HIS Majesties Gracious Declaration to main­tain the Government in Church and State as by Law Establish'd, and the Opinion all good men have of the Affection of this present Par­liament, to those Laws by which the Protestant Religion is fenc'd on every side, may seem to render the Labour of a private hand on their behalf useless and superfluous. Yet since some have openly, others in disguise invaded these Fences, and proceeded to that degree of Confi­dence, as to recommend the Attempt to the Parliament now Assembled; it may be expected perhaps that those who enjoy the Protection of those Laws, should not leave them all defenceless under the odious Imputation of Injustice and Cruelty, to depend merely upon the Authority of their first Establishment, and the Favour of the Present Government: Our Adversaries would then be thought justly to conclude, that we despaired of the merit of our Cause, and of approving it by Rea­son to the Judgment of any Impartial man. Therefore I have endeavoured in this Treatise, to shew the Vanity of those Cavils, (for I should be guilty of too much Indul­gence, should I give them the style of Reason or Argu­ment,) against the Prosecution of Dissenters according to Law. And though there should be no great sin, or publick inconvenience in a General Toleration, yet the Pleas that recommend it, are so mean, that they who might not be afraid, might yet be asham'd to allow it upon such miserable motives.

Yet I. must confess that the Advocates for Tolera­tion [Page 2]have one considerable Advantage in this Dispute, that they are on the popular part of the Question, and the seeming good nature of the Plea, without much reasoning, is sufficient to recommend it: Whereas, all Punishment is odious to the People, and neither Law, nor Reason, nor Necessity, can perfectly reconcile them to it. It is madness then to endeavour to persuade men out of their Humanity, that is, out of their Na­ture; and he truly deserves the utmost severity that can take delight in it: What shall we do then? Shall we give up the Cause, and Subscribe to a Toleration? Nothing less, and that because in our Circumstances, it is not only contrary to Religion, and Civil Prudence, but also to Charity and Compassion; it is not always Mercy to Indulge, nor Cruelty to Inflict Punishment: Unless we conclude, that a Father who corrects his Child has not so much tenderness for him as a Stranger, or a Servant that intercedes for his Pardon. But if Cle­mency must take place, why should not the Publick challenge it in the first place? and why should they be judged merciful, who to humour and indulge one Par­ty, would, expose a whole Nation to Confusion and Ruin? If this be tender Mercy, it is that the Scripture brands with the name of Cruelty. And besides all this, a steddy and discreet Execution of the Laws against Dissenters, might happily have been a much more mer­ciful Conduct even in respect of them, than the remis­ness or connivance that tempted them to presumptuous sins.

The Dissenters have been very industrious to let us know, that this is the true state of the Case between the Government and them: That this Constitution stands no longer, when they have strength and oppor­tunity to destroy it: Many of them are under an Oath [Page 3]to endeavour the subversion of this Church under the name of a Reformation, and could never be brought to renounce that Conspiracy: And therefore what can be expected from those that now maintain the Lawfulness of that Covenant, but that they should conceive them­selves bound in Conscience to execute their Vow, as soon as they could recover those Circumstances in which they took it? But the Dissenters, you'l say, are divided upon this point: It is true, they are in that part that concerns their own Establishment, but they are unanimous in Vowing our Destruction; and it would be but poor comfort to a Town that neg­lected to make a timely Defence, to see the Con­querours that were United in the Assault, afterwards to fall out at the dividing of the Plunder.

Nor can we be suspected to surmise groundless and imaginary dangers from the growth of a Party that has devoted us to Ruin, and that besides, by an un­natural and fortunate Rebellion, by the deliberate and solemn Murder of a most Excellent and Merciful Prince, by a heavy and tedious Tyranny of many years, by several Conspiracies since the Restauration, by Association against the Succession of His Majesty, and a formed Project of Rebellion, which I am afraid is not yet wholly disconcerted; and in short, by the Incessant working of a Turbulant Spirit, have given us much greater demonstrations of our danger, than we could have wished; and he that pretends not to be convinced by all this, to apprehend danger to the Government, from the Toleration of such men, must surely be desirous of those Events we apprehend, and wish the things which we fear.

Toleration therefore can serve to no other purpose, than to be the Nurse of a Faction that is implacable, [Page 4]which as it grows up, will more and more despise this Infant Dispensation, and contend for mastery: Nor can we expect that they should acquiesce here, when they have got strength to attempt farther, no more than that a gang of sturdy Beggars will compound for a small Alms, when they have a fair opportunity to Rob. The Advocates for Toleration reply, That it is not Faction, but Conscience which they plead for: But it is an easier matter to distinguish, than it is to separate those two things. Experience has found them to be inseparable Companions in the body of our Dissenters. The mind of man can make a thousand abstractions that are impracticable in the world; and a Philosopher may distinguish between the Leaven, and the Mass infected by it, and yet be never able to part them.

But when one Dissenter pleads for Toleration in the behalf of all the rest, it is not Conscience, but Fa­ction he would recommend; for the Dissenters differ as much in matters of Conscience among themselves, as they do from us, and therefore cannot be judged to recommend those Errours and Practices for Tolera­tion, which they themselves judge sinful and dam nable, upon the account of Conscience; nor did those of them that were in Power think it either law­ful or fit to permit all the rest. What Spiritual Kin­dred, I pray, has a Presbyterian with a Quaker? or an Independant with a Muggletonian? or an Anabaptist with any of the rest? But though they make disse­rent Sects in Religion, yet they make but one Faction. This is the Center wherein they all unite: At an Ele­ction or a Riot they make but one Congregation, and never fail to go one way; or if you would view them in greater Order, call to mind the Cavalcade that at­tended the E. of Shaftesbury, in his setting out towards [Page 5]the Parliament of Oxford, and you will easily com­prehend the sole Union of all Sects, and the certain Consequence of a General Toleration. A great man indeed may serve his Interest, or his Ambition, by taking all sorts of Sects into his Protection; but how to reconcile so many Contradictions of Con­science to his own, I must confess my understand­ing too narrow to comprehend. But I must beg of my Reader to understand this, without any reflection upon the Noble Person that has lately spoke so fa­vourably of Toleration; for all that have the ho­nour to be acquainted with his Person, or but with his Reputation, must do him that Justice, as to acquit him of all high and dangerous Designs.

They that plead for an Indefinite Teleration to all Dissenters whatever, upon the account of Religion, do not seem to me to have considered all the sorts and variety of these to whom it is to be extended, for upon those Terms the Indian Pagans may come and demand conveniences for their Pagods, and the Mahometans may pray that their Mosques may sland among our Churches. Some fanciful man may fall in love with the Greek or Roman Superslitions, and require by vertue of a General Indulgence, that the Ancient Rites of those People may be restored, as well as their Languages and Learning. In short, there is no Superstition so sensless, or so barbarous, but has good Title to Toleration, if all Dissenters whatever upon the account of Religion, are to be included. Nay, it stops not here, for those that have no Religion at all, dissent from us upon the account of Religion; and if an Atheist should judge it an act of great Cha­rity and Generosity, and surpassing all the Heroick Atchievements of Hercules, to attempt to redeem [Page 6]Mankind from that Captivity of mind into which Religion had brought them, and from such Opinions of a God as seem'd to him not only unmanly and ri­diculous, but extremely inconvenient and oppressive, why should he be restrained, if Toleration be extend­ed to all that dissent upon the account of Religion? And besides, an Atheist can pretend Conscience too, since that is nothing else but Human Reason employ­ed upon the account of Religion.

It may be the Council for Toleration will say, That these Atheists and Pagans have not retained them, and that they plead only for Dissenting Christians, or per­haps for Jews, who Worship the true God as well as we, though they receive not all the distinctions of the Deity, which Christ has revealed to us. Be it so then, since they may narrow their favour as they please, yet, that which I say, is nevertheless true, that the Topicks they use to persuade a Toleration, will serve the turn of Atheism or Idolatry, as well as of Christian or Jewish Dissenters; as we shall observe when we come to examine them. And if such an Universal To­leration as we have been speaking of, be not mani­festly absurd, that will be so too that comprehends all Christian Dissenters; for there have been, and may be Sects of Christians so called, that all reasonable men would judge more intolerable than Pagans. And that we may not fetch instances so far as Irenoeus or Epi­phanius, there are among us some Sects no less extra­vagant, than the wildest of the old Hereticks. The Revelations of Muggleton and Reeve, the expectation of the present Milinary's. The Spirit of the Quakers are not only absurd to the highest degree, but very dangerous to the Goverment, and of desparate conse­quence; if the infection should spread far among the Peo­ple, [Page 7]what a World were we like to have! Should Mug­gleton strike the minds of a great number with a dread of his Commission, that whosoever he shall Curse shall be Cursed? And considering there is no cheat so gross, that does not take with some of the Common People, one would think that it should be as much the Duty of the Magistrate, to forbid Impostors and De­ceivers in Religion, as it is to prohibit Juglers and For­tune tellers, who do not only cheat the People of their Money, but infect them with hurtful Superstitions, to which they are of themselves but too much inclin'd. Some Christians have writ in defence of Polygamy, and affirmed that practice to be not only lawful and expedient, but to many necessary in point of Con­science. What if a man should perswade himself that he were of that number, and take as many Wives as any of the Patriarchs, it is part of his Religion, why should he be prosecuted upon that account, if all sorts of Christians have right to Toleration? A Quaker refu­ses to pay Tithes, as much upon Principle of Consci­ence, as he refuses to go to Church, and to pay any civil respect. The first part concerns the Laity as well as the Clergy to look after, and to consider how far Indulgence is necessary to a Christian Sectary mis­taking to the prejudice of his Neighbour; if he be sued, or distrain'd, or imprison'd, alas it is all upon the ac­count of Religion; take the poor man into the Verge of Christian Toleration. Nay, if his Conscience should forbid him to pay Rent, he is a poor deluded man, why should he be Persecuted or Molested upon the ac­count of his Religion? It will be said perhaps, that no man intends to allow any pretence of Religion, to the prejudice of Common Right, for that were to tolerate injustice, and why should I be judged in my Civil Right [Page 8]by another mans Conscience? Well, I am glad that To­leration has any bounds, and that in any case, the Law is allowed to restrain a wild and extravagant Con­science. But why it should be upon this only account, and no other, I do not see, if justice will not permit that one mans Religion should not do wrong to ano­ther Person. How shall Charity permit that a man should do hurt to himself, it is as much Charity to re­strain as to set at liberty, to tye some mens hands as to loose the Chains of others; and besides, since these dis­eases of the understanding are commonly infectious, like some of those of the Body, it is Charity to all such as are capable of the infection, to use all possible means to keep it from coming to them, or of thrusting it self into places of Concourse. Since therefore there must be bounds put to the Toleration of Christian Sects, and the Author of the considerations excludes false Pre­tenders to Religion and Christianity, those wicked Enemies of Magistracy, Epist. Ded. to the D. of B. the Sacred Ordinance of God: And in another place we have this Act of Universal Toleration extended to all, but with this restriction, as far as they are tolerable. He might have done more Service to all pretenders, if he had stated the case how far, and wherein every Sect was tolerable. It is a hard task to impose upon a Parliament, to examine every principle or practice of every Sect, and to separate the tolerable from the in­tolerable. The Presbyterians have declar'd all the other Sects to be intolerable; the Independants will not en­dure Anabaptists or Quakers where they have any Au­thority; the Scotch Covenanters declare against all those that are without the Covenant; the Anabaptists and Quakers exclaim against Presbyterians and Inde­pendants as intolerable, pereunt per mutua vulnera Fra­tres. [Page 9]Since therefore the considerer was not pleas'd to direct either the Parliament, or any body else to dis­cern between those Sects that are tolerable, and those that are not, and between what is tolerable in every particular Sect, and what is not, I shall leave this point as needing farther explication. And I have some kind of suspition, that he will hardly think it advi­sable to be very particular in distinguishing, for seve­ral things that may be to him intolerable, may be the chiefest delights of the several Sects, and if they are not tolerated in these, they would not much care whether they had any Toleration at all; what thanks will the Sectaries pay him for being tolerated by halves, to have one part of their Conscience free, and the other bound up. And they will think themselves no more enlarg'd by such a limited favour, than a man that has but one Foot at liberty, while the other is fast in the Stocks. In the mean time, I will take the liberty to examine certain Queries and Considerations, which havebeen made lately in the behalf of a general Toleration.

All these I conceive may be reduc'd to these three Heads.

• 1. Either to Religion, which they pretend enjoins forbearance, and forbids all constraint in Religious matters.
• 2. Or to Reason, that condemns all Compulsion as unseemly and absurd.
• 3. Or to civil prudence, that inclines to Toleration, as conducing much to the peace and benefit of Society.

1. Quer. Upon the first Head, a Noble Person demands, Whether there be any thing more directly op­posite to the Doctrine and Practice of Jesus Christ, than to use any kind of force upon men in matters of Religion, and consequently, whether all those that Practice it, let them be of what Church or Sect they please, ought not justly to be called Antichristian?

If a poor man might be so bold with so great an Author, as to pretend to understand any thing he affects to be ignorant of, I would answer directly to so ve­hement a question, and affirm, that I knew several things more directly opposite to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ, than to use force in matters of Religion. For Example, Irreligion, Atheism, Blasphemy, Burles­quing of the Scripture, Murder, Adultery, Forni­cation, Licentiousness. These we are sure are direct­ly contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ. But as for using of force in matters of Religion, I do not know any passage in all the Gospels, that abso­lutely and expresly forbid it. Where does Christ forbid a Christian Magistrate to silence Imposters, Blasphemers, turbulent Persons pretending Religion? Where does he condemn a Religious Prince that makes use of his Authority, to preserve the Christian Do­ctrine uncorrupted, by restraining those that mistake dangerously themselves, and would seduce others into the same errors? If any such place there be, I'm sure it is not in my Copy of the Gospels, and I have the less reason to suspect it of any fault, because there is no such thing in the Geneva Bible, at leastwise it could not be found, when Servetus was put to death for Blasphe my. Nor could any such passage be in the Datch Text or Annotations, when the Remon­strants [Page 11]were forced to travel or go to Jaol. Nor is it likely, the Lutherans would be so fierce, if they could have spy'd any such passage as this in their Books. The vulgar Latin I need not mention, to be sure, there is no such Doctrine there, nor can it be, since it is so directly opposite to the Holy Inquisition, it would be too confident a Criticism to adventure to give an account how this difference happens, and what Book it should be that his Grace has mistaken for the Bible.

But are there not several passages of Scripture alledg­ed to this purpose? there are indeed some, but very sore against their own sense and inclination, and when they are urg'd, they will have a speedy an swer.

However, is not this using of force contrary to the Practice of Christ? To none that I know: Christ in­deed did never use any force: No more did he con­demn the Woman taken in Adultery, nor sentence Peter to the Pillory for denying him by a false Oath. Can therefore no Magistrate use any force, nor punish these Crimes without forfeiting his Christianity? Our Saviour, to prevent such consequences as might be draw n from his Practice, declar'd himself to be but a private Person in all civil respects, his Kingdom was not of this World, he was no Magistrate, and there­fore did use no force upon any account, and therefore his example in this case can be no direction to him that is invested with civil power, and sustains a Person quite different from the Character our Saviour bore. It is true indeed that Christ rebuked James and John for demanding his order or permission to command [Page 12]Fire from Heaven to consume the Samaritans that re­fus'd to receive him, and what could be more unwar­rantable or barbarous then this Proposal? Why should they desire the sudden destruction of Men, o­ver whose lives they had no power? and for a fault that no Law made capital? Nay, Christ himself as man, had no power to take away their Lives, tho' they had deserv'd it; nor can we be sure that this which so much provokes their indignation, was any matter of Religion at all, but only a refusal of a Civil and Hospi­table Reception to our Saviour on his Journey towards Jerusalem; but whether he preach'd there or no, or that they did any affront to his Character and his Doctrine, the Scripture doth not say, and the contrary is most probable from the Relation of the Evangelist, but neither this, or any other instance of our Saviours Practice, obliges the Conscience of the Civil Magistrate, not to punish such Persons or Sects of Christians that corrupt the Religion, and disturb the quiet of the Church or State under his charge, since therefore the Practice of punishing Dissenters is contrary neither to the Doctrine, nor Practice of Christ; I hope they that use it upon great occasions, may be discharg'd of the odious imputation of Antichristian.

But if all those that Practice, this odious method, to use forcible means in matters of Religion, what Church or Sect soever they may be of, are Antichristian. What shall we do for Christians? The Church of Rome at this rate must be the most Antichristian of all. The Presbyterians were always as much Antichristian as they were able, and the Independants of New-England are as visibly Antichristian, as if they had all the Horns and Marks of the Beast; and if these be all Antichristi­an, [Page 13]who have we left capable of the benefit of To­leration? For surely if any sort of Men be intolerable, they are such who truly deserve that Title.

Consideration 1. Another Author stirr'd up by the ex­cellent discourse of the D. of B. enlarges upon this Head, and shews, ‘that the Apostles were only commis­sion'd to Preach and Teach the Christian Doctrine, that they were Embassadors to beseech Men to be reconcil'd to God, and not to use any forcible means to bring People to conform to his Worship.’

An Author after all his pains, may surely be al­low'd to give his Book what Title he pleases, provid­ed the Reader may have his Freedom to Interpret. This Book is made up of several parcels, which he calls Considerations, and if this first must pass under that Title, it cannot be in the literal sense, but should be interpreted as Dreams are by contraries. For if our Author had considered, tho' never so little, he must needs have discerned that all this is no more against all forcible means, than it is against humane Learning; the Apostles used as little of one as of the other in con­verting of the World; let us allow then that the Apo­stles us'd no forcible means to convert the World, but reduced it only by perswasion, what then? Then no body else ought to think themselves wiser than the A­postles, and to endeavour to convert the World by force; agreed: But what is all this to our present pur­pose? Then no forcible means ought to be us'd to bring Dissenters to Church, or to hinder their Meet­ings. Here the consideration is too short, and draw it as long as you please, will never come to the point, unless he can satisfy us in this one thing, that there [Page 14]may be no other Methods us'd in the Government of a Church already Establish'd, than those that have been us'd in the Conversion of Infidels; this whole matter will perhaps be much clearer to him, if he please to take notice of these plain and certain Truths.

1. That the Apostles had, and us'd greater Autho­rity over those they had already converted, than over those that were yet to be converted.

2. That tho' they were sent onely as Ambassadors to unbelievers, to perswade them to be reconcil'd to God, yet when they had effected that Reconciliation, they were, by vertue of the Commission, the Rulers and Governours of those new Conquests of the Gospel.

3. That tho' their Commission gave them no civil Authority, yet were they impower'd to use forcible means in matters of Religion, and to reduce those to Conformity, that walk'd disorderly, and departed from the form of wholesom Doctrine delivered to them: For I take Discipline to be somewhat different from persuasion; and the Rod that St. Paul speaks of how Metaphorical soever it be, to be somewhat more than beseeching. In short, those that resisted their Au­thority, felt the weight of it. Some were delivered to Satan, to learn not to Blaspheme, because they had made Shipwrack of the Faith. They were cast out of the Society of Christians, not only from all corre­spondence in matters of Religion, but also from com­merce of civil Society and good Neighbourhood; and therefore supposing any one whole City or Province then of the Christian Religion, the Excommunication of an Apostle would have had the same force with a [Page 15]civil Out-lawry or Banishment, and how can you think him not banisht to all effect, with whom no Person of his Country will have any communication? And what would have become of Cerinthus in a Christian City, where St. John had been Bishop, if all would have been of the sme mind with the Apostle, (as probably they had) not to come under the same roof with that Blasphemous Heretick.

4. The Destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit might be saved; though I dare not be positive in the expli­cation, does without dispute signify something of for­cible means, and of a different nature from perswasion, and the vehement expression of St. Paul concerning the Turbulent people that disturb'd the Churches of Ga­latia; I wish they were cut off that trouble you, is of a strein beyond beseeching. I shall not insist upon these passages, lest I should be thought to plead for the In­quisition, and to justify the putting of men to death for Religion, which I am as far from approving, as I am from a desire that I might be the first sufferer by such a Law; for I look upon all Capital punishments not on­ly too severe for the mistakes of the understanding, though there might be some wilfulness and perverse­ness mix'd with them, but of all sorts the most impro­per and absurd, since he that takes away the Life of a Heretick, commits an invisible cruelty greater than that which is seen, by taking from him at the same time all opportunity of returning to a better mind; and since all forcible means us'd in matters of Religion, ought to be directed to the benefit of those toward whom they are us'd, as well as the safety of others, nothing can be more contrary to, or destructive of that end, than the putting of men to [Page 16]death for errors of belief, how gross or dangerous soever they may be. And this practice is the more in­excusable, because there are other means sufficient to prevent the spreading of the disease, and may contri­bute not a little to the cure of the infected.

5. Lastly, if the Apostles, who had no Civil Power, did yet punish their Dissenters, not only by sharp reproofs, but with Civil inconveniences too, surely the Christian Magistrate, who is endu'd with that power from above, may so far make use of it, upon the account of Religion, as to secure the Peace of the Church, and Purity of the Christian Doctrine, as to render men of corrupt and turbulent minds uneasy in the outward circumstances of Life, and to tye up their hands from dispersing the mischief among the People: And lastly, to discourage wanton, or perverse, or de­signing persons to attempt upon the Faith and Charity by which his Subjects are united.

Consid. 2. To the same Head we may reduce the se­cond Consideration: That the using of outward Compul­sion in matters of Religion, does only serve to make men Hypocrites, but works no saving Conversion.

That compulsion in matters of Religion may make some Hypocrites, must be allow'd, so do all Encou­ragements, Laws, sense of shame, and the Opinion of the World; and if nothing that may serve to make a Man a Hyprocrite may be us'd, we must lay aside not only all Penal Laws, but all Charity too: But that this Compulsion should serve only to make men Hy­pocrites, dropt I am afraid from our Author without consideration, for there may be some that resure to [Page 17]conform to the establish'd Worship, because they are asham'd to depart from what they have once profess'd; they dread the reproach of their Party, and the gaze of a Congregation upon a new Convert. There may be others that refuse to conform, as much upon the ac­count of Interest as of Conscience; for who does not know that the Dissenters are more engag'd by their mutual dealing among themselves, than they are by their Church Covenant; for a poor Presbyterian or In­dependant to go to Church, is to forfeit all his Custom, and to be beggar'd, and to fall under a secret Persecu­tion, that will more certainly undo him, than the ex­ecution of all the Penal Laws; therefore to these, com­pulsion serves not to make them Hypocrites, but to free their Conscience from the practice of Hypo­crisie, that was in some measure become necessary to them, and cannot be esteem'd the forcing of Religion, but the breaking of an unlawful and dangerous combi­nation; and since there may be Hypocrites of both sides, why should they be angry if we take away their chaff, which may make their heap shew bigger, but add little to the value of it: Such as may do them no great Spiritual good, but may do the Government a great temporal mischief. Lastly, since according to the Doctrine of most of the Dissenters, he that is a real Saint, cannot by all the force in the World be made a Hypocrite, why should they be afraid that compulsion will effect impossibilities? And if those upon whom it can have any influence were Hypocrites before, I do not see any reason why they should be so much concern'd for them.

Experience has taught us that compulsion in mat­ters of Religion, serves many times to render men [Page 18]more teachable, and willing to be instructed; when a man has brought himself into inconvenience, he is desirous to examine what it is for, and when he has weigh'd the Reasons on both sides, he may be of opi­nion that his duty and his interest go the same way. How many Dissenters keep off they know not why? how many rail at our Service that never read a word of it? That disparage our Ministers, and never heard them? How difficult is it to obtain from the Zeal of many Dissenters so much Truce, as to hear what one can say to them with patience and civility, but this frowardness is somewhat abated, when they find them­selves entang led with difficulties, and then they may condescend to listen to reason; & this opportunity may be so well improved, that in conclusion they shall ac­knowledge this compulsion, as a singular Mercy of God, and apply the words of the Psalmist to their Case, Before I was troubl'd I went wrong.

But now suppose the worst, that this compulsion would serve to make many Hypocrites, and that most of them at first might come to Church only to save their Purses, yet they may not continue always so, but it is probable they may profit so much by what they hear and see, as to be convinced of the folly of their former way, and what they did at first upon mean and sordid reasons, they may afterward continue to do out of conscience and choice; so God is pleased sometimes graciously to take the wise in their own Craftiness. Some have gone to Church only out of curio­sity, and have been caught; some have gone to mock, and return'd in Tears; Saul went to the Prophet only to enquire of his Fathers Asses, and received an Uncti­on, which he little expected, and since truth and right [Page 19]are as manifestly on the side of the Church of England, as the Laws, why, should not we hope well, if by any means Dissenters may be brought but to the hearing of the Truth.

Not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. This Text of Scripture, with which he is pleas'd to tip the end of this Consideration, is brought thither much against its natural inclination, and I should think that they who so much abhor com­pulsion in matters of Religion, ought not to use such open violence to the Scriptures, to force them to their purpose, for those Expressions relate only to the chear­ful and forward manner of the Ministers doing their Duty, and have not the least hint about compelling of Men to come to Church.

To the same Head we must reduce the third Con­sideration.

Consid. 3. All sorts of Persons are for Liberty of Conscience for themselves, even those that are most im­posing upon others. They would count it hard measure to be constrained to perform or forbear such and such things, which concern their Religion, or to suffer unpropor­tionable penalties; And why should not the Church-Pro­testants make the Presbyterians, the Independants, the Papists oase their own in this point, seeing they are all fellow Christians? Therefore whatsoever things ye would that men should do unto you, do ye so un­to them, for this is the Law and the Pro­phets.

This Rule which is the Foundation of all Justice and [Page 20]Charity, would be the Ruin of them both, if it were not restrained to things equally lawful or reasonable: Now if it be an indifferent matter, what Religion or Sect any man is of, it will be very unreasonable not to allow as well as to desire Toleration. But it will be still an absurdity in him that believes all Religions in­different to desire any Toleration for himself, since his principle may comply with any sort. But those that desire Toleration are of another mind, they think themselves in the Right, and all those with whom they refuse to join in the wrong; and for the same rea­son that they which be tolerated themselves, they refuse to Tolerate others, with a non-obstante to our Saviours Rule. If some Religions are false, if many Sects are in their very constitution and establishment sinful, this Rule cannot reach the present case. What Criminal can be punish'd, if for the Reading of that Text, he must have the benefit of his Clergy? What Child may not emancipate himself from discipline, if it will serve his turn to say to a Master or a Father, would you be us'd so your self? There are some differences in Religion, about matters of the highest importance; there are Opinions of several Sects, that are Blasphemous: There are others that cor­rupt and esserate Humane Nature, instead of im­proving it. There are other mistakes of less con­sequence in Religion, but from several Circumstan­ces of greater danger to the Government, all which if they have any claim to Toleration by this Rule, of doing to others as you will be done by, have no better than that which with the same Justice, may be made by all the deadly sins.

Yet why should not the Church of England, make the [Page 21]Presbyterians Independants, and Papists case her own in this case, seeing they are all Fellow Christians? Nay, why not the Anabaptists, Quakers, Muggletonians, (for they claim kindred too, when it is low with them; and then we are all Brethren and Fellow Christians,) and if there be any other Sect unnamed, suppose it included, and then one Answer may serve them all, so that the Church of England, cannot make their case her own. 1. Because she thinks there is a great deal of difference, for many of them hold false and dange­rous Opinions, and practice things utterly unlawful, and unchristian. 2. She ought so to judge since there is a real difference between Truth and Falshood, be­tween Good and Evil, between those things in dis­pute, whether they are lawful or unlawful. There­fore if she be in possession of the Truth, she ought no more to make these Dissenters case her own, than a Judge ought to make that of a Prisoner at the Bar, whom he knows to be guilty, to be his own; and be­cause if he were himself in the same circumstances of guilt, Flesh and Blood would tempt him to desire to escape; he ought not to determine therefore the Cri­minal before him must not suffer.

‘ Obj. If this be all, they that dissent from the Church of England, may judge as hardly of her as she does of them; confess'd,’but who can help all this? yet the nature of things is not chang'd, by their thinking one way or other, in the same debate, many differing Parties may be very confident, and but one in the right, and be too certain that he was so, not­withstanding the contradiction of all the rest: And be­sides, I do not see of what great use the hard opinion of the pretenders to Toleration concerning the Church [Page 22]of England, can be to them to obtain it; one would think while they are Candidates for favour, this might be better omitted.

I am afraid that the Presbyterians and Independants will owe them but little thanks for tacking the Papists, that Abominable Antichristian name, upon their Plea for Toleration, for surely the Association cannot yet be so far worn out, nor the Cabalistical devise of no 'Popery no Slavery, be utterly forgot; surely their Cele­brated Commission to extirpate Antichrist and Idola­try, is not yet given up: If they can endure this, they are much degenerated from their first principle of heat; nay, they must have chang'd their very species, and it will puzzle Malibranche with all his Ideas, to define a Protestant Dissenter, when his Zeal against Popery is laid aside.

These are the Arguments offer'd at this time to re­commend a general Toleration, from the nature and the precepts of Christian Religion, and let any body judge after all the odious representation of Compulsion in matters of Religion, whether from all that is said, it does appear, that a Christian Magistrate, whatever his own persuasion be, is bound in conscience to allow every one the Exercise of his own way, and the Pro­fession of his own Opinion, how Absurd, how Blasphe­mous, how Damnable soever it may be; for this is the just Paraphrase of universal Toleration.

And now for my part, to shew how little I am given to contradiction, I am content to yield the question to the Considerer, or to the Noble Person, who is above consideration, if their Principles will be satisfy'd with these Arguments alledg'd on their behalf, [Page 23]let the Considerator then go back (for I will not be so absurd as to send a Person of Quality upon such an Er­rand) and consult those whom he nominates for Tole­ration, the Presbyterians, Independants, and Papists, and if they declare it for their Opinion, that it is the Will of God, that neither Restraint nor Compulsion should be us'd to Men in Religious Matters, let them obtain all the Indulgence they can wish; but as to the last of these, I shall not need to trouble them or my Au­thor, because I cannot tell how well they may be ac­quainted; for if a man may guess at his correspondence, he seems to hold more with the Protestant Dissenters: Nor is it needful to make long enquiry in a matter so well known. The Judgment of the Church of Rome, concerning this point is as clear, and as visible, as the Fire with which they use to reduce Hereticks to Ashes.

It must be confess'd, that some Princes of that com­munion, partly for reasons of State, and partly out of the Clemency and Generosity of their temper, have shielded their Protestant Subjects from the fury of the Ecclesiasticks, and abhorr'd to be the Executioners of their Hypocritical cruelty, who pretend, that they have no power themselves to take away Life; so the High Priest and the Jews declar'd it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, yet forced Pilate to pass Sentence upon the Son of God, because they had before judged him worthy of death.

Among those barbarous Pagans, where men were us'd to be Sacrificed to Idols, the Butchery was al­ways accounted part of the Priests Office, and I see no reason why the Dominicans or the Grand Vicar, if [Page 24]they will have the Blood of Hereticks, should not en­dure the Odium, and the pollution of shedding it them­selves. I know some Princes have paid dear for refu­sing to destroy such as the Church of Rome called He­reticks, one was murdered by a Dominican, a Minis­ter of the Inquisition by his Vow, and another stabb'd into the Heart by a Disciple of the Jesuits whether be­cause they suspected some Favours or Indulgence for Heresie might remain there, or because they were im­patient to wait longer for that noble part, which that great Prince promised them a Legacy after his de­cease.

Since then our Considerer can have no hopes of ap­proving his consideration to this Party, and to bring them to a vow with him, that it is not the Will of God, that any force should be us'd in matters of Religion; Let him go to the Presbyterians, and enquire what is their opinion concerning Toleration; it is true, they have not been always in the same mind concerning this Gospel Duty; before the late Rebellion, when they were in their Infancy, they were as tender-hearted as one could wish, but when they had once prevail'd, and got the power into their hands, they began to limit, and to distinguish, and at last openly to deny the lawful­ness of that, which the Considerer makes to be so in­dispensible a Christian Duty; nay they could not in Conscience consent to a Toleration, even of their com­panions in Arms, those that fought in the same Cause, and approach'd nearest to their Principles; all the Ar­guments that could be us'd were not able to reconcile the conscience of a Presbyterian to a Tole­ration of Independants, the Debates are Printed, The Grand Debate. and will furnish any one that will take the [Page 25]pains to look into them, with the Arguments then us'd on both sides of this Question.

The London Ministers of that time, for fear the Assembly might be carryed away by importunity, or dispute, to yield any indulgence to their Indi­pendant Brethren, sent them their Objections against it, in a Letter dated Jan. 1. 1645. In which they declare, that To get a warrant to authorise their Separation from, and to have a liberty of drawing members out of it, i. e. Their Church, This we think to be plainly unlaw­ful.

Independancy is a Schism [...], Now we judge that no Schism is to be tolerated in the Church.

Some of the Independants in their Books have openly avow'd, that they plead for Liberty of Conscience for others, as well as for themselves. To plead for a gene­ral Toleration was then, it seems, argument enough not to indulge the pleaders even in their own parti­cular way.

Now could they in Conscience have allowed their dissenting Brethren any Indulgence, they could not have refus'd persons that had deserv'd so well of them; but it was a thing of such a nature, they must not by any means yield to. For hereby (say they) we shall be involved in the guilt of other mens sins, and thereby indanger'd to receive their plagues. After this the Ordinance which the Independants styled the Bloudy one, was drawn up, which made seve­ral mistakes in Religion, to be felony, without bene­fit [Page 26]of Clergy. Others to be confuted by a hot Iron, to be apply'd to the face of the Blasphemer. Others to be punish'd by imprisonment; for example, to say that the Government of the Church by Presbyters, such as it was then projected was Ʋnlawful, was ac­counted such an insolence, that imprisonment seem­ed rather an Indulgence than a punishment. This Ordinance was read twice in the House of Commons, and stiffly debated, but the Sectaries and Erastians uniting their Forces against the Esta­blishment of Presbytery, that had projected alrea­dy the suppression of all the rest, this was hindred from passing into an Act, but it was nevertheless defended and justify'd by the Presbyterian Party up­on all occasions; and tho' they could never dispute it into a Law, yet sometime after they pass'd ano­ther Ordinance, by which they Condemned several erroneous Opinions, and Blasphemies; and de­clared some to be Capital, but this was much short of that which we have been speaking of; however that Toleration which they were not able to confute by a Law, they were more zealous to oppose by their writings, and by all other means they con­ceiv'd useful to that purpose. They appointed Days of Humiliation for the Heresies they could not pu­nish by the Sword, and employ'd the most Zealous and Eloquent of their Party, to represent the sin and mischief of. Toleration, and to inflame the minds of men against those Errours and Sects, which they had been hitherto hindred from extirpating. There was no man of that Time that wrote more fully against Toleration than Edwards, who in a Trea­tise against Toleration, which he intitles, The cast­ing [Page 27]down of the last and strongest Hold of Satan, makes Liberty of Conscience such an Abomination, that the High Commission, and the greatest Seve­rity of the Bishops were rather to be indur'd: And I know not how Toleration can have the impudence to lift up its head after that in this Book it is clearly prov'd and demonstrated by Scripture, sound Reason, Fathers, Schoolmen, Casuits, Protestants, Divines, Ecclesiastical History, &c. To be utterly unlawful and mischievous, and this, both of an universal Toleration of all Religions and Consciences, and of a limited and bounded, of some Sects onely, how, clearly this is prov'd or demonstrated by him, I am not at present much concern'd to shew, having mention'd this Author with others of his Party only to ease our Considera­tor, and to direct him in his enquiry, concerning the Judgment of the Presbyterians about the univer­sal Toleration, in which it is desir'd they may have their part, and since they have declar'd against it, it is a sort of Compulsion and Persecution, to put it up­on them whether they will or no.

What shall we say to all this? Was the Doctrine and Practice of Christ then known? Was not the will of God revealed against all forcible means in matters of Religion? Was it not observ'd, that Compulsion serv'd only to make men Hypocrites? Was not this Rule, Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, &c. re­ceiv'd into the Canon in those days? The Scriptures surely are the same, and if they were then so clearly against all Toleration, they must be so still; and have we heard of any New Revelation since, concerning this matter? So that we may assure our selves, that [Page 28]the Presbyterians will depart from what they have once asserted with so much noise and confidence of Demonstration. Yet surely our Considerer could never have been guilty of such unacceptable officious­ness, without some probable presumption of their good liking, for whom it was intended. Nor can we imagine any man so fool-hardy, as to hazard the disgrace of being disowned by those, for whom he so earnestly intercedes. Admit then the mind of the Presbyterian Dissenters be chang'd, and that their present Judgment is more moderate, and that their Advocate produce it under their hands, it will do them but little service, because those that are not their Friends, will look upon the Inclination they may now have for Toleration, to proceed rather from their outward condition, than any inward conviction of mind; for in contrary Declarations of the same Person, that is commonly judged to be most sincere, and according to his mind, that is made when he is in full Liberty, whereas the Act of a man under any restraint or necessity, is ever accounted less valid, and a less certain Declaration of his mind.

The Independants, who offer'd the Presbyterians so many Scriptures and Reasons for Toleration, and took it hainously to be rejected by their Brethren, whom they knew to be but Usurpers of Authority, after they themselves had tasted of the forbidden fruit of Power, their Eyes were open'd, to discern plainly as many reasons to refuse Indulgence in Religion, as ever they had offer'd for it when their condition was lower. In the year 1650. there was an Act made [Page 29]against Blasphemous and dangerous Errors, and the Instrument of Government, which Cromwel publish'd afterward, did not only exclude Prelacy and Pope­ry from all benefit of Toleration, but made it Capi­tal to maintain several Opinions in matters of Reli­gion: By vertue of these new Laws, Muggleton and Reeve were condemned to Bridewel, Naylor was Stigmatiz'd, Biddle the Socinian was Try'd for his Life, for denying Christ to be the Son of God, and escap'd not so much by the Clemency of those that Ruled then, as by an Error in his Indictment; it was in vain for any of these to plead their Conscience, or that they were prosecuted against the Will of God, and the Rule of Common Justice, the Ruling and the Arm'd Conscience, would still assert its Power and Dominion over the Consciences of Inferior Dissen­ters.

‘It may be said, that this severity was us'd only against gross and intolerable Opinions, to prevent their spreading among the People.’ Well; If this Reason be good for them, why not for the present Government, especially since the Right and Title of it, is somewhat clearer than that of the Independant Dominion? That the Opinions then punished were Gross, and Blasphemous, alters not the case, since they were part of the belief, and the Religion of se­veral Persons or Sects; and if no forcible means at all ought to be us'd to reduce Mens Consciences, how come these to be excepted?

‘However you will say for them, that they us'd no forcible means to make Men Conform against [Page 30]their Judgment to their way of Worship:’ There is a certain Author, who stiles himself a Friend to true Reformation, and whose Testimony we have no rea­son to suspect, that assures us of the contrary from the Practice of those times. [A Lamentable Repre­sentation of the effects of Toleration. By V.T. 1656.] This zealous Person, to let the Magistrate understand, that providing Able, Pious Ministers, is not all they can do, tells this story, that a Godly Citizen of London; ‘took to his Apprentice a prophane Country Lad, (some Cavalier-bred Boy belike) and having sent him to Church once or twice, to hear a Soul Searching Minister,’ (Pardon my Authors Phrase.) Alas poor Boy, his Hear was opposite to such holy mat­ter, as Praying and Preaching, so he would come no more there, but the Master thought he had not done e­nough, but did command and compel him constantly to hear that Minister, as he thought it was his Duty, so at last the Boy was Converted, then he concludes; What Christian can or will blame this Master? The same Author proceeds further to inform us of the Godly Practice of those times. The Officers of the Army (saies he) in their Garrisons, ( I am sure in Jamises) do compel their Souldiers to hear the Publick Sermons, all, except some Anabaptists.—How smartly have I seen the Souldiers caned unto the Sermon in Westminster Abby? It is a good Example for all in Authority, from the greatest Prince and Parliament, to the mean­est Master or Parent, it was time now to object, this is against Liberty of Conscience, no such matter (re­plies our Author,) it is against the liberty of being as bad as men will, but not against the Liberty of being as good as men will, if neither Anabaptist, Presbyte­rian, [Page 31]nor Independant Minister will not serve them, their Conscience is not tender in any sense but sear'd: A wonderful Liberty of Conscience, a delicious varie­ty, this is sufficient to please the most Nice and Fastidi­ous Palate. And this brings into my mind such ano­ther odd choice offer'd to David, either to endure seven years Famine, or three Months flight before his Enemies, or three days Pestilence.

Yet after all this, the Independants in England, when they were at their greatest height, being but few compared to the bulk of the Nation, and pre­vailing only in the Army, and that too by conjuncti­on with other Sectaries, we cannot certainly judge how far they approv'd of Toleration in their hearts. They spoke indulgently and moderately of several Sects, whose assistance they were forc'd to court, and joined with them in a common Defence against Presbytery, but there was no alliance at all of Re­ligion, but only of interest between them. There­fore as their interest varied, so did their Judgment secin to do concerning tolerating other Secta­ries.

In New England, where the Independants Reign, and prevail as well by their number as Authority, the case is very much altered, between them and the other Sectaries, there they prohibit all other Religions and Churches but their own, i. e. there shall be no Preaching, no Congregation, no publick Worship, but after their way, and of their own approbation. So that an Anabaptist, or a Quaker is more at ease here, under the most active prosecu­tion [Page 32]of this Government, than in New England, that was once accounted the refuge of the scrupulous, But that all men may know how Toleration thrives in that Country, I will mention the Heads of some of their Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Matters.

• 1. ‘ No Church to be gather'd without the ap­probation of the Magistrate dwelling next, and of the Elders of the neighbouring Churches.’
• 2. ‘No person to Preach publickly and constantly to any people,’ either in Church society or not, where any two Organick Churches, Council of state, or General Court shall declare their dissatisfaction thereat, either in reference to doctrine or pra­ctice.
• 3. ‘Eevery one that Renounces his Church estate, shall forfeit to the Treasury forty Shillings a month, so long as he shall continue in that his obstinacy.’
• 4. ‘Every one must come to Church upon the Lords day, days of Humiliation and Thanks­giving, or for every default to forfeit five Shil­lings.’
• 5. ‘The Observation of Chrismass Day, to be punish'd with a mulckt of five Shillings.’
• 6. Heresy to be punished by Banishment or Death, and many disputable points determin'd to be Heresy.
• [Page 33]7. Whosoever shall be found to have any of Mag­gleton, or Reeves Books, shall pay ten pounds, he that Harbours a Quaker shall pay forty Shillings an hour, he that shall go to their meeting shall pay ten Shillings, and the Speaker five pounds.
• 8. A Quaker is to be banished, and if he return, to be whipp'd out of the Country at a Carts tail, and stigmatiz'd, and if he come back a second time, to be put to Death.
• 9. Anabaptists are made incapable of dwelling there by their Law concerning Heresies, which declar'd it to be one to deny the lawfulness of In­fant Baptism.

I am almost afraid that some who have not con­sidered the difference between a ruling Independant and an Independant under hatches, will be apt to suspect I do them wrong in these Citations, but if any be so scrupulous of believing these summary excerptions, he may without much difficulty, I be­lieve, satisfy himself by looking in the Body of Sta­tutes, that they have printed, which will inform him more at large, what liberty of Conscience is practis'd in New England.

But these are scare-crow Laws surely, and never in­tended to be put in Execution. Alas the complaints of New England Persecution, has made so much noise this many years, that the whole World has rung with it. R. Williams made no little stir about [Page 34] Cottons Bloudy Tenet, and the barbarous usage he and several other Dissenters from the Churches esta­blish'd there, had met with. The Case of the Gor­tonists has been publish'd, and it was thought very hard measure, that when the Establish'd Sect had driven these out of their Dominion, to seek Pro­tection and Liberty under some of the Neighbour­ing Indians, their Persecutors pursued them thi­ther, and by force of Arms dissodged them from this Refuge. I need not multiply Instances of this kind, all sorts of Dissenters there drank of the same Cup, and made the same Complaints.

Some perhaps may be desirous to know how the Independants of New England can defend themselves against the Arguments of their own Brethren here for Toleration, when they come to be us'd by the Sectaries that dissent from their Rule; Such as they are put upon us for Demonstrations, and thought by our Dissenters unanswerable; therefore it may not be a miss to give a brief account how the dispute runs there, and in what manner the Prosecutors vindicate themselves against the importunate saucy Pleas which the Dissenters there do continually make for Liberty of Conscience.

For one Protestant Congregation to pro­secute another, Mathers Pre­face to St Wil­lards Bishop against the Anab. is more unreasonable, (says the Anabaptist Apology) than all the Cruelty of the Roman Church, In­crease Mather, says No: For Protestants punish, tho not persecute Protestants; nay, as the case may be circumstanc'd, even a Congregation of such [Page 35]as call themselves Protestants, if he had added Inde­pendants too, the Antithesis had been somewhat more bold, and more visible: This he proves by the Au­thority of the Puritans, from whom these Churches pretend to be descended; and precious Mr. Cotton their Apostle, who is bold to denounce, That if the Magistrates of England, would tolerate Transgressours of the Rule of Godliness, God would not long tolerate them.

In England (say the Anabaptists) the Indepen­dants are our Advocates for Toleration, in New Eng­land, they persecute us themselves. p. 16. ‘And the Writers of the Church of England, lay hold of this occasion to expose their inconsistence with themselves;’ Mather mumbles this Objection, but is not able to take it off: It is not for their Opinion, but for receiving persons excommunicated by the Inde­pendant Congregation, that they are punished, but this fault they are as guilty of in Old England, as in New England. Then he cannot be perswaded that any Independants would desire indulgence for such Ana­baptists as theirs. Yet there can be no difference shewn between those that are taken here into protection, and those that are persecuted there. Whence then can proceed so different an usage of the same sort of men? Alas the mystery is not very deep, and may be resolved into a Common Rule of Humane Wisdom very well known, that it is no matter how liberal a man is at the expence of another; but he ought to be more wary, when he is to give out of his own stock.

The Anabaptists complain, That it is against the design of the first Planters, that left England and went thither for Liberty of Conscience, to lay any restraint upon it. Animadversions on the N. E. A­nabapt. p. 4. Willard answers without mincing, That their business was not Toleration, but to settle and secure Religion to posterity, according to that way which they believed was of God. p. 11. The Magistrates there were Christians, and held it their duty to maintain and strengthen Christian Religion by Civil Laws. All Reformers have done so, and the Church ever since the Apostles. Poor dissenting Conscience, where canst thou find Reception, if these Colonies of Dissenters shut the doors against thee?

The Anabaptist cry's, it is against their Brethren. p. 9. The Independant is not satisfy'd that they are so near of kin, and though they were. Yet Dis­cipline rightly administred, is not against Christian Charity, the want of it does rather argue want of Love, Lev. 19.17.

It is the part of the men of this World to persecute, (says the Anabap.) yet sometimes (replies the In­dependant) it proceeds from Godly Zeal against Se­ducers.

Gentle means will prevail most according to the Dissenters judgment. p. 10. But experience tells the Independant that such a Rough thing as a New Eng­land Anabaptist is not to be handled over-tenderly. The Spirit which they have alwaies discovered under the greatest disadvantages, easily tells us, what they [Page 37]would have been, if circumstanced as those whom they accuse. And Lastly, that they might not be misun­derstood, they declare the proper Subject of their jurisdiction. We do not pretend to a Lordship over Conscience, yet the outward man is Subject to us.

Now he that can reconcile these Laws, this practice, this Doctrine of the Independants, to the Consideration for Toleration, may make a match between Antipathies, and a friendship between con­tradictions; nay, may reconcile the Conscience of a Scotch Covenanter, to that short prayer for which he holds a singular detestation, i. e. God save the King, idem jungat vulpes & mulgeat Hercos.

The Anabaptists, Quakers, Socinians, and other Sects, because they are not particularly mentioned, I cannot tell how far they may be concern'd in this Plea for a general Toleration, or whether they will be judg'd tolerable or no, and therefore it will not be necessary to say any thing concerning them. And since these have not yet had the fortune to be upper­most in any of our Revolutions, we cannot conclude with any certainty, whether they would continue as zealous for Indulgence as now they are: It being difficult now to discern whether their importunity for Toleration proceeds from the Inward Man, or only from their outward Circumstances. When they had got some power in Cromwels Army, they began to be somewhat turbulent, and addicted to Level­ling, which imply'd a very fore imposition upon the Consciences of Rich Men, and those that were [Page 38]in Authority. But in those Countries where the Anabaptists prevailed upon their first appearing, they left such instances of Blood-shed and Devastation, as the story of no Christian Sect can parallel.

For the Quakers, how their Spirit would determine concerning Toleration, if they were in power, is as hard to foretel, as it would be to show, what course, or frolick a mad man would take, that were broke loose from his Keeper. But if all Bedlam should break loose, and make themselves the Masters, I be­lieve it would be necessary to have recourse to Da­vids Stratagems, and that a man would be in no little danger, that would presume to continue in the Exercise of his own Wits.

Having shewn what Conscience, they that Dis­sent from us, make of Indulging their Dissenters, and that none are more vehement against. Toleration when they are in place, than those that are now so importunate for it, we may conclude that notwith­standing all they alledge from Scripture, and the na­ture of Christian Religion, to make us believe that we ought in Conscience to indulge Dissenters, they are of our side, and do not believe any thing of what they say, for it is unconceivable how they can reckon that our Duty, which would not be so to them plac'd in our circumstances.

Now if neither Christ nor his Apostles have ever enjoin'd a general Toleration of all Christian Sects, and the Dissenters, when uppermost, declare this [Page 39]to be true: The Christian Magistrate is something more at large, and has greater liberty and scope to judge of the Reasons and Consequences of allowing or refusing it.

The second Topick from which the D. of B. and the Considerer argue against all Compulsion in mat­ters of Religion, is the absurdity and unreasonableness of the thing: Therefore the D. puts the Que­stion.

2. Topick. Whether there can be any thing more unmanly, more barbarous or more ridiculous, than to go about to convince a mans judgment by any thing but Reason, it is so ridiculous, that Boys at School are whipp'd for it, who instead of answering an Argument with Reason, are Loggerheads enough to go to Cuffs.

If this reasoning be good, the Master that Whips is the veryest Loggerhead of all: Has whipping any demonstration in it to convince the judgment of Boys? The Master therefore should convince those Blockheads by a grave discourse, as a certain Reve­rend Person of great moderation, is said to have done upon the like occasion, saying, That it was the highest absurdity in Metaphysicks for Intellectual or Rational Entities to fall out: Ay, this is convincing, and as certainly parts a fray, as a little dust stops the fury of Bees in the very heat of Battel; for Gods sake tell me, you severe Asserters of Priscian, what Rods and Ferula's do in your Schools? What are these Twiggs of the Tree of Knowledge, or these, are they Chips of any Oracular Oak? What can [Page 40]those things contribute to the enlightning of the understanding? Look to your selves, for the Asser­tors of humane Reason and Liberty, will call you to account, for making use of those Ensigns of Tyran­ny, and Instruments of Persecution; for it is barba­rous to go about to convince one's understanding, which is true or false Latin by any thing but Rea­son; it is ridiculous to imagine that whipping should correct a weak or a mistaking judgment.

But Boys are perverse and wilful, and will not be persuaded to their Duty by Reason, therefore Dis­cipline must be us'd, not to convince their judg­ments, but to mend their temper, and to bring them to a Teachable Disposition; be it so: Now if Men may be sometimes Children in the temper of their minds, as well as in understanding, what shall be done? If they are Perverse, Sullen, Rash, Wanton, to say nothing of Malice, Interest, Design, which are more than childish faults, is there no remedy but downright Reason? And yet these Indispositi­ons will not permit the party affected, to hearken to, or to consider, or comply with Reason, but when these Obstructions are remov'd, reason may have its effect, and finish the Conviction.

Yet still, to go about to convince a mans judgment by any thing but Reason, is unmanly, &c. It is certainly so. And an unmannerly Fellow might say, that if his Grace means to convince any mans judgment, by this Quere of the reasonableness of Toleration, he may be in danger of falling under his own Cen­sure. But to the Question, I do not believe we ever [Page 41]had a Parliament so unlearned, as to take Penal Laws for Demonstrations, or to think that any punish­ment can immediately convince the understanding. Penalties in matters of Religion are designed to re­move such evil obstructions as lie in the Passage to a mans right Reason, that it may judge more equally and impartially of that which is laid before it. Every mans reason is not to be spoken with at all times, there may be Prejudice, Wilfulness, or Interest, that like so many surly Door-keepers, forbid all access to right reason; they will say perhaps, my Lord is in­disposed, or he is in Company, or entertains him­self with a private Friend, or is a sleep, and must not be molested; so an ordinary Person must depart, tho' his business be never so reasonable; but if an Officer from the King shall demand Audience, all excuses va­nish, the Doors fly open to the Authority, that would not stir before the Justice of the same Mes­sage, and the great Person so difficult to be ap­proach'd, must then hearken to, and comply with Reason; if therefore the Penalties which cannot con­vince the judgment, may yet rescue it from the slug­gishness, and teachlesness it had contracted, and from that Slavery in to which the will and passions its own natural Subjects had reduc'd it, and restore it to the liberty of considering the Reasons laid before it; eve­ry reasonable man I hope will be ready to discharge them of the infamous Titles given them in this Quere.

Cons. 4 The good Rules of Humanity and Common Civi­lity, are openly violated by using of Force in Matters of Conscience. Men do abhor to thrust that Meat or [Page 42]Drink down their Neighbours Throat, that will not agree with their Stomachs; they say commonly pray take what likes you, why are they not so civil in Mat­ters of Religion, have compassion one on another, be Pitiful, be Courteous.

If it were as indifferent a matter, what Religion or Sect one should be of, as whether he should eat Beef or Mutton, I must confess it would be very unhospitable to oblige a man to any one more than another. But I have not heard before of this new mode of Civility, pray take what God or Religion you please, I will not prescribe to you, be of what Sect you please. Yet if in this variety there should be any thing that you knew to be unwholsom or mortal, it would be but a sorry civility not to forbid him to touch it, or not to snatch it forcibly out of his hands. Or if by mistake one should eat Hemlock, and declare he did not love Oyl, it could not sure­ly be accounted so very Rude and Barbarous, to pour some down his throat. But it goes against their stomachs: So does many Medicines that have good effect. The Physicians must not use Aloes, or Rhubarb, because they make one sick forsooth, in the way to health, but the Chymist and the Quackcry, be kind to nature; Let your Medicines be com­fortable and easy. Indulgence is the only way to heal: After all this, what shall we say to the con­cluding Text of Scripture. Have compassion one of another, &c. Is it not a very tender compassion, so to suffer a man to go on undisturb'd in damnable er­rour? Is it not a most obliging Courtesy, to suffer a man to dye, rather than use so much rudeness as [Page 43]to pull him by the Nose? St. Jude has left us ano­ther sort of direction, he bids us to make a dif­ference, and to snatch some out of the fire, but accord­ing to our Considerers courtesy, we must have a care of being too rough with them, lest while we snatch them out of the fire, we should happen to hurt them, or put out an Arm.

Consi 5. The Church Protestants in England have been distressed by hot doings heretofore in the Reign of Queen Mary, when they were accounted Criminals for not conforming to that Worship which was then the established Worship of the Kingdom. And they should have taken heed before now, of what they did, and of what Spirit they be still of in persecuting others, since they know not how soon that part of the Wheel which has been, or is on the ground, may come to be at top, and fall the heavier on them upon this account; for with the same measure men mete withal, it shall be meted to them again.

If ever I understood the just reproach of a Trim­mer, it is something of kin to this Argument, it is the name, as I take it, of one that dares not be ho­nest, and do his duty for fear of Consequences. What if the Parliament should be angry? What if there should be a Court Revolution? What if the Faction should get the better? So he floats, and rowls, and recipro­cates, as this or that apprehension prevails: How politick this consideration may be, does not much concern me, let the Author abound in his own wis­dom, and distant projects of self preservation, the [Page 44]present Question is, What is fit and ought to be done, and not what will come of it; and besides the issue of this consideration is very uncertain, for there may be Inconveniences in the way of for­bearance, as well as in that of severity. If you provoke a Party, the Wheel may turn round, and they have their turn of being uppermost, and then will be in a capacity of revenging themselves. If you tolerate and give way to Dissenters, you con­tribute to their Growth, and with your own hands help the Wheel to turn round, and when they are got to the Top, they may forget all your former connivances. There is no end of pursuing the con­sequences of things that have such variety of chance, and are influenced by every little incident; the wis­est way surely is for a man to be uniform to himself to do his duty, and leave the success to God: I can­not tell how seasonable it may be put people in mind at this time of Queen Marys daies. Those that can aquiesce in the faith and justice of a King, who has been alwaies so faithful a Subject to his own word, can no more apprehend the hot doings of those times would return, than that the time it self so long pass'd should be recall'd: But there are Con­sciences as full of fears and jealousies of persecution for, as they are of scruples in their Religion, and condemn themselves never to be satisfy'd. This is not very strange, for it is natural for every man to hope and fear according as he has de­served.

I wonder our Author should give himself the trouble to go so far back as Queen Marys Reign, [Page 45]to humble the Church Protestants, with a prospect of their sufferings, he might have found a Revolu­tion no less calamitous to them, and of a more fresh and smarting Remembrance; I mean the Reign of the Dissenters. The Church Protestants are sensible enough, that they are mortal, and have had their turns of suffering as well as others. But it is somewhat an odd way of moving for Indulgence, to commemorate the insolence or cruelty, which those that pretend to favour, have heretofore us'd towards the Church that is establish'd by Law, and it sounds like a threat to suggest, you know what you have suffered, therefore, take heed how you prosecute others. Who are these others? Dissenters? Why should the intimation of Queen Marys days, make us take such heed of that? If those times should return, it is not likely that the Prosecution of Dissenters, would be laid to our charge as Heresy, or Roman Catholicks. The Dissenters of all men living, have the least reason to reproach us with prosecuting these, since they were the constant Instigators of the Magistrate to execute the Laws made against the Papists, and upon all occasions exposed the Church-Protestants, as Popishly affected, because they did not always prosecute that Party with the ut­termost rigour: But if our danger cannot prevail with us to take heed of prosecuting, yet surely our Savi­ours admonition must: With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. If the measure be just and reasonable, why should we fear that the same should be returned; If the return be not just, then it is not the same measure. The Judges had need to understand this place better than our Con­siderer, otherwise they would have but a sorry [Page 46]defence to make if the Criminals they had punish'd, should come to make reprizals, and to judge them by this Text, according to the intent of this Con­sideration.

Consi. 6. Conformists and Non-Conformists, do all agree in the substance of Christianity, in the same Articles of Faith, in the same Rule of Manners, in the Apostles Creed, and the ten Commandments. There is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one Flesh, one Baptisme. As a variety of flowers may grow on one Bank, so may Protestants and Papists live in Eng­land, &c. There is much more reason to love one ano­ther for the many things wherein we agree, than to fall out for those wherein we differ, and though we can­not have Communion in the same external Worship, we can, and have Commuuion in the same internal Adoration of the same Blessed Trinity, &c. The Wolf shall lye down with the Lamb, &c.

It is an intolerable iniquity, to use different and deceitful weights, one sort to buy, and another to sell by. It is the same sort of cheat, to represent things of more or less moment, not as they are in themselves, but only according to the occasion we have to make use of them. When Dissenters speak of Toleration, then we agree all in the main, the differences are only about small matters, and why should not we indulge something to lesser mistakes? But if you desire them to take this Ar­gument back by the same weight, and tell them, that since we agree in the main, why should they [Page 47]be so unreasonable as to separate from us, and to make or continue a perpetual breach for things of little moment? then they presently change their note, and every difference is of the highest impor­tance, i. e. Whatsoever they would have us to grant, is but a slight matter; But for them to yield any of those little things, is as much, as to re­nounce the Faith, or to Sacrifice to an Idol.

Now let us observe the truth and consequence of what is offer'd in this Consideration, all do agree as to the substance of Christianity, and in the same Articles. In what substance? In what Articles? In all? This is too much, for we have some difference I think with the Roman Catholicks about the infallibility of their Church, the Supremacy of the Pope, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and these they take to be Articles of Faith, and of the substance of Religion; and we judge to be mistakes very absurd, and of long and dangerous consequences; But we have the same Apos­tles Creed; So we have the same Scripture, yet if they lay yet broader Foundations, and build upon it what Faith they please, how shall these their Creed or Scripture ever determine any difference about those Additional Articles, or what Plea is it for In­dulgence, that we agree in many points, but that we differ in other of great importance; as if an Argument concerning the obligation of nine of the Command­ments, should be a reason to permit the observation of the tenth to discretion, and that we should rather con­sider the many Commandments about which we a­greed, than one or two, perhaps short ones, which [Page 48]some tender Consciences might desire to be indulg'd. The Socinians and we differ about the Person of Christ, and the Merit of his death, about the Do­ctrine of the Trinity, and many things more of less moment; but these things surely were ever accounted of the substance of Christianity, and yet they make a difference between us and the Socinians: The Quakers who resolve all their Faith into the Authority of their Spirit, and revile the Scripture, and deny it to be the Word of God, do not agree with us so much as in the Foundation of Religion; these two err dangerously concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God, and I am afraid our Author did not consider these Sects, when he tells us; That we can, and have Communion in the same Internal Adoration of the same Blessed Trinity. I cannot tell to what purpose our Author brings into this consideration a passage of Scripture about Unity, where he pleads for the Esta­blishment of Division; There is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Since several of the Dissenters have neither the same Faith, nor Baptism, much less the same Body or Spirit; The Anabaptists look upon our Baptism as void; The Quakers and Soci­nians for the most part, use no Baptism at all: Now I would fain understand by what figure of Speech, these may be said to have the same Baptism with us? Well; admit there be some things of moment, about which we differ, yet the number of those is greatest about which we are agreed, therefore, there is much more reason to love one another, for the many things wherein we agree, than for to fall out for those wherein we differ. Whether we ought to love one another for those things in which we agree, is not the question; for it is [Page 49]certain we ought to love one another, whether we a­gree in many things or few, but the point in dispute is whether this love obliges us to permit those that differ from us, to Confirm themselves in those errors, which are the occasion of our difference, by having them Preach'd and Argu'd, and Maintain'd in their Assemblies; Is it an Act of Christian Charity, to suffer Quakers to enjoy all opportunities of being confirm'd in their madness, and of seducing silly people? If we love the Person of a Socinian, must we therefore give him leave to propagate his Doctrine, and to teach men to deny their Lord that bought them? because we have Charity for Anabaptists, ought we therefore to Tolerate them to Re-baptize those they have se­duc'd to believe themselves no Christians, or the In­dependants, because our Faith is not much different from theirs? shall they out of pure love be licens'd to gather Select Congregations, to draw away as many as they can from the Church, to oblige them by a Vow as Solemn as that of Baptism, not to return thither, nor to forsake their new Fraternity?

These are the things which we would gladly have the Dissenters forbear, and use all lawful means to hinder them, not because we have no love for them, but out of pure compassion, because these things they are so desirous to be indulg'd in, would do them and others hurt, and this is all the quarrel we have with them, this is the falling out with which our Author is offended.

What shall we say now to the Mahomitan Parable? That variety of Flowers may grow on the same Bank. [Page 50]It is certainly more agreeable to the Principles of him that spoke it, than those of a Christian, for the Turks permit Jews and Christians to live among them, and to enjoy the Exercise of their Religion, because they think both of them may be sav'd by vertue of that Religion they respectively profess. But our Church passes a very severe Censure upon those that shall say, that every man may be sav'd by that Law or Sect which he professes. But what if these Flowers prove Weeds, and grow too fast, what if they an­noy, and hurt the rest, what if they are like Flow­ers de Luce ill Neighbours according to the Old Pro­verb, what then? They must certainly in prudence be a little discouraged and kept under, or by some good Art be brought to change their destructive and unsortable nature.

In what manner this Prophecy of the Reconcilia­tion of Dissenting Natures, The Wolf shall lye down with the Lamb, and the Leopard with the Kid, is to be accomplish'd, I am not well assur'd, however I have some reason to suspect, that it is not to be done by the way of an uni­versal Toleration, because this description shews not only, that they shall not hurt one the other, but that they shall be of one Fellowship and Communion; they shall feed and lye down toge­ther; whereas Toleration seems to do no more than to shut up these several Creatures in distinct apart­ments of the same Grate; but if you would know when a Presbyterian, or Independant, or Anabap­tist, will not hurt, I can tell, without the Spirit of Prophecy, it is then only when they have no power to do hurt.

Cons. 7. The French Protestants, who are Dissenters from the Establish'd Government of that Kingdom, are kindly receiv'd and succour'd by England, and when the French King is highly blam'd by English Pro­testants, and perhaps too by some English Catholicks, for Persecuting his peaceable Subjects, shall we do the same thing in our Kingdom, which we condemn in another? Therefore thou art inexcusable O Man that judgest, for thou that judgest another, doest the same thing.

I will not enquire what English Protestants do highly blame or condemn the Actions of the French King; those of my acquaintance are not very forward to censure and condemn Princes, nor can it be con­cluded, that whosoever is kind to a Stranger forc'd out of his Countrey, does presently engage himself in the whole Merit of his Cause. But as for the French Protestants, we conceive our compassion to be the more due to them, because they suffer for a Religion, which we verily believe to be true, which we are not able to say of several of those that plead for Toleration. In the next place, they were peace­able, and had not provok'd their Prince by any Se­ditious or Turbulent Behaviour, in the Minority of this King, when the discontents of France were very high, and the Authority of the Government low. They behav'd themselves so well as to deserve his publick acknowledgment, which I believe our Dissenters are too modest to pretend to; for if they should; yet there is hardly any body so ignorant of their proceedings, but can justly reproach them [Page 52]with having laid hold on every advantage of publick distress, to weaken first, then to destroy the Government: They never fail'd to join themselves with every Faction against the Crown, and still brought a form'd Faction to every discontented great Man, and offer'd themselves ready instruments of his Ambition or Revenge. But we have yet farther cause to Commiserate the sufferings of the French Protestants, because they tell us, and we have no reason to disbelieve them, that they were inflicted without Process or Form of Law, and directly a­gainst particular Rights and Priviledges granted to them by former Kings.

For their Churches had been long ago taken into the protection of the Government, and esta­blish'd by Laws. Special Judicatures were erected in their favour, where the one half were of their Religion, and several other Priviledges granted them, to secure their persons and estates from Op­pression, and the malice of their Enemies; and how they have forfeited all, I do not know. But our Protestant Dissenters were never own'd by our Laws, nor men­tioned in them, but as a factious and seditious [...]ar­ty, that was by all due means to be suppress'd. There never was any agreement or accomodation between the Government and them; for while they could hold their arms in their hands, they would never hearken to any, and therefore it is no won­der if we have so many Laws against Dissenters, to forbid Conventicles, to oblige them to come to Church; since this Government thought they could never take too great security, from a Party [Page 53]they had found to be implacable. Therefore thou art inexcusable O man, whoever thou art, that wouldst stir up the Reader, nay recommend to the Parliament for a Parellel Case with ours, one that has so little resemblance with it.

Top. 3. We are come now to the third and last Topick of the Advocates for Toleration, and that is the benefit and advantage of the Kingdom, by Improvement of Trade, to which Indulgence is esteem'd to be so singular a Nurse, that it cannot possibly thrive or subsist without it. Wherefore the D. of B. makes this Quere, Whether the practice of it, i. e. of using any compulsion or restraint towards mens Consciences, has not alwaies been ruinous and destructive to those Countreys, where it has been us'd either in Monarchies or Common-wealths? and whether the contrary practice has not been succesful in all those Countreys, where it has been us'd, either in Monarchies or Common­wealths?

We have great obligation to this Noble Person, for waving all the advantages which a fruitful wit might have given him upon this Subject, of reasoning without end of the possible or probable mischiefs or advantages arising to Monarchies or Common­wealths, from the granting or refusing Toleration; and for referring this whole dispute to the decisi­on of experience. The Question therefore cannot but have an easy issue, because any man of ordi­nary understanding, that has read some History, [Page 54]or made any Observation in the World, may be capable of deciding it. As to the first part- of the demand I do believe there have been, and are seve­ral Kingdoms that have receiv'd no manner of da­mage, by denying a Toleration to several Religi­ons. What Calamity has befallen Denmark or Swe­den upon this account, where you will meet with no other Churches, but the Lutherans and if some Indulgence has been heretofore offered there to People of other Nations, this comes not under our Question, for strangers may be more safely tolerated than Subjects, because the removal of them, when they grew trouble­some is more easy, and has not so bad conse­quence. But not to Travel so far for an exception to this General Quaere, I beleive there was no Kingdom more flourishing than this was under Queen Elizabeth and King James I. And yet then there was as great or greater restraint upon Con­science, as at any time since: The Roman Catho­licks, though a very numerous and formidable Par­ty in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, were brought to our Churches, by the single force of the Act of Uniformity, which left Dissenters to the Censures of the Church, and added no other punishment than a light mulct of a Shilling for every default. And this Uniformity that is the Contra­diction of Toleration, did in a few years so di­minish that Party, that the Pope was oblig'd to command those who retain'd any reverence for his Authority, to separate themselves, and to abstain from coming to our Churches: It would have been a strange Paradox in Politicks, in those daies, to [Page 55]plead for the Toleration of those the Government did so much fear. But however, this Compulsion did not prove in the least ruinous, or destructive to this Kingdom: And when that Party fell into dange­rous enterprizes, the Laws grew still more and more severe, in obliging them to a conformity with the establish'd Religion.

The Puritans were as little indulg'd by that Queen, as the Papists, as her Laws do sufficiently declare, and all her time by due execution of Laws; that Faction was low and inconsiderable, that the care taken then to suppress them, seemed to pro­ceed rather from the foresight of such troubles, as this Faction might create to succeeding Princes, than any apprehension of present danger. I need not mention those Anabaptists, and wild Fanaticks, that were put to death in her time, not so much I conceive for matters of Religion, as crimes against the State, it is enough that all the World knows, that there was no Toleration in those daies, and yet they were as serene, as prosperous, as happy, as any pass'd over the head of this Nation, at least­wise during the late Usurpation, which was the only time of Toleration in this King­dom.

If we can give any credit to those Observations, which our Republicans and Dissenters have made of the Original of the late Confusions, we owe them all to a pretended Toleration, or some secret Con­nivance which they suspected, and from this root they deduce all that followed; true or false, real [Page 56]or pretended; the Enemies of the Government made much more advantage of it, than either the Government, or those for whom the favour was said to be intended.

I might instance in Monarchy's, and Common­wealths of the Roman Communion, that are of Opi­nion, that they have received no great prejudice by not granting a Toleration for all Sects of Religion; and if some of the most zealous Persecutors of the Reformation have fallen into extraordinary decay, we may impute it to the Judgment of God upon them for resisting the Truth with so great Cruelty, and not for denying licence to every thing or Sect, that had the pretence or Cant of Religion. Besides in those Coun­treys, some that have inquired into the reasons of their decay, have observed several other false mea­sures, much more pernicious than the denying of Toleration.

The last Exception I shall make is from the Com­mon wealth and Kingdom of the Jews, which ne­ver flourish'd more than when there was no Tole­ration, never was in worse Condition, than when there was; And this instance has something more of Authority than the rest, because this People were govern'd by Gods own Laws, and sometime more immediately by God himself as it were in Person, and yet during all the time of his Theocracy, there is not the least Indulgence or Liberty of Conscience to be found upon Record.

Nay, so far was his Government from any such thing, that he made a perpetual Decree, that if any [Page 57]Person, or City, or Tribe, should fall away from his Worship, and serve other Gods, the rest instead of In­dulging, or neglecting the errors, were to prosecute them to utter destruction.

Now, lest it may be thought, that under Theo­cracy this might be just, because Idolatry was a sort of High Treason, but in other Governments the rea­son ceases; it is plain that the same Law was put in Execution by the Kings of Israel and Judah; who are not only commended by the inspir'd Writers, but ob­served to have been bless'd with unusual prosperity for those prosecutions. I would not be thought to recommend these Proceedings, as Precedents to be transcrib'd by Christian Princes, it is only upon the Question of Fact, that I produce this instance, to shew there may be such a thing as a prosperous King­dom or Common Wealth, without the help of a ge­neral Toleration.

As to the second part of the Quere; Has not the contrary practice been always successful to those Coun­tries where it has been us'd, either in Monarchies or Common Wealths. I think it a hard matter to find many Kingdoms or Common Wealths, where a general Toleration has been us'd; some have en­dur'd one, or perhaps two sorts of Dissenters in Religion, but this does not answer the end of those Queres, or of the Considerations, which is universal Toleration; but have not those been most successful that have tolerated most? This is not certain, for I think in the time of the late Usurpation, there was a great variety of Sects permitted to use their several ways, but the success, God be thanked, was such as honest men did wish and pray for; they had [Page 58]too great success indeed at first against the King and the Church, but then Toleration was scarce begun or design'd; there was then but one Rule of Uni­formity, the Covenant was impos'd upon all; And the Independants did for a good while dissemble their Exceptions. But afterwards when every Sect demanded the liberty of its own way, and Religions were multiply'd beyond Computation, the Fruits of Toleration did quickly appear, every Sect as it ga­ther'd a little strength from a State of Toleration be­gan to affect Dominion, and this did quickly so dis­unite, and rend the Body of those Tyrants, that it was impossible for them longer to subsist, and so made way to that glorious Revolution, whose influence makes us still happy and prosperous, and it makes no difference in this case, whether a Government be rightful or usurp'd; the same method of Indulgence will have the same consequence, only Usurpers have more excuse for allowing Toleration, because it is more necessary for them, than for a Rightful and long Establish'd Dominion; and therefore tho' it be a dan­gerous course, they must take it, because they have no better to take.

I know the Example of the United Privinces is of­ten Recommended by our Dissenters, and is men­tioned by the Authour of the Considerations, and in­deed it equally serves both their occasions, for a Com­mon Wealth, and Toleration; however, I believe this instance is commonly swallow'd down whole with­out considering the particular reasons or circumstan­ces that may induce them to tolerate some Religions, which may render their case very different from ours. Some Religions, I say, because they do not tolerate all, or whatever they do at this time, they have been [Page 59]in the memory of man so far from allowing an Uni­versal Toleration, that they exceeded all their Pro­testant Neighbours in violence and severity, against those that dissented from their Establish'd Religion, tho' in matters very obscure, and of insuperable diffi­culty. However, since this Example of the Dutch, is insisted upon by all the Advocates for Toleration, as an unanswerable Argument of the benefit of that course, I will give a brief account of such circum­stances, as determined them to Indulgence, and the security they take a gainst all the civil consequences of it; neither of which are to be found in our Govern­ment.

In the first place, their Common Wealth was Ori­ginally made up of several Religions, or Sects, which are as essential parts of their Constitution, for they were not only preserv'd by Strangers from England, and France, and Germany, that Fought their Battels, but many out of Germany and France, fled thither as to a common refuge; and were all as it were in­corporated into this Common Wealth; every one of these Nations had their Churches not only tolerated, but Establish'd by Authority, and paid by the Go­vernments; so every Nation and Sect, use their own Forms and Languages, only the English are much degenerated, partly by their own fault, inclining to the Puritan way, and accommodating themselves to the manner of the Country, partly by the care which the Dutch do, and have ever us'd to discourage Episcopal Ministers, making great scruple of admit­ting any one they suspect to have Episcopal Ordina­tion. So Toleration was at first the necessity, not the choice of that People. But after this Establishment, [Page 60]the measure of their Toleration being full, whoever oppos'd the Religion Establish'd, and departed from the Rule of their Church, found but very sorry quarter. When the Socinians appear'd first in those Countries, the States took the Alarm, and Banish'd those Hereticks out of all their Dominions. Then Arminius his Scholars, presum'd to find fault with the Dutch Catechism, which was their Establish'd Doctrine of their Church, and to divide Communion upon it; they were condemned by the Synod of Dort, and the Sentence was Executed by the Magistrate, with so great severity, that all the Neighbouring Countries were fill'd with the complaint of the suf­fering Remonstrants. The most Eminent and Active of whom were forced to fly their Country, or to en­dure close Imprisonment at home, so that, tho' they had more different Religions in their first Constitu­tion than we, yet they endeavour'd, we see, to keep their first Establishment entire, as well as we do ours, by forcibly suppressing those that assaulted it; nay, they us'd greater severities upon this occasion to­wards their Dissenters, than ever we have done to ours. Yet during this prosecution of Dissenters, they had the best success that ever happened to that Com­mon Wealth; before that time they struggl'd for life, but now they enlarg'd their Frontiers and their Trade, and advanc'd so far in strength and reputation, as to become the most powerful Common Wealth in Europe; not that their success and prosperity is to be imputed to this Persecution, but it seems by this in­stance, that forcible means in matters of Conscience does not always ruin, nor is the good success of a People in Trade or War always to be imputed to a [Page 61]general Toleration. I do not pretend to justify those proceedings, nor do I alledge them upon any other account, than to shew that Dutch Toleration, has bounds, and that they have been prosperous while they prosecuted, a very considerable Party, both for number and interest, upon the account of Religion.

But besides the difference of their first Constituti­on, and ours, there are several other circumstances in their Government, that renders Toleration less dangerous to them than it is to us.

1. The Dutch Populace have no voice at all in chusing of their Magistrates; there are neither May­ors, nor Aldermen, nor Sheriffs, nor Common Council, nor Knights and Burgesses for Parliament, to be Elected by their Commonalty. There are no Juries to Judge of Matter of Fact, or of Right by way of Concomitance, in any Causes Criminal or Ci­vil. So that tho' the number of any Sect may increase, yet has it but very little influence upon the Govern­ment, since it can have no hand in disposing of Pub­lick Offices; nor are the Members of it capable of any, whereas no Sect can thrive with us, but you presently find the evil effect of it in our Parliaments, in our Juries, and consequently in all the distribution of Justice, and especially in the Government, and temper of our Corporations.

2. As the People have no part in the choice of their Magistrates, so neither can any one be admit­ted to any part of their Government, who is not of [Page 62]the States Religion, and this to appear not by any single Test, as once coming to Church, or Receiving of the Sacrament in order to be qualify'd, but by the course of their Life, so that if any Person have given any suspition to that Colledge of Magistrates, into which he is ambitious to be received, that he is not in his Heart of their Religion, there is no more hopes of his succeeding, than that a Person should be made Pope, who is under imputation of Heresie.

3. It is said, that the Government of their Cities have a more absolute and summary way of Proceed­ing with Persons suspected of any design or practice, to the prejudice of the publick quiet, and those ob­lique and squinting discourses, and practices of Sedi­tion, that can scarce give matter to an Information with us, are there easily suppress'd by an admoniti­on, for such Persons to depart the place.

4. The temper of the People is something more Phlegmatick and less zealous than ours; the several Sects are content with following their Trade all the Week, and their Religion on Sunday, without trou­bling their Heads with gaining Proselytes, or adding to their numbers, whereas with us every Sectary, almost, is a kind of Apostle, and is in season and out of season, still Preaching up his own way, and prac­tizing upon all those with whom he has to do, and railing against what is uppermost.

Now the Dissenters who magnify beyond mea­sure, the happiness of the Dutch in the use of a Gene­ral Toleration, would be very loath to purchase it [Page 63]at the same rate, that is, by resigning up for that Liberty of Conscience, all such Liberties and Privi­ledges of Englishmen, whereby they are made capa­ble of giving disturbance to the Government. I am affraid there would be many Dissenters found upon the Tryal very unwilling for a licence to go to Con­venticles; to forbear going to Elections of Parlia­ment Men; and to oblige themselves not to go to the Guild-Hall, provided they be excused for not going to Church.

Yet after all, the Dutch Toleration has one possi­ble disadvantage, and that a heavy one, that seeing there are some Sects now tolerated, almost as nume­rous as that Party of the Establish'd Religion, some of these either by Domestick Tumult, or Forreign support, may establish themselves in the place of those who are now in Authority, and by putting out a small number of men, now in Government, not only make themselves Masters of it, but main­tain and keep it by the number and strength they have already; and which will more and more en­crease by the Accession of those whose Religion is gain, of which sort that Country has its share. Whereas in those Countries where there are indeed several Religions, if the Dissenters are so kept un­der as to bear no proportion to those of the Establish­ment, though they may make a Tumult, or get the better for some little time by the advantage of a surprize, yet will they never be able to maintain themselves, and must give way to the Restauration of the first Establishment.

The Considerator is very particular upon this Topick, and does not only tell us that prosecuting of Dissenters destroys Trade, but instances in some Prosecutions of so ill consequence, that the King and Council were forc'd to over-rule them, or else vast multitudes of Poor People, who were not any ways infected with the Opinions of Dissenters, must have been undone.

Cons. 8. Prosecuting Dissenters (he saies) is a great disadvantage to the Trade of the Kingdom, they being a chief Part of the Trading People, and conse­quently Liberty of Conscience, must be the most effectual means to restore it.

I have good reason to believe that our Author over-reckons, when he makes the Dissenters a chief Part of the Traders: For though they consist chiefly of Trades-men, and those of the smaller sort, yet they are but an inconsiderable Part in respect of the whole. And we must note, that all are not Dissen­ters out of Conscience, that speak favourably of their Party, or favour them in a Vote; and it is not un­likely, but that an equal Execution of the Laws, might discover to us a great secret, that the twen­tieth Part of those who are reputed for Dissenters, do not stand in need of a Toleration; what our Con­siderer saies of restering of Trade, is to suggest that it is decay'd, whereas it is notoriously known, that it never was at a greater height in this Kingdom, than it is at present. But when Dissenters talk of deadness of Trade, you must understand, that the true meaning is only that they are discontented, and [Page 65]would fain make others so low, and because they have no reason, or dare not tell the true one, ven­ture the shame of the World, by using a pretence that is notoriously false.

The Relation that follows of a cloathier, that was forc'd to leave his Trade and Habitation; and to leave the Poor People he employed upon the Parish, and of others of the same Trade, that combind to buy no Wool, and to abuse the Country, to be reveng'd of the Laws, I dare not vouch for true; But should they be all true, which is a very great rarity in the Reports of that Party, I know not what to say, but who can help it? Suppose that cloathier had broke, for Dissenters are frail and breakable as other men, and the Poor Workmen had gone a begging. It is a sad Case you will say so many People should be undone by a scurvy Law, that prosecutes men for paying of Debts, or suppose the man had dy'd, some Remedy must have been found, and some other means to maintain these Poor People, there might be more of the Trade that would have been glad of the opportunity of succeeding him, for the sullen men, that abus'd the Country, by combining not to buy, I think they deserved little favour upon that account, and in short upon this whole vapour of Trade, as if it were wedded only to Dissenters, it has been answered long ago, and those that threatn'd to withdraw their stocks were desir'd, to make their words good, and the King sufficiently assur'd, that the General Trade of the Kingdom should not suffer the least diminution, though no one Dissenter were concern'd in it. However it was then, it is very well known now, that there is a great deal more money in this Kingdom than can be employ'd [Page 66]in Trade, and we are so far from being in a Condi­tion that obliges us to Court men to proceed in trad­ing, that the laying down of Trade, is like the lay­ing down of an Office, men are not only courted to it, but brib'd and bought to make room for those who are as it were shut out of the Exchange, by the extraordinary throng that is within.

Consi. 9. Our Consideratour transcribes several pas­sages of late his Majesties Declaration from Breda, and some other out of Speeches since his Restauration, I will not take upon me too answer them, but remit the Reader to those Reasons of the House of Com­mons, which satisfyed the King himself, so far as to pass the act of uniformity without any regard had to the Dissenters, the Declaration for indulgence set forth some years after, upon better Considera­tion was revok'd by the King, but no Council or Parliament were ever able to convince him so fully of the Reason of putting the Laws in Execution, against Dissenters, as the Dissenters themselves, who made at last such returns of insolence and sedition, for all his indulgence, that he was forc'd for the preservation of himself and his Government, to call for the assistance of those Laws, and to order them to be put in effectual Execution, and we owe it wholy to his wisdom and fore-sight, that some of the most considerable of them are now in being, I mean that of the 35th of Queen Elizabeth, which he saved by his Prerogative Law, as well as men when it was condemn'd to be abolish'd; And if his clemency had saved many, who the Laws had just­ly condemned, why should it not save a Law, that had done him and his Ancestours no small service, and was then doom'd to an undeerv'd Fate.

Consi. 10. The Tenth and last Consideration, con­sists of several Testimonies, take some from Anci­ent Ecclesiastical Writers, some from modern Au­thors, he deals here in Gross; and is not pleas'd to name his Author from whence he has taken them, that the particulars might be examin'd. It is not impossi­ble perhaps to Guess, but why should any man break in upon ones private reading, and intrude in his fecret. If our Author had known any other Church History, or Collector, it is ten to one but he had chosen better, as for the first 800 years, it is true there could not be many Civil Laws against Dissen­ters in Christian Religion, yet if our Author had heard of the story of Paul of Samesata, he might have known, that the Civil Power was employ'd in defence of the Catholick Religion against Heresy, even before Constantines time: He names several Emperours, with whom I perceive he is unacquaint­ed, for I am apt to beleive if he had known any thing of them, he would have left, at leastwise Con­stantius and Vatens, out of his Catalogue of Tolera­tiours, and put in Julian who out of pure love and kind ness to Christian Religion, granted an universal. To­leration to all Sects of dissenting Christians. But their larger permission (he says,) was especially towards Jews. It may be so, for these were indulg'd, when several Christian Sects were not, nay they have a Toleration in almost all Christian Kingdoms. And even in Rome, where there is small regard had of the Consciences of Protestant Dissenters, and all this, not because they prefer Jews to erring Christians, but because they conceive the Toleration of them, may not have so much danger, at that of Christian Sects.

Yet of these Emperours whom he names, Constan­tine [Page 68]prosecuted the Donatists, and the Arnians, and sent several Bishops that refus'd to subscribe the Ni­cene Creed into Banishment. Theodosius the Great, and his Sons Arcadius and Honorius did restrain many Christian Sects in the Exercise of their Conscience, and succeeding Emperours were still more and more severe in requiring compliance, with the Religion Establish'd in several Councils.

Ithacius, and Idacius, our Author observes, were condem'd by the Gallican Bishops, for being Authors of bringing the Priscillianists to Execution: What Exe­cution I pray? Of Death, they might be justly con­demn'd for making themselves Prosecutors, in Cases of Bloud, but what is all this to our Laws, or Pro­secution of Dissenters? St. Augustin was against San­guinary Laws in Cases of Religion, so are we; seve­ral Fathers condemn the use of all force to bring a man to believe the Gospell, so do we Religion must be volun­tary, and cannot be forc'd so say we, and yet there may be discipline us'd to reduce the wilful & perverse, and they may be brought the better to see their mistake, by the Inconvenenices it may expose them to. The Sects of the Jews, were rather in Phyloso­phy, then Religion, for there was no Schisme nor Breach between them, in regard of the main Con­gregation which the Law requir'd, for they went all into the same Temple to Worship. The Joseptins would not suffer the Trachonites to be circumcised by force, no more do we, either Infidels or their Children to be baptiz'd by force, Ethelbert would not compel the Pagan Saxons to be come Christians, and Constantine, and Licinius's edict, allows all the Liberty of their Worship, because at that time the Circumstances of Christianity, and Heathenism did then require it to be so, and yet Constantine after­ward [Page 69]ward forbid the Heathen to sacrifice to their Idols, and shut up their Temples. Bodin had apostatiz'd to Judaisme, or perhaps Atheism, and it is no great matter what he says, nor is it of any great Authority, what Barc-lay says in a Romance, and the Reflexions of Political Writers, when they refine upon any Sub­ject, are not always wise in the practice as wise as they are in the Contemplation: Sir E. Cook was never against the Execution of our Penal Laws against Dissenters, and what Judge Jenkins says is only with respect to the time in which they were spoken, when it seem'd Impossible, to make any accomoda­tion without a General Toleration, but it pleas'd the providence of God to open another way which the wisest men were so far from foreseeing, that they durst hardly hope it, some years before.

The words of King Charles the Martyr, had respect to the circumstances of this Kingdom when he wrote, and as for the preamble of the Statute of Queen Ma­ry, it is but necessary, that those who cannot be brought to love, may be compell'd to fear their Prince, extream punishments such as are there intend­ed, I believe we have none, and the extreamest of ours were forced by the Sedition, and not design'd against the Opinions of Dissenters, and if those-just Laws, that were made without any extream punishment, had been duly executed, there had in probability been no occasion for other more severe penalties, so that if there be any addition of rigor, the Dissenters must thank those that favour'd and conniv'd at them for it, that incourag'd them to be insolent and enter­prizing, and forc'd the Government, to take greater security of a Party that began to grow ungovernable.

As to the last ambiguous Citation, it is sufficient [Page 70]to reply, that the increase of Dissenters, did always increase not only the differences between King and People, and divided their interests, but likewise di­vided the interest and affections of the People, and therefore whatever way contribute most to the growth of a disaffected Party, cannot be healing, how moderate soever it may be, and if the Dissenters thought they would not thrive better under a Tole­ration, which I cannot see any reason why they should desire it.

And now having return'd this Answer to the Queres and considerations concerning Toleration, I might from the same Topicks that are us'd to per­suade to it, proceed to shew that such a Toleration as is there demanded, is consistent neither with Christ­ian Religion, right reason, nor the safety and Trade of the Kingdom. For what can be more unchristian, than to give wicked, or infatuated men license to cor­rupt the Gospel, and Blaspheme the name of Christ, under pretence of Religion? What more uncharitable than to give leave to presumptious men, to confirm themselves in their own rash mistakes, or to seduce others into the same snare of the Devil, deceiving and being deceiv'd? What more absurd or contrary to sound reason, then to give course to the most extra­vagant, the most absurd Opinions under the colour of Religion and Conscience? And to expose the Com­mon People, who do for the most part mean better than they understand, to the Practice and Sollicita­tion of every tempting Imposter, and lastly what more inconsistant with the peace and safety of the King­dom, than the cherishing of a Faction, which has once already overthrown this Monarchy and Church, and engag'd very lately in the same design? And if [Page 71]the safety of the Government cannot consist with To leration, Trade to be sure can never strive under it, for Traders will quickly leave a People, whose Go­vernment is at the discretion of a Faction, or at least­wise so much threaten'd with apprehensions of chang, as to be in probable danger. But I shall wave this advantage, being content to keep upon the de­fensive, however it be esteem'd a part no less disad­vantagious in controversie then it is in War, nor is it necessary to pursue the debate much farther, since it is sufficient ground for any reasonable man to pre­sume, that the reason and the equity of our Laws, are no less firm than the Authority by which they were enacted, when the shall perceive that all the excepti­ons made now against them, are either frivolous or false, wherefore since there are no sufficient Reasons alledg'd why the Laws should comply with the Dis­senters, I will briefly suggest some reasons why the Dissenters should comply with the Laws, without entring into the merits of the Cause, but keeping my self only to the Principles of the several Sects; so that it must needs be highly unreasonable to plead for a Toleration of such Dissenters, as might not only lawfully comply with all the Law requires, if their Consciences were rightly inform'd but may yet comply for the most part, even according to the Rule and the Conscience they profess.

And here I must treat with them a part, as they are divided into several Religious Tribes, and Gonven­ticles, for when they are join'd in one Politick and Se­ditious Rendezvous, it is no fit place to speak of Reli­gion. And

• 1. Why should any Presbyterian desire the Law a­gainst Conventicles should be repeal'd upon his ac­count, [Page 72]since if he have not departed from his first Principles, he believes that separation from our Chur­ches is not only unnecessary but unlawful. Several of the old Puritans, from whom our Presbyterians own their descent, have written as zealously against Sepa­ration, and the erecting of dissenting Congregrations as any of the Divines of the Church of England. Some of them indeed pretend that they go to Conventicles for greater Edification, but how can that be more edifying, that according to their Principles is unlaw­ful? They may by the same way of reasoning, knock an old heavy teacher on the head, to make way for another that may be more powerful, and edifying. Therefore since a Presbyterian Conventicle, is as much a contradiction to the Principle and Consci­ence of Presbyterians, as to the Law of the Land, why should any body interceed for a Toleration of that, which their Principles disallow?
• 2. Why should any Presbyterian desire Toleration for not coming to our Churches, since by their Prin­ciples it is not unlawful to hold occasional Commu­nion with our Church, i. e. some time to join with us in Common Prayer, and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the last, and strictest Bond of Com­munion which Christians hold, and they have been hitherto very much to seek for reasons, why that Communion may not be as lawful to be us'd constant­ly, as it is upon occasions, the most plausible excuse they make is this, that they had Pastors of their own before the Re-establishment, of our Church, and there­fore tho' they may occasionally communicate with us, as those of one Parish may go to a Neighbouring Church upon occasion, yet they cannot do it con­stantly, because of their Antecedent Obligation to [Page 73]their own Pastors. This excuse, if it were admitted, would not serve half the turn, for if this had any force, why should it not have been admitted in the cause of those Ministers that were turn'd out illegally, to make Room for the Presbyterians? Why were these Loyal Ministers deserted by the Presbyterians of those days, when they were forc'd by usurp'd power from the exercise of their Function. Besides there are but few of such Ministers now living, so that the ex­cuse serves but very few Presbyterian Assemblies, and there are fewer yet upon the places where they were Ministers in the time of the late Rebellion, and there­fore that relation ceases, which this excuse does sup­pose; for why should a company of Presbyterians in London, join themselves to one that taught in Hull or York, or perhaps in Scotland, upon this pretence that they ought not to forsake their former Ministers? So this can be no excuse why that occasional Communion which the Presbyterians profess lawful to hold with the Church of England, should not be improv'd into a constant one; therefore there is no need of Tolera­tion for those who by their own Principle may Com­municate with us upon occasion, especially the occa­sion of an Office, for which they are to be qualify'd by such Communion.
• 3. The Independants indeed hold a necessity of se­parating from our, and all other Churches that are not of their form, and so their Principles render their compliance with some of our Laws more impractica­ble. Yet they have no reason to desire a Toleration for Conventicles, since those that the Law makes such are not necessary to them according to their own Principles. For The notion they have of a Church, makes such [Page 74]Conventicles as the Law punishes to be unnecessary, for Robinson affirms, that where two or three peo­ple are gathered there is a Church. Cotton requires a few more to make up the integrity of an Organick Church, i. e. 7, or 8. Now the Law makes no As­sembly to be a Conventicle that has not near this num­ber, besides the Persons of the Family, where this Meeting is held. Therefore, if the Law punish Inde­pendant Conventicles of greater numbers, it cannot truly be said that they are persecuted for Conscience, for that which the Law makes their Crime, i. e. their exceeding such a number, is a thing in their own Opi­nion unnecessary.

4. If they cannot join with us in Common-Pray­er, yet they may come to hear our Sermons, as well as those of the Presbyterians, which they hear occa­sionally, since no Principle of their Religion forbids it, and they require it in New England, of those who are not of their Church; and there is no reason they should have any Indulgence in such things as a mis­inform'd Conscience makes necessary to them, be­fore they shew themselves willing to comply with the Law in every thing wherein their Conscience will give them leave.

5. Our Anabaptists, being of near kin to the Inde­pendants, and having the same notions in a manner with them, concerning the necessity and the num­ber of a Church; are concluded, by the same things as have been offer'd, against the Toleration of Indepen­dant Conventicles.

6. But of all Sects the Quakers have the least rea­son to desire Toleration for their meetings, because they have not only cast away the use of all Sacra­ments, but also of reading and Interpreting the Scrip­tures [Page 75]in their Assemblies. They profess to be guid­ed by the Spirit, i. e. Every one by his own, and that they have no other Guide or Teacher, but that Spirit that is within them. Wherefore they usually apply that Prophecy to themselves Litterally, They shall not teach every one his Neighbour, nor every one his Brother, saying, know the Lord: For they shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest. Wherefore if there is to be no outward teaching, why do they teach in their meetings? Or to what purpose is it to teach there, where either every man is inspir'd with the Spirit of God, and so needs no teaching, or else can reap no Benefit by any thing that is said, because he has not the Spirit, without which he cannot be taught? Besides, what use is there of silent meetings, where there is nothing at all said? If they have any promise of the Spirit, to be inspir'd in these meetings, how comes it to fail? If they have not, why do they meet? The Spirit of the Apostles was never want­ing on any publick occasion, and we read of no Assembly of their time without Prayer, or Preach­ing: But the Spirit of the Quakers is of another sort, sometimes dumb, such as Christ us'd to cast out. And there is little Reason there should be any li­cense for publick meeting of Persons only to gape, and groan in an uncertain expectation of being inspi­red; and since every one by those Enthusiasts is re­mitted to the Light within him, the most proper place, one would think for such dreamers, is a solitary and dark place, for they can attend better to that inward Light, that private Spirit, by Meditation, and turning their thoughts inwardly, than under the variety of application, that commonly distract mens thoughts in Publick Assemblies.

There are some other Sects among us, very earnest for Toleration, who have as little need of it, in that Part that regards their Assembling for Publick Wor­ship, as any of the former, and those especially whose service is perform'd in a Language they do not un­derstand, have the least need of a Publick Assembly; for if a mans understanding be absent from what is done, it does not import how far off the thing is from his presence, for he is as far from me to all intents of Benefit, that is out of the reach of my understanding, as he that is wholly out of my hear­ing, and a Mass that is said in Rome, may do me as much good by the Intention of the Priest there, as one at which I may be present, where I understand nothing but am only comprehended in the general ex­pression of pro papulo Ciroumstante. Besides, the practice of men telling over their Beads in the Publick Worship, declares that they belong not to it, and have no occa­sion for it, for they cannot in any sense be said to be at the same service, who do not join in the same Pray­er. If while the Priest says Domine non sum dignus, I say a Pater, and another an Ave, and a third an Ora pro Nobis, this is no more one service, than it is a Harmony when every one sings or plays what comes in his sancy, without regarding the Tune or the Cho­ras of any of his Fellow Minstrels, whereas if they were separated every man apart, might make some kind of Musick.

When there was no King in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own Eyes.

Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation.

To the Law and the Testimony, if they speak not accord­ing to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.