enough to answer this that it is a parable which is a similitude and must not be strained beyond its scope which is to let us know that good and bad upright and hypocrites must be in the Church till the end of the World And yet some are about to make a Church of all Saints and to pluck up the Wheat in pretence of pulling up the Tares But 2. By Tares cannot well be meant heretical persons not in Austin's judgment for he and other Doctors with the Scripture allow Excommunication of Hereticks and scandalous persons which is not only a plucking up of the Tares but a casting them out of the Church into Hell without repentance 3. Our Saviour himseif tells us who are the tares the children of the wicked one and such as do iniquity Mat. 13.38.41 Now hence it would follow that neither Church nor Magistrate must punish such but let them alone to the end of the World a pleasiing Doctrine to thieves and all wicked persons But if notwithstanding this parable it be lawful for the Church to punish Hereticks spiritually and for the Magistrate to punish them corporally he hath mistaken the parable And if the Magistrate may punish a murdour bodily for killing the bodies of men why should it be unlawful for him to punish an heretical seducer that destroyes mens souls and that eternally I leave him to consider it 6. He fetches this next Reason from far from the judgment of the ancients and practise of the primitive Church Lactan. Tertull. c. who seem to deny all force in Religion A little may serve for this There is a difference to be put between Heathens and Christians in matters of Religion The Ancients speak against forcing Heathens into Christianity till they first be informed and convinced of the truth thereof not of compelling professed Christians to the outward Worship of God as the King of Judah did 2. The practise of Christian Emperours was accordingly for the most part with respect to Heathens Yet some of them made Edicts to command all their subject to be of the Christian Religion Justinian and others as were easie to instance 3. In Pressing this ARgument too far he forgot himself that he makes his Pope and Popish Princes worse then Turks and Furies in their persecution of Protestants And let them but give this liberty of conscience to all their subjects which he pleads for in England and lay aside their coercive power and I believe Popery will have but a few clients most of them would quickly forsake their Church and Religion especially if they might have the truth freely taught by some Protestants 7. But a reason fatcht from a principle of nature and natural light will convince any reasonable man It 's against the golden rule of natural righteousness do as we would be done by and do not to others what we would not have done to our selves but who would be content to be persecuted by others for his Religion c. Truly no man would or at least should be persecuted for his true Religion but he that would not be prosecuted for a false Religion argues himself to be unrighteous and to violate that principle of nature and another like it Aequo animo paenam qui meruere luant Let him make this rule universal and thieves and malefactors will give him many thanks What Thieves would be content to be hang'd by a Magistrate Ergo If he get to be a Magistrate he must not hang a Thief c. Bring it neerer to himself what Jesuite would be content to be executed for sedition and seducement of Protestants from their Religion and Loyalty Ergo. nor should they persecute Protestants in their Dominions How likes he this The Golden Rule is made for true rectifyed consciences not for every one that pretends it What in true reason I would have another do or not do to me that I should be content to do or not do to another If a man should argue thus I would not be content to be persecuted for the true Religion Ergo I must not prosecute one that is in the false Or thus If I am an Heretick perverting Souls and would not be restrained or punished for so doing Ergo I must let others alone and not punish them for the same both these consequences are false and unreasonable and meer pervertings and crooknings of that Golden Rule This is a Jesuitical consequence I would not be punished for my seduce ment in England Ergo I may plead for Toleration of Popery and all Religions This consequence I say is good now in England to cheat simple souls but would be denyed with an Inquisition at Rome or in Spain Such another fallacy is that which followes a Christian must pray for his Enemies Ergo he must not persecute his brother be he never so wicked q. d. I must pray for a Thief or Murderer Heretick Ergo I may not prosecute them to just punishment corporally the one spiritually the other 8. The next reason comes yet neerer home ad hominem as we say and that is thus It is against our own principles and the testimony of an Adversary is most strong against himself Wherein In three things 1. We profess our selves to be fallible in judging universally in matters of Religion and object it to the Papists pretending infallibility but by persecuting others for conscience we make our selves infallible as Mr. Collier wiely observes For this he hath been told we persecute no man for his conscience but may prosecute a man for an erring conscience which he still concludes a just prosecution with an unjust persecution 2. We profess our selves to be fallible or not infallible in the Popish sense He deludes us with the equivocation of the words If he mean that we hold our selves fallible universally in all matters of Religion that we are uncertain of all points of Religion and certain of nothing that were to make us meer Scepticks in our Religion and we own not such a fallibility On the other side we do not think our selves infallible universally in matters of Religion as the Pope does but that in some fundamental truths we are infallible that is most certain of the truths of our Religion clearly revealed in Scripture which is an infallible rule though we are not alwayes able to apply it But the Pope as he makes himself infallible in all points of Religion which he determines out of the Pontifical Chair so he does it in things besides and against the Scripture and this we object to him as an hainous crime and high usurpation of the prerogative of Jesus Christ speaking in the Scripture 3. What need is there that we must be infallible to judg and punish an Heretick why this We cannot rationally persecute any man for his conscience unlesswe we do not only know that he is in an ertor but also be infallibly sure that we are bringing him to an undoubted truth Be it so then we assume we may know
that the man is in an errour if we may know the truth and be infallibly sure we are bringing him to an undoubted truth Ergo we may persecute we say prosecute him for his erring conscience e. g. We know certainly that he that denies a God or Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and Saviour of the World is in an error and we are infallibly sure we are bringing him to an undoubted truth to profess a God and Jesus Christ and Ergo we may by his own premises persecute or rather prosecute him for his erring conscience Whereupon the following assertion is most unchristian and uncharitable It would be better for us to let him alone in his known damning errors than to force him to ours which we not falsly as he truly esteem truth The very mercies of the wicked are cruel 4. These men seem to be Scepticks in their Religion for if there be any Religion or rules of faith and worship delivered in Scripture we may come to be infallibly sure that this is the Truth of God and thereby discover errors and consequently may prosecute them though we be not universally infallible The Magistrates of the Old Testament might not force any mans conscience more than now nor were more infallible than ours are now yet having a cleer rule of Religion and worship given them they compelled their subjects to observe it why may not ours do so now having a cleer light and greater illumination Is it not a certain and infallible truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour of the World If not what an uncertain thing is Christianity which depends upon that one principle If it be shall any man professing the Christian Religion be suffered to deny that truth and blaspheme that holy name with impurity because the Magistrate or Church is not in all things infallible Lastly as to this first principle ex ungue leonem we may descry and discover the Fox the Jesuite by his strong plea for Toleration to his Recusants or Papists Though he speak in the person of Protestants as if one of them yet his secret or open girding at the State shews what he is Who having laid aside the King by whom and for whom those laws of restraint were made which is indeed the abolishing of those Laws yet we keep up the penalties of those Laws in vigour against Recusants which seems to be a very irrational Act And puts this Jeer upon the present powers by way of thanks or scorne for their granted soleration That as we have not one particular positive Religion setled for undoubted truth amongst us So we purpose not any one Religion to the Recusants to be followed by them but at most hold them out a medly of all Sects profest in the Nation c. Quis tulerit Gracchos de Seditione querentes The Subtle cursed Jesuites self condemned men have broken our Religion into so many Sects and Fractions to keep us from Setling the true Religion and then make themselves merry with our divisions The Lord rebuke them This to our first principle 2. The next is We have always pretended a general Toleration for all tender consciences of which kind there are some amongst the Prelatical and Popish party And yet they only are excepted from Toleration by the Parliament for so he means it But he goes on still Grant it to a poor sneaking foolish fellow that can scarce speak sense and hath hardly a groat in his purse to lose for his conscience and deny it to men of Honour Prudence and Estates suffering meerly for their conscience as having no tender consciences 1. Me thinks I hear the proud Pharisees speak in this Jesuite This people that knoweth not the Law is cursed and Lord I thank thee I am not as other men He cals mean simple Christians Sneaking Fellows as if they had no conscience because they have no Estates He may remember Not many Wife not many Noble or Mighty were called or honoured to be primitive Martyrs to suffer meerly for conscience They had too much to lose to dare to profess Christianity But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise c. He may read the rest 1 Cor. 1.26 c. And he makes men of Honour Prudence and Estates to have tender consciences meerly for suffering in their Estates whereas he knows many such may and do suffer only for the Religion delivered them by Tradition from their Fathers or out of some carnal respects If a man desired to be loose and profane he need not chuse an easier Religion than Popery And the Divel hath had his Martyrs and Confessors as well as Christ Martyres Satanicae virtutis as Cyprian c 2. But I have I confess often wondered that those in power who pretend so much favour to all tender consciences should so often by name except the Prelatical and Popish party when as there may be as tender consciences in some of them as in some whom they tolerate and also their laxe and loose principles and these reasons carry toleration for all or none Some Satisfaction I received from one that also pleads for Toleration as I thought for all Religions for his Arguments are as strong for all as for any why the Popish party should not have any Toleration granted them above all the rest Let him be heard speak in his own words As for Popery and Idolatry J. Milâ—on tract of civil power in Ecclesiastical causes p 35. why they also may not plead to be tolerated I have much less to say Their Religion the more considered the less can it be acknowledged a Religion but a Roman principallity rather endevouring to keep up her old universal Dominion under a new name and meer shadow of a Catholick Religion being indeed more rightly named a Catholick heresie against the Scripture and except in Rome supported mainly by a civil and forrain power justly therefore to be suspected not tolerated by the Magistrate of another Country Besideâ— of an Implicite Faith which they profess the conscience also becomes implicit and so by voluntary servitude to mans law forfeits her Christian Liberty Who then can plead for such a conscience as being inthraled implicitly to man instead of God almost becomes no conscience as the will not free becomes no will Lastly for Idolatry whereof the Romish Church is justly charged to be deeply guilty who know it not to be evidently against all Scripture both of the Old and New Testament And therefore a true Herefie or rather Impiety wherein a right conscience can have nought to do and the works thereof so manifest that a Magistrate can hardly err in prohibiting and quite removing at least the publick and scandalous use thereof How this will please Jesuits or how they will answer it I he ther know nor care But I satisfied my self with one or both of these considerations 1. That they might except them not out of conscience but
out of state pollicy because on the one side if the prelatical party should have a Tole ration they might in time return to challenge and take from them those fat and sweet morsels of the Bishops Revenues which some of them have swallowed down and would be loath to vomit up again On the other side if the Popish party should be tolerated I will not say they should lose a good Revenue from Sequestration of two parts of their Estates though some give this for a reason their Principles are destructive to Heretical Magistrates as the Pope can easily make them and so subversive of their New Common-wealth That 's one 2. The other consideration to stay my wonder was That that exception was so often inserted by some Jesuitical finger that if ever that party got power into their hands they might the more colourable deny Toleration to those who being in place did first deny it to them for this is a maxime amongst the Sectaries They that deny toleration to others tender consciences I Milt ubi supra p. 36. deserve not to have it for themselves And then they that now plead for Toleration of the worst sort of tender consciences will at last grant more to those whose consciences are truly tender and most rightly principled I wish I may be a false prophet in this consideration But hear the next 3. It is against another Principle of ours we allow people the Bible in the vulgar language and press them to search the Scripture to find out the mind of God and at last by our coersive power will have them believe as the the Church believes we bid men as wisely Mr Collier speaks see with their own eyes and yet put them to see with others eyes We bid men with our Saviour to search the Scriptures and with the Bereans not content themselves to believe as the Church believes that was the Colliers and the Papists beliefe but to try the truths held out by Church or Magistrate which if they do faithfully and sincerely they will see the truths with their own eyes If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of my self Jo 7.17 And we suppose and take for granted which this man makes doubtful that there is a pattern of sound words the true faiâ—h and worship of God held forth fiâ—st in the Scriptures and then by the Church or Magistrate and thereupon exhort men not to take any thing upon trust of men which is not faith but ignorance or Popish credulity but in matters of Salvation to search and see by their own eyes And if it happen that private persons mistake error for truth they must either be meekly willing to hearken to instruction which is a sign of a good conscience or resolve rather to suffer for their judgment than to disturb the peace of the Church or State For while they keep it to themselves none can take notice of it or judg them for it But this dispute allowes them either to resist the coercive power and labour their subversion as in his first Argument or else to be tolerated though never so damnably heretical and practically destructive to themselves or others True charity of Protestants bids those that have the charge of their souls which both Ministers and Magistrates have in their own way First with meekness and much patience to instruct them and if they still continue obstinate like mad men to mischief themselves and others to lay setters of restraint upon them either spiritual or corporal that they may do no further hurt 9. The next Reason is this It was against the judgment of King James and other Kings and against the peoples frequent petitions for toleration c First for King James two of his sayings are produced That God never plants a Church by violence and bloodshed True for he left that for the Jesuites amongst the poor Indians So spake Tertullian and Lantanc above Religion is not to be forced upon Heathens God does not fiâ—st plant a Church by violence much less by bloodshed but when a Church is planted as a Vine he allows pruning and purging of it by spiritual censures which in this mans sense is a kind of force upon conscience And the Magistrate being a guardian or nurse-keeper of the Church as Gods vicegerent is to publish and maintain Religion in the puriâ—y of it which cannot be done without coercive power not upon mens consciences but upon their bodies or estates His other speech That he never intended any persecution any against the Papists for conscience sake but desired to be secured for civil obedience which they cannot deny Not to tell him that King James did not own but oppose their Religion as false whose Faith is Faction whose Religion is Rebellion he knows who said it If he did restrain them from practising it publickly it was not persecution of them for conscience sake but prosecution of an erring conscience But I say when they were restrained from exercise of their Religson it was with respect to a principle of their Religion denying to give him security in civil obedience from a stated-destroying opinion and practise of theirs That it is lawful yea necessary if the Pope command it to murder and kill heretical Kings Whereof his predecessors and himself had frequent experience in such like attempts the examples of other Kings in tolerating other Keligions I fear is rather out of political Interest than real piety As for that scandal upyn the powers That the State in persecuting them now will be greater persecutors then the old Magistraâ—â—s and Bishops were yea than the Spanish Inquisition it self I leave to them to answer or chastise such Jesuitical insolence One thing aspersive upon the Bâ—shops and others is fouly and foolishly affeâ—ted and easily wiped away They to prove the lawfulness of their vocation against the Puritans derived their orders from Rome yet concurred with the State to make the Laws that any that received orders from Rome were Traitors which was most ridiculous But 1. The Puritans did not brand their vocation from Rome in the first Protestant Bishops in England some of them were ordained Presbyters by such the Browninsts and Anabaptists did that 2. The Bishops with the State made a Law that none of their Ministers should take orders from Rome in a State way first because that was a denial of our ministry to be good at home Secondly it was an owning of the Popes supremacy spiritual in England which appears by this that they so far allowed ordination by a Romish Bishop that they did not re-ordain those Priests which were converted unto the Protestant Religion But if Papists and Jesuites be of the same opinions as afore That heretical Magistrates may be murdered and maintain revelations and impulsies of spirit to kill any whom their spirit bids them kill which our young Quakers have learnt of them as the State or Government