Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 22: The Objections Answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Laicis sive Saecularibus (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book III), On the Laity or Secular Persons (On the Members of the Church, Book III). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
It remains to dissolve the arguments of Luther and the other heretics.
The first argument, from the experience of the whole Church: “The Church,” says Luther, “from its beginning until now, has burned no heretic”; therefore it does not seem to be the will of the Spirit that they be burned.
I answer that this argument excellently proves, not the opinion, but the ignorance or the impudence of Luther. For since almost infinite numbers have been either burned or otherwise put to death, either Luther was ignorant of this, and then he is unskilled, or he was not ignorant, and is convicted of being impudent and lying. For that heretics have often been burned by the Church can be shown if we bring forward a few examples out of many. Priscillian the heresiarch with his companions was put to death by the Christian Emperor Maximus, as Saint Jerome testifies (in the book On Illustrious Men); and of Donatists killed Optatus makes mention (Book III against Parmenian). A certain Basil, a magician, and accordingly a heretic — for scarcely are any true magicians not heretics — was burned at Rome by the Christian and Catholic people, as Blessed Gregory testifies (Book I of the Dialogues, chapter 4). Again another Basil, author of the heresy of the Bogomiles, was publicly burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, as Zonaras writes (in the life of Alexius). In the time of Blessed Bernard too, that heretics were punished with the extreme penalty he himself testifies (on the Canticle, sermon 66). In the times of Innocent III, 180 Albigensian heretics were once burned together, after Saint Dominic had convicted them by words and miracles, and converted many of their companions. The whole matter Blessed Antoninus writes (part 3, title 19, chapter 1, section 4, of the history). And, to pass over infinite others, John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned in the Council of Constance by the Emperor Sigismund.
To this last example Luther answers: “I speak of heretics; but Hus and the man of Prague were not heretics.” On the contrary. At least Priscillian, and the Bogomiles, and the Albigensians were heretics. Besides, John Hus was a heretic both to us Catholics and to Luther himself; that he was so to us is well known; that he was so to Luther is proved. For Luther, in the book against the King of England, asserts that it is impious and blasphemous to deny the true bread in the Eucharist together with the body of the Lord, and pious and Catholic to deny the conversion of the bread into the body. But John Hus was until death in the contrary opinion, and protested that he died in that faith, believing most firmly the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, as John Cochlaeus relates (Book II of the history of the Hussites, page 76).
The second argument: experience testifies that nothing is gained by terrors. I answer that experience is to the contrary; for the Donatists, Manichaeans, and Albigensians were overthrown and extinguished by arms. Likewise Augustine testifies that very many were converted in his time from fear of punishment (letter 48).
The third argument: the Church tolerates the Jews; why not heretics? I answer, first, the Jews never received the Christian faith; heretics received it. Secondly, the Jews practice a religion which God instituted, at least for a time; heretics one which the devil invented. Thirdly, the sect of the Jews is useful to the Church, because their books are prophecies of our affairs, and their ceremonies figures of our mysteries, and hence we prove to the Gentiles that we did not feign these prophecies, since they are kept by our enemies; finally, the Jews for the most part do not try to pervert Christians, as heretics do. See the Fourth Council of Toledo (canons 55 and 56), and Augustine on Psalm 59; likewise Bernard (letter 322 to those of Speyer, and 323 to the bishop of Mainz).
The fourth argument, from Isaiah 2: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into sickles.” I answer that it is not to the purpose; for, as Blessed Jerome expounds, the Prophet describes the time of the coming of the Messiah, and says there will be a time of most profound peace, so that men turn the instruments of war into instruments of agriculture, and be exercised no more — that is, for a long time — for battle; and this time was fulfilled at the nativity of Christ, for there was never so general and so lasting a peace in the whole world as in the time of Augustus. Then, if it is true that there will never be wars in the Church, as Luther deduces from this passage, it will be manifest that there is no Church among the Lutherans, who have stirred up most grave wars both among themselves and against the Catholics — such as that against Charles V, in which the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave were captured.
The fifth argument, from Isaiah 11: “They shall not kill, nor hurt, in all my holy mountain.” I answer that the argument is against Luther himself; for the Prophet does not say that Catholics will not kill heretics, but rather, on the contrary, that heretics will not kill and will not hurt Catholics. For the Prophet speaks of lions, and bears, and serpents, basilisks, and other venomous beasts, of which he had said: “And the infant at the breast shall delight over the hole of the asp, and shall put his hand into the den of the basilisk,” and so on; and by these beasts the devil and heretics his ministers are signified, as Jerome and Cyril expound; and he says that they shall not kill nor hurt in the whole Church; for although heretics seem to harm the Church, yet in reality they do not harm it, but exercise it and make it advance in wisdom and patience.
The sixth argument: Matthew 18, the Lord ordained that heretics be held for heathen and publicans, not that they be burned. And Paul (Titus 3) commands that a heretic be avoided, not killed; therefore it is not lawful to kill them. I answer that Christ and Paul in this place did indeed not command, but neither did they forbid, that heretics be burned; and accordingly nothing is deduced from this passage. And this is the solution which Luther himself was wont to use; for in Book II against Karlstadt, to Karlstadt objecting why he called those things Sacraments which Christ had not commanded to be so called, Luther answered: and why do you forbid those to be called Sacraments which Christ did not forbid to be called so? Besides, Christ and Paul nowhere command that adulterers and forgers be killed, that thieves be hanged, robbers burned; and yet that this is done, and rightly done, not even Luther would dare to deny.
The seventh argument: Blessed Martin, in Sulpicius (Book II of the sacred history, near the end), vehemently rebuked the bishops Idacius and Ithacius, who procured the death of the heretic Priscillian before the emperor; and Sulpicius too in the same place accuses these same men as guilty of a great crime for the same cause. I answer that those bishops are deservedly accused for two causes. First, because they brought an ecclesiastical cause before the emperor; for Priscillian, accused before a Council, appealed from the Council to the emperor, and this the bishops permitted; and of this matter Blessed Martin says it is a new and unheard-of wickedness that a secular judge should judge a cause of the Church. Secondly, because those bishops took upon themselves the office of accuser in a cause of blood; for although it belongs to bishops to excommunicate heretics and leave them to the secular judge, and even to exhort the judges to discharge their office, yet it does not befit a bishop to act as accuser. But that Sulpicius held Priscillian to have been justly killed with his companions is plain from those words of his: “In this way men most unworthy of the light were, by a most evil example, put to death.”
The eighth argument: 1 Corinthians 11: “There must be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest”; therefore they ought not to be extirpated. I answer that the sense of that saying is: given the wickedness of the devil, who always sows heresies, and the nature of men corrupt and prone to evil, and lastly the divine permission, it is necessary that heresies be found in the world — as we say that there must be some bad herbs in a garden, and as the Lord says: “It must needs be that scandals come” (Matthew 18). And so the Apostle does not command that we sow heresies, or that we not extirpate them with all our strength, but only foretells what will always be in the world — just as we most justly strive to take away scandals and to extirpate bad herbs from the garden, though we know that not all scandals will ever be taken away.
The ninth argument: Luke 9, to the disciples desiring to burn the Samaritans, the Lord says: “You know not of what spirit you are.” I answer, first, there is a very wide difference between those Samaritans and heretics; for they had never promised to keep the religion of Christ, but it was then first offered to them, and therefore they were not to be compelled. But heretics promised and professed to keep the faith of Christ; therefore they are deservedly compelled. Then James and John desired the Samaritans to be burned not so much out of zeal for the salvation of souls as out of love of vengeance, and therefore are deservedly rebuked. But the Church persecutes heretics out of zeal for the salvation of the souls which they pervert — the zeal with which Christ Himself twice with a scourge cast out of the temple those selling sheep and oxen, and overturned the tables of the money-changers (John 2 and Matthew 21); with which Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5); with which Paul delivered the fornicator to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Corinthians 5) — to pass over Moses, Phinehas, Elijah, Mattathias, and others, who out of zeal for God killed very many.
The tenth argument: Matthew 13: “Suffer both to grow until the harvest.” Here the Lord openly speaks of heretics and forbids them to be killed, as Chrysostom says expounding this passage, and as Cyprian too (Book III, letter 3, to Maximus and Urban), where, speaking of this parable, he says that it is granted to the Lord alone either to break the earthen vessels or to pluck up the cockle. I answer that by the name of cockle are understood not only heretics, but all bad men, as is plain from the Lord’s own explanation; for He says: “The good seed are the children of the kingdom; the cockle the children of the wicked one.” And below: “As therefore cockle is gathered up and burnt with fire, so shall it be in the consummation of the world: the Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals and them that work iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.” Now when the Lord forbids the bad to be extirpated, He does not forbid that this one or that be killed, but forbids that the good try to extirpate all the bad everywhere and permit none at all — for that could not be done without a huge slaughter of the good; and this is what the Lord means: “lest perhaps, gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also with it.” And so the parable is general, and only teaches that it will never happen, before the consummation of the world, that all the bad be rooted out.
But when in particular the question is of heretics, or of thieves, or of other bad men, whether they are to be extirpated, it must always be considered, according to the Lord’s reasoning, whether this can be done without detriment to the good; and if indeed it can be done, they are without doubt to be extirpated; but if they cannot, because either they are not well enough known and there is danger lest the innocent be punished for the guilty, or they are stronger than we and there is danger lest, if we attack them with war, more of ours fall than of theirs, then one must desist. So answers Augustine (Book III against the letter of Parmenian, chapter 2), explaining this passage objected to him by the Donatists. Nor does Chrysostom teach anything else, as is plain from these words: “The Lord forbids the cockle to be plucked up, lest perhaps together with the cockle they pluck up the wheat also; for if the heretics were then slain, an atrocious and irreconcilable war would be brought upon the world.” Moreover Cyprian understands this parable in that letter not of heretics but of bad Christians, nor does he so much forbid the wicked to be killed, but says that it belongs to the Lord alone to discern the bad from the good, and wholly to purge the wheat from the cockle.
The eleventh argument: John 6, when many of the disciples had withdrawn, the Lord says: “Will you also go away?” Therefore the Church too ought to do so. I answer, the consequence is denied. First, because they had not obligated themselves to remain, as heretics obligated themselves by Baptism. Secondly, because it befitted Christ, who had come to be judged, not to judge, and not to avenge His own injuries by Himself, but to leave them to be avenged by His spiritual sons — of which we have a figure in David, who, as long as he lived, never willed Shimei, who had cursed him, to be killed, yet at his death commanded Solomon that he should not leave that sin unpunished (3 Kings 2).
The twelfth argument: faith is a gift of God; therefore no one can be compelled to it. I answer that it is so a gift of God that it is also an act of free choice; otherwise chastity too, and the other virtues, are gifts of God, and yet adulterers, murderers, robbers are rightly punished and compelled to live chastely and justly. Wisdom too is a gift of God, and yet it is written (Proverbs 29): “The rod and reproof give wisdom.” Finally, faith is a gift of God, but God preserves this gift in various ways, one of which is reproof.
The thirteenth argument: the Lord attributed to the Church the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, but not the sword of iron; nay, to Peter wishing to defend Him with the iron sword He said: “Put up thy sword into the scabbard” (John 18). I answer, the Church, as she has ecclesiastical and secular princes, who are as it were the two arms of the Church, so has two swords, the spiritual and the material; and therefore when the right hand with the spiritual sword could not convert the heretic, she invokes the aid of the left arm, that with the iron sword she may coerce heretics; and this perhaps the Lord signified when He forbade Peter, who was to be the prince of ecclesiastics, to use the iron sword. Saint Bernard (Book IV On Consideration): “Why dost thou attempt to usurp again the sword which thou wast once bidden to put in the scabbard? Which, however, those who deny to be thine seem to me not sufficiently to attend to the word of the Lord, saying thus: Put up thy sword into the scabbard; it is therefore thine, to be unsheathed perhaps at thy nod, though not by thy hand. Otherwise, if it in no way pertained to thee, when the Apostles said, Behold, here are two swords, the Lord would not have answered, It is enough, but, It is too much. Both swords, then, are the Church’s, the spiritual namely and the material; but the one is to be exercised for the Church, the other by the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of the soldier, but assuredly at the nod of the priest and the command of the emperor.” Thus he. Yet it could be said more briefly that the Lord only forbade the use of the sword by private authority; for then Peter was not yet Pontiff, but a disciple.
The fourteenth argument: the Church spares heretics only once, but the Apostle (Titus 3) commands that heretics be spared at least twice. I answer that although now both the Latin and the Greek codices constantly have “after one and a second correction,” yet of old, in the Greek and in certain Latin codices, it was had only: “after one correction avoid”; as is plain from Irenaeus (Book III, chapter 3), Tertullian (On Prescription), Cyprian (Book III to Quirinus, chapter 78), Ambrose and Jerome on this passage of the Apostle. And so it is uncertain which is the true reading. I say besides, on this passage of the Apostle — where nevertheless Saint Jerome rather approves our reading, and says it pleased Saint Athanasius more — that the Apostle does not speak of pardon to be given to a converted heretic, but of the admonition which is premised before a heretic is excommunicated by the sentence of the judge; and this the Church keeps not only in heretics but in all others whom she excommunicates, for she always premises at least two admonitions.
The fifteenth argument: heretics are outside the Church; but “what have we to do with those who are without?” (1 Corinthians 5). I answer, they are outside the Church, but with a duty and obligation of remaining within, and therefore they can be compelled to return, as we compel sheep when they have fled from the flock.
The sixteenth argument: to wish the death of heretics seems against the meekness of the Church. I answer, first, it is not against the meekness of the Church, because she is bound to have mercy on her sons, and would then truly be harsh and cruel if she preferred to spare the wolves rather than the sheep. Secondly, because the Church tried all other means before she could be brought to inflict the extreme penalty; for at the beginning, as we said above, she only excommunicated; then, seeing that this did not suffice, she added a money-penalty, then the loss of all goods, afterward exile, and at last came to this — as is sufficiently plain from the various laws of the more ancient emperors in the Code, title On Heretics.
The seventeenth argument: faith is free. I answer that “free” is taken in two ways. In one way, from obligation, in which way we say it is free to vow chastity, to enter religion; but it is not free to break the vow, to leave religion. And in this way faith, in those who never received it, is free from the obligation of human right, but not of divine; and therefore men do not compel, but God will punish. But in those who professed it in Baptism, it is not free from obligation, neither of divine nor of human right, and therefore men compel that it be kept. In the other way “free” is taken as distinguished against “necessary,” and in this way it is free not to believe, as it is free to commit other sins; but this liberty does not hinder men who do evil from being punished; nay, rather it requires that they be punished; for if it is free to believe and not to believe, then he was able to believe and remain in the Church, as he ought, and because he did not, he is deservedly punished. So answers Saint Augustine (in letter 50 to Boniface, and Book II against the letter of Gaudentius, chapter 11): “Free choice was given to man, but so that, if he were doing evil, he should become one suffering evil.”
The eighteenth argument: the Apostles never invoked the secular arm against heretics. Saint Augustine answers (in letter 50 and elsewhere) that the Apostles did not do this because there was then no Christian prince whom they might invoke. For then was fulfilled that of Psalm 2: “The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together against the Lord and against His Christ.” But after, in the time of Constantine, that began to be fulfilled which follows in the same Psalm: “And now, O kings, understand; receive instruction, you that judge the earth; serve the Lord with fear” — at once the Church implored the aid of the secular arm.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII. Solvuntur objectiones. Superest argumenta Lutheri atque ■ alio¬ rum haereticorum diluere. Argumentum Primum, ab experientia totius Ecclesia} : « Ecclesia, inquit Lutherus, ab initio sui usque huc nullum combussit haereticum ; » ergo non videtur esse voluntas spiritus, ut comburantur. Respondeo, argumentum hoc optime pro¬ bat, non sententiam sed imperitiam, vel im¬ pudentiam Lutheri; Nam cum infiniti pro- pemodum vel combusti, vel aliter necati fuerint, aut id ignoravit Lutherus, et tunc imperitus est, aut non ignoravit, et impu¬ dens ac mendax esse convincitur ; nam quod ha}retici sint saepe ab Ecclesia combusti, os¬ tendi potest, si adducamus pauca exempla de multis. Priscillianus haeresiarcha cum sociis, a Maximo Christiano Imperatore ne¬ catus est, ut S. Hieronymus in lib. ' de viris illustribus testatur, et de Donatistis occisis meminit Optatus lib. III. contra Parmenia- num. Basilius quidam Magus, ac proinde haere¬ ticus; nam vix ulli sunt vere Magi non hae¬ retici, Romae combustus est a Christiano, et Catholico populo, ut B. Gregorius testatur lib. I. Dialogorum cap. 4. Rursum alius Basilius auctor haeresis Bo- gomilorum ab Alexio Comneno Imperatore publice exustus est, ut scribit Zonaras in vita Alexii. Tempore etiam B. Bernardi, quod haere¬ tici ultimo supplicio afficerentur, testatur ipse in Cantica serm. 66. Temporibus Inno- centii III. fuerunt aliquando simul exusti 180. haeretici Albigenses, cum antea et ver¬ bis, et miraculis eos S. Dominicus convicis¬ set, et multos eorum socios convertisset. Scribit rem totam B. Antonius III. parte tit. 19. cap. I. § 4. historiae. Ac ut alios infinitos omittam, Joannes Huss, et Hieronymus de iPraga in Constan- tiensi Concilio ab Imperatore Sigismundo exusti fuerunt. Respondet Lutherus ad hoc ultimum exem¬ plum : Ego de haereticis loquor, Huss autem, et Pragensis non fuerunt haeretici. Contra. Saltem Priscillianus, et Bogomiles, et Albi¬ genses fuerunt haeretici. Praeterea Jeannes • Huss, et nobis Catholicis, et ipsi Luthero haereticus fuit ; quod nobis, notum est : quod Luthero, probatur ; nam Lutherus in lib. contra Regem Angliae asserit impium esse, et blasphemum negare verum panem in Eucharistia cum corpore Domini : et pium, atque Catholicum, negare conversionem pa¬ nis in corpus. At Joannes Huss usque ad mortem in contraria sententia fuit, et pro¬ testatus est in ea fide se mori, credens fir¬ missime panis conversionem in corpus Christi, ut Joannes Cochlaeus refert lib. II. de historia Ilussitarum, pag. 76. Argumentum Secundum, experientia tes¬ tatur, non profici terroribus. Respondeo, experientia est in contrarium ; nam Dona- tistse, Manichaei, et Albigenses armis profli¬ gati et extincti sunt. Item Augustinus testa¬ tur plurimos conversos suo tempore ob metum poenae, epist. 48. Argumentum Tertium, Ecclesia tolerat Ju¬ daeos, cur non haereticos? Respondeo Primo, Judaei numquam susceperunt fidem Chris¬ tianam, haeretici susceperunt. Secundo, Ju¬ daei religionem colunt, quam Deus instituit saltem pro tempore, haeretici eam, quam Diabolus invenit. Tertio, spcta Judaeorum Ecclesiae utilis est, quia eorum libri sunt prophetiae nostrarum rerum, et eorum cae¬ remoniae figurae nostrarum mysteriorum, et hinc probamus Gentilibus nos non finxisse haec vaticinia, quandoquidem servantur a nostris inimicis; denique Judaei non conan¬ tur pervertere Christianos, iit plurimum, sicut faciunt haeretici. Vide Concilium Tole¬ tanum IV, can. 55 et 56. et Augustinum in Psalm. LIX. Item Bernardum in epist. 322. ad Spirenses, et 323. ad Episcopum Mogun- tinum. Argumentum Quartum, ex Isaia II : Con¬ flabunt gladios suos in vomeres, et lanceas suas in falces (I). Respondeo, non est ad propo¬ situm, nam ut B. Hieronymus exponit, des¬ cribit Propheta tempus adventus Messiae, ac dicit futurum tempus altissimoe pacis, ita ut homines convertant instrumenta militiae in instrumenta agriculturae, et non exercean¬ tur ultra, id est, in longum tempus ad prae¬ lium; hoc autem tempus impletum est in (1) Isai. 11,4. I CAPUT XXII. 45 Christi nativitate ; numquam enim fuit tam generalis, et tam diuturna pax in toto orbe, quam tempore Augusti. Deinde, si verum est, numquam futura in Ecclesia bella, ut Lutherus ex hoc loco deducit, manifestum erit apud Lutheranos non esse Ecclesiam, qui et inter se, et contra Catholicos gravis¬ sima bella moverunt, quale fuit illud contra Carolum V. in quo captus fuit Dux Saxoni® et Landgravius. Argumentum Quintum , ex Isaia XI : Non occident , et non nocebunt in omni monte sancto meo (1). Respondeo, argumentum est contra ipsum Lutherum, nam non cRcit Propheta quod Catholici non occident haereticos, sed potius contra quod haeretici non occident, et non nocebunt Catholicis ; loquitur enim Propheta de leonibus, et ursis, et serpenti¬ bus, regulis, aliisque venenatis bestiis, de quibus dixerat : Et delectabitur infans ab ubere super foramine aspidis, et in caverna re¬ guli mittet manum suam etc. (2) his autem bestiis Diabolus, et haeretici ejus ministri significantur, ut Hieronymus , et Cyrillus exponunt : Ac dicit, quod non occident, ne¬ que nocebunt in omni Ecclesia ; tametsi enim haeretici videntur Ecclesiae nocere, tamen re vera non nocent, sed eam exer¬ cent, et in sapientia, ac patientia proficere faciunt. Argumentum Sextum, Matth. XYUI. Do¬ minus constituit, ut haeretici haberentur pro Ethnicis et Publicanis, non ut combureren¬ tur. Et Paulus ad Titum III. jubet haereticum vitari, non occidi, ergo non licet eos occi¬ dere. Respondeo, Christum quidem, et Pau¬ lum hoc loco non praecepisse, sed nec pro¬ hibuisse, ut comburerentur haeretici : ac proinde nihil ex hoc loco deduci. Et haec est solutio ; qua ipse etiam Lutherus uti con¬ suevit; nam in lib. II. contra Carolstadium, objicienti Carolstadio, cur vocaret Sacra¬ menta , quae Christus non praeceperat sic vocari ; respondit Lutherus , et quare tu prohibes ea vocari Sacramenta, quae Chris¬ tus non prohibuit vocari. PraetereaChristus, et Paulus nusquam jubent adulteros, et fal¬ sarios occidi, suspendi fures, comburi la¬ trones, et tamen id fieri, et recte fieri, neque Lutherus negare auderet. Argumentum Septimum, B. Martinus apud Sulpitium lib. II sacrae historiae circa finem, vehementer redarguit Idacium, et Ithacium Episcopos, qui procurabant mor¬ tem Priscilliani haeretici apud Imperatorem; eosdem etiam tamquam ingentis criminis reos propter eamdem causam ibidem Sulpi- tius accusat. Respondeo, duabus de causis merito accu¬ sari illos Episcopos. Primo, quia causam Ecclesiasticam ad Imperatorem deferebant ; nam Priscillianus accusatus apud Concilium, provocavit a Concilio ad Imperatorem, et hoc Episcopi permiserunt; et de hac re ait B. Martinus, novum, et inauditum nefas est, ut causam Ecclesiae judex saeculi judicaret. Secundo, quia Episcopi illi assumpserunt officium accusatoris in causa sanguinis ; etsi enim Episcoporum est haereticos excommu¬ nicare, et relinquere judici saeculari, et hor¬ tari etiamjudices, ut munere suo fungantur, non tamen decet Episcopum accusatorem agere. Quod autem Sulpitius putaverit juste Priscillianum occisum cum sociis, patet ex illis verbis ejus : « Hoc modo, inquit, homi¬ nes luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo ne¬ cati sunt. » Argumentum Octavum. I. Gorinth. XI : Oportet hcereses esse, ut qui probati sunt mani¬ festi fiant (3), ergo non debent extirpari. Respondeo sensus illius sententiae est, posi¬ ta nequitia Diaboli, qui semper haereses se¬ minat, et natura hominum corrupta, atque ad malum propensa, et postremo divina per¬ missione, necesse est in mundo haereses inve¬ niri, sicut dicimus, oportet in horto esse ali¬ quas malas herbas et sicut Dominus ait : Ne¬ cesse est ut veniant scandala, Matth. XVIII (4). Itaque non jubet Apostolus ut haereses se¬ minemus, vel ut eas pro viribus non extir- pemus, sed solum praedicit id quod semper in mundo erit : sicut scandala tollere, et malas herbas de horto extirpare justissime conamur, licet sciamus nunquam omnia scandala tollenda. Argumentum Nonum. Luc. XI. Discipu¬ lis cupientibus comburere Samaritas, Domi¬ nus ait: Nescitis cujus spiritus estis (5). Res¬ pondeo, Primo latissima differentia est in¬ ter Samaritas illos, et haereticos ; illi enim nunquam promiserant se Christi religio¬ nem servaturos, sed tunc primum eis offe¬ rebatur, et ideo compellendi non erant. At haeretici promiserunt, professique sunt se Christi fidem servaturos, ideo merito com¬ pelluntur. Deinde Jacobus et Joannes non tam (1) Isai XI, 9. — (2) Id., 8. — (3) I. Cor. XI, 19, — (4) Matth. XVIII, 7. — (5) Luc. IX, 55. 46 LIBER IU. zelo salutis animarum, quam amore vindic¬ tae cupiebant Samaritas comburi, et ideo merito arguuntur. Ecclesia vero zelo salu¬ tis animarum, quas haeretici pervertunt, eos persequitur, quo zelo ipse Christus bis fla¬ gello ejecit ex templo vendentes oves et bo¬ ves : Et mensas nummulariorum subvertit , Joan. II. et Matth. XXI. Petrus occidit Ana- niam et Saphiram, Actor. V. Paulus tradi¬ dit fornicarium Satance in interitum car¬ nis: I. Corinth. V. ut omittam Mosem, Phi- nees, Eliam, Mathathiam, et alios, qui zelo Dei plurimos occiderunt. Argumentum decimum. Matth. XIII : Si¬ nite utraque crescere usque ad messem (1). Hic aperte Dominus de haereticis loquitur, et prohibet eos occidi, ut Chrysostomus hunc locum exponens ait, ut etiam Cyprianus lib. III. epist. 3. ad Maximum, et Urbanum, ubi de hac parabola loquens dicit, soli Domino concessum esse, vel fictilia vasa confringe¬ re, vel zizania evellere. Respondeo, nomine zizaniorum non intel- liguntur soli haeretici, sed omnes homines mali, ut patet ex ipsa Domini explicatione, ait enim : « Bonum semen, filii sunt regni, zizania filii nequam. » Etinfra: « Sicut ergo colliguntur zizania, et igni comburuntur, sic erit in consummatione saeculi : Mittet filius hominis Angelos suos, et colligent de regno ejus omnia scandala, et eos qui faciunt ini¬ quitatem, et mittent eos in caminum ignis.» Cum autem prohibetDominus extirpari malos non prohibet ne iste, aut ille occidatur, sed prohibet ne boni conentur omnes malos ubi¬ que extirpare, et nullum omnino permittere, id enim fieri non posset sine ingenti clade bonorum, et hoc est quod Dominus ait, ne fbrte cum eis eradicetis simul et triticum. Itaque parabola generalis est, et solum do¬ cet nunquam futurum ante mundi consum¬ mationem, ut omnes mali eradicentur. Cum autem in particulari quaestio est vel de haereticis, vel de furibus, vel de aliis ma¬ lis ; An sint extirpandi ; semper consideran¬ dum est, juxta rationem Domini, an id pos¬ sit fieri sine detrimento bonorum ; et si qui¬ dem potest fieri, sunt procul dubio extirpan¬ di : si autem non possunt, quia vel non sunt satis noti, et periculum est ne plectantur in¬ nocentes pro nocentibus, vel sunt fortiores nobis, et periculum estnesieos bello aggre¬ diamur pluves ex nobio cadant quam ex illis, tunc quiescendum est. Ita respondet Augus- tin. lib. III. contra epist. Parmen. cap. 2. hunc locum explicans sibi a Donatistis objec¬ tum. Neque aliud Chrysostomus docet, ut pa¬ tet ex his verbis : « Dominus, inquit, prohi¬ bet evelli zizania, ne forte simul cum ziza¬ niis herbam etiam tritici evellant ; nam si tunc trucidarentur haeretici, atrox et irre- conciliabile bellum orbe inferretur. » Porro Cyprianus non de haereticis, sed de malis Christianis in ea epistola hanc parabolam intelligit, nec tam prohibet occidi scelestos, sed dicit solius Domini esse discernere ma¬ los a bonis, 'et frumenta a zizaniis omnino purgare . Argumentum undecimum. Joan. VI. cum multi ex discipulis recessissent, Dominus ait : Vultis et vos abire ? (2) Ergo sic etiam Ecclesia facere debet. Respondeo, negatur consequentia; Pri¬ mo, quia illi non obligaverant se ad manen¬ dum, sicut hairetici se per Baptismum obli¬ gaverunt. Secundo, quia decebat ut Christus, qui venerat judicari non judicare, non per se suas injurias ulcisceretur, sed eas vindi¬ candas filiis suis spiritualibus relinqueret, cujus rei figuram habemus in David, quous¬ que vixit, numquam occidi voluit Semei, qui sibi maledixerat, sed tamen in morte praece¬ pit Salomoni, ut ipse peccatum illud non re¬ linqueret inultum, III. Reg. II. Argumentum duodecimum. Fides est do¬ num Dei, nemo igitur ad eam compelli po¬ test. Respondeo, sic eam esse donum Dei, ut etiam sit actus liberi arbitrii, alioqui etiam castitas, et caeterae virtutes sunt dona Dei, et tamen recte puniuntur adulteri, homici¬ da!, latrones, et coguntur caste, ac juste vi¬ vere. Sapientia quoque est Donum Dei, et tamen scriptum est Proverb. XXIX : Virga , et correptio tribuunt sapientiam (3). Denique fides est donum Dei, sed Deus hoc donum conservat variis modis, quorum unus cor¬ reptio est. Argumentum decimumtertium. Dominus attribuit Ecclesia} gladium spiritus, quod est verbum Dei, non autem gladium ferri, imo Petro volenti gladio ferreo ipsum de¬ fendere, ait: « Mitte gladium tuum in va¬ ginam. » Joan. XVIII. Respondeo, Ecclesia sicut habet Princi¬ pes Ecclesiasticos, et saeculares, qui sunt quasi duo Ecclesia! brachia, ita duos habet (1) Matth. XIII, 30. — (2) Joan. VI, 68. — (3) Prov. XXIX, 15, CAPUT XXII. 47 gladios, spiritualem, et materialem, et ideo quando manus dextera gladio spirituali non potuit haereticum convertere, invocat auxi¬ lium brachii sinistri, ut gladio ferreo haere¬ ticos coerceat, et hoc fortasse significavit Dominus, cum prohibuit Petrum, qui erat futurus Princeps Ecclesiasticorum, uti gla¬ dio ferreo. S. Bernardus lib. IV. de consideratione : « Quid, inquit, tu denuo usurpare gladium tentas, quem semel jussus es ponere in vagi¬ nam? Quem tamen qui tuum negant, non satis mihi videntur attendere verbum Domi¬ ni, dicentis sic : Converte gladium tuum in vaginam; tuus ergo et ipse, tuo forsitan nutu, et si non tua manu evaginandus. Alio- quin si nullo modo ad te pertineret et is, dicentibus Apostolis : Ecce duo gladii hic; non respondisset Dominus, satis est, sed ni¬ mis est. Uterque ergo Ecclesiae et spiritua¬ lis scilicet gladius, et materialis, sed is qui¬ dem pro Ecclesia, ille vero et ab Ecclesia exercendus est : ille sacerdotis, is militis manu sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis, et jus¬ sum Imperatoris. » Haec ille. Posset tamen brevius dicit, solum prohibuisse Dominum usum gladii privata auctoritate ; tunc enim Petrus nondum Pontifex, sed discipulus erat. Argumentum Decimumquartum. Ecclesia uon parcit haereticis nisi semel, Apostolus autem ad Titum III. jubet ut bis ad mini¬ mum haereticis parcatur. Respondeo, etsi nunc tam Latini, quam Graeci codices constanter habeant : Post unam et alteram correptionem (1). Tamen olim in Graecis et in Latinis quibusdam non habebatur, nisi : Post unam correptionem de¬ vita; ut patet ex Irenaeo lib. III. cap. 3. Tertulliano de praescript. Cypriano lib. III. ad Quirinum cap. 78. Ambrosio et Hierony¬ mo in hunc locum Apostoli. Itaque incertum est quae sit vera lectio. Dico praeterea, in hunc locum Apostoli, qui tamen S. Hierony¬ mus magis approbat lectionem nostram eamque dicit magis placuisse S. Athanasio, ideo dico Apostolum non loqui de venia danda haeretico converso, sed de admoni¬ tione, quae praemittitur antequam haereticus excommunicetur per sententiam judicis : hoc autem Ecclesia servat non solum in hae¬ reticis, sed etiam in omnibus aliis, quos ex¬ communicat, semper enim duas admonitio¬ nes ut minimum praemittit. (1) Tit. III* 10. (2) I. Cor. V, 12. Argumentum Decimumquintum, Haeretici sunt extra Ecclesiam : At nihil ad nos de iis , qui foris sunt, I. Gorinth. Y. (2) Respondeo, sunt extra Ecclesiam, sed cum debito atque obligatione manendi intus, et ideo cogi pos¬ sunt ut redeant, sicut cogimus oves, quando de grege fugerunt. Argumentum Decimumsextum. Contra mansuetudinem Ecclesiae esse videtur velle mortem haereticorum. Respondeo, Primo, non est contra man¬ suetudinem Ecclesiae, quia tenetur misereri filiorum suorum, et tunc vere immitis, et crudelis esset, si mallet parcere lupis, quam ovibus. Secundo, quia Ecclesia experta est omnes alias rationes, antequam ad ultimum supplicium inferendum adduci posset; Nam initio, ut supra diximus, solum excommuni¬ cabat, deinde videns hoc non sufficere addi¬ dit poenam pecuniariam, tum amissionem omnium bonorum, postea exilium, tandem huc devenit, ut satis patet ex variis legibus antiquiorum Imperatorum in C. tit. de hae¬ reticis. Argumentum Decimumseptimum. Fides est libera. Respondeo, liberum duobus mo¬ dis accipitur. Uno modo ab obligatione, quo¬ modo dicimus liberum est vovere castitatem, intrare religionem ; at non est liberum fran¬ gere votum, egredi religionem ; et hoc mo¬ do fides in iis, qui eam nunquam recepe¬ runt, libera est ab obligatione humani juris, sed non divini ; et ideo homines non cogunt, Deus tamep puniet. At in iis, qui eam in Baptismo professi sunt, non est libera ab obligatione, nec juris divini, nec humani, et ideo cogunt homines, ut ea servetur. Al¬ tero modo sumitur liberum, ut distinguitur contra necessarium, et hoc modo liberum est non credere, sicut liberum est alia pec¬ cata committere, sed hsec libertas non impe¬ dit, quin homines male agentes puniantur. Imo potius exigit ut puniantur, nam si libe¬ rum est credere, et non credere, ergo po¬ tuit credere et manere in Ecclesia, sicut de¬ buit et quia non fecit, merito punitur : ita respondet S. August. in epist. 30. ad Boni- facium, et lib. II. contra epistolam Gauden- tii cap. 11 : « Datum est homini, inquit, li¬ berum arbitrium, sed ut si esset male fa¬ ciens, fieret mala patiens. » Argumentum Decimqmoctavum. Num- quam Apostoli brachium saeculare contra 48 LIBER III. haereticos invocaverunt. Respondet S. Au¬ gustinus in epist. 50. et alibi, Apostolos id non fecisse, quia nullus tunc erat Christia¬ nus Princeps, quem invocarent. Tunc enim implebatur illud Psalm. II : Astiterunt Deges terree , et Principes convenerunt in unum ad¬ versus Dominum , et adversus Christum ejus. (1) Psal. II, 2 et 10. At postquam tempore Constantini coepit il¬ lud impleri, quod sequitur in eodem Psal¬ mo : Et nunc Reges intelligite, erudimini , qui judicatis terram, servite Domino in timore (i) : Mox Ecclesia auxilium saecularis brachii im¬ ploravit.