mitted to the following ages of the church; and when once. it began upon slight grounds and discontent to be contested against by Aerius, the man was presently condemned for a heretic, as appears in Epiphanius. 13. But I am not to consider the arguments for the doctrine itself, although the probability and fair pretence of them may help to excuse such persons, who upon these or the like grounds do heartily believe it: but I am to consider that, whether it be true or false, there is no manner of malice in it, and at the worst it is but a wrong error upon the right side of charity, and concluded against by its adversaries upon the confidence of such arguments, which possibly are not so probable as the grounds pretended for it. 14. And if the same judgment might be made of any more of their doctrines, I think it were better, men were not furious in the condemning such questions, which either they understood not upon the grounds of their proper arguments, or at least consider not as subjected in the persons, and lessened by circumstances, by the innocency of the event, or other prudential considerations. 15. But the other article is harder to be judged of, and hath made greater stirs in Christendom, and hath been dashed at with more impetuous objections, and such as do more trouble the question of toleration. For if the doctrine of transubstantiation be false (as upon much evidence we believe it is), then it is accused of introducing idolatry, giving divine worship to a creature, adoring of bread and wine; and then comes in the precept of God to the Jews, that those prophets who persuaded to idolatry, should be slain*. 16. But here we must deliberate, for it is concerning the lives of men; and yet a little deliberation may suffice. For idolatry is a forsaking the true God, and giving divine worship to a creature or to an idol, that is, to an imaginary god, who hath no foundation in essence or existence; and is that kind of superstition which by divines is called the superstition of an undue object. Now it is evident that the object of their adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts, and purposes, and by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of human actions) in the blessed sacrament, is the only true and eternal God hyposta * Deut. xiii. tically joined with his holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the sacramental signs and if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be idolatry to do so; which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idolatrical. If their confidence and fanciful opinion have engaged them upon so great mistake (as without doubt they have), yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to idolatry: "Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas." And although they have done violence to all philosophy and the reason of man, and undone and cancelled the principles of two or three sciences, to bring in this article; yet they have a divine revelation, whose literal and grammatical sense, if that sense were intended, would warrant them to do violence to all the sciences in the circle. And indeed that transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural reason, is no argument to make them disbelieve it, who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the school (and which now-a-days pass for the doctrine of the church), with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of transubstantiation. 17. But for the article itself; we all say that Christ is there present some way or other extraordinary: and it will not be amiss to worship him at that time, when he gives himself to us in so mysterious a manner, and with so great advantages, especially since the whole office is a consociation of divers actions of religion and worship. Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of religion to communicate and to offer, a divine worship is given to Christ, and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that sacrament; and it is no more in the church of Rome, but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence: which error is wholly seated in the understanding, and does not communicate with the will. For all agree that the divinity and the humanity of the Son of God are the ultimate and adequate object of divine adoration, and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever; and before they venture to pass an act of adoration, they believe the bread to be annihilated, or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped: and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime, which they formally hate, and we materially avoid. This consideration was concerning the doctrine itself. 18. Secondly and now for any danger to men's persons for suffering such a doctrine, this I shall say, that if they who do it, are not formally guilty of idolatry, there is no danger that they whom they persuade to it, should be guilty. And what persons soever believe it to be idolatry to worship the sacrament, while that persuasion remains, will never be brought to it, there is no fear of that; and he that persuades them to do it, by altering their persuasions and beliefs, does no hurt but altering the opinions of the men, and abusing their understandings: but when they believe it to be no idolatry, then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime, which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will, that from thence only it hath its being criminal. 19. Thirdly: however, if it were idolatry, I think the precept of God to the Jews of killing false and idolatrous prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to do. For in the case of the apostles and the men of Samaria, when James and John would have called for fire to destroy them, even as Elias did under Moses's law, Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own spirit, and taught them a lesson of greater sweetness, and consigned this truth to all ages of the church, that such severity is not consistent with the meekness, which Christ by his example and sermons hath made a precept evangelical: at most it was but a judicial law, and no more of argument to make it necessary to us than the Mosaical precepts of putting adulterers to death, and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousy. 20. And thus, in these two instances, I have given account what is to be done in toleration of diversity of opinions. The result of which is principally this; let the prince and the secular power have a care the commonwealth be safe. For whether such or such a sect of Christians be to be permitted is a question rather political than religious: for as for the concernments of religion, these instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular, and by one of these all particulars may be judged. 21. And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jews in a commonwealth, whose interest is served in their inhabitation; and yet upon equal grounds of state and policy not to permit differing sects of Christians. For although possibly there is more danger men's persuasions should be altered in a commixture of divers sects of Christians; yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian, as if they be turned from Christian to Jew, or Moor, as many are daily in Spain and Portugal. 22. And this is not to be excused by saying the church hath no power over them 'qui foris sunt,' as Jews are. For it is true, the church in the capacity of spiritual regiments hath nothing to do with them, because they are not her diocess: yet the prince hath to do with them when they are subjects of his regiment. They may not be excommunicate any more than a stone may be killed, because they are not of the Christian communion: but they are living persons, parts of the commonwealth, infinitely deceived in their religion, and very dangerous if they offer to persuade men to their opinions, and are the greatest enemies of Christ, whose honour and the interest of whose service a Christian prince is bound with all his power to maintain. And when the question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death, the church hath equally nothing to do with them both, for she hath nothing to do with the temporal sword; but the prince, whose subjects equally Christians and Jews are, hath equal power over their persons; for a Christian is no more a subject than a Jew is, the prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death: so that the Jew by being no Christian is not 'foris,' or any more an exempt person for his body or his life, than the Christian is: and yet in all churches where the secular power hath temporal reason to tolerate the Jews, they are tolerated without any scruple in religion. Which thing is of more consideration, because the Jews are direct blasphemers of the Son of God, and blasphemy by their own law, the law of Moses, is made capital; and might with greater reason be inflicted upon them, who acknowledge its obligation, than urged upon Christians, as an authority enabling princes to put them to death, who are accused of accidental and consecutive blasphemy and idolatry respectively, which yet they hate and disavow with much zeal and heartiness of persuasion. And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the household of faith: for at least they are children, though they be but rebellious children; (and if they were not, what hath the mother to do with them any more than with the Jews?) they are in some relation or habitude of the family; for they are consigned with the same baptism, profess the same faith delivered by the apostles, are erected in the same hope, and look for the same glory to be revealed to them at the coming of their common Lord and Saviour, to whose service, according to their understanding, they have vowed themselves. And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as heathens and publicans, yet not worse. "Have no company with them;" that is the worst that is to be done to such a man, in St. Paul's judgment: "yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." SECTION XXI. Of the Duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion. FROM these premises we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulness or duty respectively of Christian communion, which is differently to be considered in respect of particular churches to each other, and of particular men to particular churches. For as for particular churches, they are bound to allow communion to all those that profess the same faith, upon which the apostles did give communion. For whatsoever preserves us as members of the church, gives us title to the communion of saints; and whatsoever faith or belief that is to which God hath promised heaven, that faith makes us members of the catholic church. Since therefore the judicial acts of the church are then most prudent and religious, when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God; to make the way to heaven straiter than God made it, or to deny to communicate with those with whom God will vouchsafe to be united, and to refuse our charity to those who have the |