A LETTER TO A MEMBER Of this Present PARLIAMENT, FOR LIBERTY OF Conscience.  
London, Printed in the Year 1668.   

A LETTER For Liberty of CONSCIENCE.  
SIR,  
I Can hearty wish, that our Condition at present were such, that we might study and debate how to advance the Glory, Riches and Power of this Nation, rather than with so much Distraction, labour, how to preserve its Being. But since the general ill Conduct of our Affairs under the late Chancellor and others, (for whom we ought to retain all due resentments, since they have reduced us to this necessitous posture.) Let us consider what our present Exigencies call for from us; and while therein we find a justification for the most extravagant debates and resolutions, let us continue sensible of their baseness who created the necessity, with which it is our prudence and unhappiness to comply.  
There have been sundry Overtures and Projects in order to the Uniting of the minds of the Protestants here in this dangerous juncture of Affairs: I confess I am apprehensive of the dangers that any great change subjects a Government unto; I am sensible of the Reputation of the House, which may suffer by rescinding its own Acts: I have made some reflections upon the parties that may endanger the Kingdom by their factiousness: I have all just respect for the National Church of England in its present Constitution; and I shall so order my Counsels, that I deviat not from the Scripture, and the Constitution of God in the Mosaical Law, the Judgement and Practice of the primitive Fathers, and the Acts and Constitutions of those Emperors who first modelled Christianity, and accommodated it to Government, and who reduced the Empire (in circumstances not much different from ours) to as flourishing a condition, and as peaceable as ever it enjoyed. 
* As is clear from the Emperor Theodosius surnamed the Great; and insisted on by Bodin de repub. who recommends the practice as prudential, and gave the Counsel to Queen Elizab.   
In the Kingdom of Israel (that great Precedent for Monarchy, as far as it is established by the Word of God) where God himself was Lawgiver, and the Constitution is as unquestionable as his Authority that made it, and the wisdom of Solomon and some others (no Fools, nor fanatics) that complied with it. The Settlement was thus as to Religion. The Jews, and such as were total Converts or Proselytes of Justice, did observe all the Levitical Law, as it is made up of Ceremonies, and all the Decalogue or Ten Commandments. What the ceremonial conformity was you all know: and how much of it was performed in the Temple, in the several places or stations for the Priests, and Laity, Men and Women? But did this constitution oblige all? Can no man, or number of men live, and live openly there exempted from this Conformity, and exact Uniformity to every punctilio? It is undeniable that it was quite otherwise. There were among the Jews a great number of persons, called prosyliti domicilii, or strangers not proselytes of justice, that dwelled constantly among them, that were so far from being concluded by the Mosaical Law, that it was death for them to observe it. Of this number were many Egyptians that came up with them into the Holy Land: Such were the Gibeonites, of whose number we may guests by the bigness of their City: Such were the Canaanites that dwelled in the land, whose power was such, that they could not be exterminated by the Israelites. All these strangers (yet constant inhabitants of the Land) were only obliged to the seven Commandments of Noah, and not to the Ceremonial Law at all. They worshipped in the same Temple, in a particular apartment, but with different Ceremonies: the Jews had a Liturgy, these no Form: they had Priests, these none: the Jews offered variety of Sacrifices and Oblations, these none but  offerings: the one observed the Sabbath, and divers Holy days, on the which the other might work, nay, the one worshipped God under several attributes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the other was not obliged actually to any worship, but negatively not to deny a Deity, or to speak irreverently or contumeliously of him: and when they did pray, it was only the owning and worshipping a Creator and Ruler of the world. This is avowed by the greatest of the Rabbins from the time of Moses, to the time of his writing, and that is Maimonides: 
(a) Gentilis qui legem Mosaicam observaret, reus erat mortis; quip cui tantum observanda erant septem praecepta Noachidarum seu omnium hominum communia.  and is at large proved by Mr. Selden, 
(b) Jus naturale Hebraeorum.  and granted in the whole extent, as I have proposed it, by the learned Grotius, 
(c) De Jur. Bell, cap. 1. lib. 1 par. 16.  a man of good credit with all Sons of the Church of England: Of the same mind are all that writ of the Commonwealth of the Jews. As to the observation of the Sabbath, 
(d) Proselytos domicilii s●ve eos qui Judaisino nomina nondum dedera innt, qualecunque vitae commercium intra ditionem Israeliticam admissi, non modò observatione Sabbati omninò solutes habnere, sed poems gravissimis obnoxios, si observarent.  (were it not for fear of being prolix) I would particularly illustrate that point, because it is a Dispensation with a Conformity with one of the Ten Commandments; which is at large proved too by Mr. Selden. 
(e) De Jur. Nat. l. 3. c. 12. and the Talmudists say, Israelitae non prohibent abopere Gentiles in Sabbato.   
It is easy to compare this Liberty of Religion, with ours in England, as it is contended for, or opposed: and according to judge of the extent of a Toleration, how far it may go, how public it may be, how possible, and how practicable the thing is in itself (for they had no standing Army; and it was under a Monarchy, and that no despicable one, under Solomon and David) and how it had God himself for its establisher. I pass by the times under Herod and his immediate predecessors from Zerobabel down wards, in which, beside the aforesaid strangers, there were the several Sects of Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduces, and Herodians, whose Tenets if any shall inquire into, he shall find them to differ as much as our subdivided Christians and Protestants do: 
(f) As Scaliger, Drusus, and Serrarius evidence.  As to the Essenes', it is peculiarly observable that they declined the Temple-worship, and were the separatists of that age: and yet I must tell you, this condition of the Jews was not altogether unhappy, and our Saviour never told the Magistrates that it was unlawful, or that it would be the ruin of the state; which cannot be otherwise then by accident imputed thereunto.  
As to the first Christians, while those unerring Guides of the Church instructed and ruled in the Church, and were as well the foundation of our Doctrine, as of our Hierarchy: let us take a view of their Establishment. There were Converts of the Jews, and Converts of the Gentiles, and of the Gentiles some were Proselytes of the Mosaical Law, others of the profession only of the Seven Commandments of Noah. The Jews, and such as did Judaise, observed all the Mosaical Law, as strictly as the Pharisees did; they did circumcise, and pay their vows and worship in the Temple, and offer Sacrifice, and kept the Sabbath, and the like: So Origen 
* Judae iqui in Jesum Christum crediderunt, non desciverunt a patri is legibus; vivunt enim ju●●ta eas contra celsum.  says of those in his days. Nor was this only at Jerusalem, where Judaisme was National, but at Alexandria, and elsewhere, where it was not so: For St. Jerome 
(a) About Ecclesiastical Writers.  saith, that Philo the Jew observed this at Alexandria: Yet did the other converted Gentiles, not Judaising, live according to a Christianity superadded to the Seven Commandments, and consequently differing in form of worship vastly. It is true, some went about to reduce them all to Uniformity; but who were they? Some of the Jews (mark that) which believed (in Christ, 
Some Bible's only say they were Hharisees.  and yet strictly observed the Mosaical Law,) of the Sect of the Pharisees, (a Sect so much decried by Christ) not the Apostles, and persons spirited by the Holy Ghost; Paul and Barnabas opposed it. And what character doth the Scripture bestow upon this design of Uniformity? In truth, that they troubled the Church, Acts 15. And behold the issue of these troubles. The Synod of the Apostles and others guided by the Holy Ghost, thus decide the Controversy. They do not like this Uniformity of Worship and Liturgies; for the Jews had a Liturgy. This is no part of the Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. No, they oblige them to a few, and those such as were only necessary. For the Text, however vulgarly corrupted, and represented to establish Ecclesiastical Decisions as necessary: yet in our Biblia Polyglotta 
(b) It is not in the manuscript of our King's Library, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Beside these subsequent necessary things.  (a candid work of the Bishops of our Church) in a Lection stands corrected thus: It seems meet to the Holy Ghost and us, not to lay upon you any further burden, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beside what is absolutely necessary: that is (say very learned Writers) the Seven Precepts of Noah: for who will believe the Holy Ghost thought it necessary to Salvation, that we neither eat black Puddings, or Rabbits? That which follows is an illustration, not restriction; forbidding bloodshed, 
* See Selden de jure Nat. lib. 7. cap. 12. You must note that the text speaks of things strangled, and blood; but by blood is meant bloodshed; and things strangled is an addition to the text, as the Fathers observe, and the Biblia Polyglotta: and the other clause of avoiding that which they would not have done to them, is in old Copies, and so repeated by Irenaeus and others; as you may see in the place above in Selden.  as well as Idolatry, and Fornication: (parts of the Law of Noah) And further that Holy Synod adds, And whatsoever you would not have done to yourselves, do not that to others; which is a Decision I recommend to you in the like case, the debate being there as well as here, about Liberty of Conscience. That Liberty which you would not be deprived of, do not go about to deprive others of 
(a) For the precedent words include things necessary: the following therefore must refer to the point of Ceremonial Conformity.   
As to the toleration under Christian Emperors, I cannot but observe unto you Sir, That it was the judgement of those primitive times, and every where discovers itself in the Edicts of the first Christian Emperor's, and Fathers, that Religion is not to be enforced, but that every one should abound in his own sense, and that all variety not only of Opinions, but diversity of Religions should be tolerated in the State, if they were not destructive to Government. In this point Tertullian 
(b) In his Discourse to Scapula.  is peremptory, and Lactantius; 
(c) In his Book de Justitia, speaking of supporting Religion by Cruelty, Oppression and bloodshed, jam non defendetur illa, sed polluetur et violabitur: Nihil enim est tam voluntarium quam religio.  and agreeable to this is the Speech of Constantine 
(d) Related by Baronius in his Annals of the year 324. Inter divina et humana servitia hoc interest, quòd humana servitia coacta sint, divina outem voluntaria comprobentur.  to the Roman Senate; the particular passages I would willingly recite, were there not, beside protracting this Discourse, a great deal of pedantry in quoting Latin: And I should be too tedious, should I relate unto you all the Edicts made to this purpose by the subsequent Emperors, which are Recorded in the Theodosian Code. No learned Son of the Church of England can deny it; And chrysostom is positive, that no Godly Emperor did Enact against the Pagans any such Laws, as they did against the Christians. No man versed in Antiquity can deny but that all the Sects of the Christians, the Pagans, and the Jews, had a full Liberty of Conscience and Religion, without being excluded from public offices of Trust and Profit in the Senate, Army and Court. So that these times which our Episcopal Divines so much recommend unto our imitation, when their Hierarchy is concerned, and their Ceremonies, these times do clearly assert the lawfulness of a General Liberty of Conscience, without subjecting the several dissenters to any penalties. The Heathen had their Priests, their Pontifexes, Augurs, Quindecim viros sacris faciundis, Salios, etc. until the time of Theodosius. 
* Onuphrius descr. arb. tom. lib. 2.  The Arrians had their Bishops; the Novatians their Bishops, and Churches (not to mention other Sects) in the same Dioceses in which the more orthodox Bishops had also their jurisdiction, and made up the national religion of the Roman Empire. The Jews also had their Academies and Patriarches. From all which I do conclude, that it is lawful to enact for Liberty of Conscience; and that such Acts are not inconsistent with Government, nor subject to those inconveniencies many suggest; since such Monarchies have flourished notwithstanding them: All those conjectures are refuted by the aforesaid instances. Nor need they trouble themselves to object, that the Roman Empire had a standing Army to preserve the Peace and Authority of the Empire; seeing that those of that Army were diversified by their several Religions: and it is all one not to have any Army at all, or to have one composed indifferently of the several parties that were to be kept under.  
Having thus laid before you the judgement and practice of the best times; it will not be amiss to reflect upon the several ways and endeavours have been used toward the uniting the minds of men about Religion.  
As to the Popish way of enforcing a general Uniformity, it is so barbarous, so unchristian, and so generally rejected by Protestants, that I believe you cannot endure an harangue in the behalf of the inquisition: and to extol the practices of Queen Mary's days were as absurd, as to write an Encomium for Phalaris, or Busiris, or Nere.  
Another way of Uniting them hath been by contriving general forms and ways, (not much unlike the Device of Comprehension, if I understand it aright) to which each party might subscribe: but this way God never blessed, but it proved like the firebrands, which (with the cords) united the tails of Sampsons' foxes, while their heads were at distance; and being put into the corn, they burned it; as this method hath set all Kingdoms on fire. Nor is it Policy; for instead of abrogating all, it gives a countenance to all opinions it would extinguish. How little are the controversies ceased between the Dominicans and Jesuits, since the equivocal Council of Trent, to which they subscribe; and which both parties allege? So among Protestants, how little are controversies extinguished by the dubious or general texts of Scripture? nay, are they not eternised by them? how little doth the dubious Creed of the Apostles conduce to the deciding among Protestants or Socinians?  
As to the uniting therefore of men's minds into one Religion, it is impossible; it is as impossible to make all men's consciences of the same extent and latitude, as to make all men's shoes of the same size. Different gifts make different professions: since none is accountable for more than he hath received. The weak are not to condemn the strong; and the strong are to tolerate, not destroy the weak. This is Gospel. and I hope you will make this to be Law. Take away the condemning of the one, and the oppression of the other, and you will establish the Church, rather than destroy it, or the peace of this Nation. Besides,  
I desire you would observe that there is no precedent of any Liberty of Conscience granted on penalties: for that unavoidably establisheth a faction: for it is natural for mankind to desire to be at ease, and to wish, and (upon occasion) to endeavour its redress and relief from any grievance; and it is as natural for such as reap benefit from the depression of others, to strive to continue them in that oppressed condition: from hence ariseth anger, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, and such contention as destroys a State. If a Kingdom be divided, how can it stand? as all things different are not opposite: no more is all distinction a factious division, and destructive to the being of a Government. All you make up one Parliament: personal quarrels may ruin you, but personal distinctions will not. Contrarieties mutually expel each other out of the same subject by course of nature, things disparat do not.  
Since therefore a Popish Inquisition is barbarous and odious; subscribing to general forms and opinions dangerous, and ineffectual; uniting men's minds into one religion impossible; and no liberty granted upon penalties: What other way is left us to unite, but to allow each Church its several way of worship? which kind usage with moderate endeavours, and not imposing general opinions, may in time (as it was of old) so far prevail with them to reconcile the differences among themselves, that at last they may arrive to a mutual communion, though not an exact Uniformity. Thus the Millenaries of old, and Fifth Monarchy men communicated with the other Christians: and so it was with Mr. Mead and the Church of England: Thus the baptised Christians and the Anabaptists 
(*) As Tertullion Nazianzen, the Emperor's Constantine and Valentinian.  made up one Church: Thus the Judaising Christians and Gentiles communicated together; So did the Arrians 
(†) V Eusebius.  and Trinitarians. And methinks it is odd, that the Church of England should suffer our tutelar Saint to be St. George, 
(a) As Calvin saith.  that Arrian Bishop, and yet not allow the communion of any favour to an Anabaptist, or fifth Monarchist. Such a communion I say, were to be wished, and the only way we can hope for at present to unite us, is to allow 
(b) Constantine and the subsequent Emperors maintained at their charge, the variety of Religions, Priests and Sacrifices: As there had been at Antioch one Antioch, one Apostle for the Jews, and another for the Gentiles; so there were afterwards in the same Cities, besides the different Heathen Priests, Bishops to the Novatians, Arrians, Donatists, and Catholics.  each Church its several way of worship, they maintaining their Ministers: all reproachful language, and odious consequences imposed upon each party, as well as odious names, being prohibited: as were the names of Heretic and Schismatic by Qu. Eliz. This course hath succeeded well; for under it Religion grew: and whilst Religion was no man's Interest, it was scarce any man's Hypocrisy: when truth had no other recommendations but its naked self, such as embraced it did it cordially. Nor was it ever demonstrated, or can be, that the use of this Liberty did directly and necessarily introduce such factions as are inconsistent with any Government or Monarchy. And if it were only the abuse of it; let us look to that: since the Church of England so often inculcates to us, that propter abusum non est tollendus usus: for that were like the forbidding 
(c) Aristotle condemns that Paralogism of Anacharsis.  the Scythians to plant wine, because wine might make them drunk. To conclude all therefore, Let us in our Law be as tender of men's Consciences, as our Common Law is of their lives; which takes care rather that a thousand Criminals should escape, than one innocent be destroyed.  
FINIS.