1. Argument.

The Magistrate hath not received any Authority from God to compell, or constrain by greater or lesser punishments, the consciences of men in matters disputable: and therefore he may maintain Liberty of Conscience in such things: search the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and you shall find no such authority committed to the Magistrate.

As for the Old Testament, I confesse there the Magistrate had authority to punish with death the Murtherer, the Adul­terer, and the Idolater, that worshipped the Sun, Moon, and Stars: but these were no disputable points, but errors clearly revealed in Scripture: but you shall no where find the Magi­strate impowred from God, to punish any for matters disputa­ble and doubtfull.

As for the New Testament, neither Christ nor his Apostles left any order for the Magistrate to punish any for the liberty of his Conscience in things doubtfull and disputable. Excom­munication was for incest, 1 Cor. 5.1. &c. which is a scanda­lous sin, and clearly condemned in Scripture, but not for points doubtfull and disputable: I may therefore conclude, that God hath not given the Magistrate any authority in the Old or New Testament to punish any for liberty of his Con­science in things disputable: wherefore the Magistrate may maintain liberty of Conscience in such things.

2. Argument.

It is against the common light of Reason in all men, to pu­nish any for a fault which is disputable and doubtfull: so you have the judgement of all men against this.

Furthermore, in a disputable point, St. Paul reckons him that holds the truth to be a strong brother, and him that is in the errour a weake brother, Rom. 14. Now is it not contrary to reason, that a Magistrate should by punishment constrain a weak man to do more than he can do? or carry a burthen above his strength?

But Papists who maintain Free-will, and persecution for Conscience-sake will say, as some Protestants do among us, these men can alter their minds if they will, but they are ob­stinate Hereticks, or Schismaticks, after a sufficient convi­ction.

I reply. 1. Doth perseverance in an opinion signifie ob­stinacy? Why then all that persevere in the trueth are obsti­nate persons, and such were our Martyrs: it signifies self-perswasion, but not obstinacy: and may not a multitude be obstinate as well as a few?

2. St. Paul knew as well as we or Papists, what belongs to disputable points, yet he made no such objections against an erring person: he calls him a brother, and a weak brother, not an obstinate person, or an obstinate Heretick: he would not have a weak brother burnt or excommunicated, but borne withall, Rom. 15.1. We that are strong, ought to bear the infir­mities of the weak.

3. You talk of sufficient conviction, but where is it? neither at Rome, nor in England: hath any man the spirit of infallibi­lity to determine of all the controversal opinions in Religion? or of all all doubtful and disputable points? But suppose some man had; as if any had, St. Paul had it: yet is not this ex­cellent means often obstructed among us, and made invalid? partly for weakness of understanding and judgement in the party to be instructed, and partly through the flesh and cor­ruption of nature in all men more or lesse? Gal. 5.17. Rom. 7.18, 19. Mat. 26.41. Now both these render a man a weak brother: and if he be weak, then is he to be born with, not persecuted, Rom. 15.1.

Yet further, Is there not more reason that one Christian brother should bear the infirmities and weakness in Conscience of another, then to excite or desire the Magistrate to punish him for it? The Scriptures do often excite us to patience, and [Page 7]Ministers in Pulpit do the same, and every man hath it in his tongue, saying, we must be patient: but where is the man that will practise it? God calls us to patience in these things, but we refuse to use it. Do not the most say, Oh! he is one of dangerous opinions, 'tis pity he lives? Oh that the Parlia­ment would enact some severe Law to punish him? Where's thy patience then, whilest thou desirest revenge? Is there not more reason that the Magistrate should excite such impatient spirits to exercise their patience, then for them to excite the Magistrate by his Law to punish and revnge?

3. Argument.

It is against that golden Rule of our Saviour, for the Magi­strate to punish, or for the people to desire him to punish a­ny for his Conscience in matters disputable: For Christ said, Whatsoever ye would that men should do you, even so do you to them, Mat. 7.12.

Now our whole Kingdome are a multitude of none but Se­ctaries in disputable points: though they be unanimous and orthodox in the cleer Fundamentals, yet are they divided in­to dark Disputables: For the Episcoparian is a Sect divided from all others, so is the Presbyterian, so is the Independent, and so is the Anabapist, &c. And if the Parliament should own none but Presbyterians, yet these are but Sectaries, be­cause divided from all others; and the greatest sort they may be, and yet but a Sect. Now the Episcoparian would have liberty for themselves to read the Common-Prayer, but would not that any of the other sorts should enjoy the liberty of their Consciences: It may be the like is true of those other sorts of Presbyters, Independents, and Anabaptists: But why should Christians be so selfish and partiall? is not one mans Conscience as tender to him, as another mans is to him? Where is the practise of our Saviours rule? to do that for an­other man, which we would he should do for us. The Ma­gistrate therefore being of one Sect or other, must be as wil­ling to give liberty to others, as to take it for himself.

4. Argument.

It is against Christian charity to the soules of the people, for a Magistrate by punishment, to constrain them to sin against their own souls unto perdition.

For if the people for fear of punishment shall do any thing against their Consciences, they sin against conscience, Rom. 14.14, 23. And the Magistrate by his constraint of them doth what in him is to destroy them eternally, Rom 14.15. and to drive them to everlasting perdition of soule and body, 1 Cor. 8 11, 12.

Now God forbid, that any Christian Magistrate should be so severe, as by his hard Lawes, to force any man to destroy himself eternally: and not onely so, but also to make himself guilty of his peoples destruction: Is it not better for him to grant liberty of conscience?

5. Argument.

It is against Justice for a Magistrate to punish any man for a disputable opinion.

In matters of Justice, God forbad the Magistrates to admit of one single witnesse, as being not clear enough, and there­fore for more certainty there must be two or three witnesses, Deut. 19.15. and see Deut. 17.4, 5. our Magistrates will not punish any man, unlesse the Fact be clearly against the Law, probabilities are nothing: how then can the Magistrate do in­justice to punish for a disputable opinion, which is doubtful?

Yet further, If the Magistrate condemns for a disputable o­pinion, out of doubt sometime he shall condemn unjustly, and alwayes be in danger so to do, for want of the judgement of certainty: wherefore in these disputable points the Magi­strate should do well to forbear his judgement until Christ the Judge come: when we shall all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, and every one of us give an account of himself to God, Rom. 14.10, 12. Let us not therefore judge one another any more, Rom. 14.13. Judge nothing before the time, untill the Lord come, &c. 1 Cor. 4.5.

But it will be said, may not the Magistrate call into his help ten or twenty learned and godly Ministers, and then [Page 9]judge of the opinion? May not many Ministers judge of the opinion of two or three private persons?

I answer. 1. There are no learned and godly Ministers who have the spirit of certainty and infallibility, in a doubtful or disputable opinion. 2. The Ministers call'd into the help of the Magistrate, are ever of a contrary opinion to his who is accused: and therefore they are incompetent judges: May the Plaintiff judge the Defendant? or the Presbyterian the Independent? then may we know the Verdict before the Jury be impanelled: These things considered, oh! that since God hath left many things in Scripture disputable, out Parliaments and Magistrates would leave them so too.

6. Argument.

It will be a great folly in the Magistrate to attempt by his authority, to do that which is impossible to be done: Will a wise man attempt to empty the water in the Sea, or to wash a Blackamoor white? Such is his attempt, that thinks by law­full means to bring all men to be of one mind and opinion in things doubtfull and disputable: the Magistrate may as well cure one sick of an Ague or Feaver by his Sword, as by it to to inform and reform a doubtful and weak Conscience; this is the Ministers office, not the Magistrates.

In the Apostles dayes, when the Church was most pure, there was great differences in opinions, and high contests a­mong Christians about dayes and meates, Rom. 14.2.5, 3.10. Now if all men were not of one opinion in those purest Chur­ches, what hope hath the Magistrate to avoid all differences in opinion in our Church?

2. Consider the obscurity of Scripture in disputable points. St. Peter saith of St. Pauls Epistles, some things are hard to be understood, 2 Pet. 3.15, 16. And herewithall consider also, that the wisest men know but in part in this life, and the holi­est men are sanctified but in part, so as too often their judge­ment is blinded by unmortified passions and affections: Now how is it possible that the Magistrate should rectifie all these by his sword? the which unless he could rectifie, it is altoge­ther in vain for him, to attempt to bring all men to be of one mind and opinion.

7. Argument.

In the Church of God, in the Jewish Nation, many people were suffered to live under the authority of Moses and the Magistrates, who were of different opinions from the most of the people.

For they had strangers among them, who were no Prose­lytes, or of the Jewish Religion, and yet they were not con­strained by the Magistrate to become Proselytes: For the Text saith, If a stranger will, &c. let him, &c. Exod. 12.48. It was left to his choise and will: no punishment was appointed to compell them: none though he neglected their Sacraments of Circumcision and the Passeover: none, though he did eate meats which the Jewes abhorred to eat, Deut. 14.21. Moses and the Magistrates, with Aaron the high Priest, did all al­low of this liberty: and why then may not the King and Ma­gistrates, with all the Clergy, allow of liberty of Consci­ence in our dayes, in matters disputable among Chri­stians?

8. Argument.

If the King and Magistrates under him will govern by St. Pauls Discipline, then they must govern by the discipline of liberty of Conscience: the which I thus prove.

St. Paul said, we which are strong ought to bear the infir­mities of the weak, and not to please our selves, Rom. 15.1. and see Gal. 6.1, 2. And he rebuked the believing Romans, for that the strong despised the weak, and the weak judged and condemned the strong, Rom 14.3, 10.13. Now what other thing is this toleration of St. Paul, and bearing with the weak in matters of conscience, but liberty of Conscience? and no o­ther thing is signified by this, that he would not have believers to despise one another, or to judge and condemn one ano­ther for conscience sake, and differences in judgements.

The differences in those dayes were about the Ceremonies of meates, and drinkes, and Holydayes, Rom. 14. Now we have too many Ministers of impatient spirits, who cannot endure St. Pauls liberty of Conscience, and to use patience in bearing with the weakness of others; but like better of [Page 11]uncharitable persecution; these have learned an evill art of aggravation, by consequences to wyre-draw, and draw blood from the opinion contrary to themselves, and have drawn the people to hate and despise the persons of that opinion: such Ministers if they had lived in those dayes, could with the high Priest have made Christ guilty of blasphemy, Mat. 26.65. and St. Paul and Heretick, Acts 24.14. and these weak christian Romans obstinate hereticks: For by their use of meats and dayes after Christ was come, they signified that Christ was not come, but expected to come, as the hereticall Jewes do at this day: Meats and Dayes were types and shadows of Christ to come, Colos. 2.16, 17. Now no doubt St. Paul had as suf­ficiently instructed and convicted these believing Romans of their errour, as any Minister in these our dayes can any man in his errour; yet St. Paul did not count them obstinate here­ticks, nor by aggravations and consequences draw them to be guilty of heresie.

But it may be said to me, of these different opinions among us, which party is the weaker, and which the stronger?

I answer, To determine infallibly I cannot; I must leave it for Christ to do it at his coming, 1 Cor. 4.4, 5. I shall only answer by the opinion of our times: The multitude and great­est number countenanced by the King, will think themselves the strong. If so, then say I, those strong ones must bear with those that are weak, and differ in opinion from them, Rom. 15.1. If the Presbyterian think himself the strong, he must bear with the weak Independent: Or if the Independent think himself the strong, he must bear with the weak Presbyterian: and so of other opinionists, we must all bear one with ano­ther, Gal. 6.2. and so by a mutuall toleration, we shall live in love like Christians. So far of my 8. Arguments

Thus I have made it appear, that the King and Parliament may maintain Liberty of Conscience, and ought so to do by the Word of God. And now I come to answer sundry obje­ctions raised against this truth.

Object. 1. If the Magistrate tolerate liberty of Conscience, thereby he shall justifie, embolden, and harden some in their errours.

Answ. 1. St. Paul tolerated liberty of Conscience, and yet [Page 12]it will not follow that he did thereby justifie, embolden, and harden the weak believers in their errours. 2. The Magi­strate hath no authority from God to punish any for a dispu­table errour, as hath been proved, and therefore no blame is in him: he cannot reform that which is not in his power to reform. 3. He hath no infallible guide; to know which side is in the errour, how then can he punish any? 4. If any harden their heart in errour because it is tolerated, them­selves shall answer to God for it, at the appearing of Christ the Judge of quick and dead, Rom. 14.10, 12.

Object 2. Yea, but if the Magistrate tolerate errours, he tolerates sins: many say, to tolerate errour, is to tolerate sin.

Answ. 1. Sin is the transgression of the Law, 1 John 3 4. Now in disputable points, no opinionist desireth liberty to break Gods Law, as to commit idolatry, to profane the Sab­bath, to commit adultery, to steal, or deal fraudulently, or to do any thing contrary to a light cleerly revealed: now in a disputable point, no man can say for certain which is the sin and which not: But suppose some man could say for certain, his is the sin, yet St. Paul did tolerate the sin of ignorance, t Rom. 14. in weak Christians. 2. Toleration is voluntary or necessary: now the Magistrates toleration is necessary, be­cause God hath not given them authority (as hath been pro­ved) to punish disputable sins.

Object. 3. Some say, there can be but one truth, and one true Religion: Now to maintain sundry and many opinions, is to maintain sundry and many religions.

Answ. The question is not about maintaining of sundry o­pinions which are disputable, but about toleration and bear­ing with them, so as they may be free of punishment: The Magistrate maintains the Doctrine of the ten Commande­ments, the Articles of Faith, with faith and repentance, and any thing clearly revealed in Scripture: all these may be reckoned for one truth and one Religion, because we all agree herein as one: but as for disputable points not cleerly revealed, the Magistrate may tolerate them, and not maintain or countenance them: and yet he shall not be said to main­tain two or many Religions or Truths: St. Paul did tolerate the weak Christians, who were of different opinions from the [Page 13]strong, and yet he did not maintain them, but dispute against them: nor did he maintain sundry Truths, and many Religi­ons. All things clearly revealed, make up but one Religion, and this we maintain: and yet may tolerate many disputable opinions not clearly revealed.

Object. 4. Papists may say, if you tolerate liberty of Con­science in disputable points, then we Papists must have a tolera­tion.

Answ. There is more then Religion, and matter of Con­science in this matter: there is matter of State and safety of Common-wealth in it, which admits not of a toleration, un­less Papists could give us security for our lives,

For Papists are professed enemies to Protestants, and to their lives, so as we cannot live in safety by them: for to fur­ther their Catholick cause, they hold it their duty to blow up with powder an whole Parliament at once, & to cut the throats of an whole Kingdom of Protestants, as in Ireland of late years, and the like, of the Popish massacre of many thousands of Protestants at Paris in France: No Hereticks are so bloo­dy minded as Papists, nor so dangerous to be tolerated as they be: No Heretick seeks the life of his neighbour, and ru­ine of the Nation wherein he lives, but a Papist: If therefore it were safe to tolerate their Religion, is it safe to tolerate such murtherers, who wait daily for a time to cut all our throats.

Object. 5. Christ rebuked the Angel of the Church at Thy­atira, for suffering Jezebel to teach and deceive his people, Rev. 2.18.20. And St. Paul saith of deceiveable teachers, their mouths must be stopped, Tit. 1.11. Now this is contrary to to­leration.

Answ. 1. These Texts concern not the office of the Ma­gistrate, but of the Minister, as of the Angel of the Church, Rev. 2.18. He ought to rebuke them sharply, Tit. 1.13. Now it is not meet that the Minister should suffer known er­rours to be in his Church, but that he should stop them, by convincing them by the Scriptures: but I like not of some Ministers, who in stead of convincing, fall a railing at the persons, crying out against them, oh! these Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, &c. are dangerous persons, &c. I [Page 14]like well to hear these opinions soberly confuted, but not re­viled. 2 These Texts speak not against disputable points, but against Idolatry, Rev. 2.20. and lying, Tit. 1.12. which are sins clearly revealed in Scripture.

Obj. 6. If a kingdom be divided against it selfe, it cannot stand, Mark 3.24.

Answ. This parable is true of a Kingdome: for if the Sub­jects take up Arms one against another, that Kingdome will come to ruine: but the case is not alike in a Church, where all agree in all things clearly revealed, but differ in some dis­putable points darkly revealed. For 1. In Holland there are many of differing opinions, & yet that Nation stands and flourisheth, and so doth that Church of Presbyterians. 2. In the Common-wealth of the Jewes, there were many strangers tolerated, who were no Proselytes of the Jewish Religion: for they were not circumcised, neither did they eat the Pass­over, Exod. 12.43, 45.48. and see Deut. 14.21. And yet that Common-wealth stood, and so did that Church.

Obj 7. Then the Master said unto the servant, Go forth into the high wayes, &c. and compell them to come in to my Supper, &c. Luk. 14.23. Hereby we see, that compulsion may be made in matters of Religion.

Answ. By the Servant here, is not meant the Magistrate, of whom our question is: for in these dayes they had no chri­stian Magistrate that would compell any to be Religious: but we must understand, the Minister, whose office is to invite and call in, yea, to compell the guests to come to Christ his feast: now there is a compulsion and constraint by the for­cible exhortations and perswasions of the strong arguments of the Minister, Luke 24.29. Acts 16 15. So notwithstan­ding this Text, the Magistrate may maintaine Liberty of Conscience.