The fifth question follows, namely, the scope of political magistracy in the sphere of religion. The errors in regard to this are three in number. The first is that of those who attribute too much authority to magistrates, as does Brentius in his prolegomena and Philip in a commonplace book, in the chapter on the magistracy; it is the error also of those who desire kings to be not only the guardians and defenders of religion, but also its judges and teachers. For they say in regard to them that it pertains to special members of the Church to judge disputes concerning the faith, to preside over general councils, to appoint ministers and pastors, and the like.

2 Concerning this error we have argued much in the controversy on the judge of disputes, where we have shown that kings hold first place among Christians, inasmuch as Christians are men, that is, as citizens of an earthly state, not as citizens of the heavenly kingdom and servants of God, and as members of the Church. For in this respect Bishops hold first place, and especially the supreme Pontiff; second, priests; third, deacons, and other ministers of the Church; last, laics, among whom kings and princes are numbered.

3 Hence St. Chrysostom, addressing the deacons, says: "If any leader, if the consul himself, if the one who wears the royal crown, acts unworthily, restrain and punish him, for you have more authority than he." And Gelasius in his epistle to the Emperor Athanasius says: "O my most gentle son, although you rule with earthly pomp over the human race, yet, as a devout man, you yield submission to those who have authority in Divine things, and at their hands you await the means of your salvation, and in receiving the heavenly Sacraments from those whose duty it is to dispense them, you acknowledge that you should submit to the ordained authority in religion rather than command. Know, therefore, that in these matters you are dependent upon their judgment, and that they cannot be made to conform to your will."

4 Finally, Christ committed the task of governing His Church to Peter and the Bishops, not to Tiberius and his prefects, and for three hundred years without there being any Christian rulers, except a very few, who either ruled for a very short time, as Philip Caesar, or ruled only in another province, as Lucius, King of the Britons, the Church was governed most successfully by bishops and priests alone. For further points, see the passages cited.

Chapter XVIII

THE DEFENSE OF RELIGION PERTAINS TO THE POLITICAL MAGISTRACY

5 The second error is that of those who, going to the other extreme, teach that rulers should care for the State and the public peace, but they should not be concerned about religion, but should allow everyone to think as he pleases and to live as he pleases, provided he does not disturb the public peace. This error was formerly held by the pagans, who permitted all religions, and allowed the sects of all the philosophers, as St. Augustine says. Hence St. Leo says, "But this State, ignorant of the Author of its progress, when it was ruling over almost every nation, preserved the errors of every nation and seemed to have taken to itself much religion, since it rejected no falsity." And, as Socrates relates, the philosopher Themistius attempted to persuade the Emperor Valens that a multiplicity of sects was pleasing to God, because He is thus worshipped in many ways, and because this is more advantageous, since He is known with difficulty. And so a certain heresiarch, Rhetor by name, taught that all sects were true, as is stated by St. Augustine.

6 Finally, the Germans desired and obtained this freedom in the year 1526, when the leaders and the princes of the empire were gathered together Spire, and they are now said to be seeking the same thing in Flanders. The arguments of these are chiefly four in number. One, that faith is free. Another, that it is the gift of God. The third, that experience teaches that nothing is gained by force. The fourth, that Christians always tolerated the Jews, although they were the enemies of Christ.

7 But this error is most harmful, and without doubt Christian rulers are in duty bound not to allow freedom of belief to their subjects, but to afford opportunity that that faith may be preserved which the Catholic Church, and especially the supreme Pontiff, says should be held. It is proved first from Scripture, "the king, that sitteth on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look." And likewise, "A wise king scattereth the wicked." Indeed, it cannot be denied that heretics are impious. And the same is said, "And now, O ye kings, understand, receive instructiion, you that judge the earth. Serve ye the Lord with fear."

8 St. Augustine says: "The king serves God in one way as a man, and in another as a king; as a man, he serves Him by living in fidelity to His law, and since he is also a king, he serves by promulgating just laws, and forbidding the opposite, and by giving them a fitting and strong sanction; just as Ezechias served by destroying the shrines and temples of the idols; just as King Josias served by himself doing like things; just as the King of the Ninevites served by compelling the whole State to appease God; just as Darius served by giving the breaking of the idols into the power of Daniel; just as Nabuchodonosor served by forbidding by a terrible law all those dwelling in his kingdom to blaspheme God." And in the same place he adds: "Who, being in his right mind, will say to kings: 'In your kingdom have no care as to that by which the Church of your Lord is supported or opposed,' 'In your kingdom it is not your affair who wishes to be devout or sacrilegious,' to whom it cannot be said: In your kingdom it is not your affair who wishes to be virtuous or who does not?"

9 Besides, in the New Testament, the Angel of Pergamus is censured because he kept about him some who held the doctrine of the Nicolaites, and the Angel of Thyatira because he allowed Jezabel to seduce the servants of God. From which it is inferred that it is harmful to the Church to allow heretics to mingle with Catholics. In the Epistle to the Romans Christians are commanded to turn aside from heretics. St. Paul also says, "I would they were even cut off." "Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be strong in the faith." Therefore kings, who are the guardians of the Church, should not allow this intermingling.

10 Secondly, it is proved by the testimony of the Popes and the Emperors. Leo says: "You ought, O Emperor, to realize that your kingly power has been conferred on you not only for ruling the world, but especially for the purpose of giving aid to the Church, in order that by restraining the rashness of wicked men you may defend those things which are well established and restore true peace to those which are disturbed." Pope Anastasius II., in his letter to the Emperor Anastasius, says: "I recommend this especially to Your Serenity, that when the reasons of the Alexandrines reach your most pious ears you may force those men by your authority and wisdom, and by your Divine orders, to return to the Catholic and true faith." St. Gregory has like statements to the King of England, and to Leontia Augusta. Agatho makes the same statements in his epistle to Constantine IV.

11 Indeed, the pious Emperors were of the same opinion, for Theodosius; L. cuncotos populos, C. de summa Trinitate et fide Catholica, utterly rooted out freedom of belief, which the other rulers had allowed, and commanded all to believe what the Roman Pontiff teaches should be believed. St. Ambrose praises Valentinian II. in his funeral oration because he had strongly resisted the City of Rome when it asked that it might be granted its former liberty in religion, that it might worship by offering sacrifice to the gods. Similarly, Marcian strictly prohibits any one from bringing in question those doctrines which have been defined in the Councils of the Bishops, or from presuming to argue about them in public.

12 Constantine the Great, indeed, at the beginning of his reign allowed liberty of religion to all, as is clear from the History of Eusebius, yet he afterwards ordered the temples of the idols to be closed and the Christian religion alone to flourish, as Optatus asserts against Parmenides. His sons, Constans and Constantinus, imitated him, as St. Augustine states, and (according to Ruffinus) Constantine threatened with exile all those who did not assent to the definitions of the Council of Nicaea.

13 Three are found who granted liberty of belief. The Emperor Jovinianus, who nevertheless was admonished by the Council of Antioch not to mingle Catholics with heretics, as Socrates writes. The Emperor Valens the Arian allowed liberty of religion to all heretics and pagans, as Theodoret writes. Finally, Julian the Apostate, who permitted liberty for the reason that he hoped thus to wipe out Christianity: for thus says St. Augustine, "Julian, the betrayer and enemy of Christ, allowed the freedom of perdition to heretics, and then gave to the heretics the basilicas that had been temples of demons, thinking that by this means the name of Christian might perish from the earth, if he should destroy the unity of the Church from which he had fallen away and should allow sacrilegious disputes to be freely indulged in."

14 It is proved, thirdly, by reason. First, the temporal and spiritual power in the Church are not two separate and distinct things, as two political kingdoms, but they are united so that they form one body; or rather they exist as the body and soul in one man, for spiritual power is as the soul, and temporal power as the body, as St. Gregory Nazianzen teaches in his sermon to the people when struck by fear. Therefore the temporal power ought to serve the spiritual and to protect and defend it from enemies, and, as St. Gregory says, the earthly kingdom should serve the heavenly; but this liberty is deadly to the Church; for the bond of the Church is the confession of one faith, "One faith," and for this reason dissension in faith is the dissolution of the Church. Therefore, rulers ought in no way to permit this liberty, if they wish to fulfill their duty.

15 Secondly, when the true religion flourished among the Jews, the kings could not allow liberty of religion, therefore much less should Christian kings permit it; for the Church should be no less rightly governed than the Synagogue. The antecedent is clear from the Scriptures, where by the order of the civil judge those who did not obey the priests should be put to death. And he orders the false prophets likewise to be slain, as St. Augustine states, concerning Josaphat, Josias, and the other pious kings, who destroyed the shrines and temples of the idols, and severely punished the idolaters, and compelled the people to worship the true God. But that a little before the time of Christ heresies had begun to be permitted, and especially that of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, is not wonderful, because the Synagogue at that time was drawing near its end, nor did it have asking at that time a real Jew to have a care of such matters, but Herod and Idumean, while the high priests could do nothing.

16 Thirdly, liberty of belief is dangerous even to the temporal welfare of the kingdom and to public peace, as is clear, first, from St. Gregory, when he says that the safety of the civil State depends on the peace of the Church. Then from reason: for where faith and obedience are rendered to God, there also will the same be rendered to the ruler; for faith itself teaches and exacts this. Likewise, a dissension in faith causes dissensions in minds and wills, but every kingdom divided against itself will fall; and experience of our own time shows this so clearly that we need not strive to prove it.

17 Fourthly, liberty of belief is dangerous to those very men to whom it is granted; for liberty of belief is nothing less than liberty of error, and of error in regard to the most dangerous of all matters; for faith is not true if it not one, "One Faith," therefore liberty of falling away from this one faith is liberty of plunging headlong into the abyss of errors. Therefore, just as liberty of wandering through the mountains is not permitted to sheep, and for its own safety a ship is not freed from the rudder, nor allowed to be driven by any wind at all, so also for their own safety freedom of belief is not given to the people, after they have given their adherence to the one true faith.

Chapter XIX

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR CATHOLICS TO BE RECONCILED WITH HERETICS

18 A third error is that of George Cassander, in his book about the duty of a pius man, where he teaches that rulers ought to find a peaceful coexistence between Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists and others. But meanwhile, so long as they have not found an agreement, they ought to permit to each one his faith, provided all accept Scripture and the Apostles' Creed. For so long as they have found no "modus vivendi," they ought to permit to everyone his faith, provided they accept the Scripture and the Apostles' Creed. For in this way all are members of the Church, even though they disagree over particular dogmas. Pacifiers of the past taught similar proposals, in the testimony of the Emperor Zeno. Concerning this matter, see Evagrius, Book III, Chapters 14 & 30. Likewise, Apelles, should not be debated, since it is enough to believe in the Crucified One. This is a manifest error, and against it wrote John of Louvain, of Catholic Doctors, and John Calvin, among heretics.

19 This opinion can be easily refuted: first of all, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists cannot be reconciled in this manner, for in this respect they cannot agree on the Creed, for example, concerning the article, "He descended into hell," we have the most diverse understandings; for we believe that the substance of the Soul of Christ, separated from his Body, descended to the Limbo of the Fathers; some of the heretics propose that "Christ descended into hell" means nothing else than that he was buried; others think simply that it means that "He suffered the pains of Hell." Similarly, the article,"I believe in the Holy Church" we understand in diverse ways. And also, the "Communion of Saints" is differently understood, and there are controversies over each of the Sacraments. Finally, over the words, "the remission of sins" we differ most widely.

20 Cassander says it is sufficient that all confess that the Creed is true, and that we accept it.

21 To the contrary! The Creed in one, and faith is placed not simply in words but in their meanings. For that reason, we do not agree on the same Creed if we disagree on its interpretation. Moreover, if it were enough to accept the words of the Creed, scarcely any of the past heretics would have been rightly condemned. For the Arians, the Novatians, the Nestorians, and almost all others, accepted the words of the Apostles' Creed, but because there was disagreement over their meaning, therefore, they were condemned and expelled from the Catholic Church.

22 Secondly, the basic premise of Cassander is false, for the true members of the Church cannot be called Lutherans and Calvinists even though they agree with us on the Creed, because, in addition to that faith, submission to the Head of the Church constituted by Christ and communal sharing with other members are required; for the Church is one visible body, and therefore it has a visible head and members; nor can that be called a member which is separated from a head and body. Certainly, Aerius [sic], even though he was in agreement with Catholics over the meaning of the Creed, nevertheless because he was unwilling to submit to the Bishop and remain in communion with other members, he is placed in the catalog of heretics by Epiphanius and Augustine; and Cyprian, in the second epistle of Book 4, declares that Novatian is outside the Church because he was unwilling to submit to the Pontiff Cornelius, even if he had introduced no other heresy.

23 Thirdly, Cassander speaks as if the only disagreements between Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were over human rites and ceremonies; but many dogmas over which we disagree, even those not expressly stated in the Creed, are of the greatest importance, and because of them no peace between Catholics and Lutherans can be hoped for. Thus, for example, we say that the Mass is the most divine worship of God; but they declare that it is the most abhorrent of idolatries; similarly, the invocation of the Saints is for us piety, but for them impiety, et cetera.

24 Fourthly, the saintly Fathers of the Church have taught us that not only the Creed but all other dogmas of the faith, even though they appear minute, we are to preserve inviolate, nor may we allow them to be changed in any way for the sake of heretics. Paul says that he was unwilling to yield to false brethren even for an hour. (Galatians, II) And when the Arians once begged Catholics that they might omit just one word which is present neither in Scripture nor in the Apostles" Creed, or that they might change just one letter, that is, that they might say not "homoousion" but "homoiousion," and if this were done, they would promise peace: Catholics were unwilling and they wrote to the Emperor that it would be impious to change anything already defined, and that if anything of what was reasonably approved should be changed, peace would not on that account exist, nor would peace be possible among those who ignore the rights of peace. See Theodoretus, Book II of his history, chapters 18 and 19, or Trip. Book V, Chapters 21 and 33, and this was accepted as true in the Council of Ariminium [now Rimini, in Italy]; for when the more simple Catholics, deceived by the Arians, decreed that the word "homoousion" should be removed, soon the Arians all over the world preached that they had conquered, and, not content with removing the word "homoousion" and substituting for it "homoiousion," a little later they transformed the very word "homoiousion" into "heterousion," that is, "of dissimilar substance," as Theodoret relates, in Book II of his history, Chapter 21.

25 Hence, Basil, asked by the Prefect of the Emperor Valens that he comply with the times and not allow so many churches to be troubled over a small dogma, replied: "Whoever are nourished by divine words may not allow even a single syllable of divine dogmas to be corrupted, nor even a single syllable to perish, and, in support of them, to embrace even any kind of death." (See Theodoret, Book IV, Chapter 17, Ecclesiastical History) Endowed with the same constancy, Eustathius and Sylvanus, whom the Emperor threatened with exile, unless they removed the word "homoousian," replied, "You have the power to punish, nevertheless, we will not destroy what has been established by the Fathers." (See History, Tripar, Book V, Chapter 24.)

26 Finally, Gelasius, in a letter to Euphemius, on the petition of a heretic that the Pope condescend to them, that is, that he relax any point of Catholic Faith in the interest of peace, elegantly joked, "When, however, you say that we ought to condescend to you, you thereby show that you are descending or have already descended. Hence I ask, whence is that descent? You see, acknowledge, and do not deny that some parts have been displaced from a certain high place, from their Catholic and Apostolic communion, to a heretical and condemned position; but you also want to push those remaining on a higher position, and you invite us to descend along with you from the heights to the depths. You, rather, we beg to ascend with us from the depths to the heights."

27 Fifthly, it is impossible to be free to believe in one certain dogma, without, for the same reason, to be free to believe in all of them, even in those which are contained in the Apostles' Creed; for there is unquestionably one rule of faith, and that certain in all points that are believed, namely, the word of God as interpreted by the Church. If, therefore, I believe in the Church as it hands on to me the Apostles' Creed, which I would not otherwise know is from the Apostles, unless the Church says it is; for the same reason I am obliged to believe that I ought to invoke the Saints, because the same Church teaches this; or if I were unable to believe this, for the same reason I cannot believe that this creed is from the apostles.

28 In the sixth place, that opinion of Cassander in new, and first thought up by him, as he acknowledges at the start, and therefore it ought to be held suspect. For as Vincent Lerins beautifully says, in his minor work against profane works, what is new cannot be without suspicion; since the true Faith is one and most ancient.

29 In the seventh place, that opinion renders the true Church altogether hidden and invisible, even more, composed of flatterers and pretenders; for Cassander says, two things are required of the true Church, faith in Christ and peace with men, and from that he deduces that those who militantly inveigh against Catholics and Lutherans do not belong to the Church, but only those who are at peace with all. Therefore, those who belong to the Church can only be hidden, both those who pretend with Catholics that they are enemies of Lutherans, and with Lutherans that they are enemies of Catholics. For Catholics cannot allow within their flock any who show by external signs that they prefer Lutherans: among Lutherans also, even though all sects are permitted in the same provinces, nevertheless no sect allows within it friends of other sects, as has been noted: therefore, those pacifist and dissembling men are all feigning and hypocritical, professing one thing orally and concealing another thing in their hearts, and like Herod who was a foreigner with foreigners, with Jews Jewish; for he erected temples both to Caesar and to God, as Josephus relates in Book XV of his Antiquities, Chapters 13 and 14.

30 Add what Cassander confesses, that those colleagues of his are few and hidden. But from this it appears that they cannot constitute a Church; for a Church is in the open and visible, so that it is said by the Lord (in Matthew, V) to be situated on a mountain. Finally, the true Church cannot be without shepherds (Ephesians IV); but those hidden men have no pastors nor can they have, so long as they remain hidden; consequently, they have no Church.

Chapter XX

THE BOOKS OF HERETICS SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

31 A final question remains concerning the penalties for heresy, which, after a judgment and declaration of the Church, political rulers can and ought to inflict. We will begin, however, with their books and we will show that the books of heretics are justly condemned and burned. This, therefore, is first proven from an ancient and perpetual custom, not only of Christians but of the nations.

32 First, Valerius Maximus relates (in Book 1, Chapter 1) that when certain books were found in Rome which considerably undermined religion, the Praetor Urbanus, by the authority of the Senate, burnt them before the gaze of the people. Marcus Tullius [Cicero] relates, in Book I of the work, "Concerning the Nature of the Gods," that Protagoras Abderites, because he had written books harmful to religion, by order of the Athenians, was banished from the city and the country and his books burnt in the assembly.

33 Then, in the time of the Apostles, Luke relates (in the Acts, Chapter XIX), that many of those converted by the Apostles brought out fanciful and trivial books and burnt them before all, and Clement, in Book I of the Constitutions of the Apostles, Chapter 7, says that the Apostles forbade to the faithful from the start, the books of the Gentiles and of false prophets. Eusebius also writes, in Book VII of his history, Chapter 6, that Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria, who flourished around the year 250, was reprehended by the Faithful because he read the books of heretics.

34 During a later period, the zeal of the faithful in opposition to the books of heretics increased; for the Council of Nicea sentenced the books of heretics to burning, as Nicephorus witnesses in Book VIII, Chapter 18, and Constantius ordered that it be carried out, threatening the death penalty if anyone concealed the books of Arius, as is manifest from his letter to Socrates, Book I, Chapter 24. Marcellus of Ancyra was condemned because he was unwilling to burn the books containing his errors; for heretics were not admitted for repentance, if they had not first burnt their books.

35 About the same time, in a Synod assembled on Cyprus, Epiphanius forbade that the books of Origen be read, as Socrates relates in Book IV, Chapter 9, of his history, and the Fourth Council of Carthage, in canon 16, permits only Bishops to read the books of heretics in a time of need. Not much later, when the heresy of Nestorius was condemned in the Council of Ephesus, the books, also, of Nestorius were forbidden and were ordered burnt by the Emperor Theodosius, as Liberatus reports in Chapter 10 of the Breviary, and the law Theodosius, Damnato C., concerning heretics, is still extant. About the same time, the law of Honorius and Theodosius was promulgated, by which Mathematicians were ordered to burn, in the sight of Bishops, all books in which there is anything opposed to the Catholic Faith. For a similar reason the books of Eutyches are condemned, and it is forbidden by the Emperors Valentinian and Martinus that anyone read them or dare to possess them but that all of them, found by a very diligent search, be burned, as is made clear by the Council of Chalcedon, Actor. III, and the law itself which is still extant, "L. Quicumque, parag. Nulli," and the paragraph "Omnes, C. de Hereticis."

36 At that same time, Saint Leo, in letter 91, to Turbius, Chapters 15 and 16, forbade the reading of heretical books of whatever kind, and added that those Bishops who allowed them to be kept in the homes of the faithful, ought to be judged as heretical; a little later, Gelasius, in a Council of seventy Bishops, as is noted in "dist. 15, can. S. Romana," proposed an index of heretics, whose books, he says, should be avoided.

37 Later, in the Fifth Synod, after Anthymus was condemned, his books were also condemned, and the Emperor Justinian instituted a grave penalty, namely, the amputation of the hands of those who write that kind of books and ordered that such books be burned. This regulation is present in Book I of the Acts of the Fifth Synod St. Gregory, and in Novellis, regulation 42. St. Gregory, in Book XIV of his Morals, Chapter 32, relates that by the order of the Emperor Tiberius the book of Eutychius (whom the same Gregory had convicted of heresy) was burned. In the Seventh Synod, also, Act 5, the books of heretics are condemned and ordered burned, and in canon 9, those who read the books of heretics are excommunicated. The Council of Constance, session 8, confirms the decree of the Council of Rome, by which the reading of the books of John Wycliff was forbidden. Finally, the Council of Trent ordered that an index of the books of heretics be made, so that all might know which books should be avoided and burned. From this it is manifest that the same custom was always present in the Church.

38 Added to the discussion of this matter is the fact that there are scarcely any books of the ancient heretics extant; for how have so many books vanished, of Valentinian, Marcion, Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Pelagius, and others, to which the Fathers have responded?

39 There is proof, secondly, from reason; for the discussions of heretics are dangerous and therefore should be avoided, therefore, even much more noxious and pestilential and to be avoided are their books. In the Letter to the Romans, Chapter XVI, v. 17-18: "Brothers, I beg you to be on watch against those who cause dissension and scandal, contrary to the teaching you have received. Avoid their company... ...they deceive the simpleminded with smooth and flattering speech." In II Timothy, c. 3, v. 5 "Avoid these!" In Titus, c. III, v. 10: "Avoid a heretic." The Second Letter of John, v. 10: "If anyone comes to you who does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house; do not even greet him nor say 'hello' to him."

40 St. Irenaeus, in Book III, Chapter 3: "The Apostles and their disciples had so great a dread, that they would not communicate even by word with any one of those who had adulterated the truth."

41 St. Cyprian (in Book I, third letter to Cornelius): "May our most dear brethren," he says, "firmly decline and avoid the words and conversations of those whose speech spreads like a cancer" And further on: "No transactions, no conversations, no entertainments should be engaged in, and let us be as separated from them as they have distanced themselves from the Church."

42 St. Athanasius [writes] of St. Anthony (in his Life): "Never," he says, "did he bestow the least friendly words on the Manichaeans or other heretics, while he denounced friendship and conversations with them as threatening the loss of one's soul... He so detested the Arians, that, as he said to all, there should be no approach to them." And St. Anthony himself, on the point of death, said: "Avoid the poisons of heretics and schismatics and imitate my hatred of them; you yourselves know that there was never for me any peaceful conversation with them."

43 St. Augustine, in Epistle 62, "We warn that a heretic is to be avoided, lest he deceive those who are infirm or inexperienced, to such an extent that we have not denied that he should be corrected by any means possible and so on." St. Leo, in his eighteenth sermon, on the Passion of the Lord: "Avoid the viperous conversations of heretics, let there be nothing in common between you and them who are Christians only in name." Thus, his warnings.

44 Now, therefore, if the talk of Heretics is by all means to be avoided, by how much more diligence are their books. For the discussion written in books is more carefully composed and replete with artifices than is employed in discussions. Then, too, the message is ever at hand: For lectures and discussions are infrequent and words delivered by mouth are transient, but words in books remain and are always available to us and even travel with us or stay at home with us. Moreover, books are widely spread; for one can speak to almost the entire world at the same time, and books penetrate the homes and studies of a multitude of those whom the author never sees and to those perhaps by whom he would never be welcomed. Finally, experience teaches the same lesson: For John Wycliff led astray very few by his living voice; for he taught only in England and left there scarcely and heirs of his errors; but through his books he led astray the whole of Bohemia. Behold the Cochlaeum (Snail-shell) in the history of the Hussites!

45 But they object in opposition. First, because there are many good things in the books of heretics, it seems stupid to deprive oneself of the good things because of the evil; and this is confirmed by the fact that the writings of many of the Fathers would have to be burned. Likewise, because the Church tolerates the books of Pagans, Jews, Turks, and also of ancient heretics like Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Pelagius.

46 I reply that truth should not be denied but neither should it be read in the books of heretics; for, as it exists there, it injures rather than benefits. St. Gregory writes, in Book V, Chapter 11, of his Morals: "This is characteristic of heretics, that they mix the true with the false and the good with the bad; for if they spoke only the false and the evil, they would be rejected by all, if they taught only the true and the good, they would not be heretics. Therefore, they mix everything and infect the good with evil and conceal the evil with good; which is the reason why Christ and the Apostles forbade the demons to talk the truth, lest, that is, through that truth, they might win faith in themselves." In Luke IV, v. 41: "The Lord did not allow the demons to say: 'You are Christ, the Son of God.'" And in Acts, XVI, v. 17: Paul forbade the Devil to say: "These men are servants of the Most High God, who announce to you the way of salvation."

47 Moreover, it is not appropriate that truth be learned from heretics who are enemies of the truth. As Gellius writes, in Book XVIII, Chapter XVI, "Among the Laecedaemonians, when there was question of a principal feature of a republic, a certain eloquent and learned but dishonest and infamous man uttered an excellent statement which, although it pleased everyone and it appeared that a decree should be made in conformity with it, nevertheless, since it could not happen that the best advice would be in league with the depravity of its author, a most admirable man was chosen who, by the agreement of all, might declare the same statement, and the statement of this man was, without any previous announcement, made into a decree."

48 With reference to the validity of supporting views from the writings of the Fathers, I reply, first, that the Fathers are not enemies of the Church, nor are their mistakes heresies but simply human errors. Moreover, the errors of the Fathers are extinct, in no sense alive, so that they cannot injure us; for an error injures so long as it is vigorously defended: The errors of the Fathers were not detected so long as the Fathers were alive, for, otherwise, even they themselves would have corrected them, or they would have been expelled from the Church: but their errors were detected and labeled after their death and were condemned by all, just as they would have [been] condemned by themselves, if they were alive.

49 Concerning the writings of Pagans, I say they are tolerated because they do no harm as outmoded errors. There are none, now, who would not laugh at the "dogmas of the Pagans;" nor do we ever hear of Christians led astray by Pagans and embracing paganism in the way that they daily defect to the company of heretics. Because indeed, there were many in the times of the Apostles who fought against the dogmas of Pagans, Clement writes (in Book I of Const, Chapter 7) that books of the Pagans were condemned and for the same reason the books of Pagans are forbidden in the Council of Carthage IV, Chapter 16.

50 Concerning the books of the Jews and Turks, I remark that the books of Jews and Turks enjoy an advantage over the books of heretics, for they are open enemies of Christians and do not err under the name of "Christian," as heretics do. As a consequence, even the most simple know how to distinguish the dogmas of the Jews and Turks from Christian dogmas but are unable to discern heresies unless they are well educated. In addition, the books of Jews and Turks are also prohibited when they contain blasphemies against Christ, or are judged pernicious to Christians, as is the case of the Talmud of the Jews.

51 Concerning the errors of Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Pelagius, I can say that their writings are permitted because their errors are a matter of the past and are helpful because of their antiquity. Add the consideration that we have nothing of Pelagius under his name but only under the name of St. Jerome, such as the brief commentaries on all the letters of St. Paul, the Creed falsely ascribed to Damasus, and a certain letter to Demetriades which is found in Volume IV, where there are also some things savoring of the heresy of Pelagius [? "ubi sunt etiam alia Pelagii haeresim sapientia"?]

52 A second argument, from Paul, who in I Thessalonians, Chapter V, verses 20 and 21, says: "Do not spurn prophecies. Test everything; retain what is good." For the meaning is: If someone predicts the future or interprets Scripture, either in speech or writing, do not reject it but listen or read, and accept whatever is compatible with the Catholic Faith, but forget the rest.

53 I observe that the Apostle is speaking about prophecy and writings concerning which it is not yet clear whether they are good or bad and as such he does not wish that they be rejected unless they have been first examined; but when any writing has already been examined and it is clear that it is bad, he certainly wants it to be rejected, and of this kind are all the writings which have been forbidden to us; for they have been tested, that is, all have been examined and then rejected because they have been found bad.

54 Then, although the Apostle is writing to the entire Church, nevertheless, he does not wish that everything be done by everyone but by those who are competent and by whose office it is obligatory on them; as when articles are sent to any University to be examined, it is not pertinent that all who belong to the University examine them, but only the Masters or those whom they designate; so then, when the Apostle orders that prophecies and interpretations of Scripture be examined, he certainly does not want this to be done by a tailor or mason, but by Bishops and others whom the Bishops employ.

55 The employ another argument from the testimonies of four ancient Fathers: Dionysius of Alexandria, Theophilus, also of Alexandria, St. Jerome and Gelasius; for Dionysius, as Eusebius relates (in Book VII, Chapter 6 of his History) that when he was being reprehended for reading the books of heretics, he had a vision in which it was said: "Read everything that comes into your hands, for you will be able to weigh everything and test it." Theophilus, also, when he was questioned over his reading of Origen, replied (as Socrates relates, in Book VI, Chapter 15 of his History) that he read in order that he might keep what was good and repudiate what was bad. St. Jerome, who was considered most learned, in a letter to Alexander and Minerius, says that he reads the books of heretics, in order that he might excerpt what was good, even though he knew that some were complaining because he did.

56 Gelasius, in a book on the binding force of an anathema, wanting to prove that the Council of Chalcedon can selectively accept and reject, adduces the example of the books of heretics which are partly accepted and partly rejected, and refers to the [Apostle's] counsel: "Examine everything and retain what is good."

57 On this last point, I observe that the example of Gelasius consists in this, that in the Council of Chalcedon certain things were [found] good and some things, evil; and that some things should be accepted while other things should be rejected; so, too, in the books of heretics: but he does not intend to say that the books themselves of heretics may be accepted, because of the mixture of good and bad in them; for there is one rationale for the acceptance by the Council of holy Church Fathers [in which good points and bad are weighed and the good retained], and another rationale relating to the books of heretics, as we have discussed, even though the truth itself inserted into those books is good and should be accepted, provided it is found elsewhere; the words of Gelasius are these: "Are not many things read in the books of heretics which are true? Should, then, the truth be rejected because the books of those in whom perversity is present are rejected? Or should their perverse books be accepted because there is undeniable truth contained in them?"

58 In general, I comment: from these citations one can conclude that there was always a custom in the Church of avoiding the reading of the books of heretics, otherwise no one would have criticized those Fathers. Secondly, that the reading of the books of heretics was always allowed, and is now permitted, to bishops and many others, and, therefore, it is not a matter of surprise if Dionysius and Theophilus, who were Patriarchs, and St. Jerome who was always considered very learned, were able on their own to read all books. Thirdly, I observe that there was perhaps no law of the universal Church but only a custom concerning the avoidance of reading the books of heretics, except the books of Arius; but now it is a law of the universal Church which must be obeyed.

Chapter XXI

CAN HERETICS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH BE PUNISHED WITH TEMPORAL PENALTIES AND EVEN WITH DEATH

59 John Huss, in the recorded article 14 of the Council of Constance, session 15, asserted that it is not permitted to hand over an incorrigible heretic to the secular power and to allow the penalty of burning. Luther held the same in article 33 and its assertion. Nor is the error new, for the Donatists also taught the same, like Parmenianus, Petilianus, and Gaudentius (as Augustine testifies, in Book I against the letter of Parmenianus, in Chapter 7, Book II against the Letters of Petilianus, in Chapter 10 of Book II, against the letter of Gaudentius, and in Chapters 17 and 26 of his Letter 50 to Boniface.)

60 All Catholics teach the contrary, and even some of the heretics. For Calvin, after he had publicly punished as a heretic Michael Servetus with the ultimate penalty, and after it was debated by other sectarians, published a book in which he demonstrates that it is permissible to take notice of heretics with a sword. Also Benedict Aretus, in a history of the punishment of Valentius Gentilis, argues that the same Gentilis was rightly punished by the Magistrate Bernensis. Theodore Beza, indeed, teaches the same, at greater length, in a book on the punishment of heretics by a magistrate.

61 We, then, will briefly show that incorrigible heretics, and especially recidivists, can and should be expelled by the Church and be punished by the secular powers with temporal punishments and even by death itself.

62 The first proof is from Scripture: The Scripture of the Old Testament (in Deuteronomy XIII, 12) commands most severely that false prophets who encourage the worship of false gods be put to death, and in Chapter XVII, after saying that in doubtful cases the High Priest should be consulted, soon adds: "If the person is haughty, however, and is unwilling to obey the command of the High Priest, let him die by the sentence of the judge." (Deuteronomy XVII, 12). And, again, in Chapter XVIII, the false prophet is sentenced to be killed. And, in reality, Elias (or Elijah), Josias (Josiah), Jehu, and others observed this law by killing a great many false prophets, as is clear from III Kings, XVIII, and IV Kings, X and XXIII, there is almost no difference between our heretics and the false prophets of those days. Nor did only the holy Kings and Prophets punish blasphemers with death, but even Nabuchodonosor [now more often spelled Nebuchadnezzar], as is said in Daniel III, promulgated an edict, that whoever should blaspheme the God of Daniel, that is, the true God, should be put to death and his home be destroyed; in the same edict, he performed a most worthy service to the True God, as St. Augustine remarks in his Epistle 50 and elsewhere. In the New Testament, in Matthew XVIII, we find that the Church can excommunicate and treat as aliens and tax-gatherers those who refuse to obey and to allow them to be treated by the secular powers as no longer children of the Church. We have, then, in Romans XIII, 4, that the secular power can punish criminals with sword: "It is not without purpose that the ruler carries a sword; he is God's servant, to inflict His avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer." From these two scriptural passages, it can be clearly inferred that it is permissible that heretics, who by the judgment of all are rebels against the Church and disturbers of public peace, be cut off from the Church and be punished with death by a secular judge.

63 Moreover, Christ and His Apostles have placed heretics in the same category as those matters that can be disposed of, without question, by fire and sword; for in Matthew VII the Lord says: "Be on your guard against false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but underneath are wolves on the prowl." In Acts 20: 29: "I know that when I am gone, savage wolves will come among you who will not spare the flock." It is certain that heretics ought to be known by the title of "wolves," as St. Ambrose explains in his commentary on the beginning of Chapter X of St. Luke. But ravenous wolves are killed for an excellent reason, if they cannot otherwise be driven away; for much more should be made of the lives of the sheep than of the deaths of wolves. Likewise, in John X, 1: "Truly, I assure you: Whoever does not enter the sheepfold through the gate but climbs in some other way is a thief and a marauder." Under the name of thief and marauder heretics are meant, and all subversives and founders of sects, as Chrysostom and Augustine explain; how thieves and marauders should be punished has been explained. Likewise, in II Timothy, II, heresy is compared to a cancer which is not cured by medications but should be excised with a knife, otherwise it will spread progressively and the whole body will be destroyed. Finally, Christ, in John, Chapter II, using a whip forces the merchants to leave the temple. Peter, in Acts V, killed Ananias and Sapphira because they had presumed to lie to the Holy Spirit; and Paul, in Acts XIII, vs. 6-12, struck with blindness the false prophet who was trying to keep Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsular governor, from the Faith.

64 The matter is proved, secondly, from the sentences and laws of the Emperors which the Church regularly approved. The Emperor Constantine the First sent into exile Arius and some companions at the request of the Nicene Synod, as the author Sozomenus notes in Book I, Chapter 20 of his History; likewise, he imposed the penalty of death on the Donatists, as Augustine reports in Book I, in a letter opposed to Parmenianus, Chapter 7, and in Epistle 166, to the Donatists, wherein he enumerates many excellent Emperors who passed many very severe laws against the heretics, and only one, Julian the Apostate, favored heretics.

65 Then Theodosius, Valentinianus, Martianus, and other very religious Emperors passed laws against heretics by which, on occasion, they sought to punish by fines of pounds of gold, sometimes by confiscation of all their goods, sometimes by exile and scourging, sometimes by imposing the ultimate penalty, as is clear from "C. de hereticis, L. Nanichaeos, L. Ariani, L. Quicumque." by the last of these laws, which is one of Valentinian and Martian, all are to be put to death who attempt to teach perverse doctrine; those, also, who listen to these teachers are punished by fines of some pounds of gold. Justinian, as recorded by Paul the Deacon in Book XVI, by a promulgated law, banished all heretics beyond the boundaries of the entire Empire, while allowing three months for their conversion; later, the Emperor Michael, as is related in Book XXIV of the same Paul the Deacon, established the capital punishment for heretics.

66 A third proof is had in the laws of the Church: under the headings, "Ad abolendum," "Excommunicamus, extra de hereticis," and in "Sexto de hereticis" in the chapter ahead of it, the Church defines that incorrigible heretics are to be handed over to the secular power, so that they may be punished in a just manner. Likewise, the Council of Constance, in session XV, condemned the opinion of John Huss; and it handed over the same John and Jerome of Prague to the secular power, by whom the two were burned; finally, Leo the Tenth condemned the articles of Luther.

67 A fourth proof is had in the testimonies of the Fathers. Cyprian, in a book of exhortation on martyrdom, in Chapter 5, after he had recalled from Deuteronomy XIII, that pseudoprophets should be killed, he added, "If this was done under the Old Testament, much more should it be done under the New."

68 Jerome, in reference to the text in Galatians, Chapter 5, "A little yeast can effect the entire dough," (v. 9) says: "as soon as a spark appears, it should be extinguished, and yeast close to a batch should be removed; spoiled meat should be cut away, and a scabby animal should be driven from a sheepfold, lest the whole house, or mass, or body, or herd burn, be corrupted, spoil, or perish. Arius was one spark, but since he was not immediately extinguished, the whole earth was affected by his flame."

69 Augustine, in Book II of his Retractions, Chapter 5, and in Epistles 48 and 50, retracts what he had once thought, that heretics should not be forced to believe, and proves at length that it is very useful; he always rules out the punishment of death, not because he thought they did not deserve this, but both because he judged that this was unbecoming the gentleness of the Church and also because no imperial law was in existence, by which heretics were sentenced to death; for the Law, "Quicumque, C. de hereticis," was promulgated a little after the death of Augustine.

70 That, however, Augustine judged it to be just, if heretics were put to death, is beyond question; for, in Book I, in opposition to the letter of Parmenianus, in Chapter 7, he demonstrates that if the Donatists were punished by death, they would be justly so punished. And in tract 11, on John: "They kill souls, he says, and are afflicted in the body, those who bring about eternal deaths complain that they suffer temporal deaths," by which he says they falsely complain that they are killed by Emperors; nevertheless, even if this were true, they would be complaining unjustly. Finally, in his Letter 50, to Boniface, he writes that the Church does not want any heretic to be put to death: nevertheless, as the House of David could not enjoy peace unless Absalom were done away with and David was consoled by the peace of his realm in his grief over the death of his son: so when, from the laws of Emperors against heretics, the deaths of some follow, the sorrow of the maternal heart of the Church is assuaged by the deliverance of a multitude of people.

71 St. Leo, in Letter 91, to Turbius, Chapter 1: "Deservedly," he wrote, "our Fathers, in whose time this nefarious heresy broke out throughout the world, acted immediately to drive out the unholy madness from the universal Church; when, also, the Rulers of the world so detested this sacrilegious madness, that they destroyed its author and many of his disciples by the sword of public law; and this interference with Ecclesiastical lenience, which, although content with a judgment that fled from bloody punishments, was nevertheless helped by the severe laws of Christian Rulers, while they who fear corporal punishment sometimes revert to a spiritual remedy." Optatus Milevitanus, in Book III, in replying to the calumnies of heretics who were sorrowful over the death of two of theirs killed by the Prefect Macarius: "You see," he wrote, "that similar things were done by Moses, and Phineas, and Elias, and Macharia, because the punishment of the One God emanates from all of them."

72 St. Gregory, in Book I, Letter 72, to Gennadius, the Exarch of Africa, praises him because he persecuted heretics with weapons, and he urges him to continue.

73 St. Bernard in Sermon 66, on the Canticle: "They without doubt would be better coerced by the sword of him who, not without cause, carries the sword, than that they be allowed to draw many into their error; for he is a servant of the Lord and vindicator of wrath against him who does evil. Some marvel that they were not only patiently but joyfully led to death, but they scarcely recognize how great is the power of the Devil, not only over the bodies of men but even over their hearts, once he has been allowed to possess them. Is it not better for a man to take himself in hand, than for him willingly to accept force from another."

74 There is, finally, a proof from reason. First, heretics can be justly excommunicated, as all admit. Therefore, that they [may be] put to death. The consequence is proved from the fact that excommunication is a greater penalty than temporal death. Augustine, in Book I, contra advers. Legis et Prophetarum [against the adversaries of the Law and the Prophets], Chapter 17, says it is more terrible to be given over to Satan through excommunication, than to be struck down by the sword, be consumed by flames, or exposed to being devoured by animals.

75 Secondly, experience teaches that there is no other remedy; for the Church proceeded gradually, and tried all remedies; first, it fines, then exile, finally, it was driven to the penalty of death; for the heretics show contempt for excommunication and call them "cold thunderbolts;" if you threaten the penalty of fines, they neither fear God nor revere men, since they know that ignorant people will be found who will believe them and feed them. If you confine them to prison or send them into exile, they will corrupt their neighbors with their speech and those who are far away with their books. Therefore, there is only one remedy, send them timely to their place.

76 Thirdly, forgers, in the judgment of all, deserve death; but heretics are forgers of the Word of God.

77 Fourthly, by the reasoning of Augustine, in Letter 50, it is more serious for man to fail to keep faith with God, than for a women not to keep faith with a man, but this is punished by death, why not the former?

78 Fifthly, there are three reasons why, as reason teaches, men are to be put to death, as Galen eloquently teaches in a book whose title is: "That the habits of the soul imitate the temperaments of the body," toward the end of the book.

79 The first reason is, Lest the evil injure the good, or the innocent be abused by the injurious, in the judgment of all, all are to be executed who are guilty of homicide, adultery, or robbery. The second reason is: That, by the punishment of the few, the many may be corrected: and that those who are unwilling to help society by living may benefit it by dying. And hence, we also see that, in the opinion of all, certain most horrendous crimes are most justly punished by death, even though they do no injury to the neighbor, except by example: crimes like Necromancy, crimes that are abominable and contrary to nature are, therefore, most severely punished, in order that others may know they are monstrous crimes and should not dare to perpetrate the like. Thirdly, because to the very men who are killed it is beneficial to be killed, when, namely, they are becoming ever worse and it is not probable that they will ever revert to sanity of mind.

78 All these reasons are persuasive that heretics should be put to death; for, in the first place, they injure the neighbor more seriously than any pirate or robber, since they kill souls; even worse, they take away the foundation for all good and fill the state with the upheavals that inevitably result from the diversity of religions.

Chapter XXII

THE SOLUTION OF DIFFICULTIES

79 It remains to resolve the arguments of Luther and other heretics. The first argument is from the experience of the whole Church: "The Church," says Luther, "from its beginning up to now burned no heretic." Therefore, it does not seem to be the will of the Spirit that they be burned.

80 This argument proves not the opinion but the ignorance of Luther; for, since nearly an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put death, Luther is either ignorant of this fact and is therefore uninformed, or he knew of it and shows he is boldly lying; that heretics have often been burned by the Church can be shown, if we give a few examples of the many. The heresiarch Priscillian, along with his associates, were put to death by Maximus, the Christian Emperor, as St. Jerome, in a book on illustrious men testifies, and Optatus recalls the Donatists that were put to death, in Book III, "Contra Parmenianus."

81 A certain Basil the Magician (Spiritualist), and therefore a heretic (for there are scarcely any magicians (spiritualists), was put to death by a Christian, and Catholic, people, as St. Gregory testifies, in Book I, of the Dialogues, Chapter 4.

82 Again, another Basil, the author of the Heresy of the Bogomilori was publicly burned by the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, as Zonaras writes in the Life of Alexis.

83 At the time of St. Bernard, that heretics were given the ultimate punishment, he himself testifies, in Sermon 66, on the Canticles. In the times of Innocent the Third, there were, on one occasion, 180 Albigensian heretics burned at the same time, after St. Dominic had previously convinced and converted many of their companions. St. Anthony writes about the whole occasion in Part III, Title 19, Chapter I, paragraph 4, of his History.

84 And, that I may pass over an infinite number of other instances, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, at the time of the Council of Constance were burned by the Emperor Sigismund.

85 Luther replies to this last example: "I speak of heretics, but Huss and the Praegueite [Jerome of Prague] were not heretics." To the contrary! At least Priscillian and Bogomiles, and the Albigenses were heretics. And John Huss, both for us Catholics, and for Luther himself, was a heretic; that he was for us, is well known; that he was for Luther is proved by the fact that Luther, in his book written against the King of England, asserts that it is impious and blasphemous to deny that there is true bread; and that it is devout and Catholic to deny the conversion of the bread into the Body. But John Huss, up to his death, was of the contrary opinion, and protested that he died in that faith, believing most firmly in the conversion of the bread.

86 A Second Argument: From experience it is shown that there is no benefit from the use of terror. I reply, experience points to the contrary: For the Donatists, the Manichaeans, and Albigensians were by military action disbanded and made extinct. Likewise Augustine testifies that very many in his time were converted out of fear of punishment.

87 A Third Argument: The Church tolerates Jews. Why not heretics? I reply, first, Jews have never accepted the Christian Faith but heretics have accepted it. The Jews are devoted to a religion which God instituted to exist at least for a period. Heretics have a religion which the Devil invented. Thirdly, the sect of the Jews is useful, because in their books are the prophecies relating to matters that concern us, and their ceremonies are types of our mysteries, and from this we can prove to the nations that these prophecies are not fictitious, since they are preserved by our enemies; finally, the Jews do not, in general, attempt to convert Christians, as the heretics do. Consult the Fourth Council of Toledo, canons 55 and 56, and Augustine, on Psalm LIX. Likewise, Bernard, in Letter 322, "ad Spirenses," and 323, "to the Bishop of Mainz."

88 A Fourth Argument, from Isaiah II, 4: "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks." I reply that it is not to the point, for, as St. Jerome explains, the Prophet is describing the time of the coming of the Messiah, and says it will be a time of profound peace, so that men will refashion their weapons into agricultural tools, and will no longer be engaged, that is, for a long time, in war; this time, moreover, was fulfilled at Christ's birth; for never had there been world-wide peace as general and lasting as in the time of Augustus. Hence, if it is true that there will be no future wars in the Church, as Luther concludes from this Scriptural citation, it will be manifest that the Church does not exist among the Lutherans, who, both among themselves and against Catholics, have incited the most severe of wars, such as that fought against Charles the Fifth, in which the Duke of Saxony (and Landgrave) was captured.

89 A Fifth Argument, from Isaiah XI, 9: "There shall be no harm nor ruin on all my holy mountain..." I reply, the argument tells against Luther himself, for the Prophet does not say that Catholics will not kill heretics but, rather to the contrary, that heretics shall not kill nor injure Catholics, for the Prophet speaks of lions, and bears, and serpents, and other poisonous beasts, of which he had said, "The baby shall play by the cobra's den, and the child lay his hand on the adder's lair." By these beasts, the Devil, and his ministers, the heretics, are meant, as Jerome and Cyril explain: It says that they shall not injure nor kill in all the Church; for, although heretics seem to injure the Church, in reality they do not injure but alert the Church and cause it to advance in wisdom and patience.

90 A Sixth Argument, from Matthew XVIII. The Lord declared that heretics should be looked upon as gentiles and tax-gatherers, not that they should be burned. And Paul, in his Letter to Titus, Chapter III, orders that a heretic be avoided, not killed. I reply that Christ, indeed, (and Paul), in this citation, did not order, but neither did He forbid, that heretics by burned; and consequently, nothing can be deduced from this text. And this is the solution that Luther himself was accustomed to apply; for, in Book II, "contra Carolstadium," objecting to "Carolstad", that it [or he] should call "Sacraments" what Christ had not commanded to be so called. Moreover, Christ, and Paul, never order that adulterers and forgers be killed, that thieves be hung, that robbers be burned, and nevertheless this is done, and rightly done, nor does Luther dare to deny this.

91 A Seventh Argument: St. Martin in the sacred history of Sulpicius, Book II, strongly argues against the Bishops Idacius and Ithacius who had obtained from the Emperor the death of the heretic Priscillian: and, in the same place, and for the same reason, Sulpicius accuses the same individuals of a great crime.

92 I reply, for two reasons those Bishops were deservedly reproached: For Priscillian, accused before the Council, appealed from the Council to the Emperor, and this the Bishops allowed; and for this reason, says St. Martin, there is a new and unheard of violation of divine law, that a secular judge should [be allowed to] adjudicate a Church matter. Secondly, because those Bishops had undertaken the role of accusers in a capital offense; for, although it is the right of Bishops to excommunicate heretics, and turn them over to a secular judge, and even urge the judges to perform their duty, it is not, however, becoming that the Bishop act as the accuser. That, however, Sulpicius thought that Priscillian and his companions were justly executed, is clear from those words of his: "In this manner, men unworthy of the light by their deplorable example were put to death."

93 An Eighth Argument, from I Cor. XI, 19: "There may even have to be factions among you for the tried and true to stand out clearly;" therefore, they should not be uprooted. I reply that the meaning of that text is, that given the malice of the Devil, who always sows heresies, and given the corrupt nature of human beings, and, finally, given the Divine permission, it is inevitable that heresies be found in the world; as we say, it is common that some bad growths be found in a garden and, as the Lord says: "It is inevitable that scandals occur." (Matthew, XVIII, 4) Consequently, the Apostle does not command that we sow heresies, or that we should not, if we are able, uproot them, but he simply predicts that which will always occur in the world: so we try with all our might to remove scandals and uproot weeds from the garden, even though we know that all scandals will never be removed.

94 A Ninth Argument: In Luke, IX, v. 55: The Lord said to the disciples who wanted to call down fire on the Samaritans: "You do not know of whose Spirit you are." I reply: First of all, there is the greatest imaginable difference between those Samaritans and heretics; for the former never promised that they would remain faithful to the Religion of Christ, but it was, on that occasion, only offered to them and, therefore, they were not to be pressured. But heretics had professed and promised they would keep the Faith of Christ and are, therefore, to be pressured. Then, too, James and John wished, not out of zeal for souls but from a love of vengeance, that the Samaritans be burned, and therefore they are deservedly reproved. The Church, truly, out of zeal for the souls that heretics pervert, persecutes them, by the same zeal that Christ twice drove from the Temple, with a whip, those selling sheep and cattle: "And" (in John II, v. 15) he "knocked over the money-changers tables, spilling their coins." (Cf., also, Matthew 21: 12-13) Paul handed over an incestuous man "to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord." [Cf. I Cor. 5: 1-5] I will pass over Moses, Phineas, Elijah, Mathathias, and others who killed many [enemies of the God of revelation].

95 A Tenth Argument, from Matthew XIII: "Let them grow together until the harvest; then, at harvest time, I will order the harvesters, 'First collect the weeds and bundle them up to burn, then gather the wheat into my barn.'" Here the Lord openly speaks of heretics and forbids that they be killed, as Chrysostom, in explaining this text, says; as; also, Cyprian (in Book III, Letter 3, "to Maximus and Urbanus") in speaking of this parable, says, only to the Lord was it granted to break earthen vases or uproot weeds.

96 I reply, by the metaphor of weeds not only heretics are meant but all evil men, as is clear from the explanation of the Lord Himself, for he says: "The good seed are the children of the Kingdom, the weeds are offspring of the Evil One." And, further on, He says, "As weeds are gathered up and burnt, so it will be at the consummation of the world: the Son of Man will send His angels and they will gather up from His Kingdom all the scandalous, and those who do evil, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire." When, however, the Lord forbids that the wicked be uprooted, He does not forbid that this or that person be killed, but, rather, He forbids that those who are good should attempt to uproot all evil persons whoever and permit no evil person at all, for this could not be done without a vast destruction of those who are good, and this is what the Lord intends, lest perhaps the wheat be uprooted with the rest. Therefore, the parable is a general one, and He merely teaches that it will never happen before the end of the world that all the evil will be eradicated.

97 Since, however, the question is either about heretics, or about thieves or other sinners, whether they are to be extirpated, it should always be taken into consideration, in the thinking of the Lord, whether it could be done without harm resulting to good people; and if indeed this can happen, then without doubt they should be uprooted; if, however, they cannot, either because they are not sufficiently understood and there is danger that the innocent be confused with the evil, or the harmful are stronger than us, and the danger is that if we go to war with them more of us will perish than of them, then there must be caution. In this manner, Augustine replies (in Book III, in refutation of the Letter of Parmenides, Chapter 2) in explanation of this Scriptural location which was presented as an objection by the Donatists. Nor does St. John Chrysostom teach differently, as is clear from these words: "The Lord forbids that weeds be uprooted, lest perhaps, along with the weeds, they root up also tendrils of wheat; for if heretics were destroyed, an atrocious and indecisive war would be introduced into the world." In addition, Cyprian understands the same parable as referring not to heretics but to bad Christians, nor does it so much prohibit that the abominable be killed as to say that it is only within the power of the Lord to discriminate the evil from the good and to eliminate altogether the weeds from the grain.

98 An Eleventh Argument, from John VI, 66-67, when many of his disciples broke away from his company, the Lord said, "Do you want to leave me, too?" So also the Church should do.

100 I reply: I deny the conclusion. First, because they had not obliged themselves to remain, as the heretics have obliged themselves to do by Baptism. Secondly, it was fitting that Christ, who had come to be judged, not to judge, should not Himself take revenge for the injuries He suffered but should leave them to His spiritual children to vindicate; we have an example of this kind in David: So long as he lived, he did not wish Shimei to be executed, but, nevertheless, at death, he commanded Solomon that he should not leave that sin unpunished. (I Kings, II: 8-9)

101 A Twelfth Argument: Faith is a gift of God. No one, therefore, can be compelled to have it. I reply, it is a gift of God is such a way that it is also an act of the free will; otherwise, chastity and the other virtues are gifts of God, but nevertheless, the following are rightly punished: adulterers, murderers, thieves, and they are driven to live chastely and justly. Wisdom, also, is a gift of God, and, nevertheless, it is written in Proverbs XXIX, v. 15, "The rod of correction gives wisdom..." Finally, Faith is a gift of God, but God preserves it in various ways, of which one is by correction.

102 A Thirteenth Argument: God conferred on the Church the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God, but not a sword of iron; moreover, He said to Peter who wanted to defend Him with a sword of iron: "Put your sword back in its sheath." (John 18: 11)

103 I reply: The Church, just as it has both Eccesiastical and Secular Princes, who are like two arms of the Church, so also it has two swords, both spiritual and material, and therefore, when the right hand could not convert a heretic with a spiritual sword, it invokes the help of the left hand, that it may coerce heretics with an iron sword, and perhaps the Lord indicated this when He prohibited Peter, who was to be the future Prince of all Ecclesiastics, to use a sword of iron.

104 St. Bernard, in Book IV of De Consideratione; "Why do you again try to take up the sword, which you were once ordered to place in its sheath? Those, nevertheless, who deny what is yours, do not seem to pay sufficient attention to the Word of the Lord, as He says, 'Return your sword to its sheath;' yours, therefore, and perhaps at your discretion, even if it should not be unsheathed by your hand. Otherwise, if it in no way belonged to you, why, when the Apostles said 'Look, here are two swords,' should the Lord have said, 'That is enough,' instead of, 'That is too much.' Both, therefore, belong to the Church, not only the spiritual sword but also the material, but the latter to be used on behalf of the Church, and the former to be used by the Church: the material sword wielded by the military, but at the discretion of the Church and the order of the Emperor." So far, Bernard. Nevertheless, he could say with greater brevity, that the Lord merely prohibited the use of the sword by private authority; for at that time, Peter was not yet the Supreme Pontiff but only one of the disciples.

105 A Fourteenth Argument. The Church does not spare the heretic except once. The Apostle, however, in his Letter to Titus, Chapter III, v. 10, orders that twice at least, a warning be given to heretics.

106 I reply, that although, now, both the Latin and the Greek codices consistently have "After one and a second correction," formerly both, in whatever Greek and Latin, there was only: "after one correction, avoid etc.;" this is clear from Irenaeus, Book III, Chapter 3, from Tertullian, "de Prescripto," from Cyprian, Book III, "ad Quirinum," Chapter 78, from Ambrose and Jerome, on this text of the Apostle. Therefore, it is uncertain which is the true reading. I say further, on this place in the Apostle, which St. Jerome more favors in accord with our reading, and he adds that it was more pleasing to St. Athanasius; therefore, I judge that the Apostle is not speaking of a pardon that should be given to a converted heretic, but of an admonition which is given before a heretic should be excommunicated by the sentence of a judge: This procedure, however, the Church observes not only in the case of heretics but also in all others whom it excommunicates, for always, it first gives at least two admonitions.

107 A Fifteenth Argument: Heretics are outside the Church: "What business is it of mine to judge outsiders?" (I Cor. V: 12) I reply: They are outside the Church, but with a debt and an obligation of remaining in it, and, therefore, they can be forced to return, just as we force sheep, when they have fled the flock.

108 A Sixteenth Argument: It seems to be incompatible with the clemency of the Church to seem to will the death of heretics.

109 I reply: It is not contrary to the clemency of the Church, because it is obliged to have compassion for its children, and, therefore it would be very unkind and cruel, if it preferred to spare the wolves rather than the sheep. Secondly, because the Church has first tried all other means, before it could be brought to inflict the ultimate punishment; for, at the start, as we said above, it merely excommunicated, then, seeing that this was insufficient, it added the penalty of a fine, then the confiscation of all possessions; afterwards, exile; then, it comes down to this, as is manifest from the various laws of the more ancient Emperors, in the Codex, under the title, "heretics."

110 A Seventeenth Argument: Faith is a free act. I reply, that "free" can be taken in two senses. In one sense, "free" from obligation, as we say that one is "free" to make a vow of chastity, or to enter religious life; but one is not free to break one's vow or to become a fugitive from religious life; and in this sense, the Faith, for those who have never accepted it, is free from any obligation in human law but not in divine law; and, therefore, men use no force; still, God will punish. But, in the case of those who have professed faith at Baptism, there is no freedom from obligation, neither by human law nor by divine law, and, therefore, men use sanctions to promote conformity. In a second sense, "free" is taken in distinction to "compulsion," and in this sense, one is free not to believe, just as he is free to commit other sins, but this freedom does not prohibit that men who are evil-doers be punished. Even more, it is imperative that they be punished, for if one is free to believe or not to believe, therefore, one could have believed and remained in the Church, as he should have; because he did not, he is deservedly punished: so replies St. Augustine, in a Fiftieth Letter to Boniface, and in Book II, in refutation of a letter of Gaudentius, in Chapter 11: "Free will has been given to man," he writes, "so that, if he does evil, he should suffer evil."

111 An Eighteenth Argument: Never did the Apostles call upon the secular arm. St. Augustine replies (in Letter 50, and elsewhere) that the Apostles never did that, because then there was no Christian Ruler they could call upon. For, at that time, the words of the Psalm (II, 2 & 10) were verified: "The kings of the earth, and the princes conspire together against the Lord and against His anointed." (v. 2) And after the time of Constantine, that began to be verified which is written later in the same Psalm: "And now, O kings, give heed; take warning, you rulers of the earth: Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice before Him; with trembling pay homage to him..." (vs. 10-12) Soon the Church implored the help of the secular arm.