Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience learnedly and judiciously resolved / by the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. Thomas Barlow ...

THE CASE of a TOLERATION IN Matters of Religion.

To the HONOURABLE ROBERT BOYLE, Esq

SIR,

IT is now a good while ago since you gave me com∣mand, (for so your Desires are, and shall be to me) to give you my Opinion in writing, concerning the Toleration of seve∣ral Religions, or Opinions, in a well-governed Church and State. And though it matters not much what my Opinion be, and (besides my many Disabilities both of Bo∣dy and Mind, the little time I have (by reading or meditation, to collect more, or digest those No∣tions

I have, renders me uncapable of saying much, (or indeed any thing which you do not know al∣ready;) yet (in obedience to your command) something I shall say, (for, Cur me posse negem, quod tu posse putes?) which may be an ar∣gument of my confiding in your Candor and Goodness, and of my daring to trust you with all my In∣firmities, and an evidence, not of my ability, but willingness to serve you. In short then, I shall give you some of my Thoughts concerning Toleration, tho not in that exact order and method, not with that clear explication, and confirmation of the Truth, as I really desire, and the Subject deserves.

I say then,

I. The Toleration we speak of, is a Toleration of several Religi∣ons, or several Opinions concern∣ing

it: and therefore Atheists (if there be any such) come not under it. For he who acknowledges no God, cannot possibly be of any Religion, which essentially in∣cludes both an acknowledgment, and worship of a Deity.

II. Toleration of Religions pre∣supposeth several Religions, or different Opinions (Respectu Do∣ctrinae, Disciplinae, or both) for without such disserent, Religions can∣not be different.

III. Now amongst several Reli∣gions in any Nation, all cannot be true, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Jamblichus tells us truly, Truth is one, and cannot dif∣fer from it self); and that which is owned and established by the just Authority of any Nation, is suppo∣sed to be the True Religion: It follows, that Toleration must ne∣cessarily relate to those Religions, and ways of Worship, which are

(at least supposed) false, as be∣ing different from that which the Nation (that tolerates them) owns, and establishes as true. I say, supposed to be false: For it may, and many times does happen, that the False Religion may be established, and the true only tolerated. So in France Popery is the Religion own∣ed, and Protestancy only tolera∣ted; in England contrary.

VI. Now this Toleration, or Esta∣blishment, must relate to some (and the same) Authority. That Authori∣ty which establishes the True, must tolerate the Religion, or Religions which are supposed false; for we speak of an Authoritative and Le∣gal Toleration. So that as the Su∣pream Legislative Power must (and only can) legally establish the True, so it only can tolerate those ways of Worship which are supposed to be false.

V. And here further, As this Le∣gal Establishment brings a two-fold obligation on those who sub∣mit to it; 1. An obligation to Obe∣dience, and a conformity in their Practice to the Established Law: And 2. An obligation to the Pu∣nishments (mentioned in the Law) in case of Disobedience: So on the other side, a publick, and Legal Toleration exempts those to and for whom it is granted,

1. From the obligation to Obedi∣ence, and conforming themselves to the established way of Worship: For Toleration intrinsecally notes the taking off such Obligation.

2. It exempts them from those Punishments which are (to those who have submitted to such a way of Worship) the consequents of non-obedience, and non-conformi∣ty to the Established Religion.

For no man can be justly punished for non-obedience to any Law, who is not under the obligation of it.

VI. Once more; As those to whom such Toleration is granted, may justly expect impunity, and exemption from all penal Suffer∣ings, tho they conform not to the way of Worship publickly esta∣blished; so on the other side, they cannot reasonably ex∣pect thea 1.1 Rewards and Encouragements which a Prince distri∣butes to those who chearfully obey, and give conformity to the Religion establish∣ed. For as Rewards and Punish∣ments are the Sepimenta Legis, the great Mounds and Hedges to keep men to their duty and obedience to any Law of God, or Man, (hope

of Reward incouraging men to obedience, and fear of Punish∣ment frighting them from disobe∣dience) so they go together, and are inseparable, and belong only to those who are under the obliga∣tion of such Law. So that he to whom the Law is not given, (and to these who have a Toleration it is not) as he need not fear punish∣ment for Non-conformity (the Law not obliging him to it) so he can∣not expect, or hope for those Re∣wards, which are the encourage∣ments of that obedience, which he refuseth to give. Those then who are under the obligation of such Law, are (in one respect) in a bet∣ter condition, because they may justly expect from their Prince Re∣wards and Encouragements, pro∣portionable to the measure of their Obedience: So on the other side, those who have the Toleration, are

(in another respect) in a better con∣dition, because they need not fear any Punishment for their Non∣conformity.

7. It must be remembred, that it is a Toleration we speak of, not an Approbation of those Religi∣ons, or ways of Worship which differ from the Religion establish∣ed in a Nation. For the Established Religion being always supposed to be true, (and as such owned by the Authority establishing it) the ways of Worship tolerated only, must of necessity be (supposed at least to be) false, and so cannot be approved by that Authority, which (for just Reasons) does, and may tolerate them. For such an appro∣bation of the False, would be a condemnation of the True Religi∣on; and so, if they approve what they tolerate, they condemn what they establish: which is such a

contradictory piece of Indiscretion and Injustice, as hardly any Au∣thority can be guilty of.

VIII. This premised, the grand Query will be; Whether,* 1.2 and how far the Supream Power may, and ought to grant such a Toleration to Religions, and ways of Worship, differing from that established?

Now seeing the granting of such a Toleration (as almost all other humane Actions) may be good or bad,* 1.3 according to the va∣rious Circumstances, and several Conditions,

• 1. Of the Power that grants.
• 2. Of the Persons to whom the Grant is made.
• 3. Of the Religions tolerated.
• 4. And of the time in which such Toleration is granted.

It cannot be expected that I, (or any body else) should give one Ab∣solute and Categorical Answer to the intite Query: and therefore I shall crave leave to say something towards an Answer, by several steps and degrees, in these following Positions.

1. Then, it is to be considered, who they are who desire such a To∣leration? their number and quali∣ty at home, and what Friends and Assistants they may have abroad. For if the Persons desiring such Toleration, be so considerable for number and strength at home; or for their assistance abroad, that a War, or dangerous Insurrections and Seditions may follow (if a To∣leration be denied) to the hazard of the publick Peace and safety of the Common-weal; Then (I think) the Magistrate (in Prudence and Conscience) may, and ought

to grant their Desires; and rather tolerate a False Religion (with such prudent Qualifications, and for such time as shall be agreed up∣on) than hazard the unsettlement and ruine of the True. For as in the Body Natural we endure a Gangrened Member with much pain and patience (tho without hopes of cure) when it cannot be cut off without endangering the whole; so in the Body Politick, or Ecclesiastical, an erring part may, and ought to be endured, and to∣lerated, when the cutting off would hazard the weal of the whole. And indeed such a Toleration, in such a Case, is rather necessary than vo∣luntary in the Magistrate: only he (in this case) makes a vertue of ne∣cessity, giving that (by way of fa∣vour and kindness) freely, which probably they might have by force. Thus he secures the publick Peace,

and the Religion established, ob∣liges the Dissenters by the civility and courtesie of a moderate Tole∣ration; and yet all this is indeed but granting impunity, when he cannot punish. And this is most consonant to the Principles of right Reason, and the perpetual Practice of all Nations. For Quod multis peccatur inultum est; when Seditions have happened in a Common∣weal, or Mutinies in an Army, if the Seditious and Mutineers were many, it hath ever been thought more prudent to pardon, than punish. Multitudo peccantium poenam tollit, licet non peccatum. As it is impossible to punish universally, so 'tis ever dangerous to punish a major, or any great and considera∣ble part of a Communitya 1.4 De∣fensio communis furoris est, furentium multitudo. And (I believe) whereever Protestants are tolerated in Popish

or Catholick Countries, 'tis from this principle, That they do not think it prudent or safe for them∣selves, to persecute the Protestants within their Territories. It has been (and is) the opinion of wise men, that the Spaniard by a mild and moderate Toleration might have compassed that in the Nether∣lands at the beginning, which (un∣happily taking the contrary way) hath cost him so vast a proportion of Treasure and Blood, and is not compassed yet, nor ever like to be. This particular will be con∣siderable in the present condition of this Kingdom, wherein (by the unhinging of all Government, and an unhappy Civil War) Papists, Schismaticks and Sectaries, are mul∣tiplied into so great a number, that possibly it may be more safe for the publick to pardon than punish, to grant a moderate Toleration,

than run the hazard of further divi∣sions and bloodshed. This I only propose (in thesi) to be consider∣ed: But (in hypothesi) what is parti∣cularly most fit to be done in this time and Nation, I shall not be so confident as to undertake the de∣termination, but (according to my duty) leave it to the great prudence of those to whom God has given a greater measure of understanding and authority for such a business; and constantly pray for a blessing upon their endeavours in setling this divided Nation.

2. But admit that the numbers of those who dissent from the Re∣ligion established in a Nation, be not so great, nor their Qualities and Assistants so considerable, as that the State need fear any new War, or publick disturbance; Is the Magistrate then bound in pru∣dence and piety to punish, or may

he (without violation of either) tolerate? To answer this, we must consider,

• 1. The nature of the punish∣ments to be inflicted.
• 2. The nature of the false Re∣ligions or Opinions for which they are inflicted.

The first; All punishments to be inflicted, are either Ecclesiasti∣cal or Civil: The

• 1. Spiritual, in foro interno, ex Potestate clavium, to be infli∣cted by the Church, by those who have Spiritual jurisdi∣ction, and are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Stewards of Gods Houshold.
• 2. Temporal, in foro externo, jure gladii, and belong to the Ci∣vil Magistrate, as he is Cu∣stos & Vindex utriusque Tabulae.

Now for the first of these, I say further, that the Church has no Commission from Christ or his

Apostles, or any practice of the Primitive Church, to punish any man, either

1. With loss of Livelihood, by Pe∣cuniary Mulcts, or Confiscations.

2. Nor loss of Liberty by Im∣prisonment.

3. Nor loss of Life by Capital punishment.

The saying is old, and true, (admitted by all sober Protestants) Dominium non fundatur in gratia. Pa∣gans and Infidels have a good ti∣tle to their Patrimonies, and a just propriety in their Estates real or Personal; to become Christians, neither gives them a new, nor con∣firms their old title. So that if they turn Hereticks, or (which is worse) Infidels, they do not for∣feit their livelihood (much less their* 1.5 liberty or life) the Church may (per modum paenae) take away what (on condition) they gave, if

that condition be not made good. Our admission into the Church by Baptism, gives us Communion with the Church, and a right to all those Spiritual advantages for Heaven, which are dispensed in it (as hearing the Word, receiving the Sacrament, Absolution upon a serious and real penitence, &c.) these the Church gave, and (for heresie or impiety) may take away, but no more. If any Bishop or Church-Officers have any further power (as to imprison, lay Pecu∣niary Mulcts, &c▪) this they have ex Indulgentiâ Principum, not from Christ, but the Civil Power of the Commonwealth where they live.

2. This being so, I observe further, that the persons we now speak of (as Papists, Schismaticks, and Sectaries) dissenting from the Established Religion, need no to∣leration or grant of Impunity, as

to Church-Censures, or Spiritual pu∣nishments; as not being liable, or any way obnoxious to them. For the Church having no power to punish any save those of her own Body, (by Penance, Excommuni∣cation, &c.) of which the persons we now speak, are not (as neither acknowledging the Churches power, nor living in Communion with her) it follows, that as she hath no power to punish them (they not being Members of her Body) so they have no need of a Toleration, or Act of Impunity, as to Ecclesi∣astical punishments, to which (on the supposition now made) they are not obnoxious. And if the Church should Excommunicate them, it were but (at least) in their opinion, Brutum fulmen, and vanae, & sine viribus Irae. they would va∣lue the Excommunication of our Church, no more than we value

theirs, that is, nothing at all.

3. So then, the Impunity this Toleration (we nowspeak of) must give, is from temporal punish∣ments inflicted by the Civil Ma∣gistrate. Now before we can de∣termine what Impunity such a Magistrate may give to men of a false Religion (for so all differing from that publickly Established, are in this case presumed, and sup∣posed to be) we must consider the nature and condition of the Reli∣gions or Opinions to be tolerated. And here I conceive,

1. That no State should or will grant a toleration to any Religion, which contains any thing in it which may be destructive to the Civil peace and safety of it self. Salus* 1.6 Populi, is (in all States) Su∣prema

Lex, the Supreme Law, and utmost end of all Authority. This publick safety, may and must be se∣cured, though (if there be no other way) with the ruin of Particu∣lars. For as in the Body Natural, if Fingers or Toes, Legs or Arms, &c. are so corrupted and gan∣grened that they indanger the whole body, Ense recidantur, &c. they are not to be tolerated, but torn off. So in the Body Politick, or Commonweal, if any persons maintain such a Religion as is not consistent with the publick safety, as it were imprudence in the Ma∣gistrate to grant, so it were irratio∣nal for them to ask or expect a To∣leration. For why should any power tolerate that which will ruin it self? Upon this account it will be hard to tolerate

1. Such Anabaptists as deny all Magistracy (for such there have

been, and are) for why should any Prince own and protect them as subjects, who will not obey, or own him as their Prince?

2. Such as make it a part of their Religion, to believe all Oaths unlawful, and so will take none, (for such there are, whether really or in pretence I know not) for on this account they will refuse all Oaths of Allegiance. And then what tye or obligation can the Prince lay upon them, whereby he may be secured of their Loyal∣ty? And then why should a Prince secure them (by a Toleration of Impunity) who will not secure him of their Loyalty.

3. Such (especially if their number be considerable) as by the Principles of their Religion, think all War unlawful (as being contra∣dictory to the charity of the Go∣spel) and by consequence must de∣ny

their Prince any Personal assist∣ance in his Wars, though he and his Kingdom be in the utmost ha∣zard and necessity. For if Subjects be once of this opinion (that they will not fight for their King and Country) the Prince is left to be inevitably ruined by the next In∣vader: It being an easie matter to ruin that Prince whose Subjects will not fight for his preserva∣tion.

4. Such, who (although they allow and will take an Oath of Allegiance, yet (by the Princi∣ples of their Religion acknow∣ledg a power which can* 1.7 ab∣solve them from that Oath, and arm them against their Prin∣ce, depose him, and dispose of his Kingdom, nay of all the Kingdoms of the world. For in such a case the Prince can ne∣ver be secure of their Loyalty to

him, or the publick safety against them. This the Papists do, as ap∣pears by General* 1.8 Coun∣cils of their own (and the most Authentique they have) and amongst their greatest Authors (not to trouble you, or my self with any more)† 1.9 Bellar∣mine tells us, Non potest Pa∣pa ut Papa, Ordinarie Prin∣cipes deponere ….. tamen po∣test mutare regna, & vim aufer∣re, & alteri conferre, tanquam summus Princeps Spiritualis, si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem. What safety can a Prince have, who has such peo∣ple for his Subjects, who acknow∣ledg the Pope to be Summus Prin∣ceps, above all Kings,* 1.10 (so that they are indeed not absolute or

supreme, but feudatory Princes) and that so far above them, that they may dispose of, and give a∣way their Kingdoms, Si id necessa∣rium sit ad animarum salutem. Now he himself being Judge of this ne∣cessity (if he had power) he can never want a pretence to depose any King; especially if he be a Protestant, and so (with them) an Heretick. Nay, if he be no He∣retick, yet he can depose him for much less faults; so* 1.11 Gratian tells us, that Pope Zachary deposed the King of France, Non tam pro suis iniquitatibus, quam pro eo, quod tantae potestati esset inutilis. Nor is this a singular example, for he there adds, Quod etiam ex authoritate fre∣quenti agit sancta Ecclesia. And if this Summus Princeps decree the depo∣sition of any King, you may be sure he is to be obeyed. So Pope Stephen tells us, (in the same Gra∣tian)

† 1.12Nulli fas est, vel velle, vel posse transgredi Apostolicae sedis prae∣cepta, & c. Nor must we wonder at this; for Pope Agatho tells us, that the Papal Sanctions must irre∣fragably be obeyed, seeing (with them) the Popes Decretals pass for † 1.13Canonical Scriptures, and that in the strictest sense of the word Ca∣nonical; as if St. Peter himself had writ them: Sic omnes Apostolicae se∣dis sanctiones accipiendae sunt,* 1.14 tan∣quam Ipsius Divini Petri voce fir∣matae. And indeed, the Excom∣municating of Queen Elizabeth, and encouraging the Spaniard to take possession of her Kingdom, the murdering of great Navarre in France (approved by the Pope in consistory) and the Powder-Plot In England, are sad Examples of this truth; too evident to be false, and too fresh to be forgotten.

'Tis true, Bellarmine saith, that

the Pope cannot dispose of Tem∣poral Kingdoms Directè and Ordi∣nariè, but only indirectè (in ordine ad spiritualia) and extraordinarie: which is no solution, but a plain concession of what we object. For if he may do it extraordinariè and Indirectè, then 'tis evident he may do it (in their opinion) and then how can a King be secured against the rebellion of such Subjects, and his own deposition, that one side of the distinction cannot do it, so long as the other may? Whether it be done directè or indirectè, 'tis all one, he is deposed. If my ene∣my should tell me he could not run me thorough with the one end of his Sword (meaning the Hilt) what security were that to me, when he may do it with the point? If I am kill'd, 'tis no mat∣ter which end of the Sword did it. Sure I am, as my enemy (if he

have a mind to kill me) will make use of the point of his Sword, so the Pope well knows which side of the distinction to make use of when he has a mind to do mis∣chief.

I do not speak this against all Papists, as if none of them could be good Subjects, (for I both be∣lieve and know the contrary) but

1. I do not see how the Jesuits and those who believe and own their Principles (who are indeed the Puritans of the Roman Church) can be good Subjects to a Prote∣stant Prince, or capable of a To∣leration, without indangering the publick peace and safety of the Commonweal.

2. And that others are good subjects (as I know some are) it is to be imputed more to their piety and personal goodness, than the principles of their Religion, di∣vers

of which (as might easily and evidently appear) are no good dis∣positions to Loyalty.

2. And as no King (in pru∣dence) can give a Toleration to such Religions and ways of Wor∣ship as are destructive to the Civil State and publick peace of the Commonwealth; so pari passu, (and for the same reasons) he can∣not tolerate such as are destructive of the Ecclesiastical state or peace of the† 1.15 Church; at least so far as they are so, and without such restrictions and qualifications, as may rationally secure the Esta∣blished way of Worship: For otherwise he should be cruel to the true, while (by a Toleration) he is kind to a false Religion.

3. If any Religion, or way of Worship, approve and practise

any thing against the Law of Na∣ture, (as Blasphemy, Theft, Per∣jury, Adultery, &c.) such as all sober men acknowledg to be crimes, and are destructive, or evi∣dently dangerous to the well-being of humane Society; I suppose no prudent Prince should give a To∣leration to such. Sure I am Seneca tells us, that no Nation ever did grant impunity to such Impieties. † 1.16In hoc consensimus (saith he) adver∣sus omne maleficium datur actio, & ho∣micidi, veneficii, parricidii, violatarum Religionum, aliubi & aliubi diversa poena est; sed ubique aliqua. But here it must be observed, that the crimes I now speak of, (to which I would have no impunity or toleration granted) must

1. Be such as are clearly and certainly crimes against the Law of Nature, so that all sober men ge∣nerally know, and acknowledg

them to be such. For if it be du∣bious whether they be crimes or no, or how far, or what measure of malice is in them, then it will be very hard to punish them. For it will seem irrational, and (indeed) unjust to inflict a certain punish∣ment, for a dubious and uncertain crime. Certa culpae cognitio, must always (in justice) be antecedent to the Inflictio poenae. If I hang a man, I am sure he has (per modum paenae) lost his life, and therefore (per modum culpae) I should be sure of the crime for which I hang him; Seeing it cannot be just to inflict certain death for an uncertain crime.

2. They must not only be con∣fess'd Crimes (to which I now de∣ny Toleration) but also such as are dangerous, and noxious to humane Society. For as† 1.17 Lipsus (on that place of Seneca) well observes:

Naturae quodam instinctu, ea male∣ficia coercent homines & puniunt, quae societatem convellunt. For there are many crimes against the Law of Nature, and Dictates of Right Rea∣son (as Ingratitude, Lying, breach of Promise, &c. which yet in al∣most all Nations, have had a To∣leration and impunity, and have been left Odio hominum, & vindictae Deorum. So Seneca (in the same place) speaks of Ingratitude… Exceptâ Macedonum gente, non est in ullâ, data adversus ingratum actio; magnum{que} hoc argumentum dandum non fuisse. Hoc frequentissimum crimen nusquam punitur, ubique improbatur. Neque tamen absolvimus ingratum, sed cum Difficilis esset incertae rei aesti∣matio, tantum odio hominum damna∣vimus, & inter ea relinquimus, quae ad Vindices Deos remittimus. Where you see, the reason why Ingrati∣tude (though certainly a crime a∣gainst

the Law of Nature) was not punished, but tolerated… Quia difficilis erat incertae rei aestimatio. It was very hard to know when a man was ingrateful, and the mea∣sure of his ingratitude, and there∣fore hard to punish it. All just punishments consisting in a pro∣portion between the sin and the suffering of the person punished, which cannot possibly be known, unless the nature and measure of the crime be first known. 'Tis true (in thesi) that all know and confess Ingratitude is a great crime, but (in Hypothesi) whether Titius be ingrateful to Sempronius, and how far, 'tis hard (if not impossi∣ble) to know; seeing that cannot be known, unless all the Courte∣sies and injuries which each have done to other mutually, could certainly be (as indeed they can∣not be) comprehended. By the way,

when Seneca saith, that in nullâ (ex∣cepta Macedonum) gente, adversus in∣gratum dabatur Actio, and so not in Rome; he speaks this of his own time. For afterwards Ingratitude (by the* 1.18 Roman Law) was high∣ly punished, even with Maxima capitis Diminutio, by which the in∣grateful person & civitatem & li∣bertatem amisit.

4. Upon these grounds some Sects amongst us, can have little reason to expect (and the Magi∣strate as little to grant) a tolerati∣on or impunity. As,

1. Adamites (such there were) who held a promiscuous use of women.

2. Quakers who give no civil respect to any, no not the Magi∣strate, but curse and rail, and damn all but their own Disciples. These Crimes being evidently against nature, and inconsistent with hu∣mane

(much more with Christian) Society, are not to be tolerated, but severely punished. It were vain to reason or dispute with such men, who have cast off all civili∣ty, and even humanity it self; Ar∣gumentum baculinum, is the fittest means▪ (if not to convert, yet) to keep them within some bounds of reason and civility, that they may not make others worse, if they will not be better themselves.

5. These things considered (which relate to matter of fact, and the actions of persons pro∣fessing a false Religion) we come now to the main Query, con∣cerning matter of Faith and false Opinions:* 1.19 Whether men of a false faith and heretical opinions, may be tolerated, and have a grant of Impunity, or whether the Ma∣gistrate is to punish such erring persons? (suppose Sectaries, Pa∣pists,

Socinians, &c. and then how far, how long, with what punishments, and what measure and degrees of them he is to do it? for instance, Whether he may pu∣nish them,

1. In their Purse only, by Pecu∣niary Mulcts, taking away some part, or all their Livelihood.

2. Or in their persons too, ta∣king away either,

1. Their liberty by imprisonment.

2. Or their City (the jus Civita∣tis) by Banishment.

3. Or their Life, by Capital punishments, as the Donatists and Circumcellians of old, and they of Rome (of late) use those whom commonly they miscall Hereticks, consuming those to ashes whom they cannot confute otherwise than with Fire and Faggot; a way not only incongruous, but impi∣ous and barbarous, whereby they

may make men coals and cinders, but not Christians. I say the Que∣ry is, (supposing those of the Re∣ligion differing from that establi∣shed, to be otherwise peaceable and good Subjects, neither rebelli∣ously or seditiously disturbing the publick peace, nor injuriously wronging their neighbour, for in these cases it is irrational for them to expect, or the Magistrate to grant impunity, Whether the Ma∣gistrate may justly grant them a Toleration of their Opinions and Religion (though at least supposed false) or compell them by punish∣ments to the Established way of Worship, which is supposed true and Orthodox?

In answer to this,* 1.20 though I shall not say, that it is absolute∣ly unlawful for the Civil Magi∣strate (in this case) to use tempo∣ral, and compulsory, punishments,

yet thus much (giving my reasons for it) I think I may safely and tru∣ly say, that it will be very difficult and dangerous for him to do it. My reasons are,

1. Because we find no Warrant for it in the Gospel; there is nei∣ther any precept or practice of our Saviour, or his Apostles, to com∣pell any to be Christians. The means they used, either to con∣vert Pagans, or continue and con∣firm Christians, were constant Preaching, and a rational pressing that truth to others, which they had received from God, and belie∣ved themselves, a prudent and meek disputing, and reasoning men out of their Errors, a pious life and patient suffering for the truth they Preached: Verbo & ex∣emplo agebant, non gladio, it was their Christian patience, not any coa∣ctive violence which converted

the world, it was dying them∣selves, not killing others which planted and propagated the Go∣spel; Sanguis Martyrum semen Eccle∣siae, it was the blood of the Mar∣tyrs, not of murdered Hereticks, which made the field of the Church so fruitful; and by what authority we should do that now, which they thought not fit to do then, I know not. Certainly, as they best knew what means were most proportionable, and congru∣ous both for the plantation and propagation of the Gospel, so we have reason to believe that those mediums they made use of, were such; and (on the other side) we may rationally conclude, that had there been any other means as con∣gruous and conducible to the end they aimed at, as those they used, they would not have omitted them. Seeing then neither Christ

nor his Apostles ever commanded, or (by their example or practice) commended violence, or any co∣active means to make or confirm Christians, we have great reason to believe, that they conceived such means not congruous; and if so, why should any think otherwise?* 1.21 It is* 1.22 reply'd to this, that there are is Scripture examples of coactive punishments;* 1.23 so Paul was struck to the ground, and punished with blindness, Ananias and Sapphi••a with death, Elymas the Sorcerer with blindness, &c.

But these Instances (though ur∣ged by great men) are imperti∣nent, as to this case we now speak of: For,

1. When Paul was so punish∣ed, he was no Christian, (for he was afterwards Baptized) where∣as we now speak of different opi∣nions,

and ways of Worship a∣mongst Christians.

2. He was persecuting the Church with imprisonments and death, in which case we grant violent and coactive means may be used by the Magistrate, to † 1.24preserve the Church which such Persecutors would destroy.

3. The Question is, What man (the Magistrate Civil or Ecclesia∣stical) may do Jur•• ordinario, whe∣ther he may punish Heresie or In∣fidelity with loss of Livelihood, Liberty, or Life? Not what God may do, Pro dominio, & jure suo absoluto, extraordinarie? we deny not but God (who is the searcher and judg of our hearts, who knows perfectly our most secret sins, and inmost iniquities, together with the nature, measure, and aggrava∣tions of them) may punish Here∣sie, Infidelity, or any other sin, how

and when he will; so he punish∣ed Ananias and Sapphira with death: But we deny that man (the Ma∣gistrate) can do so, Jure Ordinario. It is true, it was our Saviour which punished Paul,* 1.25 I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; and so it may seem, that we have our Saviour's exam∣ple for coactive punishments. But then we must consider our Savi∣our; 1. In the state of Humility, while he was here: 2. In the state of Glory after his Ascension. The Punishment of St. Paul was an ex∣traordinary Act of our Saviour af∣ter his Ascension, when he was in the state of Glory, and so can be no good warrant or foundation of an Ordinary Power and Jurisdiction in any man here to do the like. For certainly there is little Logick in this consequent, Our glorified Savi∣our by his absolute power, extraordi∣narily punished Paul with blindness:

Ergo, The Magistrate here may ordi∣narily do it. The thing we deny, is, that our Saviour while he was here (in the state of Humility) hath left us any precept or example for coactive punishments: He tells us, that his Kingdom was not of this world;* 1.26 it was not a Temporal, but Spiritual Kingdom, and so the Ad∣ministration of Justice in it, was not by Temporal, but Spiritual pu∣nishments. His too zealous Disci∣ples would have had fire call'd for from Heaven, &c. but he tells them that he came not to destroy, or take away any mans life, but to save it; and I believe he did not delegate that power to his Apo∣stles, (not to Peter) which he nei∣ther did, nor had Commission to use himself. 4. For the Examples of Ananias and Sapphira, and Elimas, they are as impertinent to the pur∣pose for which they bring them, as that of Paul: For,

1. They were punished for matter of fact, not of faith or opi∣nion concerning Religion; Ananias and Sapphira for Sacriledg, and rob∣bing God and his Church of the Consecrated things, and Elimas for perverting by Sorceries, and sedu∣cing Christians; (as by the Text appears) in which cases we do not plead for impunity.

2. Their punishment was ex∣traordinary, and miraculous from the hand of Heaven, not of any man or Magistrate. This is clear in the death of Ananias;* 1.27and tho Peter may seem to have had a hand in Sapphira's death, yet those words (vers. 6.) are praedicentis, non infligentis poenam, he only foretells her, that the hand of God (not his) would be upon her. And so it was too with Paul and Elimas, The hand of the Lord shall be upon thee,* 1.28 &c. 'Tis the hand of the Lord (not

his) that made him blind; Paul (as a Prophet) foretold, what God (as a just Judg) did. However, 'tis (beyond dispute) evident, that those punishments of Ananias and Elimas were Extraordinary and Miraculous; and therefore cannot possibly be any just foundation of an ordinary jurisdiction. But too much of this, for (to me) these examples seem al∣together impertinent, and though often urged, yet to little purpose, seeing they prove nothing, save that (sure) they wanted better ar∣guments, who bring such bad ones as these.* 1.29

2. It is objected by† 1.30 many, and great men, that the Gospel does afford ex∣amples of coactive and compulsory means used to bring men to the faith. They urge that Parable of the Marriage-feast (Luk.

14. 23.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Com∣pelle intrare, (as the vulgar Latin) ut impleatur Domus mea. On which words St. Augustine thus, Qui com∣pellitur, quo non vult cogitur: sed cum intraverit, jam volens pascitur. Hence they infer, that it is (at least) Lawful to use coactive means in case of different Religi∣ons, to compell men to the best.

But in answer to this instance,* 1.31 which is so much urged by all those who are against Toleration, I say,

1. Locus parabolicus non est argu∣mentativus, Parables are no proofs, nor a fit foundation for conclu∣ding Arguments to be built upon.

2. But however it is true, what Grotius observes, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there signifies not any external violence or coaction, but only* 1.32 Instanti∣am

vocantis, the instance and im∣portunity of the Call. Christo enim eo modo convivae cogi solent, sed im∣portuna flagitatione. So Theophylact expounds the place, who tells us, that although 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that all men do voluntarily believe, yet the Holy Ghost saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only call, but compell; not that he means any coaction (properly so call'd) or violence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.33 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Sed ut sciamus magnae Vir∣tutis Dei esse, Gentes credidisse. And then concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Admir abilemtran∣slationem significare volens, necessitatem nominavit. And 'tis evident that the word, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] many times sig∣nifies no more, but an earnest and prevailing importunity, even in Scripture it† 1.34 self.

3. It is certain and confessed,

that in this Parable the Gentiles are meant by those who are said to be compell'd;* 1.35 and yet neither St. Augustine (who first urged this passage against the Donatists and Circumcellians) nor any that I know since, affirm Pagans ought to be compell'd to Christianity; and so they quite mistake the meaning of the place (who urge it against To∣leration) and the business they bring it for.

2. Besides this, [that there is no example or precept of Christ,* 1.36 or his Apostles, that they did, or we should use violence, or any coactive means, to make, or con∣firm Christians] there are several express places in the Gospel which strongly perswade the contrary; that no violence or coaction is, or ought to be used; so when some of our Saviours Disciples did Apo∣statize

and forsake him, he mild∣ly asks the Twelve,* 1.37 Will ye also go away? He neither recalls those who had forsaken him, nor con∣firms those who stayed, by threa∣tening loss of Livelihood, Li∣berty, or Life; but faith only, Will ye also go away? To go or stay, was res spontaneae voluntatis, non coactae necessitatis; it was a thing of choice, not coaction, which was to make or continue them Christians. Ostendit se ne velle qui∣dem discipulos nisi volentes, (faith (a) Grotius;)* 1.38 in the Constitutions of Clemens (an ancient Book, though not of (lemens his compiling) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Liberam reliquit homi∣nibus arbitrii potestatem, non morte temporali eos puniens, sed in altero sae∣culo ad reddendam rationem eos vocans. And again,* 1.39 (b) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Domi∣nus non cogens, sed libertatem suam voluntati permittens, dicebat quidem

vulgo omnibus, si quis vult venire post me. Apostolis vero, numquid & vos abire vultis? And the Greek Fa∣ther thus,* 1.40 (c) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. In∣terrogat, an & ipsi velint discedere? quod omnem est amoventis vim & ne∣cessitatem. Lastly, (as to punish∣ing of Hereticks with death) our Saviour seems to resolve the case (in express terms) that they ought not so to suffer death, though they were Hereticks. It is in the Parable of thea 1.41 Tares, where he tells the servants, that they must suffer the tares to grow with the wheat (Hereticks withb 1.42 Ca∣tholicks) till the Harvest (thec 1.43 end of the world) and he gives the reason of it, Lest the wheat be in∣dangered by the extirpation of the tares. How far the Romish Inquisi∣tors, (and others who punish He∣reticks with death) fulfill or fol∣low this advice, let the world

judg. Sure I am, this precept, [Let them grow together till the har∣vest] and their practice, are con∣tradictory. He that consumes He∣reticks with fire and faggot, does not let them grow and continue with Catholicks; Unless an abso∣lute eradication of the Tares be a continuation of them with the Wheat, which would be an expo∣sition like that in the Gloss of the Canon-Lawd 1.44 Statuimus, (i. e.) abrogamus. When Theophylact had told us that by Tares, Hereticks were meant, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.45 &c. Quae permittuntur esse usque in consummationem saEculi: nam si exscinderemus & occideremus Haere∣ticos, seditiones fierent & pugnae, & forte etiam multi fidelium in seditioni∣bus perirent, &c.

3. Such compelling punish∣ments and coaction is not,* 1.46 cannot be a fit and congruous means to

work faith and true Religion in erring persons. That faith comes by hearing we read and know, but that men are or can be beaten into a belief of Truth we read not. Nova lex se non vindicat ultore gladio, (saith Tertullian) and the Fathers in the Council of Toledo,b 1.47 Statuit sancta Synodus nemini ad credendum vim inferre. And hence Gratian in∣fers,c 1.48 Ergo non vi∣sed leberâ ac∣btrii facultate ut convertantur, sua∣dendi sunt, non impellendi. Admonen∣di sunt, non cogendi, (saith the* 1.49 Gloss there) to beget faith, Argu∣mento opus est, non baculo. Bonds and Imprisonment may captivate the body, but not the understan∣ding; Fire and Faggot may con∣sume, but not convert an Here∣tick. Religion is seated in the Un∣derstanding and Will, things un∣capable of force, or coaction. Plun∣derings, Sequestrations and Impri∣sonments

may beget an outward compliance, and hypocrisie, not true and unfeigned Piety. To put me in Prison is a poor argument to prove that I am in an error, and we may justly suspect he wants better, who useth that.

By such means men are rather confirmed in their opinions than confuted, as is evident in the Christians of the Primitive times, when Christianity thrived, and Christians were multiplied by persecution; so that the Martyr∣ing many made more. The Church (in this) like old Rome in the Poet:

Per damna, per caedes ab ipso Ducit opes, animumque ferro.

He that suffers persecution, and boldly dies for his Religion and Opinions, (be they what they will, true or false) is (by his par∣ty) esteemed a Martyr, not a Ma∣lefactor;

and such suffering is so far from a confutation, that it is indeed a great confirmation of them in their opinions; Crescit ad∣versis fides, and a motive to make others imbrace them. The Massacre in France made more Protestants in one night, than all Calvin's Works have done since their first publication, And Erasmus observes, that a Carmelite Frier (who was imploy∣ed to inquire after, and punish Hereticks) did by his Cruelty and Severities, increase the number of those he persecuted, Ubicun{que} sae∣vitiam exercuit Carmelita (saith E∣rasmus) ibi diceres factam fuisse Hae∣rese••n sementem. So disproportion∣able was the means he used to the end he aimed at, that whiles he murdered, he multiplied Here∣ticks, and made more, even by those Mediums which he used to

leave none. And as it was then, so it may be still; a prudent To∣leration may prove a far more effectual means for the conversi∣on of erring Christians, than the Serverities of a Persecution.

4. In all just punishments,* 1.50 as the best Lawyers truly tell us,* 1.51 there must be two things: 1. Cog∣nitio culpae. 2. Aestimatio poenae,* 1.52 the crime to be punished, (together with the magnitude and measure of it, the degrees of the malice of it in it self, and the mischief it does to others) must of necessity be certainly known, else it can∣not justly be punished, for the ju∣stice of punishments consisting in a proportion between the crime and punishment, he that would justly proportion this to that, must first know the crime, and the mea∣sure of the malice contained in it, the mischief done by it, else 'tis

impossible he should proportion a just punishment for it. Now I con∣ceive it very difficult, if not im∣possible, for any man certainly to know how far Erroneous opinions in Religion, or Herefies, (as they call them) are sinful. For,

1. No Heresie, or erroneous opinion can be sinful, unless it be voluntary. That of Saint Augu∣stine, is an universally and justly received principle; Peccatum non est peccatum, nisi sit voluntarium: There is no malice in the mind or will unless it be voluntary. But now how far the Errors of Titius and Sempronius are voluntary, whe∣ther they proceed from weakness or wilfulness; and what degree of weakness or wilfulness they have, none (I believe) does, or can know (without Divine Revelation) but he that knows the heart, and there∣fore none (but he) can justly pu∣nish

such Errors, because not knowingly; and this is the reason which* 1.53 Seneca gives, why Ingra∣titude was not punishable by any Law in his time, Quia difficilis e∣rat Incertae rei aestimatio, it was (to them) so difficult to know the measure and degrees of Ingrati∣tude, that they did not dare to pu∣nish it, but left it, Odio hominum & vindictae Deorum, who only knew the measure of the fault, and so the means justly to punish it, for although (in Thesi) all men by the light of Natural Reason knew, and confest Ingratitude to be a fault, yet (in Hypothesi) how far this, or that man (in particular) is guilty of that fault, is very difficult, if not impossible to be known by any, save him who knows the heart.

2. It is a known and received truth by all Lawyers and Divines generally, that no positive Law of

God or man does, or can bind us, without a sufficient promulgati∣on; such a sufficient Promulgation being necessary to the obligation of all positive Laws. But now, when the positive truths of the Gospel are sufficiently revealed and romulgated to Titius and Sempronius (to this and that parti∣cular person) is difficult, if not im∣possible for any man to know, un∣less he could know the divers abi∣lities and capacities of those per∣sons to whom those Truths are published. For as those Pagans to whom the Gospel was never revealed (as to many Nations it never was) are no way under the obligation of it, nor any way lya∣ble to sin, or punishment for not believing it (whence that saying of Augustine speaking of the Gen∣tiles,* 1.54 Veniam habebunt propter Infi∣delitatem, damnabuntur propter pec∣cata

contra naturam. So amongst those to whom it has been reveal∣ed, there is a great difference in respect of the sufficiency or insuf∣ficiency of its promulgation; for it may be a sufficient promulgation to one, which (their capacities con∣sidered) is not to another, and so the error of one be a crime, when the other, tho holding the same opinion, is innocent. And theere∣fore to persecute and punish men with loss of Livelihood, Liberty, or Life, for Opinions in Religion only (when we cannot know whe∣ther, or how far they are crimes;) to consume diffenting Brethren with Fire and Faggot, to make a Coal of a Christian, and certainly kill him for an uncertain crime, this is that which none should, and it were to be wished that no Chri∣stian wo'd do. It is (to this purpose) well observed by* 1.55 Grotius, that in

the Jewish Religion) which was established (in some cases) by Pe∣nal Sanctions, and Coactive pu∣nishments) although the Sadduces deny'd the Resurrection, and (in that) were judged to be (as indeed they were) erroneous, yet they were not punished for it. Nun∣quam eos poenis subdiderunt (faith Grotius) and he conceives the rea∣son to be that we now speak of, (that is, want of clear revelation, or sufficient promulgation) Dogma resurrectionis verissimum illud quidem, sed in lege judaicâ non nisi obscurè, & sub verborum aut rerum involucris traditum. And on this ground I think many thousand poor Souls in Spain and Italy (who by Priests, and Parents, and Governours, are kept in an invincible ignorance of the Gospel) innocently disbelieve, or are ignorant of many Gospel∣truths, which to us (who have a

greater measure of Revelation) would be Criminal and dam∣nable.

5. Upon this ground,* 1.56 I am ab∣solutely against punishing* 1.57 He∣reticks with death, it being uncer∣tain who are really such: For to kill a man for an Heretick, before I can tell whether he be so or no, is certainly a temerarious act, which may argue some zeal, but little Justice in him that does it. For further evidencing of this, I say,

1. That 'tis not yet† 1.58 agreed a∣mongst Divines who are formally Hereticks, and to agree of the pu∣nishment (and that Capital) be∣fore there be a constat for the crime, is a strange piece of justice.

2.* 1.59 Some would have the for∣mality of Herefie to consist in per∣tinacy, or contumacy, out of St. Au∣gustine, who tells us, Qui in Ecclesiâ

pravum quod sapiunt, si correcti non sa∣piunt, sed resistunt Contumaciter Haere∣tici sunt. So St.* 1.60 Augustine, and Ju∣stinian to the same effect, though in other words,† 1.61 Haeresis est ob∣stinatioris animi dementia. Now See∣ing pertinacy is an internal thing, and such a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and constituti∣on of the Soul, as none but God does, or can know; it were but just to stay the execution of Here∣ticks, till they be certain what is Heresie. Constet de culpâ priusquam irrogetur paena.

3. The Greeka 1.62 Scholia (on that of Tit. 3. 10.) require to an Here∣tick that he be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 self-condemned, incurable, incorrigible; but none of these are within the compass of humane cognizance; for who can tell what Heretick is self-condemned, incorrigi∣ble, or incurable? and if they cannot, why should they inflict a certain

for an uncertain crime? Certainly all sober men will and must confess, that Auto∣catacrisie, Incurability, and Incorri∣gibility depend on many spiritual and internal Circumstances, which are visible to no eye but that of Heaven▪ And therefore the pu∣nishment of those Crimes should be left to that Judge, who alone can certainly know them. Si judi∣cas, cognosce.

4. They* 1.63 say an Heresie must be contra Articulos fidei. Now 'tis not agreed which, and how many are such, and what makes them so; those being Articles of Faith to some, which are not so to o∣thers. Certainly it is but equal that men should not be hanged for Heresie against the Articles of our Faith, till it be resolved and known what Propositions are such. If a man commit Murder,

Adultery, Theft, Perjury, if he be a Traytor to his Prince,* 1.64 or a Robber on the High-ways, all men generally agree in this, that these are crimes, and accordingly pu∣nish them. But 'tis not so with Heresie and Opinions in Religion, each party believes his own Posi∣tions to be true, and condemns his adversary; so that what is He∣resie to one, is Catholick verity to another. In short, it were to be wish'd, that men would not be so fierce to punish Heresie, till they be more certainly informed, and assured what it is.

But if Heresie cannot be cer∣tainly known,* 1.65 why doth the Apo∣stle say, Haereticum de vita. How can we avoid what we cannot cer∣tainly know? why do we and all Christians punish Hereticks with Ecclesiastical Censures, Suspension, Penance; Excommunication, &c. Can

we justly punish that crime (with any punishment Ecclesiastical or Civil) which we cannot certainly know?

To this Discourse (in short) I say,* 1.66 1. That the old Monk mi∣stook the Apostles meaning much, when he would have us believe that the Apostle there commands to punish the Heretick with death, and reads the Text thus, Haereti∣cus de Vitâ, (i. e.) de vitâ tolle. He was beholden to the Latin Tran∣slation for that Gloss (for sure he was not guilty of much Greek, though the Latin was little behol∣ding to him for mangling it so barbarously.

2. He saith only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a 1.67evita, turn away from such a one. Such are to be admonished first, (Mat. 17. 16, 17.) and then (asb 1.68 Grotius well observes) Id sinon prosit, abrumpenda est cum eis om∣nis

familiarior consuetudo. Here is no∣thing of punishment, 'tis only Evita, not Excommunica.

3. And if you ask how I can a∣void an Heretick, if I cannot cer∣tainly know what Heresie is? I answer (and I am beholden to a 1.69 Hierome,b 1.70 Grotius, andc 1.71Ju∣stellus for it) that such an Heretick as the Apostle here speaks of might be known well enough, and pu∣nished too.

4. That this may appear, I say, 1. That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, is (as all know) vox mediae significati∣onis, sometimes taken in a good, sometimes in a bad sense. The se∣veral Sects of Philosophers were anciently called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d 1.72Hippobotus writ a Book, de se∣ctis seu Haeresibus Philosophorum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. So Christianity is call∣ed e 1.73〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by St. Luke.

And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.74 (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)* 1.75 and in this of Titus also. 2. Concerning Heresie in the worse sense, I believe it true which Grotius observes, Ubi Haere∣sis in malam partem sumitur, significat idem quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nisi quod illa gene∣ralitas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 limita∣tur ad eas partes quae fiunt ex opinio∣num diversitate. Est ergo Haereticus hîc is, qui per opinionem de Ecclesiâ partes facit. He is an Heretick here in the Apostles sense, who not on∣ly imbraces and maintains an erro∣neous opinion, but makes a schism in the Church by separating him∣self from the Communion, and drawing others after him, and so disturbs the publick peace. This

is the opinion of Grotius, and Justel∣lus, and (long before them) of St. Hierome,* 1.76 Inter Haeresin & Schisma hoc interesse arbitramur, quod Haere∣sis perversum Dogma habet, Schisma propter Episcopalem Dissensionem, ab Ecclesiâ Pariter separet. Quod qui∣dem in principio aliquâ ex parte intelligi potest diversum; caeterum nullum Schis∣ma 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 (Pari∣ter separant) and so break the bond of Peace, and Ecclesiastical Uni∣on. Whence it is, that the Apostle calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-condem∣ned, so we render it, amiss I believe, for the Apostle speaks of such an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as men may know, see, and be sensible of; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (i. e.) knowing that such an Heretick is subverted, be∣ing

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not self-condem∣ned, for who is so, none does or can know; It being impossible for any man to know when an Here∣tick maintains his Heresie against the light of his own Conscience, none being able to know that, save he who knows the heart: And there∣fore I conceive that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here should be rendered, à seipso separatus, rather than à seipso con∣demnatus. One that broaches an er∣ror, 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 ra∣ther induced to be of this opi∣nion:

1. Because the word will ve∣ry well bear this signification, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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,* 1.77 and Grotius of the same opinion. Gro∣tius on these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; saith thus, Non dicit Excommunica, nam ipsi ul∣tro Communionem deserunt. And St. Hierome more fully,* 1.78 Propterea à seipso dicitur damnatus, quia fornicator, homicida, adulter, & caetera vitia, per sacerdotes de Ecclesia pelluntur: Hae∣retici autem in semetipsos sententiam ferunt, suo arbitrio de Ecclesia rece∣dentes, &c. So that (in St. Hierom's opinion) the Heretick Saint Paul speaks of, is such a one, who (be∣sides his Erroneous opinion) is Schismatical, and not only makes a separation from the Church him∣self, but seduces others, to the di∣sturbance of the publick peace; which crime is visible, and confes∣sedly

punishable. However, tis certain, we may know, and avoid all familiarity with such a person, which is all which that Apostoli∣cal Injunction [Haereticum devita] signifies. And so much for that passage in St. Paul.

3. For the practice of the Pri∣mitive Church in punishing those they call'd Hereticks with Excom∣munications, I confess tis 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 precipi∣tate 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 fa∣mous story of Pope Victor (to omit others) Excommunicating the Asi∣an Bishops for their Observation of Easter,* 1.79 though no Law of God or man obliged them to keep it other∣wise 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 Liveli∣hood, Liberty, or Life. So (I sup∣pose) an Arian, or one who denies the Resurrection (though other∣wise peaceable, neither separating himself, nor factiously seducing

others) may justly be Excommu∣nicated 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, can∣not be Excommunicated justly while he keeps those Conditions, but if he do not, then (conditione non praestitâ) he may be justly Ex∣communicate. 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 ad∣mitted into the Christian Com∣munion. Now if after Baptism, and this promise, he deny any of those Fundamental Articles into the belief of which he was Bap∣tized (though otherwise he lived never so peaceably) he might just∣ly be Excommunicated by the Church. 'Tis a good and true Rule in Morality (and Divinity too) Volenti non fit injuria, he desired, and had the Communion on that Condition; and when he rejects, and does not make good that con∣dition, the Church may justly eject him by Excommunication, (tho they cannot distinctly know the measure and degrees of the malice that is in such error, it being im∣possible for any man certainly to

know whether he err out of weak∣ness and infirmity, or malice and obstinacy.) And further, every such person may be call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as the* 1.80 Apostle here, † 1.81Irenaeus and others after him call all Hereticks) not because they maintain an error against their Conscience, (for certainly many do not, and when any do, none can possibly know, but he who knows the heart) but because (as * 1.82Lyranus tells us) Fidem quam in baptismo recepit ut veram, nunc con∣demnat ut falsam. He condemns that Faith now, (and so himself) which before he professed as true. So that he is said to condemn him∣self, Non respectu judicis interni, (for he may at both those times, think he is in the right) but respectu professionis, & facti externi; he pro∣fesses that as true at one time, which he himself condemns (as

false) at another. And so the same person at several times, approving and condemning the same Do∣ctrine, may (properly enough) be said to condemn himself, seeing he now disapproves and con∣demns what before he approved. Lastly, (which is no little preju∣dice against punishing for Opini∣ons) in the Primitive and purer times of Christianity, we find no persecution for Religion (except by Pagans.) The Arians (amongst the Professors of Christianity) were the first who used it. So* 1.83 Athana∣sius tells us, and† 1.84 Grotius observes it out of him, In Arianam haeresin acriter invehitur Athanasius, quod pri∣ma in contradicentes usa esset judicum potestate, & quos non potuit verbis inducere, eos vi, plagis, verberibus{que} ad se pertrahere anniteretur. Such force and compulsion may be means for Mahomet, for a Pagan

or Arian to promote Infidelity and Heresie, but not for a Christian.

Nec tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis Christus eget.

After them the Donatists (equal∣ly guilty of Heresie and cruelty) persecuted the good Christians: And Optatus (for this very thing) denies them to be true Members of Christ's Church,* 1.85 Neque enim Ec∣clesia dici potest, quae cruentis morsibus pascitur, & sanctorum sanguine & carnibus opimatur, &c. For though these be the words of Parmenian the Donatist, objecting to the Or∣thodox that they persecuted the Donatists, and therefore were not the true Church: Yet Optatus grants his Position to be true, that, Ecclesia dici non potest quae cruentis morsibus pascitur, &c. And retorts the argument against them, telling Parmenian:

1. That the Orthodox and true

Church persecuted none:* 1.86 Doce aliquem nostrum (saith Optatus) cui∣quam insidiatum esse: quem à nobis persecutum esse, aut dicere possis, aut probare? the Orthodox Christians did no such thing, nor any way approved it then.

2. But the Donatists did:† 1.87 De sedibus suis multos fecistis extorres, cum conductâ manu venientes, Basilicas invasistis, multi ex numero vestro, per loca plurima cruentas operati sunt caedes, & tam atroces, ut de talibus fa∣ctis, ab illius temporis judicibus relatio mitteretur, &c.

Thus the Arians and Donatists, and† 1.88 Circumcellians (the worst sort of Donatists) and after them the Church of Rome hath (of all o∣thers) been most guilty of this cru∣elty; using, when they wanted better reasons, force, fire and fag∣got, to consume whom they could not rationally convince. And in∣deed

those who are so fierce for persecution for Religion, have no better examples to follow than Pagans (in their Persecution of Christians) or Mahomet (establish∣ing the Alcoran by the Sword) or Arians, Donatists and Circumcellians. Now how far it may be safe or honourable for any to follow such examples, let sober men judg. Sure I am, neither our Saviour nor his Apostles, nor the Primitive and Orthodox Christians for several ages, either used or commended force and coercive punishments, as a congruous means to propagate the Gospel where it was not, or confirm it where it was. He that reads Justine Martyr, Athenagoras; Tertullian, Arnobius, Minutius Faelix, Lactantius, &c. or indeed any Ec∣clesiastical Author for 300 years after Christ, will find Grotius his Observation to be true,* 1.89 Quod per∣petuò

asserunt. Neminem ob fidei pro∣fessionem esse cogendum. The anci∣ent saying is still true,* 1.90 Religionis non est Religionem Cogere, quae sponte suscipi debet, non vi. Suaderi potest, cogi non potest. The internal Acts of the Soul (in which all true Re∣ligion originally consists, and with∣out which no external Acts of the body are capable of any Religion) cannot be compell'd, nor is there any possibility that they should be capable of compulsion. I confess the Body may be compell'd, the Feet to go to Church, the Ear to hear Prayers, Sermons, Disputa∣tions, the Hand to subscribe Arti∣cles and Canons, but all this (if the Heart and Hand do not go to∣gether) is so far from true Religion and Sincerity, that it is down∣right hypocrisie. Whence it was that St. Augustine (even when he was of opinion that in some cases,

coactive punishments might be used) thought it best,* 1.91 Quod ad Catholicam veritatem cogeretur nemo, sed eam qui sine formidine vellet se∣queretur, ne falsos & simulatores Ca∣tholicos haberemus. Athenagoras plea∣ding against Persecution for Re∣ligion, to M. Aurelius Antoninus, tells him, and us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. † 1.92Et uno verbo, quantum ad Gentes & populos, sacrificia peragunt quae volunt homines & mysteria. And then adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Et ista omnia conceditis & vos & leges. Rome gave always Liber∣ty of Religion to those Nations she subdued, they might serve their own Gods, so they payed tribute, and without sedition ser∣ved her too. Fides voluntatis est, non necessitatis, was the saying of St. Ambrose, and still true. Our Saviour is Captain of our Salvati∣on, (Christianity is a Spiritual Mi∣litia,

and the Church militant, an Army with Banners, Christians Soldiers, but Voluntiers, not press'd men.)* 1.93 Nec Christum invitis, servis aut mancipiis, sed liberis regnaturum, Psaltes† 1.94 olim dixit. Populus tuus Spontaneus in die fortitudinis, seu vi∣ctoriae tuae. The Original (if ren∣dered ad verbum) sounds thus, Po∣pulus tuus spontaneitatum. A people which must come without com∣pulsion. Christ and his Apostles never inflicted or threatned any temporal punishments here, but eternal hereafter. Qui non credit, condemnabitur. Our Saviour's King∣dom is Spiritual, and the means to preserve, increase, and propagate it, are so too. Fire and Faggot, Chains and Imprisonments are not amongst Evangelical means to make or confirm Christians. Those were things Christians were pati∣ently to suffer themselves, not to

inflict on others. The Gentiles ne∣ver were compell'd, but freely came to Baptism, Sacro Christianae; militi ae Sacramento liberè obligati, (as a good Author tells me;) to be Christians, is to be in Covenant with Christ, which cannot be com∣pell'd; 'tis essentially consensus mu∣tuus, and where such free consent is wanting, there is no Covenant, or real and true Christianity. It is Tertullian who tells us, Hoc ad Ir∣religiositatis elogium concurrit, ut non liceat mihi colere quem velim, sed co∣gar credere quem Nolim. It seems to him irreligious to compell Religion. Piae religionis est, non cogere sed sua∣dere,* 1.95 (saith Athanasius.) And again, Dominus non cogens, sed libertatem suam voluntati permittens; dice∣bat quidem vulgo omnibus, Si quis vult venire post me: Apostolis vero, Num∣quid ae vos abire vultis?* 1.96 And Chryso∣stome (on the same place of John)

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Interrogat, an & ipsi velint discedere? quod omnem est amoventis vim ac necessitatem. It is an excellent passage in Hilary to this purpose,* 1.97 Intelligit singularis sa∣pientia tua, non decere, non oportere cogi, & compelli. in vitos ac repugnantes, &c. Idcirco laboratis, ut omnes qui∣bus imperatis dulcissimâ libertate poti∣antur. Nec alia ratione quae turbata sunt componi, quae divulsa sunt coer∣ceri possunt, nisi unus quisque nulla ser∣vitutis necessitate adstrictus, integrum habeat vivendi arbitrium. And again, Permittat lenias tua populis, ut quos Voluerint, quos Elegerint audiant Do∣centes, & divina Mysteriorum solennia concelebrent, &c. And a little after, Deus cognitionem sui Docuit potius, quàm Exegit, coactam confitendi se aspernatus est voluntatem. Deus uni∣versitatis est, obsequio non eget neces∣sario, non requirit coactam confessionem; non fallendus est, non promerendus,

nolit nisi Volentem recipere, nisi oran∣tem audire, nisi profitentem signare. Lactantius thus,* 1.98 Defendenda Religio non occidendo, sed moriendo, non saevi∣tiâ sed patientiâ; illa enim Malorum sunt, haec bonorum; & necesse est bo∣num in Religione versari, non malum. Nam si sanguine, si tormentis, si ma∣lo Religionem defendere velis, jam non defendetur illa, sed Polluetur & violabitur. Nihil enim est tam vo∣luntarium quàm Religio. And the same Lactantius elsewhere:

Non expetimus ut Deum nostrum velit nolit,* 1.99 colat aliquis invitus, nec si non coluerit irascimur. Quis imponit mihi Necessitatem vel colendi quod Nolim, vel quod Velim non colendi?

St. Augustine was at first against all Persecution for Religion, and would not have the Emperor solli∣cited to punish the Donatists with Secular and Temporal punish∣ments.

At last (as* 1.100 he confes∣seth) he was of another opinion, yet even then he was against pu∣nishing any (even the worst) He∣reticks with death:

Ita enim lex fuerat promulgata († 1.101 saith he) ut tantae immanitatis Haere∣sis Donatistarum (cui crudelius parci videbatur, quàm ipsa sae∣viebat) non tantum violenta esse, sed omnino non fineretur esse impunè, non tamen supplicio capitali (propter servandam eti∣am circa indignos mansuetudi∣nem Christianam) sed pecunia∣riis damnis, &c.

There is in* 1.102 Eusebius, an Edict of Constantine and Licinius, which gives a Tole∣ration to all Religions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Ut tum Christianis, tum aliis omnibus liberam optionem omnino da∣remus, eam Religionem sequen∣di, quam ipsi in animos indu∣cerent.

And again,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Consilio rectissimo decrevimus, ut nemini prorsus libertas negetur Christi∣anorum cultum imitandi, & Cui{que} detur copia, suam men∣tem ei Religioni addicendi, quam ipse sibi maximè conve∣hire censuerit.

And he gives the reason of this Indulgence,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Quia nostro∣rum temporum tranquillitati & quieti revera accommodatum est, ut quisque facultatem ha∣beat deligendi eam in Deo co∣lendo rationem, quae sibi maxi∣mè placuerit, hocque à nobis factum, ut nullius Religionis authoritas à nobis ulla ex parte imminui videatur.

Af∣terwards such Toleration was not granted, but (as we see in the Imperial Laws) some∣times more or less according to

the* 1.103 Constitution of the Em∣perors, and the fierceness and importunity of the Bishops.

But enough (if not too much) of this, and therefore manum de Tabula: He that desires more, ei∣ther sayings of Fathers or Impe∣rial Edicts, or Constitutions of particular Churches and Nations, concerning Persecution or Tole∣ration of several Religions, may have them Collected to his Hand by many† 1.104 Authors. Qui plura vellet, illos videat.

Quer. 1. Whether he that would give a Toleration to seve∣ral Religions, should not (in pru∣dence and conscience) first know what these Religions are, what Points they hold different from that Established, that so he may knowingly judg how far he may, or may not grant Impunity? For if he Tolerate a Religion before he know it, he Tolerates he knows not what: Which cannot be an act of prudence in any Magistrate. Seeing (in this case) he grants a Toleration to that Religion, which (for ought he knows) he ought not to Tolerate.

Quer. 2. Whether he that does (and justly may) Tolerate a Re∣ligion different from that Legally established, and so compells none to be of his Religion, may not yet compell his Subjects to those Me∣dia (and the use of them) by which

may be informed of the reasons and truth of his Religion? As (for instance) whether our King, though he should grant a Toleration to Papists, and so no way compell them to be Protestants, may not compel them to come to Sermons, and hear Disputations, by which they may be informed of those Truths we hold, and the Grounds and Reasons of them. (As Parents compell their Children to go to School for Information, though they should not, cannot compell them to an assent, and belief of what they are taught.) Seeing (by the Law of Nature and Scripture) we and all men are bound to Try all things, and hold fast that which is good; and so may (by our Lawful Governours) be compell'd to an examination and rational trial of several Religions, though not to the belief of any? Now the rea∣son

of this difference in this, 1. It is evident (and confessed) that 'tis every man's duty to make such trial of the truth of several Reli∣gions, that so he may be of the best Religion by choice, and not only by chance. 2. It is as evident, that the end of Magistracy is to bring all men under their Jurisdi∣ction to do their duty, either by suasory allurements; or (if that will not do) by compulsory pu∣nishments, and so (by conse∣quence) he may compell them to such trial of the truth. 2. But after such trial made (by hearing Sermons and Disputations) the Magistrate cannot tell certainly, when it is their duty (of several Religions) to believe this, or that in particular; for 'tis no man's duty to believe any positive truth of Christian Religion, till it be sufficiently revealed (a sufficient

revelation of truth being abso∣lutely necessary, and antecedent to an obligation to believe it, and so to the duty of believing) and when that is, the Magistrate can∣not certainly know; and there∣fore he cannot compell any to the belief of these or those opinions (as a part of their duty) seeing he cannot certainly know, whether it be their duty or no.

Sir, These Adversaria (tumul∣tuarily put together will need your pity and pardon, being neither in a just order or method, nor ha∣ving that evidence of proof which otherwise they might have had, had either my parts been better, or my time for Meditation more. As they are, you freely have them, and an absolute power (to approve or condemn them) Given you by,

SIR,

Your most Obliged humble Servant, &c.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Privilegia quae contem∣platione Religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum Legis observatoribus prodesse oportet: Haereticos autem & Schismati∣cos ab his privilegiis alienos es∣se volumus. Imperat. Constan∣tinus, ad Dracilianum, l. 1. de Haereticis in Cod. Theodosiano. pag. 493▪
• * 1.2

  Query.
• * 1.3

  Answer.
• a 1.4

  Minutius Felix Octav. pag. 77.
• * 1.5

  Libertas in∣astimabilis res est. Paul. c. 2. ad Edict. Leg. 106. Stat. de Reg. Juris. And again, Infinita aesti∣matio est liber∣tatis. Id. l. 13. ad Plantiam, F. de R. Juris. l. 176. Sec▪ fi∣nali.
• * 1.6

  By [Populus] I understand the whole Body Politick, Head and Members, King and People; and not the People only in opposition to the King. Appellatione populi, viri & cives significan∣tur connumeratis Patriciis & Senatoribus. Instit. de Jure Nat. Gentium & Civili. L. Lex est.
• * 1.7

  Vid. Gratian. Gaen. 2, 3, 4. Causa. 16. Quest. 6. Inno∣cent. Part. 5. Cap. ultimo, &c.
• * 1.8

  Vid. Concil. Late∣ran. sub Innocent. 3. Can. 3. de Haereticis, apud Petr. Crabb. Tom. 2. pag 948. Col. 1. & Concil. Trident. Seyalt. 25. de Reformation. cap. 19. & cap. 20. ubi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sic habet. Cogantur om∣nes Principes Catholici conservare omnia sancita quibus immunias Ecclesi∣astica declara
• † 1.9

  Bellarminus de Ro∣mano Pontisic. lib. 5. cap. 6. &c.
• * 1.10

  The supreme Power of this Nation by Act of Par∣liament, command all to come to Common-Prayers (and so all did, Papists and Protestants till 11^o Eliz.) The Pope, Julius 5. by his Bull forbids it. The Papists obey him, not the Act of Parliament.
• * 1.11

  Gratia. Can. Alius 3. Lu∣cet. 6. Can. 16.
• † 1.12

  Gratian. Can. Nulli. 5. Dist. 19.
• † 1.13

  Gratian▪ Can. in Ca∣nonicis 6 Di∣stinct. 19. & Canon. E∣nim verò 4. Ibidem.
• * 1.14

  Idem ibi∣dem Can. sic omnes 2. & Juv. Part. 4. cap. 238.
• † 1.15

  Vid. Constit. Impp. Honorii & Theod. in Append. Cod. Theod. Theod. pag. 31. contra Donati∣stas, &c. & aliam Con∣stit. ibid. pag. 38. ubi ••idem Imperatores in Donatistas, Pacis &. Ecclesiae turbatores senten∣tiâ capitali Vindicant. Et Cod. Theodosii. L. si quis. 31. de Episco∣pis.
• † 1.16

  Seneca de Beneficiis, lib. 3. cap. 6. num. 27. pag. 38. in Edit. Just. Lipsii. H. Grotius de Jure Belli, lib. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 50. pag. 345.
• † 1.17

  Lipsius in locum Sene∣cae praedi∣ctum num. 27. pag. 47.
• * 1.18

  Institut. de Capitis dimi∣nut. L. Maxi∣ma.
• * 1.19

  Query.
• * 1.20

  Answer.
• * 1.21

  Object.
• * 1.22

  He••••. Altin∣gius Problem. Theolog Part 2. Probl. 20. pag 337. Williel. Zep∣peru Legum Mosaicarum Forens. Lib 4. cap. 5. p. 258.
• * 1.23

  Answ.
• † 1.24

  In such ca∣ses the Magi∣strate is, (and▪ ought to be) Nutritius Ec∣clesiae, and Defensor▪ fidei, and may use the Sword a∣gainst those who abuse it against the Church.
• * 1.25

  Act. 9. 5.
• * 1.26

  Joh. 18. 36.
• * 1.27

  Act. 5. 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.28

  Act. 13. 11.
• * 1.29

  Object. 2.
• † 1.30

  Hen. Altingius Pro∣blem. Theol. Part. 2. Problem. 29. Pag. 333. Will. Zepperus in Ex∣plication. LL. Mosaic. Lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 262. Calvin. in Luc. 14. 23. pag. 182. August. Epist. 50. ad Bonifacium, & alibi passim.
• * 1.31

  Answer.
• * 1.32

  Vid. Gro••••∣um in Luc. 14. 2, 3. & de Jure Belli, Lib. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 48. pag. 345. to the same purpose, Dr. Hammond's Diodati, the Assembly-Divines, &c. on Luc. 14. 23.
• * 1.33

  Theophyl. in Luc. 14. 23. Pag. 438. c.
• † 1.34

  So Mat. 14. 22. Mark 6. 45. Gal. 11. 14. Vid. Grot. loco supra Citato.
• * 1.35

  Vide Theophy∣lactum in loc. &c
• * 1.36

  Reas. 2.
• * 1.37

  Joh. 6. 6, 7▪
• * 1.38

  Grotius in Joh. 6. 67.
• * 1.39

  Athanasius Epistolâ ad Solitariam Vitam a∣gentes.
• * 1.40

  Chrysost. in Joh. 6. 67. Idem habet Cyprian. Epist. 55.
• a 1.41

  Mat. 13. 28, 29.
• b 1.42

  Vers. 38.
• c 1.43

  Vers. 39.
• d 1.44

  Glossa ad▪ Cap. Statui∣mus 4. Di∣stinct. 4. apud Gratianum.
• * 1.45

  Theophylact. in Mat. 13. pag. 77. A. B.
• * 1.46

  Reas. 3.
• b 1.47

  Concil. Toletanum 4. cap. 5.
• c 1.48

  Gratian. cap. de Jud. 5. Dist. 45.
• * 1.49

  Glossa ad dictum cap. 5. de Jud. Dist. 45.
• * 1.50

  Reas. 4.
• * 1.51

  Grotius de Jure Belli, l. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 9. Salmanus de Arianis.
• * 1.52

  Haeretici sunt, sed non scien∣tes; apud nos sunt haeretici, apud se non sunt; veritas apud nos est, sed illi apud so esse Praesumunt. Errant ergo, sed bono animo errant; non odio, sed affe∣ctu Dei hono∣rare se domi∣num creden∣tes. Et quali∣ter pro hoc ipso falsae opini∣onis errore in die judicii pu∣niendi sunt, ••c∣mo potest scire nisi judex, &c.
• * 1.53

  Seneca de Beneficiis, 1. 3. cap. 7.
• * 1.54

  Augustinus.
• * 1.55

  Grotius de Jure Belli, lib. 2. cap. 20. Sect. 50.
• * 1.56

  Reas. 5.
• * 1.57

  See many Reasons for this in the Lord Faulk∣land's Reply, pag. 224, 225, &c.
• † 1.58

  Vid. August. de Haeresibus in Praefat. pag. 32. Edit. in 80.
• * 1.59

  Aquin. 2. 2. Quest. 11. Art. 2. & Commentat. ejus ibidem. Filiucius. Tra∣ctat. 22. cap. 6. Sect. 152. San. lib. 2. cap. 7. Azorius. lib. 8. cap. 9, &c.
• * 1.60

  Augustin. de Civitat. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 51. & de Origine Animae, cap. 15.
• † 1.61

  L. Nullus, 2. Cod. Just. de Summa Trinitat vid. Grotium in Tit. 3. 10.
• a 1.62

  Vid. Theo∣phyl. & Oe∣cumenium in Tit. 3. 10▪
• * 1.63

  Aquin. 2. 2; Quest. 11. Art. 2. in Conclus. Ita Filiucius, Azorius, Na∣varzus, alii, &c.
• * 1.64

  See the Lord Viscount Faulkland's Reply in de∣fence of his Tract of In∣fallibility, pag. 217, 218, 219, &c. That 'tis not law∣ful to put Hereticks to death.
• * 1.65

  Dub.
• * 1.66

  Answer.
• a 1.67

  Glossae ve∣teres in calce Cyrilli, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Evita.
• b 1.68

  Grotius in Tit 3. 10. vid. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 13. Lat. 14. Gr. pag. 94. A. B.
• a 1.69

  Hierom▪ in Tit. 3. 10. pag. 209.
• b 1.70

  Grotius in Tit. 3. 10.
• c 1.71

  Christ▪ Ju∣stellus in Cod. Can. Eccles. Univers pag. 213. ad Can. 12. & ad Cod. Can Eccles. Africanae, pag. 103.
• d 1.72

  Diogenes Laert, de vitis Philosoph in Proaemi•• pag ••3. Vid Hieron in Tit. 3. ••0 pag. 209. ••.
• e 1.73

  Act. 24. 5. & 14 Act. 28. 22, &c. Vid. Euseb. Hist. 1. 8. c. 29. pag. 253. ••.
• * 1.74

  Act. 26. 5.
• * 1.75

  Tit. 3. 10.
• * 1.76

  Hieronimus in Tit. 3. 10. pag. 209. C.
• * 1.77

  Christoph. Justellus & Grotius locis supra citatis.
• * 1.78

  Hieronimus in Tit. 3. 10. pag. 209. Col. 2. C.
• * 1.79

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib.
• * 1.80

  Tit. 3. 10.
• † 1.81

  Iren. adver∣sus Haereses, lib. 1. cap pag. 103. Eras. Cod. Can. Ecal. Uni∣vers. Can. 144.
• * 1.82

  Nic. de Lyr. in Tit. 3. 10.
• * 1.83

  Athanas. Ep ad Solita∣riam Vitam agentes O∣perum Tom. 1.
• † 1.84

  Hu Grotius de Jure Belli, lib. 2. cap. 20. Sect. ult. pag. 347. vide Hilarium O∣rat. ad Con∣stantium.
• * 1.85

  Optat. Mi∣levit. lib. 2. pag. 51. Edit. Casauboni.
• * 1.86

  Optatus ibid. lib. 2•• pag. 54.
• † 1.87

  Optatus ibid. & pag. 55, 56. vide constir. Ho∣norii & The∣odos. Aug. ad Curtium P. P. in Appen. Cod. Theod. per. Jac. Sir∣mondum, pag. 31.
• † 1.88

  Donatist. species. vid. Optat & Au∣gust. de Haeres. cap. 69. & Notas L,. Danaei Sect. 3. Pag. 212. Genus homi∣num azreste, & famosissiun. audaciae, in alios immania facinora per∣petrantes. Au∣gust. ibid. Pag 208.
• * 1.89

  Grotius in Luc. 14. 23. Pag 748.
• * 1.90

  Tertullianus ad Scapulam.
• * 1.91

  August. Ep. 50. ad Boni∣facium, pag. 219.
• † 1.92

  Athenag. in Legatione pro Christia∣nis.
• * 1.93

  Vid Joseph. Castim in Manuduct. ad Viam Pacis, pag. 40. E∣leuth. 1650.
• † 1.94

  Psal. 110.
• * 1.95

  Athan. Epist. ad Solit. vi∣tam agentes.
• * 1.96

  Chrysost. in Johan. cap.
• * 1.97

  Hilarius ad Constant. Im∣peratorem.
• * 1.98

  Lactant. lib. 1. cap. 20.
• * 1.99

  Lactant. lib. 5. cap. 7. & cap. 14.
• * 1.100

  Aug. Epist. 50 ad Boni∣fac. Operum Tom. 2. pag. 219. C. Edir. Frob.
• † 1.101

  August ibid. Col. 220. B
• * 1.102

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 10. cap. 5. pag. 287, 288. Edit. Gr. Lat.
• * 1.103

  Vid. Justin: Cod. de sum∣mâ Trinit. & fide Catho∣licâ l. Cun∣ctos & leg. nullus. 2. & Cod. de Haereticis & Manichaeis, & Cod. Theodos. lib. 16. Tit. 5. de Haereticis, & Constitut. Theod. & Valent. ad Amati∣um P. PR. Galliar. in Append. Cod. Theodosiani per Ja. Sirmon∣dum pag. 14. qua Haeretici omnes è Galliis exulabant. Et Constitut. Honorii & Theodosii, ibid. pag. 31. & eorundem Impp. Constituti∣onem ibid. pag. 38. Et Gratianum Distinct. 45. cap. 5. de Judae is. Vide etiam Constit. Impp. Arcadii, Honorii & Theodos. A. A. A. Hadriano P. PR. in Append. Cod. Theodos. l. 21. p. 59. Constitutio sic habet: Adversarios Catholicae fidei Extirpare hujus Decreti authori∣tate prospeximus, &c. Et paulo post, Quare hac lege sancimus, ut quis∣quis fuerit rebaptizasse detectus, judici qui Provinciae praseidet offeratur, ut facultatum omnium publicatione mulctatus inopiae poenam, qua in perpetu∣um adficiatu••, expendat.
• † 1.104

  Grotius de Jure Belli, l. 2. c. 20. Sect. 48, 49. &c. Wil∣helmus Zep∣perus in Ex∣planat. Leg. Mosaic. lib. 4. cap. 3. de Pseudo-Pro∣phetis, Jos. Castim in Manuduct ad viam Pacis, pag. 25. us{que} ad p. 108, &c.