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
THE Antithelemite OR AN ANSWER To Certain QUAERES By the D. of B. And to the Considerations of an unknown Author CONCERNING TOLERATION This may be Printed June 12. 1685. R.L.S. LONDON Printed for Sam. Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 Schismâ— 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
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 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 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 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 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 as call themselves Protestants if he had added Independants too the
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 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 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 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 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