“We have found the Messiah!”
John 1:41
“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
John 5:46-47
“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.”
2 Cor. 3:14
.
.
Subsections
Jewish Biblical Commentaries
Christ in OT & that Jesus is Messiah
.
.
Order of Contents
Contra 4
Latin 4
Kabbalah 1
Toleration of 22+
.
Contra Judaism
Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – ‘On Judaism’, pt. 1-2 tr. by AI by WesternCatholike (1637) in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1655), vol. 2, pp. 77-124 Latin
Rijssen, Leonard – A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary trans. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), Ch. 11, Christ
Controversy 1 – ‘Has the promised Messiah already come? We affirm against the Jews.’ p. 111
Controversy 2 – ‘Is Jesus Christ the true, promised Messiah? We affirm against the Jews.’ pp. 111-12
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1
7th Topic
7. ‘Is there any order among the angels and are there distinct hierarchies among them? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Jews and Romanists.’ 551
13th Topic
1. ‘Has the promised Messiah already come? We affirm against the Jews.’ 271
2. ‘Is Jesus of Nazareth the true Messiah? We affirm against the Jews.’ 287
14th Topic
.
Latin
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert
4. ‘Judaism’ in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 4 Abbr.
Of the Defection & State of the Jews
Of the Adjuncts & Cognates of Judaism
Of the Distinction of Judaism
Of the Conversion of the Jews
Appendices:
(1) Of the Samaritans
(2) Of the Ancient Sects of the Jews
(3) Of the Ancient & Modern Semi-Judaizers
Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1655), vol. 2
4. ‘Of Judaism’, pp. 77-93
5. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 2, pp. 93-124
Hoornbeek, Johanne – For the Convincing & Converting of the Jews, in Eight Books (Leiden, 1655) 578 pp. Index There is no table of contents.
Witsius, Herman – The Jew Christianizing Around the Principles of Faith & the Most Holy Trinity (Leiden, n.d.) ToC
The Prolegomena is subtitled: “in which is it inquired what it is to Judaize and who in this world are able to be said to be Judaizing?”
.
On the Kabbalah
Latin
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – 17. ‘On the Kabbalah’ in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659), vol. 3, pp. 226-34
.
On the Civil Toleration of Jews in a Christian Society
Order of
Articles 5
Book 1
Quotes 6+
Lutherans 3
Medievals & Romanists 2
Historical 2
Latin 1
Biblio 2
.
Articles
1600’s
Weemes, John – Sect. 6, ‘Whether the Jews are to be suffered in a Christian commonwealth or not?’ in A Treatise of the Four Degenerate Sons… (London: Cotes, 1636), 4th Degenerate Son, pp. 337-43
Weems (c. 1579–1636) was a Church of Scotland minister, Hebrew scholar and exegete.
“The Jews are to be tolerated amongst Christians now, when they are out of the Covenant, as they did tolerate us gentiles when we were out of the Covenant.” – p. 337
Voet, Gisbert – pp. 31-40 in ‘On Judaism’, pt. 1-2 (1637) tr. by AI by WesternCatholike (1637) in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1655), vol. 2 Latin
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 19, section 2, ‘Whether it is for the magistrate to punish heretics? Whether it is agreeable to the laws of our most merciful Savior Jesus Christ that the magistrate tolerate Jews, Turks, Papists, etc, and all heretics in the republic who err with a purely mental error? We affirm the former. We deny the latter with a distinction against the Remonstrants.’ in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), pp. 130-35
Dury, John – ‘A Case of Conscience: Whether it be Lawful to Admit Jews into a Christian Commonwealth?’ (London: Wodenothe, 1656) 9 pp.
“There is one of the chief Reformed divines, Dr. Alting, who in his Problematical Theology, part. 2, problem 21, puts this question: Utrum Judaei in societate Christianorum tolerandi sint [Whether Jews are to be tolerated in the society of Christians]? And he does answer it affirmatively; and I am clearly of his opinion, that it is not only lawful, but if matters be rightly ordered towards them, expedient to admit of them; Nay to invite and encourage them to live in Reformed Christian commonwealths. How far it may be a sin to refuse them admittance when they do desire it upon lawful terms and in a reasonable way, is a further question, which cannot be decided, till the former points of the lawfulness and expediency of admitting of them be made out.” – p. 2
Barlow, Thomas – ‘The Case of the Jews’ in Several Miscellaneous & Weighty Cases of Conscience Learnedly & Judiciously Resolved (d. 1691; London: 1692), pp. 3-78 For the many marginal references in the quote below, see the original.
“It was a saying of Martin Luther, Se propter unum Judaeum crucifixum omnibus favere Judaeis [Due to one crucified Jew, there is favor to all the Jews]. And if we love them and desire their conversion and salvation (as in Christian charity certainly we ought), then the way to effect that will not be to banish them and prohibit their habitation amongst us, so compelling them to live amongst Turks, Pagans or Papists; The images and idolatry of which last has undeniably been the greatest scandal, and Remora, which has long hindered them from being Christians. Whereas (if they be permitted to live amongst us) that stumbling-block will be taken away.
2. For the conditions of their admission, for the restrictions and limitations to be put upon them, a great deal of caution and Christian prudence is to be used, lest while we pretend their good we do mischief to ourselves. For as to deny them all liberty and commerce with us, may be an act of unchristian and indeed inhumane cruelty; So to give them too much is an act of imprudence and folly. And indeed we find some sober men (not without good reason) complain of the too much liberty they have in some Christian commonwealths. In short, what qualifications and limitations are to be put upon them, I shall not take upon me to determine, but leave that to the piety and prudence of the State.
Yet (with submission) I conceive such limitations as these will be convenient, if not necessary; the rather because I find in our histories, in the imperial and canon laws, and in the old capitulars and canons of councils that such restrictions have been anciently laid upon them, as:
1. No toleration ever was, or de jure can be given them to profess or practice anything against the Law of Nature.
2. No toleration should be given them to speak anything blasphemously or impiously against Jesus Christ and the gospel: For though we may tolerate them in the profession of a bad, yet not in that blasphemy of a good, religion.
3. They never were nor should be permitted to circumcise children of Christians, or seduce any Christians to their religion: Let them profess, but not propagate their religion.
4. They were not permitted to carry any office or dignity in the Christian commonweal, though it seems that sometimes even that was permitted them.
5. They were not permitted in any suit or difference between a Jew and a Christian to draw the Christian or his Cause before a Jewish magistrate: For ’tis a ruled case in the Imperial Law, Judaeus Actor vel reus, Forum sequi∣tur Christianum.
6. They were never permitted to make marriages with Christians, and the Glossator gives the reason of it in Law, Quia matri∣monium debet esse com∣municatio divini & humani juris. Whereas a Jew and Christian, being of different religions, cannot communicare in sacis. And this is consonant to the Law of the Gospel, which forbids us to be unequally yoked. Upon which grounds, I believe all marriages with Papists to be unlawful, that is, Fieri non debuit, ’tis unlawful to make such matches, though that factum valet, when such a match is made, the contract is valid.
7. Their frequent divorcing their wives was tolerated. For though Moses seem to suffer it, yet the emperors by express edict forbid it.
8. By the Imperial Laws polygamy and plurality of wives was not tolerated in them.
9. If any of the Jews turn Christian (by civil law) in case the Jews endeavored to reduce him, and maliciously injured him, they were to be burned for it.
10. They might repair their old synagogues, but were not tolerated (by the Roman Laws) to build new.
11. They were not tolerated to have any Christian servants, nurses, or midwives. Can. Praesenti. 1. Extra de Judaeis. Ex concilio malis conenti.
12. By the Canon Law they might not come abroad on Good Friday.
13. They were not permitted to wear Garments exactly of the Christian fashion, but were to have distinct habits [garments], that all might know them to be Jews.
14. They might not be physicians or give physick to any Christian.
15. They were not permitted to be of the Roman militia (though they were permitted to be advocates) by the rescript of Honorius and Arcadius to Romulianus P. P.
16. The Jews, being the greatest usurers in the world, and believing they may justly take the highest use they can get (even Usurae centessimae, if they could have it) of us gentiles, it is all the reason in the world they should be limited in this particular and not permitted to take more of us than the law permits us to take one of another.
17. They should be enjoined to admit of friendly collations and disputations sometimes about gospel truths, and not obstinately to reject all means of conversion and conviction, and satisfaction of those seeming reasons which keep them off from embracing the truth: For there will be little hopes (or possibility) of their conversion, if they be permitted obstinately to refuse all means of doing it.
But enough (if not too much) of this, I shall only add one old law concerning the Jews made before the Conquest (above 600 years ago) and confirmed by the conquerors amongst other the good laws of Edward the Confessor, and so continued law (for ought I know) in all the kings’ reigns till the banishment of the Jews, which was anno 18 Edwardi 1. The Law is this:
Sciendum quoque quod omnes Judaei, ubicunque in Regno sunt, sub tutela et defensione Regis ligea debent esse; nec quilibet eorum alicui Diviti se potest subdere, sine Regis licentia. Judaei enim, et omnia sua Regis sunt, Quod si quisquis detinuerit eos, vel Pecuniam eorum, perquirat Rex si vult, tanquam suum proprium.
[It should also be known that all Jews, wherever they are in the kingdom, ought to be under the protection and defense of the king’s liege authority; nor may any one of them submit himself to any rich man without the king’s permission. For the Jews, and everything belonging to them, are the king’s. And if anyone detains them, or their money, the king may recover it if he wishes, as his own property.]
I wish the chief magistrate could admit them on these terms, for so they, and all theirs (omnia sua) should be suum proprium, which possibly might supply him with money and so save taxes. And upon these terms I (and I believe everybody else) will willingly consent to their readmission.” – pp. 65-75
.
Book
1600’s
Prynne, William – A Short Demurrer to the Jews’ Long Discontinued Barred Remitter into England, comprising an exact chronological relation of their first admission into, their ill deportment, misdemeanors, condition, sufferings, oppressions, slaughters, plunders, by popular insurrections and regal exactions in, and their total, final banishment by judgment and edict of Parliament, out of England, never to return again: collected out of the best historians and records, with a brief collection of such English laws, Scriptures, reasons as seem strongly to plead and conclude against their readmission into England, especially at this season, and against the general calling of the Jewish nation… (London, 1656) 147 pp. ToC
Prynne (1600–1669), an English lawyer, voluble author, polemicist and political figure, was a prominent Puritan opponent of Church policy under William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury (1633–1645). His views were Presbyterian, but he became known in the 1640’s as an Erastian, arguing for overall state control of religious matters.
Prynne argues in 1656, under Cromwell, against letting Jews into England.
.
Quotes
Order of
Vermigli
Rivet
Rutherford
Alting
Leigh
Hoornbeek
Jurieu
.
1500’s
Peter Martyr Vermigli
The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2, ch. 4, ‘The First Precept, where is entreated of Idolatry, and sundry kinds of Idols’, ‘Of the Suffering of Jews & Heretics’, pp. 328-30
““46. Now there remains to speak somewhat particularly of Jews and heretics: for this kind of men are suffered almost in all cities, provinces and kingdoms, and they dwell together with Christians.
Why the Jews should be suffered, Augustine among others brings certain reasons. He, Of the City of God, bk. 4, ch. 18, as also upon the 58th psalm and in other places, writes that therefore they be suffered because they before other men had the promise of salvation; neither are they past all hope, seeing that some of them many times, although few in number, do return unto Christ.
‘Blindness’ (says Paul unto the Romans) ‘fell partly upon Israel’ (Rom. 11:25): as though he would say not upon all. And to this the same apostle adds, ‘When the fulness of the gentiles is come in, then all Israel shall be saved.’ (Rom. 11:25-26) And lest peradventure thou shouldest think that these words are spoken allegorically, Paul writes them as a mystery. And to prove his saying he brings the prophecy of Isaiah the prophet, to wit, that ‘the iniquity shall be then taken away from Jacob.’ Furthermore, they be now called ‘enemies unto God for our sakes, but friends in respect of their fathers.’
The same Augustine, in his Questions upon the Gospel, bk. 2 and question 33 (if those be Augustine’s books) when he interprets the parable of the prodigal son, he says that that son does betoken the gentiles. For it is written, that he departed into a far country (Lk. 15:11); because the ethnics were so far departed from God as they worshipped idols publicly and in open profession. But the elder son, under whom is shadowed the Hebrew people, went not so far off. And although he were not within his father’s house, which is the church, yet nevertheless he abode in the field. For the Jews are occupied in the holy scriptures, which they understand not rightly, nor with such spiritual sense as the church of Christ does know them; but take them in an earthly and carnal manner, whereby not unaptly they be said to have their abode in the field. This elder son does not at the beginning enter into his father’s house, but in the latter days he shall also be called and come.
47. The same father also for the proof of this doctrine brings that which is written in the 59th psalm, as he reads it, ‘Do not kill them, lest they forget thy law, but scatter them in thy power.’ (v. 12) The Son of God (says he) prays unto the Father that the same nation might not be destroyed, but that it might wander every where in the world.
Other provinces, when they were overcome of the Romans, followed the laws and rites of the Romans, so that at length they became Romans: but the Hebrews, notwithstanding they were overcome by the Romans, yet would they never yield unto their laws, rites and ceremonies. They still observe their own as much as they may; and being dispersed, they wander abroad. Neither have they utterly forgotten the law of God; not that the godly apply themselves to observe it, but do only read it and keep certain rites and ceremonies, whereby they are discerned from other nations.
Verily it seems that God has put a sign upon them as He did upon Cain for killing his brother Abel, namely, that every man should not kill them. (Gen. 4:15) Neither is this scattering of them abroad in the world unprofitable unto the Christians, because (as it is written to the Romans) they are showed unto us as broken boughs. (Rom. 11:17) And for so much as we were grafted in their place, when as we see that they were so miserably cut off, we acknowledge the grace of God towards us: and by beholding of them be taught to take heed that for our infidelity’s sake, for the which they were broken off, we also be not cut off in like manner.
Moreover, there is another commodity which comes unto us by the dispersing of them. Because our books are saved by them; I mean the holy Bible, which they carry everywhere about them and read it. And although because they be blinded they believe not, yet they confess that those writings are most true. Indeed they be in heart our deadly enemies; but yet by these books, which they have and reverence, they are a testimony to our religion.
Wherefore I cannot marvel sufficiently at those which do so much hate the Jewish tongue and Bibles in Hebrew, as they desire to have them destroyed and burnt, seeing Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, thinks, that wheresoever we doubt of the Greek or Latin translation, we must flee unto the truth of the Hebrew. And Jerome in many places writes the same.
48. But they say that the holy books were abused and corrupted by the Hebrews. To this Jerome upon Isaiah, the sixth chapter, towards the end, answers thus:
Either they did this before the coming of Christ and the preaching of the apostles, or else afterward. If a man will say that it was done of them before, then, seeing Christ and his apostles reprehended the most grievous wicked acts of the Jews, I marvel why they would say nothing of that sacrilege and so detestable a wicked act. Undoubtedly they would have reproved them for marring and corrupting of the scriptures.
But if thou wilt affirm that the faults were brought in by them afterward: then will I say that it had behooved them to corrupt those places chiefly which do testify of Christ and of his religion; and which were alleged by the Lord Himself and his apostles in the New Testament. But those places remain sound; and the very same sentences which they cited do remain still in the Hebrew Bibles: for they were not so greatly careful for the words, and it is not likely, that they in other places have corrupted the holy scriptures.
Yea, if a man diligently read over their books, he shall find in them a great many more testimonies, and those more plain and manifest, than our common translation has. Do they not read in the second psalm, ‘Kiss the son’: which our men have translated, ‘Take ye hold of discipline?’ Which words undoubtedly are referred unto Christ.
But I do not mean at this present to bring all such like testimonies: it is sufficient if I prove with Jerome that the books of holy scriptures are not corrupted by the Hebrews. The which surely, if they would have done, yet had they missed of their purpose. For many of the most ancient books are found, and that in written hand, which have been kept a very long time by the Christians, which never came in their hands to abuse.
49. But let us return to discourse of that commodity, which Augustine has declared; There be very many (says he) which would peradventure think that the things which we affirm to be done of the ancient people and of the prophets were but vain and imagined by us, unless they saw the Jews yet alive, who with their books maintain that which we profess, whether they will or no.
For although the Hebrews be blinded in their heart, and be against us with as much power as they can, yet we have themselves, together with their books, most evident testimonies of our religion. And doubtless, among all testimonies, that testimony is of greatest account, which is testified by the enemies.
And of this kind of witnesses God has provided great store for his Church: for we not only have the Hebrew books to make on our side, but also the verses of the Sibyls, which were born in sundry countries. Neither must it be thought, that those verses were invented by our forefathers themselves: for in the time of Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesaria and Augustine, which alleged those verses, the books of the Sibyls were rife in every man’s hand. So as, if they had added any counterfeit verses unto them, the ethnics, which were then many in number and were full of eloquence, and deadly enemies unto our religion, would have reproved them as vain and lying. What then remains but that God would wonderfully defend his Church even by the testimonies of his adversaries?
Now then, the Jews are tolerated among the Christians, partly for the promise’s sake, which they have of salvation to be given to their kindred, and partly because of the commodities, which I have now recited out of Augustine. Wherefore they be not only borne withal, but they have also synagogues where they openly read the books of the holy scripture and one with another do call upon the God of their fathers.
In which thing nevertheless, the diligence of magistrates and bishops is to be required, who ought to provide that they do nothing else there, and by all means to beware that in their public prayers, exhortations and sermons they do not curse nor rail upon Christ our God. And this, if our magistrates and bishops do not look unto, they cannot escape a just accusation.
But it is not lawful to grant unto the Turks any religious assemblies, for that they have not any particular promise of their salvation: neither would they read there either the Old Testament or the New, but only their most detestable Al Koran.
Over this, the Jews should be prohibited to exercise false bargaining and usury among Christians, thereby to vex and afflict the poor Christians before our face: the which cannot be done without great indignity. But our princes exact a good, great tribute of them; and of those gains which come by usury and naughty bargaining, they obtain great prey: so far are they from forbidding them these evil arts.
Furthermore (a thing no less hurtful), they provide not to have them taught, when as they ought to compel them to come often to godly Christian sermons: otherwise, while they be so negligently left, they become daily worse and worse. Whereby, either naughty fruit or in a manner none at all can be looked for by the conversation which they have among Christians.
It must also be looked diligently to that they corrupt not Christians in seducing them to their Jewish religion. By reason of neglecting hereof, the heresy of the Marrans has much increased, specially in Spain. Moreover, it is meet that they may by some apparel or certain token be known from Christians, lest any unwittingly should be familiar with them no less than with the Christians. And these things shall suffice concerning this sort of infidels.”
.
1600’s
Andrew Rivet
Theological Works, vol. 3, Jesuita Vapulans, or the Castigation of the Notes of Sylvester Petrasancta Loyola’s Sectary, On the Letter of Peter Molinaeus to Balzac (1535), ch. 15 tr. AI by The Faith Received
“Whether Jews are rightly tolerated in the city of Rome, and Christians whom they call heretics are burned. There is examined the matter of the various things of chapter 12, in which there is treated of the punishments of heretics.
In this chapter your luxurious style is nowhere more displayed than where you indulge in reproaches and invective, especially where you incite to bloodshed and effusion of blood. For this is indeed the field in which the Jesuits liberally range, whose feet are quick to shed blood, whose contrition and calamity in their life, and part of their life, are not barren. To them also these things are suitable: often an open mouth, their voices for deceit, that they may be smooth under their lips, whose mouth is full of guile and friendly speech. Rom. 3, verse 13 ff.
Who reads without prejudice what thou settest down in seventeen pages, and in two columns, of Molinaeus, will admire not so much thy fecundity as will detest thy petulance and virulence. Is there so great heat of mind? Molinaeus will complain that the Jews, enemies of the Christian name, live peaceably at Rome, where Christians are burned. I add also from Marquardus of Susa, Tract on the Jews, etc. pt. 2, ch. 2, that not only are Jews said to be of the Roman people, but they are moreover called, or may be called, loyal and devout to the Roman Church, and live peaceably because they submit themselves to its protection, and because they are mercifully justified by it; and thus they come under the language speaking of the devout and faithful Holy Roman Church, which is to be understood of the Church militant: whom nevertheless he says are worse than Sodomites, pt. 3, ch. 1, num. 42.
Thou marvelest, he says, at us whom thou callest sedarii, so little to agree with the Jews that we hate their tranquillity. I am not amazed that thou decline the question and change its state, so that afterwards thou mayst fly forth and wander beyond bounds. It is not asked whether Jews may live peaceably among Christians, or be tolerated? nor does Molinaeus ask that. He moved rather altogether, who would not be ignorant that thou couldst afterwards be falsely objected among many Christian princes, even orthodox ones, whom we see in some places in the Batavian Republic tolerating Jews, not to be interdicted by water and fire.
But the complaint is made by Molinaeus that at Rome the former condition of those who openly blaspheme Christ was preferable to the condition of those who acknowledge no other than Christ in whom salvation consists, and who repose altogether upon Him. To this thou answerest nothing, but all through the chapter thou doest another thing.
2. First thou settest up a parallel between Jews and us after thy manner, that is contrived out of calumnies and lies, which, if I would set down concerning thee and thine, in great part I could establish by thy own words. Thou sayest that temples the Jews have not: Therefore are you ignorant that in England and federated Belgium, in Denmark, Sweden, etc., that all our temples be theirs? Knowest thou not that we build temples for divine worship, wherever we are not prohibited by your actions, nor by those who incite violence against you?
The priest and the vates are alike wanting; and indeed the Massing sacrificers are free bodily, not the pastors and teachers, even presbyters and deacons instituted by Christ, whom the Jews do not recognize. They are, thou sayest, the offspring of priests and monks. How then, if among us there are no priests and monks? to whom, what thou sayest, among you it is not so, I am not much astonished.
Whence then was Pope John X of the Church, who was associated with Theodora? Whence Sergius III, who Marolla the merchant with Joanna begat Pope John XII? Whence Alexander VI who had so many bastards, whose end dost thou imagine was lawful? Whence Innocent Cibo who restored his exhausted house? as I have above proved from Sannazarius? who Otho begat nine boys and as many girls? This could well be called Rome the father. What sings Marullus? From what question was the son Petrus Aloisius, raised to the government of Parma and Piacenza by Paul III? And these few concerning the gods of the older nations, that thou mayest acknowledge the true succession of the Pontiffs. For if to the lesser nations’ gods there must be come bishops, sacrificers, monks, it would be a thing monstrous for us to compute the sea-beach, how many descendants sprung forth from their fertility. We do not deny, says Dominic Soto, de Jure 6. art. 1., that in the cleric there are often concubinarians and adulterers. Do not therefore think that those frequent corrupters are unfruitful.
3. Thou proceedest and objectest that the Jews worship no image, and that we profess economism. In that word thou speakest, but we hold these things with Christ and the apostles, complying with the mandate of God. Not all things which are done among the Jews ought to be rejected, otherwise we should cast away the Old Testament, because the Jews receive it. The Jews eat mere bread at the Passover; we do not therefore eat mere bread, but sacramental bread, to which the Word of God has been added, so that it might become the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.
The Jews did not so highly esteem virginity that we should therefore exterminate it; and therein you lie, as you are wont. We praise chaste virginity, but compel no one thereto who would rather marry than fall into the peril of incontinence. You accuse Beza that he dared to thrust his most unclean snout into the very virginity of Mary the mother of God, and to call into doubt whether, after childbirth, the Virgin persevered [in virginity]. You keep to the old way, that is, you calumniate. The words of Beza which you cite in the margin of the preface are these:
“I piously and gladly believe the perpetual virginity of Mary unto death (hear, impostor); yet this pertains nothing to our mystery of salvation. It suffices for us to believe what is, and is narrated by the evangelists, that our Savior was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” ‘Preface’ to the New Testament to the most illustrious Prince of Condé, etc.
If one who speaks thus dared to thrust his most unclean snout into Mary’s virginity, what shall I say of the great Basil, who in the homily on the Nativity of the Lord says, whether after the mystery of the incarnation the Virgin bore children or not, παρὰ ταῦτα δὲ οὐδὲν δοξάζομεν πᾶσι, it in no wise injures the business of piety. For so long as it was necessary to serve the dispensation, virginity was necessary. “But what afterwards followed,” he says, “σιωπῇ παραδοτέον τοῖς λόγῳ οὐ μυστήρια καταλείψομεν [we shall leave in silence to those who speak the mysteries which cannot be expressed in words], nor is it necessary to inquire anxiously into what pertains to the nature of this mystery.”
4. You do not stop here. “The Jews,” you say, “appeal to Scripture alone.” That this is false is known to those versed in the books of the Jews, since they give more to unwritten traditions than to Scripture, which even our Lord reproved in them: so that in this Papists are very like the Jews, who also have and magnify their Torah Schebeal peh, that is, the oral law, which they say Moses taught to Joshua, Joshua to the seventy-two elders. See Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, ch. 1. Shame on your grossest ignorance.
But if you will not be taught by him, go to Galatinus the monk, On the Arcana of Catholic Truth, bk. 1, and learn better to compose your parallels. It is true that we continually appeal to Holy Scripture, but that the Jews do so is false. Nay, the Talmudists taught the Pontiffs to have recourse to unwritten traditions. You add that the Jews have indeed excised from the old sacred Scripture many things by which Christ’s divinity or passion was asserted. But your Bellarmine absolves them: which of the two shall we believe? You say that we have depraved the Scriptures: you do not prove it, nor will you ever be able to prove it. But hear, vain man, if we are so like the Jews, as you say, that what the Jews profess openly you would hide (if one is to credit you, sect. 6), and indeed would sooner follow their party than ours — if this be so, it must be acknowledged that there is greater similarity in dogmas and morals between you and them than between us and them. Yet I know that they most of all detest your manifold idolatry.
5. Coming a little nearer to the matter, you enumerate various advantages which you say accrue to your religion from the dwelling of Jews among Christians; which matter, however, was not the subject of the present dispute: and it remains under judgment whether the advantages that thence arise can compensate the contrary harms. For it seemed otherwise to the French, the Spaniards, the Savoyards and others who expelled them from their dominions. But among the advantages you enumerated you omitted one which in Rome is of no small moment, namely that, by reason of heavy imposts and burdens laid upon them, the pontifical treasury is increased by the usuries of the Jews, which they exercise with impunity and openly under this condition.
As to that which you bragged in sect. 4, that many join your Church yearly, and that under Pius V three hundred were made Christians with Elias the Prefect of the Synagogue: even if this were confirmed, it would yet be of no great trust, since we know what most of the conversions of Jews hitherto have been, and how far they are to be trusted when they profess the Christian name. There are now at Amsterdam many who from their youth lived in the Papal rite, baptized in Lusitania and elsewhere, some even made monks, which they confessed to me; and lately one was present to me who had been educated at Louvain where he had learned the Latin tongue; he acknowledged that he had been baptized there and applied to studies at public expense. All, however, returned to the vomit. For the nation is perfidious and perjured, thinking to be unblamed, if either to avoid dangers or to increase their affairs they feign and profess what they do not believe, and do not embrace it from the heart. Very rarely are they truly become Christians, so deeply has pertinacity fixed its roots in their hearts.
6. Sect. 7. You begin to relate what Sedan, answering Molino who asked, “Why does the Roman Pontiff tolerate Jews rather than heretics?” What interrogation proceeded from Molino I know not, unless you admit no distinction between Christians and heretics.
I answer: You say the Church fears not Jews equally as heretics. And indeed I believe the Church degenerates more into anti-Christianity from true Christians than from any unbelievers. The cause is at hand; for to those who are versed in the Christian religion the arts and frauds of the Papacy are not only more known, but the same means of foreseeing and refuting them are more at hand; and they who have once given the name of Christ, and abhor unbelief, if the light of truth were to shine upon them, would more readily, the veil being removed, have their eyes opened to the superstition which they have through bad instruction. But, since they give not themselves to the light, they do not come to the light, lest their deeds be reproved. Jn. 3:20. Therefore your darknesses cannot endure that light.
Better is darkness with darkness than light with darkness. This is the reason why you are less severe upon Jews and other unbelievers than upon those who contend against your corruptions for the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence your judgment, that the Jews are the true wheat, ancient indeed, but now rotten and decayed, and that age no longer bears it: for you say it was once the true and sole religion.
What conclusion is this, that because it was once the true religion among the Jews, therefore it remains so now? Do you think, then, that the same religion now is the religion of the Jews which then was? Nothing is changed, you say; there are no heresies in present Judaism; O man, worthy to become more truly one of the Apellae [circumcised Jews] by having his skin cut off!
Was it then once the true and only religion which detests the most holy Trinity? Which called the Messiah a seducer and impostor, and blasphemed? Which persevered in following the false writs of the scribes and Pharisees, with added augmentation, and the Talmudic depravity of iniquity, corrupting the true understanding of the Law and the prophets, and perverting sacred Scripture from its true sense, as Marquardus de Susannis says, pt. 3, ch. 1, no. 48. Where he also adds that the Talmud is nothing else than an explanation of their Mishnah, or law handed down by word of mouth, which they called the second law, containing the traditions of the Pharisees, etc. Whose blindness and insanity is proved by the deliriums which are found written in their Talmud, containing most false, impossible, and ridiculous things, etc. And yet these will be to you the true wheat, and that true religion which was once alone! Will there be no unhappy darnel in that wheat, no sterile oats?
7. You discuss that parable of the Lord concerning the darnel, Mt. 13, as one who has never read or weighed it: for you refer it to heretics alone, which most manifestly treats of all evil men in this world, growing up with the pious and the children of God, whose separation shall not be made until the end of the age, when all the wicked and impious shall be separated from the righteous by the ministry of angels; as appears from Christ’s own interpretation, verse 38, where he says the field is the world: but the good seed, the children of the kingdom; and the zizania, the children of that evil one and πονηροῦ, of the Devil, who sowed that zizania, that is, those his own children, who through the angels shall be separated in the consummation of the age. These things, if any one consider them without prejudice, will he not plainly see that that zizania is not only heretics, but also all the unbelieving, all hypocrites under the mask of the Christian name, and, to put it in one word, all the children of the devil?
Will you deny that Jews, Turks, etc., are children of evil? To those whom the apostle pronounces shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven — whoremongers, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, male concubitors, covetous, drunkards, revilers (such as thou art), extortioners, etc. 1 Cor. 6:9–10. He acknowledges that these are mixed in the world with the children of God, perhaps alluding to the Lord’s parable when he says, ch. 5 of the same epistle, verse 10, that otherwise ye ought to go out of the world, if they were by no means to be mixed with the fornicators of this world, or with covetous men, or idolaters, etc.
Maldonatus also acknowledges in the parable that it is not of heretics alone, but of all the children of the Devil. Even thy Barradius, in this place: Christ, he says, is not treating here of heretics alone, but of all the wicked. For he called the zizania the children of the wicked, that is, of the Devil.
8. Whether Jews ought to be demanded as heretics, as thou deemest from Jerome’s saying that there is no one so impious whom a heretic does not surpass in impiety; this, whether spoken indefinitely or universally, is not true. For there are heresies of diverse degrees, by reason of the doctrines in which they are engaged. Those which take away Christ and deny the foundation of Christianity, which bring in idolatry, those are manifestly most pernicious, and of these Jerome’s saying ought not to be understood. There are others lighter, and not all errors are heresies.
But what dost thou judge of the Jews? That they are not heretics, and therefore most pernicious? Hast thou never read in Epiphanius the heresies in Judaism, even before Christ’s coming? Dost thou think they are now diminished, or less pernicious, after they have openly rejected Christ? If thou hadst read Jerome and weighed what he says here and there of the Jews, and against the Jews, thou wouldst never have undertaken the cause of the Jews against those who know Christ better than thou and thine. If thou hadst heard from Jerome that the Jews in their synagogues thrice daily curse Christ (on Isaiah, bk. 12, ch. 49, tome 5). And bk. 14, ch. 42, they say that by night they blaspheme the Savior, and under the name of Nazarenes thrice daily heap curses on Christians.
Yet thou preferrest these to those who bless Christ day and night, imitating the Jews in that. For, as that same Jerome testifies, they stirred up much greater persecutions against Christians than the pagans themselves; so also ye have stirred up far greater persecutions against us than the gentiles and Jews: but we give thanks to God, because, as the same notes there in tome 9, on ch. 5 of the epistle to the Galatians:
“he who is born according to the flesh persecutes the spiritual; for the spiritual never persecutes the flesh: but forgives him as a rustic fraud; as if it could avail for a time.”
For they suppose that whoever speaks thus, forthwith cried out for the stake, whenever he saw any Christian fall into heresy.
9. Who doubts, however, that heresies are pernicious? who denies that every effort must be used to remove and extinguish them? But first, in the judgment of heresies one must not err. Then, when they are apprehended and known, such means must be used as befit Christians and the servants of the most mild Lord. That “woe” is not forthwith to be usurped. These are extreme remedies, to be applied to the worst evils, and very rarely to be employed, and against few; not against others than those openly blasphemous, seditious, perjured, and whose madness could not otherwise be cured, nor prevented from harming many.
Such was Servetus, against whom the Genevan magistrate was compelled to draw the sword. Otherwise, neither Calvin nor Beza wished to use this remedy against all heretics indiscriminately, both the led astray and the seducers. If thou hast read their books on that matter, thou hast seen how far they are from the severity of your inquisitions, which not only persecute those notorious ones whom you call, but have their own spies everywhere, to drag the unwary into their snare, whose lives not only, but chiefly their goods, they plot against, joining avarice to cruelty; nay, cruel because avaricious. Of these, since whole books have been written by those who knew that art and had experienced it; we will not, at this time, treat further. Let him who will, read Eusebius, Capitum, Caetilii Secundi Cirionis and Reginaldus Gonfalvius, The Arts of the Spanish Inquisition Detected and Openly Translated. The book was printed at Heidelberg, 1567, at Mach. Schirac.
10. Not without cause Guillaume Budé in bk. 4, de Asse et partibus ejus called the Roman ecclesiastics “holy robbers,” meeting warfare; he blamed the dire, portentous cruelty of the sacrosanct power: he accused the master of the clergy, who, after striding with a gladiatorial soul, always to be assumed for the color of the Christian name, was stained with the bloody balance of Mars: a bloody plunderer, who performed sacred rites with Bellona. These things, though hurled at Julius II, are fitting to all Roman pontiffs: thirsting for the blood of the faithful, and everywhere and always urging princes to shed blood. To excuse whom, others abuse, and thou also abusest, two epistles of Augustine, 48 and 50, in which he learnedly [shows] that Christian princes were sometimes driven to coerce heretics with punishments; nor was that severity useless, because through it some were corrected who had persevered in their obstinacy when treated more mildly.
But what do these things do to excuse your barbarity, and the most cruel slaughters procured by the pontiffs, through princes devoted to their commands, or even through their inquisitorial executioners? For:
First, Augustine was defending the justice of princes, punishing those who had been judged heretics by legitimate judgment after free conferences, from the scriptures.
Second, Augustine’s matter was not with mere heretics, erring only in faith and doctrine, but with the most wicked, who practiced murders and robberies. For that the Circumcellions professed. Of the Donatists, who also with horrendous fury sought death voluntarily, and either killed themselves or compelled others to kill them. But, thank God, nothing of the sort is done by those whom you call heretics. Nevertheless, even against such, Augustine so conducts himself that it is a wonder that anyone can read that epistle to Boniface without praising his gentleness and without detesting your — I say your Church’s — and your ecclesiastics’ monstrous cruelty, now raging for four hundred years in various parts of the world.
11. Did that holy man teach you, in his said epistles or other volumes, that whatever the emperors did in his time, they either enacted or decreed any capital punishment against heretics, up to his own times? Dost thou think he would have approved, if they had indiscriminately raged against them with extreme punishments?
Does he not on the contrary testify that he obtained in the African Council, that by legates sent to the emperors, it might be obtained that the law of Theodosius which he had promulgated against all heretics — that any bishop or cleric of them, wherever found, should be fined ten pounds of gold — should be expressly applied to the Donatists, who denied themselves to be heretics; so that not all should be punished with that fine, but that the Catholic Church should suffer some violence from their reprobate clergy, or from the Circumcellions, or from their peoples?
To whom it seemed sufficient, if, with these terrified, and daring to do nothing of the sort, the Catholic truth could be freely taught and held, so that they might turn to it, but that he who wished might follow it without fear, lest they should have false and simulated Catholics.
12. But why the business did not prosper according to the mind of the Council, the cause was in the Donatists themselves, on account of the horrible and incredible slaughter of Maximinian, a Catholic bishop of the Church of Vagina; which was the cause that the emperors promulgated a law, by which the heresy of the Donatists was not only not to be borne with impunity, but not even to be considered as a violent thing, but altogether not to be borne. Yet not with capital punishment, in consideration of preserving even toward the unworthy the Christian meekness, but with pecuniary penalties proposed, and against bishops or the ministers of them exile being established. And this is noted against the furious sectaries, among whom it was not permitted to live safely, less than among thieves and assassins, as is proved by the examples recorded there by Augustine.
Do you think, therefore, that that bishop, if he had lived in the time of the Albigensians, would have communicated with those who, signed with the cross, accompanied the Pope’s Legate in the army, raised by the ecclesiastics, who derived all the odium of heresy upon the Albigensians, because they argued against their life and vices, as Girard du Haillan, the royal historiographer, testifies in the life of Philip II? Would he have contemplated with dry eyes, or a smiling countenance, the slaughter of fifty thousand miserable people at Béziers? Would he have wished to profess his name among those honest bishops who, after the surrender of the Carcassonians, wished the men and women to go out naked, with those parts exposed which cannot be honestly named, to the eyes of those holy tormentors? Would he have wished to pronounce the sentence by which, in the city of Lavaur, the Captain was strangled, eighty nobles had their heads cut off, and the female sex was not spared? Would he have taken care to have the lady of the place thrown into a deep well, and covered with stones? Would he have been the author of the slaughters of Moissac and Toulouse, where above twenty thousand men were either killed or thrown into the river? But who could recount everything down to these our times, the memory of which the mind shudders at, and retreats from with grief.
13. Something perhaps similar was done long ago (though not in equal measure) by that Church which our Hilary describes against Auxentius, with the same spirit, no doubt, with which yours is now, and was long ago, agitated; “Now,” he says,
“earthly votes commend the divine faith, and Christ, destitute of his own virtue, is argued against, while ambition is reconciled to his name. The Church terrifies by exiles and prisons, and forces belief in itself, which was believed by exiles and prisons: it depends on the dignity of those who communicate, by which it is consecrated by the terror of those who persecute; it puts to flight priests, by which it was propagated by the priests who were put to flight: it loves itself, it boasts of the world (let the Jesuit note this and remember the argument of the first chapter of his famous pamphlet) by which Christ could not be, unless the world had hated him.”
Concerning this comparison of the Church handed down to us, now how it is lost, the thing itself which is in the eyes of all, and in their mouths, has cried out. But what that is which must not be ignored further, I will briefly explain. According to the pleasure of God, the times have been shortened. For the uncircumscribed nature of things is taught in the heavenly books, and it is necessary that we ourselves have fallen into the age of the Antichrist.
14. It is agreed among all that the instigators of all persecutions, slaughters, and exquisite tortures against innocent believers, whom these men call heretics, are the Church, as they say; who, to their inhumanity, even add this, that they mock the world with ludicrous spectacles; so that, like Pilate, washing their hands, they say, we are pure from the blood of these men. For after they have judged them heretics, they have handed them over to be punished by the secular arm, as they say, and with a feigned intercession they insult the miserable, and deceive the judges, with this or a similar formula, which is held by Gulielmus Benedict: IC. in the question of homicide. “Lord Judges,” they say,
“we ask you, with all the affection we can, that for the love of God, in view of piety and mercy, and by our intervention, you inflict no danger of death or mutilation upon this most miserable man.”
Thus they, at that very time, when, at their instigation, the pyre is kindled, or the sword is drawn, and when they thirst for their blood, for whom they pretend to intercede.
15. But it will not be beside the matter, if we inquire into the cause which was pretexted for this history. About the year of Christ 386 the Priscillianists raged, who joined to false dogmas every kind of impure lusts. Against them Ithacius and Ithacius, Bishops, incited Maximus Clemens, entered as victor into the town of the Treviri. But when Martinus, then stationed among the Treviri, rebuked Ithacius so that he should desist from the accusation, and prayed Maximus that he abstain from the blood of the wretched men, he elicited from Maximus a pledge, that nothing bloody should be decreed against the accused.
But afterwards, the Emperor, through Magnus and Rufus, Bishops depraved, committed the cause to Evodius, a severe Prefect, who pronounced Priscillianus, convicted of maleficium, nor denying it, to have applied himself to obscene doctrine, and even to have held nocturnal assemblies of disgraceful women, and to have been accustomed to be naked in his mouth [reading: nudumque ore solitum], guilty. Tit. Finally he was condemned to capital punishment, together with him, others also.
Yet this Priscillianus, having suffered under Maximus, Petrus de Natalibus inscribed in the Catalogue of Saints and made a martyr, bk. 11, ch. 125, this most pernicious heretic. Although however such he was, and (as Severus Sulpitius speaks, from whom we have this history, bk. 2, near the end) they were most unworthy of light, both he and the others who were with him; yet he is said to have been killed by a most wicked example. By this deed, those two accusing bishops are agreed to have contracted great odium; and Baronius acknowledges that thing brought forward as a crime, Annals, tome 4, anno 386, sect. 23, these men acting importunate and cruel, procured in the same the penalty of death. He adds:
Whence also in the Catholic Church it has come into use, that when anyone seeks aid from secular magistrates against heretics, lest he seem to be a confors and follower of the Ithacian party, he consults that contestation, let him premise, namely that he thus seeks the correction of incorrigible delinquents, and yet not that they be punished around the penalty of blood.
16. From these things it is understood in what place there were formerly among pious bishops the instigators of punishments even against heretical evildoers, whose common instigation they rejected. What therefore would they do if at this time they saw the fires built by the Inquisition, if they heard the Jesuits and others like them crying out for the pyre and blood? Would they not detest the bloodthirsty masters, and abominate their ludicrous intercession? Would they have endured those satirical Jesuits, among whom Peter Ribaldus the Peruvian, not long ago sang this funeral song against heretics, whom he calls rebels?
Surely the rebel becomes a grateful victim; thus the fallen lamb is more pleasing to the gods above. Who, obeying the holy Synedrus while it commands just things, hanging the crimes of the Boian yoke on your noose, carry into exile, impose on the king, drown in the sea, cut with pincers, bear with iron. strike with the sword, kill with hunger, cut with iron, bind the feet with a fetter, bind the old men with a rope. Tear out the bones, break the legs, shatter the limbs, lictor, and cut into many pieces. From here open the way to the grates, and mark the entrails, look on the left and right side.
Certainly a Jesuit most worthy to teach butchers exquisite tortures from the pulpit and to be held the Doctor of Lictors.
17. You say the Church abstains from capital punishment in punishing first heresy. Therefore you confess that your Church decrees capital punishments, which was never done in the old Church. Moreover, you also play and deceive in the words of first heresy. For you understand that if anyone falls into that which you think is heresy, and recants it before your inquisition, then he is punished more lightly: But what do you say, if anyone persists in his perfected opinion, and does not wish to recant… do you abstain from capital punishments? The acts prove the contrary. What judgment are you in that you bring forth historical examples against yourself and your own practice.
You praise, §3, Constantius Chlorus, who, although a pagan, after having given the Christian courtiers the choice of either Christianity or paganism, on the condition that they should either withdraw from honors and the court if they wished to be Christians, or retain their honors while sacrificing to the gods—after testing their loyalty, increased the honor of those who remained steadfast, and erased others from the register of his household.
And Theodoric King of the Goths, who bore it indignantly if any Arian should bear witness against Catholics, in order to promote his favor; because they judged that those who denied faith to God would not be faithful and constant to man. O that, you say, kings and princes would understand this!
And O would they indeed understand, we say! Now certainly we conceive with you the same wish. For if they understood this, neither would they coerce us with punishments and many things; nor allure us with promises and rewards, that, having renounced that religion which we believe true from the Word of God, we should profess another which, saving conscience, we cannot embrace. They would not pursue those who are steadfast in their faith towards God, and who are faithful to their princes. They would not augment with honors and rewards those who, against their conscience, either struck by fear or enticed by hope, at a moment pass over into those rites which a little before they detested. Nor would that voice be so efficacious, of him who in the desert wished to convert the Lord to himself, and to turn him away from God, his Tibidabo [I will give you, Mt. 4:9].
18. See again how imprudently you act, when you without exception profess and attempt to prove that the condition of the State is always changed and overthrown with changed religion, and that heresy is a rebellion of brethren. I pass over the foolishness with which you confirm this by the example of Jeroboam, since religion did not change the condition; but the perverse change of condition changes religion.
But see what you do. Do you not by this axiom invite all princes, whether heathens, whether Mahometans, or those whom you account heretics, that they permit no religion in their dominions besides their own? That heathens and Mahometans require all Christians; That kings, princes and republics which embrace the reformation in Christianity suffer none among them to be subject who are under the Roman Pontiff; especially since it is certain among Jesuitical teachers, from the stock of the Eumenides [Furies] (to use your words), that the ecclesiastical Pontifical State seeks to carry off from kings not only heretics but also Catholics, all their subjects who are anointed and consecrated, who can never incur the crime of injured-majesty, since they are not subject to them. See, have not those who teach these things deserved to be presented to Peter as soon as they were born, as you say?
19. Certain particulars remain concerning your conference with Molino of Sedan, about those things which are done at Rome by your inquisition, of which, as you say, you vindicated and defended, Rome especially, because for the first heresy no one is punished with extreme punishment unless he were a heresiarch. We have already shown how you understand this, namely that he may abjure with reservation.
Further, you know not how easy it is at Rome to convert a heretic into a heresiarch. Afterwards you teach us that those who have abjured, however heresiarchs, are strangled before they are burnt, which is papal grace, not divine. Lastly, unless he abjured, to burn them alive for the obstinacy of their pertinacity: Thus you have, even beyond the grave, the fire of purgatory.
After these things being thus explained, you were very facetious, who, as you yourself say, did exhort Molinaeus that he should yet consider the Roman man and his age, which you will surely find to be very different from that which you suppose, etc. But under that law however, that he might embrace your doctrine; and giving assent, as you say you did, to the Nuncio of the Pontiff, you offered public security.
Molinoeus could have answered you that your security was ambiguous, that your public security was a tent, in which one must not trust: and could have objected to you examples ancient: Hus and the Pragans; recent, the wretched Spalatensis, who when he had been revoked promised genius to his former scribe Ludovicus, called Gregory XV, after his death in the year 1625 was shut up in the prison of Saint Angel by his successor, where, not without strong suspicion, in shame and filth he breathed out his soul in sodomy; the corpse of which was afterwards burned, the ashes scattered into the Tiber. And yet he had publicly abjured. At least this did not fare well for Rome.
Nor did the infamous apostate Rebulli, who like another Balaam was hired to curse Israel, after the famous pamphlets published at Rome and elsewhere against our men, at last in the year 1611 had his head struck off in the prison itself, at the extremity of the bridge of Saint Angel, a spectacle to the Romans: who a little before, when he was writing to a friend at Rome and lessened those whom he had offended by his pamphlets, scorned them; “That”, he used to say,
“they have resolved to attack me in Rome; whoever will undertake that, let him not so much think of the vengeance of the consistory, but, going to the Tiber and crossing the mill-bridge, let him remember the bridge of Saint Angel.”
You understand my meaning. That example of divine vengeance is admirable, worthy that it should never depart from the memory of the pious. See Mercure Gallicus, tome 2, for the year 1625.
20. You say you received these things with deaf ears from Molinaeus, and you are mistaken. For he heard sufficiently what you said, but he despised you deservedly; then because in truth he resolved to persevere in the doctrine which he taught even to the end, and to cast away Satan with all his Tibidabo [I will give you, Mt. 4:9]; then, because he had known that you and yours could not be trusted; because even then you lied openly; when you say in Spain about the inquisition that heretics are handled much more mildly than in the kingdom of Great Britain Catholics, especially priests are treated with whom they gnaw the throat with a noose, lick punishments, etc.
He answered that the thing with Molinaeus was that this punishment is for all traitors, whether they profess our religion or yours: and rightly he denied that these punishments were on account of religion. You provoked yourself, you say, with the public plates of the Praetorium of London. Well it is, and having believed those fables you fell into the cause. Hear the words of that King James himself, “I,” he says,
“do constantly affirm what I set forth in my Apology, as I remember, whether in my own or the late Queen’s time, that conscience and religion have been the cause of the last extremity of punishment. For however much a man may be addicted to his religion, however much he may openly and constantly profess it, no danger of death will hang over him unless he shall have actually offended against the foreign laws in any act; or shall have been seen to be the very summit of a conspiracy of counsels pernicious to the commonwealth: except only such as relate to sacrifices, and other parts of the Pontifical system, who in transmarine regions insinuate themselves into sacred orders: who have so many conspiracies, so many treasons by them in England, either conceived or instigated or applauded, that from our borders they are driven back under the penalty of destruction. And yet none of them remains in the same thing which you would wish to call holy: that by the single case, being mulcted, death should immediately follow.”
21. The most serene king adds, as I lately said, that the same punishment remains for all traitors, whether Protestants or Pontiffs; thus, he says, except in Mary’s time now, there is omitted the atrocity of punishments upon women, upon infants, upon our religion’s confessors; nay against the natural laws of God death is prematurely inflicted upon pregnant women, and as from the belly expelled, the same with maternal flames are injected into them.
See his admonitory preface, pp. 135-36 and the Response of the Bishop of Ely to Bellarmine’s Apology, ch. 13. Peruse also, if you please, chapter 17 of the Antilogia of the most reverend Abbot against your Cretensis.
22. Since, pressing Molinaeus, you could not produce a single example of the ancient Church in which process unto capital punishment was carried on against a heretical man, nay not even against a heresiarch.
For Constantine only punished Arius with exile; an argument which you wished to obtain, but which you could not prove by testimony. From that which the emperor forbade Arius’s books to be publicly read, and almost put to death those who had opposed him, and those who contrary to him had erred, it should much rather be judged that according to the penalty of death they should be inflicted upon those who would profess that very heresy. But your consequence does not hold, nor did Constantine understand it either, who neither Arius nor any one of the Arians he afflicted with death. Another reason of theirs was, that those who, contrary to the law’s prohibition, intended capital punishment, concealed impious and impure books of Arius. Such men were therefore put to death for the violated law. Yet no force was used upon any one so that he should be believed to have repudiated that which he wished, or to profess against what he believed.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), pt. 2
ch. 6, section 5, pp. 352-53
“3. A magistrate may compel a heathen nation to the negative reverence of Christ in a indirect way, and that with the sword, though he cannot compel to the positive worshipping of Him: if a Christian prince subdue a pagan nation, he cannot force them with the sword to a positive receiving of the doctrine of the Gospel, but if it be a nation expressly blaspheming Christ, as the nation of the Jews now do, he may compel them to an abstinence from a professed blaspheming of Christ, because he is to use the sword against blasphemy.
4. The weapons of the Church as the Church are not carnal, but spiritual and mighty through God.”
.
Appendix, p. 355
“This opinion is the way to Arminian liberty of conscience, that men in a Christian commonwealth may be of any religion, and the magistrate is to behold men as an indifferent spectator, not caring what religion they be of, whether they be Papists, Jews, Pagans, Anabaptists, Socinians, Macedonians, etc. which should infer that the magistrate were no nurse-father of the true Church, nor yet a preserver of religion, if men might be of any religion…”
.
Henry Alting
The Scriptural Theology of Heidelberg, vol. 2, containing Theological Problems… (Amsterdam: Janssonius, 1646), Practical Problems, Problem 21, ‘Whether Jews in the society of Christians ought to be tolerated? [Yes]’, pp. 340-48 tr. AI by The Faith Received Latin
“Whether Jews should be tolerated in the society of Christians?
The horrendous judgments of God exercised upon the Jews on account of their ingratitude and incredulity were not only set forth long ago in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the slaughter of the whole nation and the destruction of the Mosaic Polity: but they also remain before our eyes to this very day. For we see them living dispersed among all nations throughout almost the entire world, subject to the empires of others hard and unjust, to be objects of contempt and scorn to all, and to be treated no otherwise than as slaves or chattels, as much by Christians as by Mahometans and other infidels: finally, not to be received by some and to be expelled by others who had already received them and tolerated them for a long time: in some places, they even barely redeem passage or safe conduct through provinces for the sake of making a journey with a great sum of money.
Certainly, in previous centuries, they were excluded from all of France at once and together, no less than the Templars. Similarly, they are exiled from all of Britain. Rupert the Elder, Count Palatine, for I know not what reason, expelled the Jews not only from Heidelberg, but also from the entire Palatinate: and he donated their synagogue, which has now been converted into a Medical Auditorium, and most of the buildings to the Academy, which he founded not long after. And it is known what has been plotted against them in these recent years, partly in Frankfurt, partly in Worms. Nor are there lacking specious reasons by which it is usually persuaded that they are not to be tolerated:
They are, they say, enemies of God and Christ, blasphemers. They are enemies of Christians, usurers, money-lenders, who afflict and suck dry the poor. They are also traitors who betray the secrets of Christians to the Turks and others of this kind.
On the contrary, there are also found those who undertake the patronage of the Jews, and either tolerate them or receive them anew, or even persuade that they ought to be received and tolerated: but some are led by the hope of profit or gain which they receive from the Jews: others are impelled by a zeal for charity and their conversion.
Therefore, so that it may be clear what ought to be decided or followed here, I shall submit an explanation of the problem constructed from the Word of God. I premise, however, two theorems, necessary to be observed.
One, that the Jews ought to be considered by us in four ways. They are to be viewed:
I. as men, participants of the same flesh and blood as we are, and sprung from the same parent, Adam.
II. as descendants of Abraham, as the firstborn of the family of God. In which respect the apostle does not hesitate to call the Jews of his time, although senseless, rebellious and unbelieving, nevertheless ‘saints’: by reason of the fathers, that is, of the firstfruits and the root, from which the lump and the branches are considered sanctified. (Rom. 9:3-5; 11:16)
III. as enemies of Christ and the true Church, blasphemers, infidels, money-lenders, usurers: for which reasons they are the offscourings [καθάρματα] of the world, and the public hatred of the whole orb.
IV. That they are to be converted to the faith of Christ, according to the grace of predestination and the promise of the eternal Covenant, initiated with Abraham: and indeed [they are to be converted] in great number and multitude. Which conversion, as a mystery divinely revealed to him, the apostle proposes in Rom. 11, verse 25 and following, and confirms it clearly, partly by reasons, partly by the testimonies of the prophets.
The other point: That those four modes of consideration ought to be viewed by us not separately, or individually one by one, but all of them conjunctively. When therefore it is asked, whether the Jews are to be tolerated among Christians, one must not judge separately from the third mode, in which they are said to be enemies of Christ, infidels, usurers, but one must pronounce simultaneously also from the others, and especially from the second and fourth: in which they are called the seed of Abraham, to be converted to Christ and to be brought back to the society of the Covenant.
This is the reason: because the apostle speaks and judges of them in that way and no other. Rom. 11, verse 16, ‘For if the firstfruits are holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.’ Likewise verse 28: ‘they are enemies for your sake, but beloved for the sake of the fathers.’
According to these things we now answer affirmatively: namely, that the Jews are to be tolerated in the society of Christians. These are the reasons:
First: Although God imposed upon them the punishment of dispersion, so that without a king, scepter and civil law they live scattered among other nations throughout almost the whole world: yet He preserves them wonderfully, nay even miraculously, so that they are not destroyed, nor can they be destroyed, although it has been attempted by many: nor are they even confounded with other nations, in rites, ceremonies, marriages, and the custom of their whole life. And as Cain was marked divinely with a sign, lest he should be killed by those he met on account of fratricide: so the Jews seem to be marked by God on their faces and foreheads, on account of the slaughter of Christ the firstborn, so that they can be recognized almost at first glance, lest they be killed. Therefore, those who do not wish to tolerate the Jews seem to oppose the counsel of God.
Second: The dispersion of the Jews throughout the Christian world is useful to us Christians: and that in two ways:
I. On account of the spectacle of the severity and wrath of God, which ought to be kept perpetually before our eyes. For they are shown to us as branches broken off on account of unbelief, so that through faith we may learn to remain in the true olive tree, Rom. 11:22 ff.
II. On account of the testimony of sound doctrine, which they carry about in the Scriptures of the O.T.: so that the Church may everywhere find witnesses of the Christian religion, as Augustine teaches, Of the City of God, bk. 18, ch. 46. And this testimony is so much the firmer because it is borne to the doctrine by the very enemies, and indeed sworn ones, of it. Therefore the fathers called the Jews the librarians of the Christians, enemies in their hearts, witnesses in their books. Hence, lest we be an obstacle to ourselves, we ought to bear with the Jews in our society.
Third, from the examples of the apostles: Peter and Paul showed the highest charity to those very Jews who had driven the Lord Jesus to the cross although they had heard his doctrine with their own ears and had beheld his miracles with their own eyes; and who, having corrupted the witnesses of his glorious resurrection with money, were even much more detestable than the Jews of today; and they did not hesitate to seek and procure their conversion by all means, even at the expense of their own safety: so far were they from being unwilling to tolerate them, Acts 2-3; Rom. 9. Therefore it is much more fitting for us to do the same regarding the Jews of today.
Fourth: The Jews, according to the doctrine of the apostle, Rom. 11, are again to be converted to Christ and to faith in Him. But since this cannot be done by infidels, who themselves are ignorant of Christ and do not receive Him, but must be done by the ministry of Christians and the faithful, they certainly ought to dwell and converse among them.
Fifth: The Apostle teaches that not only are the Jews to be converted in the greatest number, but also the manner of conversion: which he establishes in this, that they be provoked to emulation, Rom. 11:11, that is, that by the example of the faithful from the gentiles, they themselves also may desire and embrace the grace of Christ. If the Jews are to be provoked to emulation by us, by our example, they certainly ought to be tolerated by us and to dwell among us. From this, however, we further gather two things:
I. That the Jews ought to dwell among Evangelicals and Orthodox rather than among Papists. Reason: because the latter are less fit to excite emulation in them: since they are idolaters, whom they [the Jews] turn away from and execrate with their whole heart.
II. That conversion of all Israel, or of the Jews in the greatest number, of which the apostle prophesies in Rom. 11, will without doubt follow immediately upon the ruin of the Papacy, and the destruction of the city of Rome, since Papism is the chief obstacle and greatest impediment to the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, which they almost measure by that idolatrous Papism.
Sixth. If all Christian magistrates were to exclude the Jews from the society of Christians, and would no longer tolerate them; they would certainly have to be relegated to the Garamantes and Indians, to the Caribs and Cannibals, so that they might spend their lives among them. But in that way, it would surely be poorly provided for them regarding teachers, who might show them the way to find the Messiah whom they seek.
We conclude, therefore, that the Jews are to be tolerated among Christians.
Furthermore, since it is acknowledged that the Jews, according to the third consideration are not only infidels, but also blasphemers against Christ, enemies of Christians, and most iniquitous usurers, their toleration must be circumscribed by certain conditions as if by certain laws. Here, therefore, some things must be avoided and shunned by Christian magistrates, and other things, on the contrary, must be done:
Those things must be avoided which, on account of usury and participation in it, [countries] either admit or tolerate Jews—which, alas, is excessively common today in Germany and elsewhere.
Furthermore, these things must be done and cared for by Christian magistrates:
I. That the Jews in their synagogues and sacred assemblies should only read the Holy books of the Old Testament and call upon the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob according to the Scripture of the Old Testament.
II. That they should take care that they be instructed in the Christian religion and taught about it: indeed, that they even compel them to attend the sacred sermons of the Christians from time to time. For otherwise they can neither be provoked to emulation nor converted to the faith of Christ. And the neglect of this admonition is perhaps the primary reason why so few Jews are converted today.
III. That they also accustom and lead them to honest labors and honest crafts: so that they may thus be able to sustain life honestly, even without usury.
IV. That they provide them with the security and defense due to all citizens living according to the Laws: and that they do not allow them to be vexed with impunity by the injuries of private individuals, whether publicly or privately. Which is also, alas, too much in use! It is, however, against the apostle, who gravely forbids us Christians from injuries, insults and contempt of the Jews.
V. That they ensure that the Jews are distinguished from Christians by their dress or by some certain sign, so that no one through ignorance may associate with them just as they would with Christians.
In sum, Christian princes and magistrates who have received or are receiving Jews into their protection, shall show, both in these and in all other things, that they are moved to that [protection] by nothing other than holy charity and a desire to procure their salvation: and therefore they will permit them nothing that is in itself illicit: they will take care that they be instructed in the Christian faith and truth: so that they may thus be able to be salutary instruments in that work which God promised He would do through the prophet Isaiah and the apostle Paul. This much concerning the problem itself.”
.
Edward Leigh
A Treatise of Religion & Learning & of Religious & Learned Men... (London: A.M., 1656), bk. 1, ch. 7, ‘Of the syncretism of religion, or of a friendly reconciliation of the different parties amongst themselves’, pp. 26-27
“For the Papists, they are not tolerated in Holland; The Jews are not only tolerated, but have the public exercise of their religion and their synagogues, viz. at Amsterdam.
…
It is a question propounded by Helvicus, An Judaei à Magistratu Christiano tolerandi, et quomodo tractandi? Whether the Jews be to be tolerated by the Christian magistrate, and how they are to be handled?
(System Controvers. Theolog. quae Christianis cum Judaeis intercedunt, Elench. Jud. 8 et ult. Profecto excusari Magistratus Christianus non potest, si impune eorum blasphemias horrendas in Christum, et S.S. Trinitatem, totamque religionem Christianam, diutiùs oculo connivente toleret. [Certainly, the Christian magistrate cannot excuse himself if he should tolerate, with his eye winking, their horrible blasphemies against Christ, the most holy Trinity, and the whole Christian religion, with impunity, for a longer time.”] Idem, ibid. Amongst Gregory’s Epistles, there is one De Judaeis non persequendis [That the Jews are not to be persecuted].)
He says it is a perplex[ed] question by reason of the different judgments. He propounds:
First, diverse arguments of those which hold they are altogether to be cast out of a Christian commonwealth by reason of those horrible blasphemies which daily, both in their ordinary prayers and in their speeches they belch out against Christ, the Virgin Mary, our Faith, and all Christians in general, and for other reasons which he there alleges.
Secondly, He urges other arguments to prove that the Jews are not to be cast out, but tolerated under the Christian magistrate, because by that means many of them may be converted by continual converse with the Christians, and the Scripture seems evidently to confirm that, Hos. 3:4; Zeph. 3:7; Lk. 21:24; Rom. 11:25-26, and because they may be serviceable to them against the pagans and for other reasons.
He himself goes the middle way and lays down his opinion in certain propositions:
First, It is better for Jews to live amongst Christians than under Turks or infidels.
Secondly, The blasphemies of Jews are not to be tolerated, but to be prohibited and most severely punished by Christians.
Thirdly, the Jews are to be esteemed among Christians as the servants of servants, that is so to be handled that they are exiles and cast off by God Himself. They are not to have any public office. They are not to practice that unjust usury for which they are so infamous amongst Christians. They are to have also (said he) some outward mark in their garments, by which they may be distinguished from others, and [are] to be forced to hear sermons. Many other cautions does he give in the receiving of them.
As for the toleration of the Jews, whosoever they be that suffer the exercise of their religion with the blasphemies they commonly use against Christ, make themselves guilty of all their wickedness, which the Lord keep this land from, as well as from the abomination of the Mass. The Pope can tolerate the blasphemy of the Jews and the filthiness of all the courtesans and stews, and take a yearly rent of them for it, and for no respect will allow the exercise of our most holy religion either in his own dominions or wheresoever he may prevail against us. Traverse Answer to a Popish Treatise written to the Lords of the Council.”
.
Johannes Hoornbeek
T’shuvah Yehudah, or For the Convincing & Converting of the Jews (Leiden, 1655), pp. 24-25 tr. AI Latin
Ҥ17. Now to the Political Means.
I. Nothing is accomplished, indeed, things are done badly, by persecuting, harassing or oppressing the Jews, driving them away, or killing them.
That is to say, those guilty of Judaism alone [should not be harassed or oppressed]. But those guilty of other crimes should be punished equally with others. Nevertheless, they should not be treated more harshly for that reason, because they are Jews. We do not wish innocent people to be constrained merely because they are Jews or Saracens.
Among the ancient Sicilian laws, Emperor Frederick established this in Constitutions of Sicily, bk. 1, title 17 & 26:
‘We cannot allow Jews and Saracens, whom the diversity of the Christian sect makes hostile, and who are deprived of every other assistance, to be defrauded of the power of our protection.’
Christian converts from Judaism have noted that this perverse practice of treating Jews more harshly is a great hindrance to the conversion of more people. For it is entirely foreign to the nature of faith to employ violence in order to produce belief. Petrus Alphonsus the Spaniard, in The Dialogue of Moses & Peter:
‘To imprison and kill, until someone either believes or pays a tax, is not among the works of God; nor did any of the prophets command anyone to be compelled to believe.’
Likewise, Stephanus Isaacus (to whom, together with his father Johannes Isaacus, Cardinal and Papal Legate Franciscus de Mendoza had granted authority to investigate all the Jews throughout the three ecclesiastical electorates, and to rage against them with fire and sword) rightly said that this counsel was unjust and most wicked, and that more is accomplished through moderation and kindness than through cruelty or savagery, in his German Apology, p. 42. The same was noted by [Johannes] Pfefferkorn [d. 1523] and others.
Therefore, the better and more common opinion, both among theologians and among jurists, is that the Jews should be tolerated—not indeed enticed, but, where they are found, not treated more harshly. Thus:
• Baldus, vol. 1, Consil, 315-16
• Rolandus a Valle, vol. 3, Consil, 25
• Alexander of Hales, Summa, pt. 2, Questions 179-80
• Vincent of Beauvais, Spec. Doctr., bk. 10, ch. 38, etc.
• Johannes Gerhard, Common Places, On the Magistrate, p. 631
• Hottinger, Thesaurus Philologicus, bk. 1, ch. 1, section 2, question 1
And the one who treated this matter learnedly and extensively in a separate book, Georgius Theodorus, Counselor of Hesse, De jure et statu Iudæorum in Republica Christianorum [On the Law and Status of the Jews in the Republics of Christians].”
.
Pierre Jurieu
The Policy of the Clergy of France, to destroy the Protestants of that Kingdom... (London: Bentley, 1681), 2nd Conference, pp. 100-103
“Must so many efforts be used to force from us [French protestants] that French heart that God and birth has given us? What have we done to merit so many misfortunes and such severe punishments? We are hunted, we are drove up and down as if we were the plagues of the Republic; We are treated as the enemies of the Christian name.
In places where the Jews are tolerated, they have all manner of liberty, they exercise arts and merchandise; they are physicians, they are consulted, the health and life of Christians is put into their hands:
And as for us, as if we were infected, we are forbidden to approach children that come into the world, we are banished from the bars and faculties, we are removed from the king’s person, we are banished from societies, our charges are taken from us, we are forbidden the use of all means that might secure us from being famished; we are abandoned to the hatred of the people, we are deprived of that precious liberty that we had purchased by so many services; our children are taken from us, who are a part of ourselves; we are made to lead a languishing life, in lowness, in poverty, and often in dark prisons.
Formerly, when declarations were made against us, they were at most contented with registering them in the rolls. They are at present fixed up, they are cried about the streets as if they were gazettes, to inspire the people with a spirit of fury against us. And they have been so successful that in the great cities of France we expect to have our throats cut, one time or another, by a popular sedition; so that we are very near the Inquisition.
Can it be said that there is liberty of conscience in a kingdom where the people are banished, lose their honor, and their goods are confiscated for religion’s sake? There needs nothing more than fire; and that terrible tribunal of the Inquisition, which France has been hitherto so much afraid of, will be established there.
Are we Turks, are we infidels? We believe in Jesus Christ, we believe him the eternal Son of God, we invoke him solely; and we have no idols. We have a sovereign respect for the sacred Scriptures, we believe there is a Heaven and a Hell, the maxims of our morality are of so great a purity, that they dare not contradict them. We have a respect for kings, we are good subjects, good citizens, faithful in commerce: Let us be tried according to law, and it will appear if we have been engaged in any conspiracy against the State, and if we have any ways failed in our duty.
Thanks be to God, nothing can stagger our fidelity, and the stock of love we have for our prince is not to be drained: if it depended on our enemies, we should be enemies of the State we make a part of; they design to push us on to crimes, that the king may have a just occasion of ruining us; but they have hitherto missed their aim, and are like to do so still; the king may see it, whilst that they so successfully turn the effects of his goodness from us, there is not one of us but who is ready to lose his life for his sake; we are Frenchmen as well as we are Reformed Christians; we would shed to the very last drop of the blood of our veins to serve our king, and for the preserving our religion, even to death.”
.
Lutherans
Quotes
Order of
Meisner
Brochmand
Calov
.
1600’s
Balthasar Meisner
Sober Philosophy, that is, a Pious Consideration of Philosophical Questions occasionally arising in theological controversies, which the Calvinists have raised against the Orthodox (1623), pt. 3, sect. 2, Political Questions, ch. 2, On the Magistrate & his Office, Question 4, Should Jews be tolerated in a Christian Republic, and how? tr. AI by The Faith Received
“Whether and how Jews are to be tolerated in a Christian republic? When a deliberation is instituted concerning the Jews, two extremes in particular must be studiously avoided: The one is rash expulsion; the other is licentious toleration. For they are neither to be expelled indiscriminately, nor are they to be tolerated without limit; both of which must be declared further in a few words:
1. That they are not to be universally and indiscriminately proscribed and driven out from the Christian world, some suppose can be persuaded by the following arguments:
1. On account of the hope of conversion, which was foretold in Ose. 3:14[?]; Sophon. 3:14; Rom. 11:25-26. If, however, they are utterly cast out and have no intercourse with Christians, then they will be able to arrive at the recognition of the truth either never, or certainly with the greatest difficulty.
2. For the sake of restraining blasphemies. For if they live under other nations, they will blaspheme Christ more and will be able to have greater immunity on account of the similarity of circumcision, or because the diversity of religions is little cared for; in which manner they are more confirmed in the zeal of blaspheming and are less converted.
3. On account of the advantages which are joined with the toleration of the Jew. Such are:
(1) Theological, inasmuch as they exhibit a living mirror of divine wrath toward the contempt of the gospel: they confirm by their example the truth of the prophecies: they are the treasurers of Christians in preserving the Hebrew Scriptures, so that they may testify that those gentile ones were not corrupted by us.
(2) Political, since they increase the treasury of the republic, supply a large sum of money in sudden necessity, and indeed can be usefully employed for public services or burdens.
4. On account of reverence for their patriarchal origin, because they are of the seed of Abraham, kinsmen of the Savior according to the flesh, Rom. 9, verse 5, and were formerly adorned with many gifts and privileges by God, in memory of which they seem not undeservedly to be tolerated.
5. On account of the example of the ancient Church, which did not entirely exterminate the Jews, as is sufficiently and abundantly attested by the vile and canonical [texts] extant.
6. On account of the inconvenience; because if the Jews find no hospitality among us, they will flock in crowds to the Turks, and will assist our enemies partly with money, and partly with their counsels and artifices. Philippus Camerarius treats this question in Century 1, Medit. Histor., ch. 89, where, among other things, he writes thus:
“It is reported, as some write, that up to a hundred thousand men and women of both sexes migrated to the Turks in those times. Moreover, it is handed down to memory that the Turkish Emperor was accustomed to say that he marveled at the stupidity of Christian kings, in that they preferred to expel such a great multitude—whom, if they did not wish to kill, they could nevertheless have retained in the place of slaves to perform useful and suitable services—rather than retain them for their own profit, according to the Horatian precept: When you can sell a captive, do not kill him; he will serve usefully.”
For those Jews first brought to the Turks various kinds of arts and crafts, and also a more advanced knowledge of military machines and other things, by which that barbarous nation had previously been uninstructed. This occurred to the great detriment of the Christian commonwealth, etc. For these and similar reasons, therefore, it does not seem to some to be advisable that all the Jews should immediately be expelled from the territory of Christians.
By this, however, they do not mean that they should therefore be easily admitted into the commonwealth, much less that they should be deliberately invited, for the sake of filthy gain, since this would be a matter of the greatest recklessness, disgraceful to the Christian name and altogether inexcusable.
Here there are those who would have Jews in the Christian republic, and though they are always blasphemers, yet be unpunished. See the most deserving theologian, Mr. Dr. Daniel Cramer, in his Haereseological Description, ch. 11, Prolegom., page 38 ff., who discourses learnedly on this.
2. Therefore, so that one may not sin in the other extreme, and too much license be granted to Jews living among Christians, there is need of great caution; so that they may be so constrained by both general and special laws, that they may not be able in any respect either to give scandal or to inflict harm.
Let this be the general law: that they live quietly according to the law used in the republic, obey the magistrate, abstain from incantations and other crimes, be not troublesome to the citizens and plot nothing against the Christian republic.
Many special laws could be recounted; we shall note only the principal ones:
1. The blasphemies of the Jews are by no means to be tolerated, but most severely prohibited, and to that end synagogues are never to be granted. For in them the name of Christ is blasphemed, Christians are devoted to curses, Talmudic fables are proposed and Jews are confirmed in their superstition. The most illustrious Lord D. Helvicus recounts at length the formulas of the horrendous blasphemies which they use, in volume 4 of his Giessen Disputations, disputation 11, page 256 and following.
2. They are to be compelled to hear sacred sermons. For since they are tolerated for the sake of the hope of conversion, means must certainly be employed and obstacles removed. Therefore, discourse is to be instituted with them more often concerning the Messiah and the prophetic predictions so that they may gradually recognize the fables of the rabbis, upon whom they otherwise depend too much, and learn the foundations of the true Faith.
3. It must be most strictly prohibited that they [the Jews] should deceitfully ensnare any Jew desiring to cross over to us, and conversely, that they should labor to draw any Christian into their superstition.
4. The books of the ancient Hebrews, whether printed or manuscript, ought to be extorted from them, partly so that, being destitute of books, they might be moved all the more easily to hear our sermons, and partly so that many things useful for the Christian Faith, and hitherto hidden, might be extracted from them and turned back against the Jews.
5. It should by no means be permitted for Jews to contract marriages with Christians, because, since they are outside the Church, they could seduce the simple-minded, and if they wished to enjoy the privileges of Christians, they would [yet] undoubtedly educate their children in their own superstition.
6. Jews are to be held as the servants of servants, and therefore they are to be treated harshly and compelled to perform services, to chop wood, to carry away dung and to perform other rustic labors. For they were sent by God into exile and delivered into servitude on account of the crucifixion of his Son and the contempt of the Gospel. Therefore, so that they may know that they are slaves, and may not boast on account of the prerogative of their seed, nor be emboldened in their blasphemies, the harshest burdens must be imposed upon them, nor should it be permitted that they remain idle and live exempt from labors. Hence Luther, vol. 8 (Jena). In his Book on the Jews, he gave this counsel:
“One must drive the [foul] knave’s bone out of them with the [club?], [spear?], axe, [and] put the [??] into their hands, and not roast [them] behind the [??] pears; and let the Christian mock them besides, so that they may see that they are now in misery and danger.”
Furthermore, it is well known with what hatred they pursue Christians, indeed to such an extent that they think it is not a sin if a Jew kills a Christian or a baptized Jew; if someone keeps a Christian’s lost property; if he commits adultery with a Christian’s wife; if he steals from a Christian; etc. Therefore, as punishment for such great hatred and horrible doctrines, they are deservedly to be treated harshly, and no prerogative whatsoever is to be granted to them over a Christian.
Hence it follows that no public offices are to be entrusted to them that commercial dealings on Sundays are to be prohibited, that the possession of immovable property, since such possession is not appropriate to servants, is to be denied to them; that autonomy (αὐτονομία) is likewise to be denied to them; and that it must be most strictly forbidden that they adjudicate their lawsuits and cases among themselves, so that they may thereby understand that the scepter has been entirely taken away and that all jurisdiction has been removed from them.
Likewise, in a similar kind of case, Jews ought to be punished much more severely than Christians, since they are slaves and have fallen into servitude.
Excessive usury is to be prohibited, lest they suck out the blood of Christians and scrape together much wealth in order to live in idleness and luxury. If, on the other hand, the magistrate connives at this and allows himself to be blinded by their gifts and bribes, he certainly commits a very serious crime, joined with the greatest disgrace to the Christian name and he confirms the Jews in their condition so that they do not recognize the punishment of their exile and do not pass over to Christianity. For Elias Schadaeus relates that a certain Jew, when reminded of the long exile, so that he might infer from it that the Messiah had come, ordered a most generous wine to be brought from his cellar in a precious glass, and showing it, replied: מה תיג בולה, that is, What kind of exile is this?
From which, moreover, this also flows, which is certainly unjust, that a Christian debtor should be incarcerated and afflicted for the sake of a Jewish creditor. For thus Christians are exposed to the ridicule of Jews, they become their servants, the dignity of Christianity is diminished, the superstition and pride of the Jewish nation are confirmed, concerning all of which see Dn. Helvicus, disputation Dicta, p. 275 ff.
8. No services are to be rendered to Jews, much less servile work on the Sabbath days. For what is more unworthy of a Christian than to serve his servants and indeed to promote that fault which has been abrogated by Christ, joined with blasphemy and execration of Christ’s name?
9. Jews are not to be permitted to engage in trades that directly pertain to food, such as butchery and similar occupations; it is unseemly to buy edibles from our enemies, who first defile the meat and infect it with their impure breath, issuing from blasphemous mouths.
10. Jews are to be distinguished from Christians by some external sign established in their clothing, for which reason the Venetians imposed the wearing of a yellow cap, and in the Holy Roman Empire, a yellow circle on the cloak is common. Finally:
11. In the oath of Jews, which they take in litigation with Christians, little or no faith at all is to be placed, because annually on the Day of Atonement, which falls in Autumn, they recite a prayer in which they entreat God to command all oaths and vows to be null and void, and not to allow whatever they swear against Christians throughout the entire year, to redound to the fraud of the Jew, which they are most certainly persuaded will happen.
And these were the principal conditions and limitations, by observing which, the Jews amongst Christians can be tolerated. But if they should refuse to live according to the prescription of these laws, they are not to be easily expelled, lest they flee to our enemies and the barbarians; rather, they ought to be compelled to observe these laws, and, if they should wish to flee [??], they ought to be restrained by severe punishments, as [??]. See more in the volume of the distinguished Dr. [Johann] Gerhard, pp. 890 ff.”
.
Jesper (Caspar) Brochmand
System of Universal Theology (1638), vol. 2, article 41, ch. 9, sect. 10, Duty of subjects toward the magistrate Brochmand (1585-1652) was a Danish, Lutheran theologian and professor of arts and theology at Copenhagen.
“Question 9, Whether Jews in a Christian magistracy are to be tolerated, and how are they to be dealt with?
There are extreme opinions concerning this question. The first sentence is of those who absolutely deny that Jews ought to be at all tolerated in a Christian commonwealth. The moments of their assertion they advance are these:
(1) Jews are extremely blasphemous; for at the name of Jesus, if they alone be present, thy cry out and say: “Let his name be blotted out”; they call the Holy Trinity nonsense and foolishness, they call Christ a spurious one; they call Mary, the blessed mother of the Savior, dung; they curse every Christian magistrate, they reckon Christians among the most lost and damned men; they think it lawful to despoil and kill Christians and treat Christian rites as obscene.
(2) They think Christians to be plainly objects of hatred and enemies to God; they bring accusations against secular and principal Christian commonwealths and so separate themselves.
The second judgment, plainly contrary to the first, proposes causes of hope and arguments and proofs of foundations:
(3) From those things themselves is Christ made according to the flesh, Rom. 9:2, 5. A corrupt religion is extremely blasphemous: to be possessed of the habitation of the Jews within the commonwealth yields very many benefits to Christians: for they show spectacles and thereby furnish a divine mirror against the contemners of the Gospel, and they can serve for the restoration of the integrity of the monuments of the Old Testament, and confirm the truth among the images of divine predictions, Rom. 1:22. They enrich the commonwealth with money, with trade, they make it opulent and wealthy.
(4) The ejection of the Jews out of the republic would carry with it many inconveniences: for being utterly expelled from Christian dominions they are more difficult to be converted and more free to blaspheme, and the Turkish kingdom would be augmented by their resources.
(5) It is necessary therefore that Jews live somewhere, if any political use proper to them be by them entirely prescribed: wherefore it is preferable that they live under a Christian magistracy, as under which the hope of a more abundant conversion would shine forth than that living under a gentile magistracy they either persevere in their idolatry or pass over to the blasphemy of the gentiles.
The third opinion is intermediate, since it concedes indeed that Jews may be tolerated in a Christian republic, but under certain cautions and conditions. In these conditions to be prescribed, the sentiment is not the same of the Pontiffs and the Lutheran doctors.
Becanus the Jesuit, in the Manual of Controversies, bk. 3, ch. 18, pp. 728–29, 1–3, etc., embraces by three conclusions the opinion of the Pontiffs. The summary of the dissertation is that the magistrate can permit the vices and exercises of the Jews if there be a sufficient cause; that the magistrate can also permit usages of theirs, if sufficient cause be known; that the Christian magistrate cannot in good conscience permit, nor leave unpunished the external hatred of the Jews toward Christians.
The Lutherans, however, concede to Jews dwelling in a Christian republic under other cautions and conditions, namely:
1. That a free exercise of religion be not conceded to them: circumcision is forbidden to them: polygamy is not permitted.
2. Blasphemy is to be punished in them very severely and restrained by most grave punishments.
3. No public office is to be entrusted to them.
4. That that monstrous usury, by which they drive Christians out, be not permitted.
5. That they be compelled to attend Christian sacred assemblies.
6. That care be taken lest they lead Christians away to the Jewish religion.
Which and similar conditions and cautions about tolerating Jews in a Christian republic are required by:
D. Helvicus in his System of Judaical Controversies, list of Jews 8, or the last;
D. Hutterus in L.C., article 32.9.6, p. 1,037.
Dn. D. Gerhardus, tome. 6, thesis 223 of Common Places, article on the Political Magistrate, pp. 890–91 ff., and the theologians of the Jena Academy in their counsel on this matter in the year 1611, and the Theological Faculty of the Academy of Frankfurt on the Oder in the year 1613, reported by Dedekennus, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 139 ff. & 146 ff.
Those conditions were conceived and prescribed piously and prudently, yet they are such that they are more easily desired than obtained. For who indeed could obtain this from the Jews, that they refrain from blasphemies against Christ and from unjust and biting usuries? For if they do not blaspheme Christ openly, yet privately they do not cease to be vexatious with shameful dealings. And he takes away a Jew’s life who prohibits usury to him; for he cannot do without it any more than he can do without common air. But how grave a sin it is to draw the yoke with unbelievers, or to grant them hospitality and the right of citizenship, since they hold a doctrine different from the doctrine of Christ, is more evident from the Scriptures than to require proof. Therefore Luther also, in Disput. Fratr., 8, in Epist., fol. 94 ff., judges with more deliberation concerning the Jews.”
.
Abraham Calov
System of Theological Places (Wittenberg: Wilkius, 1677), vol. 8, Article 4, On Family Hierarchy, ch. 6, On the Duties of Parents & Children, Masters & Servants tr. AI by The Faith Received Calov (1612-1685) was a professor of theology in Konigsberg and Wittenberg, and a champion of Lutheran orthodoxy in the seventeenth century.
“Question 8, Is it lawful to tolerate the synagogues of the Jews, in which they blaspheme the name of Jesus?
Although there is no lack of rescripts of civil and canon law by which synagogues are permitted to the Jews, and it is granted that they should neither be killed, nor violated, nor hindered in their festivals
(L. nullus, et L. die, Sabbathi, C. de Judæis, l.6; C. de paganis; see also the sanction of Theodoric, King of the Romans, in Goldast. Regis, apud Goldast., vol. 3 and of Emperor Conrad IV, vol. 2, Constit. Emper.)
Yet it cannot be permitted with a safe conscience that they freely blaspheme the Lord Jesus in their synagogues and curse Him, or that they seduce Christians, nor are marriages to be entered into with them unless the hope of conversion to the Christian faith shines forth, nor are negotiations or autonomy to be granted to them on Sundays and other Christian festivals, but rather they are to be treated as exiles and servants and marked with a certain sign of a harmful sect: Ἀναγκἀνῷ [sp.? “Compel”].
Liberty is to be permitted to those passing over to the Christians, and the way opened to them, with laws established for hearing evangelical sermons, and for attending instruction from the writings of the New Testament by those who are exceptionally skilled in the Hebrew language and the original text.
Nor do those rescripts abolish such laws, provided that coercion of faith, which is hostile to conscience, is absent, since Lk. 14:23, ἀναγκασοὺς [compel] is prescribed for the ministry, not as civilly coercive, but morally persuasive. Let there be , however, a sincere intention of leading miserable men to the faith of Christ, and let those means by which we might win them over be piously employed, such as friendly admonitions and gentle persuasions (with harshness removed), and above all clear arguments and illustrious proofs from Scripture that conquer the mind: which God blesses, as the examples of many thousands converted to the Christian Faith from the 5th to the 15th century testify. See Jerome of the Holy Faith, Book Against the Jews, and the preface of the same; Beda, qv. 30, on 1 Kings; Council. Toletan. ch. 57 etc.
Although indeed by the right of political superiority no one can be forced to the Faith, as Thomas teaches, pt. 2 of 2, q. 10, art. 8, yet that Jews cannot be compelled to hear the faith is Ἀναγκάζον [constraining], because this is purely extrinsic, and a παιδαγωγός [guide]: but that [faith] embraces an intrinsic act tending toward the intellect itself and the will.”
[Calov in this last sentence is evidently making a play on words, saying that the error that Jews cannot be compelled to hear the Faith is constraining (on the truth and on the magistrate), and hence wrong. Calov in Question 7, just before this section, argued that the magistrate can compel persons to the means of faith, even where different sides teach differently about God’s Word.]
.
Mediavals & Romanists
Quotes
Order of
Hales
Becanus
.
1200’s
Alexander of Hales
Sum of Universal Theology (Paris, 1230-1245), pt. 2 of 2, inq. 3, tract 8, sect. 1, quest. 1, title 2
member 1
ch. 1, ‘Whether Jews are to be Tolerated?’ tr. AI by The Faith Received
“Concerning the first, thus: it seems that they are not to be tolerated:
1. For they blaspheme both against Christ and against the blessed Virgin; they also persecute the catholic Faith, and they inflict injury upon the ecclesiastical sacraments, as is had in the Extravagants, On the Jews, Etsi Iudaeos. But blasphemers, according to the Old Law also, were to be handed over to death; therefore the Jews too are not to be tolerated, but to be exposed to death, especially those who conduct themselves thus.
2. Furthermore, in their book, which is called the Talmud, many things were contained that pertained to the blasphemy of Christ and the blessed Virgin; since therefore they observe the doctrine of that book as though it were a law, together with books of this sort they must be destroyed.
3. Likewise, Christians persecute pagans even to death, who are the holders of the Holy Land; but an insult to the Redeemer is a greater injury; therefore Christians ought to persecute those who perpetrate such an insult even to death; therefore they are not to be tolerated. But that they inflict an insult is evident from what is said in the Extravagants, On the Jews, In nonnullis.
On the contrary:
a. By what is said in the Psalm, on that verse: ‘Kill them not,’ the Gloss says: ‘This can be taken especially of the Jews;’ he prays that the Jews may not perish utterly: for they have indeed been dispersed in order that they may be provoked to conversion; and he also said concerning them: ‘Kill not those who killed me, but let the nation of the Jews remain with the sign of circumcision.’ They are to be tolerated.
b. Likewise, testimony that is received from adversaries is stronger; but the catholic Church takes testimony from the Old Law, which the Jews observe; therefore, in order that the catholic Church may have testimony from enemies, the Jews are to be tolerated: for from the Old Law, namely from the Law of Moses and the Prophets, testimony about Christ is taken, which they cannot deny.
c. Likewise, Isa. 10:22 has that the remnant of Israel shall be saved; and similarly the apostle says, Rom. 11:5; but the remnant could not be saved unless the seed of the Jews remained; therefore the seed of the Jews must be saved; therefore the Jews are to be tolerated. This must be granted.
[Replies to objections:]
1. To the contrary objection, however, it must be said that although they commit blasphemy, still they believe that they are not sinning in this, because they do not yet believe that the Messiah has come, and in this they err and are reserved for future damnation unless they come to their senses, as is said on that verse of the Psalm: ‘I will repay them.’ The Gloss: ‘In the present however, they should persist in manifest blasphemy, so that they may be dispersed; in the future, so that they may be condemned. They ought to be restrained by secular princes, as is had in the Extravagants, On the Jews, In nonnullis, where it is said: in the provinces we most strictly forbid that they presume to burst forth into insult against the Creator; and since we ought not to conceal the reproach of Him who has wiped away our reproaches, we command that such presumptuous persons be restrained by secular princes with the addition of worthy punishment, lest they presume in any way to blaspheme the Crucified for us.
2. To the second it must be said that their books, in which blasphemies of this sort are contained, ought to be burned; but they themselves, if they should persist pertinaciously in blasphemy of this sort and are convicted before a judge, are to be punished with a fitting penalty. But it is otherwise if they blaspheme secretly.
3. To the third it must be said that there is a different reason concerning the pagan holders of the Holy Land themselves and concerning the Jews themselves. For Christians persecute those pagans as unjust holders and violators of a sacred place, to the injury of Christ; but the Jews are permitted to live and to dwell among Christians for many reasons, both because from the Jews we have received the Old Law, and because Christ came from that seed, then because the promise of their salvation was made; when the fullness of the gentiles shall have entered into Christ, they are to be restrained by due admonition; nor does it seem that greater pardon should be shown to them in manifest offenses than to evil Christians.”
.
ch. 2, ‘Whether the Rite of the Jews is as it were Idolatry’
“Second, it is asked whether their rites are as it were idolatry. That it seems so:
1. From the fact that it is said in Gal. 5:1, on the words, “Do not again be entangled with the yoke of bondage,” the Gloss says: “This bondage is not lighter than that of idolatry,” because the servitude of the legal observances is likened to idolatry in burden.
2. And again, it is said on the words in Gal. 4:9: “To whom do you wish to serve again?” the Gloss says: “The observance of the Law.” From this it is had that the servitude of the Law, to which they were then devoted, was a sin nearly equal to the servitude of idols, to which before their conversion they had been given over, and is as it were idolatry. And this is explained there by what follows: “The Law after Christ does not differ greatly from ancient idolatry”; it is manifestly shown that the servitude of the Law is now as it were idolatry.
On the contrary.
a. The Law prescribed believing in God and rendering to Him alone latria [worship]; but idolatry requires the contrary: for it rendered latria to the idols themselves; therefore the servitude of the Law is in no way equal to idolatry in sin.
[Solution]:
1-2. To this it must be said that it is not an equal sin for the Jews themselves to observe the rite of the legal observances and to commit idolatry; but it is said to be a sin for those themselves who have assumed the Christian Faith, nearly equal because in both cases there is apostasy, though not equal.
As to burden also it had likeness: for in both cases the burden was greatest, and therefore the sacrifices of the Jews were rejected just as those of the gentiles were. But it is said not to differ from idolatry because in both cases there was unbelief. For the Galatians, when they were gentiles, served the superstition of idolatry; but when they drew back from the catholic Faith, which forbade it, they again fell into the servitude of the legal observances, as it were into unbelief. Furthermore, by reason of the performed act, namely sacrifices, there was agreement with idolatry; also by reason of the propensity to sacrifice and of the superstition itself in sacrifices. Yet for the Jews it is not so great a sin now to adhere to the Law as was the sin of those who adhered to idols.”
.
ch. 3, ‘Whether Jews are to be Permitted to Observe their Rite in Solemnities and Other Things’
“Third, it is asked whether they are to be permitted to observe their rite in feasts and other things. That they are not, it seems:
1. For they sin mortally in celebrating their rites, since now the time of the legal observances has passed; and Jerome says that the legal observances are deadly to those observing them; and Augustine agrees with this. It remains, therefore, that they sin mortally by observing them. Since, therefore, the Church does not oppose such a crime, it seems to consent, especially since it can oppose it: for whoever ceases to oppose a manifest crime, when he can, seems to consent, as Augustine says; therefore the Church sins. It remains, therefore, that the Church ought not to permit the Jews to observe their rites in legal solemnities.
On the contrary:
a. It seems that the Church gives them authority when it orders that they not be hindered from the keeping of their solemnities, as is found in dist. 45, Qui sincera, where it is said: “Let all their feasts and also their observance, as up to now they and their fathers have held them for long worshipping times, have free license of observing and celebrating,” it also seems from what is said in the Extra, where it is said: “As for the Jews. Especially in the celebration of their feasts let no one whatsoever disturb them with clubs or stones” Decretals, V, tit. 6, c. 9 [n. 27] (II, 774) The Church does not give authority to sin; therefore they do not sin by celebrating their solemnities; therefore they are to be permitted in such rites.
b. This also seems from what Gregory says: “What advantage is there in restraining the Jews from the solemn ties of their feast days, when, even if they have been forbidden contrary to long custom, it profits them nothing for the conversion of the faith? Or why do we set down rules for the Jews as to how they ought to observe their ceremonies, if by this we cannot gain them?” Therefore we must act so that they may rather wish to follow us by reason and gentleness, not flee; they are to be permitted to observe their legal solemnities.
[Solution]:
To this it must be said that they are to be permitted by a permission of tolerance, as is found in the Extra, Consuluit, where it is said (Decretals, V, tit. 6, c. 7 [n. 21] II, 773): For if they were forbidden (they ought to have as great [liberty] as in the old synagogues they are tolerated in their observances to keep their rites) they would now as it were be compelled to the Faith; but coerced services do not please God. Furthermore, Gregory says:
“If adversity with roughness were to compel those whose mind cannot be fully drawn by reason given back, it would drive them far away.”
To the objection: 1. On the contrary it must be said that the Church, although it thus permits, is nevertheless not said to consent, because that consent, which is reckoned as sin, is understood in manifest offenses, where it is held to correction of those who are subject to it or are with it in the one bond of Faith; but this does not have place in this matter, and therefore it is not called consent, but a permission of tolerance, lest something worse happen and so that in some way good may be elicited.”
.
ch. 4, ‘Whether Jews are to be Compelled to the Faith’
“Fourth, it is asked whether they are to be compelled to the Faith by threats and certain penalties. That they are not, it seems:
a. For it is said in the Council of Toledo: “The holy synod has ordered concerning the Jews.” And this same thing Gregory says: henceforth to force no one into believing. For just as a man, obeying the serpent by his own will of choice, perished, so, when the grace of God calls him, each one is saved by believing through the conversion of his own mind. Therefore they are not to be driven by force, but rather to be given themselves. Gregory. It remains, therefore, that they are not to be compelled to the faith.
b. Likewise, Augustine says: “We can do something unwillingly, yet we cannot believe unless of our own will one is to be led to the faith.”
On the contrary:
1. Augustine, to Macedonius: “Let a man bring his neighbor to the worship of God by the consolation of beneficence or by the correction of discipline.” But discipline is understood through blows; therefore by blows someone is to be led to the faith.
2. Likewise, in XXIII, quest. 6, Now indeed, it is said that the evil are to be restrained by the scourges of tribulations. Therefore by scourges from evil and by being provoked to good, someone is to be compelled to the Faith.
3. Furthermore, in the canon it is read that some of those were being compelled to Christianity, as happened in the time of the most religious prince Sisibut.
[Solution]:
To which it must be said that one thing is understood concerning those being converted to the Faith who never believed, and another concerning those who at some time believed, but withdrew from the Faith or despised it. For if it is understood concerning those who never believed, they are by no means to be compelled; but if they had at some time believed, they are to be compelled to keep the Faith or to return to the Faith. And in this way the aforesaid authorities are understood.
But it must be distinguished that there is a twofold compulsion: absolute and conditional. By absolute compulsion no one is to be compelled who never believed, and according to this are understood the authorities that speak of this: for in this way faith is not had, nor is the baptismal character impressed, as is found in the Extra, On Baptism and its effect. But if there is conditional compulsion, as by threats or by blows, in this way some receive the Faith and the baptismal character, because the will is present, and in this way sometimes some have been compelled, and such are to be compelled to hold the Faith which they received by necessity, as is found in dist. 45, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and the faith, which they received, be held cheap and contemptible, On the Jews.”
.
ch. 5, ‘Whether those coming to the Faith are to be Quickly Received?’
“On occasion of this question it is asked whether those who come to the Faith from the Jews are to be received quickly or not, and similarly it can be asked concerning pagans. And it seems that not:
a. from the fact that it is said in dist. 4, On Consecration, Jews, where it is said that for eight months they should enter within the catechumens of the church this threshold, and, if they are known to come with pure faith, only then should they merit the grace of baptism; the same is found there, Lest, which God forbid, where it is said that abstinence for forty days is enjoined. In both places therefore a great space of time is given for probation and for the work of penance to be carried out.
But the contrary seems true:
1. From the fact that it is said, Acts 2:38, where Peter speaks to the Jews, saying: ‘Repent, and let each one of you be baptized.’ Since therefore they were baptized quickly, by his example it does not seem that reception into the Faith, or the sacrament of Faith, which is Baptism, should be deferred so long.
2. Likewise it is found, Acts 10:47-48, where it is said by Peter: ‘Can anyone forbid water, so that those who have received the Holy Spirit should not be baptized? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.’ Acts 8:36-38. From these things therefore it seems that so great a delay is not fitting.
[Solution]:
To which it must be said that things were otherwise in the primitive Church in part and otherwise in the progress of the Church. For in the primitive Church there was the gift of the Holy Spirit, which was also shown in a visible sign in believers; there were also other signs manifesting faith in them; on account of which it was not necessary to defer the sacrament of Faith.
But in the progress of the Church, where there were no such signs showing or powerfully proving faith, and hypocrisy of heart was hidden or could be hidden, a delay of time was necessary, so that there might be a testing of faith and catechesis, through which there would be enabling for baptism.
And therefore according to the different times a different term was appointed according to earlier and later, so that it might be clear concerning the enabling for faith and that the ease of returning to vomit might be removed in the judgment of a discerning prelate, according as more or less it shall seem expedient. But such a term is left to the judgment of a discerning prelate, according as more or less it shall seem expedient.”
.
member 2
ch. 1, ‘Whether the Church should judge infidels?’
“To the first thus:
a. The apostle says, 1 Cor. 5:12: ‘What have I to judge those who are outside?’ But those who are outside are said to be infidels; therefore the Church does not have authority to judge them.
On the contrary:
1. The pope judges concerning the inheritance to be restored to those converted to the Faith; he also imposes punishment on the Jews themselves, by withdrawing the communion of Christians; he also establishes penalties to be inflicted on those Jews themselves who have attempted to subvert those baptized from the infidels; therefore the Church judges concerning those who are outside, namely Jews; therefore it seems to act against the ordinance of the apostle.
[Solution]:
1. To which it must be said that there is a twofold judgment of the Church: one with respect to spiritual punishment, the other with respect to bodily or pecuniary punishment. It is not for the Church to judge those who are outside, so as to inflict spiritual punishment on them or impose rules of religion; but it can inflict temporal punishments on them or even spiritual punishment indirectly, by removing Christians from their communion.
But the Church [in a civil respect] judges concerning them in many cases: it excludes them from legitimate acts, as is found in II, question 7, Foreigners; it also excludes them from public power, dist. 54, No offices; that they may not have a Christian slave, as in the Extra, Jews; that they may not build new synagogues, as is found in the Extra, He consulted; that they may not have anything from the testament of a Christian, XXIV, question 2, In truth; that they receive Christian witnesses against themselves, Extra, On testimony, Jews; that on the day of Good Friday they may not open windows, Extra, Because concerning those things; that those who exceed against the Faith be subjected to blows. And in many ways the Church judges those who are outside.
Nor however does the Church act contrary to the word of the apostle, which is understood of direct spiritual punishment, to which infidels are not subject, since they lack the unity of ecclesiastical Faith.”
.
ch. 2, ‘Whether Jews or Pagans can Preside over Christians?’
“Secondly it is asked whether Jews or pagans can be over Christians or not. And it seems that yes:
1. From the fact that the apostle says, 1 Tim. 6:1: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery deem their masters worthy of all honor. Gloss: ‘Under the yoke of infidels.’ Therefore the apostle does not deny that infidels were able to be over the faithful.
2. Likewise, Extra, Of Many: Because to be cultivated. Therefore Jews can be over Christians. They have clung more longly to their lands, as owing to a contract of the place, let them remain for the cultivation of fields, rendering the customary payments to the aforesaid Christian men.
3. Likewise, they are able to receive a price for Christian slaves that have been purchased; which would not be the case unless they were able in some way to be over them, as is found in dist. 54, Fraternitatem.
4. It also seems so from what Gelasius says, XVII, question 4, where it is said that diligently. From this it seems that your care should faithfully examine the truth of affairs, so that neither religion may seem violated, nor a slave lying by this objection, strive to decline the rights of the rightful master, whom it is not certain to be a Christian, from the dominion of his master is not to be exempted.
But the contrary seems true:
a. From what is said in the Decretals, Multorum, where it is said: To no Jew. And it says that it is lawful to retain a Christian slave in his dominion, but, if any are found among them, let their freedom be preserved for them. Gregory: Whatever Christian slaves a Jew is found to have purchased, bring them without ambiguity to freedom according to the precepts of the laws, lest, God forbid, the Christian religion, made subject to the Jews, be polluted.
b. Likewise, in dist. 54: No public offices are to be imposed on Jews by which they may be granted the punishment of inflicting upon Christians; let Christians have Jews as masters. But this was done so that to the Jews
c. Likewise, it is found in the Decretals, On the Jews, where it is prohibited, To these things for all Christians. And this same thing is found there, when they expose themselves for some wage to the service of the Jews, as is continually said: Jews or Saracens, etc. But what reason is there that, on account of the Christian faith, the right over a slave should be taken away from him, since servitude was introduced by divine law and approved also by canon law? But the Christian religion does no wrong to anyone.
[Solution]:
To this it must be said that a Christian is not permitted to serve a Jew, on account of avoiding damage to the Christian religion, as is found in the Decretals, On the Jews, To these things for all, where it is said: The customs of the Jews and ours in no way agree.
For this same reason also, if some, because of continual conversation and assiduous familiarity, are easily able to incline the minds of the simple to their superstition and faithlessness, and they themselves should be their slaves, let them be freed from their service, sometimes at a price being given, sometimes at no price being given. For a slave of a Jew is either homeborn or purchased.
If homeborn, if he is or wishes to become a Christian, he is immediately snatched away into freedom, with no price given, as is found in the Code, On bishops, and dist. 54, Fraternitatem.
But if he is purchased, either he was a Christian when he was bought or a pagan. If a Christian, he becomes free, with no price given; as is found in dist. 54, Mancipia, trade in Christians is forbidden to Jews, both by the law of the land and by the law of the forum.
But if he was a pagan, either he was bought for the sake of service or for the sake of commerce. If for the sake of service, and he wishes to become a Christian, he becomes free without price, dist. 54, Fraternitatem.
But in the second case, if within three months afterward he has not put him up for sale if he wishes to become a Christian, he is freed without price, because it is presumed that he bought him in order to serve. But if he has put him up for sale within that term and he wishes to become a Christian then or afterward, provided that the fault did not rest with the master so that he did not sell him, he is freed, the price of twelve solidi being returned by some Christian, dist. 54, Frater, and nitatem.
Decretals, In the present council: If, however, a Jew shall circumcise one wishing to become a Christian, or shall imprint the mark of another sect, he is freed without price for the injury of his own body, dist. 54, Nulla, where it is said that if certain Christians have been defiled by them in Jewish rite or even circumcised, without the price being returned let them return to freedom and the Christian religion, but human law inflicts a heavier punishment. But what has been said about the slaves of the Jews can be said about the slaves of the Saracens: for the same suspicion and the same danger can exist in both.
[To the objections]:
1. To the objection, however, on the contrary it must be said that that of the apostle is understood for the state of the primitive Church and so that unbelieving masters might be enticed to the conversion of faith through the services of faithful slaves. Hence the Gloss says: Rather, unbelieving masters are converted through the services of faithful slaves. But there is added there in the text: Lest the name of the Lord and doctrine be blasphemed. The Gloss: ‘As though of one invading what is another’s.’ According to that reasoning, it will seem to someone, and Christian doctrine will seem as if unjust, that it is also now so to be done.
But to this it must be answered that another reason restores the pact. For now they ought not to serve, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed; for thus Jews and pagans are inclined to this, that they may draw the faithful into faithlessness or apostasy. On account of which cohabitation with Jews and pagans, unless for the sake of preaching, is forbidden, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed. Nor ought Christian doctrine on this account to seem unjust, since the caution of faith must be preferred to all.
2. To the second, however, it must be said that, although Christians may cultivate the landed estates of Jews, they ought not nevertheless to serve Jews in their house, lest bad familiarity be contracted. And from this they are not said rightly to be over them as over slaves, because they cannot transfer them to another place or to another service, as is said in the Decretals, On the Jews. And this was done in favor of Christians, not of Jews, that they may cultivate the landed estates or lands bought from Jews, because they had formerly lived in those lands.
3. To the third, however, it must be said that, although they may receive the price of servitude, nevertheless not for Christians already existing, but for pagans who wish to become Christians. For by the law of the land Christian slaves are freed from the service of Jews, lest there be danger to the Christian faith. In favor also of the Christian faith, to certain men wishing to receive Christianity freedom is granted.
4. But that which is said in XVII, question 4, does not expressly give to understand that he was a Christian, but that he said that he had been a Christian from infancy, and that the mark of circumcision had been impressed on him by the aforesaid lord, he would be freed. But if he was not a Christian, he is not to be freed from servitude by the fact that he has fled to the church, unless he wishes to become a Christian, and this canon seems to say this. Hence it is not introduced for the dominion of Jews, but for the dominion of Christians: for some wished to defraud their master of his own right, fleeing to the enclosures of the Church.
5. To the last it must be said that the catholic Church intends to do injury to no one, but has ordered this so that no injury be done to God; but injury would be done to God if faith in something were endangered on account of the observance of temporal justice.”
.
ch. 3, ‘Whether Jews are to be compelled to pay tithes?’
“Thirdly, it is asked whether the Jews are to be compelled to pay field tithes or the other things that Christians living in houses or dwelling in lands which are within the boundaries of some church are accustomed to pay. It seems that:
a. For the Church must by no means be defrauded of its right; but it would be defrauded if Jews were to retain lands and not pay tithes; therefore they are to be compelled to payment.
b. Furthermore, it was commanded in the Law of Moses that the sons of Israel should pay tithes to the Levites; similarly it is said in Mal. 3:10: Bring every tithe into my storehouse; and in 2 Chron. 31:5, where it is said that they were offering to God tithes of everything. Since, therefore, Jews are bound to the payment of tithes and are exempt from no privilege, since they are of worse condition and ought to be, by reason of sin, than they were in the time of the Law, they will now be bound to the payment of tithes.
c. And if perhaps they should say that they would be bound to render them to their own Levites, against this it is that the Levitical priesthood yielded to the priesthood of Christ Himself, as is had in Heb. 7:12: The priesthood having been transferred, it is necessary that a transfer of the Law also be made. Likewise in Daniel: When the Holy of holies has come. Therefore, Christ having come, your anointing ought to cease; the royal and priestly anointing ought to cease; therefore the payment of tithes was to be made to the priests of the New Law.
d. Furthermore, tithes are rendered to God from lands in memory of the benefit of the annual multiplication of fruits; but lands are bounded according to the distinction of churches; therefore by reason of fields or lands tithes are to be paid by all who possess them; therefore Jews, if they possess lands, are bound to pay tithes to the churches.
On the contrary:
1. Jews have nothing except from usury in most cases; but from usuries the Church ought to receive nothing; therefore, as it seems, neither ought it to receive anything from lands that have been bought with usuries.
2. Again, Sirach 34:21 says: The oblation of one sacrificing from injustice is defiled; and again: He who offers from the substance of the poor is as one who sacrifices a son in the sight of the father. The Most High does not approve the gifts of the unjust. Since, therefore, these men have nothing except the gifts of the unjust, they ought not to be accepted by the Church, which receives in place of the Most High.
[Solution]:
To this it must be said that some tithes are predial and some are personal. Predial tithes, however, and whatever churches were wont to receive on account of fields, the churches can ask even from Jews by reason of the fields possessed by them, as is had in the Extra, De decimis, De terris, where it is said that Jews are to be compelled to pay tithes from the lands which they cultivate or to renounce the possessions altogether, lest perhaps the churches be able to be defrauded of their right on that account.
Likewise it is had in the Extra, De usuris, Quanto, where it is said that Jews are to be compelled to make satisfaction to the churches for tithes and due oblations, which they are accustomed to receive from Christians from houses and other possessions, so that the churches may be preserved unharmed. Not that anything is to be received from usuries or from things acquired unlawfully, or that oblations are to be received in the church from the Jews themselves, but from things lawfully acquired by them by reason of the houses which they inhabit, lest the church be harmed excessively, if nevertheless the decency of the church in this matter is preserved. But if it should be contrary to decency and the church were not harmed excessively, one should refrain, to avoid scandal.
[To the objections]:
1. And by this the contrary objection can be solved, because from usuries, insofar as they are such, the Church cannot ask tithes or oblations. And although lands may have been bought from usuries, nevertheless the Church can ask tithes, because the one who sold could sell only what he had by right, while the thing itself passes with its burden.
2. To the second, however, it must be said that, although oblations or gifts are not acceptable to God, insofar as they are offered by the unjust, nevertheless those things which are owed are acceptable, by reason of the fact that they are owed, if they are paid; whence in one respect they are acceptable, in another respect they are not acceptable; yet the action itself, which proceeds from a perverse will, is not acceptable. But when something is offered from theft or usury, it is not acceptable, because it is not offered from what is one’s own; but its restitution, insofar as it is such, would be acceptable.”
.
ch. 4, ‘Whether Christians can have a Jewish or Saracen Slave?’
“Fourth, it is asked whether Christians can have a Jew or Saracen as a slave. It seems that they can:
By what is said in XXIII, q. 8, Dispar, where it is said concerning Saracens, and in the Extra, De Iudaeis, where it is said that Jews were subjected by their own fault to perpetual servitude. Therefore Christians can have a pagan or Jew as a slave. This also obtains by custom in remote parts.
On the contrary:
1. XXVIII, q. 1, where it is said: Whoever among those who have been baptized have not henceforth avoided the company of unbelievers, let them be given to Christians and let those men be publicly assigned to beatings. And there too: Let no cleric or layman dwell with Jews. And the apostle seems to give the reason, 1 Cor. 15:33: ‘Evil company corrupts good morals.’
[Solution]:
To this it must be said that it is permitted for a Christian to have a pagan or Jew as a subject; yet he ought not to have familiarity with him, as is had in the Extra, De Iudaeis, Ad: for too great familiarity could be an occasion of drawing these men to the evil of unbelief. If, however, that man should wish to become a Christian in actuality, he ought not to be forbidden: for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in such matters is not to be repelled. Nor by this is the service of the master taken away, but he ought to serve, or otherwise his liberation from servitude ought to be procured.
To the objections: 1. However, it must be said in the contrary sense that from those authorities the subjection of servitude is not denied, but cohabitation of familiarity.”
.
1600’s
Martin Becanus
Manual of Controversies of this Time (Wurzburg, 1623), bk. 5, ch. 18, ‘Is a prince or magistrate able to tolerate Jews in his city or province?’ tr. AI by The Faith Received Becanus (1563–1624) was a Dutch-born, Roman Catholic, Jesuit priest, known as a theologian and controversialist.
“Whether a prince or magistrate may tolerate Jews in his city or province? Three things may be considered in the Jews.
First, the sect and Jewish exercise.
Second, usury.
Third, hatred toward Christians.
All these are evil and prohibited. The question is therefore whether a prince or magistrate may permit or tolerate these evils; and what may be a legitimate cause for permitting and tolerating them? I answer through the following conclusions:
First Conclusion. A magistrate may permit the rites and exercises of the Jews if a sufficient cause is present. The Pope of Rome does this, as do many princes in their provinces. The cause may be threefold.
First, that through Jewish rites the Christian truth may be shadowed forth and confirmed: St. Augustine, Of the City of God, bk. 18, ch. 46 and St. Thomas in pt. 2 of 2, quest. 10, art. 11, approve this cause.
Second, that Jews who practice their rites and understand from the Christians among whom they dwell that those rites were merely shadows and figures of the Christian religion may more easily be converted to the Faith of Christ. St. Thomas, in the cited place, also approves this.
Third, that Christian princes or magistrates, under the pretext of permission, may receive money and other gifts from the Jews to whom they permit the exercise. This is not lawful. For public sins, by which God is offended, cannot be permitted for the sake of temporal gain alone, which is hoped for from the permission.
Second Conclusion. A magistrate may permit the usuries of the Jews if a sufficient cause is present. The Pope and other Christian princes also do this. The cause may be twofold.
One, to prevent a greater evil. For if, as I said above, usuries were not permitted, many thefts, robberies, oppressions of the poor and similar inconveniences would occur. Therefore, to avoid these evils, usuries may be permitted as a lesser evil.
The other, that Christian princes and magistrates who permit the usuries of the Jews may be participants in the profit. This is not lawful. For it is certain that usury is prohibited by natural and divine law; and the profit that is acquired through usury is mere theft. Just as, therefore, the Jews sin against justice by receiving usurious profit, so do the Christians who are participants in that profit. They are considered to be participants, however, when they permit usuries for the purpose of being able to receive profit therefrom. This conclusion must be limited in two ways:
First, that common usuries may be permitted which do not exceed the profit permitted by law and custom, but not exorbitant usuries, of which I shall speak shortly.
Second, that a Christian magistrate may not receive profit from usuries on account of the mere permission of usuries: although they may receive it under another title. And indeed under a double title:
First, the title of punishment; because he may punish the Jews on account of usuries; and the profit that has been unjustly acquired from usuries he may either restore to its owners or convert to public utility.
Then, the title of exaction; because he may exact an annual tribute or tax from the Jews, not by reason of the permission of usuries, but by reason of the granted habitation in a Christian place.
Third Conclusion. A Christian magistrate or prince cannot with a good conscience permit or leave unpunished the hatred of Jews toward Christians. Note: Hatred is twofold:
The one is internal; because since it is hidden, the magistrate cannot punish it.
The other is external, which breaks out into open injury. This ought to be coerced by the magistrate.
We say, therefore, that such hatred, when it is exercised by Jews against Christians, can in no way be permitted or tolerated, but must be severely punished: and the prince sins gravely if he does not punish those who commit offenses. The reason is that a prince is bound by his office to punish every public injury, if he is able, so that justice may be preserved: therefore, he is also bound to punish the injury which the Jews commit against Christians. This is, indeed, manifold:
First, because they exact immoderate and intolerable usury from citizens, country folk, and the poor. Whatever they exact beyond the principal is theft. Therefore, they commit intolerable theft.
Second, by exacting such usury, they harm the republic or the community greatly. For a republic cannot stand or flourish when the people are oppressed and exhausted by usury.
Third, besides usury, another injury is added. For whatever is for sale in the market, the Jews snatch away from the Christians by offering a higher price to the sellers than other buyers are accustomed to offer; and afterwards, which is most iniquitous, Christians are forced to pay double the price to the Jews if they wish to buy what is necessary for feeding their families.
Fourth, so that they may do all these things with impunity, they distribute gifts to the officials of princes so that they may be protected by them.
Fifth, from this it happens that the people, who bear such injuries with difficulty, become prone to inciting sedition, both against the Jews themselves and against their defenders and patrons. Against the Jews, indeed, because they are thieves and plunderers; against the patrons, because they are partners of thieves and plunderers.
If a prince or magistrate does not prevent or punish these great evils (to say nothing of the rest), he is a participant in the crime and is bound to restitution. He can, however, prevent them in three ways.
First, if he expels the Jews entirely from his province or city.
Second, if he does not indeed expel them, but forces them to agriculture, or to mechanical arts, or to exercise other works; and does not allow them to live in idleness and luxury, as they now live.
Third, if he deprives them of all the money and wealth which they have received through usury.
Would that these things were brought into practice. You will say, if the Jews are either expelled or do not accept usury, two inconveniences will follow:
First, because Christian princes in time of necessity will not have money for war. For they are accustomed to seek this from the Jews.
Then, the subjects of the princes, who are in need of money, will not be able to borrow.
I respond: The contrary follows:
First, because once the Jews are expelled, the citizens will be able to contribute more support than the Jews are accustomed to. For whatever the Jews contribute, they receive from the citizens through unjust usury. And not only this, but also whatever is necessary for them to sustain their lives. Therefore, they take two portions from the citizens: one, which they give to the prince; the other, by which they live. Certainly, if the Jews were expelled, the citizens would be prepared to give either both portions to their prince, or at least no less than they give to the Jews.
Next, the subjects of princes are in greater need of money when the Jews are present than when they are absent. For when they are present and demanding intolerable usury, they are completely drained. If they were absent, or at least did not demand such immoderate usury, the subjects would be less drained, and consequently would be in less need of money. Our Adam Contzen has written extensively on this subject in his Politics.”
.
Historical
England under Cromwell, 1650’s
Quote
Richard Baxter
The Glorious Kingdom of Christ, described and clearly vindicated against the bold asserters of a future calling and reign of the Jews... (London: Snowden, 1691), ch. 8, p. 65
“Oliver Cromwell appointed a solemn dispute before him, whether the Jews (for money) should have a toleration, and when that good man Dr. Thomas Goodwin, and some other godly Independents had spoken much for it, Matthew Newcomen (that holy man) [a presbyterian] so opened the wickedness of turning loose a cursed generation to tempt a nation to infidelity, that is already too much inclined thereto, as turned the scales and put an end to that deliberation.”
.
Book
Prynne, William – A Short Demurrer to the Jews’ Long Discontinued Barred Remitter into England, comprising an exact chronological relation of their first admission into, their ill deportment, misdemeanors, condition, sufferings, oppressions, slaughters, plunders, by popular insurrections and regal exactions in, and their total, final banishment by judgment and edict of Parliament, out of England, never to return again: collected out of the best historians and records, with a brief collection of such English laws, Scriptures, reasons as seem strongly to plead and conclude against their readmission into England, especially at this season, and against the general calling of the Jewish nation… (London, 1656) 147 pp. ToC
Prynne (1600–1669), an English lawyer, voluble author, polemicist and political figure, was a prominent Puritan opponent of Church policy under William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury (1633–1645). His views were Presbyterian, but he became known in the 1640’s as an Erastian, arguing for overall state control of religious matters.
.
Latin
1600’s
Alting, Heinrich – Problem 21, ‘Whether Jews in the society of Christians ought to be tolerated? [Yes]’ in The Scriptural Theology of Heidelberg, vol. 2, containing Theological Problems… (Amsterdam: Janssonius, 1646), Practical Problems, pp. 340-48
This piece is referenced by Dury above.
.
Bibliography
Quotes
1600’s
Johannes Hoornbeek
T’shuvah Yehudah, or For the Convincing & Converting of the Jews (Leiden, 1655), pp. 24-25 tr. AI Latin
Ҥ17. Now to the Political Means.
I. Nothing is accomplished, indeed, things are done badly, by persecuting, harassing or oppressing the Jews, driving them away, or killing them.
…
Therefore, the better and more common opinion, both among theologians and among jurists, is that the Jews should be tolerated—not indeed enticed, but, where they are found, not treated more harshly. Thus:
• Baldus, vol. 1, Consil, 315-16
• Rolandus a Valle, vol. 3, Consil, 25
• Alexander of Hales, Summa, pt. 2, Questions 179-80
• Vincent of Beauvais, Spec. Doctr., bk. 10, ch. 38, etc.
• Johannes Gerhard, Common Places, On the Magistrate, p. 631
• Hottinger, Thesaurus Philologicus, bk. 1, ch. 1, section 2, question 1
And the one who treated this matter learnedly and extensively in a separate book, Georgius Theodorus, Counselor of Hesse, De jure et statu Iudæorum in Republica Christianorum [On the Law and Status of the Jews in the Republics of Christians].”
.
Thomas Barlow
Several Miscellaneous & Weighty Cases of Conscience Learnedly & Judiciously Resolved (d. 1691; London: 1692), ‘The Case of the Jews’, pp. 75-78
“And upon these [previously listed] terms I (and I believe everybody else) will willingly consent to their readmission [under a limited-political toleration]. If any desire further satisfaction in this particular, either from civilians, schoolmen, casuists, canonists, historians, or other divines, he may consult these or such like:
I. Justinian Cod. de Judaeis & Caelicolis, bk. 1, title 12 and the gloss there.
II. Codex Theodosianus de Judaeis, Caelicolis & Samaritanis, bk. 16, title 8, p. 515.
III. Jacobi Sirmondi, Appendix Cod. Theodosiani, leg. 6. p. 14 & leg. 4, p. 11.
IV. Marquardus de Susanis Tractatu de Judaeis, & aliis Infidelibus inter tractatus Illustrium, tome 14, p. 28. See Bernardum, Hieronimum, Alexandrum Iltum, aliosque Auctores ab eo ibidem citatos.
V. Mathaeus Wesenbecius in Comentario in Codicem Justinianeum de Judeis, title 9, p. 14.
VI. Decretum Gregorii extra de Judaeis, & Saracenis, bk. 6, title 6.
VII. Clementinar. bk. 5, title 2, de Judaeis.
VIII. Corvini Jus Canonicum, tit. de Judaeis, p. 295.
IX. Frederick Balduin, Cases of Conscience, bk. 2, ch. 6, case 5, p. 188.
X. Capitulare Caroli Magni, bk. 6, ch. 120 & 308.
XI. Henry Alting, Problematum Theolog. pt. 2, problem 21, p. 340.
XII. Petrus Crespetius in summa Eccles. Disciplinae Verbo Judaeus, p. 520 etc. fuse.
XIII. Philip Melanchthon, Epistles, bk. 1, epistle 68, p. 75 in edit. Corn. Bee.
XIV. Martin Becanus, in compendio manualis, bk. 5, ch. 17, p. 509.
XV. Decretum Concilii Viennensis contra Judaeos apud Hen. Canisium Lect. Antiquarum, tome 1, p. 621 & apud Binium, tome 3, parte altera, p. 1,493.
XVI. Filiucius, Cases of Conscience, tract 22, ch. 5, p. 40, col. 2, de Judaismo.
XVII. Johannes de Lugo, Of the Power of Divine Faith, disp. 22, sect. 4 and authors cited there.
XVIII. Bodinus, Of the Republic, bk. 3-4.
XIX. Statutum de Judaismo apud D. Edvardum Cooke, Institit. pt. 2, p. 506 & Commentarium ejus in dictum Statutum.
XX. Aquinas, [Summa] pt. 2 of 2, quest. 10-11 where various things on the Jews occur.
XXI. Erasmus Brockmannus, Systemate Theologiae, universae, art. 41, ch. 2, quest. 9, tome 2, p. 5,043.
XXII. Basilica Lenuclavii, bk. 1, title 1, ch. 9, de Judaeis, p. 2.
XXIII. Jerome of the Holy Faith, Book contra the Jews.
XXIV. Petrus Galatinus, de Arcanis Catholicae veritatis.
XXV. Gilbertus Genebrardus, in Symbolae fidei Judeorum è R. Mos. Aegyptio, etc.
XXVI. Vide etiam (si placet) Scriptores (innumeros pene) quos exhibet Georgius Draudius in Bibliothea Classica inter Libros Theologicos, pp. 349-50, etc. Alii alios de facili addant.”
.
.
.
“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery… that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved…”
Rom. 11:25,26
“That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites…”
Rom. 9:2-4
.
.
.
Related Pages