A DISCOURSE Concerning THE LAWS Ecclesiastical and Civil Made against HERETICKS BY POPES, EMPERORS and KINGS, Provincial and General Councils, Approved by The CHURCH of ROME: SHEWING, I. What Protestant Subjects may expect to suffer under a Popish Prince acting according to those Laws. II. That no Oath or Promise of such a Prince can give them any just Security that he will not execute these Laws upon them. With a PREFACE against Persecuting and Destroying Hereticks.

By a Cordial Friend to the Protestant Religion now by Law established in these Realms.

Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum, Lucret.

LONDON, Printed for Thomas Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet, 1682.

THE CONTENTS OF THE PREFACE.

  • THE Designs of this Treatise are, First, To demonstrate the Falshood of the Re­ligion of the Church of Rome from the Repugnancy of her deportment toward He­reticks: pag. 1.
  • §. I. 1. To Christ's own words to his Disciples, Ye know not what Spirit ye are of, &c. Luke 9. 54. which Text is largely handled, p. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
  • §. II. 2. To our Lord's Example, p. 7, 8.
  • §. III. 3. To the Example and Deportment of his Blessed Apostles, p. 9, &c.
  • §. IV. 4. To the Parable of the Tares, as it is interpreted by the H. Fathers, p. 15, &c.
  • §. VI. 5. To the Principles of the Primitive Professors of Christianity, p. 19, &c.
  • [Page]§. VII. 6. To the express Judgment of the H. Fathers, p. 26, &c.
  • §. VIII. 7. To the Practice of the Ancient Church, p. 35, &c.
  • §. IX. An Objection of the Dissenters an­swered, and our Church and Reverend Bishops freed from the Charge of Persecu­tion, p. 41, &c.
  • Three farther Uses of this Treatise.
  • §. X. 1. To justify the use of lawful means for the Prevention of these Mischiefs, p. 43.
  • §. XI. 2. To stir us up to a serious Reformati­on of our Lives, and to a Preparation pa­tiently to bear the Cross, should this inhu­mane Religion once more prevail amongst us; Rebellion against our Lawful Prince being unlawful, scandalous and damnable, p. 44, 45.
  • §. XII. 3. To prevent our being gull'd by fair Words, and specious Promises of Tolerati­on, p. 46.
  • A father Reply to the example of the Indul­gence of the French King towards the Hu­gonots, p. 47, &c.

THE PREFACE.

MY Design in publishing this little Treatise, and the Use which I desire all good Chri­stians to make of it, is,

First, To confirm them in the Protestant Religion, by such a sensible Demonstration of the Falshood of the Religion of the Church of Rome, as men of all Ca­pacities may apprehend. For if this barbarous De­portment towards Hereticks be evidently repugnant to the true Spirit of Christianity, if it be contrary to the Example of our Saviour, which we stand bound to imitate; if it be wholly opposite both to the Princi­ples and Practice of the primitive and purest Ages of the Church; I hope this will sufficiently convince Wise men, that the Religion which commands these Cruelties and Inhumanities cannot derive it self from him who is the God of Love, and Patience, and Mercy, and Pitty to the Sons of Men.

§. I. Now that to burn, destroy, extirminate all those who differ from us in Religion, and upon that account are called Hereticks, (though they be men of peaceable and quiet Lives) and prosecute them [Page 2] according to the Laws here mentioned purely on the account of Conscience, that this, I say, is evidently repugnant to the true Spirit of Christianity, we learn from Christ's own words to his Disciples, who, when a Village of Samaria refused to receive him, because he appeared to them to be going to Jerusalem, ask this Question, Luke 9. 54. Lord wilt thou that we command fire from Heaven to come down, and to consume them, as Eli­as did? For our dear Lord no sooner heard this Que­stion but he rebuked his Disciples, saying, Ver. 55, 56. Ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of, for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them. Where observe,

1. That whereas they who are thus persecuted by the Church of Rome, are falsly supposed to be Schis­maticks and Hereticks, the Samaritans undoubtedly were both. For, First, In opposition to the Temple of Jerusalem, which God himself appointed for the Place where he would be worshipped, commanding all men to repair to it, they erected a Temple upon Mount Gerizim, and there they worshipped, deserting the Temple of Jerusalem, this was their Schism. Se­condly, They also were Hereticks and Idolaters, for they err'd in matters which concerned Salvation, they feared the Lord, and served their own gods, 2 Kings 17. 33. And this our Saviour testifieth in these words, John 4. 22. Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we worship, for Salvation is of the Jews.

2. Observe, That whereas Romanists do exercise this Cruelty on them whom they call Schismaticks and Hereticks, chiefly for their refusing to receive and own him as Christ's Vicar who manifestly doth usurp that Title, these Samaritans refused to receive our Saviour himself in his own Person, and that because [Page 3] he seemed to be going to Jerusalem to worship, so that the Honor of God, and of Religion, and of Jerusalem, the Place of his peculiar Worship, were all concer­ned in this case.

3. Observe, That the Permission of what was here desired by Saint John and Peter, would have been more effectual for the Conviction of the Heretical, Schismatical Samaritans, than any of the Punish­ments inflicted by the Inquisition, or any Arts of Pa­pal Tyranny can be for the Conviction of those whom they call Hereticks and Schismaticks; for these Disci­ples did not desire that they themselves might exe­cute on the Samaritans this Sentence, by committing them to the Flames, or by imploring the Magistrates assistence to consume or burn them, they onely did request that they might call upon the God of Hea­ven to rain down fire upon them, and consume them; which had it pleased him to doe on this occasion, the rest of the Samaritans, by what this Village suffered, must have been evidently convinced by Demonstrati­on from Heaven, of God's displeasure against their way of Worship, and of the Truth of that Messiah and his Doctrine, who procured this Vengeance to be executed upon them; whereas the Persecutions of the Church, because they minister no Conviction to the Conscience, serve onely to harden Mens Hearts and imbitter their Spirits against those who use them, and to induce them more firmly to believe That such a barbarous Religion cannot be of God.

From these three Observations it is evident that whatsoever may be pleaded by the Church of Rome to justifie her Practice in burning, massacring, extirpa­ting of Hereticks and Schismaticks, might with ad­vantage have been pleaded here: ‘Doth she practise [Page 4] Dr. Tillotson's Sermon, Nov. 5. 1678. p. 15. her Severities out of a Zeal for Truth, and for the Honor of God and Christ, and of the true Religi­on, and for the reclaiming Hereticks and Schisma­ticks, and the preventing or terrifying others from adhering to them or being deluded by them;’ upon all these accounts you see that the Disciples had far greater cause to call for fire from heaven upon this Village of Samaria. And yet our Saviour, under these Circumstances, thinks fit to rebuke even the desires of doing this to one small Village; How then will he rebuke the actual performance of it to many hundred thousand Souls, after his solemn Declaration of the Re­pugnancie of these Proceedings to the Design of his most blessed Advent, and to the Spirit of his Gospel? For the true Reasons why Christ rebuked his Disci­ples for their Desire of dealing thus severely with these Schismatical and Heretical Samaritans were these.

1. Because this Spirit of Severity towards erroni­ous persons, in whomsoever it is found, is highly opposite to the calm Temper of Christianity, as is in­sinuated in that Reply of Christ to his Disciples, Ye know not what spirit ye are of, that is, Ye do not well consider under what Way of Dispensation ye are placed by me. Ibid. p. 7.The Way I come to teach men, the Temper, Disposition and Affection I would fix within them, is not a furious, persecuting and de­structive Spirit, but mild, and gentle, and tender of the Lives and Interests of Men, even of those who are our greatest Enemies. Vide Dr. Ham­mond in locum.Under the Old Testament, indeed, they who rejected and scoffed at a Prophet, suffered severely for it, the Prophet had Commission to call for fire from heaven to devour them presently, curse them in the name of the Lord, 2 Kings 2. 24. But [Page 5] they who reject and crucifie Christ are by him pray'd for, and are, by his Command, to be still preached to, and, if possible, brought to Repentance, and ac­cording to this Example, so are all Christians to con­form themselves, acting towards Contemners of their Persons, or Rejectors of their Doctrine, not accor­ding to the legal, but the evangelical Dispensation; not according to the Severity of Elias, but the Meek­ness and Gentleness of Christ. And therefore your Desire of proceeding according to the extraordina­ry Spirit of Elias, under the gospel Dispensation, is intolerable; for that designs universal Love, Peace and Good-will even to Enemies, it doth engage us to shew all meekness to all men, Tit. 3. 1. and so no Difference of Religion, no Pretence of Zeal for God, can justifie this fierce, vindictive and exterminating Spirit.

Our Saviour's second Reason against this Procee­ding is, That it was repugnant to the End for which he came into the World, which was, not to destroy mens lives, but to save them: Dr. Tillot. ibid. p. 8. ‘He came to discoun­tenance all Fierceness, and Rage, and Cruelty in men one towards another, to restrain and subdue that furious and unpeaceable Spirit which is so troublesome to the World, and the cause of so ma­ny Mischiefs and Disorders in it, to beget a peace­able Disposition in men of the most distant Tem­pers, making the Lamb and Wolf lie down together,’ and no more to destroy and hurt each other, Esa. 11. 6, 9. but turn their swords into plowshares, Es. 2. 4. and their spears into pru­ning-hooks; Mich. 4. 3. engaging them to lay aside all bitterness and wrath, anger and clamor, and evil-speaking, with all malice. Eph. 4. 31. ‘He came to introduce that excellent Religion which consuits not onely the eternal Sal­vation of mens Souls, but their temporal Peace and [Page 6]Security, their Comfort and Happiness in this World:’ Whose Fruits are righteousness and peace, Rom. 14. 18. love, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness and meekness, Gal. 5. 22, 23. whose wise­dom is pure and peaceable, gentle, and easie to be in­treated, full of mercy and good works, Jam. 3. 17. and which commands the wise and knowing man to shew forth out of a good conversation his works with meek­ness of wisedom, ver. 13. condemning all his bitter zeal as earthly, sensual and devilish, ver. 14, 15. which suffers not the Servant of the Lord to be engaged in foolish questions which beget strife, because that the Disciple of this mild and gentle Saviour must not fight, but must be gentle towards all men, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves against the truth, though their doctrine spread as a gangreen, and over­throw the faith of some, 2 Tim. 2. 24, 25, - 17, 18. not dispatching them out of the way, as is the man­ner of the Romanist, but with Longsuffering expec­ting if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth: Which teacheth us to bear the infirmities of persons weak in Faith, Rom. c. 15. v. 1. to restore them in the spirit of meekness, Gal. 6. 1. to become as weak to the weak, that we may gain the weak, 1 Cor. 9. 22. to bear with the weak, and be long suffering to all men, 1 Thess. 5. 14. to speak evil of no man, to be no fighters, but meek, shewing all gentleness towards all men, and that upon this sole account, that we our selves were sometimes foolish and deceived, Tit. 3. 2, 3.

Now both these Reasons are such as equally con­cern all Persons, Magistrates as well as Ministers, men who thus persecute out of mis-guided Zeal to­wards God, as well as they who doe it out of Envy, [Page 7] Hatred, and such carnal Principles. And they seem plainly to infer, that no man should be persecuted, as in the Church of Rome men are, purely for his mis­take concerning, or his denial of any Article of Faith revealed by the Gospel, but onely for seditious and treasonable Doctrines, or for such Crimes as, had the Gospel never been revealed, might justly have been punished by the civil Magistrate, or for seducing o­thers from the Truth, when by the Magistrate they are forbidden so to doe, or propagating and divulging their pernicious Errors to the Disturbance of the ci­vil Peace.

§. II. 2. Against this barbarous Deportment to­wards our fellow Christians it may be farther argued from the Example of our Saviour and the Deportment of his Blessed Apostles. For,

1. Our Saviour's Miracles were not destructive to Mankind, but beneficial to them, whereas he could, and, had he been of the same Judgment with the Church of Rome, he should have exercised his Power to the Destruction of those false Prophets who deceived ma­ny, Matt. 24. 11. and of those Scribes and Pharisees who did so vigorously oppose the Propagation of the Gospel, and who ascribed his Power of working Miracles to Beelzebub, Matth. 12. 24. and by so doing became guil­ty of the impardonable Sin. v. 32. For what can be preten­ded for the Exercise of this Severity at present, which might not with advantage have been then pretended? What can be said for doing this by humane Power, which might not have been said more plausibly for doing it by divine Power? Will you say the Scribes and Pharisees did ignorantly oppose the Gospel, and therefore by our Lord's Example are to be forgiven, [Page 8] that they were objects of God's mercy, because they did it ignorantly in unbelief, 1 Tim. 1. 13. as well as Paul? No doubt their Ignorance was as gross as that which they can reasonably object to us whom they call Hereticks, and therefore the Example of our Saviour's Prayer, Father forgive them, they know not what they doe, and of God's Mercy to Saint Paul, more strong­ly plead for Mercy towards them, whom without Mercy they destroy. Were not those blind Guides, who led their Followers into the pit, Matth. 15. 14. who made their Proselytes ten times more the children of Satan than themselves, who neither would enter into the Kingdom of God, nor suffer other men to enter, Matth. 23. 13, 15. as fit objects of our Lord's Displeasure, as was Huss, and Jerome of Prague, Archbishop Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, of the dis­pleasure of the Church of Rome? Was not the Executi­on of Death from Heaven upon these violent Oppo­sers of the Truth as likely to convert the Jew or ter­rifie the Enemies of the Gospel, as is the burning, mas­sacring, tormenting of the Hereticks, to fright them from their Heresies? Might not our Lord as well have called for his twelve legions of Angels to destroy the Scribes and Pharisees, as his pretended Vicar gathers his Crusado's to destroy the Hereticks? And might he not more plausibly have pleaded Zeal for God and for Religion in his Case, than doth the Church of Rome in hers? But, notwithstanding all these Provocations and specious Pretensions, our Lord, Dr. Tillotson, ibid. p. 13. ‘intending that his Religion should be propagated in humane ways, and that men should be drawn to the Pro­fession of it by the Bands of Love, and the Cords of a Man, by the gentle and peaceable Methods of Reason and Persuasion, gave no example of a fu­rious Zeal and religious Rage against those who de­spised [Page 9]his Doctrine. It seemed good to the Author of this Institution to compell no man to it by tem­poral Punishments, when he went about making Proselytes he offered violence to no man, onely said, if any man will be my disciple, if any man will come after me. And when his disciples were leaving him, he does not set up an Inquisition to torture and punish them for their Defection from the Faith, onely says, Will ye also go away?’ John 6. 67.

§. III. But to proceed to the Example and De­portment of those Apostles by whom the Gospel was first propagated, let us consider,

1. That in their daies the Hereticks were as perni­cious, the false Prophets and Deceivers as dangerous, and so as fit to be cut off, as were the Hereticks, who have, and do thus suffer in the Church of Rome. Our Saviour did foretell that Matt. 24. 11, 24. they would deceive ma­ny, and, if it were possible, even the elect. St. Paul, Act. 20. 29, 30. That grievous Wolves should enter into the Church, not sparing the flock; That men should speak perverse things, to draw away disciples after them; 1 Tim. 4. 1. That in the latter times some should depart from the Faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits and doctrines of Demons, speaking lyes in Hypocrisie, &c. St. Peter, 2 Pet. 2. 1, 2. That there should be false Prophets among them who should bring in dam­nable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, by reason of whom the way of truth should be evil spo­ken of: They declared concerning these Deceivers, Rom. 16. 18. That by good words and fair speeches they deceived the hearts of the simple; Gal. 3. 1.That they bewitched them, that they should not obey the truth; 5. 2, 4.That they made them fall from grace, and rendred Christ unprofitable to them; 2 Tim. 2. 17, 18.That their Doctrine did spread as a Gangreen, [Page 10]and overthrow the Faith of some; Tit. 1. 11.That they subverted whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, particularly, Rev. 2. 20.that Jezabel, calling her self a Prophetess, did pervert Christ's servants, and teach them to com­mit whoredom, and eat things offered to Idols; That by means of these false Teachers, and Corrupters of the Truth, some had already swerved from the Faith, turning aside to vain janglings, 1 Tim. 1. 19. some had made ship­wreck of the Faith, and that they were in doubt of others; 2 Cor. 11. 2, 3. that they were jealous over them with a godly jealousie, and feared lest as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. So that you see, they had great reason to doe themselves, and to ad­vise the Rulers of the Church, civil and sacred, in future Generations, to doe all that was proper and fitting to be done by Christians for the rooting up of these tares, and the delivering the Flock of Christ from their pernicious Delusions.

2. Consider that the Disciples of our Lord could have confounded all these Hereticks, false Prophets and Deceivers, and by a word have sentenced them to death, as Peter in the case of Ananias and Saphira did, had they conceived this method of proceeding sutable to the Mind of God, the Rules of their Pro­fession, and tending to the Edification of the Church. For they were furnished with a Power of working Miracles, the 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5, 6. weapons of their warfare were not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds, and casting down every thing that exalted it self against the knowledge of Christ, and to revenge all dis­obedience against him: they had a Power given them by Christ, 2 Cor. 13. 10. [...], to use severity, provided that it were for edification, and not for destruction, [Page 11] 1 Cor. 5. 13. [...], to take away, or, to cut off the wicked person from among them by the Spiritual Sword; The Kingdom of God preached by them was not in word onely, but in power, they had 1 Cor. 4. 21. a Rod for the Chastisement of those refractory persons on whom the Spirit of Meekness could not prevail, and they could Chap. 5. 5. give men up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh; but yet we never find that they did use their Power to inflict Death upon the Heretick or the Deceiver, or that the Power of the Lord, which did attend upon their Censures, ever did thus operate. But on the contrary, the Fa­thers note that the [...]. Oecum. in 1 Cor. 5. 5. p. 408. Gr. Theodoret. in locum. [...]. Chrysost in locum. Apostle set­teth bounds to the chastisement of the Devil, permitting him to af­flict the body of the wicked person, or the Heretick, with a disease, or boil, but not to take away his life, as in the case of Job.

3. Consider, that these Apostles, knowing by the Spirit, that the Christian Faith would certainly pre­vail, and after a few Centuries would have the Favor and the Protection of the Civil Magistrate, could, had they thought it meet, have left, in those most Sacred Books which they composed to be a Rule of Faith and Manners to all future Ages, some Directi­ons to the Civil Magistrate for dealing with the He­retick agreeable to the Decrees of Roman Councils; for it is not to be supposed that they either wanted Zeal for that Religion which they promoted with the loss of Life, and all things in this World de­sireable, to prompt them so to doe, or that they wanted Wisedom to know what was the best and truest method of promoting or of preserving that [Page 12] Religion which they had preach'd throughout the World.

4. Consider that the Apostles shewed their Care and Zeal for preservation of the Church from the per­nicious Doctrines and Delusions of these false Tea­chers, by all other ways which they judged proper for this End. For,

1. We find in their Epistles frequent Exhortations to the Christian to 1 Cor. 16. 13. stand fast in the Faith, to Hebr. 10. 23. hold fast the Profession of the Faith without wa­vering, to 2 Tim. 1. 13. hold fast the form of sound words, to Tit. 1. 9. hold fast the faithfull word as they had been taught, against all Opposers, to 1 Pet. 5. 9. be stedfast in the Faith, to Jud. 3, 20, 4. contend earnestly for the Faith, and to build up our selves in our most holy Faith, and that because of certain men crept in among them who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness; to Act. 14. 22. continue in the Faith, and in John 8. 3. the Word of Christ, and 2 Tim. 3. 14. in the things which they had learnt.

2. They gave all Christians notice of these False Teachers and Deceivers that they might avoid them, and beware of their Delusions. Beware of false Pro­phets saith our Saviour, by their works you shall know them, Matth. 7. 15. See to it, saith he, I have told you of them, Mark 13. 23. Mark them, and avoid them, saith Saint Paul, who cause divisions and offences, con­trary to the doctrine which you have received, Rom. c. 16. v. 17. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision, saith the same Apostle, Phil. 3. 1. turn away from them, 2 Tim. 3. 5. beware lest, being led away by the error of the wicked, you fall from your own stedfastness, saith Peter, 2 Pet. 3. 17.

3. They frequently exhort the Rulers of the Church to take heed to their Flocks, and to be watchfull to pre­serve [Page 13]them from these Wolves, Act. 20. 28, 31. to stop their mouths, and to rebuke them sharply, Tit. 1. 11, 13. to reject, and to turn from them, 2 Tim. 3. 5. Tit. 3. v. 10. And our Lord, Christ himself, rebukes the Church of Thyatira, for suffering Jezabel to seduce his Servants.

4. They sometimes did deliver up to Satan those who made shipwreck of the Faith, and who had over­thrown the Faith of some, as in the case of Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1. 19, 20. they declare that they were ready to revenge the disobedience of the Sedu­cers of the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 10. 6. they wish­ed them cut off who troubled the Church, as in the case of the Galathians, Gal. 5. 12. And that God would reward them according to their works, as in the case of Alexander, 2 Tim. 4. 14. And yet, though in another Instance, and for another Crime, they once inflicted Death upon two Members of the Church, yet did they never doe it in the case of Heresie, but on the contrary, they declared their Power was given not for Destruction, but Edification. 2 Cor. 13. 10.

5. Consider that their miraculous proceedings a­gainst Hereticks, had they thought fit to act after the manner of the Church of Rome, must have been more convincing to the remaining Hereticks, and more ef­fectual to preserve others from the infection of their Heresie, and for all other pious ends, than humane Punishments can be supposed to be, they being De­monstrations from Heaven of the Falshood of the Doctrine of the Heretick, and the Displeasure of the Lord against it, they being done, [...], by the power of the Lord, confirming the Sentence of these Church Governors, must be a Confirmation of the Justice of that Sentence. Whereas the Procee­dings [Page 14] of the Church of Rome can have no such effects, but rather tend to harden persons in their supposed Heresie, and shew that they of Rome distrust the me­rits of that Cause which cannot be maintained by any other Arguments but Fire and Faggot, Swords and Inquisitions. That therefore the Apostles decli­ned this method of proceeding, that they gave no Instructions to future Ages to deal with Hereticks in such a bloudy manner, is a convincing Demonstrati­on, that they conceived such Actions were repugnant to Christianity, and to that Doctrine which they preach'd. And truly, Dr. Tillotson, p. 11. ‘if Christianity can be contra­dicted, it is most palpably and grosly done by those men, who, instead of shewing all meekness towards all men, though foolish and deceived, do by inhu­mane Cruelties and Persecutions, by barbarous In­quisitions, bloudy Massacres, endeavor to extir­pate all that differ from them; who, instead of in­structing in meekness those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the ac­knowledgment of the truth, convert them with Fire and Faggot, and render it impossible for them to repent; who, instead of chastising the Flesh, that the Soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Je­sus, and laboring to recover them out of the snare of Satan, give them up quick into his hands’, their Bishops being not ashamed to say at the Condemna­tion of an Heretick, Jam committimus Animam tuam Diabolo, We commit thy Soul to the Devil.

§. IV. Besides these, other Reasons have been used by our Divines against this kind of Persecution, and putting Hereticks to death, which, though they seem not to me so convincing as the former Arguments, [Page 15] yet were they used by the Ancient Fathers to that very purpose for which they were produced by our Writers, and so deserve to be insisted on, at least to shew the full agreement of the Ancient Fathers with us in this Point. And,

Matt. 13. 29, 30. Dr. Taylor's Li­berty of Prophesie, Chap. 13.1. They plead our Lord's Command, who saith to his Servants, Gather not the Tares by themselves, but let them both grow together till the harvest; Where the Enquiry will be, First, What is meant by Tares, or, The children of the Wicked one; Whether Persons wicked onely in Re practica, or vitious in their Lives, or men criminal or faulty in Re intel­lectuali, perverse in Judgment, and reprobate con­cerning the Faith, for one or other of these two must be meant, but the former cannot be meant, because it would destroy all Bodies politick, which cannot consist without Laws, nor Laws without Compulsion and the Power of the Sword; so that if Criminals were to be let alone till the day of Judgment, Bodies politick must stand or fall at the pleasure of Wicked men, and nothing Good could be protected, not Innocence it self; nothing could be secure but Violence and Tyranny; it follows then that the Persons whom Christians are forbid­den here to root out of the field, must be men faulty in another kind, in which the Gospel had not in other places clearly established a compulsory Pow­er of this Nature: since therefore in actions prac­tically criminal, a Power of the Sword is permit­ted here, where it is denyed, the Crime must be not in things practically criminal, but intellectual, that is, in Matters properly heretical. And this In­terpretation is confirmed by the Reason of the Prohibition, which is this, lest we also pull up the [Page 16] Wheat with them, that is, ‘lest we by our mistake de­stroy those Persons, who, notwithstanding their Ig­norance or Error in some unnecessary Points of Faith, may be good men; we being not so able to discern whether they erre through obstinacy or per­versness, or onely through ignorance or weakness, as we are to discern the outward actions of the vi­tious Person, which deserve to be punished. Se­condly, For Explication of this Precept, it will be necessary to enquire, what it is to gather up these Tares;’ now Christ himself informs us, that it is the same to gather up, and to root the Tares out of the field, in which the Enemy had sown them, that field is, saith our Saviour, the world, and therefore to root these Tares out of this field, is to destroy them out of the World. ‘The Prohibition therefore lies against the use of the temporal Sword in cutting off these Persons.’ According­ly Saint Chrysostom concludes, [...], &c. To. 2. pag. 297. that Hereticks are not to be cut off. Theophylact upon the place declares, [...]. Theophyl. in locum. that God permits not Hereticks to be consumed by Wars, lest the Just should perish with them. The Observation of St. Austin on the place is this, Dicam, inquit, Messoribus, unde intelligitur colligendorum zizaniorum ad comburendum alia esse ministeria, nec quenquam Ecclesiae filium, N. B. debere arbitrari ad se hoc officium per­tinere.—potest ei suboriri voluntas, ut tales homines de rebus humanis auferat, si aliquam temporis habeat facultatem, sed utrum facere debeat, justiciam Dei consulit, utrum hoc ei praecipiat vel permittat, & hoc officium esse ho­minum velit, hinc est quod Servi dicunt, Vis imus & colligimus ea? quibus Veritas ipsa re­spondet—non esse tales auferendos de hac vita nè cum malos conatur interficere, bonos interfici­at, quod fortè futuri sunt,—sed tunc oppor­tunè fieri cum jam in fine non restat vel tempus commutandae vitae, vel perficiendi ad verita­tem, &c. an fortè ideo simul eradicatur triti­cum cum auferuntur zizania, quia multi primo zizania sunt, & postea triticum fiunt, qui nisi patientèr, cum mali sunt, tolerentur ad laudabi­lem permutationem non perveniant, itaque si evulsi fuerint, simul eradicabitur & triticum, quod futuri essent, si eis parceretur. August. Quaest. ex Matth. lib. un. cap. 12. To. 4. p. 366, 367. that our Lord, speaking to his Servants, saith not, in the time of the harvest I will say to you; but I will say to the Reapers, whence, saith he, we may learn that the work of gathering the Tares to burn, belongs to other Ministers, [Page 17]and that no Son of the Church ought to conceive that Office doth belong to him. When the Servant sees so many Fal­sities of Heresies, he may have a desire, saith he, that such men should be taken out of the World, but then he con­sults the Justice of God, whe­ther he commands, or per­mits, or would have this to be the Duty of men. Hence the Servants say, Wilt thou that we gather up the Tares? To whom he, who is Truth it self answers, That such men are not to be taken out of the World, lest whilest men endeavor to kill the bad, they also kill the good, or such as perhaps would be such. But this will commodiously be done when, at the end of the World, there remains no more time for Change of Life: And perhaps, saith he, therefore the Wheat is rooted up with them when the Tares are taken away, because many are first Tares, and afterwards Wheat, who, unless they are patiently born with when they are bad, come not to a laudable change; and therefore, if they be plucked up, the Wheat will be plucked up with them, because they would have been such had they been spared. Eu­thymius, on the place saith, ‘that by the Harvest our Lord understands the end of the World, and therefore commands his Servants that they should suffer the Hereticks to live with them, non ablatos quidem, sed separatos, though separated from them, it being likely that before that time many of them may be converted.’

[Page 18]2. It is urged by our Divines that ‘when our Sa­viour went about to make Proselytes, he offerd vi­olence to no man, onely he said, if any man will be my Disciple, if any man will come to me; and that when his Disciples were leaving him he did not set up an Inquisition to torture them for their de­fection from the Faith, onely said, Will ye also go away?’ And the same Argument is twice produced by Saint Athanasius against the persecuting Arians, [...]. Athan. Epist. ad solit. vitam agentes, p. 830, 831. And p. 855. [...]; The Devil, saith he, because he hath no truth in him, invades the dores of them who receive him with an ax and hatchet, our Saviour on the contrary is mild, and saith, If any man will follow me, and be my Disciple; and when he comes to any one, he doth not offer violence, but one­ly knocks, and saith, Open, my Sister, my Spouse. And if they open, he enters, if not, he de­parts, for Truth is not to be preached with the Sword and mi­litary preparation, but by counsel and persuasion. And again, Our Lord himself not offering violence, but gi­ving place to humane choice, said to all, If any man will come after me; and to his Disciples, Will ye also go away? This Heresie therefore, which is perfectly re­pugnant to Piety, What should it doe, but that which is contrary to our Saviour?

§. V. The Reasons against this Deportment to­wards Hereticks are also very cogent, but they are [Page 19] so incomparably managed by Dr. Taylor, in his im­mortal Book styled The Liberty of Prophesying, that 'tis not easie to add any thing of moment to them. I therefore onely shall take notice of one passage in him, viz. §. 13. Numb. 12. ‘That it is one of the Glorys of Christia­nity, that it came in upon the World with no other Force but that of Reason and Demonstration of the Spirit; that towards the Persons of men 'twas alwaies full of Meekness, Charity, Compliance, Toleration, Condescension and Forbearance, re­storing persons overtaken with an Error in the Spi­rit of Meekness: Now things are best preserved by that which gives them their first Being, and which agrees best with their Temper and Constitution, and it would be a mighty Disparagement to so glo­rious an Institution, that in its Principle it should be mercifull and humane, and in the Propagation of it so inhumane, and it would be improbable and unreasonable, that the Sword should be used in the persuasion of one Proposition, and yet in the persuasion of the whole nothing like it: To doe so may serve the end of a temporal Prince, but never promote the Honour of Christ's Kingdom.’

§. VI. Moreover, This bloudy, persecuting Tem­per, as it is contrary to Scripture, so also doth it flat­tly contradict the Principles and Practice of the Anci­ent Church, and of the Primitive Professors of the Christian Faith; it is repugnant to many Principles which then obtained amongst Christians. For in­stance;

1. It was a Principle which generally obtained a­mong Christians till the days of Constantine, and af­terwards continued to be maintained by many Fa­thers [Page 20] of the Church, viz. ‘That men were to be left to their Freedom in Matters of Religion, and not to be compell'd by outward Punishments to the Profession of it.’ Humani juris, & naturalis potestatis est, unicuique quod putaverit colere,—sed nec Religionis est cogere Religionem, quae spontè suscipi debeat, non vi. Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2. Videte, nè hoc ad irreligiositatis elogium concur­rat, adimere libertatem Religionis, & inter di­cere optionem Divinitatis, ut non liceat mihi co­lere quem velim, sed cogar colere quem nolim. Apol. cap. 24. ‘This, saith Tertullian, is the natural Right of all men, to worship what they think fit. It is no business of Religion to com­pell men to Religion; for that, saith he, must be embra­ced willingly, and not of Force. Consider, saith the same Tertullian, whe­ther this do not add to your Irreligion, to forbid the Freedom of Religion, and interdict the choice of a Deity, that I may not worship whom I will, but must be compell'd to worship whom I would not.’

Quis imponat mihi necessitatem vel co­lendi quod nolim, vel quod velim non colendi? Quid jam nobis ulterius relinquitur, si etiam hoc, quod voluntate fieri oportet, libido extor­queat aliena? Lactant. l. 4. cap. 13. &c. 19. Non est opus vi & injuria; quia Religio cogi non potest, verbis potius quàm verberibus res agenda est, ut sit voluntas—Quid ergo saevi­unt? ut stultitiam suam dum minuere volunt, augeant? Longè diversa sunt carnificina & pietas, nec potest aut veritas cum vi, aut justi­tia cum crudelitate conjungi. Nihil est enim tam voluntarium quam Religio, in qua si ani­mus Sacrificantis aversus est, jam sublata, jam nulla est. ‘Who may impose up­on me, saith Lactantius, a ne­cessity either of worshipping what I would not, or of not worshipping what I would? What have we farther left, if another Lust may extort from us that which ought to be done freely? There is here no need of Force or In­jury, saith he, for Religion cannot be compell'd, you must use Words, not Stripes to make men willing. Why therefore are men cru­el? that whilst they do endeavor to diminish, they may augment their Folly? Torments and Piety extreamly differ, nor can Religion consist with [Page 21]Force, or Justice be conjoin'd with Cruelty. For nothing is so voluntary as Religion, in which, if the mind of the Sacrificer be averse, the Religion is lost, and is none at all.’

‘The Epistles of the Arians, saith Hilary,’ Quid aliud his literis quàm libertatem fidei, & contagionem Ariani nominis deprecan­tur, orántque vincula, carceres, tribunalia, &c. Deus cognitionem sui docuit, potiùs quàm exegit, & operationum exlestium admiratione praeceptis suis concilians auctoritatem, coactam consitendi se aspernatus est voluntatem, si ad fidem ve­ram istiusmodi vis adhiberetur, Episcopalis doctrina obviam pergeret, dicerétque, Deus uni­versitatis est, obsequio non eget necessario, non requirit coactam confessionem, non fallendus est, sed promerendus, simplicitate quaerendus est, confessione discendus est, charitate amandus est, timore venerandus est, voluntatis probita­te retinendus est: at verò quid istud quod Sa­cerdotes timere Deum vinculis coguntur, poenis jubentur? Sacerdotes carceribus continentur, &c. Hilar. lib. ad Constantium Augustum, pag. 338, 339, 340. Ideirco laboratis & salutaribus consiliis Rem­publicam regitis,—ut omnes quibus imperatis duleissimâ libertate potiantur. Non aliâ ratione quae turbata sunt componi, quae divulsa sunt co­erceri possunt,—permittat lenitas tua populis ut quos voluerint, quos putaverint, quos elege­rint, audiant docentes. Pag. 338. ‘what do they doe, but deprecate the liberty of Faith, and beg for Bonds, and Prisons, and Tri­bunals, and all that is pernici­ous; whereas God rather taught, than exacted the Knowledge of himself, and ascertaining the Authority of his Commands by Works of Power, despised all com­pell'd confession of himself. If such Force should be used to compel your Faith, (saith he to the Arians) the Epi­scopal Doctrine would op­pose it, and would say, God is the God of the whole World, he needs no com­pell'd obedience, nor requires any such confession of him; he is not to be deceived, but well-plea­sed. God is to be sought with Simplicity, learnt by Confession, loved by Charity, worshipp'd by Fear, retained by Probity of Will; whence is it (therefore) that Priests are compell'd by Bands, and commanded by Punishments to fear God? that they are imprisoned, &c. Therefore do ye labor and rule the Commonwealth with salutary Coun­cils, saith he to the Emperor, that all under your [Page 22]Government may enjoy the sweetest Liberty, there is no other way to compose our Troubles; let (then) thy Lenity permit the People to hear them teaching whom they would hear, whom they think meet, whom they chuse.’

2. They also thought it an indecent and unworthy thing to call in the Secular Arm for the assistence of Religion, and for the Punishment of Errors in Reli­gion, or Assronts offered by them to the Deity. Saint Hilary, in his Book against Auxentius of Milan, repre­sents them who did this, not as the Bishops of Christ, but the Servants of Antichrist. ‘And’ Ac primum misereri licet nostrae aetatis laborem, & praesentium temporum stultas opinio­nes congeiniscere, quibus patrocinari Deo huma­na creduntur, & ad tuendam Christi Ecclesiam ambitione seculari laboratur. Oro vos, Episco­pi, qui hoc vos esse creditis, quibusnam suffragi­is ad praedicandum Evangelium Apostoli usi sunt? quibus adjuti Potestatibus Christum prae­dicaverunt, gentésque ferè omnes ex Idolis ad Deum transtulerunt? Anne aliquam sibi as­su [...]ebant è Palatio dignitatem, hymnum Deo in carcere, inter catenas & flagella cantantes? E­dictisque Regis Paulus Christo Ecclesiam congre­gabat? Nerone se, credo, aut Vespasiano, pa­trocinantibus, tuebatur, quorum in nos odiis con­fessio divinae praedicationis effloruit? At nunc, proh dolor! divinam fidem suffragia terrena commendant, inopsque virtutis suae Christus, dum ambitio nomini suo conciliatur, arguitur. Terret exiliis & carceribus Ecclesia, credique sibi co­git, quae exiliis & carceribus credita est, pendet à dignatione Communicantium, quae persequenti­um est consecrata terrore, fugat Sacerdotes, quae sugatis est Sacerdotibus propagata, diligi sese gloriatur à mundo, quae Christi esse non potu­it, nisi eam mundus odisset. Idem Epist. ad Auxentium, p. 347. first, saith he, we ought to pity the Labor of our Age, and groan at the fond Opinions of the present Times, in which men think to defend God by men, and labor to preserve the Church of Christ by Secular Ambition. I beseech you Bishops, who conceive your selves to be so, What Suffrages did the Apo­stles use in Preaching of the Gospel? and by what Powers were they assisted when, Preaching Christ, they con­verted the heathen World from Idols to God? Did they assume to themselves any Au­thority from the Palace, when they sang Hymns to God in Prison? Did Paul gather a Church to Christ by the King's Edict, who was himself a Spectacle in the [Page 23]Theatre? Did he defend himself by the Protection of Nero, or Vespasian, by whose Hatred against us the Preaching of our Faith then flourished? But now, which is to be lamented, earthly Suffrages commend divine Faith, and Christ is represented as destitute of his Power, whilst the Favor of men is purchased in his Cause. The Church terrifies by Ex­iles and Prisons; she compells Belief, which was believed in Exiles and Prisons; she which was consecrated by the Terror of Persecutors, depends upon the Favor of them who communicate with her; she puts to flight Priests, which was propaga­ted by Priests put to flight; she glories that she is beloved by the World, which could not be the Church of Christ, if the World did not hate her.

The Plea of Heathens for their Cruelty against the Christians was to this effect, That they did punish Christians, to revenge the injuries done by their Faith and Doctrines to their Gods. This, say the Ancient Fathers, is a ridiculous and absurd method of procee­ding, and you ought rather to leave the Sacrilegious and Impious Transgressors of their Laws to the Ven­geance of your gods. For, Si quid diis tuis numinis & potestatis est, ipsi in ultionem suam surgant, ipsi se sua majestate defendant; aut quid praestare colenti­bus possunt, qui se de non colentibus vindicare non possunt? Cyprian. ad Demetr. §. 12. ‘if your deities have any power, saith St. Cyprian, let them rise up, and vindicate themselves, and by their Ma­jesty defend themselves; for what can they doe for those that worship them, who cannot vindicate themselves from those who do not worship them?’ Ergo humana patrocinia dii quaerunt? & nisi vestra fuerint assertione protecti, idone [...] non sunt ipsi qui propulsare, defendere suas va­leant contumelias. Arnob. l. 1. p. 11. ‘Is it so, saith Arnobius, that the gods desire the Pro­tection of men? Are they not able without your asserting [Page 24]of their Cause to defend themselves, and to repell the Calumnies of us Christians?’ Cùm puniunt deprehensos in Sacrilegio, ipsi de deorum suorum potestate diffidunt, cur enim illis non relinquunt ulciscendi sui locum, si eos posse aliquid arbitrantur? Lact. lib. 2. cap. 4. ‘When the Heathens punish the Sacrilegi­ous, saith Lactantius, they distrust the power of their gods, for if they think they can doe any thing, why do they not leave them to execute their own Venge­ance on such persons?’

3. Another Principle, though not so generally embraced, yet taught by many Eminent Assertors of the Christian Faith, was fundamentally repugnant to this cruel Butchery, viz. That their Religion did not permit them to kill, or, even to behold the shedding humane bloud. It was objected to them by the Hea­thens, that in their Meetings they murthered little Children, and did feast upon their Flesh and Bloud. This, say the Fathers, is a thing impossible, because the Christian Faith doth not allow of Murther, or Shedding humane Bloud. Nobis Homicidium nec videre fas, nec audire. Minuc. p. 34. ‘We are so far from Killing men, saith Minucius, that 'tis not lawfull for us to behold Man­slaughter.’ [...]. Athenag. Legat. p. 38. Can any man, saith Athenagoras, object to them that they kill men, who, as they know, dare not see a person justly slain? ‘It is in no case lawfull to destroy men, saith’ Ergo si Homicidium facere nullo modo licet, nec interesse omnino conceditur, nè Consci­entiam persundat ullus cruor. Lact. l. 6. c. 20. In hoc Dei praecepto nullam prorsus exceptionem fieri oportet, quin occidere hominem sit semper nefas, quem Deus sanctum animal esse voluit, Ibid. Neque accusare quenquam crimine capi­tali justo licebit, quia nihil distat utrúmne fer­ro, an verbo potiùs, occisio ipsa prohibetur. Ibid. Lactantius, or to be pre­sent where they suffer, lest the Bloud stain the Consci­ence; there is no exception from this Precept, for it is [Page 25]alwaies a Wickedness to kill that man whom God hath made Sacred. A Just man therefore will ac­cuse no man of a Capital Crime, it being all one to kill men with our Words or with our Swords: The Servant of the Lord, saith Fidelis neque judicet de capite alicujus, vel pudore, neque damnet, neque praedamnet; neminem vinciat, neminem recludat aut torque­at. Tertal. de Idololat. cap. 17, & 19. Et praelio operabitur filius pacis, cui nec litigare conveniet? Et vincula, & carcerem, & tor­menta, & supplicia administrabit, nec suarum ultor injuriarum? De Coron. cap. 11. Tertullian, may not judge in Capital Causes, he may not condemn as a Judge or a Law-maker; he may bind, imprison, torture no man. Will he, who doth not revenge his own Injuries, inflict on others Bonds, Prisons, Torments, Punishments? If Christian Re­ligion, saith [...]. Orig. contra Celsum. l. 3. p. 115. Origen, had received its Rise from Sedition, as Celsus saith, surely their Le­gislator would not have forbid them to kill men, teaching, that action was unjust which his Disci­ples did attempt upon the most wic­ked person, Mat. 26. 52. for he con­ceived it unbecoming his Divine Laws, any way to yield to the Death of a man, nor would the Christians, had they had their beginning from Sediti­on, admitted such mild Laws as give them up to be slain like Sheep, and will not suffer them to help them­selves against their Persecutors, or to repell Injuries.

Let then our Adversaries judge whether these Principles can be consistent with the Doctrines of their general Councils, and with their Practice of burning and destroying all whom they call Hereticks, and binding Christian Magistrates to doe so? Whe­ther these Fathers do not expresly teach, that their [Page 26] Proceedings against Hereticks are irreligious, incon­sistent with Religion and Justice, opposite to the Episco­pal Doctrine, ridiculous, absurd, and matters of just Lamentation? Whether they do not say, that their Severity in this kind is a Conviction of their Folly, and that they, by promoting it, do act not like Christ's Bishops, but the Servants of Antichrist? Whether they who thought that men were to be left to their freedom in matters of Religion, and not to be compell'd by cor­poral Punishments to the Profession of it, would have approved of the compulsory Decrees of Roman Coun­cils? Whether they, who thought it unworthy of the Christian to call the Secular Arm to their assi­stence, were of their Religion, who by Oaths and Excommunications, and other grievous Penalties, oblige the Magistrate to persecute? Whether they, who thought it utterly unlawfull to shed humane Bloud, believed that Christianity allowed the murthe­ring of Hereticks, or could approve those Sanguinary Laws which they have executed throughout all Re­gions of the World, where their Religion hath pre­vailed, destroying many hundred thousand Souls onely for keeping a Good Conscience?

§, VII. Moreover this method of Exterminating Hereticks is condemn'd expresly by the Holy Fathers, and represented as a Practice fit onely for the Hea­then and the Heretick, but most unworthy of any Orthodox Professor of Christianity. We may hate them that hate God, saith the [...], &c. Pseudo-Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. ed. Uss. p. 95. In­terpolator of Ignatius, but we must not beat or persecute them, as doe the Gentiles which know not God. We must separate from [Page 27]them, and admonish them, if haply they will hear and rest satisfied, for our God is a Lover of mankind, and would have all men to be saved, and come to the know­ledge of the Truth; on which account he causeth his Sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and rains upon the just and the unjust; and, being desirous that we should imitate this his Goodness, he saith, Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect: This is there spoken con­cerning Schismaticks, False Preachers, Men of False Opinions, Foxes, and Corruptors of the Vine, and there­fore certainly of Hereticks. Defendenda est Religio, non occiden­do, sed moriendo, non saevitiâ, sed patientiâ,—illa enim malorum sunt, haec bonorum, & necesse est bonum in Religione versari, non malum, nam si sanguine, si tormentis, si malo Religionem de­fendere velis, jam non defendetur illa, sed pol­luetur, atque violabitur. Lact. l. 5. c. 20. Lactantius saith thus, Re­ligion is to be defended, not by killing, but by dying for it, not by Cruelty, but by Patience; so good men do defend it: But wicked men, by Cruelty and Murther. If you go about, saith he, to defend Religion by Bloud and Torments, you do not defend, but pollute and violate it.

The Holy Synod of Alexandria, consisting of the Bishops of Aegypt, Thebes, Lybia, and Pentapolis, la­ments the Practice of the Arians, who had directed an accusatory Epistle to the Emperors, which stirr'd them up to inflict Death, or at the least Banishment, upon Athanasius, [...]. Apud Athanas. Apol. ad Imperat. Constant. p. 723. this, say they, is just matter of lamentation, these being works so averse from Bishops, who should teach others the way of Justice, that even the meanest Christians, and scarcely Heathens, would be guilty of them; and this the Conscience of you Ca­tholick Bishops throughout the World, to whom we write, very well knows.

[Page 28] Athanasius, having declared how the Arians spake thus to Constantius the Emperor, [...]. Athanas. Epist. ad Solitariam vi­tam agentes, p. 815. [...], &c. [...], pag. 830, 831. Thou seest how all men desert us, few remaining, therefore begin a Persecution, that we be not deserted by those few: And speaking of the In­fluence this Persecution had upon some fearfull Bishops, saith thus, If it were unbecoming Bi­shops to change their Opinion out of Fear, yet was it far worse for them to compell men unwillingly to change their Judgments, and an evidence that they distrusted their own Cause; this, saith he, is to act like the Devil, and un­like our Saviour, who never used Force, but Persuasi­on onely, for the Truth must not be taught by Swords, and Weapons, and Souldiers; but by Persuasion and Consultation: Now what Persuasion is there where there is Fear of the King? What Consultation, where he that contradicts must suffer Banishment or Death?—by this Compulsion it appears, saith he, that their Wisedom is not according to God, but meerly humane:

As for other [...], &c. [...]. Athanas. ibid. p. 855. Heresies, saith he, they being convinced by Demonstrations, are silent, and doe nothing but blush at their Con­viction; but this new and execra­ble Heresie of the Arians, when it is overthrown by Reason, when by Truth it is put to shame, it en­deavors to draw them by Force, Stripes and Imprisonments, [Page 29]whom it could not persuade by words, and so doth manifest it self to be nothing less than pious, for it is the Property of true Religion not to compell, but to per­suade, as we have said already;—for our Lord him­self, not offering Violence, but giving place to humane Choice, said to all, If any man will come after me; and to his Disciples, Will ye also go away? This Heresie therefore which is perfectly repugnant to Piety, what should it doe but that which is contrary to our Saviour? There are some things for which we must fight valiant­ly, saith [...]. Orat. tertia pro Pace, p. 220, 221. Gregory Nazianzen, viz. with Reasons, not with Arms, for to lift up our hands against them (that is, against Hereticks) is wholly contrary to our Professi­on, and must be left to them who hate us.

Saint Chrysostom, in his Exposition of the Parable of the Tares, speaks thus, [...]. In locum. Wherefore doth Christ intro­duce his Servants saying, Wilt thou that we pluck up the Tares? his Answer is, That he might tell them that it was unlawfull to cut them off. They permit not themselves, saith he, to doe this, but they expect the Sentence of their Lord, saying, Wilt thou have it done? Now he forbids them, saying, lest you root up the Wheat together with them; and this he said forbidding Wars and Bloud and Slaughters to be made; for 'tis not lawfull to cut off the Heretick, though he is [Page 30]like to bring an irreconcileable War upon Earth. Again, by these words, Lest you root up, he either saith, that if you go about to wage War, and stay the Heretick, it will necessarily happen that you will destroy many of the Saints with them, or that it may so happen that many of the Tares may be converted, and become Wheat; if therefore you prevent their being so, by rooting them up, you prejudice the future Wheat, by taking them away, who may be changed and become better. Christ here forbids us not to stop their mouths, restrain and hinder their Boldness of Discourse, dissolve their Synods and Confederacies, but he forbids us to Kill, and Cut them off. In his Homily against Ana­thema's he permits us to [...]. Tom. 6. p. 441. [...] p. 443. [...], pag. 441. lin. 31. &c. ana­thematize the Heresie, but com­mands ut by all means to spare the Heretick; if, saith he, the man remain contentious, and will not be reclaim'd, do thou onely testifie against him with Long-suf­fering and Goodness, that thy Judge require not his Life at thy hand, hate him not, persecute him not.

Saint Austin vehemently condemns the inflicting Capital Punishments upon Hereticks, and saith that all good Christians did agree with him in that matter. For when Cresconius had objected to the Orthodox, that they were instrumental to procure the Death of three Donatists, St. Austin an­swers, that Nullis tamen bonis in Ecclesia Catholica hoc placet, si usque ad mortem in quenquam, li­cet haereticum, saeviatur, neque verò si longè à morte cujuslibet molestiis libido ulciscendi malum pro malo retribuat, approbamus; multo amplius detestantes, si ex hac occasione, velut pro unitate conandi, concupita quis auferat aliena—haec om­nia displicent nobis, & ea prohibent, & cohibent quantum possunt, quantum autem non possunt, se­runt: &, sicut dixi, pro pace laudabiliter to­lerant, non ea laudabilia, sed damnabilia judi­cantes. August. contra Crescon. Grammat. l. 3. cap. 50. ‘No good man in the Catholick Church al­lowed the punishing of Here­ticks with Death, and if the Lust of Revenge in any per­son doth render evil for evil, [Page 31]we do not approve of them, though their Punishments be much less than Death; much more do we detest the rob­bing any of their private Goods, or taking away what belongs to them, though this be done for the procuring Unity: all these things displease good men, they forbid, they hinder them as much as they can, judging them not laudable, but damnable.’In his Book De fide & operibus he complains, that, Quidam intuentes praecepta Severitatis quibus admonemur corripere inquietos, ut Eth­nicum habere Ecclesiae Contemptorem, à compage corporis membrum quod scandalizat ave [...]lere, it à perturbant Ecclesiae pacem ut conentur ante tempus seperare zizania, atque hoc errore caeca­ti, ipsi potius à Christi unitate seperentur. Au­gust. De fide & operibus, cap. 4. ‘some considering the Precepts of Severity by which we are commanded to correct the unquiet, to look upon the Contemner of the Church as an Heathen, to seperate the Scandalizing Member from the Body, do so disturb the Churche's Peace, that they endeavor, before the time, to pluck up the Tares, and, being blinded with this Error, are ra­ther seperated themselves from the Unity of Christ.’ Besides these Passages, he hath Four several Epistles writ upon this very Subject, viz. the 127 th to Dona­tus, Proconsul of Africa; the 158 th, 159 th, to Marcel­linus the Tribune; the 160 th to Apringius; in which we may observe,

1. The thing which he most earnestly requests, viz. Vos rogamus nè occidantur. Sic eorum peccata compesce, ut sint quos poeniteat peccasse, Ep. 127. Poena sanè illorum, quamvis de tan­tis sceleribus confessorum, Rogo te, ut praeter sup­plicium mortis sit, Ep. 158. Tu ab eorum san­guine, etiam propter Christum, juridicum gladi­um cohibe, Epist. 160. that ‘the Hereticks may not be kill'd, that they may be so corrected as not to be cut off’, Ep. 127. that ‘they may not be punish­ed with Death’, Ep. 158. that ‘the Sword of Justice might not shed their Bloud’, Ep. 160.

[Page 32]2. Observe the Importunity with which he urgeth his Request, desiring, admonishing, interceding, Ep. 160. Yea, Quod te per Jesum Christum, nè faci­as, obsecramus, Ep. 127. Obtestor fidem tuam quam habes in Christo, per ipsius Domini Christi misericordiam, ut hoc nec facias, nec fieri omni­no permittas, Epist. 159. Per misericordiam Christi obsecro, Ep. 160. Necessitate nobis im­pactà & indictâ, ut etiam occidi ab iis eliga­mus, quàm eos occidendos vestris judiciis inge­ramus, Ep. 127. ‘beseeching them by the Name of Christ, not to in­flict this Punishment upon them, Epist. 127. and by the Mercies of Christ Jesus, that they would neither doe it, nor permit it to be done, Ep. 159, 160.’ declaring his great Solicitude for the Prevention of it, Epist. 159. And professing that ‘the Orthodox had rather dye them­selves, than that this Punishment should be inflicted on the Heretick.’

3. Observe the Persons for whom he thus patheti­cally intercedes, viz. the Circumcellians, who cruelly had shed the Bloud of Catholicks, and had confess'd, before these very Magistrates, that ‘they had killed’ Comperi plurimos eorum de homicidio quod in Restitutum Catholicum Presbyterum commiserunt, & de caede Innocentii alterius Catholici Presbyteri, atque de Oculo ejus effosso, & de Digito praeciso fuisse confessos, Ep. 159, 160. ‘ Re­stitutus, a Catholick Presbyter; put out the Eye, and cut off the Finger of Innocentius, an­other Presbyter, Epist. 159, 160. they therefore had deserved Death as Murtherers, if not as Hereticks.’

4. Observe the Reasons which moved him and o­thers to be thus importunate, and with such Passion to entreat these Hereticks might not be punished with Death, viz. ‘1. Nè obliviscamur quid nobis praeceperit, pro cujus veritate ac nomine patimur, qui diligi­mus inimicos nostros, & oramus pro eis, Epist. 127. That they might not seem to be forget­full of Christ's Command, to love their Enemies and to pray for them, Ep. 127.’ ‘2. Non suffecit Apostolo monere ut mansu­etudinem servaremus, sed ut eam etiam notam omnibus faceremus. Ep. 159. Be­cause this was that Mildness which became Catholicks, and [Page 33]which the Rules of Christianity required from them, commanding them not onely to be gentle, but to make known their lenity to all, Epist. 158, 159.’ ‘3. Time ergo nobiscum judicium Dei Pa­tris, & commend a mansuetudinem Matris, cùm enim tu facis, Ecclesia facit; propter quam fa­cis, & cujus silius facis. Epist. 160. Because the Person who inflicts, and the Church which permits these Punish­ments to be inflicted, would both have cause to fear the Judgments of God for this Cruelty.’ ‘4. Propter conscientiam nostram rogo. Ep. 158. Ubi ponimus ipsam conscientiam nè ma­lum pro malo, qui passi sunt, reddidisse videan­tur, Ep. 160. Because it was against their Consci­ence to allow of such Deport­ment towards these men, Ep. 158, 160.’ ‘5. Ut sint quos poeniteat peccâsse. Ep. 127. Tu inimicis Ecclesiae viventibus relaxa spacium poenitendi. Ep. 160. Because they desired that these Here­ticks and Schismaticks might not inevitably perish, but might have time to repent of their Sins, Epist. 127.’ ‘ 6. Si occidendos in his sceleribus homines putaveritis, deterrebitis nos nè per operam no­stram ad vestrum judicium aliquid tale perve­niat. Ep. 127. Because this harsh Pro­ceeding would deter the Ca­tholicks from seeking the Pro­tection of the Magistrate a­gainst such men, Epist. 127.’ ‘7. Hoc Ecclesiae Catholicae expedire conte­stor. Ep. 159. Nec tamen sic Ecclesiae causam desererem. Ep. 160. Because the contrary Mildness was expedient for the Catholick Church, and the Cause which they pleaded was the Cause of the Church, which they could not desert, Ep. 159, 160.’ ‘Lastly, Nè passiones Servorum Dei Catholico­rum, quae prodesse debent ad exempla patientiae, inimicorum suorum sanguine foedarentur. Ep. 158. Ep. 160. Because the Passions of the Servants of God would be polluted and dishonoured by the Bloud of their Ene­mies, Epist. 158, 160.’ And this he tells us was the Judgment of a whole Council of his Brethren, this [Page 34] was obtained by the Complaints of many other Bi­shops upon occasion of the Murther of Maximianus, Bishop of Vaga, that the Cruelty of the Donatists should be punished, Non tamen Supplicio capitali, propter servandam, etiam circa indignos, mansuetudi­nem Christianam. Ep. 50. p. 220. ‘but not with Capital Punishment, that Christian Meekness might be preserved even towards the unworthy.’

If then the Fathers do assert that it is Heathenish to beat and persecute the Heretick, that it is that which Heathens scarce would doe. That onely wicked men de­fend Religion by Cruelty and Torments; and that this way of defending it ought to be left to them. That they who do endeavor to defend it by Bloud and Torments, do pollute and violate it. That it is averse from Bi­shops and from all orthodox and pious Christians to stir up Christian Emperors to inflict Banishment and Death on a Religious account, and, contrary to our Pro­fession, to lift up the hand against the Heretick. That it was worse to compell men unwillingly to change their Judgments, than for others out of fear to doe it. That this is Diabolical, unlike our Saviour, and an evidence that they who doe so, distrust their own cause; and that their wisedom is not according to God, but meerly hu­mane. That it is contrary to Religion, and to our bles­sed Saviour. That 'tis unlawfull to cut off the Here­tick, though he be likely to bring an irreconcileable War upon the Earth. That Christ himself forbids it, and that to doe it is to be unmindfull of his Precepts and of the Rules of Christian Faith. That they who doe so may expect their Judge should require their Lives at their hands, and should inflict his Judgments on them, and on that Church which doth permit it. That no good Catholick allowed the Punishment of Hereticks with [Page 35]Death or Deprivation of their goods, or with Punish­ments much less than Death. That these things were not laudable but damnable; and that it was against their Conscience to approve of them. That they who act thus against Hereticks are Disturbers of the Churches Peace, and separate themselves from the Vni­ty of the Church. Lastly, That they had rather dye themselves, than Hereticks should be slain. I say, they who assert these things sufficiently condemn the Church of Rome, the Practice of that Church, and the Decrees of her most General Councils in this Point.

§. VIII. Moreover this Severity was as repugnant to the Practice of the Ancient Church as to the Principles of her renowned Doctors. For ‘we do not desire’, ‘saith’ Nos non expetimus ut Deum nostrum velint nolint colat aliquis invitus, nec si non coluerit irascimur. Lact. l. 5. cap. 20. p. 524. Nemo à nobis retinetur invitus, inutilis est enim Deo qui Devotione & Fide caret. Cap. 19. p. 519. ‘ Lactanti­us, that any man should wor­ship our God against his will, and if he doth not doe it, we are not angry; we retain no man against his will in our Profession; for he who wants Faith and Devotion is unprofitable to God.’ The Synod of [...], &c. Apud Athanas. To. 1. p. 724. Alexandria expresly saith, That Bands and Slaughters were things repugnant to their Church; that Athanasius never delivered up any one to the Tormentor; that the Prison was never trou­bled with any one sent thither by him; our Priesthood, say they, or, our Administration of things Sacred, as it hath alwaies been, so is it now, pure, and sanctified by no other Bloud but that of Jesus. And therefore when Cresconius, the Grammarian, had objected to the Orthodox the Death of three Donatists, Contra Crescon. lib. 3. cap. 50. St. Austin answers, that no good men in the Catholick Church [Page 36]allowed of the punishing Hereticks with Death; that they forbad and restrained it as much as they were able.

Tum verò Idacius atque Ithacius acri­us instare, arbitrantes posse inter initia malum comprimi: sed parum sanis consiliis, N. B. secu­lares Judices adeunt, ut eorum decretis Haere­tici urbibus pellerentur. Sulpit. l. 2. §. 62. I­gitur post multa & foeda, Ithacio supplicante, elicitur à Gratiano tum Imperatore reseriptum, quo universi Haeretici excedere non Ecclesiis tan­tùm aut urbibus, sed extra omnes terras propelli jubebantur. Ibid. Ubi Maximus oppidum Tre­virorum Victor ingressus est, Ithacius ingerit preces plenas in Priscillianum & Socios ejus in­vidiae atque criminum,—it à omnes ad Regem deducti— Idacius & Ithacius Episcopi, quorum studium in expugnandis Haereticis non reprehen­derem, si non studio vincendi plus quam oportu­it certassent; Ac mea quidem sententia est, mihi tam reos quàm Accusatores displicere. §. 63. Tum Martinus apud Treveros constitutus non de­sinebat increpare Ithacium ut ab accusatione de­sisteret, Maximum orare, ut sanguine infelicium abstineret: satìs supérque sufficere ut Episcopa­li sententià Haeretici judicati, Ecclesiis pelleren­tur: novum esse, & inauditum nefas ut causam Ecclesie Judex seculi judicaret. Denique—egregi [...] authoritare à Maximo elicuit respon­sum nihil eruentum in reos constituendum. Sed postea Imperator per Magnum & Rufum Epi­scopos depravatus, & à mitioribus consiliis de­flexus—censuit Priscillianum Sociòsque ejus capitis damnari oportere.—it à Priscillianus Capitis damnatus est, unáque cum eo Felicissi­mus & Armenius-Latronianus quoque, & Eu­trochia gladio perempti—itum deinde in reliquos sequentibus judiciis, damnatique Asarinus & Aurelius diaconus gladio—hoc ferè modo ho­mines luce dignissimi pessimo exemplo, N. B. ne­cati, aut exiliis multati: caeterum Ithacius vi­dens quàm invidiosum sibi apud Episcopos foret si accusato, etiam▪ postremis Capitalium rerum judiciis astitisset, subtrahit se cognitioni frustra, callido jam scelere peracto. §. 64. Sulpitius Severus doth inform us, that when the He­reste of the Priscillians sprang up, Idacius and Ithacius, thin­king this Evil might be sup­pressed in the first Rise, went unadvisedly to the Civil Jud­ges, desiring them to decree that the Hereticks might be expelled the Cities. That when Maximus came to be Emperor, Idacius and Ithaci­us applied themselves to him against the Priscillians, on which account, saith Sulpiti­us, the Accusors displease me as much as the Guilty. More­over he informs us that Saint Martin, a man, saith he, to be compared to the Apostles, reproved Ithacius, advised him to desist from his Accusa­tion, and desired Maximus the Emperor to abstain from the Bloud of the Hereticks, declaring, that it was suffici­ent, N. B. that being judged Hereticks by the Spiritual Sen­tence, they should be expell'd their Churches, and that it was a new and unheard-of Wic­kedness, that a Secular Judge should determine of [Page 37]the Cause of the Church, and that he obtained a Promise from Maximus, that nothing bloudy should be done against them. That afterwards the Emperor decreed, that Priscillian and his Companions should suffer capital Punishments, and that accordingly they did thus suffer, and so, saith he, men not wor­thy to live, by a most vile example, were either kill'd or exiled. He also doth inform us, that Itha­cius, having procured this Wickedness, vainly with­drew himself from the Tryal of these men. In his Third Maximus Imperator, aliàs sanè bo­nus, depravatus Consiliis Sacerdotum, post Priscilliani necem, Ithacium Episcopum, Priscil­liani accusatorem, caeterósque illius Socios, vi Regiâ tuebatur, nè quis ei Crimini daret, opera illius cujuscumque modi hominem fuisse damna­tum,—congregati apud Treveros Episcopi ten­ebantur, qui quotidie communicantes Ithacio, communem sibi causam fecerunt. Et jam pri­die Imperator ex eorum sententia decreverat Tribunos mittere, summâ potestate armatos, ad Hispanias, qui Haereticos inquirerent, depre­hensis vitam & bona adimerent—illa praecipua cura ( Martini, sc.) nè Tribuni cum jure gla­diorum ad Hispanias mitterentur, pia enim erat solicitudo Martino, ut non solùm Christia­nos qui sub illa erant occasione vexandi, sed ip­sos etiam Haereticos liberaret.—spondet si parceretur se communicaturum (cum Ithacia­nis) dummodo ut & Tribuni: jam in excidi­um Ecclesiarum ad Hispanias missi retraheren­tur—satiùs aestimans ad horam cedere, quàm his non consulere quorum cervicibus gladius im­minebat: postero die se inde proripiens, cùm moestus ingemisceret se vel ad horam noxiae com­munioni fuisse permixtum;—astitit ei repentè Angelus. Meritò inquit Martine compungeris, sed aliter exire nequisti, repara virtutem, resu­me constantiam, nè jam non periculum gloriae sed salutis incurreris, itaque ab illo tempore satis cavit cum illa Ithacianae partis communione mi­sceri. Dial. 3. §. 15. Dialogue he informs us, that after the Death of Priscillian, Maximus the Em­peror, a man otherwise good, being led aside by the Coun­sells of some Bishops, did by his Kingly Power defend I­thacius and his Companions from being accused for this Crime. And that some Bi­shops were met at Treves, who, by communicating daily with Ithacius, had made his Cause their own, and had obtained of the Emperor a Decree to send some Tribunes armed with the Sovereign Power, into Spain, to enquire after the Hereticks, and to deprive them both of Life and Goods; that Saint Martin labored with great Care to prevent the Mission of these Tribunes in­to Spain, with the Power of [Page 38]the Sword, as being piously solicitous not onely to preserve the Christians, but even the Hereticks also from Death, and that, to accomplish this work,▪ he for a while consented to embrace the communion of Ithacius, and his Party; that after­wards the good man was troubled that he had com­municated with them, and that an Angel appea­red to him, and told him he had just cause to be sorry for what he had done, and that he should re­pair his Vertue, and reassume his Constancy, lest he incurr'd the loss not onely of his Honor, but Sal­vation, and that from that time Saint Martin would never any more communicate with the Ithacian Par­ty. Ad An. 386. §. 27. Baronius confesseth that Pope Syricius did also refuse communion with Ithacius and his Party upon this account, and wrote Letters against them. Saint Cùm videret me abstinere ab Episcopis qui communicabant ei, vel qui aliquos, devios licet à fide, ad necem petebant. Ambros. Ep. 27. ‘Ambrose’ also saith, that ‘he abstained from the communion of those who desired the Death of Here­ticks.’ The Illud decrevit praeterea Sancta Synodus, ut quoniam Legatos Episcopi Galliarum, qui Fe­lici non communicant, destinarunt, si quis se ab ejus communione sequestrare velit, in nostrae Sanctae pacis consortium suscipiatur. Concil. Taurin. cap. 5. French Bishops also refused communion with Felix, as being made a Bishop by them, and the Council of Turin gives leave to any so to doe. Not. in Concil. Trevir. An. 386. Binius confesseth that Theognostus, and other Bishops of the Ithacius & Ursatius, Episcopi, ob necem Priscilliani, cujus Accusatores fuerunt, Ecclesiae communione privantur. Prosper. Chronic. ad A. D. 389. Isidor. De viris illustribus, cap. 2. Ca­tholick communion ‘did ex­communicate Ithacius with his Companions on this account,—as sanguinary, bloudy, and unworthy of the Priesthood.’ Nondum enim de Episcopo aliquo audi­tum in Ecclesia Dei erat de Sontibus poenam sanguinis exegisse. Baron. ad An. 385. §. 29. & rursus, nullus Sanctorum Patrum laudavit id posse fieri suggestione Sacrorum Antistitum. Ad An. 386. §. 27. Baronius and Spondanus treating of this Ex­ample, ingeniously confess, that not one of the Holy Fathers [Page 39]did allow, that Ecclesiastical Persons should procure the Punishment of Hereticks with Death, or move the Civil Magistrate to doe it; but that they vehe­mently dehorted them from it; and therefore they excuse the Practice of their Church, their Pope, Bi­shops and Councils, by telling us that Unde in Ecclesia Catholica usu recep­tum est, ut cùm quis expetit à Secularibus Ma­gistratibus opem adversus impios, nè Ithacianae partis Sectator esse videatur, contestationem il­lam consultè praemittat, sic se correctionem expe­tere incorrigibilium delinquentium, ut tamen citra poenam sanguinis puniantur. Spondan. Epist. ad A. D. 385. p. 513, 514. Baron. ad A. 386. §. 23. ‘in the Catholick Church it is the Custom, that when any one desireth the As­sistence of the Civil Magistrate against Hereticks, that he may not seem to be a Follower of the Ithacian Party, he first ad­visedly makes this Protestation, that he so desires the Correction of these incorrigible Delinquents, as to intreat their Bloud may not be shed.’ And Binius adds, that Theognostus, aliique Catholicae com­munionis Episcopi, Ithacium cum Sociis—ex­communicarunt, quia saevius agens, in eosdem poenam capitis procurasset, solit amque Interposi­tionem non interposuisset, qua se Delinquentium incorrigibilium correctionem sic expetere declara­ret, ut tamen à Sanguinis poena abstineretur. Not. in Concil. Trevir. A. D. 386. Ithacius ‘was condemned because he desired that Hereticks might be punished with Death, with­out the Interposition of this Protestation.’ Now this is such a piece of Diabolical Hy­pocrisie as doth not in the least excuse, but highly aggravate their Crime. The Hypo­crisie and Prophanation of God's holy Name, which by these Writers is styled The Protestation used by the Catholick Church, is this, When they deliver the con­demned person to the Civil Magistrate, the Bishop or Inquisitor, having delivered him, speaks thus, Domine Judex, rogamus vos cum omni affectu quo possumus, ut amore Dei, & Mise­ricordiae intuitu, & nostrorum interventu preca­minum miserrimo huic nullum mortis vel muti­lationis periculum inferatis. Pontis. Rom. Ro­mae, 1611. p. 456. Sir, We pas­sionately desire you, for the Love of God, and in regard of Piety, Mercy and our Me­diation, [Page 40]you would free this miserable person from all Danger of Death or Mutilation of Members; but notwithstanding all this seeming Piety and Ten­derness, when they have sentenced an Heretick to Death, they require the Infra Sex dies, sine aliqua processuum visione, Sententias latas promptè exequantur, sub Excommunicationis paena, aliisque Censuris. Innoc. 8. Const. 10. Bullar. Rom. To. 1. p. 337. Ma­gistrate to execute that Sen­tence within Six days, upon pain of Excommunication, Deprivation, and Loss of Authority and Offices, saith the Constitution of Innocent the Eighth; with­in Five days, saith the Constitution of Innocent the Fourth; Cap. 24. he must presently take him into custody for that end, saith the Costitution of Clement the Fourth. Bull. Rom. To. 1. p. 174. Their Popes have approved and confirmed the De­crees of Emperors, Kings, Dukes and other Civil Go­vernors, which command them to be put to Death; they have decreed, that the Punishment of Hereticks shall neither be relaxed nor delayed; Vide §. 12. that the Magi­strate shall execute the Sentence without revising of the Justice of it; that he shall take an Oath to execute it: Nay, both their Bishops, Popes and Councils, since the Twelfth Century, have been continually imployed in instigating others to destroy and to cut off the He­retick, and raising Armies of Crusado's to that end; all which is fully proved in the ensuing Book. Yea, their own Writers do ingenuously confess, that this Intercession in behalf of the condemned Heretick is in the common opinion barely a color; that it is verbal, not effectual; for the Criminal is delivered to the Se­cular Power for this very end, that he may dye. And the Magistratus secularis quemcunque Hae­reticum sibi à Judicibus fidei traditum debet ultimo supplicio afficere. Vide R. Episc. Lin­col. Brutum Fulmen. p. 207, 208. Magistrate ought to pu­nish him. Let therefore any re­sonable person judge, whether their Practice in this kind be [Page 41] not most gross Hypocrisie, Self Condemnation, and Pro­fanation of God's Holy Name; and whether this will in the least excuse them from being Partis Ithacianae Sectatores, or, Followers of the Example of Ithacius?

§. IX. Objection. But, saith the querulous Dissen­ter, Is there no other Church, or Person, concern'd in this Example besides that of Rome? Know you of no Decree or Edict elsewhere, ut exilio mulctarentur Priscilliani? Was there never any Supplication made to Gratian by some Ithacius, Sulp. p. 467. Vt universi Haeretici non Ecclesiis tantum, aut Vrbibus, sed extra omnes Terras propelli juberentur? p. 474, 607.Was there never any other Em­peror, aliàs sanè bonus, per Magnum &; Rufum Epi­scopos, à mitioribus consiliis deflexus?

Answ. I know that Mr. Baxter and some other Non-conformists speak much of our Ithacian Prelates, but, had they found them such, they would not have been here to make such Tragical Complaints against them without cause: Sure I am that our Lords Spiri­tual and Temporal in Parliament assembled have suffi­ciently declared against this persecuting Spirit on the account of Religion by their full Approbation of, and thanks returned to the Lord Bishop of Saint Asaph for his Sermon preach'd before them, Nov. 5. 1680. and their desire that he would print and publish that Sermon, in which, First, He laies down this Position, viz. p. 9. That of Societies of men, Christians, of all other, are most averse from waies of Violence and Bloud, specially from using any such waies on the account of Religion; And, among Christian Churches, where they differ a­mong themselves, if either of them use those waies upon the account of Religion, they give a strong Presumpti­on against themselves, that they are not truly Christian. [Page 42]The reason is, because Christ gave Love for the Charac­ter by which his Disciples were to be known, Joh. 13. v. 35. And lest men should unchristen others first, that they may hate them, and destroy them afterwards, Christ enlarged his Precept of Love and extended it to Ene­mies, and not onely to ours, but to the Enemies of our Religion, Matt. 5. 43, 44. Secondly, p. 12, 13. He adds that by this we may usually judge who they are that excell among Christian Churches, when there happens any dif­ference between them, whether touching the Faith or the Terms of Communion; they that were the more fierce, they generally had the worst Cause, as, v. g. p. 14. the Nicene Council suppres'd the Arians by no other force but put­ting Arians out of their Bishopricks; they could not think Hereticks fit to be trusted with the Care of Souls, but otherwise as to temporal things, I do not find that they inflicted any kind of Punishment; but when the Arians came to have the Power in their hands—then Depriving was nothing, Banishment was the least that they inflicted. Thirdly, p. 37. That he would have no man punished for his Religion, no not them that destroy men for Religion. Fourthly, p. 20. He saith that neither our Re­ligion nor our Church is of a persecuting Spirit, she hath no Doctrine that teacheth Persecution, N. B. she hath not practised it as others, when they were in authority. I thank God for it, and I hope she will alwaies continue in the temper; which being added to the other marks of a True Church, may assure us, she is a Church according to the mind of Christ. The same is in effect declared by the House of Commons, when they returned their Thanks to Dr. Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, for his Sermon preached before them, Novem. 5. 78. desiring him to print that Sermon; where, having laid down the Example of our Lord, he adds, p. 13, 14. that in imitation [Page 43]of this blessed Pattern, the Christian Church continued to speak and act for several Ages, and this was the Language of the H. Fathers, Lex nova se non vindi­cat ultore gladio, The Christian Law doth not avenge it self by the Sword; This was then the Style of Coun­cils, Nemini ad credendum vim inferre, To offer vio­lence to no man, to compell him to the Faith; adding p. 19. that to separate Goodness and Mercy from God, Compassion and Charity from Religion, is to make the two best things in the World good for nothing. And, p. 30. That true Christianity is not onely the best, but the best-natured Institution in the World, and so far as any Church is departed from good nature, and become cruel and barbarous, so far is it degenerated from Chri­stianity. We have indeed a Statute about Banishing Dissenters, but no Ithacius, that I know of, who e­ver supplicated for the Making, or for the Execution of it, but onely for Retaining of it as a due Curb for men too prone to Faction and Sedition. And so it lies still dormant in the hands of his most Gracious Majesty, and may it ever doe so.

§. X. 2. This Treatise serves to justifie us in, and to provoke us to the use of any lawfull means for the avoiding of these Punishments. They who exhort us in this Exigence to trust to Providence, must know that Providence doth not exclude, but rather doth require, and suppose the use of any honest means for the prevention of impendent Dangers; for we can have no reason to expect that Providence should su­pernaturally engage for the immediate Accomplish­ment of that which may be done by Divine Blessing upon ordinary means. First therefore we must use the Means; then pray that Providence would bless, [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44] and countenance, and render prosperous our just En­deavors in this kind; and when we have performed our utmost to prevent Dangers in a lawfull way, and find that our Attempts prove frustrate, then onely is the time to trust to Providence without subordinate endeavors.

Now what Means may be lawfully pursued, accor­ding to the Constitutions of this Kingdom, for the preventing this aboding Evil, Divines should not presume too nicely to determine, who do then chief­ly deviate when they do meddle extra Sphaeram The­ologiae; it rather doth become them to leave this Matter to those Persons whose Business and Office it professedly is to be skilfull in the Laws, and who may rationally therefore be presumed men better qualified to pass a Judgment in this Case. This notwithstan­ding I may safely say, That what no Law of Nature or positive Command of God forbids, may lawfully be done, and is expedient to be done, for Preserva­tion of the Souls and Bodies of a whole Community, and their succeeding Generations from the worst of Evils.

§. XI. 3. This Treatise may be usefull to quicken us, by a due apprehension of this so barbarous Reli­gion and inhumane Doctrine, to labor to prevent it by our most serious Reformation, and most importunate Addresses to the Throne of Grace; or, if the Provi­dence of God sees fitting, for the Punishment of our Iniquities, to give us up to this tremendous Judge­ment, to let us see what need we shall then have of the most perfect Patience and undaunted Courage, the most unshaken Faith and stedfast Resolution to undergoe the Fiery Trials, to which we may expect [Page 45] to be exposed, if we continue firm to our Religion. For if the Providence of God should, for our crying Sins, permit our lawfull Prince to be perverted to the R. Faith, and poisoned with these bloudy Principles, I declare to all the World, that Christianity, and our own Oaths both of Allegiance and Supremacy engage us, upon pain of everlasting Ruin, not to lift up our hands against him; that all who do resist him must resist God's Ordinance, and so Rom. 13. 1, 2. receive damnation to themselves; that all who use the Sword without Com­mission from him, take it, and Matth. 26. 52. they who take it, though in Defence of me, saith Christ, shall perish by it. In this case therefore I freely do acknowledge with L'E­strange, Character of a Papist, &c. p. 3. we have no other choice before us but either to suffer the highest degree of Misery that can befall us in this World, or else to prostitute our Souls for the saving of our Lives and Fortunes; p. 13. and I do make with him this publick Profession to the World, that, though I have as little mind to be under the Govern­ment of an English Papist as any mortal, and would doe all that I could justifie as a Christian and an honest man to avoid it, yet, since I can no more chuse my Go­vernor than my Father, and that I may as well renounce my duty to the one upon the score of Religion as to the other, I am resolved to pay the duty of a Subject to what (Legal) Prince soever the all-ruling Providence of God shall set over me, and patiently to suffer where I cannot conscientiously obey. And I conjure all refor­med Christians, if ever they lye under these unhappy Circumstances, not to blaspheme their Holy Calling, or cast a Scandal on the Reformation by any Mutinies or Insurrections against God's Vicegenent, which will assuredly incense the Wrath of God still more against them, prolong their Miseries, and make their tem­poral [Page 46] Calamities be a sad Prologue to eternal, but that they would resolve to suffer as becometh Christians, and to commit their Cause to him that judgeth righ­teously.

§. XII. 4. This Treatise may be instrumental to prevent being gull'd and deluded by fair words and specious promises, and by vain hopes of Freedom from these dreadfull Miseries, if this Religion should prevail; there being nothing in the World more in­consistent with the avowed Principles of Popery, no­thing more contrary to the continual Practice of the Church, and to the Oaths and Obligations of the Members of it, than to permit the Heretick to scape these sad and direfull Effects of their inhumane Cru­elty. And whatsoever Prince neglects to execute these Punishments on any other score but those of Policy, must solemnly condemn the Constitutions of those General Councils which are the sole Foundati­ons of his Faith; he must believe the Church of Rome not onely Fallible, but False in her Determinations, and guilty of more Murther and Barbarity than all the Heathen Emperors were guilty of in the Ten Per­secutions. He must continue in, and own that Church to be the onely Church of Christ, which yet he doth believe to be the vilest Church on Earth, and guilty of the greatest Crime imaginable.

Ibid. p. 42, 43.Mr. L'Estrange takes care to tell us that Henry the Fourth of France did not exercise one act of Tyranny over his Protestant Subjects. But he forgot to tell us that he was first deposed, and then stab'd for his re­misness in that matter: Spond. To. 2. p. 868. §. 4. p. 875. §. 4.He was twice deposed by Gregory the Fourteenth, A. D. 1591. by Clement the Eighth, A. D. 1592. as being a Favorer of Hereticks, [Page 47] and, by the continual Rebellions and Defections of his R. Catholick Subjects, he was forced, for Quietness sake, to turn Papist, A. D. 1594. And yet, because he was indulgent towards Hereticks, his Life was at­tempted the same year by John Castel, belonging to the Jesuits; by a Monk, A. D. 1600. and he was at last stab'd by Ravilliac.

And, because others frequently object the like Example of the Indulgence of the French King to­wards the Hugonots, to what I have already an­swered, Section the Ninteenth of this Treatise, I add, 1. That from the beginning of the Thirteenth, till the middle of the Sixteenth Century all Europe hath scarce equall'd the Severity of France for Persecutions of this kind, or frequency of Councils making Laws for the Destruction of the Heretick, as in this Treatise you will find. 2. The Author of The Policy of the Clergy of France informs us p. 13. that their Princes have not lost the Design of destroying Hereticks, though Pru­dence hath obliged them for the present to suspend it, be­cause it could not be done by them without great Danger. Since my writing of this the French King hath an­swered this Ob­jection with a vengeance. And Bellarmin himself will grant, Non esse Haereticos Bello petendos quando sunt fortiores nobis; That Hereticks may be spared when they are stronger than the R. Catholicks, and it is to be feared that more of them might perish than of us: And this is all the Lenity that ever was allowed by the Church of Rome towards the Protestant. If any man can shew me, 1. That any of the Laws here mentioned have been condemned, abrogated or relaxed by the Church of Rome or the French Church; 2. That any Princes have been blamed for, or in the least deterred by any of her Prelates from executing of those Laws, or even exempted from that Oath which, saith the Pope, [Page 48] doth bind them to extirpate Hereticks, or that by any Council of the R. Church they ever were permit­ted to neglect the Execution of them, or that from the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Century any Prince escaped the Censures of the Church who did neglect to execute them; 3. That any Country or City hath been rejected from Communion with that Church for Massacring Protestants, and Killing many Myriads of them in cold Bloud; if, 4. It can be made appear that the same Principles which do oblige them to receive other Articles of Faith determined by those Councils do not oblige them to the Execution of the Decrees established by the same Councils, or others equally ob­liging; if, lastly, There be no Design on foot for the Destruction and Extirpation of a pestilent Heresie which hath long reigned in the North of Europe: If these things can be evinced; then may we have some little hopes of being kindly delt with by a Popish Prince, though he were zealous to a miracle for Propagation of the R. Faith, and had it in his Power thus to purge his Territories from Heretical Pravity.

THE CONTENTS OF THE DISCOURSE.

  • §. I. THE Heads to which the Laws made against Hereticks may be reduced, page 2.
  • §. II. The Endeavors which are, or have been used by the Church of Rome to pre­serve her Members from that which she is pleased to call Heresie, are, 1. Binding all her Males at Fourteen, and Females at Twelve, to abjure all Heresie: 2. And also Governors to doe the same: 3. For­bidding Lay-men to dispute publickly or privately touching the Catholick Faith; and, 4. Withholding from them the Books of the Old and of the New Testament: That hence we have great reason to suspect the Truth of that Religion, p. 3, 4.
  • [Page]§. III. The Care they take for discovering and apprehending Hereticks, pag. 5.
  • §. IV. The Persons authorized for this Work, viz. Inquisitors, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and the Assistence they must have from Civil Governors: They have Power to require the Magistrates Assistence in enquiring after, taking and spoiling He­reticks: to compell all the Neighborhood to swear to enquire after, and, if they know of any Hereticks, to endeavor to give notice of them, and secure them. All Earls, Barons, Rectors and Consuls, &c. must also swear efficaciously to assist the Church according to their power in this Work, p. 6, 7.
  • §. V. These Laws are made, or, being made by others, are confirmed by their appro­ved General Councils; who also give pow­er to these Inquisitors, Archbishops, &c. to require a Corporal Oath upon the Re­liques of the Saints, or a Crucifix from all whom they suspect of Heresie, to an­swer to Questions containing all the Ro­mish [Page]Superstition; and, if they will not undergo this Canonical Purgation, to con­demn them as Hereticks: they give this Power to them in all Places, and over all Persons of what Dignity soever, p. 8, 9, 10, 11.
  • §. VI. When they are discovered and appre­hended, they and their Favorers must be excommunicated, their Goods confiscated, the Houses in which they are found must be destroyed, their Persons must be impri­soned: When they have them in Prison, they may use any Cruelty which doth not diminish their Members or endanger their Death, to make them to confess their Er­rors, or accuse others, p. 12, 13.
  • §. VII. They must be banished or extermina­ted out of all Places: All Secular Pow­ers must swear to expell Hereticks out of their Dominions, with all their Favo­rers, and set forth Edicts to this effect, p. 13, 14.
  • §. VIII. If any Governor permit them to a­bide there, he must be excommunicated, [Page] be deem'd a Favorer of Hereticks, and lose his Dominions, p. 15.
  • §. IX. All these Constitutions are confirmed by the approved General Councils of the Romish Church, and are by them exten­ded to Kings, Emperors, and Supreme Governors; who must lose their Territo­ries if they doe it not, p. 16, 17, 18, 19.
  • §. X. These General Councils encourage men to butcher Hereticks, not onely by invo­king the Secular Arm against them, but also by promising Remission of Sins and a great Reward hereafter to all that fight against and labor to destroy them, p. 20, 21, 22.
  • §. XI. Hereticks and their Abettors must be punished with Death; and if after Death they appear to have been Hereticks, their Bodies must be digg'd up, p. 22, 23.
  • §. XII. All Governors must execute these Punishments upon them without delay, re­laxation or enquiry into the Justice of them, p. 24.
  • [Page]§. XIII. Every Governor must have a Co­py of these Laws, he must not alter or diminish them, but must abolish all Sta­tutes contrary to them, p, 24, 25.
  • §. XIV. At their Admission they must swear to execute them; and, if they be remiss in doing it, they must lose their Office, be excommunicated, and their Jurisdiction interdicted, p. 25, 26, 27.
  • §. XV. They who will not execute this Sen­tence must be proceeded against by Eccle­siastical Censures as Favorers of Here­ticks: And the Bishop who is remiss in these Matters must be deposed from his Office: All Believers, Favorers, De­fenders of them are subject to very grie­vous Punishments, and must be punished as Hereticks, p. 27, 28.
  • §. XVI. Such are they who believe, that they, who by the Church of Rome are called Hereticks, may be saved, or that they who prosecute them do offend: The most Infa­mous Person may accuse a Heretick; And [Page] the Heretick must not know who doth ac­cuse him, p. 28, 29.
  • §. XVII. Examples of Princes and Civil Governors deprived of their Dominions, as being Hereticks, or Favorers of He­resies, or remiss in punishing them, p. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.
  • §. XVIII. The Concernment of the Church in these Actions of the Pope, p. 33, 34.
  • §. XIX. No Popish Prince can give Security to his Subjects that he will not proceed against them according to these Laws; 1. Because, being Papists, it may ra­tionally be presumed they will act, accor­ding to the Convictions of their Conscien­ces, as such: 2. Because they are subject to a Superior Tribunal which can over­rule their Promise, and can absolve them from their Oaths, and which hath actual­ly judged, that they ought not to be kept; and because it is an Unlawfull Promise, and made concerning a Spiritual Cause, in which they must not intermeddle: They who have actually made this Pro­mise, [Page] have not perform'd it, p. 34,—59.
  • §. XX. All this is confirm'd by the Procee­dings of the General Council of Con­stance, p. 59,—63.
  • §. XXI. The Character of a Popish Prince given in the Expressions of their Coun­cils, or sutably to their Decrees, p. 63, 64.
  • §. XXII. The Conclusion, p. 64, &c.

The Errata's in the Discourse are,

Page 3. lin. 18. this, r. the. p. 9. l. 6. marg. confessali, r. sati. p. 13. l. 27. received, r. renewed. p. 20. l. 9. confirming, r. confirms. p. 23. l. 2. Natu­reni, r. Pat. p. 37. l. 2. dele He. p. 44. marg. l. 13. fungebantur, r. batur. p. 60. marg. emittimus, r. committ. p. 67. l. 13. manly, r. manfully.

In the Preface,

Page 3. l. 24, 25. the Church, r. the R. Church. p. 10. l. 1. overthrow r. threw. p. 20. l. 24. another, r. anothers. p. 46. l. 11. the Ch. r. that Church.

A DISCOURSE Concerning the LAWS Ecclesiastical and Civil Made against HERETICKS BY POPES, EMPERORS, &c.

MANY of late have excellently discoursed of those Doctrines of the Romish Faith, which, when believed and practised, must be highly prejudicial to, or be sufficient to disturb all civil Governments; and have demonstratively proved, that men whose Consciences are guided by the Romish Casuists, or who have heartily embraced the Princi­ples of that Religion, can give us no security that they will not disturb the Government by which they are protected: But few (if any) have of late made it professedly their business to speak of what may be expected by such as they are pleased to call Here­ticks, when they are so unhappy as to be subject to a Prince who hath embraced the Romish Faith, and [Page 2] to a Clergy which doth own the Principles of that Communion; which being in this present Juncture of Affairs a most important Subject, I hope it will not seem either unseasonable or unprofitable to discourse briefly on that head. Now what such persons may ex­pect to suffer we may learn from what already hath been decreed by them concerning Hereticks, and what they have already practised.

§. I. The Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil made a­gainst Hereticks, by Popes, Kings, Emperors, and Councils, may be reduced to these Heads; 1. Laws made for the Preservation of the Members of the R. Church from falling into that which they call Heresie; 2. The Laws made for the Discovery of Hereticks, their Favourers, Abettors, or such as they suspect to be inclinable to Heresie; now they are either such as do empower Persons to be active in enquiring after them, and do encourage them to make Discoveries of this nature, or such as lay an Obligation on them to be diligent in making these Enquiries and Disco­veries, and upon others to assist them in so doing. Or, 3. Laws which concern the Punishment of Here­ticks discovered so to be, and the Engagement which they lay upon men to execute these Punishments up­on them.

§. II. And, 1. So conscious are the Romish Prelates of the gross Absurdity and the apparent Folly of their own Doctrine, and the plain Contradiction that it bears, in many of its Articles, to Scripture and the clearest Reason, that they dare not permit the mea­nest members of their Church to look into the Scrip­ture, or make Inquiry or Search into the Articles of [Page 3] their Faith; or trust a Child of twelve years old with­out an Oath to bind him firm unto their Superstitions.

And therefore, 1. It hath been decreed by many of their Councils, That all Males at fourteen, and Fe­males at twelve years of Age, shall abjure all Heresie extolling it self against the Holy Catholick R. Church and Orthodox Faith, and shall swear also, that they will hold the Catholick Faith which the Roman Church teacheth and holds. This is determined by a Concil. To. XI. part. 1. p. 430. p. 693. p. 722, 724, 725. Council of many Bishops and Prelates met at Tolose in France, An. D. 1229. Can. 12. by a Council held at Beziers, A. D. 1246. Can. 31. by a Council of many Bishops and Prelates held at Alby in France, Can. 11, 12. Moreover this Oath, by the Decrees of the Coun­cil of Tolose and Alby Ibid. is to be renewed upon them every two years. And, ‘All that do come in, and confess their Heresie, must take the same Oath,’ saith this Council of Beziers, Can. 5.

2. All Consuls, Governours of Castles, Authorities, and Barons, must be compelled by Ecclesiastical Cen­sure to abjure Hereticks, with the Favourers and A­bettors of them, Concil. To. XI. p. 308. saith the Provincial Council of Narbon, Can. 15.

3. ‘No Lay-man, upon penalty of Excommunica­tion, must dispute publickly or privately touching the Catholick Faith,’ Bullar. Rom. To. I. p. 182. saith Nicholas the Third, Const. 2. §. 19.

4. ‘No Lay-man must have any Books of the Old or New Testament, except the Psaltery, the Brevi­ary, and the Hours of the Blessed Virgin’ (three New Testament Books of the Roman Edition) ‘any of which they must by no means have in the Vulgar Tongue,’ Concil. To. XI. p. 430. saith the Council of Tolose, Can. 14.

And surely such unworthy Arts do give just Rea­son [Page 4] to all considering persons to suspect the Truth of that Religion which needeth thus to be supported by Oaths and Abjurations made by Children; by stop­ping of mens mouths, and not permitting them to ask that Reason of their Faith which all men are obli­ged 1 Pet. 3. 15. by their Christianity to be in readiness to give to all that ask it; and by withholding of those Scrip­tures of the Old Testament which are able to make 2 Tim. 3. 15. them wise unto Salvation; which by the Law of Mo­ses were to be continually read unto, continually Deut. 6. 7. talk'd of by the People; to which they, by the Pro­phets, were advised to go, and by which to pass Esa. 8. 20. Judgment on those who spake unto them of Religi­ous matters; which our Lord doth enjoin them both Joh. 5. 39. to hear and search; as also his Apostles did, commen­ding 2 Tim. 3. 15. them who from their youth had known, and who upon occasion search the Scriptures; and also those Act. 17. 11. of the New Testament, which were on purpose writ in the most vulgar Language of the World, that all might know them, and in great plainness of speech, 2 Cor. 3. 12. that they might understand them; and which were left to be a Rule of Faith and Manners to all succee­ding Generations, which the Primitive Fathers do vehemently commend to the perusal of all Christi­ans, and which the Heathen Persecutors, as fiercely as the Roman Catholicks, did strive to wrest out of their hands.

§. III. 2. If notwithstanding all this Care to keep them ignorant and blind, some by the strength of natu­ral Reason and Religion, and others by conversing with men of better Principles, or reading that so pestilent, and therefore carefully forbidden Book, the Word of God, come to the knowledge of his Truth, and be [Page 5] convinced of the Superstitions and Follies of the Ro­man Doctrines, and so become, according to their notions, Hereticks. 1. All imaginable Care is used that they may not escape their Hellish Cruelty, nor find a corner in Villages or Woods, above or under ground, which may preserve them from their Fury. And therefore,

2. For the better discovering and apprehending of Hereticks, and those who favour and abet them, or are suspected of these matters, they have these fol­lowing Persons authorised for that Work. Concil. To. XI. p. 619. The Bull of Martin the Fifth published with the consent and approbation of the general Council of Constance begins thus, Martinus Episcopus—Archiepiscopis, Episcopis ac Inquisitoribus Haereticae Pravitatis ubilibet constitutis. Bin. To. 7. p. 1119.

  • 1. Inquisitors of Heretical Pravity constituted by his Holiness for that End. v. Leg. Fred. 2.
  • 2. All Archbishops and Bishops in their respective Provinces and Diocesses, with their Officials and Vi­cars. And,
  • 3. Abbots within their Precincts. And,
  • 4. For the Assistence of these persons, every Go­vernour or Magistrate throughout Lombardy and I­taly is bound to keep twelve honest men, two Nota­ries, and as many Servants as the Bishop, or two of the Brethren Inquisitors shall think fit, who shall be bound to search after, apprehend Hereticks, or bring them within the power of the Diocesan, or his Vicars, and to require all persons to assist them in so doing. Constit. Innocentii Quarti, cap. 3, 4. Clem. 4, Const. 13. Leg. 3.
    Concil. 10. XI. p. 605.
    Bullar. Rom. To. 1. p. 173.

These are the persons authorised by as good Au­thority as the Court and Church of Rome hath any, to discover and apprehend the Heretick and his Abbettors. And their Commission is exceeding large. For,

§. IV. 1. ‘If the Bishop, his Vicar, the Inquisitor, or these 12 Officers require it, the Magistrate must assist them in enquiring after, taking and spoiling Hereticks, by sending Souldiers with them; this must be done by Cities under the Penalty of 100 li. by Villages under the Penalty of 50 li. by private persons under the Penalty of 25 li. Const. Innoc. IV. Concil. To. XI. p. 606. cap. 19.’ By the Constitutions of Clement the Fourth every Governour and private person is bound to as­sist the Inquisitors and Officials of the Bishop and his Bullar. Rom. To. I. p. 174. Visitor to apprehend Hereticks. Const. 13. L. 18.

2. Concil. To. XI. p. 608. ‘They also have Power to compell all the neighbourhood to swear, that if they know of any Hereticks, or any that keep secret Conventicles, or any that believe, defend, receive or favour Here­ticks, they will endeavour to give notice of them to the Inquisitors appointed by the Apostolick See.’ Const. Innoc. IV. cap. 30. Ibid. p. 428.The Council of Tolose, Can. 1. decrees, That the Archbishops and Bishops shall, in every Parish within their Cities and without, bind one Priest, and two or three honest Lay men, or more, if that be needfull, by their Oaths, that they will diligently, faithfully and frequently en­quire after Hereticks in the said Parishes, by sear­ching any houses or subterraneal receptacles that may give suspicion of them; and if they find any Hereticks, Believers, Favourers, Receivers or De­fenders of them, they will secure them, that they may not fly, and then with all speed give intimation of them to the Archbishop, Bishop, Lord or Bailiff of the Place. Vide simile Sta­tutum H. Chich­ley, Cant. Archi­episcopi, ed. A. D. 1416. Spel. Con­cil. To. II. p. 672. Ibid. p. 694.This Decree is renewed by the Provincial Council of Beziers held An. Do. 1246. Can. 34. by the Council of Alby, Can. 1. p. 722. by [Page 7] the Council of Arles, A. D. 1234. Can. 5. the Coun­cil p. 2341. To. 13. p. 325. of Saltzburgh held A. D. 1420. commands ‘all persons under the penalty of Excommunication and eternal Death, as soon as they know that any Heretick is in their Territories, to reveal them to their Superiors; and all Magistrates, when the Inqui­sitors give notice of them, are bound under the same Penalty to apprehend, imprison and deliver them to the Inquisitors.’ Can. 32. And by the Con­stitutions of Nicholas the Third, Bullar. Rom. To. 1. p. 182. directed to all Chri­stians, they are liable to excommunication who neg­lect to do so.

3. ‘The Lords of Territories must be solicitous to enquire after Hereticks in their Houses and Woods, and to destroy their Hiding places.’ Concil. To. XI. part. 1. p. 449. p. 427. Concil. Tolos. Can. 3. Stat. Raimundi, Com. Tolos. Concil. Albiense, Can. 4. p. 723. ‘They must assist the Ordinary in ta­king them, under the Penalty of Excommunicati­on.’ Part. 2. p. 1912. Concil. Paris. A. D. 1346. Can. 4.

4. ‘All Earls, Barons, Rectors, and Consuls of Ci­ties, and other secular Powers, bearing any Office whatsoever, must be admonished by the Diocesan to swear, that they will faithfully and efficaciously assist the Church, according to their Power and Of­fice, against Hereticks and their Accomplices, and will use their utmost diligence therein, and, if it be found necessary, they by Church Censures Part. 1. p. 679, 630. must be compelled so to doe’, saith the Council of Bezi­ers, Can. 9 p. 693, 694.. the Council of Alby, Can. 20. pag. 726. the Provincial Council of Narbon, Can. 32. And su­tably to this, the Canon Law determines, Decretal. l. 5. tit. 7. cap. 9. par. statuimus. That all Earls, Barons, Rectors and Consuls of Cities, and other places, shall, at the Admonition of the Bishops, engage themselves by Oath, that, being required [Page 8] by them, they will faithfully and efficaciously help the Church, according to their Office and Power, against Hereticks and their Accomplices.

§. V. Nor are these onely the Decrees of Popes, and Emperors, and of Provincial Councils, but many of them are confirmed by their approved general Coun­cils. For,

1. The fourth general Council of Lateran assem­bled A. D. 1215. Can. 3. Adjicimus insuper, ut quilibet Archi­episcopus, vel Episcopus, per se aut per Archi­diaconum suum, vel idoneas personas honestas, bis, aut saltem semel in anno, propriam Paro­chiam, in qua fama fuerit haereticos habitare, circumeat: & ibi tres vel plures boni testi­monii viros, vel etiam, si expedire videbitur, totam viciniam jurare compellat, quod si quis ibidem haereticos sciverit, vel aliquos occulta conventicula celebrantes, seu à communi conver­satione fidelium, vita & moribus dissidentes, eos Episcopo studeat indicare. Concil. To. XI. part. 1. p. 152. de­crees that, all Archbishops, by themselves or their Archdea­con, or by some fit and honest persons, twice, or at the least once a year, shall visit their own Parishes, in which it is reported that any Hereticks do dwell; and shall compel three or more men of good report, or if it seem expedi­ent to them, the whole neigh­bourhood, to swear that if any of them know of any Hereticks there, or of any that keep secret Conventicles, or that differ in their Lives or Man­ners from the common Conversation of the Faith­full, they will endeavour to acquaint the Bishop with them. The general Council of Constance, that is, Martin the Fifth, Discretioni▪ vestrae, sacro approbante Concilio Constantiensi, per Apostolica Scripta committimus & mandamus. Concil. Const. Sess. 45. Bin. To. 7. p. 1120. with the consent and approbation of that Council, Vobis, & aliis omnibus Archiepiscopis, Episcopis & Electis ac Commissariis, & Inqui­sitoribus, virtute sanctae obedientiae praecipimus & mandamus, ut quilibet eorum, infra limites & loca suae Jurisdictionis,—circa exstirpa­tionem & correctionem errorum & haeresum,—in favorem ipsius fidei orthodoxae diligenter invigilent, & omnes infamatos seu suspectos de tam pestifera labe sub confessali criminis, ex­communicationis, suspensionis, interdicti, aut a­liâ formidabili paenâ canonicâ, vel legali, pro­ut, quando, & quemadmodum eis videtur ex­pedire, & facti requireret qualitas, per jura­mentum corporaliter praestitum, tactis sacrosanc­tis Evangeliis, seu sanctorum reliquiis, imagi­ne crucifixi, secundum quorundam locorum ob­servantiam, juxta infra scripta interrogatoria, ad quemlibet Articulum convenientia responde­re compellant. Concil. Constant. Sess. 45. Bin. To. 7. p. 1121. commands all Archbishops, Bishops, Inquisi­tors, Commissaries, or Elect persons, by virtue of their o­bedience, [Page 9]that every of them, within their limits or places of their Jurisdiction, diligently do watch for the extirpation and correction of all Errors and Heresies. And whereso­ever they find any that are in­famed or suspected to be guil­ty of those Crimes, to com­pel them under the Penalty of excommunication, suspen­sion, interdict or confession of the crime, or any other more formidable punishment canonical or legal, to take a corporal Oath upon the Evangelists, the Re­liques of the Saints or a Crucifix, to answer to the Questions they shall ask them. Now the Questions, among many others, are these following, viz.

1. Pag. 1124. ‘Whether they think it lawfull that such an Oath should be imposed upon or taken by them for their Purgation’, ( i. e.) an Oath ex officio, ob­liging them to condemn themselves.

2. ‘Whether they hold it a mortal Sin to be guil­ty of Perjury, though it be to save their Lives, or for the advantage of the Faith.’ This may be done by Catholicks, but must not be done by Hereticks.

3. ‘Whether he believes, That, after the Con­secration of the Priest, in the Sacrament of the Altar, under the Elements of the Holy Bread and Wine, there remains no material Bread and Wine, but the same Christ entirely, who suffered on the Cross, and sits at the right-hand of the Father.’

4. Whether he believes, That, the Consecration being made by a Priest under the species of Bread [Page 10] alone, and without the species of Wine, there is the true Flesh, and Bloud, and Soul, and Deity of Christ, and whole Christ, (in his broken body) and the same Christ absolutely, and under every one of the species in particular, ( i. e.) whether there be one million of Christs, and yet but one.

5. ‘Whether he believes, That the Custom of communicating Lay-men in the species of Bread a­lone,—approved by this Holy Council, be to be observed, so that it is not lawfull to change it with­out the Authority of the Church,’ ( i. e.) whether he hold that the Council, forbidding what Christ commands, is to be obeyed before Christ.

6. Pag. 1125. Whether he believes, That the Pope, being ca­nonically elected, is the Successor of St. Peter, and hath supreme Authority in the whole Church of God? with many Questions of the like nature, containing the whole superstition of the Church of Rome.

2. Si qui vero ex eis juramenti Religio­nem obstinatione damnabili respuentes, jurare fortè noluerint, ex hoc ipso tanquam Haeretici re­putentur. Concil. Lat. quartum, Can. 3. Concil. To. XI. p. 152. ‘If any person whom they suspect to be guilty of Heresie will not undergo their canonical Purgation, or by a damnable obstinacy refuses thus to swear in order to his Pur­gation, he is to be condem­ned as an Heretick’; so the 4 th general Council of Later. and the general Council of Qui autem de Haeresi per Judicem com­petentem Ecclesiasticum inventi suerint sola su­spicione notati, seu suspecti, nisi—propriam in­nocentiam congrua devotione monstraverint▪, in purgatione eis canonicè indictâ deficientes, & se canonicè purgare non valentes, aut pro hujusmo­di purgatione facienda obstinatione damnabili jurare renuentes, tanquam Haeretici condemnen­tur. Concil. Const. Sess. 45. Bin. To. 7. p. 1121. Constance.

3. This Power is given to Archbishops, &c. throughout all Tam and Regnum Bohemiae, & con­vicinas illi, quàm alias quaslibet partes in qui­bus haec superstitiosa doctrina quomodolibet pul­la [...]erit. Ibid. ‘parts of the World where any Heresie ariseth, viz. to make these Enquiries, and proceed accordingly’; so that [Page 11] no Countrey, where this Religion doth obtain, can ex­pect any thing but a continual Butchery of all that will not be most gross Idolaters. And,

4. They command their Mandamus quatenus vos Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, & Electi, & quilibet vestrum, per se seu alium, vel alios, quos graves & idone­as personas spiritualem Jurisdictionem haben­tes esse volumus, omnes & singulos cujuseunque dignitatis, officii, praeeminentiae, status vel con­ditionis existunt, & quibuscunque nominibus censeantur, qui de praeexcelso—Sacramento corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Chri­sti, vel de baptismate, seu peccatorum confessi­one, poenitentiae pro peccatis, injunctione, vel reliquis Ecclesiasticis sacramentis, seu fidei ar­ticulis, aliter sentire aut docere quàm sacrosanc­ta R. Ecclesia & universalis docet, praedicat & observat,—tanquam Haereticos judicetis, & velut Haereticos seculari curiae relinquatis. Concil. Constant. Sess. 45. apud Bin. To. 7. p. 1120. ‘Officers to proceed against, and to condemn as Hereticks, all persons of whatsoever Dignity, Office, Preeminence, State and Condition they shall be, and by what names soever they are called, who think otherwise of the Sacra­ment of the Body and Bloud of Christ, or of Baptism, or of Confession of Sins, or Pe­nance, or any other Sacra­ments, or Articles of Faith, than the H. Roman Church and Vniversal teacheth, and as Hereticks, to give them over to the Civil Magistrate. Concil. Constan. ibid.’ And,

5. They renew the Consti­tution of (Constitutionem) Felicis Recordatio­nis Bonifacii Octavi, quae incipit, ut Inquisiti­onis negotium, renovantes, & etiam exsequen­tes, universos Potestates, & Dominos tempora­les, & Judices antedictos, quibuscunque digni­tatibus, vel officiis, seu nominibus censeantur, ex­hortando requirimus, & mandamus eisdem, ut sicut reputari cupiunt, & haberi fideles, ac fi­lii Ecclesiae nuncupari, & in Christi nomine gloriari ita pro defensione Fidei vobis Archiepi­scopis, Episcopis, & Electis, ac Inquisitoribus haereticae pravitatis, & aliis Judicibus seu per­sonis Ecclesiasticis per nos ad hoc—deputandis, fidem & communionem Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae tuentibus pareant & intendant, praeleán [...]que auxilium & favorem, in haereticorum, ne [...] credentium, fautorum, receptatorum, & defenso­rum ipsorum investigatione, captione, custodia di­ligenti, cum ab iisdem fuerint requisiti. Ibid. p. 1121. Vid. Sexti Decretal. l. 5. tit. 2. c. 18. Boniface the Eighth, concerning the Inquisi­tion, requiring and comman­ding all Powers, and Lords temporal, and Judges, of whatsoever Dignity, Name or Office, as they desire to be reputed Christians and Sons of the Church, and to glory in the Name of Christ, that they obey, and attend these Inquisitors, and other Ecclesiastical persons deputed, [Page 12]or hereafter, by the Apostolical See, to be deputed, for the finding-out and punishing of Hereticks, affording them their aid and favour in finding-out, apprehen­ding and imprisoning them, and all that do believe, favour, receive or defend them. And so much for the Laws made for inquiring after Hereticks.

§. VI. 3. The Laws which do concern the Punish­ment of Hereticks, when they are once discovered and apprehended, are either such as do declare what Punishments shall be inflicted on them; or such as do oblige men to inflict those Punishments upon them. Now the Punishments which by their Laws must be inflicted on them are these following, Concil. To. XI. p. 688. viz. Excommunication, Confiscation of their goods, Impri­sonment, Exile, Death. Concil. Bitter. An. Dom. 1246. Can. 2. And,

1. Pag. 45 [...]. Pag. 679. Pag. 726. Decretal. l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. ‘They must be excommunicated, with all their Favourers, every week’, saith the Council of Bezi­ers, A. D. 1233. Can. 1. and An. D. 1246. Can. 8. And the Council of Alby, Can. 19. They are actually excommunicated saith their Canon Law. This Sentence doth pass upon them yearly in the Bulla Coenae.

2. They must lose all their Goods.

For (1.) whosoever apprehends them (which all have liberty to do) hath free leave to take from them all their Goods, and full right to enjoy them. Concil. To. XI. p. 605. Const. Innocentii IV. cap. 2. And this Punishment, saith Innocent the Third, 7. Decretal. l. 5. Tit. 7. cap. 10. ‘we command to be exe­cuted on them by the Princes, and Secular Powers, who shall by Ecclesiastical Censures be compelled thereunto.’

Moreover, after the Sentence is pronounced a­gainst [Page 13] them, ‘their Goods, if they have any still re­maining shall be all confiscated, and never shall return unto them.’ To. XI. p. 6 [...] Const. Fred. 2. Concil. Bitterrense, Can. 3. p. 678. Statuta Raimundi, Com. Tolos. pag. 449, 450. Concil. Arelat. A. D. 1234. Can. 5. p. 2341.

‘The very House in which the Heretick is found must be destroyed and never built again, and the ground must be confiscated, and so must all the o­ther Houses contiguous to it, if they belong to the same person, (unless it appear to the Inquisi­tors that the Lords of them were wholly inculpa­ble) and all the Goods of them must be sold, or become his that takes them.’ Ibid. p. 607. p. 428. p. 449. 450. Innocent. 4. cap. 26. Clem. 4. Const. 13. Leg. 25, 26. Concil. Tolos. Can. 6. Concil. Bitterr. Can. 35. p. 694. Concil. Albien. Can. 6. p. 723. Stat. Raimundi Comit. Tolos. Concil. provinc. Narbon. Can. 35. p. 694.

3. They are to be imprisoned without delay.

And when they have them thus in hold, the Go­vernour is, by the Constitutions of Pope Innocent the Fourth, obliged Citra diminut [...] nem membr [...], mortis pericul [...] To. 11. p. 6 [...] ‘to compell them by any Punish­ments which do not dismember them, or endanger their death, expresly to confess their Errors, and to accuse all other Hereticks they know of, and the Believers, Receivers, or Defenders of them, and to tell where their Goods are’. Bullar. R. [...] p. 174. Const. Innocent. 4. cap. 25. Which Constitution is received by Clemens the Fourth, Const. 13. Leg. 24. and is the ground of all the Hellish Cruelties which those poor Creatures meet with in the Inquisition.

§. VII. 4. They must be banish'd, exterminated, or driven out of all places where they are. For the Council of Cologne commands Concil. To. 1 [...] all that are subject to [Page 14]it to rise up against Hereticks, their Favourers and Receivers, and faithfully to procure their Extermi­nation. Can. 9. A. D. 1425. p. 363, 364. And in order hereunto,

1. All secular Powers must swear to expel Here­ticks out of their Dominions. To. XI. p. 622. ‘The Constitutions of the Emperour Frederick the Second run thus, We make a perpetual Decree, That the Officers, Con­suls, Rectors, whatsoever Office they enjoy, shall, in defence of the Faith, take a publick Oath, That they will honestly endeavour with their utmost power to expell all Hereticks, as such condemned by the Church, out of their Territories.’ [...]id. p. 423. ‘And all that shall be admitted hereafter to any place of Go­vernment temporal or perpetual, shall be bound to take this Oath, or lose his Government.’ Ludovicus the Seventh, King of France, with the advice of his Nobles, sets forth his Edicts against Hereticks, [...]ncil. To. XI. 423, 424. com­manding all his Barons, Bailiffs, and other Sub­jects present and future, to be solicitous and intent to purge their Territories from Hereticks and he­retical Filth, and to swear to the observation of this and all the other Statutes made against them. They must swear to doe their endeavours to exterminate out of their Dominions all Hereticks, Believers, Re­ceivers, Favourers, or Defenders of them, saith the Council of Alby, Can. 20. p. 726. [...]cil. To. XI. [...]2. p. 2340.The Council of Arles gives power to the Bishop to compell them by Church Cen­sures to take this Oath. Can. 3. See the like, Concil. Bitter. Can. 9. p. 679, 680. Concil. provinc. Narbon. Can. 32. p. 693, 694.

The Constitutions of Innocent the Fourth decree, XI. p. 605. that every Governour in Lombardy, having called a Common Council, shall put forth his Edict, to [Page 15]banish all Hereticks from under his Jurisdiction, and to declare, That none of them shall stay within his Jurisdiction. Const. 2. Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 173.So also doe the Constitutions of Clement the Fourth, Const. 13. Leg. 2. Now, for the better Execution of this Punishment, it is de­creed,

§. VIII. 1. ‘That if any Governor knowingly per­mit a Heretick to abide in his Dominions he shall be excommunicated.’ Concil. Bitterr. Can. 2. p. 677.

2. ‘That whosoever, having temporal Dominion, neglects to prosecute those who by the Church are denounced Hereticks, or to exterminate them out of his Province, or Dominion, is to be deem'd a grievous Favourer of Hereticks.’ Incomparabilit [...] Reus, p. 492. Concil. Narbon. Can. 15.

3. ‘He who knowingly permits a Heretick to a­bide in his Dominions shall for ever lose them. And his Body shall be in the Power of his Lord, to doe with him as he ought.’ Concil. To. XI. p. 428. Concil. Tolos. Can. 4. Concil. Bitterr. Can. 2. p. 677. Concil. Alb. Can. 5. p. 725. ‘If the temporal Lord being required shall neglect to purge his Territory from heretical Pravity, after one year elapsed from the time of his Monition’, saith the Emperour Frederick, ‘we expose his Territories to be seized by Catholicks, who, having extermi­nated the Hereticks, without contradiction shall possess it, and preserve it in the Purity of Faith, so as no injury be done to the right of the superiour Lord, who doth not any way oppose this Proce­dure; provided notwithstanding that the same Law take place against them who have no principal Lords.’ p. 622. Bull. Rom. To. p. 90. Const. Fred. 2. And this his Constitution is confirmed by Honorius the Third. Const. 1.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

§. IX. Now all these Constitutions of Popes, Kings, Emperours, Provincial Councils, are also confirmed by the approved general Councils of the R. Church; and are extended and enlarged by them to Kings, Empe­rours and Supreme Governours, and so they are not onely Constitutions of State, or of the Court of Rome, but also of the whole Church of Rome. For,

1. The Fourth general Coun­cil of Excommunicamus & anathematizamus [...]mnem Haeresim extollentem se adversus hanc [...]anctam orthodoxam Fidem quam superius ex­ [...]osuimus, condemnantes universos Haereticos qui­ [...]uscunque nominibus censeantur. Concil. Lat. Can. 3. Concil. To. XI. p. 148. Lateran begins the Chapter against Hereticks thus, ‘We excommunicate and ana­thematize every Heresie extol­ling it self against the H. Or­thodox Catholick Faith, which we have now ex­pounded, condemning all Hereticks by what names soever they are called.’ Eos & Defensores eorum & Recepto­ [...]es Anathemati decernimus subjacere. Concil. Lat. tertium. cap. 27. ‘We anathematize them, their De­fenders and Receivers’, saith the Third general Council held there.

2. The Third general Coun­cil of Bena ejusmodi Damnatorum, si Laici [...]erint, confiscentur. Concil. Lat. quartum, [...]an. 3. ibid. Confiscentur eorum bona, & li­ [...]rum sit Principibus ejusmodi homines subjice­ [...] servituti. Lat. tertium, cap. 27. Bona ip­ [...]um, à tempore commissi criminis, secundum [...]onicas Sanctiones confiscata. Concil. Const. [...]ss. 45. Bin. To. 7. p. 1121. Lateran under Alex­ander the Third, the Fourth ge­neral Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third, and the ge­neral Council of Constance de­cree that ‘the Goods of Here­ticks, if they be Lay-men, shall be confiscated.’

3. They decree that ‘the Temporal Lords,’ being required by the Inquisitors, Archbishops, Bishops, &c. Ut praesatas personas pestiferas—in [...]estatem, seu carcerem—infra eorundem Do­ [...]norum potestatem, seu judicum districtum [...]cant, vel duci faciant, sine mora, ubi per [...]ros Catholicos—sub arcta & diligenti custodia, nè fugiant ponendo eos etiam compedi­bus & manicis ferreis, teneant, donec eorum negotium per Ecclesiae judicium terminetur. Concil. Const. Sess. 45. Bin. To. 7. p. 1121. shall within their Jurisdictions, without delay, imprison He­reticks, [Page 17] and cause them to be kept in close custody, by put­ting them into Fetters and I­ron Chains, till the Church hath passed sentence on them; and not Vide Sext. De­cretal. l. 5. tit. 2. c. 18. freeing them from prison without the License of the Bishop or Inquisitors. And,

4. They decree that the Moneantur autem, & inducantur, &, si necesse fuerit, per Censuram Ecclesiasticam compellantur Seculares Potestates, quibuscunque funguntur Officiis, ut sicut reputari cupiunt & haberi fideles, it à pro defensione Fidei praestent publicè Juramentum quod de terris suae juris­dictioni subjecti; universos Haereticos ab Ec­clesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus extermi­nare studebutn: it à quòd à modo quomodocun­que quis fuerit in Potestatem sive spiritualem sive temporalem assumptus hoc teneatur capitu­lum Juramento firmare. Concil. Lat. quar­tum. Can. 3. ibid. ‘Secular Powers, what Offices soever they enjoy, shall be admonished, and, if need be, compelled by Eccle­siastical Censure, that as they desire to be reputed Christi­ans, so they will take an Oath for the defence of the Faith, that they will honestly en­deavour with their whole Power to exterminate all Hereticks, condemned by the Church, out of their Territories.’ Thus the fourth Lateran Council hath defined. The general Council of Constance requires Omnes Christianae & Catholicae Fidei Professores, Imperatorem, Reges, Duces, Prin­cipes, &c. necnon caeteros jurisdictionem tempo­ralem exercentes juxta Juris formam & exi­gentiam Authoritate Apostolicâ exhortando mo­neatis & requiratis ut de Regnis, Provinciis, Civitatibus, Oppidis, Castris, Villis, Terris & Locis aliis, ac Dominiis supradictis, omnes & singulos Haereticos hujusinodi, secundum tenorem Lateranensis Concilii, quod iucipit sicut ait,—tanquam oves morbidas Gregem Domini inficientes, expellant: nec eosdem in suis distric­tibus praedicare, domicilia tenere, larem fove­re, contractus inire, negociationes & mercatio­nes quaslibet exercere, aut humanitatis solatia, N. B. cum Christi Fidelibus habere permittant. Conc. Const. Sess. 45. apud Bin. To. 7. p. 1121. A. Vide Concil. Lat. tertium, cap. 27. ‘All Archbishops, Bishops, and other persons chosen for this Work, to admonish and require all Kings, Emperours, Dukes, Princes, Earls, Ba­rons, &c. and by the Apostolical Authority to command them, to expell all Hereticks foremen­tioned out of their Kingdoms, Provinces, Cities, Towns, Ca­stles, Villages, Territories and other Places, according to the [Page 18] Canon of the Lateram Council which begins with the words, Sicut ait,’ that is, according to the Twenty seventh Canon of the Third general Council of Lateran, which, under Anathema, forbids any one to let the Hereticks there mentioned tarry within their Houses or Territories.

5. The Fourth Council of Si verò Dominus temporalis requisitus, & monitus ab Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica foeditate, per Me­tropolitanum & caeteros Comprovinciales Epi­scopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur, &, si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significe­tur hoc Summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc ipse va­sallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos, & terram exponat Catholicis occupandam, qui eam, exterminatis Haereticis, sine ulla contradictione possideant, & in fidei puritate conservent, sal­vo jure Domini principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod im­pedimentum opponat, eadem nihilominus lege servatâ circa eos qui non habent Dominos prin­cipales. Ibid. p. 148, 149. Lateran adds, that if the Temporal Lord, being requi­red and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his Territories from Heretical Filth, he shall be excommu­nicated by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans; and if he neglect to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be signified to the Pope, that he, from hence forth, may pro­nounce his Subjects discharged from their obedi­ence, and expose his Territories to be enjoyed by Catholicks, who, having exterminated the Hereticks, shall possess it without all contradiction, and keep it in the purity of Faith, so that no injury be done to the Principal Lord, who doth not oppose his procedure; provided notwithstanding that the same Law take place against them who have no Temporal Lords. Now let it be observed that both the Councils of Corde & ore prositeor fidem secundum traditionem octo Conciliorum generalium, neenon Lateranensis, Lugdunensis, Viennensis, Con­stantiensis, generalium etiam Conciliorum, & illam fidem usque ad unam apicem immutila­tam servare, & usque ad animam & sangui­nem defensare, & praedicare. Concil. Constant. Sess. 39. Basil. Sess. 37. Constance, and of Basil, do reckon this of Lateran among those Coun­cils which all their Popes must swear to maintain to the least tittle, and to defend even to [Page 19] Bloud; and that the Council of Per Latera­nense Concili­um Ecclesia sta­tuit. Sess. 14. c. 5. Trent not onely hath declared it to be a general Council, but also doth affirm one of its Definitions to be the voice of the whole Church, and therefore these three general Councils must be supposed to approve all that is cited from this Council. The general Council of Omnes & singulos Haereticos hujusmodi, necnon Sectatores ipsarum Haeresum & Errorum utriusque sexus, tenentes, & etiam defendentes eosdem, aut Haereticis ipsis quomodolibet, publi­cè vel occultè, in divinis, vel alias partici­pantes, etiamsi Patriarchali, Archiepiscopali, Episcopali, Regali, Reginali, Ducali, aut aliâ quavis Ecclesiasticâ vel mundanâ praefulgeant dignitate,—excommunicatos singulis diebus dominicis & festivis, in praesentia populi nunci­etis, & per alios nunciari faciatis, & nihilomi­nus contra cosdem omnes & singulos, utriusque sexûs, hujusmodi errores tenentes, approbantes, defendentes, dogmatizantes ac Fautores & Re­ceptores & Defensores eorundem,—& quem­libet ipsorum, cujuscunque dignitatis, status, praeeminentiae, gradus, ordinis vel conditionis existunt, auctoritate nostrâ diligenter inquire­re studeatis, & eos quos per inquisitionem hu­jusmodi diffamatos, vel per confessionem eorum, vel per facti evidentiam, vel alias hujusmodi haeresis & erroris labe respersos reperretis, auc­toritate praedictá, etiam per excommunicatio­nis, suspensionis, & interdicti, necnon privati­onis dignitatum, personatuum & officiorum, a­liorumque beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum [...] sou­dorum, quae à quibuscunque Ecclesiis, Monaste­riis, ac aliis locis Ecclesiasticis obtinent, ac eti­am bonorum & dignitatum secularium—& per alias poenas, sententias & censuras Ecclesia­sticas, ac vias & modos quos ad hoc expedire, seu opportunos esse videritis, etiam per captio­nes & incarcerationes personarum, & alias poe­nas corporales quibus Haeretici puniuntur, seu puniri jubentur, aut solent, juxta Canonicas Sanctiones. Concil. Constant. Sess. 45. apud Bin. To. 7. p. 1125. Constance de­crees that all Hereticks, all Followers and Defenders of them, or Partakers with them, though they shine in the Dig­nity of Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Kings, Queens, Dukes, or any other Ecclesiastical or Mundane Title, shall be pro­nounced excommunicate in the presence of the People every Sunday and Holy-day: And that the Archbishops, Bishops, and Inquisitors shall diligently enquire concerning them, who hold, approve, defend, dogmatize or receive such Heresies or Errors as they be­fore had mentioned, of what Dignity, State, Preeminence, Degree, Order or Condition soever they are, and if they be found guilty or infamed, by their Authority shall pro­ceed against them by the Pu­nishments of excommunicati­on, suspension, interdict, as also of deprivation of their Dignities, Offices and Bene­fices [Page 20] Ecclesiastical, and also of their Secular Digni­ties and Honours, and by any other Penalties, Sen­tences, Ecclesiastical Censures, ways or manners which they shall judge expedient, even by taking and imprisoning their persons, and executing up­on them any corporal Punishments with which Hereticks use to be punished, according to the Ca­nonical Sanctions. The general Council of Siena Concil. To. XII. p. 367. confirming this Bull of Martin the Fifth made with the approbation and concurrence of the Council of Constance, and so, upon the matter, renews all the forementioned Decrees.

§. X. And whereas our dear Lord declares, he came not to destroy mens lives, but to save them, they have set up under the Banner of the Cross an Host of men on purpose to exterminate, destroy and butcher those whom they are pleased to call Hereticks, and, to encourage them in this inhumane service, do pro­mise them the greatest privile­ges. The Si Bohemi non venerint ad Concilium sic solenniter mandati, tunc Principes & Chri­sti Fideles poterunt ad pugnam animari: ( & paulò post) justè induci possit bellum contra Haereticos damnatos. Append. ad. Concil. Ba­sil. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 200. Council of Bour­ges, approved by the general Council of Basil, declares, that ‘War may justly be waged a­gainst condemned Hereticks, and that Princes and Christian People may be ani­mated to fight against them.’

The Fourth general Council of Catholici verò, qui Crucis assumpto charactere, ad Haereticorum exterminium se accinxerint, illâ gaudeant indulgentiâ, illoque sancto privilegio sint muniti, quod accedentibus in terrae sanctae subsidium conceditur. Concil. Lat. quartum, To. XI. p. 149. Lateran decrees, that ‘they who under the badge of the Cross will set themselves to exterminate Hereticks, shall enjoy that Indulgence and that holy Privilege which is granted to them who [Page 21] go in defence of the Holy-land,’ and that is full re­mission of all their sins which they confess, and for which they have been contrite, and a greater degree of everlasting Happiness than others may expect. Can. 3.

The Third general Council of Eos qui ardore Fidei ad (Haereticos praefatos) expugnandum, laborem iustum as­sumpserint, sicut eos qui sepulchrum dominicum visitant sub Ecclesiae defensione recipimus, & ab universis inquietationibus tam in rebus quàm in personis, statuimus manere securos; & rur­sus fidelibus Christianis qui contra eos arma susceperint biennium de poenitentia injuncta re­laxamus, aut si longiorem ibi moram habuerint, Episcoporum discretioni, quibus hujus rei cura fuerit injuncta, committimus, ut ad eorum ar­bitrium secundum modum laboris, major eis In­dulgentia tribuatur. Concil. Lat. 3. cap. 27. apud Bin. To. 7. p. 662. Lateran decrees, ‘they shall be taken under the de­fence of the Church, and shall be secure from any manner of molestation in their Goods and Persons, and shall have two years release of the Pe­nance enjoyned them, and re­ceive greater Indulgence at the discretion of the Bishops.’ Cap. 27. The general Council of Siena decrees, that ‘all who prosecute and pro­cure the extirpation of the Wicklefists and Hussites, shall enjoy all the Rights, Privileges and Indulgen­ces concerning the Pardon of their Sins, which have been granted to them that rise up against He­reticks.’ And to Statuit haec sancta Synodus, quod quicunque capientes Haereticos, & in potestatem Ordina­riorum vel Inquisitorum Haereticae pravitatis effectualiter ponentes, vel eos, quos detinere, seu capere non possent, de eorum territoriis om­nes expellentes, aut bannientes, seu etiam re­quisiti, brachium seculare contra eos praestantes eam Indulgentiam consequantur quae dari consu­evit personaliter proficiscentibus in subsidium Terrae Sanctae. Concil. To. 12. p. 368, 369. ‘all that will prosecute those Hereticks, apprehend or bring them to the Inquisitors, or, if they cannot apprehend, will ex­pell them from their Territo­ries, and, if they be requi­red fight against them; they promise all the Privileges granted to those who went to the assistance of the Holy-land.’ So also doth the Canon Law. Eugeni­us Decretal. l. 5. Tit. 7. cap. 13. the Fourth, in his Bull of Revocation of the ge­neral [Page 22] Council of Basil objects this to them, ‘That a­gainst the Decrees of the Holy Fathers, and the Edicts of Emperors, which deny the admitting He­reticks to audience, and in prejudice to the Autho­rity Apostolick, and the Authority of the H. Coun­cils, they had invited the Bohemians to dispute at Basil, about certain Articles condemned by the De­crees of Popes and Councils,’ it being, saith he, noto­rious to the whole World, that the Bohemian Here­ticks were maturely and solemnly condemned in the Council of Constance and in the Council of Siena, were by divers Processes of the Apostles See and his Legates aggravated once and a­gain, and that War was proclai­med and the Secular Arm invo­ked against them. Invocatione etiam auxilii brachii secularis, & publici belli indictione multiplici. Bin. To. 8. p. 267. Coeleste Regnum à Deo consequitur qui pro Christianorum defensione moritur. ‘He shall obtain of God the King­dom of Heaven who dies for the defence of Christians,’ saith a Lemma of the Ca­non Law: the words of the Chapter are said to be di­rected by Leo the Fourth to the French Army; and they speak thus, viz. Omni timore & terrore deposito, contra In­imicos Sanctae Fidei, & Adversarios omnium Religionum agere viriliter studete; novit e­nim Omnipotens si quilibet vestrûm morietur, quod pro veritate Fidei,—ac defensione Chri­stianorum mortuus est, & ideo ab eo praemium coeleste consequetur. Decret. Part. 2. Caus. 23. qu. 8. cap. 9. ‘laying aside all fear and terrour, act boldly against the Enemies of H. Faith, and the Adversaries of all Religion; for the Om­nipotent knows, that if any of you dies he dies for the true Faith, the Preservation of his Countrie, and the De­fence of Christians; and therefore he shall obtain of God a Heavenly Reward.’

§. XI. Concil. To. XI. p. 619, 621.The last Punishment which these poor Creatures must undergo is Death. They shall not be [Page 23] suffered to live, say the Constitutions of Frederick the Second. ‘The Natareni and all other Hereticks shall be duly punished by the Secular Judge, they shall take them away by a damnable Death,’ say the same Constitutions, p. 619. ‘For their Extirpa­tion, we decree’, saith Ludovicus the Seventh King of France, Concil. To. XI. p. 423. ‘that, being condemned, they shall be pu­nished with the Animadversion due unto them.’ So also doth the Canon Law. Decretal. l. 5. tit. 7. cap. 13. By the Statute of our King Henry the Fourth, against the Llollards, ‘after the Sentence pronounced against these Hereticks; the Maior, the Sheriff, or their Officers,’ who must be present at the Execution, must take them into their Custody, and burn them before the People in some eminent place. Concil. Tom. 11. part. 2. p. 2101. A. D. 1408.

The Constitutions of Frederick the Second de­cree, Pag. 619. ‘that the same Punishment shall be inflicted upon those who cherish and defend them.’

‘And upon all who having once adjured their Heresie relapse into it.’ Ibid. p. 620.

If after Death they shall be found to have been Hereticks, ‘their Bodies must be digged up, and their Bones burnt.’ Concil. Albiense, Can, 25. p. 727.

‘And the temporal Lords, by the Diocesun, and the Inquisitors, must be compelled by Ecclesiastical Censures to dig up their Bodies.’ Concil. Alb. Can. 27. p. 728.

Moreover, The Sons and Nephews of Hereticks or of their Receivers, Defenders or Favorers, must be admitted to no publick Offices or Benefices Ec­clesiastical or Secular, To. XI. p. 622. nor to succeed to the Inheri­tance of their Fathers. Const. Fred. 2. Innocent. 4. Bull. Ro. To. I. p. 182. cap. 29. p. 608. Nich. 3. Const. 2. §. 21. These are [Page 24] the Laws established which lay an Obligation upon those of this Communion to punish Hereticks.

§. XII. And that what they have thus established may be inviolably observed, they decree, 1. That ‘all the Governors forementioned must proceed ac­cording to their Constitutions against all Heresies extolling themselves against the Church of Rome.’ Clem. 4. Constit. 8. §. 2. ubi supra.

2. That Pag. 608. ‘these Punishments of Hereticks must by no means be relaxed.’ Const. Innoc. 4. Cap. 32. Clem. 4. Const. 13. Leg. 34. Bull. To. 1. p. 175. and as they must not be relaxed, so neither must they be delayed. For,

3. ‘When any person is condemned for Heresie, the Magistrate, within five days, must execute the Sentence which hath past upon him.’ Innoc. 4. Const. Pag. 607. cap. 24. he must presently receive them into his Cu­stody for that end. Clem. 4. Const. 13. Leg. 23. Bull. Rom. p. 174. ‘He shall punish them without delay.’ Const. Ludovici, To. XI. p. 423. Regis Francorum. And,

4. That no person may have any temptation or excuse, either for the relaxing or delaying of them, they are required to execute them without enquiry made into the Justice of them; For by the Consti­tutions of Innocent the Eighth, ‘All Magistrates, un­der the Penalty of Excommunication, must execute the Penalties by the Inquisitors imposed on Here­ticks, without revising the Justice of them; Be­cause Heresie is a Crime meerly Ecclesiastical.’ Const. 10. Bull. Rom. To. 1. p. 453.

§. XIII. Moreover, That no Governor may plead Ignorance as to any of these Laws, by the Constituti­ons of Innocent the Fourth, To. XI. p. 609. Every Governor must [Page 25] have a Copy of these Laws inserted into the Sta­tute Book of the City where he doth preside. Const. 33. Clemens the 4 th commands all Rulers through­out Italy, to write down in their Chapter-acts, or in their Books of Statutes, the Constitutions set forth against Hereticks by Innocent the Fourth, and A­lexander the Fourth, Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 166. Const. 8. §. 1. And,

2. ‘If any blot out, diminish or alter any of these Constitutions without the consent of the Apostolick▪ See, he must be proceeded against as a publick Defender or Favorer of Hereticks,’ Innocent. 4. Pag. 609. Const. 34. Clem. 4. Const. 13. Leg. 37. p. 175. And that no person may plead an Obligation by virtue of any other Constitutions, to neglect the prosecution of these Laws.

3. ‘All Statutes contrary to these, throughout all Italy, must be abolished and rased out of all pla­ces and Cities within their Jurisdiction’, Innocen. 4. Pag. 609. Const. 37. Clem. 4. Constit. 13. Leg. 39. By the Con­stitution Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 175. of Vrban the Fourth, Sexti Decretal. l. 5. tit. 2. cap. 9. the Statutes of any City, Castle, Village, or other place, whereby the bu­siness of the Inquisition of Heretical pravity is direct­ly or indirectly hindred or retarded, are made void, and the Rectors and Governors of those places are, by Ecclesiastical Censure to be compelled to revoke them.

§. XIV. Again, That knowing of these Constitutions they may not dare to be remiss as to the Execution of them; at their Admission they must swear to the Ob­servance of them, ‘he who will not doe so, must not be owned as a Governor in any place of Italy, nor must any of his Acts be valid, nor any per­son be obliged to perform the Oaths made to him’, To. XI. p. 604. [Page 26] Innoc. 4. Const. 1. Clem. 4. Const. 13. Leg. 1. Nor is Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 173. p. 622. he, by the Laws of Frederick the Second, to be ad­mitted as a Governor in any place of the Empire. And these two Constitutions are made a part of the Canon Law, as you may see, Sexti Decretal. l. 5. tit. 2. cap. 11.

If, having thus sworn, ‘he shall neglect to ob­serve all, and several of these Constitutions, he must be devested of his Office and Government, and be henceforth uncapable of any Dignity, Office and Honour’, To. XI. p. 604. ‘and must be prosecuted as a person infa­mous, perjur'd, suspected concerning the Faith, and a Favorer of Hereticks.’ Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 173. Const. Innoc. 4. Const. 1. Clem. 4. Const. 13. Leg. 2. If he do not proceed ac­cording to these Rules against all Heresies extol­ling themselves against the Church of Rome, he must be punished with an Excommunication and an Interdict upon his Jurisdiction, to be inflicted by the Inquisitors on all Refusers. p. 166. Constit. 8. §. 2. Con­stit. 13. §. 2. p. 172.

‘If any Bishop be negligent or remiss in purging of his Diocess from Heretical pravity,’ he, by the Si quis Episcopus, super expurgando de sua Diocaesi Haeretica pravitatis sermento, neg­ligens fuerit vel remissus, cùm id certis indiciis apparuerit, ab Episcopali Officio deponatur, & in locum ipsius alter substituatur idoneus, qui velit & possit Haereticam confundere pravitatem. Concil. Lat. Can. 3. Concil. To. XI. p. 152. Canon of the Fourth gene­ral, Council of Lateran, ‘must be deposed from his Episcopal Office’; and the same Punish­ment is threatned by the gene­ral Council of Nos enim contra omnes Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, &c. qui super extirpando Haereticae pravitatis sermento—negligences fuerint,—usque ad privati nem seu depositionem Pontifica­lis Dignitatis procedere intendimus & procede­mus. Sess. 45. apud Bin. To. [...]. p. 1122. Constance to all Archbishops, Bishops, or In­quisitors who are thus negli­gent and remiss, and also by the Canon Law, Decretal. l. 5. tit. 7. cap. 13.

To. XI. p. 428. ‘If any Bailiff be negligent in this Work, he must lose his Goods and be uncapable of the Of­fice.’ [Page 27] Concil. Tolos. Can. 7. Concil. Albiense, Can. 7. p. 723.

If any person whatsoever will not execute the Sentence of the Inquisitors, he must be compelled to it by Ecclesiastical Censures; and if then he a­mend not, both his Diocesan and the Inquisitors must proceed against him as a Defender and Favo­rer of Hereticks. Concil. To. XI. p. 698. p. 726. 727. So the Council of Valence, A. D. 1248. Can. 9. Concil. Albiense. Can. 22. A. D. 1254.

§. XV. And that no man may dare to give these Vide Bullam Ni­chol. 3. Const. 2. §. 3. Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 182. & Clem. 4. Const. 13. l. 27. p. 175. Hereticks Credit, or shew them the least Favor, they have decreed, 1. That all who are Believers of Here­ticks, or give Credit to their Errors, shall be condem­ned and punished as Hereticks. Innoc. 4. Const. 27. ‘Now such a one is he’, saith the Provincial Council of Narbon, To. XI. p. 495, 496. ‘who shews them any Reverence, who be­lieves that they, continuing in their Sect, may be saved, or may be good and holy Men, or Friends of God, or of good Life and Conversation, or that they who prosecute them do offend.’ Can. 29. ‘They are to be reputed Favorers of Hereticks,’ saith the Provincial Council of Narbon, P. 492. Can. 14. ‘who hinder the Cor-rection or Extirpation of Hereticks, and those that believe them, or do not doe that which without manifest fault they cannot omit towards it; they greatly favor them who conceal them when they may and ought to reveal them; they more, who by concealing of them maliciously endeavor to hinder their Examination, Incarceration or Punishment; they most of all, who release them without the con­sent of the Church, when they are taken or impri­soned, or by whose Counsel, Aid or Command, such things are done’: Ibid. Can. 16. Nor are they free from this [Page 28] Crime, who, having opportunity of place and time, and power to apprehend Hereticks, or help others so to doe, wickedly let it slip, especially, when they are required to assist by others that are willing to apprehend them.

2. Credentes verò praeterea, Receptores, De­fensores & Fautores Haereticorum, Excommu­nicationi decernimus subjacere: firmiter statu­entes, ut postquam quis talium fuerit Excom­municatione notatus, si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, extunc ipso jure sit factus infa­mis, nec ad publica Officia, seu Consilia, nec ad eligendos aliquos ad hujusmodi, nec ad Te­stimonium admittatur: Sit etiam intestabilis, ut nec tesrandi liberam habeat facultatem, nec ad haereditatis successionem accedat: Nullus praeterea ipsi super quocunque negotio, sed ipse aliis respondere cogatur, quòd si fortè Judex exstiterit, ejus sententia nullam obtineat firmi­tatem, nec causae aliquae ad ejus audientiam perferantur; si fuerit Advocatus, ejus patro­cinium nullatenus admittatur; si Tabellio, ejus instrumenta confecta per ipsum nullius penitus sint momenti, sed cum Autore damnato dam­nentur. Concil. Lat. quartum, Can. 3. Con­cil. To. XI. p. 149, 150. If any Believer, Recei­ver, Defender or Favorer of Hereticks, being excommuni­cated, do not satisfie (the Church) within a year, he from hence forward shall be infamous, and shall not be admitted to give Testimony, or to publick Offices, or to Councils, or to the Election of those that belong to them: he shall have no power of making any Will, or suc­ceeding to any Inheritance: No man shall be obliged to answer him in any Cause, but he shall be compelled to an­swer others; if he be a Judge, his Sentence shall be void and null, nor shall any Causes come before him; if an Advocate, he shall not be admitted to plead; If a Clerk or Notary, the Instruments drawn by him shall be of no moment. So the Const. Concil. To. XI. p. 622, 623. Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 182, 175. Freder. 2. the Constitutions of Clement the Fourth, Const. 27. And lastly, All this is confirmed by the Fourth general Council of Lateran in express words, To. XI. p. 150. 149. Cap. 3. de Haereticis, and by the Canon Law, Decretal. l. 5. tit. 7. cap. 13.

§. XVI. Moreover, for the Security and the En­couragement [Page 29] of such as shall accuse them; Whereas▪ according to the Laws of heathen Rome, no man could Act. 25. 16. be condemned, till he had his Accusers brought be­fore his Face, they have decreed that ‘the Names of the Accusers of Hereticks shall not be made publick either by Word or Sign, because this is the pleasure of the Apostolick See.’ So Concil. Narbon. A. D. 1235. Concil. To. XI. p. 494. p. 689, 690. Can. 22. Concil. Bitter. An. Do. 1246. cap. 10. And whereas, in other Cases, by the Laws of all Nations, notorious Criminals, infamous and perjur'd Persons, were not to be admitted to give Testimony against others, especially in matters of Life and Death: All Criminals, and infamous Persons, though Partakers with them in their Crimes, may be admitted to ac­cuse Ibid. p. 494. p. 690. and testifie against the Hereticks. Concil. Narbon. An. Dom. 1235. Can. 24. Concil. Bitter. An. D. 1246. cap. 12.

§. XVII. Now sutably to these Decrees and Prin­ciples the Pope hath frequently proceeded, depriving Civil Governors of their Dominions, as being Fa­vorers of Hereticks, or as neglecting to extirpate He­reticks out of their Territories. For Raimundus, Comes Tolosanus, Albi­gensium Fautor, jam saepius excommunicatus, cùm & ditionem suam cuivis occupanti à Pon­tifice concessam cerneret, &c. Concil. To. XI. pag. 35. Raimund, Count of Tolose, was excommunicated by Innocent the Third, ‘because he was a Favorer of Hereticks, and his Dominions, by the Pope, were given to a­ny person who would seise upon them.’ In the year 1210. the Citizens of Tolose were by the Council of In quo Concilio excommunicati fuerunt, & expositi, Cives Tolosani, pro eo quod ea quae Legato, & Cruce signatis, promiserant, de ex­pulsione Haereticorum, adimplere contempserant. Ibid. pag. 53. Avignion excommunicated, because they neglected to perform what they had promised concerning [Page 30] the Expulsion of Hereticks. In a Council held at Vaur, A. D. 1213. Arnaldus Apostol. Sedis Legatus, da­tis literis, Auctoritate Apostolicâ, Regem ad­monuit, quin etiam imperavit, ut à protecti­one, defensione, communionéque Haereticorum abstineret, alioquin easdem censuras & poenas Ecclesiasticas in eum pronunciaret. Bin. To. 7. p. 792. ‘ Arnal­dus the Pope's Legate, by the Apostolick Authority, doth admonish and command the King of Arragon to abstain from the Protection, Defence or Communion of Hereticks,’ threatning that ‘otherwise he would pronounce a­gainst him the same Censures and Ecclesiastical Pu­nishments which are denounced against them.’ Yea the Pope himself informs him, that if he proceeded to be a Nec nos tibi contra Fidei Christianae negotium possemus parcere vel deferre, quantum enim tibi unmineret periculum, si Deo & Ec­clesiae, praesertim in causa Fidei, te opponeres—moderna possunt te exempla monere. Concil. To. XI. p. 95. Favorer of Hereticks, ‘he could not spare him, nor delay his Punishment; and that he might by the Exam­ple of others, who of late had opposed themselves to God and the Church, perceive what great danger han­ged over his head.’ The occasion of all this was as followeth; Peter, King of Arragon, solicits for Rai­mund, Count of Tolose, that he might be received in­to the Church, and for the Vt Comes Convenarum restituatur ad terram suam, ut Comes Fuxensis restituatur ad sua. Concil. To. XI. p. 82. Pro certo in­telleximus, quod Comes Convenarum Foedus cum Haereticis & eorum Fautoribus contraxisset, constatque de Comite Fuxensi, quòd Haereticorum extit it à longo tempore Receptator, p. 83. Counts of Cominges and Fux, ‘That they might be re­stored to their own again.’ To this the Council answer, That Count Cominges had made a League with Hereticks and their Favorers, and that the Count of Fux was a Receiver of them, and therefore his Majesty ought not to intercede for them till they have satisfied the Church. Whereupon the King sides with them, en­deavoring to obtain by Force, what by Petition he [Page 31] could not obtain. In the year 1214. a Council met at In hoc tandem omnium & singulorum vota & consilia convenerunt, ut nobilem Comi­tem Montisfortis eligerent in totius terrae illius Principem & Monarcham.—postquam ergò Archiepiscopi & Episcopi elegerunt praenobilem Comitem, instantissimè requisierunt à Legato, ut ipse statim traderet totam terram eidem Co­miti.—Dominus Papa—commendabat Comiti Montisfortis custodiendam, donec in Concilio ge­nerali, quòd in Kalendis Novembris illius anni, Romae convocaverat, de terris praedictis pleniùs ordinaret. Concil. To. XI. p. 104. ‘ Montpellier, of five Archbishops, and 28 Bishops, who chuse the Count of Montfort, Prince and Monarch of the Dominions of the Count of Tolose,’ the foremen­tioned Favorer of the Albigen­ses, ‘desiring the Pope's Legate to confirm their choice.’ He, having no Instructions touching this matter, acquaints the Pope with their Request, who doth immediately commit to him the Custo­dy and allow him the Benefit of those Dominions, referring the matter of the Title to the Decision of the Fourth general Council of Lateran, then called, and the next year assembled, which resolves the Case thus; Concil. To. XI. p. 148, 149. ‘That the Pope shall absolve the Subjects of such Favorers of Hereticks from their Allegiance, and expose their Territories to be enjoyed by Ca­tholicks, who, having destroyed the Hereticks, shall possess it without any Contradiction, so that no Injury be done to the Principal Lord’; who in this Case was the French King. In a Council held in the Province of Statuimus & praecipimus observari di­strictè, ut Raimundus, filius Raimundi, quon­dam Comitis Tolosani, Comes Fuxensis, &c. To­losani Haeretici, Credentes, Fautores, Defenso­res & Receptatores eorundem, Candelis accensis, pulsatis Campa [...], de [...]uncientur excommunicati, & expositi cuilibet occupanti, tam in rebus quàm in personis per singulas Parochias, singulis di­ebus Dominicis & Festivis. Concil. Narbon. Can. 17. Concil. To. XI. p. 308. Narbon, An. Dom. 1227. Raimund the Son of Raimund, Count of Tolose, the Count of Fux, the Here­ticks of Tolose, and the Recei­vers, Believers, Favorers, De­fenders of them are denoun­ced excommunicate by Bell, Book and Candle, and are exposed, as to their goods and persons, to every one that can seise on them.

[Page 32] A. D. 1281. Michaelem Palaeologum, qui Graeco­rum Imperator nominatur, tanquam eorundem Graecorum, antiquorum Schismaticorum, & in antiquo Schismate constitutorum, & per hoc Haereticorum, necnon & Haeresis ipsorum ac Schismatis antiqui Fautorem, de fratrum no­strorum Concilio denunciamus Excommunicatio­nis Sententiam latam à Canone incurrisse, ac ipsius fore Sententiae vinculo innodatum. Caete­rum universis & singulis Regibus, Principibus, Ducibus, &c. & caeteris omnibus cujuscunque sint praeeminentiae, conditionis aut statiis,—di­strictius inhibemus, nè cum eodem Michaele Pa­laeologo, in hujusmodi Excommunicatione ma­nente, societatem vel confoederationem aliquam contrahere sub quovis ingenio vel machinatione praesumant;—omnes & singulares personas con­trarium facientes—Sententiam Excommunica­tionis, quam nunc in ipsos [...]erimus, volumus in­currere ipso facto—& nihilominus societates confoederationum ipsas, etiamsi poenarum & ju­ramenti adjectione, vel quacunque fuerint aliâ firmitate vallatae, decernimus irritas & inanes. Mart. Const. Unic. Bull. Rom. To. I. p. 182, 183. §. 1, 2, 3. Martin the Fourth doth pass the Sentence of Excommunication, actually incurr'd, against Michael Pa­leologus, as being a Favorer of those Schismaticks, the Greeks, and therefore a Main­tainer of Hereticks, and of their Heresies and Schisms—and he moreover doth com­mand all Kings, Princes, Dukes, &c. and all other Per­sons, of what Dignity, Con­dition or Estate soever, under the Penalty of the same Ex­communication, to make no Leagues or Confederacies with him; pronouncing all such Confederacies null and void; though they have been confirmed with an Oath, or any other firmness whatsoever.

A. D. 1307. Clement the Fifth, by the Advice of Extrav. Com. l. 5. tit. 10. cap. 3. his Brethren, doth pass the very same Sentence upon Andronieus Paleologus, the Emperor of the Greeks, for the same Crime.

A. D. 1326. Castrutius, Governor of Luca, is con­demned Spond. Annal. To. 1. p. 418. §. 2. by the Pope's Legate, as a Persecutor of the Church, and a Favorer of Hereticks and Schismaticks, and is deprived of all his Dignities, and exposed to every one that would fall upon him.

A. D. 1425. Martin the Fifth pronounceth a most 16. p. 791. §. 1. heavy and severe Sentence against the Person and Kingdoms of Alphonsus, King of Arragon, as being a Favorer of Schism.

[Page 33] A. D. 1512. Julius the Second, having notice that Apud Spond. To. 2. p. 297. §. 23. the King of Navar favored the Enemies of the Church, he recurr'd to that last Remedy which is wont to be used against Rebellious Princes, execrating the King and Queen of Navar, depriving them of their Domi­nions, and exciting all Princes to seise upon the com­mon Prey. Tanquam Sec­tartorum Fauto­rem & Defenso­rem publicum & manifestum. Vi­de Thuan. l 82. p 45. Bull. Six­ti 5. edit. A. D. 1585. Henry the Third of France spared the Bloud of Protestants, and refused to declare his Successor uncapable of the Succession, though he was a Protestant; wherefore Sixtus the Fifth, A. D. 1585▪ excommunicates him as a manifest Favorer of Hereticks, and grants Nine years of true Indulgence to a­ny of his Subjects who would bear Arms against him, and doth absolve them all from their Allegiance to him. Upon this, his Subjects rebell against him, and Frier Clement murthers him.

A. D. 1592. Clement the Eighth declares▪ that Hen­ry Spond. ibid. p. 875. §. 4. the Fourth of France was unworthy of the King­dom, as being a Destroyer of the Orthodox Faith and a Favorer of Hereticks, and therefore he commands the Election of another.

A. D. 1570. Declaramus praedictam Elizabetham Haereticam, Haereticorúmque Fautricem, prae­tenso Regni praedicti jure, nec non omni & quo­cunque Dominio, Dignitate, Privilegioque pri­vatam, & etiam Proceres, Subditos & Popu­los dicti Regni qui illi quomodocunque jurave­runt, à Juramento hujusmodi, ac omni prorsus Dominii, Fidelitatis, & Obsequii debito, perpe­tuo absolutos. Bull. Pii Quinti. Bullar. To. 2. p. 303. Pius the Fifth ‘declares Q. Elizabeth a Heretick and a Favorer of He­reticks, and for that Cause de­prived of all Dominion, Dig­nity and Privilege whatso­ever, and her Subjects absol­ved from their Oaths, and from all Duty, Allegiance and Obedience, by that Oath due unto her.’

§. XVIII. Let it be then considered, that though Councils join with Popes in the making of Canons, [Page 34] yet by the Constitutions of that Church the Pope alone is he to whom belongs the Execution, and the Au­thentical expounding of those Canons, as they must be reduced to practice: And that the Pope is autho­rized by their Nos enim unum Ecclesiae corpus sumus, & ipse hujus corporis caput sub Capite Christo, quicquid igitur fit ab hoc corpore Ecclesiastico, ab ipso magis quàm ab alio corporis membro pro­cedere censetur, itaque non secus Synodalia De­creta pro suo debito & honore exequi debet, ac per alios servari facere, quàm si ab ore pro­prio dictata & promulgata essent. Resp. Synod. Basii. apud Binium, To. 8. p. 141. A. C. D. Quoties aliqua de universali Synodo aliquibus dubitatio nascitur, ad recipiendam de eo quod non intelligunt rationem, ii qui salutem animae suae desiderant, ad Apostolicam Sedem pro reci­pienda ratione conveniant. Decret. part. 1. dist. 17. cap. 4. Si quid eos de judicio univer­salis Synodi quod Constantinopoli per primam nuper elapsam indictionem actum est, fortè mo­vebat ad Sedem Apostolicam Electis aliquibus de suis qui dare & accipere rationem possent dirigere debuerant. Decret. part. 2. caus. 23. qu. 5. cap. 43. Si in his recipiendis aliqua difficultas oriatur, aut aliqua inciderit quae declarationem, quod non credit, aut definitionem postulant, confidit Sancta Synodus B. R. Pontificem curaturum, &c. Synod. Trident. Sess. 25. p. 648. Councils, both to interpret and to exe­cute their Canons during the Interval of their Sessions. And then, this being well conside­red, you will find reason to conclude, that their whole Church is very much concerned in what the Popes do practise by virtue of those Canons, or in pursuance of them. And un­less that Practice of the Popes in Execution of the Canons, which is allowed by Councils themselves, during the Inter­vals of their sitting, may be re­puted the Practice of their Church, I cannot imagine how they can impute any thing to their Church which is not done in Councils: And if that onely which is done in Coun­cils must be reputed as done by the Church, the Church must wholly be unactive in the Intervals, and unable to exercise any Authority by virtue of such Canons as have no Authentical Expositor, and no man authori­zed to execute them.

§. XIX. Moreover though any Prince, who hath embraced the Romish Faith, should promise not to prosecute his Protestant Subjects according to the te­nor [Page 35] of these severe and sanguinary Laws, yet can­not his most solemn Promises give to them any just Security of Freedom and Exemption from these Punishments. This will sufficiently appear, if we con­sider,

1. That the same impulse of Conscience that makes a man a R. Catholick, will also make him act like one, when he hath opportunity to doe it; it therefore must engage him to believe that the Decrees of Nec quisquam illud dicere praesumat quòd aliquod generale Concilium legitimè congrega­tum errare possit, quia si hic perniciosus Error admitteretur tota Fides Catholica vacillaret, nec aliquid certi in Ecclesia haberemus, quia qua ratione errare potest unum, possint errare & reliqua Concilia. Basil. apud. Bin. To. 8. p. 128. Blasphemia esset, si quis negaret Spi­ritum Sanctum dictare Sententias, Canones & Decreta Conciliorum. Ibid. p. 131. Haereticum illum fateri debetis qui putat Concilium gene­rale in his quae ad Fidem seu bonos mores N. B. pertinent posse errare, p. 135. Est certa regula, indeficiens mensura, Cunctos fideles rectissimè regulans, quae credenda aut agenda sunt salu­berrimè demonstrans, p. 206. De Haeresi suspec­tum rogari vult Concilium Constantiense utrum credat quòd illud quod Sacrum Concilium uni­versalem Ecclesiam repraesentans approbat in favorem Fidei & salutem Animarum sit ab universis Christi fidelibus approbandum & te­nendum, & quòd condemnat esse Fidei [...] bo­nis moribus contrarium hoc ab iisdem esse tenen­dum pro condemnato. Sess. 45. Bin. Concil. To. 7. p. 1124. Caetera item omnia ab Oe­cumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipue à sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita & declara­ta, indubitanter recipio, atque profiteor; simúl­que contraria omnia, atque Haereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damnatas & rejectas & anathema­tizatas, ego pariter damno, rejicio & anathe­matizo. Pii quarti forma Juramenti professionis fidei ab Ecclesiasticis R. Ecclesiae suscepti. general Councils concerning the Punishment of Hereticks must in themselves be just and equitable, and fit to be observed by him, and that the practice of the whole Ro­man Church, pursuant to them, for the space of three whole Centuries, must be a cogent Demonstration of the Recepti­on and Approbation of those Laws throughout all Catholick Kingdoms, that he who doth not punish Hereticks, according as these Laws require, must be guilty of the Crimes with which these Laws do charge him, and well deserves the Punishments they have decreed against him; and that whoso­ever doth exterminate and pu­nish Hereticks, as they encou­rage him to doe, shall certain­ly obtain the Blessings which they promise to him for that Act. How can a Po­pish [Page 36] Prince abstain from thus reflecting with himself? Either the R. Councils provincial and general, and the great Monarch of the Church doe well in anima­ting and exciting all R. Catholicks to fight against all Hereticks, expell them out of their Dominions, and execute these Laws upon them; and in proposing the Rewards forementioned, as Blessing certainly to be obtain'd by all who do engage under the Banner of the Cross for their Destruction. And all the Ro­man Catholicks did well, who, in Obedience to their Commands, and Expectation of these Blessings, ha­zarded, and lost their Lives, by their Endeavors to extirpate Hereticks, or who did murther and massacre so many millions of Hereticks. And consequently, I also shall do well, and may expect these Blessings, by acting as they did; or else these Popes and Councils, and all those R. Catholicks who fought, or acted, or did encourage others to act thus against all Hereticks, were truly guilty of all the Christian Bloud which in those Wars, between the Heretick and Catholick, was spilt, and all the barbarous Massacres and horrid Murthers which have been committed upon Here­ticks. And if so, Why do I own that Church, that Pope, those Councils, who have been guilty of these horrid Crimes, and these notorious Marks of Anti­christ; and which hath often sainted, but never in the least discountenanced, but kept communion and good correspendence with the Authors of them.

2. This further will appear, if we consider that the same Principles which do oblige a Popish Prince to own that Faith, oblige him also to execute these sanguinary Laws upon the Heretick, whatsoever Pro­mises or Obligations he hath made unto the contra­ry. That he is subject to a Power which can absolve [Page 37] him from all Obligations of this nature which he at any time shall make, and which already he hath de­clared that it is not in his power to make them, or to observe them when they have been made. That they are prejudicial to that superior Tribunal of the Church to which he must be subject, and made concerning Heresie, of which, as being a Spiritual Concern, he must not judge, nor of the Punishments belonging to it, or of the Lawfulness of the Suspension of those Punishments. All this 'tis easie to demonstrate. And,

1. According to plain Reason, When two Princes, that have distinct Tribunals, make Laws or Constituti­ons thwarting one the other, the Constitutions of the inferior Tribunal must give place to those of the supe­rior: but by the Principles of the Communion of the Roman Church, the Ecclesiastical Tribunal is superior to that of Princes; since then it is decreed by that Tribunal, as we have seen already, that all Catholick Princes shall faithfully endeavour to extirpate Here­ticks from their Dominions, and that all Constituti­ons made to the contrary are ipso facto void; no Con­stitutions made by Princes in favor of Heretical Sub­jects can be observed by them, or be of any moment in prejudice to the Determinations of the superior Tribunal of the Church. Now that, according to the Principles of R. Catholicks, the Ecclesiastical Tribunal is superior to that of Princes, is evident,

1. From express Declarations of the Church in her most general and approved Councils. Cujus quidem nulli Reges, nulli Prin­cipes possunt vel Decreta contemnere, vel Jussa negligere, vel Authoritatem detrectare. Apud Bin. To. 9. pag. 11. Aegidius Viterbi­ensis saith, with the great ap­plause and approbation of the Fifth Lateran Council under Julius the Second, that no Kings, or Princes can neglect the Commands, or re­fuse [Page 38] the Authority of their general Councils. The Coun­cil of Ipsa Synodus in Spiritu Sancto legiti­mè congregata—potestatem à Christo imme­diatè habet, cui quilibet, cujuscunque statûs vel dignitatis, etiamsi Papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem & extir­pationem dicti Schismatis, & reformationem generalem Ecclesiae Dei in capite & membris. Concil. Const. Sess. 4, 5. Basil. Sess. 2. Constance declares, that, ‘being a general Council, it hath Power immediately derived from Christ, which every person of what State or Dignity soever he be, e­ven his Holiness himself, is bound to yield obedience to, in matters which con­cern Faith, the Extirpation of the present Schism, and the Reformation of the Church.’ The general Council of Haec Sancta Synodus in virtute Omni­potentis Dei, à quo super omnes Christi fideles immediate potestatem vendicat, &c. Concil. Basil. Sess. 12. Bin. To. 8. p. 39. F. Veritas de potestate Concilii generalis universalem Ec­clesiam repraesentantis super Papam, & quemli­bet alium, est veritas fidei catholicae—virita­tibus duabus praedictis pertinaciter repugnans, est censendus Haereticus. Ibid. Sess. 33. p. 95. F. A. Hic Articulus de quo disceptamus fidem concernit, qui sine interritu salutis negligi non potest. Ibid. Epist. Synod. p. 139. Basil, in the se­cond Session, renews the same Decree: and, Session the 12 th, doth challenge, ‘by virtue of the Omnipotent God, imme­diate Power over all faithfull Christians:’ and, Session the 33 d they declare this to be ‘a Doc­trine of the Catholick Faith, which he that pertinaciously resists is a Heretick:’ and Session the 45 th they add, ‘that it is an Article which cannot be neglected, with­out the loss of Salvation’.

2. This will appear from express Acts of Jurisdicti­on exercised by them over Kings and Princes, for to omit the frequent Excommunications, and Sentences of Deprivations pass'd upon Emperors and Kings in the Fourth general Council of Lateran, Can. 3. in the ge­neral Council of Lions, Concil. To. XI. p. 645. in the Council of Pisa, Sess. 14. in the general Council of Constance, Sess. 12, 17, 37. of Basil, Sess. 27, 34, 40, 41. all which expresly have decreed, that Emperors and Kings, for Misdemeanors mentioned there, shall [Page 39] lose their Dignity and Honor, and be deprived of their Government; I say, to pass by this, they frequently demonstrate their supposed Power over them by lay­ing their Commands upon them; We enjoin Princes, saith the Fourth Per censuram Ecclesiasticam compellan­tur seculares Potestates. Concil. Lat. quartum, cap. 3. Principibus injungimus, cap. 67. Prae­cipimus Praesumptores hujusmodi, per Principes seculares compesci, cap. 68. Per secularem com­pelli praecipimus potestatem, cap. ult. Principi­bus injungimus, Concil. Viennense apud Bin. To. 7. p. 870. Per secularem compelli praeci­pimus potestatem. Concil. Lugdun. Bin. To. 7. p. 858. Eis (Principibus & Regibus) in vir­tute sanctae obedientiae, authoritate à Deo univer­sali Ecclesiae concessâ, districtè praecipiendo man­d [...]mus, Concil. Basil. Bin. To. 8. p. 207. Sa­cro approbante Concilio—Nos laicos—cu­juscunque dignitatis, etiamsi Regalis extiterint,—peremptoriè—requirimus, Concil. Lat. quintum, apud Bin. To. 9. p. 48, 49. Cogan­tur omnes Principes, Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. De Retorm. cap. 20. Lateran Council, cap. 67. and the Council of Vienna. We command secu­lar Princes, saith the Fourth Lateran Council, cap. 68. We per­emptorily enjoin them, saith Juli­us the Second, with the Appro­bation of the Fifth Lateran Council. We command that they be compelled by the secular Pow­er, saith the Fourth Lateran Council, cap. ult. and the general Council of Lions, cap. Super Cruciata.

3. Their Canon Law is full of Constitutions to this effect, de­claring, that, Lemma. In Ecclesiasticis causis Regis vo­luntas Sacerdotibus est postponenda. Certum est hoc rebus vestris esse salutare, ut cùm de cansis Dei agitur, juxta ipsius consti­tutionem, Regiam voluntatem Sacerdotibus Christi studeatis subdere, non praeferre. Eccle­siasticam formam sequi, non huic humanitus sequenda [...]ura praefigere, neque ejus Sanctionibus velle dominari, cujus clementiae voluit Deus tuae piae devotionis colla submittere. Decret. part. 1. dist. 10. cap. 3. When the things of God are treated of, the King must study to sub­ject his Will to the Will of the Priests, and not prefer it before theirs; that the Law of Christ subjects Kings to the Priesthood of Christ, and puts them under their Tribunals; that Christian Emperors ought to subject their Exe­cutions to the Prelates of the Church, and not pre­fer them to theirs, because God would have them to be subject to the Priests of the Church. By the same Law it is determined that Kings must follow [Page 40] the Church Form, and not prescribe humane Laws to her, nor seek to domineer o­ver her Constitutions, but sub­mit their Necks to her Cle­mency. And, that they ought to yield obedience to the Laws of the Church, and not exalt their Power above her. Lemma. Imperatores debent Pontificibus sub­esse, non praeesse. Ad Sacerdotes Deus voluit quae Ecclesiae dis­ponenda sunt pertinere, non ad seculi potestates, quas si fideles sunt, Ecclesiae suae Sacerdotibus voluit esse subjectas.—Imperatores Christiani subdere debent Executiones suas Ecclesiasticis Praesulibus, non praeferre; obsequi solere Princi­pes Christianos Decretis Ecclesiae, non suam prae­ponere potestatem, Episcopis caput subdere Prin­cipem solitum, non de eorum capitibus judicare. Decret. part. 1. dist. 96. cap. 11, 12.

2. According to the Principles of that Communi­on, all Princes must submit to, and obey the De­finitions of their general Councils, and the Deter­minations of the Church in Cases Spiritual, because she is their onely Guide in Spirituals: this being therefore a Spiritual Case, viz. how far the Civil Magi­strate doth stand obliged to punish Hereticks, the Ro­mish Prince must stand to her Determination in that matter, and therefore is obliged to act according to the Decrees forementioned which firmly are esta­blish'd by the Church, whatsoever Promises or Oaths he may have made unto the contrary. Now that the Cause of Heresie, and of the Punishments to be inflicted on the Heretick, is by them judged a Spiri­tual Cause, with which the Civil Power must not inter­meddle, is evident from that Decree of Boniface the Fifth, which strictly doth forbid Sexti Decretal. l. 5. tit. 2. Cap. Inquisitionis ne­gotium. ‘all Powers, Lords temporal, and Rectors, with their Officers, to judge or take cognizance of that Crime, it being meerly ecclesiastical, or to free them out of Prison without the Licence of the Bishops, or Inquisitors, or to re­fuse to execute the Punishments enjoyned by them, or any way directly or indirectly to hinder their Process or Sentence, under the pein of Excommu­nication, [Page 41] which if they obstinately lye under for a year, they are to be condemned as Hereticks;’ and this Decree is taken into the Body of the Canon Law, and is confirmed by the general Council of Constance, Sess. 45. ‘The Crime of Heresie must be judged one­ly by the Ecclesiastical Court, and the Secular must not meddle with it’, saith Gregory the Fourteenth, Bullar. Rom. To. 2. p. 708. Const. 7. §. 6.

3. No Promises, Oaths or Engagements can oblige to the omission of that which is our Duty, by the Confession of all Christians, they cannot bind, saith their own Canon Law, Non juramenta, sed perjuria poti­us dicenda sunt, quae contra utili­tatem Ecclesiasti­cam attentantur. Decretal. l. 2. tit. 24. cap. 27. quia non. Juramentum praedictum vos ex­cusare non potest, in quae debet in­telligi jus Supe­rioris exceptum. Ibid. cap. 19. Debet ità intelli­gi, ut non obviet juri, aliàs tan­quam temerarium non obligat. Cap. 21. ad no­strum. to any thing which is against the benefit of Holy Church; for according to the De­termination of Innocent the Third, received into the Body of that Law, ‘they are not to be call Oaths, but Perjuries, which are attempted against the Be­nefit of the Church.’ They cannot bind against the Right of a Superior, for the same Law declares that ‘in any Oath that is taken, the Right of the Superi­or must be supposed to be excepted’; they cannot bind against the Law, or the Canonical Sanctions, ‘for otherwise’, saith the same Law, ‘it is a rash Oath, and is not valid’. Since then, according to the Doctrine of the Church, 'tis the Duty of all Catho­lick Princes to punish and extirpate Hereticks; they cannot be obliged by any Oath or Promise to neg­lect that Duty, since this Neglect is against Law and the Canonical Sanctions, against the plain Deter­minations of the Supreme Tribunal, and against the benefit of H. Church, no Oath or Promise can oblige them to it. And,

4. They who do claim a Power to absolve Catho­lick Princes from their Contracts, Leagues and En­gagements made to Heretical Princes, must have an [Page 42] equal Power to absolve them from Contracts made with their own Heretical Subjects, for sure the Con­tracts made with Equals must be more firm than those which we have made to our Inferiors; but the Pope claims, and oft hath exercised this Power of absolving Catholick Princes from their Contracts made with o­ther Princes on this account, because they were made with Hereticks, or Persons excommunicate. Ergo, &c. To give some few Examples of this matter, the Bull of Vrban the Sixth con­cerning this matter runs thus; Inter solicitudines varias quibus assiduè pre­mimur, illa potissimum excitat mentem nostram, ut circa salutem animarum Christi fidelium so­licitis studiis intendamus, & [...] fideles ipsi ex consortio & participatione Schismaticorum seu Haeretitorum labefactari valeant, adhibeamus remedia opportuna. Ad nostrum nuper perve­nit auditum, quòd tam Wencelaus, Roman. & Bohem. Rex, quàm Carolus R. Imperator, si­mul, vel successivè, nonnullas confoederationes, vel colligationes, seu ligas, aut conventiones cum diversis Regibus, Principibus, &c. fecerunt, & quòd alique ex hujusmodi Regibus, Principi­bus, &c. tunc erant, seu postea sunt effecti Schis­matici seu Haeretici manifesti, & ab unitate sanctae R. & universalis Ecclesiae separati: nos igitur attendentes quòd hujusmodi confoederatio­nes, colligationes & ligae, seu conventiones fac­tae cum hujusmodi Haereticis aut Schismaticis, postquam tales effecti erant, sunt temerariae, il­licitae, & ipso jure nullae, & si fortè ante ipso­rum lapsum in schisma seu haeresin factae fuissent, etiamsi forent juramento seu fide datâ firmatae, aut confirmatione Apostolicâ, vel quácunque fir­mitate aliâ roboratae, postquam tales, ut prae­mittitur, sunt effecti, eo ipso tam idem Rex, quàm alii, qui forsan und cum eo hujusmodi confoederationes & cum talibus inierunt, & ad quos tales confoederationes quomodolibet exten­di possunt, ab earum observatione absoluti ex­istunt—eundem Regem & omnes alios quorum interest, vel interesse poterit, authorita­te Apostolicá, tenore praesentium declaramus fu­isse & esse ab earundem confoederationum, colli­gatiomon, ligarum, seu conventionum observa­tione penitus absolutos, & ad eorum observatio­nem aliquatenus non teneri, illásque quatenus de facto processerunt, cassamus, revocamus, ac nul­lius esse decernimus firmitatis; & tam eidem Regi quàm etiam omnibus hujusmodi aliis quo­rum interest, seu interesse potest, tenore praesen­tium districtius inhibemus, nè confoederationes, colligationes, ligas aut conventiones hujusmodi aliquatenus observent, seu ab aliis servari quo­modolibet permittant. Bulla Urbani Sexti, in Biblioth. D. R. Cotton. Vide Crakanthorp. Defens. Eccles. Angl. cap. 83. p. 626, 627. Amongst the many Cares which we continually are prest with, our chief con­cernment is, to provide fit Remedies for the preventing the Subversion of the Faith­full by consorting, or by par­ticipating with Schismaticks or Hereticks: and truly we have lately heard, saith he, that Wencelaus, King of the Romans and Bohemians, and Charles the Emperor have en­tred into some Confederati­ons, Leagues, Compacts or Conventions with divers Kings, Princes, Dukes, Earls, Grandees and Nobles; some of which Kings, &c. then were, or afterwards have be­come manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks, being separated from the Union of the Ro­man [Page 43] Church, though not by us declared such, we there­fore, considering that such Confederacies, Leagues, Com­pacts or Conventions made with these Hereticks and Schismaticks, after they were such, are rash, void and null by Sentence of the Law; but if they were made before their falling into Schism and Heresie, and confir­med by an Oath, or by the Apostolick See, or by whatsoever firmness, as soon as they become guilty of these Crimes, the King, and all that with him have entred into these Compacts, is absolved from the observation of them, and ought not to observe them: therefore we, by our Apostolical Authority, declare the said King absolved from them, and the Compacts themselves to be wholly void and null. Pope Martin the Fifth, in his Epistle to Alexan­der, Duke of Lithuania, who had received the Bohe­mians into his protection, writes thus; Quòd si tu aliquo modo inductus, de­fensionem eorum suscipere promisisti, scito, te dare fidem Haereticis, Violatoribus sanctae fidei, non potuisse, & peccare te mortaliter si serva­bis. Cochlaeus Hist. Hussit. l. 5. ad An. 1423. Spondan. ad An. 1422. §. 1. p. 779. ‘If thou hast been any waies induced to promise to defend them, know, that thou couldst not pawn thy Faith to Hereticks, the Viola­tors of the H. Faith; and that thou mortally offendest, if thou dost observe it.’ When Foedus cum Amarathe in decem annos ab Uladistao initum, idémque sanctissimis jura▪ mentorum vinculis utrinque firmatum erat. Ae­naeas Sylv. ep. 81. Bonfin. l. 3. dec. 6. Spon­dan. ad An. 1444. §. 3. p. 904. Vladislaus, King of Hun­gary, had made Peace with Amarath the Turk for Ten years, and had confirmed it [Page 44] with an Oath; The Pope Aen. Sylvius ait Eugenium R. Pontificem—est re auditâ, scripsisse Juliano, nullum vale­re faedus quod se inconsulto [...]um hostibus Re­ligionis percussum est, Uladislao Regi, uti con­venta dissolveret, imperasse, juramenta remi­sisse, novum instaurari bellum tum precibus, tum minis extorsisse. Sp [...]nd. ad An. 1444. §. 10. p. 907. Julianus Cardinalis ait fas esse quandoque pub­licae salutis gratia, neque stare pactis quae illi contraria, neque perfidis fidem servare—ac nè quâ Rex, procerésque tenerentur jusjurandi Turcis praestiti Religione, eâ se illos auctoritate Pontificis, cujus legatione fungebantur, liberare. Spondan. ibid. p. 905. Eugenius the Fourth writes to Julian the Cardinal, to per­suade him to violate that Peace, alledging and declaring, ‘that no League made with the Enemies of the Christian Faith; without consulting with the Pope, is valid’: Hereupon the poor King is prevailed with to become a most perfidious Wretch, and fall upon the Turk unawares, which he observing, and, being straitned in his Armes, pulls out the Ar­ticles of the Covenant, and, looking up to Heaven, cries out, Haec sunt, Jesu Christe, foedera quae Christiani tui mecum percussere, per nomen tu­um sanctè jurantes, nunc, si Deus es, tuas, measque hîc injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere. Bon­sin. Ibid. ‘O crucified Jesus, see the perfidiousness of this Nation, which, against their Oath, have violated all Right and Faith; and if thou art a God, do thou revenge this Perjury upon them’, which was no sooner said but the Christians were put to flight, the perjur'd King, and the Cardinal who persuaded him to violate his Oath, were both slain; God teaching us by this Example, saith Juramenta non solùm domesticis fidei, sed & ho­stibus servanda. Ibid. Aenaeas Sylvius, that Oaths are to be kept, when made, not onely with the Faithfull, but with Enemies. Pope Innocent the Third, in his Epistle to Peter, King of A. D. 1213. Arragon, writes thus: Serenitati tuae, in virtute Spiritûs Sancti, sub obtentu Divinae ac Apostolicae Gra­tiae providimus injungendum, ut praenominatos deseras Tolosanos, non obstante promissione, vel obligatione quacunque praestitâ, in elusionem Ec­clesiasticae Disciplinae; ipsis quamdiu tales ex­titerint non impensurus consilium, auxilium vel favorem. Concil. To. XI. p. 94. We enjoin thy Serenity, by vir­tue of the Holy Spirit, that thou desert the forenamed People of Tolose, and that thou dost not afford them [Page 45] any Counsel, Aid or Favor, whilst they continue as they are, notwithstanding any Promise or Ob­ligation whatsoever made unto them, in elusion of the Ecclesiastical Discipline. Paul the Third, in his Bull against Henry the Eighth, edit. A. D. 1538. Omnes & singulos Christianos Princi­pes, quacunque etiam Imperiali & Regali Dignitate fulgentes, hortamur &, in Domino, requirimus,—nè Henrico Regi per se, vel a­lium seu alios, publicè vel occultè, directè vel indirectè, tacitè vel expressè, etiam sul praetextu confoederationum aut obligationum quar [...] neunque, etiam juramento, aut quavis aliâ firmitate robo­ratarum & saepius geminatarum, consilium, au­xilium vel favorem quomodolibet praestent. Bull. §. 15. ubi supra. A quibus quidem obligationibus & juramentis omnibus, nos eos & eorum singulos—per prae­sentes absolvimus, ipsásque confoederationes & obligationes tam factas quàm in posterum faci­endas,—nullius roboris vel momenti, nullás­que, irritas, cassas, inanes, ac pro infectis ha­bendas fore decernimus & declaramus. Ibid. ‘exhorts and requireth, in the Lord, all Christian Princes shining in Imperial or Regal Dignity, that they do not under pretence of any Con­federations or Obligations whatsoever, although corro­borated by frequently repea­ted Oaths, or any other firm­ness’, I say, he doth exhort them ‘not to yield to King Henry, his Accomplices, Fa­vorers, Adherers, Consultors or Followers, or any of them, by themselves or others, open­ly or secretly, directly or indirectly, tacitly or ex­presly, any Counsel, Aid or Favor’: And that they might not think themselves obliged so to doe, he ‘absolves them all from all Oaths or Obligations made or to be made unto him or them, and de­clares them to be void and null and of no strength and moment’. And lastly, Pius the Fifth absolves not onely all the Subjects of Queen Elizabeth, but also ‘all others who had in any sort sworn to her’. Caeteros omnes qui illi quomo­docunque jurave­runt. Vide supra §. 17.

5. They who do claim a Power to absolve Sub­jects from these Promises and Oaths by which they were obliged to yield Obedience to their Heretical Princes, must have an equal Power to absolve Catho­lick Princes from their Promises and Oaths made to [Page 46] Heretical Subjects, for sure the Obligation of Prin­ces to their Subjects cannot be greater than is that of Subjects to their Prince: Now it is known, that R. Popes and Councils claim the Power of absolving Sub­jects from that Obedience which they have sworn to yield to their Heretical Superiors: Ergo, by the same Principles they must have Power to absolve Catholick Princes from those Promises and Oaths which they have made to their Heretical Subjects. To give some Instances of this kind, Absolutos se noverint à debito fidelita­ris, & totius obsequii, quicunque lapsis manife­stò in haeresin, aliquo pacto, quacunque firmitate vallato, tenebantur obstricti. Decretal. l. 5. tit. 7. cap. 16. ‘Let them know’, saith Gregory the Ninth, ‘who were bound by any Bond, how firm soever, to persons manifestly fallen into Heresie, that they are absolved from that Fide­lity, Obedience and Homage which they were obli­ged to pay them’: and this Decree is put into the Bo­dy of the Canon Law, and hath, saith Tota Ecclesia plusquam quatuor saeculis hoc Decretum recepit, laudavit, & in praxi ser­vavit. Discuss. Decret. Concil. Lat. p. 98. Singleton, been still commended and observed in the Church practice about 400 years. The Truth and Modesty of which Assertion as to the Limitation of it to 400 years, will be abundantly made good by these following Instances.

In the Eighth Century, Sigonius and others do in­form us, that Ità Roma, Romanúsque Ducatus à Grae­cis ad Romanum Pontificem, propter nefandam corum haeresin impietatémque pervenit. Sigon. de Regno Italiae, lib. 3. Et rursus. Extabant praeclara Gregorii 2. & 3. exempla, qui Leoni Isauro Imperatori Sacris interdicere, & jura­tâ Italiae obedientiâ spoliare non dubitarant, uno eo crimine, quòd Imaginibus se inimicum praebuisset, l. 9. p. 219. ‘ Rome, and the Roman Dutchy were lost by the Grevians, by reason of their wicked Heresie, and got by the Pope of Rome.’ That wicked Heresie of Leo Isaurus, which lost him the Empire of the West, was this, that he for­bad the Adoration of Images, and pull'd them down [Page 47] everywhere, for this Romanis ipse persuadebat, si perstite­rit Leo, ab eo tanquam Haeretico deficiant, ac tandem Italos jurejurandi religione absolvebat. Blond. Decad. 10. lib. 1. Ità dignum posteris reliquit exemplum nè in Ecclesia Christi regna­re sinerentur Haeretici principes, si, saepe moniti, in errore persistere, obstinato animo, invenirentur. Baron. An. 730. §. 40. Gre­gory the Second persuades the Italians to revolt from him, as being a Heretick, absolves them from their Oaths of Obedience to him, and strictly doth forbid them to pay him any Tribute or Obedience; whereupon they, rejecting the Em­peror, do bind themselves by Oath to be obedient to the Pope. This is the Title by which the Pope holds Rome at present, even plain Rebellion and tyranni­cal Invasion of his Sovereigns Estate and Dominions. Now ‘by this Action, saith Baronius, he left to po­sterity a worthy Example, that Heretical Princes should not be suffered to reign in the Church of Christ, if, being warned, they were found pertina­cious in Error’. The next Successor of Gregory the Second, was Hic statim ubi Pontificatum iniit, Cle­ri Romani consensu N. B. Leonem Tertium, Im­peratorem Constantinopolitanum Imperio simul, & Communione Fidelium privat, quod sanctas Imagines è sacris aedibus abrasisset, & Statu­as demolitus esset, quódque etiam de homousio malè sentiret. Platina. p. 99. Italia ab Im­peratore Constantinopolitano, Leone haeretico I­chonomacho, Auctore Gregorio Tertio, Papa de­fecit. Onuphrius ad An. 731. Gregory the Third, who ‘as soon as he had obtained the Papal Dig­nity, by the consent of the Roman Clergy, deprived Leo the Third, Emperor of Con­stantinople both of his Empire and the Communion of the Faithfull, because he had swept away the H. Images out of the Church.’

In the Eleventh Century, Gregory the Seventh writes thus, Aut Rex ipse, repudiato turpi Symoni­nidcae haeresis mercimonio, idoneas ad sacrum Regimen personas promoveri permittet, aut Franci pro certo, nisi fidem Christianam abjice­re maluerint, generalis Anathematis mucrone percussi, illi ulterius obtemperare recusabunt. Greg. 7. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 35. Concil. To. 10. p. 34. ‘either King Philip of France, rejecting the filthy Merchandise of Symo­niacal Heresie, will permit fit persons to be chosen into the Government of the Church, [Page 48] or the French will refuse to obey him any longer, unless they had rather cast away the Christian Faith, being smitten with the Sword of a general Anathe­ma.’ Where you see plainly, that the Pope supposes Heresie to be a Crime sufficient not onely to justifie Subjects in their refusal of Obedience to their law­full Prince, but also to justifie him in excluding them from the Communion of Christians who obey him.

In the Twelfth Century, to give the better Color to the Deposition of Henry the Fourth and Henry the Fifth, it was first voted in a Council held at the Late­ran, 1102. that it was Heresie to assert the Right of Bin. To. 7. p. 533. Lay-men to invest into Ecclesiastical Preferments. And this Decree was renewed in a Council held at Dictante Spiritu S. investiturum omnem rei Ecclesiasticae de manu laica, haeresin esse judi­camus. Concil. Vien. Bin. To. 7. p. 549. Vienna, Anno Domini, 1112. and by another held at the Lateran, A. D. 1116. and, in pursuance of these Decrees, were Pag. 554. these two Emperors deposed. But notwithstanding all the Thundrings of Paschal the Second against Henry the Fourth, the Church of Leod stood firm to him, which so incensed the good Pope, that he writes to Robert, Count of Flanders, to expel those Schisma­ticks out of the Church: his words are these; Nam in hac non tantùm parte, sed u­bique, cum poteris, Henricum Haereticorum Caput, & ejus Fautores pro viribus persequaris, nullum profecto gratius Deo Sacrificium offerre poteris, quàm si eum impugnes qui se contra De­um erexit, qui Ecclesiae Dei Regnum auferre conatur,—qui à Principibus Dei, sanctis Apo­stolis, eorúmque Vicariis de Ecclesiae domo San­cti Spiritûs judicio expulsus est. Hoc tibi, & militibus tuis in peccatorum remissionem & A­postolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus, ut his laboribus ac triumphis ad coelestem Hierusa­lem, Domino praestante, pervenias. Paschal. 2. Ep. 7. Bin. To. 7. p. 517. ‘It is just that they who have separated themselves from the Church Catholick, should be separa­ted from the Churches Benefi­ces; wheresoever therefore thou art able, do thou perse­cute Henry the Head of the Hereticks, N. B. and all his Favorers, with all thy might, [Page 49] for truly thou canst offer no more acceptable Sacri­fice to God, than by impugning him who hath lifted up himself against God; who by the Judg­ment of the Holy Spirit (O horrid Blasphemy) is cast out of the House of God by the Princes of the Apostles and their Vicars; this we command thee to doe for the obtaining the Remission of thy Sins, and the Familiarity of the Apostolick See;’ which, as it seems, cannot be more effectually obtained by any thing than by Rebellion against God's Vicegerent, and persecuting him with all our might.

In the Thirteenth Century, in the year of our Lord 1245. Pope Innocent the Fourth assembles a ge­neral Council at Lyons, where he declares the Empe­ror Frederick the Second guilty of Heresie, De Haeresi quoque non dubiis & levi­bus, sed evidentibus argumentis suspectus habe­tur, plura siquidem eum commisisse perjuria satis patet.—privilegium insuper quod B. Petro, & Successoribus ejus in ipso tradidit Dominus, viz. quodcunque ligaveris, in quo utique authoritas & potestas Ecclesiae R. con­sistit, pro viribus diminuere, vel ipsi Ecclesiae auferre sategit.—merito p. 642. insuper contra eum de haeretica pra­vitate suspicio est exorta, cùm—claves Ec­clesiae contempserit,—& constanter asseruit se G. Papae sententias excommunicationis non vereri,—cum Religiosas & alias Ecclesia­sticas jugi attriverit afflictione & per­secutione personas,—nonne igitur p. 644. haec non levia, sed efficacia sunt argu­menta de suspicione haeresis contra eum, cum Hae­reticorum vocabulo illos Jus civile contineri asse­rat, & latis adversus eos sententiis debere suc­cumbere, qui vel levi argumento à judicio Ca­tholicae Religionis & tramite detecti sunt devi­are—Nos itaque, super praemissis, cum fratri­bus nostris, & Sacro Concilio deliberatione prae­habita diligenti,—memoratum Principem—omni honore & dignitate à Domino privatum denunci [...]mus, ac nihilominus sententiando pri­vamus, omnes qui ei juramento fidelitatis te­nentur adstricti à juramento hujusmodi perpetuo absolventes, authoritate Apostolicâ firmiter in­hibendo nè quisquam de caetero sibi, tanquam Imperatori vel Regi pareat, & decernendo quos­libet qui ei deinceps velut Imperatori Consilium vel Auxilium praestiterint, seu favorem, ipso facto excommunicationis vinculo subjacere. Inno­cent. 4. in Concil. Lugd. Concil. To. XI. p. 645. ‘because he vio­lated his Oaths, and because he diminished the Privilege granted to the Successors of Saint Peter, in these words, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, &c. and contemned the Keys of the Church, which, saith he, must be Heresie, see­ing the Civil Law declares him a Heretick, and worthy to be punished as such, who in a light matter doth deviate from the Judgment of the Catholick Religion.’ Then fol­lows his Deposition of the Em­peror in these words. We therefore, after mature deli­beration had with our Car­dinals [Page 50] and with the Sacred Council, upon the Premisses, declare the formentioned Emperor—deprived by God of all Honor and Dignity, and, by our Sentence, we deprive him of them, perpe­tually absolving all his Sub­jects from their Oaths of Fidelity to him, and by our Apostolical Authority forbidding them to ac­knowledge or obey him hereafter as Emperor or King; and decreeing, that all who under that Relation yield him Counsel, Aid or Favor, shall be ipso facto excommunicate.

A. D. 1254. Innocent the Fourth pronounceth an Spond. To. 1. p. 188. Anathema, on Maunday Thursday, against Ecelinus, Governor of Marchia Tarvisina, as being a manifest Heretick, and frequently excommunicated upon that account. And A. D. 1256. he gathers an Army of p. 197. Crusado's against him.

In the Fourteenth Century, A. D. 1322. John the Twenty second excommunicates Matthew, Viscount of Milan, his Sons and Abettors, as being Hereticks and Schismaticks, passeth upon them the Sentence of Deprivation of all their Goods, Deposition from all Office and Dignity Ecclesiastical and Secular, of Spond. To. 1. p. 405. §. 5. Inhability to any other, and exposes their Persons to be seised upon, and treats with Frederick of Au­stria, King of the Romans, about sending an Army into Lombardy, to suppress them.

A. D. 1323. John the Twenty second commands p. 409. S. 2. Lewis of Bavaria to cease from all Administration of the Empire, and never to assume it again, without the Approbation of the Apostolick See; and this was [Page 51] done, as for other reasons, so in particular for this, that Lewis had shewed Favor and Patronage to Vis­count Galeatius, and his Brethren, who had been lawfully condemned for Heresie, and to some others who had rebelled against the Church. An. Do. 1324. this Pope pronounces the Emperor contumacious and deprived of all Right to the Empire, reserving to p. 412. §. 3. himself the inflicting of other Penalties upon him, if ever he endeavour to meddle with the Administrati­on of the Empire, or should presume to favor the forementioned Hereticks and Rebels, forbidding all the Subjects of the Empire, under most grievous Pe­nalties, in any manner to obey him, to call him Emperor, or yield him any Aid or Favor. An. Dom. 1335. Benedict the Twelfth renews this Sentence of p. 453. §. 1. Pope John. And the next year the Emperor makes a p. 456. §. 23. large Promise of doing almost any thing the Pope would ask, and giving Power to his own Subjects to rise up against him, if he did not perform it; and yet this was not thought sufficient to expiate the Guilt of Favoring Hereticks and Rebels to the Church of Rome, and doing that which was at Rome esteemed p. 457. ibid. Heresie. He therefore proceeds to confess that he had done ill in Favoring the Viscount of Milan and others condemned by the Church as Hereticks and Schisma­ticks: That in his Appeal, made against John the 22 d, he had said many heretical things; that he would make a full Confession of these things, and would supplicate for Absolution; and take an Oath stare mandatis Ecclesiae, to obey the Commands of the Church, and to extirpate Hereticks; and yet all this would not prevail for the obtaining of his Pardon. A. D. 1343. Clement the Sixth renews the same Sen­tence p. 474. §. 2. against the Emperor; and the Conditions which [Page 52] he required, in order to his Absolution, were, that An. Dom. 1344. p. 478. §. 1. he should confess his Heresies and Errors, of which he was accused, and that he should resign the Empire, not re-assuming it, but by the Favor of the Pope; that he should deliver up his Sons, Goods, and his whole concerns, into the hands and will of the Pope, all which the Emperor promised to doe; and yet this would not satisfie. A. D. 1345, and 46. the Emperor p. 481. p. 493. is again deposed, and his Subjects are absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance to him. So dreadfull was it even for Emperors to be esteemed Hereticks, or Favo­rers of Hereticks, or Friends to them who have been Rebels to the Church of Rome.

A. D. 1363. Vrban the Fifth pronounceth Barna­bas, p. 557. §. 1. Duke of Milan, a Heretick and Schismatick, ana­thematized by the Church, and for that cause deprives him and his Posterity of all Honor, Dignity, Privile­ges and Jurisdiction, absolves his Subjects from their Oaths of Fealty to him, and also frees his Wife from the Bond of Matrimony; and he subjecteth all that did aid or favor him to the same Punishments; and granteth plenary Indulgence to all Crusado's that would fight against him.

In the Fifteenth Century, An. Dom. 1453. Consideratione praemissorum, diligenti cum fratribus nostris deliberatione praehabitâ, ad ipsorum Amidei Fautorum proterviam extir­pandam— Carolum Francorum Regem auc­toritate Apostolicâ, praesentium tenore vocamus, cique Ducatum Sabaudiae, omnémque ipsius A­midei, notorii Schismatici, Haeretici excommu­nicati & anathematizati terram, ac ejus fau­torum, adhaerentium, complicum & sequacium bona, diversimode bactenus confiscata, donamus.—Et ut tam salubre negotium in Manu forti & robusta procedat,—nos omnibus, qui cum Rege praefato, contra Amideum & sequaces e­osdem, in propriis personis, propriisque expensis processerint plenam suorum peccatorum veniam indulgemus, & in retributione justorum, vitae aeternae policemur augmentum. Ep. 2. Concil. To. 13. p. 1322, 1323. Nicholas the Fifth, in his Epistle to all the Faithfull, by his Apostolical Au­thority, excites Charles the 8 th, King of France, to extirpate the perversness of Amideus, Duke of Savoy, the Antipope, with all his Favorers and Ad­herers, as being guilty of Schism and Heresie, and being there­fore [Page 53] excommunicated and ana­thematized, and he moreover gives him all the Dominions and Goods belonging both to the Duke and all his Favorers, promising full pardon of all Sins, and an augmentation of the Rewards of eternal Life, to them who would go in person with the King of France to fight against them; and this he did after mature deliberation had with his good Brethren the Cardinals.

A. D. 1462. Sigismundus Maletusta, for the Crime Spond. To. 2. p. 88. §. 8. of Heresie, is by Pope Pius the Second deprived of his Dominions and all his Goods. In the same year, George, King of Bohemia, sends to Pope Pius the p. 87. §. 5, 6, 7. Second, desiring him to confirm the Indulgence gran­ted to the Bohemians by the general Council of Basil, and confirmed by Eugenius the Fourth, concerning the Receiving the Communion in both kinds. The Pope answers by minding him of his Coronation Oath, in which he had promised Obedience to the See of Rome, and commands him therefore to comply with that Church. The King replies, that indeed he had sworn, haereticam pravitatem è Regno abjicere, to expell Heresie out of his Kingdom, but that he never esteemed the Receiving the Sacrament in both kinds to be Heresie, and that he would live and die in the practice of it. Then the King enquires of the Hussites, whether, if War should be waged a­gainst him upon this account, they would stand by him? who answer, like good Subjects, that they would doe it with their Lives and Fortunes. But put­ting the same Question to the Catholicks, they answer fraudulently, that when the Honor of God and Ju­stice was not violated, they would not be wanting [Page 54] to assist the King and Kingdom. For this the Pope prepares to execute his Censures on the King, nulls the Contract of Agreement made betwixt him and his rebellious Subjects of Breslaw, in which they promi­sed submission to him, he absolves them from their Promise, commands the King, and all other persons, under the Penalty of Excommunication, not to hurt them, or to compell them to obey him, and exhorts all Princes to be assistent to these Rebels and Truce­breakers, against all Invaders. A. D. 1466. Hynco, one of the King's Nobles, being besieged by the King in a Town called Zaraste, escapes privily in the night, and flys to Paul the Second, who presently, in favor of this Criminal, pronounces an Anathema against all who did not presently quit the Seige, and the Town notwithstanding being taken, he sends Rudolph, his Legate, to try the Princes of Germany, whether they would not hinder the Pope's procee­dings against King George; their Answer is, that the Pope knew what was his Duty, and they would doe what became Catholicks; but that they could not break their League with him till the Church had declared him a He­retick. In the mean time all the Catholick Nobility of Bohemia rebell against him, and desire the Pope to absolve them from their Oath of Obedience to him, which, when they had joyned with the Inhabitants of Breslaw and other Rebels, is granted to them, the King himself is cited to Rome, Rudolph is commanded to procure Aid against him, and to gather an Army of Crusado's for that purpose, which presently he doth, and forceth the King from a Town that he besieged. And, because the King appear'd not at Rome, and desisted not from persecuting the Catho­licks, by the Advice of the Cardinals and all the p. 108. §. 2, 3. [Page 55] Doctors of Divinity and of the Canon Law, he is pro­nounced a perjured, sacrilegious Heretick, then the Pope deprives him, as being a Heretick, of all Honor and Dignity, absolves his Subjects from their Obedi­ence to him, and declares him and his Posterity un­capable of any Dignity; and lastly, offers his King­dom to Casimirus King of Poland. p. 112. §. 6.

In the Sixteenth Century, Quasdam Leges seu generales Constitu­tiones edere non erubuit, per quas Subditos su­os ad quosdam Haereticos & Schismaticos Arti­culos tenendos, inter quos & hoc erat, Quod R. Pontifex, Caput Ecclesiae & Christi Vicarius non erat, & quòd ipse in Anglica Ecclesia su­premum Caput existebat, sub gravibus etiam mortis poenis cogebat, §. 1. habitâ itaque cum venerabilibus Fratribus nostris S. R. E. Cardi­nalibus deliberatione maturâ, & de illorum con­silio & assensu per viscera misericordiae Dei hor­tamur & requirimus in Domino quatenus Hen­ricus R. à praedictis erroribus prorsus abstineat, & constitutiones seu leges praedictas revocet, cas­set & annullet, §. 4. hoc praecepit sub majoris excommunicationis latae sententiae poena, §. 6. nec non rebellionis & quoad Henricum R. etiam perditionis Regni & Dominiorum praedictorum, §. 7. ipsiúsque Henrici R. ac Regni, omniúmque aliorum Dominiorum, Civitatum, Terrarum, Ca­strorum, &c. Magistratus, Judices, Castellanos, Custodes & Officiales quoscunque, necnon Com­munitates, Universitates, Collegia, Feudatorios, Vassallos, Subditos, Cives, Incolas & Inhabitato­res etiam forenses, dicto Regi de facto obedien­tes, tam seculares quàm si qui ratione alicujus temporalitatis ipsum Henricum R. in superio­rem recognoscant etiam Ecclesiasticos, N. B. à juramento fidelitutis, jure vassalitico, & omni erga Regem & alios praedictos subjectione ab­solvimus & penitus liberamus, §. 10. Bull. R. To. 1. p. 516. &c. Paul the Third, An. Do. 1538. with the consent of his Cardinals, declares, that Henry the Eighth of England, under severe Penalties required his Subjects to hold some Schis­matical and Heretical Articles, amongst which this was one, That he himself, and not the Pope, was the Supreme Head of the Church of England: These Errors he requires him to desist from, and to abro­gate the Laws made against the Pope's Supremacy; decla­ring that if he did not yield to this Injunction, he should incur the Sentence of the grea­ter Excommunication, under which Sentence if he conti­nued Ninety days, and did not within that time appear at Rome, he, in the space of three days after, should incur the Penalty of De­privation of his Kingdoms and Dominions passed upon him. Moreover ‘he absolves his Subjects [Page 56] from their Oaths of Fealty of Subjection to him, commanding them, under the Penalty of Excom­munication, not to obey him or acknowledge him as their Superior.’ A. D. 1570. Pius the Fifth de­clares Vide supra, §. 17. ‘Queen Elizabeth a Heretick, whereupon he deprives her of her pretended N. B. Royal Right, and all Dominion, Dignity and Privilege whatso­ever, and declares all her Subjects, and all others who had sworn to her, absolved from their Oaths, and from any Obligation of Allegiance or Obedi­ence to her’. An. Dom. 1585. Sixtus the Fifth pro­nounceth Navarrum & Condaeum tanquam Sectarios & in Errore relapsos, Sectariorum Fautores, ac Defensores publicos ac manifestos, Divinaeque Maiestatis Reos, & Fidei Catholicae Hostes proscribit, & Navarrum quidem omni Jure quod in Navarrae Regno sibi competere con­tendit, & eâ parte quam nunc occupat excidisse: Condaeum autem & utriusque Successores om­ni Principatùs, & Dignitatis jure in praesens & in posterum pariter excidisse, indignosque esse ipsos, & eorum Successores qui in ullum Princi­patum, ac speciatim in Regnum Franciae succe­dant, hac Sententia pronunciat, Subditosque ob­sequii Juramento solvit. Thuanus, l. 82. p. 45. ‘ Henry of Na­var and the Prince of Conde to be Sectaries relapsed into Error, manifest Favorers and publick Defenders of Secta­ries, that is, Hereticks, Re­bels to the Divine Majesty, and Enemies to the Catholick Faith;’ having done this, ‘he deprives them and their Po­sterity for ever of their Do­minions and Kingdoms, ab­solving their Subjects from their Allegiance to them’, in these words, ‘By the Authority of these Presents we do absolve and set-free all persons as well joyntly as severally from any such Oath, and from all Duty whatsoever in regard of Dominion, Feal­ty and Obedience, and do charge and forbid all and every of them, that they do not dare to obey them, or any of their Admonitions, Laws and Commands’. After the Death of Henry the Third, by the barbarous Murther of Fryer Clement, the Pa­risians send to the Sorbon Doctors to know if it were [Page 57] lawfull to submit to Henry of Borbon, to whom the Crown of right belong'd; their Answer is at large recorded in Thuanus, and briefly is to this effect, Ad haec capita, post Spiritûs Sancti invocati­onem, N. B. responsum, Jure Divino N. B. pro­hiberi Catholicos hominem Sectarium, aut Sec­tarii mali Fautorem, & Ecclesiae manifestum hostem, multoque magis relapsum, & à Sanc­ta Sede nominatim ab Vnione Catholica exclu­sum, ad Regnum admittere,—& quemadmodum qui Henrico ad Regnum aspiranti favent, aut Suppetias ferunt, Religionis Desertores sunt, & in peccato cum vitae aeternae dispendio degunt; ità qui se illi pro Religionis defensione opponunt, plurimum apud Deum & homines mereri, & ut illos in hostis generis humani Regno stabili­endo pertinaces, aeterna poena manet, sic hos, si ad sanguinis usque effusionem resistant, aeternum in Coelo praemium, &, ut Fidei Propugnatores, immarcessibilem Martyrii Coronam proculdubio consecuturos. Thuanus, lib. 98. p. 70, 71. that Catholicks, by the Di­vine Law, were forbidden to admit to the Kingdom a Sec­tary, or a Favorer of a Sec­tary, and a manifest Enemy of the Church, much more one that had relapsed, and was by name excluded from the Ca­tholick Vnion by the Aposto­lick See; that all who favor or assist him were guilty of damnable Sin, and would in­fallibly be damned, and all that did resist him unto bloud, would dye Martyrs, and en­joy an everlasting Reward in Heaven. But it is needless to multiply Examples of this nature in a case defined by two general Councils: First, that of Late­ran, under Alexander the Third, A. D. 1179. which cap. 27. speaking of certain Hereticks there mentioned, Relaxatos autem se noverint à debito fideli­tatis & hominii, & totius obsequii, donec in tan­ta iniquitate permanserint, quicunque illis ali­quo pacto tenentur annexi. Bin. To. 7. p. 662. ‘let all men, say they, know, who any way stand bound to them, that as long as these Hereticks persist in their Ini­quity, they are relaxed from all Fealty, Homage and Obedience due to them’. The Second is, the Fourth Council of Lateran, un­der Innocent the Third, which, as you have already heard, declares, Concil. To. XI. p. 148, 149. that ‘if the Temporal Lord neg­lect to purge his Territories from Heretical Pravity, notice must be given of his Remisness to the Pope, [Page 58] that he from henceforth may pronounce his Sub­jects discharged from their Obedience, and give his Dominions to Catholicks.’

Moreover, in compliance with these Popish Prin­ciples, we find that Popish Princes, who had made these Promises, did notwithstanding prosecute their Protestant Subjects with the greatest rigor, and act clear contrary to the Engagements made unto them. Our own Dominions will afford a sad and lamentable Instance of this thing. For Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Re­formation, B. 2. part 2. p. 237. when the men of Nor­folk, and a great Body out of Suffolk, desired to know of Queen Mary, whether she would alter the Religion set up in King Edward's daies, she gave them full Assurance, that she would never make any Innovation or Change, but be conten­ted with the private Exercise of her own Religion. And, on the twelfth of April, she made an open Declaration in Council, That, although her Consci­ence was stayed in the Matters of Religion, yet she was resolved not to compell or strain others, otherwise than God should put into their hearts a persuasion of that Truth she was in; but, notwith­standing these Engagements, as soon as she was well established in the Throne, she presently began, and did continually promote the Burning of her Prote­stant Subjects onely for their Religion sake. Another Instance of like nature we have in France; where, notwithstanding all the Edicts made in favor of the Protestants, See The Policy of the Clergy of France, p. 22. p. 32. p. 36. p. 40. p. 46. their Temples are demolished, they are rendred incapable of all Charges of Magistrature, they are abandoned to Injustice and Violence; their Children are often taken up in the Streets, shut up in Cloysters, and they never hear more of them; they are deprived of all means of gaining [Page 59] their livelyhood, and are not allowed to be of Arts and Trades, though the Declarations and Edicts expresly bear they shall be received into them. p. 135. In England, saith the Hugonot, there, ‘more Favor hath been given to the Catholicks than was promi­sed them; but in France, where we live under fa­vorable Edicts, they have promised us what they have not performed’; it is onely to us that they make profession of not performing what they have promised; the Edicts of Pacification are in all the forms that perpetual Laws ought to be, they are ve­rified by the Parliaments, they are confirmed by a hundred Declarations, and by a thousand Royal words, they have been laid as irrevocable Laws, and as Foundations of the Peace of the State, we rely upon the good Faith of so many Promises, and on a sudden we see snatch'd from us what we look'd upon as our greatest Security, thus there is neither Title, nor Prescription, nor Edicts, nor Arrests, nor Decla­rations, that can put us in Safety.

§. XX. But lastly, That which chiefly doth confirm this Truth is, the Proceedings of the general Council of Constance against John Hus, who being summoned by Sigismond the Emperor to appear before that Coun­cil, to take away all Fears and Jealousies of what he might expect to suffer from them, the Emperor grants Liber Epist Joh. Huss ed. A 1537. f. 1. him safe Conduct, Vt Constantiam veniens è converse redire ad Bohemiam possit, ‘to return from Constance to Bohemia, and promiseth he would receive him into the Safeguard and Protection of the Empire; and commanding all Princes of his Dominions to permit him freely to come thither, stay and conti­nue there, and to return from thence’. Ibid. f. 2. But not­withstanding [Page 60] this, he had not been above three weeks in Constance, but, contrary to his safe Conduct, he is thrown into prison; which being done in the Empe­ror's absence he returns to the Council, and argues the Case with them, upon which they pass the Decree contained in the Ninteenth Session of that Council, in these words; Praesens Sancta Synodus ex quovis salvo con­ductu per Imperatorem, Reges, & alios seculi Principes, Haereticis, vel de haeresi defamatis, putantes eosdem sic a suis erroribus revocare, quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint, concesso, nul­lum fidei Catholicae vel jurisdictioni Ecclesiasti­cae praejudicium generari, vel impedimentum prae­stari posse seu debere declarat, quo minus dicto salvo conductu non obstante, liceat judici compe­tenti Ecclesiastico de hujusmodi personarum erro­ribus inquirere & alias contra eos debitè proce­dere, eosdemque punire quantum justitia suade­bit, si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusa­verint, etiamsi de salvo conductu consisi ad lo­cum venerint judicii, alias non venturi; nec sic promittentem, cum alias fecerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum, Bin. con­cil. To. 7. p. 1075. ‘This present Sacred Synod declares that by whatsoever safe Conduct, grant­ed by the Emperor, Kings, or other secular Princes to Here­ticks, or such as are defamed for Heresie, and by whatsoever bond they have obliged them­selves to the observance of it no prejudice can arise, no im­pediment can or ought to be put to the Catholick faith, or other Ecclesiastical Jurisdicti­on, but that (notwithstanding the said safe Conduct) it may be lawful for any Competent and Ecclesiastical Judge to enquire into the Errors of such persons, and duly otherwaies proceed against them, and punish them so far as Justice shall require, if they shall pertinaciously refuse to revoke their Errors; yea, though they come to the place of Judgment, relying upon such safe Conduct and would not other­wise come thither; nor doth he, who so promiseth, remain obliged in any thing, having done what lies in him.’ And having passed this Decree, for the satisfaction of the Emperor, they pronounce John Hus Jam emittimus animam tuam Diabolo. Ibid. guilty of Heresy, and thereupon seven of the Bishops solemnly degrade, and commit his soul to the Devil, his [Page 61] body to the Emperor, who commands Ludovicus, Duke of Bavaria, to deliver him up to the Executioners, who there-upon commit his body to the flames. The question then is whether the Emperor did not breake his Faith with John Hus in so doing, and whether the Council did not decree that neither he nor any else were bound to keep it in this case with Hereticks. And although this case be so plain and clear to all per­sons who have any sense of Justice and honesty, that we dare to appeal to the most indifferent persons in the world. Whether it be not a most notorious Violati­on of faith for Sigismond himself, after a solemn pro­mise made to Hus of safe Return, to be the Aberat tum fortè Sigismundus, & certior factus graviter tulit, eoque venit, sed cùm Pontificii dicerent, Non esse Fidem ser­vandam Haereticis, non modo remisit offensi­onem, licèt Bohemi frequenter intercederent, & fidem servari peterent, sed etiam primus omni­um acerbè in eum pronunciavit. Sleidan. Com­mentar. l. 3. p. 59. instrument of his execution, and whether they, declaring that the Emperor had done what in him lay, as to the Observation of this Promise, do not expresly declare, that Incinerationem Joh. Hus, Imperator non aequo animo tulit, propter salvum conduc­tum ei datum. Respondit ei Sacrosancta Syn­odus eum argui non posse de fide mentita, quia Concilium ipsum non dederat ei salvum conduc­tum, & Concilium majus est Imperatore, & ideo non potuisse contra voluntatem Concilii id concedere, praecipuè in factis fidei. Nauclerus, Gen. 48. p. 272. Emperors cannot hinder the Execution of an Heretick, when H. Church doth interpose for his destruction, what promises soe­ver they have made of Safety to him? Yet that which most of all confirms this truth, is the consi­deration of the Answers made by the Doctors of the R. Church to Protestants acu­sing of this Council, as well they might, of favoring the Breach of promise made by Catholicks, to such as they are pleased to call Hereticks; now the chief plea which Opusc. To. 2. p. 149. qu. 5. §. 2. 3. Lab. Cant. p. 154. Becanus, and after him the Author of Labarynthus Cantuariensis makes to free the Councils from this imputation, is, viz. that by that Decree the Council [Page 62] declares, that no Secular Power, how Sovereign so­ever, can hinder the Proceedings of the Ecclesiasti­cal Tribunal in Causes of Heresie; and consequent­ly, if the Emperor, or any other Secular Prince, grants a safe Conduct, or makes Promise of any thing to the prejudice of that Jurisdiction, it shall not hold. The reason is, because it is a Promise made of a thing not pertaining to the Jurisdiction of that Prince, nor wholly in his Power to see per­formed: Which, if I understand any thing, is expresly to say, that though in Cases properly per­taining to the Prince's Jurisdiction he must perform his Promise, yet not in this of Heresie; because it doth belong to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal: When therefore the Council of Constance decrees, that no Secular Power is obliged by any safe Conduct to any thing that may hinder the Ecclesiastical Tribunal's Proceeding in Cases of Heresie, what doth it else but declare in express Terms, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, that is, in any thing relating to their Heresie; for this it seems the Magistrates have no­thing to doe with: and therefore let Kings and Princes make never so solemn Promises and Engage­ments to men suspected of Heresie, to their peril be it who rely upon them, for they have nothing to doe to promise in such matters, and though their Faith be given never so publickly and solemnly, they are not bound to keep it: Nay, they are bound not to keep it: For if they should, it would be to the apparent mischief and prejudice of the Church. This necessarily follows from their own words, and the distinction here used by them: And also from the words of the Council, for if no safe Conduct of Empe­rors or Kings can prejudice the Catholick Faith, or [Page 63] hinder the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from proceeding duly against Hereticks, and punishing them as far as Justice doth require, it cannot hinder the Execution of them by the Magistrate when they are given up to the Secular Power for that end; for, I suppose, the Council could not but esteem the freeing Hereticks, condemned by the Church, from civil Punishments, a prejudice to the Catholick Faith and an hindrance of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, by letting them escape who by that Jurisdiction were condemned to suffer what was due to Hereticks. So that the plain result of all is this, That no Prince ought to promise Safe­ty to the Heretick; But if he does so, though it be more than he can doe, yet the Church can make that good use of it, that by that means she may get the Hereticks under her Power, and when she hath them, it is but then declaring this Promise to be null, and she may doe with them as she pleases.

§. XXI. Now to give you the Description of a Po­pish Prince placed in the Throne, invested with the Power of the Sword, and settled in a Kingdom, where Protestants, that is, damned Hereticks, abound from the Decrees and the Determinations of their approved general Councils, and almost in their own Expressions, it is this, viz.

A Popish Prince is one who as he doth desire to be esteemed a Christian, or a true Son of the Church, stands bound to wait on the Inquisitors or Catchpoles of the Church, affording them his Aid and Favor, in fin­ding out and apprehending, and in committing to the Gaol all Hereticks, with all that favor and abet them, that is, he is to doe the Office of a Bailiff, Constable, and a Gaol-keeper to a bloudy Bonner, or any other [Page 64] Person deputed by his Holiness for the Destruction of his Subjects. Moreover, as he would avoid the hea­vy Censures of the Church, he must oblige himself by Oath, not onely to rob and spoil his Protestant Sub­jects of their Goods, and put them into Chains and Fetters, but also to exterminate them out of his Kingdoms and Dominions, and when they are by the Inquisitors or Bishops delivered up into his hands, he must presently commit them to the Flames, that is, he must perform the Office of the Hangman or Executioner for H. Church. And, if he be remiss or backward in butchering his Subjects for their Consci­ence sake, he must then be deprived of all his Domi­nions, and they must be disposed of to Persons more enclined to act these bloudy Tragedies upon them. And, lastly, if he hath bound himself by Promises or Oaths to deal more mildly with them, and to per­mit them to enjoy their own Religion, or hath enga­ged not to execute these Sanguinary Laws upon them, he must repent of this his horrid Wickedness, be false unto the Oath of God, and, in despite of all his Promises, he must effectually proceed to the Ex­termination and Destruction of them.

§. XXII. If he be backward or remiss in execu­ting of these Sanguinary Laws, he hath his ghostly Fathers, the Archbishops and Bishops, who cannot, with­out Perjury, forget to spur him on to the effusion of the Bloud of Christians; for, by the Oath which these Em­bassadors of Peace do take at their Admissions to their Sacred Functions, they oblige themselves Haereticos, Schismaticos aut Rebelles, ei­dem Domino nostro, vel Successoribus praedictis, pro posse persequar & impugnabo. Pontif. Rom. edit. Antwerp. A. D. 1626. p. 59, & 86. ‘to prosecute and impugn to the utmost of their power all Hereticks, Schisma­ticks [Page 65] and Rebels to the Pope.’ If they be remiss in this matter, they, by the Constitution of the Fourth general Council of Lateran, must lose their high and Can. 3. vide su­pra, §. 14. rich Preferments, which, out of too much kindness to a damn'd Heretick, you may be sure they will not doe. 'Tis from their Importunity that all these San­guinary Laws of Princes had their rise, 'tis they who have insatiably thirsted after Christian Bloud, and, like Death, never said they had enough; 'tis they who stablished all the forementioned Laws, and who in France and Germany were still taking Council to­gether how to destroy their Christian Brethren, more righteous than themselves: Concil. Salisburg. Can. 32. To. 13. p. 325. ‘'Tis they who do en­courage and admonish one another carefully to execute, observe and cause inviolably to be obser­ved, by all their Subjects, all Laws made against persons infam'd or suspected of any Heresie, and a­gainst all Receivers, Favorers and Defenders of them, and against Secular Powers, who being law­fully required, neglect to extirpate Heretical Pra­vity out of their Dominions’. And with what Faithfulness and Zeal they have performed, in this point, their Oaths, a few late Instances will shew. The general Council of Siena, held A. D. 1423. ex­horts, Concil. To. 12. p. 367. invites, admonisheth all Christian Princes, by the Bowels of the Mercies of God, and as they de­sire to avoid the Divine Vengeance, and the Penalty of the Law, to be watchfull and intent to extirpate with all speed the Heresie of the Wicklefists condem­ned by the Church. A Council met at Concil. To. 14. p. 441, 442, 443. Paris, un­der the Archbishop of Sens, A. D. 1528. and there­fore called Concilium Senonense, renews all the De­crees of the Fourth general Council of Lateran, ex­communicating all Hereticks, and declaring all that [Page 66] believe not as the Church of Rome believes, to be Hereticks, condemning them to perpetual Impri­sonment, Confiscation of their Goods, and decree­ing that they shall be given up to the hands of the Secular Magistrate, and commanding all Bishops to be diligent in Execution of these Laws, and all Governors and Consuls of Cities to take an Oath to be aiding in this Work, according to their power. This done, they thus apply themselves unto his Chri­stian Majesty, Francis the First. We beseech the most Christian King by the Bowels of the Mercy of God, for the sin­gular Zeal, and wonderfull Affection, and incredi­ble Devotion which he beareth to the Christian Religion, he would forthwith expell all Hereticks out of his Dominions and Territories, and would exterminate them; p. 443. And necessary, say they, is it that all Orthodox Princes should bend their whole Endeavors, and exercise their whole power for the destroying and chasing away Hereticks, if they are willing to consult the good of Christianity, or fear the Ruin of the Christian Faith; this is sufficient to work upon their Piety if they incline that way. To move them to this Butchery, with hopes of tem­poral and of eternal Advantages, they let them know, Ibid. p. 462. that though God is able to destroy the Hereticks himself, yet such is his Goodness, ‘that he would have men to be Co-workers with him in this thing, and that he amply will reward all those that are so, and that it would be tedious to re­hearse the Glory and Felicity of them who, adhe­ring stedfastly to the Catholick Faith, did slaughter Hereticks, as being the Capital Enemies of the Crown.’ And to deter them, if they be superstitious, with the dread of Punishments, they add, that, on [Page 67] the contrary, such Princes as have been favorable to Hereticks, and did not withstand their Errors, found the Vengeance of God against them, and, being de­stitute of his Favor, fell into grievous Calamities, and miserably ended their Lives: We therefore, considering these things, according to our Duty, do instantly exhort all Christian Princes, and, in the Lord, beseech them, that, as they desire to consult their own Welfare, to keep the Rights of their Dominions pure, as they desire to keep the People subject to them in Peace and in Tranquility, they would, with powerfull Arm, defend the Catholick Faith, and manly endeavor to subdue its Enemies; Hoc profectò nostrum desiderium, haec votorum summa, haec nostri conatûs gloria, hoc est quod totâ mente ex­poscimus, & assiduis precibus à Domino flagitamus, i. e. the Effusion of the Bloud of Hereticks is what we chiefly do desire both of God and men, and to ac­complish this is our chief Glory. The Council of Mi­lan, Bin. To. 9. p. 449. A. D. 1565. puts up the like Petition to the Civil Magistrate in these words, We exhort Princes, and the Magistrates of Cities, and by the Bowels of the Mercies of Christ our Lord, we pray them, that, preferring heavenly gain before earthly, they take care to forbid all Traffick and Commerce with He­reticks, in any of their Towns and Cities, and that they suffer not their Subjects, upon these accounts, to repair to any Heretical Countries, especially that they would be helpfull to, and heartily would fa­vor (that Hell above ground) the Sacred Inquisi­tion, and, being desired, would interpose their Au­thority to that end; and what more they could aske it is not easie to imagine.

But should Popish Princes be remiss in executi­on [Page 68] of this Bloudy Work, they must expect to be still quickned, if not threatned to it by that great Malle­us Haereticorum call'd his Holiness. For this hath been the constant business of that See from the Twelfth Century till of late, to call upon all Catholick Prin­ces to ruin both the Souls and Bodies of those Sub­jects who refused to obey the Church of Rome, or become Subjects to his Holiness. And to chastise those Princes who did countenance any such Sects or Here­sies, or who refused to destroy and murther them. How industriously they have promoted, how vehe­mently they have excited Princes and other Gover­nors to these inhuman Persecutions, will appear from the ensuing Instances collected from the Annals of their own Spondanus.

In the beginning of the Thirteenth Century the To. 1. p. 36. §. 4. p. 43. §. 3. Persecution waxed hot against the Albigenses and Waldenses, by reason of the Fiery Zeal of Innocent the Third against them; who in the years 1208, and 1210. excited Philip, King of France, to fight against Raimund, the Count of Tolose, and to expell him with his Adherents out of his Dominions, because he was a Favorer of Hereticks. A. D. 1209. he pro­miseth p. 38. §. 7. to all confess'd and penitent Crusado's, that would take up Arms against them, the Remission of Sins, and Absolution from Penance, whereupon these Crusado's besiege, and take the City of Beziers, and destroy in it Sixty or Seventy Thousand Souls.

An. Do. 1211. Innocent the Third writes to the p. 41. §. 4. Count of Tolose, not to receive into his Territories the Albigensian and Waldensian Hereticks, declaring that, if he should neglect to obey this Command, he would give up his Dominions to be possessed by the Exterminators of Hereticks, as afterwards he did.

[Page 69] A. D. 1229. Gaufred, the Legate of the Apostolick p. 102. §. 8. See, excites the Citizens of Milan to animadvert up­on the Hereticks, by banishing and apprehending them, by destroying of their Houses, by Confiscati­on of their Goods, and other Penalties; and in the p. 104. §. 4. year following severe Laws were made against them there, by instigation of the Pope, and many Here­ticks in Lombardy and Germany were burnt.

A. D. 1234. Gregory the Ninth excites Ludovicus, p. 116. §. 3. King of France, to restrain the Albigensian Hereticks, and, in the same year, by the Authority of the same Gregory, expedition is made against the Hereticks p. 117. §. 7. dwelling in the Confines of Saxony, Frisia and Bre­men, the Cross is preach'd up, and the same Privile­ges which were granted to those who went to the Holy Land, were promised to those Crusado's who should take up Arms against the Hereticks. An. Do. 1235. He set forth an Edict against them, which cau­sed p. 120. §. 1. many of them to be burnt.

A. D. 1238. Pope Gregory the Ninth excites Bela, p. 130. §. 10. King of Hungary, to fight against Asanus, Lord of Bulgaria, because he had revolted from the Obedi­ence of the Roman See to the Schism and Heresie of the Greeks, and he solicits the Crusado's, gathered for the assistence of the Holy Land, to fight against him, by promising to them the same Privileges upon their expedition against him.

A. D. 1254. Innocent the Fourth sets forth divers p. 188. §. 6. Constitutions against Hereticks and their Favorers, commands the Cross to be preach'd up against them, and gives the same Privileges and Indulgences to all Crusado's, who engage against them, which had been granted by a general Council to those who went to the Holy Land.

[Page 70] A. D. 1307. Clement the Fifth sent his Legate with p. 364. §. 16. an Army of Crusado's against the Dulcinists, who de­nyed the Pope and other R. Prelates to be true Pa­stors, because they lived not according to the Rules of the Gospel, by which Crusado's the Dulcinists were forced up into the Alpes, where they were partly de­stroyed by the Sword, partly by Cold and Hunger; Dulcinus himself, with some of his Companions, be­ing taken, they were brought to Vercelles, and there cut in pieces, and afterwards their scattered pieces were committed to the Flames.

A. D. 1335. Benedict the Twelfth excites John, p. 454. §. 4. King of Bohemia, and the Bishop of Almutz, against some Hereticks who came thither out of Germany and the neighboring Places: And Edward the Third of England, against the Hereticks in Ireland, who said the Sacrament was not to be adored.

A. D. 1352. Clement the Sixth writes to Peter de p. 522. §. 12. Montibus, an Inquisitor, and to all Prelates and Rec­tors to persecute the Hereticks in the Province of Am­brun, this Persecution makes them fly into Calabria. And An. Do. 1353. Innocent the Sixth writes to the King of Sicily to assist the Inquisitors of Heresie a­gainst them there.

A. D. 1372. Gregory the Eleventh excites Charles p. 580. §. 11. the Fourth, Emperor of Germany, and other Princes of that Nation, to extirpate the Hereticks called Be­gardi and Bequini, who again sprang up in Germany.

A. D. 1374. He writes to the Archbishop of Prague, p. 582. §. 2. and to Charles the Emperor, to punish one Mallaesius an Heretick and his Followers, and to assist the Inqui­sitors in so doing.

A. D. 1375. The Hereticks abounding in the Pro­vinces p. 586. §. 5. of Dauphine, Savoy, and other neighboring [Page 71] Places; the same Pope writes vehement Letters to the Prelates and Rectors of those Provinces, and to Charles, King of France, to labor with the Inquisitors to root them out of those Provinces.

A. D. 1377. He writes to the King of England, p. 590. §. 5. and to the Chancellor of Oxford, to extirpate the Er­rors of Wickliff.

In the Fifteenth Century, A. D. 1409. Alexander p. 718. §. 23. the Fifth commands the Wicklefists to be apprehen­ded and condemned as Hereticks, by requesting the Aid of the Civil Magistrate.

A. D. 1422. Branda, a Cardinal, was sent by Mar­tin p. 779. §. 2. the Fifth, to prosecute the Holy War against the Hussites.

A. D. 1427. Martin the Fifth gives to Henry of p. 793. §. 1. Winton ample Power to raise an Army of Crusado's against the Wicklefists and Hussites, promising to them the same Privileges which were granted to them who went to the Holy Land.

In the Sixteenth Century, When Luther came upon the Stage, Leo the Tenth, A. D. 1520. set forth a Bull against him, declaring, Post translatum ex Graecis, à R. Eccle­sia, in eosdem Germanos Imperium, iidem prae­decessores nostri, & nos ejusdem Ecclesiae Advo­catos & Defensores ex eis semper accepimus, quos quidem Germanos constat Haeresum acerri­mos Oppugnatores semper fuisse, cujus rei testes sunt laudabiles illae Constitutiones Germanorum Imperatorum pro libertate Ecclesiae, proque ex­pellendis exterminandisque ex omni Germania Haereticis: Testis est in Concilio Const. Hus­sitarum ac Wicklefistarum, necnon Hieronymi Pragensis damnata ac punita perfidia: Testis est toties contra Bohemos Germanorum sanguis effusus. Bull. Leonis Decimi. Concil. To. 14. p. 391. ‘that since the Church of Rome, N. B. had translated the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans, she had ever found the Germans to be se­vere Oppugners of all Heresie, witness the Decrees of the German Emperors for the ex­terminating Hereticks out of their Dominions, the Con­demnation of the Hussites, Wicklefists, and Jerom of Prague by the Council of Constance; Witness the [Page 72] Bloud they have so often shed against the Bohemi­ans. Wherefore, to shew the Care he bears for Christian Religion and the Or­thodox Faith,’ Nos igitur,—habitâ super praedictis erroribus—diligenti trutinatione, discussione, ac districto examine, maturâque deliberatione cum venerabilibus fratribus S. R. E. Cardina­libus,—pluribusque aliis S. Theologiae, necnon utriusque Juris Professoribus sive Magistris, & quidem Peritissimis, reperimus eosdem Errores non esse Catholicos,—sed contra Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae Doctrinam & Traditionem, contra Sanc­torum Patrum Determinationes, Conciliorum quoque & Summorum Pontificum expresses Or­dinationes seu Canones, quibus non obtemperasse omnium Haeresum & Schismatum fomes & cau­sa semper fuit; de eorundem itaque Fratrum no­strorum consilio & assensu,—praefatos omnes & singulos Articulos tanquam respectivè hae­reticos, aut scandalosos, aut falsos, & veritati Catholicae obviantes damnamus, reprobamus, &c. ac pro damnatis, reprobatis ac rejectis, ab omni­bus utriusque sexûs fidelibus haberi debere, ha­rum serie decernimus ac declaramus. Ibid. P. 394, 395. he, with his Cardinals, and many other Divines most skilfull in Theo­logie, and the most Eminent Professors of both Laws, after mature deliberation, diligent examination and discussion of some Articles cited in this Bull, of which this is one, viz. That it is against the will of the Holy Spirit, that Hereticks should be burnt, declares, that all those Articles were contra­ry to the Doctrine and Tra­dition of the Catholick Church, against the Determinations of Holy Fathers, and the express Ordinances and Ca­nons of Popes and Councils, which not to be obe­dient to is the Cause and Nourishment of all He­resies and Schisms. He therefore, with the Coun­sel and Assent of the aforesaid Brethren, pronoun­ceth all the aforesaid Articles to be respectively He­retical, or Scandalous, or False, and contrary to Catholick Verity, and, as such, reprobates and damns them; decreeing, that all Christians shall look up­on them as such. And he Inhibentes sub majoris Excommunica­tionis latae Sententiae poenis,—Regibus, Impe­ratoribus, Principibus, Ducibus, &c. nè praefa­tos Errores, aut eorum aliquos asserere, affir­mare, defendere, praedicare, aut illis publicè vel occultè, tacitè vel expressè favere praesu­mant. Ibid. p. 395, 396. Regibus, Imperatoribus, Electoribus, &c. man­damus, quatenus, sub praedictis omnibus & singu­lis poenis, ipsi, vel eorum quilibet, praefatum Martinum, Complices, Adhaerentes, Receptantes & Fautores personaliter capiant, & Captos ad nostram instantiam retineant, & ad nos mit­tant, reportaturi pro tam bono opere, à Nobis & Sede Apostolica remunerationem praemiúmque condignum. Ibid. p. 398, 399. inhibits all Kings, Empe­rors, Electors, Princes, Dukes, Marquesses, &c. under the Pe­nalty of the greater Excommu­nication, to be actually incurr'd [Page 73] without judicial proceeding, to assert, affirm, defend, preach, or publickly or se­cretly, tacitly or expresly to favor the aforesaid Errors or perverse Doctrin of Luther; and under the same Penalties commands them personally to apprehend him, his Accomplices, Adherents, Receivers and Favorers, and to retain them till the Pope requires them, and then to send them to him, for which good Work he promiseth to reward them. And lastly, He doth excommunicate and anathematize all Persons of what state, degree, condition, preeminence, dig­nity or excellency soever, who any ways do hin­der the Publication of this Bull in their Domini­ons.

A. D. 1521. He pronounceth Luther a Heretick, Spond. To. 2. p. 338. ad A. 1521. §. 1. and declares, that all Persons of what authority, dig­nity or condition soever, who did patronize or yield him any counsel, help or favor, had incurr'd the Pe­nalties and Censures inflicted by the Canons upon He­reticks, and all the other Punishments contained in his former Decree. And he commands, that they should every where be denounced excommunicate, anathe­matized, accursed, interdicted, deprived of all Ho­nour, Goods and Dignity, and that they and their Posterity should be uncapable of them for the future, and should by all men be avoided.

A. D. 1522. Hadrian the Sixth excites the Princes p. 348. §. 13. of Germany to extirpate the Heresie of Luther, and writes Letters both to the Secular and Ecclesiastical Princes to this effect, and particularly to Frederick, [Page 74] Duke of Saxony, in whose Dominions Luther dwelt, admonishing him to consider how he could answer at the Tribunal of Christ for cherishing a Mad-man and a Subverter of the Doctrine of the Church. And Hoc tibi denunciamus in virtute Omni­potertis Dei & Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cu­ius in terris Vicarius sumus, nec te in praesenti seculo laturum impunè, & in futuro aeterni te ignis exspectare incendium.—quare reverti­mini ad Cor, & resipiscete, Tu, tuique misere seducti Saxones, nisi utrumque gladium, Apo­stolicum simul & Caesareum, olim velitis expe­riri. Bull. Adrian. Sexti, apud Bin. To. 9. pag. 180. ‘denouncing to him in the Name of the Omnipo­tent God, and the Lord Je­sus Christ, that if he did not return to a sound Mind, he should hereafter be con­demned to Hell Fire, and should not go unpunished in this present Word, but suf­fer by the Sword of Caesar and the Apostles See.’ And to that end this Pope writes Letters to the E­lectors and other Princes of Germany, and sends an Instruction to Cheregata, his Legate, how to proceed in this Matter.

A. D. 1525. Clement the Seventh exhorts the Se­nate p. 375. §. 24. of Paris to punish the Lutheran Heresie sprung up amongst them, professing that he himself will spare no Diligence or Industry in that Cause.

A. D. 1568. Maximilian grants to the Nobility p. 704. §. 25. of Austria the free Exercise of the Augustan Con­fession in their Towns, Castles and Villages, which when Pius the Fifth hears of, he presently sends to him the Cardinal of Commendonum to hinder it, or if he could not hinder it, to declare by the Apo­stolical Authority, that the Pope would inflict upon him, if he did not suddenly rescind that Decree, all the Ecclesiastical Penalties and Execrations, and would deprive him of his Dominions, and take care that another should be chosen Emperor.

[Page 75] A. D. 1585. Sixtus the Fifth exhorts the King of p. 822. §. 17. France, that, being mindfull of his Oath which he had taken at his Coronation, De omnibus Haeresum atque Sectarum Seminibus extirpandis, to extirpate all the Seeds of Heresie and Schism, he would effec­tually perform it.

THE END.

Books lately Printed for Thomas Basset at the George in Fleetstreet.

THE History of Romish Treasons and Vsurpati­ons; together with a particular Account of many gross Corruptions and Impostures in the Church of Rome, highly dishonourable and injurious to Christian Religion: to which is prefix'd a large Pre­face to the Romanists, carefully collected out of a great number of their own approved Authors: By Henry Foulis, B. D. late Fellow of Lincoln-Colledge in Oxford.

A Catalogue.

An Institution of General History, or, The History of the World; being a compleat Body thereof: In Two Parts; the First, from the Beginning of the World till the Monarchy of Constantine the Great; wherein are described the several Empires and the Contemporaries with them, all distinctly and by them­selves; and yet linked together by Synchronisms: As also the Forms and Models of Governments, with the Power and Nature of their respective Magistrates, Customs, Laws and Antiquities. The Second Part containing that of the Roman Empire, its flourishing Condition, its middle or neutral State, and its Ruin and Downfall in the West; from the Monarchy of Constantine the Great, to the Taking of Rome by Odoacer, King of the Heruli, and the erecting of a Kingdom of Barbarians in Italy; with an Account of the Polity of the Empire, and of the several Laws of moment made during the Reigns of the Emperors both in East and West to this Period. By William Howell, LL. D. sometimes Fellow of Magdalen Col­lege in Cambridge.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.