being Christians nor for ought appears intending to be their Admission or Exclusion no way belongs to the Spiritual Governours of the Church their sacred Jurisdiction being only over the Houshold of Faith the Christian Church of which the Jews are no part and therefore not under that Jurisdiction So that I doubt not but the Admission or Nonadmission of the Jews belongs only to the Civil not Sacred Power 2. The Second Query is In what things they are to be tolerated And to this I say 1. That there is an Antithesis and Opposition between Approbation and Toleration of any thing so that in propriety of Speech we approve good tolerate bad things And then when the Question is about the Toleration of the Jews we suppose that there is some evil in them which for some Reasons some Ends and Purposes is to be tolerated in our Christian Common-weal 2. That evils may be of two sorts 1. Such as are against the Law of Nature 2. Such as are against positive Law that we usually call the Law of Nature this the Law of Scripture both Divine For in this Case the humane Laws come not in Consideration For if it please the supreme Magistrate to admit them by a Law then all humane Laws of this Common-weal if there be any against them are ipso facto null and abrogated And so their Admission the will of the State legally declared for it being supposed cannot possibly be against any positive Law of this Common-weal 2. Now then for the first sort of evils such as are against the Law of Nature and are intrinsecè ex naturà suà mala these no Magistrate may tolerate The Obligation of the Law of Nature is so inviolable that God himself in all the Old Testament never gave any Dispensation of that Law nor Toleration of any sins against it much less can the Civil Magistrate who is but his Vicegerent and Deputy and neither hath nor can have any Commission to do more than his great Lord and Master 'T is true the Magistrate is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Minister and Vice-gerent and so Custos utriksque tabulae armed with the Sword of Justice which he must not bear in vain but is bound by his place and that sacred calling he carries to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Revenger of such Sins and a Punisher of Malefactors against the Law of Nature And that we may apply this in Hypothesi to our particular Case of the Readmission of the Jews I say 1. That in the Law of Moses and the whole old Testament there is nothing contained to the contrary or repugnant to the Law of Nature 2. That this Law of Moses and the old Testament is or at least should be the adequate rule of the Jews Religion and therefore so long as they keep to this there is no thing in their Religion which is intollerable on this Account as being against the Law of Nature 3. But if there be any thing in their Religion as now they profess it superinduced by Error or Custom which is indeed against Jus naturale that should not be tolerated in this or any Christian Common-wealth And if the Christian Magistrate tye them to abstain from all Idolatry Blasphemy Murther Adultery and all such other Sins against the Light and Law of Nature he tyes them to no more then they in their flourishing State of their Common-weal ty'd others For though they did not require of their Proselytes those of the Gate I mean to submit to the positive Law and Precepts of Moses yet they did universally require of them to abstain from Blasphemy Idolatry and all natural Injustice as is manifest in Josephus the Sacred Text it self and their Rabbinical and Talmutical Writers So that if Christian Magistrates do as indeed they should denie any Toleration of such unnatural Enormities they have Reason to rest satisfied with it seeing no more is denied to them in ours than they denied to others in their Common-wealth Dub. But it must be said Vsury Boligamy and the Marriage of a Sister was by the Law of Moses permitted to them and therefore the Practicers of some things against the Law of Nature Sol. To this I say 1. That 't is true that Aristotle and divers other Philosophers conceived Usury to be against the Law of Nature and many Divines of eminent Note have thought and published their Opinions to the World That both Vsury and Poligamy and marrying a Sister are so too Yet
2. This I conceive to be a manifest Mistake for it will evidently and undeniably follow God permitted Vsury and Polygamy and marrying a Sister to the Jews by a positive Law therefore neither of them is or can be against the Law of Nature it being a demonstrative Truth and generally confessed by the best Lawyers School-men and Casuists That God never did nor manente naturâ humanâeadem could dispense with the Law of Nature So that I think that Assertion of Grotius and many before him to be a certain Truth That nothing was permitted to the Jews in the Old Testament which was against the Law of Nature nor should any such Sins be tolerated now 2. The Second sort of Sins are such as are against some positive Law of God and of such the Jews must needs be guilty I mean such of them and only such to whom the Gospel has been sufficiently reveal'd as denying the blessed Trinity and the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ That I may not be mistaken in this Assertion I say 1. That sufficient Promulgation is absolutely necessary to the Obligation of any positive Law of God or Man Humane or Divine it being morally impossible that any Man should be bound to obey the Laws of any Authority till it be sufficiently evidenced to him that indeed they are the Laws of such Authority 2. If then there be any Jews in any part of the World as I doubt not but there may be many to whom the Gospel or any part of it is not sufficiently revealed then I dare pronounce them innocently ignorant of all or so much of the Gospel as hath not been sufficiently discovered to them and Christians guilty who have taken no more Care and Pains to discover that Truth to others of which they were abundantly convinced themselves And upon this ground I think that there lies a sacred and heavy Obligation upon Christians as being bound to seek the Glory of God the Propagation of the Gospel and the Conversion and Salvation of their Brethren to endeavour the Conversion of the Jews which certainly cannot be by banishing them from all Christian Common-wealths And therefore they must either go to the Jews or bring the Jews to them that so they may win them to Christ by the Innocence of their Lives and the Truth and Evidence of their Doctrine Now these two are both one as to our present Case and Purpose for certainly if it be lawful for us to go and live amongst the Jews to Preach the Gospel then it will be as lawful to bring them hither and let them live amongst us to the same Purpose And so the bringing in of the Jews will not be so irrational a thing as some phansie for 't is no more very strongly and would make the World believe their Readmission to be guilty of I know not what Iniquity Dub. But it may and may be will be said That the whole Gospel was sufficiently promulgated by our Saviour and his Apostles that their Preaching and innocent Life and prodigious Miracles done in Confirmation of it and the Obsignation of it by our blessed Saviours Death and Resurrection were Evidences enough that it was a divine Law and therefore obligatory both to them that heard it and their Posterity so that it needed no more Promulgation but is still obligatory by the Force of the First as Moses his Law being once miraculously promulged in Mount Sina brought an Obligation on those that heard it and all their Posterity Sol. To this I say that 't is a manifest and certain Truth That the Publication of the Gospel by our Saviour and his Apostles was a Promulgation of it abundantly sufficient to all those who heard and saw those divine Persons their Preaching and Miracles I say personally to them and properly per se to none else unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Scholia tell us by the Tradition and constant and faithful Testimony of those Eye-witnesses it had been carefully delivered down to Posterity For suppose which is not impossible that all those who heard our Saviour's and his Apostles Doctrine and saw their Miracles had concealed them from their Posterity so that they had never heard any thing of them Then I say their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Descendents who neither heard the Doctrine nor personnally saw the Miracles nor had them any way delivered to them by the Tradition or Testimony of their forefathers were no way obliged to believe any Gospel-Law as never having any such Law sufficiently promulged and made known unto them without which it was impossible they should know those Laws and by consequent impossible they should be obliged by them So that it is not the first miraculous Promulgation of the Gospel which does per se and of its own Nature oblige us to Faith and Evangelical Obedience but the Continuation of it down to us by the Tradition and constant concurring and faithful Testimony of those that were Eye-witnesses and those that followed them And if through the impiety or negligence of this or any other Age this Continuation of the First Promulgation should cease then the Obligation to believe the Gospel would cease also as to our Posterity unless it ceased by their Fault or were otherwise made sufficiently known unto them Whence also it follows that the Sin and Infidelity of those Jews who saw Christ's Miracles is far greater as being against such demonstrative Evidences of Truth then the Infidelity of the present Jews whose Evidences for Conviction though enough are much lesser and by Consequent their Infidelity not so great And hence it further follows evidently enough that seeing the Apostles themselves held Correspondence and had Communion and civil Conversation with those Jews whose Obstinacy and Infidelity was far greater as standing in Contradiction to all those miraculous Works and divine Testifications of Evangelical Truth certainly we may have our Conversation and civil Communion amongst those Jews whose Obstinacy and Infidelity though great enough is far less And then it will be manifest that their Readmission into our Christian Common-wealth with those bounds and limitations which we believe and hope the Piety and Prudence of the State will put upon them is not in it self unlawful Quod er at dicendum I have stood the longer upon this Discourse because I believe that from these and such like Principles an evident and fundamental Reason may be given why Sinners against the Law of Scripture and positive Evangelical Sanctions may be tollerated in a Christian Common-wealth when Sinners against the Law of Nature are not nor indeed can be Quaere Let the Query then be this Why may a Christian Magistrate tolerate Sins and Sinners against the positive Law of the Gospel and not against the Law of Nature Sol. In answer to which Query I shall crave leave to say Two Things 1. De facto That it ever hath been so in all Ages of the Church all Christian Kings and
Common-weales at least of which we have any story left giving Toleration to the Jews notwithstanding their Infidelity and Non-submission to the Gospel and yet never tolerated them or any else in any Sins against the Law of Nature So that they might disbelieve the Gospel impunè and without Punishment but if they were guilty of Blasphemy Idolatry Adultery Homicide Theft or any other sins against the Light and Law of Nature the Laws did as severely vindicate these Sins in them as any other Subjects 2. De jure that rationally and upon good grounds of Justice it might be so this is a harder Business and of that Difficulty that I find not one of those Casuists or other Writers who have writ of this Subject so much as offer at a Reason of it that is All Christian Common-weals have ever severely and indispensably punished Sins against the Law of Nature and yet even then tolerated Infidelity and other Sins against the Law of Scripture Now I conceive that the fundamental Reason of this Difference as to the Vindication of some and Toleration of other some Sins must be taken from the nature of the Sins so vindicated or tolerated for 1. Sins against the Law of Nature are evident and manifestly such and cannot possibly admit of any Apology in any Persons who have the use of Reason for in Children and Ideots the Case is otherwise It is a manifest Truth and a received Principle both amongst Philosophers and Lawyers That Ignorantia Juris Naturalis non excusat a peccato So that if Titius commits Murder Adultery or Idolatry c. we are sure he is a Sinner and the Magistrate may safely punish him for it seeing there is no possibility of any pretence whereby he may render himself excusable either from the Sin or suffering for it 2. But then Secondly for those Sins against the positive Evangelical Law the Case is much otherwise for 1. No positive Law of God or Man brings or can bring a just Obligation upon us till it have a sufficient Promulgation 2. The sufficiency of such Promulgation is not easily known for that may be sufficient Promulgation to one which is not to another according to the different measure of Parts and Abilities in those to whom it is promulged For those to whom God hath given a larger measure of Understanding and Learning may sooner come unless they be wilfully obstinate to a Knowledge of the Truth of the Gospel and of those Reasons which may convince them of it and then an Obligation comes upon them to believe accordingly and if they do not they sin whereas others of no Learning and less natural Abilities may innocently disbelieve till further means proportionable to their Capacities be used for their Conviction Now this Difficulty of knowing when the Promulgation is sufficient and consequently when Infidelity is a Sin for till this time 't is a Calamity not a Crime should make Magistrates very cautious not to precipitate the Punishment of such misbelieving Persons For seeing in all such Punishments there should be Congnitio culpae before there can be Inflictio Paenae he that punisheth before he be certain that the Person so punished is guilty of the Crime doth an Act that may be just but certainly he is not just in doing it 3. But that which adds more Difficulty yet is this That no Promulgation of any positive Law is sufficient till the Persons be convinced to whom it is promulged unless through their own Perverseness for Ends and Interest they willfully hinder such Conviction Now whether the Infidelity of the Jews arise from the Perversity of their own Wills or from their Infirmity and Want of sufficient Preaching and Promulgation it is very hard if not impossible for any Magistrate to know and till it be known they cannot be justly punished for their Infidelity which neither is nor can be Sin in them nor any body else till after sufficient Promulgation they wilfully reject the Gospel Now this great Difficulty and almost Impossibility to know when they willfully and so criminally reject the Gospel makes it very difficult proportionably and almost impossible for any Magistrate justly to punish them for such Rejection 4. We commonly say and there is much Truth in it if rightly understood that the Mysteries of the Gospel are such as cannot be understood and assented to without the special Assistance of the blessed Spirit of God So that those who want this Assistance or such a measure of it as may be sufficient to overcome all opposed Difficulties cannot possibly believe and then it will be very questionable whether Infidelity in such be a Sin it not being in their Power without such Assistance to believe This in Scripture is called the opening of the heart So when Saint Paul Preach'd Lydia believes others did not and the Reason is given in the Text God opened the heart of Lydia so that she attended to those things spoken by Paul Now as the opening of her heart was no Merit or Act of Virtue in her it being the Work of God upon her Soul and the only passive in that particular So the not believing of others whose hearts he was not pleased to open might possibly at least for some time till they had heard him further and seen his Miracles be no Sin in them However it will be sure enough that seeing no humane Magistrate can know whether the Jews now have such Assistance or what Measure of it they have it will be hard for them to punish least in so doing they may punish them for not doing that which is impossible for them to do which with what Justice or Warrant from God's Word they can do I know not And here I shall transcribe a Passage in Grotius casually by me but happily met with if I mistake not very pertinent to this purpose Doctrina Evangelii ab his quinunc eam audiunt penitùs in animum admitti nequeat nisi Secretis Dei Auxiliis accedentibus quae sicut quibus dantur non dantur in operis alicujus mercedem ita si quibus negantur aut minùs largè concedantur id fit ob causas non iniquas illas quidem sed plerúmque nobis incognitas ac proinde humano judicio non Punibiles And then he adds many things out of Scripture and Antiquity to the same purpose That neither Jews nor any body else is by Punishment to be compell'd to a Belief of the Gospel that 's a Turkish slavish means which may befit Mahomet to promote the Alcoran but certainly contradictory to the Laws of Christ and the Meekness of Gospel Dispensations By what hath been said I believe it may appear in part that the Toleration of the Jews in this or any Christian Common-weal is not in it self unlawful either in ratione inhonesti incommodi or Scandali but that as de facto they have been ever tolerated in Christian States so de jure they may still So then the Readmission
of the Jews is in it self indifferent yet may be made morally good or bad according to the several Ends the different Limitations and Qualifications of their Admission First The Ends of their admission may be either 1. Civil 2. Or Sacred and Religious 1. For the civil end of their admission that is in general the Emolument and Benefit of the Prince and Common-weale And though Becanuâ— the Jesuite with a transparent piece of Hypocrisie condemn this end as unlawful it is evident that his great Jupiter Capitolinus of Rome as one said long since of some of his Predecessors makes this an end and a principle one two of their admission and if he had no greater Faults I should pardon this For Secondly 't is manifest that the Supreme Magistrate may justly make this one end of their admission For by his Place and Office there lies an Obligation upon him to preserve the Civil Interest of his Nation and the Good and Benefit of the Common-weal and may propose it as an End by all honourable and honest means to be attained Whence it is that all Princes protect and incourage Trading all Merchandizing and Manufactures 2. The Sacred and Religious End of their Admission should be the Glory of God and the Propagation of the Gospel in the Conversion and Salvation of their Souls And we are bound to endeavour this 1. By the natural Obligation of Charity as they are Men and so our Brethren whose Good we ought to promote especially that of their Souls by all honest ways 2. And more particularly as they are the Reliquiae of Gods own People concerning whom and their Conversion there are many gracious and glorious Promises in the Gospel and it will be an Happiness to us if we have an hand in it It was a Saying of Martin Luther Se propter unum Judaeum crucifixum omnibus favere Judaeis And if we love them and desire their Conversion and Salvation as in Christian Charity certainly we ought then the way to effect that will not be to banish them and prohibit their Habitation amongst us so compelling them to live amongst Turks Pagans or Papists The Images and Idolatry of which last hath undeniably been the greatest Scandal and Remora which hath long hindred them from being Christians Whereas if they be permitted to live amongst us that stumbling-block will be taken away 2. For the Conditions of their Admission for the Restrictions and Limitations to be put upon them a great deal of Caution and Christian Prudence is to be used lest while we pretend their Good we do Mischief to our selves For as to deny them all Liberty and Commerce with us may be an Act of unchristian and indeed inhumane Cruelty So to give them too much is an Act of Imprudence and Folly And indeed we find some sober Men not without good Reason complain of the too much Liberty they have in some Christian Common-wealths In short what Qualifications and Limitations are to be put upon them I shall not take upon me to determine but leave that to the Piety and Prudence of the State Yet with Submission I conceive such Limitations as these will be convenient if not necessary the rather because I find in our Histories in the Imperial and Canon Laws and in the old Capitulars and Canons of Councils that such Restrictions have been anciently laid upon them As 1. No Toleration ever was or de jure can be given them to profess or practice any thing against the Law of Nature 2. No Toleration should be given them to speak any thing blasphemously or impiously against Jesus Christ and the Gospel For though we may tolerate them in the Profession of a bad yet not in that Blasphemy of a good Religion 3. They never were nor should be permitted to circumcise Children of Christians or seduce any Christians to their Religion Let them prosess but not propagate their Religion 4. They were not permitted to carry any Office or Dignity in the Christian Common-weal though it seems that sometimes even that was permitted them 5. They were not permitted in any Suit or Difference between a Jew and a Christian to draw the Christian or his Cause before a Jewish Magistrate For 't is a ruled Case in the Imperial Law Judaeus Actor vel reus Forum sequitur Christianum 6. They were never permitted to make Marriages with Christians and the Glossator gives the Reason of it in Law Quia matrimonium debet esse communicatio divini humani juris Whereas a Jew and Christian being of different Religions cannot communicare in Sac is And this is consonant to the Law of the Gospel which forbids us to be unequally yoked upon which grounds I believe all Marriages with Papists to be unlawful that is Fieri non debuit 't is unlawful to make such Matches though that factum valet when such a Match is made the Contract is valid 7. Their frequent divorcing their Wives was tolerated For though Moses seem to suffer it yet the Emperours by express Edict forbid it 8. By the Imperial Laws Polygamy and plurality of Wives was not tolerated in them 9. If any of the Jews turn Christian by Civil Law in case the Jews endeavoured to reduce him and maliciously injured him they were to be burned for it 10. They might repair their old Synagogues but were not tolerated by the Roman Laws to build new 11. They were not tolerated to have any Christian Servants Nurses or Midwives Can. Praesenti 1. Extra de Judaeis Ex concilio malis conenti 12. By the Canon Law they might not come abroad on Good Friday 13. They were not permitted to wear Garments exactly of the Christian Fashion but were to have distinct Habits that all might know them to be Jews 14. They might not be Physiacians or give Physick to any Christian. 15. They were not permitted to be of the Roman Militia though they were permitted to be Advocates by the Rescript of Honorius and Arcadius to Romulianus P. P. 16. The Jews being the greatest Usurers in the World and believing they may justly take the highest Use they can get even Vsurae centessimae if they could have it of us Gentiles it is all the Reason in the World they should be limited in this particular and not permitted to take more of us than the Law permits us to take one of another 17. They should be enjoyned to admit of friendly Collations and Disputations sometimes about Gospel Truths and not obstinately to reject all means of Conversion and Conviction and Satisfaction of those seeming Reasons which keep them off from embracing the Truth For there will be little hopes or possibility of their Conversion if they be permitted obstinately to refuse all means of doing it But enough if not too much of this I shall only add one old Law concerning the Jews made before