A Modest Plea For the Due REGULATION OF THE PRESS, In Answer to several REASON'S lately Printed against it. Humbly submitted to the Judgement of Authority.  Quae est pejor mors animae, quam libertas erroris? August. in Epist. 166. 
By FRANCIS GREGORY, D. D. and Rector of Hambleden in the County of Bucks.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Sare, at Greys-Inn-Gate in Holborn. M DC XC VIII.   
A MODEST PLEA For the Due REGULATION OF THE PRESS, etc.  

SECT. I.  
Good Reader,  
IT is not long since I accidentally met with a Printed Paper, Entitled, A Letter to a Member of Parliament, showing that a Restraint on the Press is inconsistent with the Protestant Religion, and dangerous to the Liberties of the Nation. This Title at the first view did startle and make me wonder; for I could not imagine how the Contents of this Letter could possibly justify such an Inscription.  
But whether this Letter were really sent, or only pretended, and by whom, I cannot tell; for the Writer of it thought it an act of Prudence to conceal his Name, as well as his Opinion. But if he be not one of the worst sort of Heretics, I mean a Socinian, it is his great misfortune, and no small fault, that he hath given his Reader just cause to think him so. For,  
1. This Author treats our Common People with extraordinary Civilities, he pleads for the full liberty of every Man's Conscience; and tells us, that every Man hath as much right to Communicate his Thoughts to his Neighbour, as to think them himself; he tells us, that every Man is to judge for himself, even in the controverted Points of Religion, as well as the ablest Divines of our Church. Nor can we wonder that a Socinian should thus flatter the Vulgar; for they, who design to instil their Opinions into the Heads of Men, are concerned in Policy by fair words and courtship first to insinuate themselves into their Hearts.  
2. This Author treats the Church of England with incivility and scurrilous Language; he loads its Governors with several Calumnies, which are no way deserved; he calleth them, Imposers upon the Consciences of Men, Tyrants, Lords of the People's Faith; but 'tis not my business to wipe off his unjust Reproaches, but to answer his groundless Arguments. But however, 'tis not strange that a Socinian should thus bespatter the Clergy of our Church, to render us odious to the People, because they know that our Divines are the most able Men to defend those great Articles of our Creed, which they oppose; and to confute those detestable Doctrines, which they promote, but will never be able to maintain, so long as the Church of England shall continue as well stored with learned Men, as now it is. But in the mean time, they make it their business to disparage and vilify our Divines, in hopes that our People, disesteeming our Persons, may show the less regard to what we plead in defence of Truth.  
3. This Author showeth himself yet more manifestly to be a Socinian, because according to the known Practice of that sort of Men, he highly magnifies Humane Reason, exalting it far above its proper Sphere, advancing it to that sublime and sacred Office, which, as now it is, it can never discharge.  
For in that Preliminary Discourse, which he premiseth as an Introduction to the main Body and Substance of his Letter, he tells us, that God hath given Man, His Reason, which is his only light, not only to discover that there is a Religion, but to distinguish the True from the many false Ones. He tell us again, p. 15. That God hath given Men no other Guide, but their Reason, to bring them to happiness; and yet again, p 17. he saith, That the People's common Notions are the Tests and Standards of all Truths.  
Now, my own Reason, such as it is, tells me, that all these Assertions are as false, as bold and daring; for, what greater Encomiums could have been given to Humane Reason, were we still in the state of Innocence? though in that state the Reason of Man might shine, like the Sun in its full glory, not a Cloud interposing; yet by, and since, the fall of Adam, the Common Reason of Mankind is become like the Moon lying under, though not a Total, yet a very great Eclipse. Solomon, the wisest of Men, hath left our Reason no better Title than this; the Candle of the Lord. 'Tis not 
Prov. xx. ●●.  styled a blazing Torch, but a Candle, which is but a diminutive light, and so much the less, because 'tis full of Snuff, 'tis clouded with mists and fogs of ignorance; and in nothing more, than in matters of Religion.  
True it is, that this little light of Nature, being well attended to, is enough to discover to us some Truths, which are a sufficient ground for natural Religion; the Reason of Man, exercising itself in contemplating the Works of Creation and Providence, is enough to convince him, that there is a God, and that this God ought to be worshipped; but there are some other Truths, absolutely necessary to Salvation, which the most improved Reason of Man, without some other help, could never have discovered. In all Cases, the Reason of Man is, lumen sine quo non, a light, without which we can discern no Truth at all; but yet 'tis not a light, by which we can discern every Truth, which doth concern us. Our Lord hath truly said; The light of the Body is the Eye, and 
Matth. vi. 2●.  yet this Eye, be it never so clear and strong, without the help of some other Light beside its own, can see very little or nothing; so here, the light of the Soul is its Reason, and yet this Reason, without some other assistances, in matters of Religion can discern but very little.  
There were amongst the Heathens many sober, virtuous, and industrious Moralists, Men of raised Intellectuals, Men of excellent Parts both Natural and Acquired; and yet as to the Matters of Religion, they showed themselves mere 
Rom. i 21.  Sots and Dunces; they became, as St. Paul saith, vain in their imaginations. They exceedingly doted in their Notions concerning the Nature, Will, and Worship of God; there are several religious and necessary Truths, whereunto their own Reason, though much improved, was, not only a perfect Stranger, but a professed Adversary; the Doctrine of the Creation stands opposed by that known Maxim, which their Reason entertained as an undoubted Truth, ex nihilo nihil fit, out of nothing, nothing is or can be made. And as for the great Doctrine of the Resurrection, Men of Reason looked upon it, as 
●rig. adv. Celsus, l. 5. ●. 24.  Celsus speaks in Origen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a thing impossible, and abominable, and according to these Notions they took St. Paul, who preached this glorious, but difficult Doctrine, to be no better than a vain babbler.  
But whence might this gross Ignorance of theirs arise? How came it to pass, that Men so acute and lucky in searching and finding out many secret Mysteries both of Art and Nature, should be so dull and unhappy, as not to apprehend the Mysteries of Religion? Doubtless the Reason must needs be this; their own Understandings, though exercised to their utmost Ability, could not inform them better for want of some other and clearer Light. And what was their Case, would have been ours, had not God enlightened and blessed the Christian Church with Divine Revelation.  
But withal, this great Blessing of Divine Revelation doth not exclude, but require the very utmost Exercise of human Reason; for we must employ, not only our Eyes or Tongues, but our Understandings in reading the Word of God; it must be our great Endeavour by the use of all proper means, to find out the true Meaning of what we read; and when upon good Grounds we are satisfied that the right Sense of such or such a Text is this or that; though the Matter therein delivered be above the reach of our Reason, yet the same Reason will oblige us to believe it as an undoubted Truth, because that God, who cannot lie, hath so revealed it. And this, I think, is all, which humane Reason hath to do in Matters of Faith and Worship, unless it be to oblige us to the Practice of what we know and believe.  

Joh. viij. 12.  To conclude this Subject, our Lord saith of himself, I am the light of the world, the same thing he said to his Apostles too, ye are the light of the world, so they were not only by their 
Matt. v. 14.  Holy Example, but by their Holy Doctrine too. Why else doth the Apostle mention the Glorious Light of the Gospel? The Light of Reason is but as the Light of a Glow▪ worm; the Light of the Law is but as the Light of a Star; but the Light of the Gospel is as the Light of the Sun, a very glorious Light indeed.  
Now, if this be true, if Christ himself, if the Apostles of Christ, if the Gospel of Christ be so many Lights differing in Number, had not this Author strangely forgot himself and his Bible, when he told the World in his printed Paper, that the Reason of Man is the Light, nay, the only Light, which God hath given him to distinguish the true Religion from the false ones; and again, that God hath given to Men no other Guide, but their Reason, to bring them to Happiness; and yet a third time, that the People's common Notions are the Tests and Standards of all Truths. If these three Propositions be true, or any one of them, I do confess, that the small Light of my own Reason hath not yet enabled me to discern any difference betwixt the clearest Truths, and the grossest Errors. And verily the exposing such notorious Falsehoods to the view of the World by the help of the Press, is a very strong Argument, why its Liberty should be restrained. But to go on.   

SECT. II.  
THE main Arguments, which this Author pleads for an universal Freedom of the Press, are drawn from these two Topics; First, From the great Usefulness of Printing, which hath been so very beneficial to the Christian Church. Secondly, From several great Inconveniencies, which, as he saith, would follow, were the Press once more restrained and limited.  
I. This Author pleads the great Usefulness of Printing, as an Argument that the Press should be unlimited. To which I answer Two ways.  
1. By way of Concession; we do easily grant that the Invention of Printing hath proved very beneficial to the Christian Church: 'Tis this, which hath diffused the knowledge of useful Arts and Sciences, and all sorts of humane Learning: 'Tis this, which hath furnished our Libraries with vast Numbers of excellent Books: 'Tis this, which hath furnished our Churches and our Families with great Store of Bibles; and we easily grant, what this Author asserts, that to this Art of Printing we owe, under God, the happy and quick Progress of the Reformation.  
But 2. By way of denial, we cannot grant that the usefulness of the Press is a good Argument, that its Liberty should be unlimited. For notwithstanding these great Advantages, which both Religion and Learning have reaped from this curious Art of Printing, may not it, as well as many other things, very useful in their own Nature, be so abused and perverted, as to become Instrumental to the great Detriment of Mankind? 'Tis an old Rule, corruptio optimi pessima; the better things are when well used, the worse they grow, when corrupted. The Sword is an excellent Instrument, when it defends the guiltless, but it proves an unhappy Tool, when it murders the Innocent. Physic, duly administered by a Learned Physician, may preserve a Life; but being misapplied by an ignorant Mountebank, it tends to destroy it.  
'Tis certain that the Art of Printing hath done a great deal of good, and we are to bless God for it; but withal, it is as certain, that it hath done, and still may do a great deal of Mischief, and we are to lament it. When the Press tends to promote Religion and Virtue, 'tis well employed, and aught to be encouraged; but when the Press tends to promote Vice and Irreligion, it ought to be discountenanced and restrained. 'Tis evident that the Press hath been used to publish a great Numbers of such Papers, as tend to debauch the Lives, and corrupt the Judgements of Men; such are our obscene Poems, our profane and wanton stageplays, where Vice is not only represented but so promoted, that we may justly fear, that as all their Spectators lose their Time; so many of them may lose their Innocence too. For since the Hearts of Men are so prone to evil, and become so like to tinder, apt to take Fire from every little Spark, 'tis hard to see those Vices, which are pleasing to Flesh and Blood, represented upon a public Stage, and yet not be infected by them.  
And as these are very like to debauch their Spectator's Morals, so are there many other printed Papers as like to corrupt their Reader's Judgements. Such are those many Volumes printed in Defence of Popery; and which is worse, such are those Books printed in the Defence of Arianism, Socinianism, and other Heresies justly condemned by the Catholic Church in the first and purest Ages of Christianity.  
'Tis reported that our modern Socinians have already perverted a considerable Number of Men, not only by their personal Insinuations, but by their printed Papers; and 'tis very probable, that they may yet make many more Proselytes to their dangerous Opinion, if the Press be still permitted to publish whatever they think fit to write. For their Books contain Arguments so plausible, so seemingly strong, that they may pass for clear Evidences and Demonstrations amongst the unlearned Multitude, who are in no capacity to discover the Fallacies that lie in them. Now, since the Press may as well do harm as good, 'tis very reasonable that it should be well regulated to promote that good, and prevent that harm; 'tis very fit that no new Books should be published, till they have been first supervised and allowed.  
But to whom ought the Care of this be committed? Doubtless to Men of Integrity, Learning and Judgement; to Men, who are able, at first view, to distinguish Vice from Virtue, and Truth from Error; and with such Men is the Church of England stored; Men of such Parts and Piety, that we cannot without breach of Charity, so much as once suspect, that they would, to gratify any Party, stifle any Book, which might tend to the advantage of the Christian Church, or the common benefit of Mankind.  
Notwithstanding this, our Author thought fit to tell his Friend, the Parliament-Man, that of all other Persons, the Clergymen of our Church, are the most unfit to be trusted with the Regulation of the Press; and for that, he gives this Reason; namely, because they would allow no Books to be published, save only such as tend to establish their own Opinions; that is, in plain English, they would permit no Books to be printed, which tend to subvert the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith; and for that, Who can justly blame them?  
That the Articles of the Church of England are Sound and Orthodox, hath been proved over and over by such Scripture Arguments, as Priests and Jesuits, Arians and Socinians, or any other Heretic, never yet could, nor ever can overthrow; and if any Books, which contradict them, be offered to the Press, 'tis fit they should be stifled in the Birth; and if they chance to be brought forth by stealth, 'tis fit they should immediately be cast into the Flames, that being the quickest way to cleanse them from that Dross that is in them.  
But however, to prevent as much as may be, the further increase of dangerous Books, which by good Words, fair Speeches, and seeming Arguments may do much Mischief amongst the illiterate Vulgar; 'tis very necessary, that all Writings offered to the Press about Matters of Religion, should carefully be examined by Conscientious and Judicious Divines; and that no general Liberty should be allowed to Men of all Sects to write, and to Printers to publish whatever they please.  
There are amongst us in this unhappy Age, Heretics of 
Tit. i. 11.  several denominations, of whom St. Paul saith, Their mouths must be stopped; and for that he gives a very just Reason, when he tells us, They subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not. Now, if there ought to be a Muzzle clapped upon the Heretics mouth, there is far greater Reason that there should be a restraint upon his Pen and Press. For 'tis impossible that any Heretic should do so much Mischief with his Tongue, as he may by his Writings; words only spoke and heard are transient; but words written and printed are permanent; an heretical Tongue can do no harm but by a personal Conference, but an heretical Pen may do much Mischief to Men at a distance; the wrong that may be done by heretical Discourse alone, can reach but the present Age; but heretical Books may injure and poison the Souls of Men in after Ages. And since there are too many such Books published amongst us, it is the great Concern, and should be the great Care of our Governors, to see that there be no more, lest if their Number increase without control, they may by degrees, considering the ignorance, instability, and credulity of Men, subvert the Faith of the Son of God, and endanger the Souls of Men. But,   

SECT. III.  
2. THIS Author argueth for an unlimited Liberty of the Press, not only for its own great Usefulness, but from the Consideration of several grand Inconveniences, which, as he saith, would follow, should the Press chance to be restrained; and the first which he names, is this.  
First. The restraint of the Press tends to make Men blindly submit to the Religion they chance to be educated in, and to take it up without any trial. To this I answer thus;  
This Argument may hold in Popish Kingdoms, where the People for want of means, cannot; and, for fear of their Inquisitors, dare not examine the Principles and Practices of the Roman Religion. But the same Argument pleaded in, and against the Church of England, is of no Force; for it proceeds upon a false Ground, and hath a Fallacy in it; for here is, non causa pro causa; the restraint of the Press is here assigned as the Cause, or at least the great Occasion, that Men take up their Religion upon Trust, though indeed it be not so.  
The matter of this Charge is true, and as it cannot be denied, so it is much to be lamented, that great Numbers of Men, even amongst us, do indeed take up their Religion barely on Trust. Protestants they are, but why are they such? only because it was the Religion of their Parents, that wherein they were trained up from their Childhood; 'tis the Religion established by our Laws, generally professed in our Nation, and preached in our Churches. These, I fear, are the only Motives, upon which the far greatest Part of Men do, by a blind and implicit Faith, take up their Religion.  
There is a vast multitude of Men, who are constrained thus to take up their Religion upon trust, by an invincible Necessity; Men, who were never blest with a liberal Education, never taught to read; Men so dull and stupid, that they cannot apprehend, much less remember the Strength of an Argument; and surely Persons under such ill Circumstances, are in no Capacity to judge for themselves, but must rely upon the Judgement of their Teachers, and upon their Credit and Authority, take up some Religion or other, or else they can take up none at all; and this is the great unhappiness of many Thousands, I fear, even in the Church of England.  
But besides these, there is another sort of Men bred up in the Principles of Learning; Men of complete Knowledge and good Ability to judge betwixt Vice and Virtue, Truth and Falsehood; and how frequently, how earnestly, do we 
1 Thess. v. 21. 1 Joh▪ iv. 1.  exhort such Men from our Pulpits, to prove all things, to try the Spirits; but, alas! 'tis much to be feared, that we lose our Labour, that Men will not spare any time, nor take any pains to examine their Religion, but rather take it up at a venture just as they find it.  
Now, if a Man takes up his Religion upon trust, when he need not do so, he runs himself both into sin and danger; a sin it certainly is, because a breach of those fore▪ named Commands; and a great danger it is, because instead of a Juno, he may embrace a Cloud; instead of a true Religion, he may close with a false one.  
But where lieth the Fault? Upon whom, or what, must this sin be charged? Sure I am, that in this case a restraint upon the Press is innocent, and cannot be justly blamed; For, were not Men obliged to examine the Matters of their Religion long before the Art of Printing was invented? And was not the neglect of this Duty a sin in former Ages, when there was not so much as one Press in all the World? And if so, How could the trial of Religions depend upon the Press in those early days, when as yet it had no being?  
And because the true Christian Faith is the same in all the Ages of the Church since the Apostles days, we must measure our own Religion by the same Rules, by which the Primitive Saints measured theirs, and what were they? Not the voluminous Writings of Men, which the Press hath now brought forth, but the sacred Oracles of God. This is the Course, to which the Prophet directs us; To the law, and to the Testimony. This Course did the Bereans take, when to examine the Doctrines even of the Apostles themselves, They searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so; and for their doing so they are highly commended.  
And indeed the Scripture is the lapis Lydius, the Touchstone, the Canon, the only Authentic Rule of Manners, Faith, and religious Worship; a Rule so plain and easy in all necessary points, that in order to the trial of our Religion we have no absolute need of any Book but Gods, though other good Books do well towards the better understanding of some passages in this.  
'Tis the great Privilege of our Church that we have this Rule of Scripture in such great Quantities, that every Man, who can and will, may, at an easy rate, have it in his custody, and thereby examine his Religion, when he pleaseth. Nor can we justly blame the restraint of the Press, so long as it is permitted to Print our Bibles, and prohibited to publish no Man's Book, but such only, as are contrary to Gods.  
Indeed, were the Press in England restrained, as it is in Popish Kingdoms, from printing the Bible in our Vulgar Tongue, this Author's Argument would have had much strength in it; but since it is otherwise; since we have the Scriptures, those Tests and Standards of our Religion, preached in our Public Churches, and easily to be had and read, as oft as we please, in our private Families, this Author's Argument against the Restraint of the Press is invalid and unconcluding; for it doth not prove that, for which he pleads it. But to proceed.   

SECT. IV.  
II. THE Second Allegation, which this Author urgeth, as a grand inconvenience, against the Restraint of the Press, is this; Such a Restraint, saith he, deprives Men of the most proper and best means to discover truth. To which I answer thus;  
There is a very close Connexion betwixt this Argument and the former; a Connexion as between an Antecedent and a Consequent; or between the Premises and the Conclusion. In the former Argument he mentions the examination of Religions; and in this, as the end and consequence of that, the discovery of Truth; for to what purpose should any Religion be impartially examined, were it not to discover, whether it be true or false. And for this reason, the same answer, which I have given to the former Argument, might serve well enough for this; for since the restraint of the Press doth not, as I have there proved, prevent the due Examination of Religion, it cannot prevent the discovery of Truth.  
But that so it doth, our Author is very positive; yea, and he tells us by what means it doth so, namely, By hindering Men from seeing and examining the different Opinions, and the Arguments alleged for them. But let this Author tell us, how this can be true; can a Restraint of the Press for time to come hinder any Man from seeing and examining the different Opinions of Men, and their Arguments for them! Are there not already great numbers of printed Books, exposed to common Sale, wherein the different Opinions of Men about matters of Religion are throughly discussed! May not every Man, that will and can, sufficiently inform himself by Books already extant what Arguments have been pleaded by all Sects of Christians in the defence of their respective Professions? And since the Press hath already brought forth such a numerous issue of this kind, methinks every future birth of the same sort would be but a Superfetation. I am persuaded, that should all the Presses in the Christian world be absolutely forbidden to print any more New Books of Controversy, and Polemic Divinity, it would be no injury to the Catholic Church, nor to any one Member of it; for, nihil dici potest, quod non dictum est prius; Prints indeed may be new, but Arguments, either for old Truths, or against old Errors, can hardly be so.  
But when all is done, Religious Truths cannot be discovered by Humane Arguments any further than those Arguments are grounded upon the infallible word of God. 'Tis a Rule in Mathematics: Rectum est index sui & Obliqui. He, that would discover the Rectitude or Obliquity of a Line, must bring it to, and compare it with such a Rule, as is already found to be exactly straight. So in our present Case, he, who would discover the truth or falsehood of any Opinion in matters of Religion, must apply them to, and judge them by that infallible Rule, which St. James very deservedly Styles, The 
Jam. i. 18.  word of Truth.  
And this Rule, in all Points necessary to Salvation, is so plain and easy, that every Man, who hath not lost the use of common Reason, may thereby judge for himself. There are indeed in the word of God, as the Apostle saith, Some things 
2 Pet. three 1  hard to be understood; but in what Texts do these difficulties lie? St. Austin answers, Non quoad ea, quae sunt necessaria saluti, 
Ep. 3. T. 2. ●  etc. The Scriptures are not difficult in any of those Points, which are necessary to Man's Salvation. So thought St. Chrysostom, who thus demands; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
Orig. in laz T. 1. p. 244  what Man is there, to whom all the necessary Truths of the Gospel are not clear and manifest? He saith elsewhere; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
In Mat. Ho● 1. p. 5.  The Husbandman, the Servant, the Widow, the Boy, Persons of very mean Capacities may easily understand what the Scriptures teach about such Points, as are Fundamental.  
That this was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church before St. Chrysostom's time, is evident from that Testimony of Irenaeus; 
Iren▪ l. 2. c ●  Universae Scripturae & Propheticae & Evangelicae in aperto, & sine ambiguitate, & similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt. The whole Scripture, the Prophets, the Evangelists, in such Points as most concern us, are so plain, express, and open, that all sorts of Men may equally apprehend them.  
Now, if a Man may discover the truth of all those Doctrines, which are necessary to Salvation, by Scripture Rules; if his Faith be grounded on them, and his Practice be suitable to them; what hazard would that Man run, should he never see the different Opinions of Men about them, nor weigh their Arguments against them? Suppose a Man being well informed by the express word of God, do steadfastly believe the Resurrection of the dead; what were this Man the worse, should he never see nor examine the reasonings of Pagans and saducees against this great Article of our Creed. Suppose a Man be convinced, as well he may be, by such Texts of Scripture, as cannot, with any tolerable Sense, be otherwise interpeted, that our Blessed Saviour is truly God, and truly Man; What need such a Person to see the Opinions, and weigh the Arguments of Arians and Socinians against this fundamental Point of our Christian Faith?  
To him, whose Belief is already grounded upon the infallible Word of God being rightly understood, the sight of different Opinions, and the Arguments for them signifieth nothing; such a Man doth not need the confutation of heretical Cavils to confirm that Faith of his, which is already bottomed upon a Rock, which is immovable. And as the sight of different Opinions, and the examination of Arguments pleaded for them, is not needful to confirm a strong and well grounded Faith; so it is dangerous, and tends to impair, and shake a weak one. For, well meaning Christians, bred up in the true Religion, being of too easy Belief, of slender Judgements, and not well acquainted with the Word of God, may probably be perverted by heretical Books, as being unable to discern the Fallacies contained in them, and to cite such Texts as might confute them.  
But here it may be demanded, Who must judge, whether such or such an Opinion be justified or condemned by such or such a Text? I answer, where Texts are plain and obvious, every discreet and intelligent Person may judge for himself; but when Texts are somewhat abstruse and difficult, when knotty Questions and Controversies are raised about them, than the Judge must be no single Person; no, nor any small Party of Men, who are biased, prejudiced, and wedded to their own Opinion, but the Judge must be the Catholic Church; I mean, its Representative in the four first general Councils, which consisted of Men not overawed by Authority, nor tempted by Interest; but Men as Religious, as they were Learned, as well Versed in Holy Writ, as able Interpreters of Scripture, as any sort of Men, born since those early days. And this, I think, to be the greatest human Authority to warrant the Sense of such and such Texts, and prove the Doctrines grounded on them.  
Now, Since we of the Church of England are blest with the free use of our Bibles; and favoured with the judgement of the best Expositors about the sense of those Texts, which tend most to determine those Disputes, which have arose betwixt Protestants and Papists, betwixt Trinitarians and Anti-Trinitarians, we can have no need, of any search for Truth, to consult the printed Papers of this Age, many of which do tend to promote Error much rather than discover Truth. And verily when the Licenser of Books doth reject and suppress Heretical Papers, he doth good service both to God and Men; and if such Papers chance to Steal the Press, they ought to be treated like other Thiefs, who, to prevent their doing any future mischiefs, are Apprehended, Condemned, and Executed. And so I quit this Argument, and proceed to the next.   

SECT. V.  
3. THIS Authors third Allegation against the restraint of the Press runs thus, The Restraint of the Press hinders Truth from having any great influence on the minds of Men, which is owing chiefly to examination; because that which doth not convince the Understanding, will have but little, or no effect upon the Will. I answer thus.  
What this Author doth here assert in relation to the influence of the Understanding upon the Will and Affections is true in general; nor can it be justly denied that a strict examination of Religion is the proper means to convince the Understanding of its Truth.  
But although the subject matter of this Allegation be true in the general; yet here it is misapplied and very impertinent to the Case now in hand. For this Argument, as the former did, doth proceed upon a false Hypothesis; for it supposeth that if the Press should chance to be restrained for time to come, Men would be deprived of all sufficient means for the due examination of their Religion.  
'Tis St. Paul's Command, Prove all things. 'Tis St. John's Command, Try the Spirits, whether they are of God. These Commands must needs suppose, that in those days there was a certain Rule, by which Religions might be tried▪ and the same Rule, in its full force and virtue, is standing still. Tell me then, are our Bibles out of Print, or taken from us? Have we no Catechisms, no Systems of Divinity left amongst us? Nay, are there not Books of Controversies exposed to Sale in our Cities, greater Towns, and both our Universities? Nay more, are there not Popish and Socinian Catechisms to be had in England? Do not these Books already Extant, contain the strongest Arguments, which the most learned Men of all Parties were able to urge in favour of their respective Opinions? And may not Men by weighing these Reasons, which are already made public, give a judgement which Religion is true, and which is false, as well as by any new Papers yet to be printed?  
But although there be a great variety of Books, which may help to guide us in our searching after Truth; yet I must still mind my Reader that the Scripture is the only Adequate and Authentic Rule, whereby the Truth or falsehood of any Religion must be determined. And certain it is, that those Convictions of Man's Understanding, which arise from the Immediate word of God, are like to have a more powerful influence upon the Will and Affections, than any other Convictions arising from any such Arguments, as are no more than the Dictates and Collections of humane Reason, which is fallible, and may deceive us, whereas the word of God, well understood, cannot do so. And this, I think, is a sufficient answer to this Authors third Allegation.   

SECT. VI  
4. THE Fourth is this, The Restraint of the Press is that, which tends to make Men hold the Truth, if they chance to light on any, Guilty; and the Reason, which he gives is this; Because that will not be accepted, if it be not the effect of an impartial Examination. To which I answer thus.  
I cannot pass by this without observing that this Author hath hitherto much harped upon the same thing, and hath hitherto bottomed all his Arguments upon the same Ground, and a very slippery one too; he hath proposed his Allegations as distinct in their Number, but in their Proof, there is little or no difference to be found.  
For he tells; First, That the Restraint of the Press tends to make Men blindly submit to the Religion they chance to be educated in. Secondly, That it deprives Men of the most proper and best means to discover Truth. Thirdly, That it hinders Truth from having any great influence upon the minds of Men. Fourthly, That it tends to make Men hold the Truth, if they chance to light on any, guiltily.  
These indeed are very considerable Objections against the Restraint of the Press, were they true; But how doth our Author prove them so to be? To prove them all, he hath yet made use but of one medium, and that a false one too; for 'tis nothing else but a groundless supposition that Men would want due means for the examination of their Religion, were the Press any whit restrained. I say, any whit; for we do not plead for a total Restraint, but for a just and due Regulation. And were the Press so regulated, yet would it not be attended with any of these ill Consequences, with which this Author is pleased to charge it; for since Men have sufficient means for the trial of their Religion, if they do it not, their fin and folly must be imputed, not to the Restraint of the Press, but to their own Ignorance or Negligence; for, as some cannot, so others will not. But our Author goeth on, and so must we.   

SECT. VII.  
5. THis Author's fifth Allegation against the Restraint of the Press takes up more than three Pages, but the full Substance of it is this; It prevents Acts of Charity to the Souls of Men, it invades the natural Rights of mankind, and destroys the common Ties of humanity; so he.  
This is Dogmatically and Magisterially delivered, and since it is such ● grievous Charge, it had need be very well proved; And how doth our Author make it out? He tells us That all Men are obliged, especially in Matters of Religion, to communicate to one another what they think is the Truth, and the Reasons by which they endeavour to prove it: To which I answer thus.  
That we are indeed concerned, not only to profess a Religion, but promote it too; I think, that he, who hath one jot thereof, will never deny. We are bound by several Obligations to instruct and teach our Neighbour in the Principles of that Religion, which we own ourselves. St. Paul 
● Thess. v. 11.  commands it, Edify one another; and so again, Teach and admonish one another. We are engaged by the frequent Commands of God, and that eternal Law of Charity, in our Capacities, and as occasion is offered, to propagate our Religion; to plant it where it is not, and to water it where it is.  
But then methinks, before we do this, we should, not only think, as this Author saith, but secure ourselves and others too, that the Religion which we advance in the World, be indeed the Religion of God; we must be sure that we plant not Weeds instead of Flowers, that we sow not Tares instead of Wheat. For to promote a Religion, which may possibly be false, were a desperate Venture indeed, and he that doth it, hazards the Honour of God, and the Souls of Men.  
I find that our blessed Saviour and his Apostles taught no Doctrine, but what they were sure of; We speak that we 
Joh. iii 11. 1 Joh. iii▪ 9  know, saith our Lord; and thus St. John, We know that we are of the Truth. Certainly, whosoever undertakes, and is obliged to instruct another in matters of Religion, had need be very well informed himself.  
For if our Directions should chance to prove wrong, What Excuse could we make? Suppose we instil into the minds of Men Error and Heresy instead of Truth, What were this but to ruin the Souls of Men, though we might think to save them? It's true, our good Intention and Ignorance may excuse such an ill Act, à tanto, but though such a mistake may somewhat extenuate the Fault, yet can it no way lessen the fatal Consequence that doth attend it. Suppose a Physician, who really intends to cure his Patient, by a mistake of his Remedy, should chance to kill him, the poor Patient, who dieth only by a mistake, suffers as great an injury, as if his Physician had poisoned him knowingly, and with design. 'Tis indeed an Act of Charity to instruct the Ignorant, and lead the Blind; but withal, the Man who undertakes it, must have Eyes in his own Head, lest if the blind lead the blind, they both fall into, and perish in the Ditch. Certain it is, we are much engaged very strictly to sift the Grounds of that Religion, which we are to propagate in the World, and teach our Neighbours, lest otherwise, through our own mistake, and his confidence, we become guilty of cruel Charity, and prove instrumental to damn that Person whom we should endeavour, as far as we can, to save.  
And as it is a dangerous thing for private Persons to promote any false Religion, though they themselves being mistaken, do think it true; so to permit other Men to publish heretical Doctrines cannot be the Duty of those Persons, who have Authority, and should have Zeal, to prevent it. To restrain this unchristian Liberty of the Tongue, Pen, and Press, is not, as this Author doth boldly assert, To invade the natural Rights of mankind, nor to destroy the common Ties of humanity. For if it be a Man's natural Right to persuade his Neighbour, either by his Tongue or his Pen, to entertain an Opinion really heretical, whether he thinks it so or not; 'tis also his natural Right to draw him into Sin; for if he prevail▪ that will be finis operis, though not operantis; it will be the issue of the Act, though it were not the intention of the Agent.  
We cannot doubt but that St. Paul very well understood what natural Right every Man hath to use his Tongue, and in what cases he ought to do it, and thereby to communicate his Thoughts to his Neighbours; but suppose a Man's Thoughts be wild, and his Opinions heretical, must he be left at Liberty to impart such Thoughts, and vent such Opinions, even as he pleaseth? See what St. Paul saith concerning Heretics, Their mouths must be stopped; i. e. they must 
Tit. i. 11.  not be permitted by personal Conferences to communicate their ill Opinions to inform, or, which is all one, to corrupt the Judgements of other Men; so thought St. Paul. Now, he who pleads for an universal Liberty, as the natural Right of all Mankind, to communicate to other Men, whatever they think to be a Truth, whether it be so or not; must censure St. Paul as a Man, either ignorant, or else an invader of Men's natural Right, since he so positively declares that some Men's Mouths must be stopped.  
And in order to this, the same Apostle gave Bishop Titus 
Tit. iii 10.  this Direction, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; i. e. excommunicate him, cast him out of the Church; and certainly, if the Person of an obstinate Heretic must be rejected, his Books may not be admitted; 
2 Tim. two. 17.  for, as to his Person, his Breath is infectious. His words eat like a Canker; and as to his Writings, there is in his Ink more Poisons than one.  
Now, since there are so many heretical Pens at work amongst us, there is great need now, if ever, that some spiritual Argus should attend and watch the Press, lest more venomous Doctrines should steal from thence to infect and kill the Souls of Men. And this, I think, is a sufficient Answer to this Author's fifth Allegation.   

SECT. VIII.  
6. THis Author's sixth Allegation against the Restraint of the Press is this; There is no medium between Men's judging for themselves, and giving up their Judgements to others. We grant it, but what then? His Inference is this, If the first be their Duty, the Press ought not to be restrained; But why not? His Reason is again the same, because it debars Men from seeing those Allegations, by which they are to inform their Judgements: That's his Argument, to which I answer thus:  
We must distinguish betwixt Man and Man, betwixt such as can judge for themselves, and such as cannot, where the Scripture is express, the Words plain, and the Sense easy; every Man who hath a competent use of Reason, and can read his Bible, may judge for himself. But when several Interpretations are given of any Texts, when Doubts are raised, when Arguments are produced to defend both Parts of a Contradiction; there is a vast number of Men, who are no more able to judge which is true, and which is false, than a blind Man is to distinguish betwixt a good Colour and a bad one.  
'Tis the great unhappiness of such Persons, that in matters of Controversy they cannot rely upon their own weak Reason; but must either suspend their Judgements, or else give it up to the Conduct of some other Person, and who is so fit to be trusted with it, as their own Ministers? provided they be▪ as every Minister should be, Men of Piety and Parts, able to satisfy Doubts, remove Scruples, and convince Gainsayers.  
But if Men give up their Reason to the Clergy, this Author, who vilifieth our Clergy as much as possible he can, giveth our People an intimation, that by so doing, they make us, the Lords of their Faith; But how doth that follow? suppose two Persons are engaged in a doubtful Controversy about an Estate claimed by both, these Persons being of themselves unable to determine the Case, appeal to the King's Judges, but do they thereby make those Judges the Lords of that Estate which is contended for? surely no, the Judge doth no more than according to Evidence and Law, declare to which Person that Estate doth justly belong.  
So it is in our present Case, several Parties of Men lay Claim to Truth as theirs, and produce Evidences for it: Now, a Man unable to satisfy himself which side Truth is to be found, consults his Minister, who, by Evidence of Scripture, which in this case is the only Law, assures his Neighbour the Truth lieth here or there.  
And indeed that the Minister is the most proper Judge in Controversies relating to Religion, we cannot doubt, if we dare believe the Prophet, who saith, The Priest's lips should preserve 
Mal. two. 7.  knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. This Text doth not constitute us, nor do we pretend to be Lords of our People's Faith; but as the Apostle speaks, Helpers to the Truth. We do not require any weak Believer's assent to any one Article of Faith, whereunto God requires it not, though the Church of Rome doth so: And how unjustly then, without Modesty or Truth, doth this Man stigmatize us, as Lords of our People's Faith?  
But beside those weak Christians, who in controverted Points cannot judge for themselves, there are some other of clearer Heads, and more improved Understandings that can; and for their sakes this Author saith, that the Press ought not to be restrained, and his Reason is this; Because the Restraint of the Press debars them from seeing those Allegations by which they are to confirm their Judgements.  
This Argument, in effect, hath already been offered once and again, and hath as often been replied to; but for the greater satisfaction of my Reader, I shall again consider and enlarge my Answer to it, and this it is: Not knowing and intelligent Christian, who is well able to judge for himself, can want any new Allegations from the Press to confirm his Judgements in any disputed Points of Faith or Worship, because we have already sufficient Rules to judge by▪ For,  
1. We have the Scripture preached in our public Churches, and if we please, we may read and consider them in our private Families and Closets.  
And here I do again affirm that all matters of revealed Religion must be examined, proved, and determined by the written Word of God. This is the only sure balance to weigh, and touch▪ stone to try all Matters of Faith and Worship. To 
●h. v. 39  this our Lord sent his hearers, Search the Scriptures; and again, How readest thou? And, which is remarkable, the ignorance 
●uke x. 26. ●att. xxii. 29.  of Scripture did he make the only occasion and ground of Error in Points of Faith; so he told the Sadducees, Ye err, but why? not knowing the Scriptures; by which our Lord himself proved that great Doctrine of the Resurrection, which they denied. And when our Lord would prove himself to be a greater Person than David, he did it by that 
●sal. cx. 1.  Text, The Lord said unto my Lord, etc. This course took our blessed Saviour, and so did his Apostles too, and so must we; we must take the Scripture for our Guide in Matters of Religion, for that is the only and infallible Rule and unalterable Standard, to measure all the Doctrines and Practices which such or such a Church doth teach, recommend or require from us.  
But if it shall be again demanded, who must be the Judge, whether amongst different Interpretations of Holy Writ this or that be the true one; whether in controverted Points such or such a Text do certainly warrant such or such a Doctrine, as is grounded thereon, I answer again.  
2. We have the united Judgement and Decrees of several Councils; those, I mean, that were convened in the first and purest times, before the Superstitions and Idolatries of Rome had crept in by degrees through carelessness, vice, and ignorance, and overspread the Church.  
The grand Controversy, now on foot amongst us, concerns the Divinity of Christ, the Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost; that Christ, in the most strict and proper Sense of that Notion, is truly God; that the Holy Ghost is a Person, and a Divine Person, we affirm; but our Socinians, who are the spawn of old Arius, make bold to deny. To justify our Doctrine we cite such and such Texts; and to establish their Opinions, as well as they can, they do the same thing; as for the Scripture, which we produce to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity, because humane Reason cannot comprehend it, they do either question the Authority of such Texts, or else they wrest them to such an intolerable Sense, as every sober Man's Reason may justly abhor. Now, the Question is, Who must judge betwixt us and them? Who must determine, whether the Scripture be on their side, or ours? I answer,  
That Heterodox Opinion, now much contended for, which we call Socinian, did appear under some other Names, very early in the Christian Church: In the first Age the Godhead of Christ was denied by the Jews, and particularly by Ebion; in the Third Century by one Theodatus, Artemon, and Beryllus, and Sabellius; in the Fourth Century, by Arius, Eunomius, and some others. And in the same Age, the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost was denied by Macedonius and some others, who were there branded by a particular Name, and called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Oppugners of the Holy Ghost.  
These Heterodox Opinions beginning to spread and disturb the Peace of the Christian Church, and some other ill Opinions arising too, several General Councils were summoned by several Christian Emperors; the Nicene Council, by Constantine the Great, whose main work was to examine the Opinion of Arius; the Council of Constantinople, called by Theodosius the First, to debate the Opinion of Macedonius; the Council of Ephesus, called by Theodosius the Second, to consider the Opinion of Nestorius; and the Council of Chalcedon summoned by the Emperor Martian, to consult about the Opinion of Eutyches.  
These Councils consisting of some Hundreds of Bishops, having the Glory of God in their Hearts, the Settlement of the Church in their Eyes, and the Bible in their Hands, did after a mature deliberation, pronounce the Opinions of these Men to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and the obstinate defenders of them to be Heretics. And certainly the determinations of these General Councils, which were made up of Persons exemplary for their Piety, and eminent for their Learning, who resolved on nothing without mature Advice and Deliberation, are of as great Authority, and afford as much Satisfaction in Matters of Religion, as any thing of Man can be or do. For the Truths of God, once taught the World by Christ and his Apostles, being unchangeable for ever; and our Bibles, which are the only Rule to measure Religions by, continuing one and the same for ever; that, which was an Error in those early days, must needs be an Error still; and that, which was a Truth then, must needs be a Truth now. And if we cannot think of any more proper means for the right understanding of Scripture, and the discovery of Truth and Error, than the deliberate and unanimous Judgement of so many hundred pious, learned, and unbiased Men assembled together; then certainly the determinations of those ancient Councils are very considerable Evidences for Truth, and against Error. And the rather, because they consisted of such Persons, who, besides their eminent Piety and Learning, had the great Advantage of living nearer the Apostles age, and thereby were the better able to inform themselves and us, what was certainly believed and done in the very infancy of the Christian Church.   

SECT. IX.  
3. THE Writings of the Ancient Fathers, those especially that lived within the first six Centuries, wherever they agree, and are not since corrupted or maimed by the Frauds and Forgeries of the Roman Church, are of singular use in this Matter too.  
That Ignatius, Clemens, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, Hierom, Austin, and many others both in the Eastern and Western Churches, were indeed Persons of great Piety and excellent Parts, our Socinians, without breach of Modesty, cannot deny. And although some of these great Names, in some particular Matters, had their peculiar mistakes, and showed themselves to be but Men; yet in all Points where we find an unanimous Consent amongst them, we are to have so much Veneration for their Authority, as not easily to suspect or contradict it.  
True it is, if we take these Fathers singly, Man by Man, where we find any of them alone in their Opinions, as Origen in reference to the Punishments of Hell; and St. Austin in reference to Infants that die unbaptised; we are not in this case much more obliged to accept their Judgement, than the Judgement of some single Person yet alive. But if we take All the Fathers, who lived within six hundred Years after Christ, together and in a lump, where we find them One in Judgement; they are enough to make a wiser Council than any hath been since their time; they are enough to inform us what is Error, and what is Truth. But,   

SECT. X.  
4. BEcause Learned Men, whose Fortunes are Mean, cannot purchase; and unlearned Men, whose Intellectuals are weak, cannot read and understand the voluminous Writings of the Fathers; we have several Systems of Divinity, Confessions of Faith, short Abridgements of Christian Religion, which are, especially to unlearned Persons, great helps in this matter too.  
And here methinks those ancient Creeds of the Apostles, Nice, and Athanasius, which are so generally received by the Church of God, are of great Authority to settle our Judgement in the main and most necessary Points of Faith. Besides, we have many Choice and Excellent Catechisms, composed by Men that were Pious, Judicious, acquainted with Scriptures, well versed in the Primitive Councils and Fathers. These short Catechisms, compiled by Persons of singular Endowments, and approved by the Church, are little less than contracted Bibles, containing in them whatever Man is obliged to know, and delivering enough in easy Terms to inform us in Matters of Practice, to secure us from Errors, and confirm our Judgements in all the great Points of Faith.  
In short, the substance of my Answer to this Argument is this; since we have the written Word of God to be our Rule, and since this Word, in some material Cases, according to the different Fancies and Interests of Men, hath different Interpretations given concerning its true Sense and Meaning; 'tis our safest way, for our better Satisfaction, to betake ourselves to the most able, faithful and unbiased Judges; and they are the most ancient Councils, and the Primitive Fathers, whose Judgements are declared in our several Creeds, in other public Confessions of Faith, and Orthodox Catechisms set forth or approved by the Church of God.  
And since we are very well stored with these excellent Helps, I do once more conclude that no Man, whether learned or unlearned, can need any new Arguments from the Press to confirm his Judgement in Matters of Religion.   

SECT. XI.  
7. THis Author's seventh Allegation against the Restraint of the Press runs thus. If it be unlawful to let the Press continue free, lest it furnish Men with the Reasons of one Party as well as the other, it must be as unlawful to examine those Reasons. To this I answer thus;  
We must distinguish between Party and Party; between one, who is Orthodox, and one who is Heretical; this distinction being premised, I shall resolve this Hypothetical Proposition into these two Categorical ones. That it is not lawful for many Orthodox Christians to Examine those Reasons, which Heretics may urge in defence of their ill Opinions. And therefore that the Press should not be permitted to furnish such Christians with any such Reasons,  
'Tis notoriously known that there are amongst us vast numbers of Persons, who are of weak Judgements, not firmly established in their Faith, not able to distinguish Truth from Falsehood in a fallacious Argument, and therefore are apt to be Tossed up and down by every wind of doctrine: now, for such Men to peep into Heretical Books, cannot be lawful, because they do thereby run themselves into a very dangerous Temptation.  

Matth. seven. 1●  Our Lord hath left us this Caution, Beware of false Prophets; it seems they are dangerous Men; so we are told again and again: They creep into houses, and there find success, for, 
2 Tim. iii 6▪ 2 Tim. two. 18 Tit. i 11.  They lead Captive silly women; and again, They overthrew the faith of some; nay, They subvert whole houses; it seems that Heresy is a contagious Disease, apt to overrun whole Families.  
And doubtless this Poison may be conveyed in a piece of Paper as successfully, as any other way; this infection may be received as well by the Eye from a Book, as by the Ear from a Tongue; for when unlearned Men meet with Socinian Arguments, drawn either from Humane Reason, or abused Scripture, since they themselves cannot confute them; they are apt to yield up their own Reason, and give up those Truths for lost, which they are not able to defend.  
And I think that it will be no breach of Charity, if I tell my Reader that I am verily persuaded, that the great Reason, why this Author pleads so many Arguments, though no good ones, for the unlimited liberty of the Press, is this; namely, that our Socinians may without control publish their Books full of subtle, but fallacious Arguments to Surprise and Captivate the Judgements of illiterate and undiscerning Men. We know, that in the late Reign an Universal Liberty of Conscience was pleaded for, and granted by a Declaration upon a design to bring in Popery; so now an universal Liberty of the Press is contended for by those Men, whose design it is to introduce Socinianism, the very worst of Heresies, for it totally subverts the very Foundation of our Christian Faith and Hope.  
Indeed, to my best observation, this Author hath not, in his whole Letter, so much as once named Socinian, nor dropped one plain word in favour of it; but yet, Latet anguis in herba; This was very prudently done to prevent Suspicion; but if he be not a Man of that sort, why doth he tell us, that if the Press must be Regulated, it must be done by some Layman; for which he can have no substantial Reason, save only this, namely, because from a Clergyman no Socinian Book can ever expect an Imprimatur. But this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only by the way,  
In short, the substance of my Answer to this Allegation is this, 'Tis not lawful for Men of weak Understandings to mind subtle Arguments contained in Heretical Books, lest thereby they might be ensnared; and for that Reason, the Press should not be permitted to publish any such Books, unless security could be given that they should never come into Vulgar hands.   

SECT. XII.  
8. THIS Authors Eighth Allegation against the Restraint of the Press is this. The Press ought not to be Restrained, because the Reformation is wholly owing to it. I answer,  
There is no liberty denied to any English Press to publish any Book, which tends to help the Devotions, to reform the Lives, or confirm the Judgements of Men in the true Faith of Christ; but as for the Established Religion of our Church in matters of Faith, and Worship, it is so well refined already from the dregs of Popery and Superstition, that we do not need another Luther, nor the help of any Press to reform and make it better. He that would reform our Religion in any of its substantial Parts, must reform the Scriptures too; for our Church teacheth no other Doctrines in the great Points of Faith and Worship than Christ and his Apostles taught the World, if we may believe those Sacred Writings, which they have left us. But since I have already, under another Head given a sufficient answer to this Allegation. I need not here say any more about it.   

SECT. XIII.  
9 THE Ninth Allegation, which this Author urgeth against the Restraint of the Press, is this; Our Divines condemn the Popish Clergy for not suffering their Laity to read Protestant Authors; We do so, and very justly too, but what then? The Inference, which he intends, must be this; Our Protestant Clergy must be Condemned for not suffering our Laity to Read Socinian Books, and for watching the Press to prevent it.  
To this I answer thus; this Inference is, a Non Sequitur, it is wild and extravagant; for there is a great difference in the Case: the prohibition of Books may be an Act either to be blamed or commended according as the Books prohibited are either really good or really bad; to forbid Men the use of such Books, as tend to the benefit of Mankind, the advantage of True Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, is an Act Impious and Tyrannical. And this is the known Practice of the Roman Church, which forbids Laymen to Read the Bible, and the Writings of such Protestant Authors as teach nothing but what the Scriptures teach, and for this do we very justly Condemn them.  
But on the other Hand, to forbid injudicious Men the use of such Books, as tend to promote Errors and Heresies, to distract their Readers Judgement, and rather to shake their Faith than to confirm it, is an Act laudable, Charitable, and necessary for the Age we live in, for those Predictions of Christ and his Apostles; false Prophets shall arise; and again, false 
Matth. xxiv. ● 2 Pet. two. 1▪  Teachers shall be among you, are fulfilled in these times; for there are amongst us Romish Priests and Jesuits; yea and some far more dangerous than they: I mean, our Socinians, who cannot corrupt so many Souls by their Personal Conferences, as they may by their Books. And is it not high time to watch the Press, lest any thing steal from thence, which may Poison the Heads of unwary Men? Or must the Press be permitted freely to spread that destructive Heresy, which hath been long since Condemned by the Catholic Church and its Representatives met in General Councils?  
But here this Author, to justify his own Opinion, Cites a learned Divine of our own Church, and borrows this Passage from him, They that have a good Cause, will not fright Men from considering what their Adversaries say against them, nor forbid them to Read their Books, but rather encourage them so to do, that they may see the difference between Truth and Error, Reason and Sophistry with their own Eyes, etc. That we may see how little service this Passage doth our Author, let us view it again. They who have a good Cause, but who are they? We cannot doubt, but this good Man meant the Church of England, of which he himself was a very worthy Minister; but what saith he of this Church of Ours? It will not fright Men from considering, etc. but what Men? This eminent Divine was the Lecturer of Gray's Inn, where his Auditory did chiefly consist of such Persons, as had been blest with a learned Education, and might Charitably be presumed to be well skilled in the Law of God as well as in the Law of Man.  
Now, that this judicious Divine of ours did mean, that the Church of England would rather encourage than forbid Persons so qualified to read and Examine the Books of our Adversaries as well as our own; to me seems evident from that reason which he subjoins as the only end of an impartial Examination, namely this, That they may see the difference between Truth and Error, Reason and Sophistry, with their own Eyes; This Expression doth plainly import the Persons fit to Read Books of Controversy in matters of Religion are only such as have Eyes of their own, i. e. clear Heads, enlightened Understandings, able to discern Truth from Falsehood.  
And verily could the Books of our Socinians be confined within the Libraries of learned and judicious Men, whether of the Clergy, or of the Laity: could they be surely kept from purblind Eyes and weak Judgements; that unlimited liberty of the Press, which this Author doth so earnestly contend for, were the more allowable. But since this can never be, since Heretical Books are and ever will be exposed to common Sale; though the Church of Rome doth ill in restraining their Laity from the use of good Books; yet the Church of England would do very well in restraining the Press from putting ill ones into the Hands of unskilful Men, where they would be more dangerous than edge-Tools in the Hand of a Child, who knoweth not how to use them. And so much in answer to this Objection.   

SECT. XIV.  
10. THIS Author begins his Tenth Allegation thus: I cannot see how they, that are for tying Men to that Interpretation of Scripture, which a Licenser shall approve, and therefore put it in his power to hinder all others from being published, can with any Justice condemn the Popish Clergy for not Licensing the Bible itself for the Laity to Read. I answer,  
Here are two Suppositions, both which are either impertinent to us, or false in themselves; if the Church of England be not the Persons here charged, the Charge is impertinent; but if they be, it is false. For,  
1. The Church of England doth tie none of her Members to that Interpretation of Scripture, which such or such a Licenser of hers shall approve.  
'Tis well known that we have many Interpretations of the Scripture, which never were under the Inspection of any English Licenser; the Expositions of the Fathers, Schoolmen, and many other Divines are brought us from beyond the Seas, and the free choice and use of them is allowed us by our Church. And if such Books chance to be Reprinted here in England, the care of the Edition is committed, not to the Licenser of Books to judge of their matters, but to the Composer and Corrector of the Press to see to their Forms, Character, and exact truth of Printing.  
Now, if this be so, as indeed it is; if we are allowed to consult various Interpreters of our Bibles, if we may take our Choice of such or such Expositors, and use what Editions we please; why should this undeserved imputation be cast upon the Church of England, as if she tied all her Sons to such Interpretations of the Holy Scripture, as her own Licensers shall Authorize?  
2. The Church of England doth not give her Licensers a Despotic, Arbitrary, and Absolute Power to reject every Book, every Interpretation of Scripture, which doth not please them.  
'Tis certain that our Licensers do not act by any immediate and independent Power of their own; but as Delegates and Substitutes by an Authority derived from their Superiors, and if any of them shall either allow any Book, which tends to mischief; or suppress any Book, which tends to common good, they do abuse their Power, exceed their Commission, and must answer for it.  
But is the miscarriage of some few Licensers an Argument that they should all be laid aside? Some Kings have proved cruel Tyrants. Some Judges have been corrupted, and must we therefore have neither King nor Judge? Sure I am that in this Age of ours we do sufficiently need a discreet and able Judge of Books: and the Test and Censure of such a Judge no Man need fear more than our Socinian Writers; for they, being no great Friends to the Scripture, are very odd Interpreters of it, not through Ignorance, but design; I will not say, through Rancour and Malice; but I will say, through Partiality and Prejudice. For, because the beginning of St. John's Gospel, and several Expressions in St. Paul's Epistles, being rightly understood, and in the sense of the Catholic Church, do totally overthrow their dangerous Hypothesis; they fix upon those Texts such Interpretations as are childish, absurd, and even ridiculous; such, as none of the Fathers, Schoolmen; or Critics, so far as I can find, did even think of. And what an ill Cause do these Men manage, who endeavour with handfuls of dirt to stop the Mouths of those Witnesses, who, being permitted to speak their own sense, do so loudly proclaim their united Testimonies against them?  
And methinks this one Consideration, were there no more, is enough to justify our Church in appointing some fit Persons to be the Judges of Books, and the Interpretations of Scripture offered to the Press; and the rather, because if any Licenser should out of any by▪ respect, or for any sinister end, Stifle any Papers, which deserve to see the light; the injured Authors may appeal from the Licenser to the Vicechancellors in either of our Universities, or to the Lord Bishop of London, or to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; so that the fate of Books doth not ultimately depend upon the pleasure or sole Judgement of a Licenser.  
Now, Those two forenamed Suppositions, upon which this Author bottoms this Tenth Allegation, proving false, the Superstructure, which he builds upon them, falls to the Ground, and there I leave it.   

SECT. XV.  
11. THE next Allegation against the Restraint of the Press this Author thrusts into the Mouths of other Men, and makes them say what perhaps he himself doth not think: namely this. 'Tis no small presumption that the Clergy themselves are Conscious of the falseness of their Religion. How! the Clergy, what! the whole Clergy? Are ten thousand of us at once presumed to be Hypocrites, Jugglers, and gross Dissemblers with God and Man? We, who teach Men that a false Religion leads towards Hell, do we know our own to be false, and yet embrace it still? The Martyrs of England in Queen Mary's days died for the same Religion, which we now profess, and were they also Conscious that this Religion is false, and yet in the defence of it shed their blood?  
Certainly this Presumption is not small, but very strange; 'tis a great breach as well of Charity as of Truth; for, if the Scriptures be true, and who dares suspect them? We are abundantly convinced that our Religion cannot be false; and why then should any Man presume that we have indeed other thoughts concerning it? The Reason here given is this; Because the Clergy dare not suffer their Religion to undergo a fair Trial, but do what they can to Stifle all the Reasons that can be urged against it. But, Sir, Pray tell us, can any sound Reason be ever urged against a Religion, such as ours is, Instituted by Christ, Taught by his Apostles, Embraced by the Primitive Church, and Sealed by the Blood of thousands of Martyrs.  
But 'tis not strange to hear Men speak against the very best of things or Persons; for our Lord told his Apostles, 
Matth v. 11.  Men shall revile you, and say all manner of evil against you. Thus were their Persons treated; yea, and their Doctrine too. 
Act. xiii 45▪ Ps. cxxxix. 20.  The Jews spoke against those things, which were spoken by Paul. Nay, the Psalmist tells his God, They speak against thee; and what wonder then if they speak against his Religion too? But what do they speak? That, which this Author styles Reason, is but Pretence and Sophistry; and were such Pretences, though never so plausible, yet being fallacious, buried in perpetual Oblivion, and stifled for ever, what harm were in it? What one single Soul would be the worse?  
But our Author replieth, that when there is a Contest between Men of two different Opinions, they have not fair Play, if their respective Reasons be not heard equally on both sides; we grant it, what Seneca saith, is true▪  
Qui statuit aliquid, parte inaudita altera,  
Aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit.  
Well, the main Parties, now contending, are the Church of England, and our Socinians, and have not these Men very often been heard already? their Opinion, and their Arguments for it, being much the same with those of the Old Arians, have been frequently debated, all their Witnesses have been heard, all their Evidences have been maturely Considered, Baffled, and Overthrown, and Condemned by several Councils, by many pious and learned Fathers, by a great number of worthy Divines, by Papists, by Protestants, by Calvinists, by Lutherans, by all sorts of Christians; but themselves.  
Now, when a Cause Condemned by several able and impartial Judges, at several times, and in several places, is, by a Bill of Revival, renewed and brought upon the Stage again with the self- same Witnesses, and the self- same Evidence; if the Proper Judges, to free themselves and others from a great deal of needless trouble, should reject and cast it out of the Court without any further Hearing, I think there would be no foul play in doing so.  
But we have not treated our modern Socinians thus; For did any of them ever desire a personal Conference with any of our Learned Divines, and was rejected? Did any of them ever provoke the professors of Divinity in either of our Universities, to a public Disputation, and was refused? Are not their Writings and ours to be seen, and had in many Shops in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and other great Towns and Cities? Have they not received our printed Answers to their printed Objections? If they have, Why should this Author complain for want of fair Play? Why should he unworthily tell the World, that we dare not suffer our Religion to undergo a fair Trial, for fear it should prove False?  
No, we do not doubt the Truth of our Religion, nor the Ability of our Church to defend it; but our Lord tells, False 
Matt. xxiv. 1 2 Pet. two. 2.  Prophets shall deceive many; and St. Peter saith, They shall bring in damnable Doctrines; and yet he tells us, Many shall follow their pernicious ways. These Texts do make us jealous that many weak, easy, and credulous Men may be corrupted by the Sophistry and Fallacies of Socinian Arguments, which, for that Reason should not be published.  
But, may our Author reply, and in effect he doth so, What danger can there be in publishing such Arguments, since, if they be false, we have great store of Divines able to confute them? We have so, and bless God for it; But what then? Must we permit the Souls of Men to be poisoned, because we abound with Sovereign Antidotes? Must we permit the Church our Mother, or her Sons who are our Brethren to receive Wounds in their Heads, because we have Balsam enough to Cure them? We would take a better course than so, and follow the old Rule, venienti occurrite morbo, prevent the Poison, and then we need not use any Antidotes; prevent the Wound, and then there is no need of Plasters; so here, if we can, by a due Regulation of the Press, prevent the spreading of erroneous Doctrines, there will be no need of Confutations.  
But if Men of restless Spirits be still permitted to disturb the Peace of our Church, and stagger the Faith of weak Believers, by publishing Arguments, which only seem to be plausible, against the Fundamental Articles of our Creed, we shall be concerned to spend more time, and blot more Paper, in returning just Answers to them; we must not quit the Field, so long as there are Enemies in it. And so I pass from this Paragraph to the next.   

SECT. XVI.  
12. THis Paragraph begins thus; It may be objected, saith he, (and very justly, say we) that by such a Latitude, People may be seduced into false Religions, or into Heresies and Schisms. The Truth hereof, this Author doth not deny; but though it should be so, yet he insinuates, that there would be but very little or no Danger in it; for, thus he tell us, If two Persons profess two different Religions, the one a True, the other a False one; yet if they have been equally sincere in their Examination, they are equally in the way to Heaven. This Assertion, were it true, would be very comfortable to all sober Jews, Turks, and Pagans, who have been serious in examining the Grounds of their respective Religions; and yet I cannot think them equally in the way to Heaven with all such Christians, as have done as much. And 'tis easy to believe, that those Christians, who, after an impartial search into Scripture-truths', do own the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as fundamental Articles of our Faith, are in a much fairer Capacity of Salvation, than our Socinians, who, after all their Examinations, embrace a Doctrine contrary to the Faith of the Catholic 
Pet. two. 2.  Church, even denying the Lord that bought them; a Doctrine, which St. Peter styles, Damnable.  

●phes. iv. 54  St. Paul tells us, There is one Faith, one true Religion, and no more; and this one true Religion is the only right Path, which leads towards Heaven; and he, who is mistaken in the Choice of his Religion, is like a Traveller, who, after all his inquiries, mistakes his way; and if he continue under that mistake, he hath little hopes to attain his desired Journey's end.  
But to justify this strange Paradox, this Author subjoins this Reason; two such Persons, the one after a due examination, professing a true Religion; the other a false one, are equally in the way to Heaven, because in following their Reason, they both have done what God requires. That's his Argument, but there's a fallacy in it; for, doth not God require, and doth not Reason oblige us, in order to our Salvation, to obey one Command as well as another? One Command is this, prove all things; another immediately follows, hold fast that which is good. Now, if one Man obey the first of these Commands only, and another obey them both, they do not equally do what God requires, nor consequently are they equally in the way to Heaven.  
And this is the Case of two Persons, who, after an equal Examination, hold two different Religions, the one a True, and the other a False one; the Obedience of the one is only, secundùm quid, he obeyeth but this single Command, prove all things; but the other obeyeth this and that too, hold fast that which is good, which a False Religion can never be. And if so, How can two such Persons be in an equal Capacity of Salvation, except a wrong way do as directly lead to Heaven as the right one?  
There is another Assertion in the same Paragraph, which I cannot pass over without some Reflections upon it, and 'tis this; The perverse holding of Religion; i. e. taking it up on trust, whether it be true or false, is Heresy. This definition of Heresy is to me a new one, and repugnant to many old ones, which I have met with.  
It is true, the different Opinions of the old Philosophers, whether True or False, are indifferently styled by Epiphanius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Heresies of the Philosophers. But in 
Epiph. Haer. 8.  Matters of Religion, this word, Heresy, is very seldom, if ever, used in any Sense, but a bad one; the Evangelist mentions the Sect, in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Heresy of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, an Expression, which doth no way commend them. Nor did the Jews intent the credit of the Christian Religion, when they called it, this Sect, or as it is in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Heresy. And as for the Pagans, many of them had as bad an Opinion of it, and styled it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Atheistical Heresy; so 
●●seb. Hist. ●. c. 18.  Eusebius.  
Sure it is, the word is now generally used in an ill Sense, and doth necessarily imply nothing else, but an unsoundness and tenacity of Opinion, about Matters of Religion; accordingly 
●ll. Constitut. ●t. 12. ●nc. Carthag. ●n. 25. ●ertull. de dirge. Velandis.  the old Canon Law of the Greek Church defines an Heretic thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that is not right in his Judgement. The Council of Carthage describes them thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heretics are they, who have wrong apprehensions about the Christian Faith. Tertullian, defines Heresy thus, quodcunque adversùs veritatem sapit, whatsoever makes against, not the Laws of God, but his Truth; accordingly an Heretic, in the Language of Hesychius, is this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that chooseth some Opinion besides, or against the Truth.  
These Definitions of Ancient Divines inform us what their Thoughts were concerning Heresy; namely, that it was nothing else but an Opinion held against some Truth. But this late Author is of another mind, for he tells us, That the taking up a Religion on trust, though the true one, is Heresy, and according as Men are more or less partial in examining, they are more or less heretical. But if this be so, then must the Nature and Essence of Truth depend on the bare act of Examination, which cannot be, because Truth will remain Truth, whether it be examined or not; the strictest Examination doth not constitute Truth, but only makes it evident.  
Indeed he, who takes up a true Religion barely upon trust, may be to blame; but his Fault is not Heresy, but Negligence and Disobedience; 'tis not, as Heresy is, an Error in point of Judgement, but a Sin in point of Practice; 'tis not the Violation of a Doctrine, but the Transgression of a Command. So that whatever Title we may give such a Man, we cannot justly brand him with the Name of Heretic.  
But yet our Author, from these foregoing Premises, infers this as an Epiphonema, or granted Conclusion; so that 'tis not, what a Man professeth; but, how, that justifieth or condemns him before God; No. Is the what excluded? And is the, how, all? Suppose a Man profess the Religion of Mahomet with the greatest Devotion that can be, would not the what condemn him, or would the how excuse him? Suppose a Jew with the highest Reverence should have offered up a Swine instead of a Lamb, would not the what, the matter of his Sacrifice, notwithstanding its exactest manner, have rendered it abominable? The Truth is, God considers both the what and the how, the substance of his Worship, and its circumstances too; and if so, Why doth this Man tell us, 'tis not the what, but the how?  
And now being wearied with pursuing this Author through so many impertinent Allegations against the Restraint of the Press, I shall take my leave of him when I have propounded two Arguments against that unlimited Liberty of the Press, for which he is so zealous an Advocate, and and that, I fear, upon an ill Design; and my first Argument is this.  
1. Since this unlimited Liberty of the Press would certainly be, as this Author himself doth not deny, an inlet to Schisms, Heresies, and a great variety of Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion; the allowance of it can never consist with that Command of God, contend earnestly 
Judas 3.  for the Faith once delivered to the Saints.  
This Text supposeth that the true Faith, or which is all one, the true Religion, is but one; and that for that one, we are to Contend, and that Earnestly too: Now, to allow an unlimited Liberty to the Press, which will open a wide Gap to introduce false Religions, is so far from a contending for the one true Faith, that it is indeed a contending against it; and therefore such an allowance is a direct breach of this Command.  
2. Since this unlimited Liberty of the Press would certainly prove an inlet to Schisms, Heresies, and false Religions, the allowance of it would be contradictory to the Judgement and Practice of the universal Church in all Ages.  
It is true, the Church of Christ in all Ages had not the use of a Press, but if the late Art of Printing, without any due Restraint should prove a means to introduce an inundation of Heresies; the allowance of such a Liberty, and those numerous Errors, with which it would be attended, would be diametrically opposite to the Judgement and Practice of the Catholic Church from one Generation to another.  
Now, the Question which relates to the Case in hand, is this; How did the Primitive Saints deal with those Men, who differed in Opinion from the received Doctrine of the Catholic Church? They followed St. Paul's Rule, 2 Tim. 2. 25. In meekness instruct those that oppose themselves; they did so, they used all gentle and rational means to reduce them; but when this would not do, What course took they then? Did they indulge them? Did they give them an universal Liberty of Conscience? Surely no; and to prove this, three Things shall be showed. First, That an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the Matters of Religion, is contrary to the Judgement and Practice of particular Learned Men in the Primitive Church.  

Tertull. ad Scapulam.  Tertullian, indeed tells us, Non Religionis est cogere Religionem, quae sponte-suscipi debeat, non vi; the owning of any Religion ought to be free, not forced; and 'tis best, that it should be so; but lest this Expression should be made use 
Pamel. in Locum. Tertull. in Scorp.  of, as Pamelius words it, ad sectarum licentiam, as a Licence to Heretics; the same Tertullian saith elsewhere, ad officium Haereticos compelli, non inlici dignum est; it is fit the Heretics should be compelled, not alured, to do what becomes them.  

Hieroymus' ● Gal. 5. 9  St. Hierom saith of Heresy, scintilla statim, ut apparuerit, extinguenda est, the very first spark of it should not be cherished, but extinguished; and how far he was from countenancing ill Opinions, is evident from his Epistle to Riparius, where he calleth his opposing the Heresies of those times, Christi bellum, the War of Christ. And Fevardentius 
Fevard. in renaei Praefa  tells us, Gloriatur Hieronymus se haereticis nunquam pepercisse, St. Hierom glorieth, that he never spared any Heretics.  
That great Man St. Austin, who was very tender of punishing Men for their Opinions, did yet write several Epistles to the Governors of several Provinces, which bear this Inscription, De moderatè coercendis Haereticis, wherein he doth beseech them to Restrain Heretics, not by Capital Punishments, but by some gentler Corrections. That Sentence, which Dulcitius pronounced against the Donatists, St. Austin thought too severe, and so do we; 
August. in E 61.  noveritis vos debitae morti dandos, know that ye must die, as ye deserve; such sanguinary Courses are very improper means to reduce Heretics; they are inconsistent with our Lord's Designs, and cannot be reconciled to that Command of his, Compel them to come in, that my 
Luk. xiv. 23.  house may be filled; the Compulsion, here required, must be such, as tends to recover Men, not to destroy them; and certainly to send them out of the World by bloody Laws, were a strange way of bringing them into the Church. That Expression of St. Paul will never warrant such a course, Galathians 5. 12. I would they were even cut off, which trouble you. He doth not wish they were killed with the Sword, but only cut off from the Church by Excommunication.  
But although sanguinary Laws may not be executed, unless it be in case of professed Atheism, gross Idolatry, or downright Blasphemy, yet for the restraint of other Opinions and Practices, which corrupt the Doctrine, and disturb the Peace of the Catholic Church, some gentler Punishments have been used, and in St. Austin's Judgement, still aught to be.  
In short, all those Learned and Pious Men, who were so renowned in former Ages, Athanasius, great St. Basil, Irenaeus, and many others, have declared to all succeeding Generations, that they did not approve of a general Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the Matters of Religion. For, why else did they write so vehemently against the ill Opinions of Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, and other Heretics, concerning whom Cyril of Jerusalem gave 
cyril. Hierosol. ●atech. 6.  every Orthodox Christian this Advice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abhor them, avoid them, do not so much as once salute them; so he.  
2. 'Tis certain that an universal Liberty of Conscience, an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the Matters of Religion, is directly contrary to the Decrees and Canons of ancient Councils, and that we may see in a few Instances; as,  
1. The Decrees and Canons of Councils did not leave Men to the Liberty of their own Consciences, as to the use of both the Sacraments.  
The Council of Carthage established this Canon in reference 
●ono. Carthag. ●ant. 122.  to Baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whosoever deemeth that little Infants, newly born, aught to be baptised, let him be accursed, or excommunicated.  
And as to the other blessed Sacrament, there is a Canon, ascribed to the Apostles themselves, which runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Apost. Can.  All Christians, who come to the Public Assemblies, and there hear the Scriptures; but stay not to receive the Holy Communion, aught to be Excommucated, and so thought the Council of Antioch: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Conc. Antioc Can. 2.  They, who turn their Backs upon the Holy Communion, aught to be cast out of the Church. And the Council of Sardica, as Zonaras tells us, did, by a Canon of theirs, Excommunicate all Persons, who abstained from the Holy Sacrament: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for three Lords Days together.  
2. The Decrees and Canons of Councils did not leave Men to the liberty of their own Consciences, as to the observation of the Lords day.  
Concerning this the Council of Laodicea thus Decreed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Conc. Laod. Can. ●9.  no Christian ought to act like a Jew; and rest upon the Saturday; but to prefer our Lords days, and rest in them; and as for such as should transgress this Canon, the Council passed this Sentence upon them; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let them be accursed of Christ: nor was it left as a thing Arbitrary for Men commonly to Fast upon the Sunday, if a Clergyman did it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ 
Apost. Can. 66.  let him be deposed or degraded; if a Layman did it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him be Excommunicated; so say the Apostles Canons.  
3. The Decrees and Canons of Councils did not leave Men to the liberty of their own Consciences, as to the use of Public Churches, and the frequenting of Sacred Assemblies held therein.  
The Heretic Eustathius, in the fourth Century, despising Public Churches, taught his Followers to Pray and perform other Acts of Divine Service in private Conventicles. Against this Practice the Council of Gangra Established their Canons. 
Conc. Gangz. Can. 5. & 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. If any Man teach, that the Church and Solemn Assemblies met therein, are to be despised, and if any Man shall set up Private meetings for the Worship of God without Licence from his Bishop, let him be accursed.  
These Canons, and many more to the like effect, are undeniable Evidences, that the Councils of the Primitive Church were far enough from being favourers of a general Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion.  
3. 'Tis certain that an Universal Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in matters of Religion is contrary to the Judgement and Practice even of the Roman Church itself. What their judgement is in this case, we are informed from the Learned Men of their Communion; Lorinus, one of their Jesuits, intimates his Opinion, as well as his Authors, when 
Lorinus in Act. 10. v. 30.  he saith, Haereticos rectè Clemens exterminandos praecipit: Clemens did justly command Heretics to be rooted out. Thomas Aquinas, their angelical Doctor, delivers his Opinion 
Aqu. 2. 2. qu. 11. Art. 3.  concerning Heretics very roundly thus; Non solùm ab Ecclesia per Excommunicationem separandos, sed etiam per mortem à mundo excludendos; Heretics deserve not only to be excluded from the Church by Excommunication; but also from the World by Death. Bellarmine, their most illustrious Cardinal, spends a whole Chapter in proving, that Heretics, posse ac deberi temporalibus poenis, atque etiam ipsa morte mulctari; that incorrigeable Heretics not only may, but must, suffer Temporal Punishments, yea and Death itself. But there is no Man, that speaks more fully to this, 
Maldonat. in Luc. 9 v. 55.  than Maldonate, another Jesuit, who expressly saith, Comburendi tanquam proditores, & transfugae discedentes Haeretici: Heretics, who depart from the Church, are to be burnt, as so many Traitors and Renegadoes.  
And whom he means by these Heretics, he elsewhere tells us, Calvinistos & Lutheranos Haereticos esse quis non videt? 
Maldonat. in Matth. 13. v. 26.  nullus nunquam Haereticus fuit, nullus Haereticus esse potest, si illi Haeretici non sunt: who doth not know, that Calvinists and Lutherans, Protestants of both Denominations, are Heretics? If they are not, no Man ever was, nor can be, such; 'Tis boldly spoken, but never was, never will be proved.  
And 'tis worth our Observation, that the same Jesuit hath left the Kings of the Christian Church this advice; Admoneo 
Maldonat. in Matth. c. 13. 26.  non licere illis istas, quas vocant, Conscientiae libertates nimiùm nostro tempore usitatas Haereticis dare. I put Princes in mind, that it is not lawful for any of them to grant Heretics, i. e. Protestants, any Liberty of Conscience, of which he complains as a thing too often done.  
These instances are enough to teach us what are the Principles of the Roman Church, whereunto their Practice hath been so suitable that it may be a matter of dispute, whether Rome Pagan, or Rome Papal hath shed the greater quantity of Christian blood. And certainly, their Persecuting, Impopoverishing, Imprisoning, Tormenting, Banishing, and Massacring so many Thousands, in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, and other places, barely upon the score of Religion, are very sorry Arguments, that they do really like any Toleration, what Hand so ever the Men of that Religion may have in ours.  
4. 'Tis certain that an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the matters of Religion is directly contrary to the Commands and Edicts of good Kings both in the Jewish and Christian Church.  
1. The good Kings of Israel and Judah did not permit all their Subjects to do, what they pleased, in the matters of their Religion. We cannot doubt, but there were in those days many Men of erroneous Judgements, who thought they did well, when they Worshipped God by an Image. 
Cor. viij▪ 7.  St. Paul mentions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Conscience of the Idol, i. e. a false Opinion, that there was some thing of Divinity in it, and accordingly did such Men Sacrifice to it.  
But was this Opinion and Practice allowed by any of their religious Kings, because it was suitable to the mistaken Consciences of some of their Subjects? did Hezekiah, did Josiah, nay did Jehu, grant a Public Indulgence for the Worship of Idols, because many both Laics and Priests were for it? It was so far from this, that, although a great number of their Subjects were too much inclined, and had been too long accustomed to it, they took care to root it out.  
2. Nor was such an Universal Toleration of all Religions ever known in former Ages in the Christian Church, since the Religion of Christ was owned by Kings and Emperors.  
It's true, Socrates tells us, that the good Emperor Theodosius did bear with the Novatians, but he bore with none besides; what he said to Demophilus, an Arrian Bishop, we 
Socr. l. 5. c. 7.  have from the same Historian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I command thee to quit the Christian Churches.  
'Tis also true, that the good Emperor Constantine the Great did once sign a Royal Edict for such a Toleration, the sum 
Eus. Hist. l. 10. cap. 5.  of which is thus Recorded by Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. Let us give both to the Christians and to all others the 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 2. c. 56.  free Choice of their Religion. And hereunto he added this Charge; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Let no Man disturb his Neighbour in point of Religion, but let every one do as his Soul desires.  
This, indeed was Constantine's Act, and a wise Act it was, and all that could then be done, considering in what Circumstances he then stood; for, Constantine and Licinius were then Co-Emperors; Constantine favoured the Christian Religion, Licinius favoured the Pagan Worship: Heathenism was the Religion then Established by Law, Christianity was under Hatches; the Pagan Religion did not need a Toleration, the Christian did.  
In such a juncture of time as this, it was very worthily done of Constantine to get the consent of his Colleague Licinius to a General Toleration of all Religions, that so the Christian might be Comprehended in it; and such a present Toleration did he procure in order to a future Establishment of the Christian Faith.  
And that this was indeed his present Design is Evident from what he afterwards did; for, when he became the sole Emperor, and was well settled in the Throne, he made it his great business to suppress all false Religions, and Establish that of Christ; Eusebius tells us, that there was sent out by him a Law. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Euseb. de vita Const. l. 2. c. 45.  Restraining the abominable Idolatries, that had hitherto been practised in Cities and Countries; and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Law Commanded that none should dare to set up any 
Euseb. de vita Const. l. 4, c. 23.  Images. The same Historian saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his Command the Gates of Idol Temples were shut up: Nay▪ another Historian tells us that he did, 
Socr. l. 1. c. 18.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quite pluck down the Temples of Venus.  
And as he had no kindness for any ill Religions without the Christian Church, so did he give no Countenance to any Sects and ill Opinions, which arose within it. That he Banished Arius, though Baronius denies it, we have the Authority of Sozomen, who saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Soz. l. 2. c. 16.  Arius was called back from Banishment not long after the Council of Nice: and how he dealt with other Heretics, the same Historian informs us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Soz. l. 2. c, 32.  By a Law he Commanded that the Oratories of Heretics should be took from them, and that they should hold no Assemblies either in Public or Private places▪  
And as this good▪ Emperor took care to root out all false Worship, and to suppress ill Opinions, so did he by his Royal Authority promote the true Service of God. To that end, he set forth a Law for the observation of the 
Eus. de vita Const. l. 4. c. 18,  Lords day. So Eusebius tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as the same Historian saith in another place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He Exhorted, nay, by a Law he required the universality of his Subjects to cease from all their worldly business upon the Lord's days, that therein they might attend the Exercises of Religion.  
Certainly these and the like proceedings of his are infallible Evidences, that although this good Emperor did once, in Christian Policy, and for an excellent end, Sign a Royal Edict for a General Toleration of all Religions; yet, when it might be otherwise, he did not like it.  
This Example of Constantine was followed by succeeding 
Justin. in Ep, de fide Orthodoxa. ▪ Emperors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Justinian; we Condemn every Heresy, and lest the Books of Heretics should transmit their ill Opinions to Posterity, Theodosius and Valentinian did Command by a Law, 
Balsam. in Coll. Const. Ex l. 1. Co●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that their Writings should be cast into the Flames. We Read, that they were debarred from the common Privileges of Orthodox Christians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Civil Law, and it 
Blastaris Synt▪ lit. A.  instances in several particulars, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We decree that Heretics shall be uncapable of any Public Employment, whether Military or Civil; nor might they be admitted as Witnesses in their Courts of Judicature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Blast. Syntag. Alphab. lit. A.  Let not an Heretic's Testimony be received against an Orthodox Christian: nay more, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ No Heretic shall Inherit 
Idem ibid.  the Estate of his Father. In short, we find Heretics Deposed, Degraded, Banished, and sometimes Fined; Witness that Law of Theodosius, mentioned by the Council of Carthage, which Enacted, that in some Cases, Heretics 
Concil. Carth. Can. 96.  should pay, as the Canon words it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ten Pounds of Gold.  
Now, we do not Write this with any design to encourage the Governors of our Church or State to exercise any Severity towards our sober and peaceable Dissenters, who differ from us only in the Circumstantials of our Religion; but we mention these things to confirm our present Argument; and to show, that our present unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion, is quite contrary to the Judgement, Usages, and Laws of the Ancient Church, who punished such as held and taught Heterodox Opinions, and would not be otherwise reclaimed.  
5. 'Tis certain that an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion is directly contrary to the Divine Law, to the Will of God revealed in his written Word.  
The Jewish Church was never permitted to teach and do, what they pleased, about the things of God; they were not allowed to serve their Maker, as they Listed; they were obliged to Sacrifice when, where, and what they were Commanded. It was not left to them, as a matter of Choice, whether they would Circumcise their Infants, or not; no, the Law was this, the Uncircumcised Man child shall be cut off. Nor were they left to their own Liberty, whether they would come to Jerusalem to eat the Passover, or not; no, the Text saith of good Josiah, The King commanded all the people, saying, keep the Passover. We do not find any indulgence in matters of Religion granted to the Jewish Church by Almighty God, or any of their good Kings.  
And as there is no such thing to be found in the Law or the Prophets; so there is very little or nothing to be met with in the whole Gospel, that gives any Countenance to such a Practice; the main place, which seems to look that way, is in the Parable of the Tares; of which 'tis said, Let them grow until the Harvest, what means our 
Matth. 13. 30.  Lord by this? Is it indeed his pleasure, that ill Men, and ill Opinions, should be indulged and countenanced in his Church? St. Chrysostom gives us another Interpretation 
Chrysost. in locum.  of our Saviour's words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our Lord doth here forbid us to kill and slay▪ Heretics; but is there no difference betwixt a Sword and a Rod? Is a Bridle and a Halter the same thing? The Heretic must not be destroyed, but may he not be restrained? St. Chrysostom answers thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our Lord doth not here forbid to curb Heretics, to stop their Mouths, to check their boldness, dissolve their Conventicles, etc. as he goeth on.  

Tit. 1. 11.  Of the same mind was St. Paul, who saith, Their Mouths must be stopped; but how can that be done, if there may be no Penal Laws? And if an Universal Liberty of Conscience in Opinion and Practice about matters of Religion be indeed agreeable to the Gospel of Christ, what 
1 Cor. 4. 21, Chrysost. in. locum.  meant St. Paul by that demand of his, Shall I come to you with a Rod? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall I bring a Rod to whip and scourge you? So St. Chrysostom.  
And since St. Paul, who well knew the Mind of Christ, did, upon just occasion, make use of his Apostolical Rod to punish, not only Immoralities in Life, but Errors in Judgement too; we may thence infer, that an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions in Matters of Religion hath no manner of Countenance from the Law of Christ; we read, that St. Paul made use of this Rod, to strike Elymas blind; and why he 
Act. viij. 10.  did so, that Expression intimates, Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? It was for his opposing the Gospel, and that in all probability arose from the Error of his Judgement. But the Case is yet more plain in the Example of Hymenaeus and Alexander, of whom St. Paul saith, I have delivered them to 
1 Tim. i 20.  Satan; a severe Punishment, surè futuri judicii praejudicium, 'tis a fore▪ stalling the dreadful Judgement of God. So Tertullian. But why did St. Paul inflict it? He gives this Reason, Concerning faith they have made shipwreck; 
1 Tim. i 19  or as he elsewhere expresseth it, They have erred concerning 
2 Tim. two. 18.  the Truth. It was for their ill Opinion about one Article of our Creed.  
These Instances are enough to show that a Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion was never thought to be lawful, and consequently such an unlimited Liberty of the Press, as tends to bring in, and spread Errors and Heresies, ought not to be allowed.  
And now I shall take my leave of my Reader, when I have admonished him, that in all this Discourse, I plead for the Regulation of the Press, as to such Books only, as concern Morality, Faith, and Religious Worship, of which, our Learned Ecclesiastical Governors are the most proper Judges. But as to Policy and State Affairs, they fall under the Cognizance of the Civil Magistrate, whose Province it is, and whose Care it should be, to prevent the publishing of all such Pamphlets as tend to promote popular Tumults, Sedition, Treason, and Rebellion. And had this been carefully done some Years ago, it might have happily prevented those dreadful Confusions, under which our Church and State now do, and still are too like to groan.  
Farewell.   
FINIS.  

BOOKS printed for Richard Sare at Grays-Inn Gate in Holborn.  

THE Fables of Aesop, with Morals and Reflections. Fol.  
Erasmus Colloquies, in English Octavo.  
Quevedo's Visions. Octavo.  
These Three by Sir Roger L'Estrange.   

The Genuine Epistles of St. Barnabas, St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. translated and published in English. Octavo.  
A Practical Discourse concerning Swearing. Octavo.  
The Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods, in Answer to a Letter to a Convocation Man. Octavo.  
Sermons upon several Occasions. Quarto.  
These by Dr. Wake.   

Epictetus' Morals with Simplicius' Comment. Octavo.  
A Sermon preached upon the Death of the Queen.  
Both by Mr. George Stanhope.   

The Doctrine of a God and Providence vindicated and asserted. Octavo.  
Discourses on several Divine Subjects. Octavo.  
These Two by Thomas Gregory Lecturer of Fulham.   

Dr. Gregory's Divine Antidote, in Answer to an heretical Pamphlet, entitled, An End to the Socinian Controversy. Octau.  
Complete sets consisting of 8 Volumes of Letters, writ by a Turkish Spy, who lived 45 Years at Paris undiscovered, giving an Account of the principal Affairs of Europe. Twelve.  
Human Prudence, or the Art by which a Man may raise himself and Fortune to Grandeur. Twelve.  
Moral Maxims and Reflections; written in French by the Duke of Roachfoucault, now Englished. Twelve.  
The Art both of Writing and Judging of History, with Reflections upon ancient and modern Historians. Twelve.  
An Essay upon Reason, by Sir George Mackenzie. Twelve.  
Death made Comfortable, or the way to die well, by Mr. Kettlewell. Twelve.  
The Parson's Counsellor, or the Law of Tithes; by Sir Simon Degg. Octavo.  
The unlawfulness of Bonds of Resignation. Octavo.  
An Answer to all the Excuses and Pretences which Men ordinarily make for their not coming to the Holy Sacrament, Octavo. Price 3 d. By a Divine of the Church of England.  
Remarks on a Book, entitled, Prince Arthur, an Heroic Poem; by Mr. Dennis. Octavo.  
Fortune in her Wits; or, the Hour of all Men: written in Spanish by Don Fran de Quevedo, translated into English. Octau. Price 1 s. 6 d.  
A Gentleman's Religion in Three Parts; the first contains the Principles of Natural Religion; the second and third, the Doctrines of Christianity, both as to Faith and Practice, with an Appendix, wherein it is proved, that nothing contrary to our Reason, can possibly be the object of our Belief; but that it is no just Exception against some of the Doctrines of Christianity that they are above our Reason. Twelve.  
Examen de Ingenios', or the Trial of Wits; discovering the great difference of Wits among Men, and what sort of Learning suits best with each Genius; published originally in Spanish by Dr. Juan Huartes, and made English from the most Correct Edition, by Mr. Bellamy; useful for all Fathers, Masters, Tutors, &c  
A Complete List of the Royal Navy.