Church. Accordingly, princes must on no account allow this freedom if they want to perform their duty.
Second, when true religion was flourishing among the Jews, the kings could not allow freedom of religion, and much less ought Christian kings to allow it, for the Church must not be arranged any worse than the synagogue was. The antecedent is clear from Deuteronomy 17 where those who do not obey the priest are ordered to be killed, according to the sentence of the civil judge. Similarly in chapter 18 the pseudo-prophets are commanded to be killed, and the same is clear from the examples presented by Augustine in epistle 50 [185] about Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, and other pious kings, who destroyed the groves and temples of the idols and punished severely the idolaters and forced the people to worship the true God. Furthermore, it is not surprising that slightly before Christ’s time various heresies started to be allowed, and in particular that of the Sadducees who denied resurrection, since the synagogue was then coming near its destruction and the Jews had truly no king who could take care of such things, only Herod the Idumaean, and the High Priests could do nothing.
Third, freedom of belief is destructive even for the temporal good of kingdoms and for public peace, as is clear, first, from Gregory, book 4 [5], epistle 32 [20], where he says that the safety of the civil commonwealth depends on the peace of the Church. Second, it is clear by reason, for where faith and obedience to God are preserved, so are faith and obedience to the prince, for faith itself teaches and demands this. Likewise, dissension in faith creates dissensions of spirits and wills, and every kingdom internally divided will perish. The experience of our own times shows the same so clearly that we need not strive to prove it.
Fourth, freedom of belief is destructive for those to whom it is allowed, for it is nothing but the freedom to err, and to err in the matter where error is most dangerous. For the true faith is only one (Ephesians 4, “one Lord, one faith, etc.”); therefore the freedom to move away from that one faith is the freedom to rush into the abyss of errors. Just as it is not beneficial to allow sheep the freedom to wander through the mountains, and it is not beneficial to free the ship from its steering oar and allow it to be carried freely by the wind, so also it is not beneficial to allow the peoples freedom of belief after they have joined the one true faith. The contrary arguments will be disproved in the following question.
Catholics cannot be reconciled with heretics
The third error is that of George Cassander in the book De officio pii viri, where he teaches that princes must find a ground for peace among Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. But as long as they have not found it, they must allow each person to profess his own faith, provided that all accept Scripture and the Apostles’ Creed, for those are all members of the true Church, even though they dissent in particular doctrines.173 Similar things were once taught by peacemakers, inspired by Emperor Zeno; see Evagrius, book 3, chapters 14 and 30.174 Likewise also Apelles, who, according to Eusebius, book 5 of Historia, chapter 13, said that the reason for faith should not be discussed, but it was sufficient to believe in the crucifix. This is clearly an error, against which Jean Hessels, among Catholic teachers, and John Calvin, among the heretics, wrote.
This opinion can in fact easily be refuted. First, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists cannot be reconciled in this manner, for we do not agree on the Creed itself. For example, regarding the article “He descended into hell,” we mean very different things, for we believe that Christ’s soul, separated from the body, in accordance with its substance, descended to the Limbo of the Fathers. Some heretics, however, think that “Christ descended into hell” means only that he was buried; others think he suffered the pains of hell. Likewise, we interpret the article “I believe in the holy Church,” and “the communion of saints” in different ways, for there are controversies also on the specific sacraments. Finally, on “the remission of sins” we disagree immensely.
Cassander says that it is sufficient that we all admit that the Creed is true and accept it.
Against this I say, first, that the Creed is indeed only one, but not in words, only in meaning and faith, and therefore we do not have the same Creed if we disagree on its interpretation. Moreover, if it were sufficient to accept the words of the Creed, almost none of the ancient heretics would have been rightfully condemned, for the Arians, the Novatians, the Nestorians, and almost all the others accepted the words of the Apostles’ Creed, but because the dissension was about the meaning, they were condemned and expelled from the Catholic Church.
Second, the foundational principle of Cassander is false, for the Lutherans and Calvinists could not be called true members of the Church even if they agreed with us on the Creed. In addition to that belief it is required that one subject oneself to the legitimate head of the Church, established by Christ, and take communion with the other members, for the Church is one visible body and therefore it has a visible head and visible members, and a member that is separate from the head and the rest of the body cannot be called a member. Certainly even if Aerius agreed with the Catholics on the meaning of the Creed, Epiphanius and Augustine nevertheless put him in their catalog of heretics because he did not want to submit to the bishop and to be in communion with the other members. And Cyprian in book 4, epistle 2 [52],175 says that Novatian was outside of the Church because he did not want to submit himself to the Pontiff Cornelius, even if he did not introduce any other heresy.
Third, Cassander discusses these matters almost as if among Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists there were only dissensions regarding human rituals and ceremonies, but there are many doctrines of the greatest importance on which we disagree, and which are not expressly in the Creed, and because of which no peace can be hoped for between Catholics and Lutherans. For example, we say that the mass is the holiest form of worship of God, while they say it is a horrible idolatry; further, invocation of the saints is for us a pious act, for them an impious one, etc.
Fourth, the holy Fathers taught us to preserve untouched not only the Creed but also all the other doctrines of faith, and not to allow them to be changed in any way because of the heretics. In Galatians 2 Paul says that he did not, even for an hour, want to give pride of place to the false brethren.176 Once the Arians asked the Catholics to omit just one word that is neither in Scripture nor in the Creed, or to change one letter, namely, not to say ὁμοούσιον but ὁμοιούσιον, and if they did that, the Arians would promise peace. But the Catholics refused and wrote to the emperor that it was impious to change anything already defined, and if anything were to be changed in the just sanctions, it should not be because of future peace, for there can be no peace with those who do not know the laws of peace. See Theodoretus, book 2 of Historia, chapters 18 and 19, or Historia tripartita, book 5, chapters 21 and 33.177 It is clear from the Council of Rimini that this was true, for when the less prudent Catholics, deceived by the Arians, decreed that the name ὁμοούσιον had to be removed, the Arians immediately declared to the whole world that they had won. And not satisfied with having removed ὁμοούσιον and having substituted ὁμοιούσιον for it, they soon afterward transformed ὁμοιούσιον into ἐτεροούσιον, that is, “of different substance,” as Theodoretus reports in book 2 of his Historia, chapter 21.178
Hence when Emperor Valens’s prefect asked Basil to submit to the circumstances and not to allow so many churches to be upset because of a small detail of doctrine, Basil replied: “Those who are nourished by divine words do not allow the corruption of even a syllable regarding divine doctrines, for if this should happen, they would rather suffer any kind of death for these doctrines.” See Theodoretus, book 4, chapter 17, of the Historia Ecclesiastica. Eustathius and Sylvanus were provided with the same constancy, for when the emperor threatened them with exile unless they abrogated the word ὁμοούσιον, they replied: “You have the authority to punish us, but nevertheless we do
