known and profest not only to provide that the Ignorant and Erroneous People may be well instructed in the True Religion but also to prohibit and suppress the publick Profession and Practice of Idolatry Heresie Blasphemy and such-like as being so repugnant and prejudicial to the True Religion which he is obliged to promote and maintain But to give a Toleration of these and of all Religions whatsoever is so far from suppressing it that 't is not only an Allowance of it but a kind of setting it up Secondly It may be further proved Unlawful from the Command of God on the Magistracy of the Old Testament to suppress all false Prophets Teachers and Idolaters Deut. 13. 2 6 10. Thirdly From the Example of all good Kings and Magistrates that did so and are approved for so doing And Lastly From the great injury and hurt that the Cause of True Religion and the Church of God is like to receive by such a Toleration by giving occasion to Satan by false Teachers to infest the Church with the Seeds of False Doctrines and to corrupt the pure Worship of God with Idolatry and Superstition which the Christian Magistrate as a Watchman over the Church should labour to prevent This in short might serve sufficiently to demonstrate the unreasonableness and great impiety of such a Toleration but because a general Toleration under the specious pretence of Liberty of Conscience hath been and is a matter so vehemently argued for by many I shall a little enquire into the nature and ground of this Liberty of Conscience pleaded for by which I presume most understand nothing else but an Exemption from the Obligation of all humane Laws in the matters of Religion therefore I shall in the first place examine those Grounds upon which such a Liberty of Conscience seems to be claimed and pleaded for which being found rotten and unsound such a Toleration will then further appear unlawful to be given by the Christian Magistrate And then Secondly I shall further examin what that lawful Liberty is in the matters of Religion which of Divine Right ought to be allowed by the Magistrate to every Christian First Concerning such a Liberty of Conscience as is opposed to all human Laws in matters of Religion I shall enquire into these things First What Obligation of humane Laws there is upon the Conscience in the things of Religion Secondly Whether an Erroneous Conscience do exempt from the Obligation of Just Laws Thirdly Whether the consideration of an Erroneous Conscience under the infliction of a Penalty on such a Person to be Unjust Of these very briefly First As to the Obligation of humane Laws upon the Conscience we acknowledge that 't is only the Law of God that doth immediately bind the Conscience because the Conscience is only subject to God and under his Authority alone the Magistrate hath only power over the Body and outward practice but yet nevertheless the Conscience is bound by the Law of God to obey all lawful and just Commands of the Magistrate Now those Laws of the Magistrate about Religion that are but the Inforcement of God's own Commands and Institutions have a double Obligation upon the Conscience both by Vertue of the immediate Divine Authority appointing them as also from the Command of God requiring Obedience to humane Authority chiefly in such things Secondly Neither doth an Erroneous Conscience exempt from the Obligation of Just Laws for tho' every man have a Judgment of private discretion in and about what he ought to do in Religion yet if he judge erroneously of what is justly required by Laws to be done his Judgment and erroneous Conscience therein doth not exempt him from the Obligation of those Commands for tho' 't is true that he sins in acting against an erroneous Conscience yet he ought to lay it down and then to act and if it be a necessary Duty he sins if he do not Thirdly Neither will the infliction of a Penalty be unjust that is laid on a Person for doing or omitting that which he is led to by an erroneous Conscience This is the grand mistake about Liberty of Conscience that because every man hath a liberty to judge for himself what he ought to do in Religion that therefore if he judge erroneously yet he ought to be tolerated in so doing No he ought to lay down his erroneous Conscience or else as he sins so he justly suffers from Authority in following the Dictates of it But that he sins in following an erroneous Conscience I think no one of sense will deny for if it be lawful for a man to act in Religion according to the Dictates of his own Conscience when 't is erroneous then 't is lawful for him to commit Idolatry speak Blasphemy c. if his Conscience lead him to it Therefore if the Plea of an erroneous Conscience will not free a Man from the Guilt of those Sins that he is led into by it then certainly it will not exempt a Man from the Just Obligation of Punishment from the Magistrate for those Sins who is the Avenger of God against all evil Doers And the Magistrate doth offer no Violence to Conscience by either requiring Obedience or exacting the Penalties for Disobedience to Just and Righteous Commands for if Mens erroneous Consciences will not suffer them to Obey 't is no force upon Conscience for the outward Man to bear the Penalty But besides If such a Liberty of Conscience be due to every man as shall exempt him from the Obligation of all humane Laws in the matters of Religion it will then follow that the Magistrate hath no Authority in the matters of Religion and so it will null the chiefest part of his Office for where there is no Obligation to Obedience there can be no Authority to Command those being Correlatives and cannot be one without the other But to conclude this particular If it be so as we have proved that the Conscience be bound by such humane Laws the matter of which is the Inforcement of God's own Commands and Institutions and that if an erroneous Conscience doth not exempt a Man from the Obligation of such Laws nor render the Penalty inflicted for breaking of them to be Unjust then certainly there is no such Liberty of Conscience as an Exemption from all humane Laws about Religion due to any Christian and therefore ought not to be granted by the Christian Magistrate Secondly I proceed now to the second thing proposed to wit What that lawful Liberty is in the matters of Religion which of Divine Right ought to be Allowed by the Magistrate for tho' we have asserted and proved the Duty and Power of the Magistrate to make Laws for the promotion and maintenance of True Religion yet we may not think that the Magistrate can by Laws intrench upon any of the Rights Liberties and Priviledges which of Divine Right do belong to the Christian Religion which he is obliged to maintain every Christian
Peoples Judgment of private discretion doth not disoblige them from Obedience nor render them inculpable when they judg erroneously of what is required Therefore each party both Ruler and Subject should be very careful to judge aright namely the Ruler in judging nothing fit to be commanded in Religion but what is evidently lawful and necessary and then their Commands are binding And the Subjects should be very careful not to judge erroneously of the Commands of Authority for then they justly suffer for Disobedience Each party indeed must judge for so much as concerns themselves and their own Duty both Authority in commanding and the People in obeying but the Judgment of neither doth change the nature of the things themselves so as to make that lawful and necessary or unlawful and not necessary that are not really so in themselves But we find that this Argument of enforcing Obedience in the matters of Religion meerly from the Judgment of Authority is never made use of but when men want sufficient force of Argument from the matter of the things themselves then they flee to the Judgment and Obligation of Authority-commanding which indeed will equally hold in Popery it self upon supposition that the Authority either Civil or Ecclesiastical be a lawful Authority that commands But this Objection is of no force in such things wherein 't is acknowledg'd That there is no necessity in the nature of the things themselves why they should be imposed besides the will of Authority commanding it there the obligation to Obedience is urged meerly from the will of Authority requiring it and not their Judgment of the necessary usefulness of such things But what force and obligation the meer will of Authority hath in the matters of Religion without sound Reason from the Matter required we shall have occasion to say somewhat unto under the next Question Thus I have endeavoured with all possible Brevity to demonstrate what that lawful Liberty in the Matters of Religion is which the Christian Magistrate should justly allow to every man but to allow an unlimited Toleration in the practice of Religion is to run into the contrary Extream of imposing unnecessary and doubtful things and 't is to be supposed that much of that mistake that hath been about a Toleration hath come to pass by not duly considering this Golden Mean of Liberty only in unnecessary things in Religion between the two Extreams of unnecessary Impositions and an unlimited Toleration but as the former is bad being against Christian Liberty and Charity yet the latter is much worse because it tends to subvert the Christian Faith and to overthrow all Government in the Matters of Religion QUEST III. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to give their Actual Consent to a general Toleration Answ TO which I answer in the Negative That they may not And indeed there will be occasion to say but little in answer to this Question for having before proved in Answer to the foregoing Question That the Magistrate may not lawfully allow such a Toleration it will thence follow That the Subject may not consent to it for by consenting to that which is unlawfully done by others we become partly Guilty of the Evil so done But yet it may be proper for us under this Question to enquire Whether it may come under the Charge of an Assent to such a Toleration to practise some Liberty in the Exercise of Religion that is restrained by Laws when 't is allowed by such a Toleration I shall answer this in these Three Particulars 1. That such a liberty in Religion as consists only in an Exemption from the Obligation of things in their own nature unnecessary doubtful or scandalous may lawfully be practised though the same be restrained by Laws 2. That there is no Scandal given by the practice of such a Liberty 3. Nor any Assent thereby to a general Toleration 1. That such a Liberty in Religion as consists only in an exemption or omission of things in their own nature unnecessary doubtful or scandalous may lawfully be practised tho' the same be restrained by Laws because the matter of such Laws cannot be Obligatory upon the Conscience by vertue of any Law of God there being no Divine Law upon which to bottom authorize such Laws which is necessary in all Laws about Religion as we have before noted And wherein there is no Authority to require therein can be no obligation from the Command to obey and the meer will of Authority can lay no Obligation in the matters of Religion but much more when any humane Laws about Indifferent things do interfere with the Law of God of avoiding Scandal in such Indifferent things there certainly such Laws do lose their force and obligation because the obligation from humane Authority ceaseth and becomes void when a previous and greater obligation to the Law of God is to take place by which we are obliged not to do that about Religion which being in it self not necessary is in its use scandalous to many And indeed such Laws that enforce the observation of such things doubtful and scandalous in Religion seem to lose the force of Laws and to be void in themselves having not the proper Matter nor answering the end of Law and therefore a liberty in omitting such things tho' injoined by Laws is lawful to be practised 2. And that there is no Scandal given by the practice of such a Liberty for it may be said That tho' there be no obligation either from the matter of the things required or from Authority requiring it to use some Indifferent things yet they being Indifferent we are bound to use them to avoid Scandal to Authority and to others that will be scandalized by our omitting them And therefore upon this ground divers learned Conformists have thought it lawful to omit the Ceremonies injoined by Laws when Scandal doth not follow being neither necessary in themselves nor from the Command of Authority any further than in the case of Scandal Here we may observe That such as esteem such things not meerly Indifferent but Doubtful in themselves if not Unlawful cannot be obliged to use them to avoid Scandal to others But if they are but meerly Indifferent in their own nature yet proving Scandalous to many and upon supposition of the Truth of what we have proved that there is no Obligation from Authority in such Indifferent things when they become scandalous it will then follow that there can be no scandal given by omitting them tho' Scandal be taken or tho' in the use of an unnecessary thing in Religion we really give Scandal yet by the omission of it is now given tho' Scandal may be taken thereupon because Scandal given ariseth either out of the omission of something necessary to be done or doing something either unlawful or unnecessary tho' lawful Now if the Command of Authority doth not make that in Religion not necessary in it self to become necessary when Scandal follows as
FOUR GRAND QUESTIONS PROPOSED And Briefly ANSWERED Wherein is Discoursed The Authority and Duty of the Magistrate in the Matters of RELIGION The Unlawfulness of a Toleration and General Liberty of Conscience The Divine Right of Christian Liberty in Things Indifferent The Unlawfulness of Repealing the Laws against Popery and Idolatry LONDON Printed in the YEAR 1689. The PREFACE IT cannot but be generally understood what an abundance of Heats and Animostties have been raised in the Nation about a Toleration Liberty of Conscience and Repealing the Laws about Religion which have been pleaded for by many whether with greater vehemency or with greater absurdity is hard to say for the Lawfulness of it hath rather been supposed than proved by any For whilst they have been considering how to secure a Toleration and Repeal the Laws that establish Religion they never considered Whether it could be consistent with the Office and Duty of the Christian Magistracy to do either one or the other Tho' such a Toleration and Repealing the Laws doth carry in it nothing less than an Exemption from the Obligation of all Humane Laws in the Matters of Religion which must necessarily suppose no Authority nor Duty incumbent on the Christian Magistracy to take Care for True Religion and the Worship of God which if that could be proved would be indeed the strongest Arguments of all for a Toleration and Repealing the Laws and unless that could be proved whatever Arguments else may be brought for it from other Respects and Considerations they are of no Force if this be taken for granted That 't is against the Duty incumbent on the Government by the Law of God to do it And tho' there are indeed weighty Arguments against such a Toleration and Repealing the Laws drawn from the ill Effects Means Ends of it yet this Argument seems to be most cogent and of greatest force that is drawnfrom the fundamental and principal Cause why 't is Vnlawful namely Being against the Office and Duty of the Christian Magistracy Vpon this Principle therefore I have alwaies been perswaded â—…at not only a general Toleration but Repealing the Laws was â—…orally Vnlawful unless better Laws could be made by the Government to Secure Religion which no man of Sense can think unless such Laws have also a Penalty for What Force or Obligation can Laws have to this End without a Penalty I have therefore in this little Treatise under the following Questions as compendiously as possible proved the Magistrate's Office and Duty about Religion to be Moral and Perpetual and not belonging to the Old Testament Administration only from this as a Principle I have argued the Vnlawfulness of a general Toleration and of such a Liberty of Conscience as is opposed to all Humane Authority and Laws in the matters of Religion yet nevertheless lest any should hence conclude That a Humane Authority can impose Laws on the Church in things of Religion not necessary or commanded by the Word of GOD I have proved the Divine Right of Christian Liberty in things Indifferent especially if the same Indifferences be matter of Doubt or Scandal and That the practice of such a Liberty in Religion in things Indifferent tho' restrained by Laws is no matter of Scandal given nor any Assent to a general Toleration or the Dispensing Power And in the last place I have proved the Vnlawfulness of Repealing the Laws against Popery and Idolatry and Answered the most specious Pretences alledged for it If that which is here briefly discoursed may obtain its designed end to set the Judgments of some men right in those great and weighty points the Author will have his end in exposing the same to publick view which was first composed for his own satisfaction Now to the King-Eternal Immortal Invisible the only Wise God be Honour and Glory for ever and ever Amen Four Grand QUESTIONS proposed and Briefly Answered VIZ. I. Whether it be the Duty of Magistrates under the Gospel to promote and preserve by Laws the True Christian Religion II. Whether it be lawful for the Christian Magistrate to give a general Toleration of All Religions or what Liberty in Religion he ought to Allow III. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to give their Actual Consent to a general Toleration IV. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to Consent to the Repealing these Laws that Establish and Preserve the True Religion Of These in Order I. Whether it be the Duty of Magistrates under the Gospel to promote and preserve by Laws the True Christian Religion BUt before we proceed it will be necessary to lay down by way of Supposition what we understand by Magistrates and what by the True Christian Religion But here we shall not meddle with the divers Forms of Lawful Government but rest satisfied that our own form of Government is either Best in it self considered or at least Best for us By Magistrates therefore we understand chiefly the Supreme Legislative Power of a Nation or of a Body politick not excluding Subordinate Magistrates also within their respective limits By the True Christian Religion we understand the Protestant Religion in those essential matters of Protestant Faith Worship and Discipline wherein it is truly such Now that the Office of Magistracy is founded both in the Law of Nature the Moral Law and also is of a Divine Institution by the positive Command of God I take for a granted Truth and will be denyed but by few All the Question then before us is About the Extent of the Magistrates Power Some will have it now under the Gospel to respect only Civil Matters and Moral Justice between Men but that he hath no Authority in the Institutions of Reveal'd Religion under the Gospel Hence it would follow that he is not oblig'd to maintain by Laws the Gospel-Institutions But the Affirmative is that which I undertake to make good and that by the following Arguments 1. From the Efficient Cause of Magistracy 2. From the Formal Cause of Magistracy 3. From the Final Cause or End of Magistracy 4. From Scripture-Precept and Precedent 1. That 't is the Duty of Magistrates to promote and preserve by Laws the True Christian Religion will appear from the consideration of the Efficient Cause of Magistracy which is no other than God himself Now God may be said to be the Cause and so the Author of Magistracy in a threefold respect viz. By his Law Natural Moral and Positive 1. By his Law Natural implanted and written in the Heart of Man by which Mankind is enabled to know and understand both the reasonableness necessity and utility of Political Government in order to promote and preserve the good of Societies 2. By his Law Moral thus the Fifth Commandment establisneth the Relation and enjoineth the Duties between political Fathers and Subjects as well as between natural Parents and their Children 3. God is also the Cause of Magistracy by his positive Ordinance and Appointment Thus he appointed Magistrates both
for me but all things are not expedient all things are lawful for me but all things edifie not Where the latter Clause expounds the former such lawful things as do not edifie are not expedient and therefore not to be put into Laws because all humane Authority in the matters of Religion is only for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. 13. 10. therefore such Constitutions about Religion cease to oblige when they cease to edifie because the Obligation to obey in the things of Religion can extend no farther than the Authority to command which we see is only things for edification Thirdly Least of all should indifferent things be imposed when they become scandalous for then the use of them becomes in most cases unlawful and sinful and therefore much more unlawful to be imposed by Laws And indeed this is the great reason why Indifferent things should rarely be imposed by Laws because Scandal is so apt to rise out of the use of Indifferent things and therefore we are to use our liberty or to deny it according as such or such circumstances require for the avoiding of Scandal for we may not do a thing meerly Indifferent to the Scandal of our Brother saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 8. 13. If Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the world stands lest I make my Brother to offend Authority therefore cannot justly command such an indifferent thing to be done when 't is apparent thereby Scandal will follow for this will be to make void the Commandments of God by the Commands of Men the Command of God is Give no offence 1 Cor. 10. 32. and this Command of God is Obligatory on Rulers in making Laws in Indifferent things as well as on private Christians in their practice towards each other If Rulers therefore command such an Indifferent thing to be done which cannot be done by many without a doubting Conscience they do in effect command that which is evil Rom. 14. 23. He that doubteth is damned if he eat and yet this was but in an indifferent thing If Authority had then commanded him to eat and so in the like case it had been to command a Scandal and so unlawful 'T is true if it be a necessary Duty by a Divine Law that is commanded by Authority there if Scandal follow 't is Scandal taken and not given and the fault is wholly in him that takes the Offence but if it be an unnecessary Indifferent thing 't is Scandal given by the Authority that imposeth it And also hereby they not only give Scandal to the Doubting but oblige all others as much as they can by the practice of such Indifferences to give Scandal also for to say that humane Authority makes an indifferent thing that in it self hath no necessary use to become necessary in the case of Scandal is to make the Laws of Men to supersede the Law of God No certainly if the thing were really scandalous antecedent to the command or the use of it would be so were it not commanded there no humane Authority can put such a necessity into an indifferent thing as to make it necessary to be done when Scandal follows because the Obligation to avoid Scandal in indifferent things being a moral Duty will supersede any Obligation that results from the Command of Authority in such indifferent things for this is but a meer Ritual and Rituals must give place to Morals Thus we see that such Indifferent things being unnecessary in Religion much more if inexpedient and scandalous ought not to be imposed by Laws But yet we do not hereby plead for such a Liberty in Religion as is opposed to things in Religion either necessary in their own nature or necessary by reason of some circumstances And thus Indifferent things that serve for the ordering the Worship of God in decent and comely manner according to the Apostle's Rule 1 Cor. 14. are so far lawful to be imposed as they are expedient and necessary to those ends for all the Power of humane Authority in the matters of Religion besides imposing what God hath commanded in his Word is only in ordering what God has so commanded to be done in decent and comely manner and to edification and as such things appertaining to God's Worship are necessary in their general nature as Time Place c. so in their Particulars when they are indifferent in their own nature yet do by reason of Circumstances and Accidents become necessary to be determined they then lose their nature of Indifferences and become necessary antecedent to any Imposition of them by Authority But yet nevertheless the determination of such Indifferent things should not be imposed by Laws in the case of Scandâ—l unless in these Cases viz. 1. Unless the necessity of imposing them be great apparent and certain and not pretended only 2. Unless the Good that is brought to Religion by the imposition of Indifferent things be not greater than the Evil of Scandal it brings with it 3. And unless the Good End they are necessary for cannot be by some other means so well attained without so great a scandal But where is no such necessary Good or but little comparative to the Evil of Scandal or if the Good End designed may be by other means attained without so great Scandal there certainly in reason Scandal should be avoided because ' tâ—s so great an Evil and so much condemned in the Word of God in the use of Indifferent things Obj. But that which is usually objected against liberty in Indifferent things is the Judgment of Authority seeing them necessary for say they Who shall judge of what is necessary in Religion to be imposed by Laws but Rulers themselves For if a liberty be allowed to the People to judge of the lawfulness or necessity of what is commanded and accordingly to obey or not obey as they judge of them this will overthrow all Government Answ The Magistrate hath a publick Authoritative Judgment in what they are to require and the People have a private Judgment of Discretion in what they are to do and obey and tho' both these may be abused yet both may very well stand together without either overthrowing the Authority of Government or dissolving the Obligation to Obedience but very ill consequences will follow on denying either for if we deny the Judgment of Authority to command this indeed is to overthrow all Humane Power to command in the matters of Religion and to deny the Peoples Judgment of private Discretion is both to take off the use of their Reason and to lay upon them a necessity of sinning for if only the Judgment and Will of Authority be the Rule of Laws or the Obligation to Obedience it will then follow that we are bound to obey whatever they command tho' sinful if they judge it not so But as the Magistrate's authoritative Judgment doth not bind to Obedience when he judgeth erroneously in that which is required so tho
we have proved it cannot do then certainly no Scandal is given by omitting such unnecessary things For this we have a parallel Instance in our Saviour's justifying his Disciples in omitting a lawful but an unnecessary Ceremony tho' injoined by lawful Authority notwithstanding the Pharisces were scandalized by it namely in omitting to wash before Meat Mat. 15. 13. Therefore it being thus lawful and necessary to omit such indifferent things in Religion as are doubtful and scandalous but yet also necessary to do and perform the essential and necessary parts of Divine Worship the Practice of Christians then in keeping to all the necessary part of Protestant Doctrin and Worship omitting only that which is in it self unnecessary and in its use doubtful and scandalous cannot justly be condemned as unlawful or scandalous for herein they do but save and improve their own Right and Liberty which they have by vertue of the Divine Law without respect to the obligation of such Laws as either restrain a necessary Duty or require an unnecessary Ceremony And the doing of a necessary Duty and the omitting an unnecessary Circumstance doth not render a man culpable of giving Scandal the Scandal may perhaps be taken or follow thereupon 3. Hence it follows that this Liberty used in Religion ss no practical Assent to a general Toleration for there being nothing in this practice granted thereby but what was an original Right antecedent and without respect to such a Toleration it cannot follow that Christians thus using their liberty in the exercise of all the Essentials of the Protestant Religion omitting only such things different and doubtful cannot be said to give any practical or 〈…〉 to the lawfulness of a general Toleration of all Religions because the ground and reason of the Exercise of this Liberty is not founded on the Toleration but both on the lawfulness and obligation of the Duty so to practise without respect to such a Toleration Much less is it any practical Assent to a supposed power in the Supream Magistrate to dispense with such Laws as are of known use and necessity to the support of the Fundamentals both of the Civil Government and the Protestant Religion for tho' we should grant that the Supream Magistrate may dispense with the observation of things indifferent and doubtful in Religion tho' injoined by Laws as well as from the Penalties imposed for omitting them and that when the supream Law of Piety and Charity require it it will not follow thence that he may dispence with all Laws that require both the profession and practice of True Religion in the Essentials of Doctrin and Worship and that prohibit Idolatry and False Religion and give a general Toleration of all Religions I hope that all true Protestants that accept their liberty only in an exemption from such things indifferent and doubtful in Religion do utterly disown the lawfulness of such a Toleration or of any such power in the Supream Magistrate to dispence with the Laws those that through Ignorance or Errour have professed any actual Consent to it are much to be pittied and blamed QUEST IV. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to Consent to the Repealing those Laws that Establish and Preserve the True Christian Religion Answ I Answer That they may not but that which hath been proved under the foregoing Questions hath anticipated much of that might be said in Answer to this for the force of this Question loseth its strength upon supposition of the Truth of the former Hypothesis and needs little to be said in Answer to it for 't is easie to see that if it be the Magistrate's Duty and so especially the Duty of the Legislative Power to maintain the True Religion 't is then their Duty to maintain those Laws that both establish and are necessary to the maintenance of it because the Magistrate's Office and Power is exerâ—ed by Laws Now those Laws are either such as require the profession practice of the True Religion or such as prohibit and punish the profession and exercise of False Religion neither of which may be lawfully repealed unless better Laws for the Security and Establishment of True Religion be first provided for by repealing the Laws that establish the profession and exercise of the True Religion the Magistrate disâ—…eth his care and regard for the Church of God and so frustrates and makes void one of the special ends of his Office and likewise betrays the Cause of Religion to the Rapine and Violence of its open and professed Enemies And then also the repealing the Laws that prohibit False Religion and Idolatry is not only an Allowance of it but a constructive setting it up at least becoming partly guilty of it Hence is that Rule in Morality Cujus manu est ne quid fiat â—i deputatur cum jain fit In whose hand and power it is that an Evil Act be not done to them 't is imputed if it be done And this Rule doth most properly respect Magistrates and those that have Power over others who are truly said to be guilty of that Evil which they are able by good Laws to prevent and do not And therefore that Magistrates ought to prohibit at least the publick profession and exercise of Idolatry and False Religion was no doubt the ground of those good Laws which prohibit the same which our Forefathers with so much zeal for the Truth of the Protestant Religion obtained against Popery and Idolatry But with what zeal for or security unto the Protestant Religion they may now be repealed I do not understand If then it be not morally lawful for the Legislative Power to repeal those Laws that establish and preserve the Protestant Religion I need not then further prove that it is not lawful for the People to consent thereunto which will thence follow But I shall conclude all by making some short Answer to Three of these Arguments which I judg are the most specious that are urged for repealing the Penal Laws and those also are of so little weight that there need little to be said in answer to them First 'T is said That the Penal Laws made against Popery have been perverted from their proper end and use against Papists to oppress and persecute Protestants for Dissenting only in matters of Circumstance and Ceremony in Religion Answ But this is not the fault of the Laws but of those that had the executive Power and was so done as now appears plainly to serve the Design of Popeâ—y then carrying on But tho' the Peral Laws have been so perverted yet seeing it appears that they are of such necessary use for the Security of the Protestant Religion against Popery they may not for that reason be repealed But as for those Laws that impose Penalties on Protestants adhering to all the essential and necessary parts of Protestant Doctrin and Worship but upon scruple of Conscience dissent in some Matters of Circumstance and Ceremony in Religion which to them are doubtful and uncertain 't is to be hoped that the Wisdom Piety and Charity of another Parliament may either give a greater latitude in the terms of Church-Communion amongst all Protestants or abate the rigour of those Laws that impose Penalties for Nonconformity only in such matters Secondly 'T is further alledg'd by some That there are some Abuses and Corruptions in Religion still remaining in the Church of England and that all those Penal Laws establish and confirm them and require full Conformity to them as to the essential part of Religion upon pain of Penalties annexed to those Laws and that therefore they should be repealed for the sake of those Abuses Answ Tho' we suppose there are Abuses and Corruptions about the Circumstances of Religion confirmed by the same Laws whereby the substantial and necessary part is confirmed yet it will not follow therefore that for the sake of those Abuses those Laws should be made void that confirm the essential part unless as we said before better Laws could first be obtained that might at least so well Secure the essential part because a lesser Evil is to be chosen to wit the burthen of those Abuses rather than a greater namely The Overthrow of the whole Frame of the Protestant Religion and the Introduction of Popery Therefore where a less-necessary Good cannot yet be attained unto there the most necessary Good already attained must be preserved Thirdly 'T is further objected That those Laws never did nor never will answer their End of bringing all Persons into an Uniformity in Religion for which they are intended And this is the main Reason given by some for Repealing them Answ To which may be answered That the same is objected by Papists against the Scriptures themselves of being the Rule of Faith that they never answered their End of reconciling Differences in Religion And indeed upon as good grounds it may be said of the Law of God That it is not the Rule of Life because it doth not attain its End of being such for that all Men will not be ruled by it But for further Answer Those Laws have attained their End so far hitherto as to support and maintain the essential and necessary parts of Protestant Doctrin and Worship against the prevalency of Popery for which end most of the Penal Laws are especially intended but that they have not also attained their end of procuring Unity and Uniformity in lesser matters relating to Modes and Ceremonies in Divine Worship hath been doubtless the too much overdoing by the Imposition of such things unnecessary and doubtful in Religion which will perpetuate Divisions to the World's end whilst they are made necessary Conditions of Communion amongst Protestants But alas either Unity or Diversity of Opinion and Practice in such matters as these are is not of that moment and concernment that some men imagine that lay so much stress and weight upon things of Ceremony and Circumstance and so little value the Substantial and Great things of Religion The principal Bond of Christian Unity is an Unity in the profession and practice of the Protestant Faith to the preservation of which those Laws are especially to be esteemed as useful and therefore should not be repealed unless better Laws conducing more effectually to those great ends of Religion can be made and provided FINIS