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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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