THE Antithelemite, OR AN ANSWER To Certain QUAERES By the D. of B. And to the Considerations of an unknown Author CONCERNING TOLERATION.  
This may be Printed, June 12. 1685. R.L.S.  
LONDON, Printed for Sam. Smith, at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1685.   

HIS Majesty's Gracious Declaration to maintain the Government in Church and State as by Law Established, and the Opinion all good men have of the Affection of this present Parliament, to those Laws by which the Protestant Religion is fenced on every side, may seem to render the Labour of a private hand on their behalf useless and superfluous. Yet since some have openly, others in disguise invaded these Fences, and proceeded to that degree of Confidence, as to recommend the Attempt to the Parliament now Assembled; it may be expected perhaps that those who enjoy the Protection of those Laws, should not leave them all defenceless under the odious Imputation of Injustice and Cruelty, to depend merely upon the Authority of their first Establishment, and the Favour of the Present Government: Our Adversaries would then be thought justly to conclude, that we despaired of the merit of our Cause, and of approving it by Reason to the Judgement of any Impartial man. Therefore I have endeavoured in this Treatise, to show the Vanity of those Cavils, (for I should be guilty of too much Indulgence, should I give them the style of Reason or Argument,) against the Prosecution of Dissenters according to Law. And though there should be no great sin, or public inconvenience in a General Toleration, yet the Pleas that recommend it, are so mean, that they who might not be afraid, might yet be ashamed to allow it upon such miserable motives.  
Yet I. must confess that the Advocates for Toleration have one considerable Advantage in this Dispute, that they are on the popular part of the Question, and the seeming good nature of the Plea, without much reasoning, is sufficient to recommend it: Whereas, all Punishment is odious to the People, and neither Law, nor Reason, nor Necessity, can perfectly reconcile them to it. It is madness then to endeavour to persuade men out of their Humanity, that is, out of their Nature; and he truly deserves the utmost severity that can take delight in it: What shall we do then? Shall we give up the Cause, and Subscribe to a Toleration? Nothing less, and that because in our Circumstances, it is not only contrary to Religion, and Civil Prudence, but also to Charity and Compassion; it is not always Mercy to Indulge, nor Cruelty to Inflict Punishment: Unless we conclude, that a Father who corrects his Child has not so much tenderness for him as a Stranger, or a Servant that intercedes for his Pardon. But if Clemency must take place, why should not the Public challenge it in the first place? and why should they be judged merciful, who to humour and indulge one Party, would, expose a whole Nation to Confusion and Ruin? If this be tender Mercy, it is that the Scripture brands with the name of Cruelty. And besides all this, a steady and discreet Execution of the Laws against Dissenters, might happily have been a much more merciful Conduct even in respect of them, than the remissness or connivance that tempted them to presumptuous sins.  
The Dissenters have been very industrious to let us know, that this is the true state of the Case between the Government and them: That this Constitution stands no longer, when they have strength and opportunity to destroy it: Many of them are under an Oath to endeavour the subversion of this Church under the name of a Reformation, and could never be brought to renounce that Conspiracy: And therefore what can be expected from those that now maintain the Lawfulness of that Covenant, but that they should conceive themselves bound in Conscience to execute their Vow, as soon as they could recover those Circumstances in which they took it? But the Dissenters, you'll say, are divided upon this point: It is true, they are in that part that concerns their own Establishment, but they are unanimous in Vowing our Destruction; and it would be but poor comfort to a Town that neglected to make a timely Defence, to see the Conquerors that were United in the Assault, afterwards to fall out at the dividing of the Plunder.  
Nor can we be suspected to surmise groundless and imaginary dangers from the growth of a Party that has devoted us to Ruin, and that besides, by an unnatural and fortunate Rebellion, by the deliberate and solemn Murder of a most Excellent and Merciful Prince, by a heavy and tedious Tyranny of many years, by several Conspiracies since the Restauration, by Association against the Succession of His Majesty, and a form Project of Rebellion, which I am afraid is not yet wholly disconcerted; and in short, by the Incessant working of a Turbulent Spirit, have given us much greater demonstrations of our danger, than we could have wished; and he that pretends not to be convinced by all this, to apprehend danger to the Government, from the Toleration of such men, must surely be desirous of those Events we apprehend, and wish the things which we fear.  
Toleration therefore can serve to no other purpose, than to be the Nurse of a Faction that is implacable, which as it grows up, will more and more despise this Infant Dispensation, and contend for mastery: Nor can we expect that they should acquiesce here, when they have got strength to attempt farther, no more than that a gang of sturdy Beggars will compound for a small Alms, when they have a fair opportunity to Rob. The Advocates for Toleration reply, That it is not Faction, but Conscience which they plead for: But it is an easier matter to distinguish, than it is to separate those two things. Experience has found them to be inseparable Companions in the body of our Dissenters. The mind of man can make a thousand abstractions that are impracticable in the world; and a Philosopher may distinguish between the Leaven, and the Mass infected by it, and yet be never able to part them.  
But when one Dissenter pleads for Toleration in the behalf of all the rest, it is not Conscience, but Faction he would recommend; for the Dissenters differ as much in matters of Conscience among themselves, as they do from us, and therefore cannot be judged to recommend those Errors and Practices for Toleration, which they themselves judge sinful and damn able, upon the account of Conscience; nor did those of them that were in Power think it either lawful or fit to permit all the rest. What Spiritual Kindred, I pray, has a Presbyterian with a Quaker? or an Independent with a Muggletonian? or an Anabaptist with any of the rest? But though they make disserent Sects in Religion, yet they make but one Faction. This is the Centre wherein they all unite: At an Election or a Riot they make but one Congregation, and never fail to go one way; or if you would view them in greater Order, call to mind the Cavalcade that attended the E. of Shaftesbury, in his setting out towards the Parliament of Oxford, and you will easily comprehend the sole Union of all Sects, and the certain Consequence of a General Toleration. A great man indeed may serve his Interest, or his Ambition, by taking all sorts of Sects into his Protection; but how to reconcile so many Contradictions of Conscience to his own, I must confess my understanding too narrow to comprehend. But I must beg of my Reader to understand this, without any reflection upon the Noble Person that has lately spoke so favourably of Toleration; for all that have the honour to be acquainted with his Person, or but with his Reputation, must do him that Justice, as to acquit him of all high and dangerous Designs.  
They that plead for an Indefinite Teleration to all Dissenters whatever, upon the account of Religion, do not seem to me to have considered all the sorts and variety of these to whom it is to be extended, for upon those Terms the Indian Pagans may come and demand conveniences for their Pagods, and the Mahometans may pray that their Mosques may stand among our Churches. Some fanciful man may fall in love with the Greek or Roman Superslitions, and require by virtue of a General Indulgence, that the Ancient Rites of those People may be restored, as well as their Languages and Learning. In short, there is no Superstition so senseless, or so barbarous, but has good Title to Toleration, if all Dissenters whatever upon the account of Religion, are to be included. Nay, it stops not here, for those that have no Religion at all, descent from us upon the account of Religion; and if an Atheist should judge it an act of great Charity and Generosity, and surpassing all the Heroic Achievements of Hercules, to attempt to redeem Mankind from that Captivity of mind into which Religion had brought them, and from such Opinions of a God as seemed to him not only unmanly and ridiculous, but extremely inconvenient and oppressive, why should he be restrained, if Toleration be extended to all that descent upon the account of Religion? And besides, an Atheist can pretend Conscience too, since that is nothing else but Human Reason employed upon the account of Religion.  
It may be the Council for Toleration will say, That these Atheists and Pagans have not retained them, and that they plead only for Dissenting Christians, or perhaps for Jews, who Worship the true God as well as we, though they receive not all the distinctions of the Deity, which Christ has revealed to us. Be it so then, since they may narrow their favour as they please, yet, that which I say, is nevertheless true, that the Topics they use to persuade a Toleration, will serve the turn of Atheism or Idolatry, as well as of Christian or Jewish Dissenters; as we shall observe when we come to examine them. And if such an Universal Toleration as we have been speaking of, be not manifestly absurd, that will be so too that comprehends all Christian Dissenters; for there have been, and may be Sects of Christians so called, that all reasonable men would judge more intolerable than Pagan's. And that we may not fetch instances so far as Irenoeus or Epiphanius, there are among us some Sects no less extravagant, than the wildest of the old Heretics. The Revelations of Muggleton and Reeve, the expectation of the present Milinary's. The Spirit of the Quakers are not only absurd to the highest degree, but very dangerous to the Government, and of desperate consequence; if the infection should spread far among the People, what a World were we like to have! Should Muggleton strike the minds of a great number with a dread of his Commission, that whosoever he shall Curse shall be Cursed? And considering there is no cheat so gross, that does not take with some of the Common People, one would think that it should be as much the Duty of the Magistrate, to forbid Impostors and Deceivers in Religion, as it is to prohibit Jugglers and Fortune tellers, who do not only cheat the People of their Money, but infect them with hurtful Superstitions, to which they are of themselves but too much inclined. Some Christians have writ in defence of Polygamy, and affirmed that practice to be not only lawful and expedient, but to many necessary in point of Conscience. What if a man should persuade himself that he were of that number, and take as many Wives as any of the Patriarches, it is part of his Religion, why should he be prosecuted upon that account, if all sorts of Christians have right to Toleration? A Quaker refuses to pay Tithes, as much upon Principle of Conscience, as he refuses to go to Church, and to pay any civil respect. The first part concerns the Laity as well as the Clergy to look after, and to consider how far Indulgence is necessary to a Christian Sectary mistaking to the prejudice of his Neighbour; if he be sued, or distrained, or imprisoned, alas it is all upon the account of Religion; take the poor man into the Verge of Christian Toleration. Nay, if his Conscience should forbid him to pay Rend, he is a poor deluded man, why should he be Persecuted or Molested upon the account of his Religion? It will be said perhaps, that no man intends to allow any pretence of Religion, to the prejudice of Common Right, for that were to tolerate injustice, and why should I be judged in my Civil Right by another man's Conscience? Well, I am glad that Toleration has any bounds, and that in any case, the Law is allowed to restrain a wild and extravagant Conscience. But why it should be upon this only account, and no other, I do not see, if justice will not permit that one man's Religion should not do wrong to another Person. How shall Charity permit that a man should do hurt to himself, it is as much Charity to restrain as to set at liberty, to tie some men's hands as to lose the Chains of others; and besides, since these diseases of the understanding are commonly infectious, like some of those of the Body, it is Charity to all such as are capable of the infection, to use all possible means to keep it from coming to them, or of thrusting itself into places of Concourse. Since therefore there must be bounds put to the Toleration of Christian Sects, and the Author of the considerations excludes false Pretenders to Religion and Christianity, those wicked Enemies of Magistracy, 
Epist. Ded. to the D. of B.  the Sacred Ordinance of God: And in another place we have this Act of Universal Toleration extended to all, but with this restriction, as far as they are tolerable. He might have done more Service to all pretenders, if he had stated the case how far, and wherein every Sect was tolerable. It is a hard task to impose upon a Parliament, to examine every principle or practice of every Sect, and to separate the tolerable from the intolerable. The Presbyterians have declared all the other Sects to be intolerable; the Independants will not endure Anabaptists or Quakers where they have any Authority; the Scotch Covenanters declare against all those that are without the Covenant; the Anabaptists and Quakers exclaim against Presbyterians and Independants as intolerable, pereunt per mutua vulnera Fratres. Since therefore the considerer was not pleased to direct either the Parliament, or any body else to discern between those Sects that are tolerable, and those that are not, and between what is tolerable in every particular Sect, and what is not, I shall leave this point as needing farther explication. And I have some kind of suspicion, that he will hardly think it advisable to be very particular in distinguishing, for several things that may be to him intolerable, may be the chiefest delights of the several Sects, and if they are not tolerated in these, they would not much care whether they had any Toleration at all; what thanks will the Sectaries pay him for being tolerated by halves, to have one part of their Conscience free, and the other bound up. And they will think themselves no more enlarged by such a limited favour, than a man that has but one Foot at liberty, while the other is fast in the Stocks. In the mean time, I will take the liberty to examine certain Queries and Considerations, which havebeen made lately in the behalf of a general Toleration.  
All these I conceive may be reduced to these three Heads.  

1. Either to Religion, which they pretend enjoins forbearance, and forbids all constraint in Religious matters.  
2. Or to Reason, that condemns all Compulsion as unseemly and absurd.  
3. Or to civil prudence, that inclines to Toleration, as conducing much to the peace and benefit of Society.   
1. Quer. Upon the first Head, a Noble Person demands, Whether there be any thing more directly opposite to the Doctrine and Practice of Jesus Christ, than to use any kind of force upon men in matters of Religion, and consequently, whether all those that Practise it, let them be of what Church or Sect they please, ought not justly to be called Antichristian?  
If a poor man might be so bold with so great an Author, as to pretend to understand any thing he affects to be ignorant of, I would answer directly to so vehement a question, and affirm, that I knew several things more directly opposite to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ, than to use force in matters of Religion. For Example, Irreligion, Atheism, Blasphemy, Burlesquing of the Scripture, Murder, Adultery, Fornication, Licentiousness. These we are sure are directly contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ. But as for using of force in matters of Religion, I do not know any passage in all the Gospels, that absolutely and expressly forbidden it. Where does Christ forbid a Christian Magistrate to silence Impostors, Blasphemers, turbulent Persons pretending Religion? Where does he condemn a Religious Prince that makes use of his Authority, to preserve the Christian Doctrine uncorrupted, by restraining those that mistake dangerously themselves, and would seduce others into the same errors? If any such place there be, I'm sure it is not in my Copy of the Gospels, and I have the less reason to suspect it of any fault, because there is no such thing in the Geneva Bible, at leastwise it could not be found, when Servetus was put to death for Blasphe my. Nor could any such passage be in the Datch Text or Annotations, when the Remonstrants were forced to travel or go to Jaol. Nor is it likely, the Lutherans would be so fierce, if they could have spied any such passage as this in their Books. The vulgar Latin I need not mention, to be sure, there is no such Doctrine there, nor can it be, since it is so directly opposite to the Holy Inquisition, it would be too confident a Criticism to adventure to give an account how this difference happens, and what Book it should be that his Grace has mistaken for the Bible.  
But are there not several passages of Scripture alleged to this purpose? there are indeed some, but very sore against their own sense and inclination, and when they are urged, they will have a speedy an swear.  
However, is not this using of force contrary to the Practice of Christ? To none that I know: Christ indeed did never use any force: No more did he condemn the Woman taken in Adultery, nor sentence Peter to the Pillory for denying him by a false Oath. Can therefore no Magistrate use any force, nor punish these Crimes without forfeiting his Christianity? Our Saviour, to prevent such consequences as might be draw n from his Practice, declared himself to be but a private Person in all civil respects, his Kingdom was not of this World, he was no Magistrate, and therefore did use no force upon any account, and therefore his example in this case can be no direction to him that is invested with civil power, and sustains a Person quite different from the Character our Saviour bore. It is true indeed that Christ rebuked James and John for demanding his order or permission to command Fire from Heaven to consume the Samaritans that refused to receive him, and what could be more unwarrantable or barbarous than this Proposal? Why should they desire the sudden destruction of Men, over whose lives they had no power? and for a fault that no Law made capital? Nay, Christ himself as man, had no power to take away their Lives, tho' they had deserved it; nor can we be sure that this which so much provokes their indignation, was any matter of Religion at all, but only a refusal of a Civil and Hospitable Reception to our Saviour on his Journey towards Jerusalem; but whether he preached there or no, or that they did any affront to his Character and his Doctrine, the Scripture doth not say, and the contrary is most probable from the Relation of the Evangelist, but neither this, or any other instance of our Saviour's Practice, obliges the Conscience of the Civil Magistrate, not to punish such Persons or Sects of Christians that corrupt the Religion, and disturb the quiet of the Church or State under his charge, since therefore the Practice of punishing Dissenters is contrary neither to the Doctrine, nor Practice of Christ; I hope they that use it upon great occasions, may be discharged of the odious imputation of Antichristian.  
But if all those that Practice, this odious method, to use forcible means in matters of Religion, what Church or Sect soever they may be of, are Antichristian. What shall we do for Christians? The Church of Rome at this rate must be the most Antichristian of all. The Presbyterians were always as much Antichristian as they were able, and the Independants of New-England are as visibly Antichristian, as if they had all the Horns and Marks of the Beast; and if these be all Antichristian, who have we left capable of the benefit of Toleration? For surely if any sort of Men be intolerable, they are such who truly deserve that Title.  
Consideration 1. Another Author stirred up by the excellent discourse of the D. of B. enlarges upon this Head, and shows, that the Apostles were only commissioned to Preach and Teach the Christian Doctrine, that they were Ambassadors to beseech Men to be reconciled to God, and not to use any forcible means to bring People to conform to his Worship.  
An Author after all his pains, may surely be allowed to give his Book what Title he pleases, provided the Reader may have his Freedom to Interpret. This Book is made up of several parcels, which he calls Considerations, and if this first must pass under that Title, it cannot be in the literal sense, but should be interpreted as Dreams are by contraries. For if our Author had considered, tho' never so little, he must needs have discerned that all this is no more against all forcible means, than it is against humane Learning; the Apostles used as little of one as of the other in converting of the World; let us allow then that the Apostles used no forcible means to convert the World, but reduced it only by persuasion, what then? Then no body else aught to think themselves wiser than the Apostles, and to endeavour to convert the World by force; agreed: But what is all this to our present purpose? Then no forcible means ought to be used to bring Dissenters to Church, or to hinder their Meetings. Here the consideration is too short, and draw it as long as you please, will never come to the point, unless he can satisfy us in this one thing, that there may be no other Methods used in the Government of a Church already Established, than those that have been used in the Conversion of Infidels; this whole matter will perhaps be much clearer to him, if he please to take notice of these plain and certain Truths.  
1. That the Apostles had, and used greater Authority over those they had already converted, than over those that were yet to be converted.  
2. That tho' they were sent only as Ambassadors to unbelievers, to persuade them to be reconciled to God, yet when they had effected that Reconciliation, they were, by virtue of the Commission, the Rulers and Governors of those new Conquests of the Gospel.  
3. That tho' their Commission gave them no civil Authority, yet were they impower'd to use forcible means in matters of Religion, and to reduce those to Conformity, that walked disorderly, and departed from the form of wholesome Doctrine delivered to them: For I take Discipline to be somewhat different from persuasion; and the Rod that St. Paul speaks of how Metaphorical soever it be, to be somewhat more than beseeching. In short, those that resisted their Authority, felt the weight of it. Some were delivered to Satan, to learn not to Blaspheme, because they had made Shipwreck of the Faith. They were cast out of the Society of Christians, not only from all correspondence in matters of Religion, but also from commerce of civil Society and good Neighbourhood; and therefore supposing any one whole City or Province then of the Christian Religion, the Excommunication of an Apostle would have had the same force with a civil Out-lawry or Banishment, and how can you think him not banished to all effect, with whom no Person of his Country will have any communication? And what would have become of Cerinthus in a Christian City, where St. John had been Bishop, if all would have been of the sme mind with the Apostle, (as probably they had) not to come under the same roof with that Blasphemous Heretic.  
4. The Destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit might be saved; though I dare not be positive in the explication, does without dispute signify something of forcible means, and of a different nature from persuasion, and the vehement expression of St. Paul concerning the Turbulent people that disturbed the Churches of Galatia; I wish they were cut off that trouble you, is of a strain beyond beseeching. I shall not insist upon these passages, lest I should be thought to plead for the Inquisition, and to justify the putting of men to death for Religion, which I am as far from approving, as I am from a desire that I might be the first sufferer by such a Law; for I look upon all Capital punishments not only too severe for the mistakes of the understanding, though there might be some wilfulness and perverseness mixed with them, but of all sorts the most improper and absurd, since he that takes away the Life of a Heretic, commits an invisible cruelty greater than that which is seen, by taking from him at the same time all opportunity of returning to a better mind; and since all forcible means used in matters of Religion, aught to be directed to the benefit of those toward whom they are used, as well as the safety of others, nothing can be more contrary to, or destructive of that end, than the putting of men to death for errors of belief, how gross or dangerous soever they may be. And this practice is the more inexcusable, because there are other means sufficient to prevent the spreading of the disease, and may contribute not a little to the cure of the infected.  
5. Lastly, if the Apostles, who had no Civil Power, did yet punish their Dissenters, not only by sharp reproofs, but with Civil inconveniences too, surely the Christian Magistrate, who is endued with that power from above, may so far make use of it, upon the account of Religion, as to secure the Peace of the Church, and Purity of the Christian Doctrine, as to render men of corrupt and turbulent minds uneasy in the outward circumstances of Life, and to tie up their hands from dispersing the mischief among the People: And lastly, to discourage wanton, or perverse, or designing persons to attempt upon the Faith and Charity by which his Subjects are united.  
Consid. 2. To the same Head we may reduce the second Consideration: That the using of outward Compulsion in matters of Religion, does only serve to make men Hypocrites, but works no saving Conversion.  
That compulsion in matters of Religion may make some Hypocrites, must be allowed, so do all Encouragements, Laws, sense of shame, and the Opinion of the World; and if nothing that may serve to make a Man a Hyprocrite may be used, we must lay aside not only all Penal Laws, but all Charity too: But that this Compulsion should serve only to make men Hypocrites, dropped I am afraid from our Author without consideration, for there may be some that resure to conform to the established Worship, because they are ashamed to departed from what they have once professed; they dread the reproach of their Party, and the gaze of a Congregation upon a new Convert. There may be others that refuse to conform, as much upon the account of Interest as of Conscience; for who does not know that the Dissenters are more engaged by their mutual dealing among themselves, than they are by their Church Covenant; for a poor Presbyterian or Independent to go to Church, is to forfeit all his Custom, and to be beggared, and to fall under a secret Persecution, that will more certainly undo him, than the execution of all the Penal Laws; therefore to these, compulsion serves not to make them Hypocrites, but to free their Conscience from the practice of Hypocrisy, that was in some measure become necessary to them, and cannot be esteemed the forcing of Religion, but the breaking of an unlawful and dangerous combination; and since there may be Hypocrites of both sides, why should they be angry if we take away their chaff, which may make their heap show bigger, but add little to the value of it: Such as may do them no great Spiritual good, but may do the Government a great temporal mischief. Lastly, since according to the Doctrine of most of the Dissenters, he that is a real Saint, cannot by all the force in the World be made a Hypocrite, why should they be afraid that compulsion will effect impossibilities? And if those upon whom it can have any influence were Hypocrites before, I do not see any reason why they should be so much concerned for them.  
Experience has taught us that compulsion in matters of Religion, serves many times to render men more teachable, and willing to be instructed; when a man has brought himself into inconvenience, he is desirous to examine what it is for, and when he has weighed the Reasons on both sides, he may be of opinion that his duty and his interest go the same way. How many Dissenters keep off they know not why? how many rail at our Service that never read a word of it? That disparage our Ministers, and never heard them? How difficult is it to obtain from the Zeal of many Dissenters so much Truce, as to hear what one can say to them with patience and civility, but this frowardness is somewhat abated, when they find themselves entang led with difficulties, and then they may condescend to listen to reason; & this opportunity may be so well improved, that in conclusion they shall acknowledge this compulsion, as a singular Mercy of God, and apply the words of the Psalmist to their Case, Before I was troubled I went wrong.  
But now suppose the worst, that this compulsion would serve to make many Hypocrites, and that most of them at first might come to Church only to save their Purses, yet they may not continue always so, but it is probable they may profit so much by what they hear and see, as to be convinced of the folly of their former way, and what they did at first upon mean and sordid reasons, they may afterward continue to do out of conscience and choice; so God is pleased sometimes graciously to take the wise in their own Craftiness. Some have gone to Church only out of curiosity, and have been caught; some have gone to mock, and returned in Tears; Saul went to the Prophet only to inquire of his Father's Asses, and received an Unction, which he little expected, and since truth and right are as manifestly on the side of the Church of England, as the Laws, why, should not we hope well, if by any means Dissenters may be brought but to the hearing of the Truth.  
Not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. This Text of Scripture, with which he is pleased to tip the end of this Consideration, is brought thither much against its natural inclination, and I should think that they who so much abhor compulsion in matters of Religion, ought not to use such open violence to the Scriptures, to force them to their purpose, for those Expressions relate only to the cheerful and forward manner of the Ministers doing their Duty, and have not the least hint about compelling of Men to come to Church.  
To the same Head we must reduce the third Consideration.  
Consid. 3. All sorts of Persons are for Liberty of Conscience for themselves, even those that are most imposing upon others. They would count it hard measure to be constrained to perform or forbear such and such things, which concern their Religion, or to suffer unproportionable penalties; And why should not the Church-Protestants make the Presbyterians, the Independants, the Papists oase their own in this point, seeing they are all fellow Christians? Therefore whatsoever things ye would that men should do unto you, do ye so unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.  
This Rule which is the Foundation of all Justice and Charity, would be the Ruin of them both, if it were not restrained to things equally lawful or reasonable: Now if it be an indifferent matter, what Religion or Sect any man is of, it will be very unreasonable not to allow as well as to desire Toleration. But it will be still an absurdity in him that believes all Religion's indifferent to desire any Toleration for himself, since his principle may comply with any sort. But those that desire Toleration are of another mind, they think themselves in the Right, and all those with whom they refuse to join in the wrong; and for the same reason that they which be tolerated themselves, they refuse to Tolerate others, with a nonobstante to our Saviour's Rule. If some Religions are false, if many Sects are in their very constitution and establishment sinful, this Rule cannot reach the present case. What Criminal can be punished, if for the Reading of that Text, he must have the benefit of his Clergy? What Child may not emancipate himself from discipline, if it will serve his turn to say to a Master or a Father, would you be used so yourself? There are some differences in Religion, about matters of the highest importance; there are Opinions of several Sects, that are Blasphemous: There are others that corrupt and esserate Humane Nature, instead of improving it. There are other mistakes of less consequence in Religion, but from several Circumstances of greater danger to the Government, all which if they have any claim to Toleration by this Rule, of doing to others as you will be done by, have no better than that which with the same Justice, may be made by all the deadly sins.  
Yet why should not the Church of England, make the Presbyterians Independants, and Papists case her own in this case, seeing they are all Fellow Christians? Nay, why not the Anabaptists, Quakers, Muggletonians, (for they claim kindred too, when it is low with them; and then we are all Brethren and Fellow Christians,) and if there be any other Sect unnamed, suppose it included, and then one Answer may serve them all, so that the Church of England, cannot make their case her own. 1. Because she thinks there is a great deal of difference, for many of them hold false and dangerous Opinions, and practice things utterly unlawful, and unchristian. 2. She ought so to judge since there is a real difference between Truth and Falsehood, between Good and Evil, between those things in dispute, whether they are lawful or unlawful. Therefore if she be in possession of the Truth, she ought no more to make these Dissenters case her own, than a Judge ought to make that of a Prisoner at the Bar, whom he knows to be guilty, to be his own; and because if he were himself in the same circumstances of guilt, Flesh and Blood would tempt him to desire to escape; he ought not to determine therefore the Criminal before him must not suffer.  
Obj. If this be all, they that descent from the Church of England, may judge as hardly of her as she does of them; confessed, but who can help all this? yet the nature of things is not changed, by their thinking one way or other, in the same debate, many differing Parties may be very confident, and but one in the right, and be too certain that he was so, notwithstanding the contradiction of all the rest: And besides, I do not see of what great use the hard opinion of the pretenders to Toleration concerning the Church of England, can be to them to obtain it; one would think while they are Candidates for favour, this might be better omitted.  
I am afraid that the Presbyterians and Independants will owe them but little thanks for tacking the Papists, that Abominable Antichristian name, upon their Plea for Toleration, for surely the Association cannot yet be so far worn out, nor the Cabalistical devise of no ' Popery no Slavery, be utterly forgot; surely their Celebrated Commission to extirpate Antichrist and Idolatry, is not yet given up: If they can endure this, they are much degenerated from their first principle of heat; nay, they must have changed their very species, and it will puzzle Malibranche with all his Ideas, to define a Protestant Dissenter, when his Zeal against Popery is laid aside.  
These are the Arguments offered at this time to recommend a general Toleration, from the nature and the precepts of Christian Religion, and let any body judge after all the odious representation of Compulsion in matters of Religion, whether from all that is said, it does appear, that a Christian Magistrate, whatever his own persuasion be, is bound in conscience to allow every one the Exercise of his own way, and the Profession of his own Opinion, how Absurd, how Blasphemous, how Damnable soever it may be; for this is the just Paraphrase of universal Toleration.  
And now for my part, to show how little I am given to contradiction, I am content to yield the question to the Considerer, or to the Noble Person, who is above consideration, if their Principles will be satisfied with these Arguments alleged on their behalf, let the Considerator then go back (for I will not be so absurd as to send a Person of Quality upon such an Errand) and consult those whom he nominates for Toleration, the Presbyterians, Independants, and Papists, and if they declare it for their Opinion, that it is the Will of God, that neither Restraint nor Compulsion should be used to Men in Religious Matters, let them obtain all the Indulgence they can wish; but as to the last of these, I shall not need to trouble them or my Author, because I cannot tell how well they may be acquainted; for if a man may guests at his correspondence, he seems to hold more with the Protestant Dissenters: Nor is it needful to make long enquiry in a matter so well known. The Judgement of the Church of Rome, concerning this point is as clear, and as visible, as the Fire with which they use to reduce Heretics to Ashes.  
It must be confessed, that some Princes of that communion, partly for reasons of State, and partly out of the Clemency and Generosity of their temper, have shielded their Protestant Subjects from the fury of the ecclesiastics, and abhorred to be the Executioners of their Hypocritical cruelty, who pretend, that they have no power themselves to take away Life; so the High Priest and the Jews declared it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, yet forced Pilate to pass Sentence upon the Son of God, because they had before judged him worthy of death.  
Among those barbarous Pagans, where men were used to be Sacrificed to Idols, the Butchery was always accounted part of the Priest's Office, and I see no reason why the Dominicans or the Grand Vicar, if they will have the Blood of Heretics, should not endure the Odium, and the pollution of shedding it themselves. I know some Princes have paid dear for refusing to destroy such as the Church of Rome called Heretics, one was murdered by a Dominican, a Minister of the Inquisition by his Vow, and another stabbed into the Heart by a Disciple of the Jesuits whether because they suspected some Favours or Indulgence for Heresy might remain there, or because they were impatient to wait longer for that noble part, which that great Prince promised them a Legacy after his decease.  
Since than our Considerer can have no hopes of approving his consideration to this Party, and to bring them to a vow with him, that it is not the Will of God, that any force should be used in matters of Religion; Let him go to the Presbyterians, and inquire what is their opinion concerning Toleration; it is true, they have not been always in the same mind concerning this Gospel Duty; before the late Rebellion, when they were in their Infancy, they were as tenderhearted as one could wish, but when they had once prevailed, and got the power into their hands, they began to limit, and to distinguish, and at last openly to deny the lawfulness of that, which the Considerer makes to be so indispensible a Christian Duty; nay they could not in Conscience consent to a Toleration, even of their companions in Arms, those that fought in the same Cause, and approached nearest to their Principles; all the Arguments that could be used were not able to reconcile the conscience of a Presbyterian to a Toleration of Independants, the Debates are Printed, 
The Grand Debate.  and will furnish any one that will take the pains to look into them, with the Arguments then used on both sides of this Question.  
The London Ministers of that time, for fear the Assembly might be carried away by importunity, or dispute, to yield any indulgence to their Indipendant Brethren, sent them their Objections against it, in a Letter dated Jan. 1. 1645. In which they declare, that To get a warrant to authorize their Separation from, and to have a liberty of drawing members out of it, i. e. Their Church, This we think to be plainly unlawful.  
Independency is a Schism●, Now we judge that no Schism is to be tolerated in the Church.  
Some of the Independants in their Books have openly avowed, that they plead for Liberty of Conscience for others, as well as for themselves. To plead for a general Toleration was then, it seems, argument enough not to indulge the pleaders even in their own particular way.  
Now could they in Conscience have allowed their dissenting Brethren any Indulgence, they could not have refused persons that had deserved so well of them; but it was a thing of such a nature, they must not by any means yield to. For hereby (say they) we shall be involved in the guilt of other men's sins, and thereby endangered to receive their plagues. After this the Ordinance which the Independants styled the Bloody one, was drawn up, which made several mistakes in Religion, to be felony, without benefit of Clergy. Others to be confuted by a hot Iron, to be applied to the face of the Blasphemer. Others to be punished by imprisonment; for example, to say that the Government of the Church by Presbyters, such as it was then projected was Unlawful, was accounted such an insolence, that imprisonment seemed rather an Indulgence than a punishment. This Ordinance was read twice in the House of Commons, and stiffly debated, but the Sectaries and Erastians' uniting their Forces against the Establishment of Presbytery, that had projected already the suppression of all the rest, this was hindered from passing into an Act, but it was nevertheless defended and justified by the Presbyterian Party upon all occasions; and tho' they could never dispute it into a Law, yet sometime after they passed another Ordinance, by which they Condemned several erroneous Opinions, and Blasphemies; and declared some to be Capital, but this was much short of that which we have been speaking of; however that Toleration which they were not able to confute by a Law, they were more zealous to oppose by their writings, and by all other means they conceived useful to that purpose. They appointed Days of Humiliation for the Heresies they could not punish by the Sword, and employed the most Zealous and Eloquent of their Party, to represent the sin and mischief of. Toleration, and to inflame the minds of men against those Errors and Sects, which they had been hitherto hindered from extirpating. There was no man of that Time that wrote more fully against Toleration than Edward's, who in a Treatise against Toleration, which he entitles, The casting down of the last and strongest Hold of Satan, makes Liberty of Conscience such an Abomination, that the High Commission, and the greatest Severity of the Bishops were rather to be endured: And I know not how Toleration can have the impudence to lift up its head after that in this Book it is clearly proved and demonstrated by Scripture, sound Reason, Fathers, Schoolmen, Casuits, Protestants, Divines, Ecclesiastical History, etc. To be utterly unlawful and mischievous, and this, both of an universal Toleration of all Religions and Consciences, and of a limited and bounded, of some Sects only, how, clearly this is proved or demonstrated by him, I am not at present much concerned to show, having mentioned this Author with others of his Party only to ease our Considerator, and to direct him in his enquiry, concerning the Judgement of the Presbyterians about the universal Toleration, in which it is desired they may have their part, and since they have declared against it, it is a sort of Compulsion and Persecution, to put it upon them whether they will or no.  
What shall we say to all this? Was the Doctrine and Practice of Christ then known? Was not the will of God revealed against all forcible means in matters of Religion? Was it not observed, that Compulsion served only to make men Hypocrites? Was not this Rule, Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, etc. received into the Canon in those days? The Scriptures surely are the same, and if they were then so clearly against all Toleration, they must be so still; and have we heard of any New Revelation since, concerning this matter? So that we may assure ourselves, that the Presbyterians will departed from what they have once asserted with so much noise and confidence of Demonstration. Yet surely our Considerer could never have been guilty of such unacceptable officiousness, without some probable presumption of their good liking, for whom it was intended. Nor can we imagine any man so foolhardy, as to hazard the disgrace of being disowned by those, for whom he so earnestly intercedes. Admit then the mind of the Presbyterian Dissenters be changed, and that their present Judgement is more moderate, and that their Advocate produce it under their hands, it will do them but little service, because those that are not their Friends, will look upon the Inclination they may now have for Toleration, to proceed rather from their outward condition, than any inward conviction of mind; for in contrary Declarations of the same Person, that is commonly judged to be most sincere, and according to his mind, that is made when he is in full Liberty, whereas the Act of a man under any restraint or necessity, is ever accounted less valid, and a less certain Declaration of his mind.  
The Independants, who offered the Presbyterians so many Scriptures and Reasons for Toleration, and took it heinously to be rejected by their Brethren, whom they knew to be but Usurpers of Authority, after they themselves had tasted of the forbidden fruit of Power, their Eyes were opened, to discern plainly as many reasons to refuse Indulgence in Religion, as ever they had offered for it when their condition was lower. In the year 1650. there was an Act made against Blasphemous and dangerous Errors, and the Instrument of Government, which Cromwell published afterward, did not only exclude Prelacy and Popery from all benefit of Toleration, but made it Capital to maintain several Opinions in matters of Religion: By virtue of these new Laws, Muggleton and Reeve were condemned to Bridewell, Naylor was Stigmatised, Biddle the Socinian was Tried for his Life, for denying Christ to be the Son of God, and escaped not so much by the Clemency of those that Ruled then, as by an Error in his Indictment; it was in vain for any of these to plead their Conscience, or that they were prosecuted against the Will of God, and the Rule of Common Justice, the Ruling and the Armed Conscience, would still assert its Power and Dominion over the Consciences of Inferior Dissenters.  
It may be said, that this severity was used only against gross and intolerable Opinions, to prevent their spreading among the People. Well; If this Reason be good for them, why not for the present Government, especially since the Right and Title of it, is somewhat clearer than that of the Independent Dominion? That the Opinions then punished were Gross, and Blasphemous, altars not the case, since they were part of the belief, and the Religion of several Persons or Sects; and if no forcible means at all aught to be used to reduce men's Consciences, how come these to be excepted?  
However you will say for them, that they used no forcible means to make Men Conform against their Judgement to their way of Worship: There is a certain Author, who styles himself a Friend to true Reformation, and whose Testimony we have no reason to suspect, that assures us of the contrary from the Practice of those times. [A Lamentable Representation of the effects of Toleration. By V.T. 1656.] This zealous Person, to let the Magistrate understand, that providing Able, Pious Ministers, is not all they can do, tells this story, that a Godly Citizen of London; took to his Apprentice a profane Country Lad, (some Cavalier-bred Boy belike) and having sent him to Church once or twice, to hear a Soul Searching Minister, (Pardon my Author's Phrase.) Alas poor Boy, his Hear was opposite to such holy matter, as Praying and Preaching, so he would come no more there, but the Master thought he had not done enough, but did command and compel him constantly to hear that Minister, as he thought it was his Duty, so at last the Boy was Converted, than he concludes; What Christian can or will blame this Master? The same Author proceeds further to inform us of the Godly Practice of those times. The Officers of the Army (says he) in their Garrisons, (I am sure in Jamises) do compel their Soldiers to hear the Public Sermons, all, except some Anabaptists.— How smartly have I seen the Soldiers caned unto the Sermon in Westminster Abbey? It is a good Example for all in Authority, from the greatest Prince and Parliament, to the meanest Master or Parent, it was time now to object, this is against Liberty of Conscience, no such matter (replies our Author,) it is against the liberty of being as bad as men will, but not against the Liberty of being as good as men will, if neither Anabaptist, Presbyterian, nor Independent Minister will not serve them, their Conscience is not tender in any sense but seared: A wonderful Liberty of Conscience, a delicious variety, this is sufficient to please the most Nice and Fastidious Palate. And this brings into my mind such another odd choice offered to David, either to endure seven years' Famine, or three months' flight before his Enemies, or three days Pestilence.  
Yet after all this, the Independants in England, when they were at their greatest height, being but few compared to the bulk of the Nation, and prevailing only in the Army, and that too by conjunction with other Sectaries, we cannot certainly judge how far they approved of Toleration in their hearts. They spoke indulgently and moderately of several Sects, whose assistance they were forced to court, and joined with them in a common Defence against Presbytery, but there was no alliance at all of Religion, but only of interest between them. Therefore as their interest varied, so did their Judgement secin to do concerning tolerating other Sectaries.  
In New England, where the Independants Reign, and prevail as well by their number as Authority, the case is very much altered, between them and the other Sectaries, there they prohibit all other Religions and Churches but their own, i. e. there shall be no Preaching, no Congregation, no public Worship, but after their way, and of their own approbation. So that an Anabaptist, or a Quaker is more at ease here, under the most active prosecution of this Government, than in New England, that was once accounted the refuge of the scrupulous, But that all men may know how Toleration thrives in that Country, I will mention the Heads of some of their Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Matters.  

1. No Church to be gathered without the approbation of the Magistrate dwelling next, and of the Elders of the neighbouring Churches.  
2. No person to Preach publicly and constantly to any people, either in Church society or not, where any two Organic Churches, Council of state, or General Court shall declare their dissatisfaction thereat, either in reference to doctrine or practice.  
3. Eevery one that Renounces his Church estate, shall forfeit to the Treasury forty Shillings a month, so long as he shall continue in that his obstinacy.  
4. Every one must come to Church upon the Lord's day, days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving, or for every default to forfeit five Shillings.  
5. The Observation of Chrismass Day, to be punished with a mulckt of five Shillings.  
6. Heresy to be punished by Banishment or Death, and many disputable points determined to be Heresy.  
7. Whosoever shall be found to have any of Maggleton, or Reeves Books, shall pay ten pounds, he that Harbours a Quaker shall pay forty Shillings an hour, he that shall go to their meeting shall pay ten Shillings, and the Speaker five pounds.  
8. A Quaker is to be banished, and if he return, to be whipped out of the Country at a Cart's tail, and stigmatised, and if he come back a second time, to be put to Death.  
9 Anabaptists are made incapable of dwelling there by their Law concerning Heresies, which declared it to be one to deny the lawfulness of Infant Baptism.   
I am almost afraid that some who have not considered the difference between a ruling Independent and an Independent under hatches, will be apt to suspect I do them wrong in these Citations, but if any be so scrupulous of believing these summary excerptions, he may without much difficulty, I believe, satisfy himself by looking in the Body of Statutes, that they have printed, which will inform him more at large, what liberty of Conscience is practised in New England.  
But these are scarecrow Laws surely, and never intended to be put in Execution. Alas the complaints of New England Persecution, has made so much noise this many years, that the whole World has rung with it. R. Williams made no little stir about Cottons Bloody Tenet, and the barbarous usage he and several other Dissenters from the Churches established there, had met with. The Case of the Gortonists has been published, and it was thought very hard measure, that when the Established Sect had driven these out of their Dominion, to seek Protection and Liberty under some of the Neighbouring Indians, their Persecutors pursued them thither, and by force of Arms dissodged them from this Refuge. I need not multiply Instances of this kind, all sorts of Dissenters there drank of the same Cup, and made the same Complaints.  
Some perhaps may be desirous to know how the Independants of New England can defend themselves against the Arguments of their own Brethren here for Toleration, when they come to be used by the Sectaries that descent from their Rule; Such as they are put upon us for Demonstrations, and thought by our Dissenters unanswerable; therefore it may not be a miss to give a brief account how the dispute runs there, and in what manner the Prosecutors vindicate themselves against the importunate saucy Pleas which the Dissenters there do continually make for Liberty of Conscience.  
For one Protestant Congregation to prosecute another, 
mather's Preface to St Willards Bishop against the Anab.  is more unreasonable, (says the Anabaptist Apology) than all the Cruelty of the Roman Church, Increase Mather, says No: For Protestants punish, though not persecute Protestants; nay, as the case may be circumstanced, even a Congregation of such as call themselves Protestant's, if he had added Independants too, the Antithesis had been somewhat more bold, and more visible: This he proves by the Authority of the Puritans, from whom these Churches pretend to be descended; and precious Mr. Cotton their Apostle, who is bold to denounce, That if the Magistrates of England, would tolerate Transgressors of the Rule of Godliness, God would not long tolerate them.  
In England (say the Anabaptists) the Independants are our Advocates for Toleration, in New England, they persecute us themselves. p. 16. And the Writers of the Church of England, lay hold of this occasion to expose their inconsistence with themselves; Mather mumbles this Objection, but is not able to take it off: It is not for their Opinion, but for receiving persons excommunicated by the Independent Congregation, that they are punished, but this fault they are as guilty of in Old England, as in New England. Then he cannot be persuaded that any Independants would desire indulgence for such Anabaptists as theirs. Yet there can be no difference shown between those that are taken here into protection, and those that are persecuted there. Whence then can proceed so different an usage of the same sort of men? Alas the mystery is not very deep, and may be resolved into a Common Rule of Humane Wisdom very well known, that it is no matter how liberal a man is at the expense of another; but he ought to be more wary, when he is to give out of his own stock.  
The Anabaptists complain, That it is against the design of the first Planters, that left England and went thither for Liberty of Conscience, to lay any restraint upon it. 
Animadversions on the N. E. Anabapt. p. 4.  Willard answers without mincing, That their business was not Toleration, but to settle and secure Religion to posterity, according to that way which they believed was of God. p. 11. The Magistrates there were Christians, and held it their duty to maintain and strengthen Christian Religion by Civil Laws. All Reformers have done so, and the Church ever since the Apostles. Poor dissenting Conscience, where canst thou find Reception, if these Colonies of Dissenters shut the doors against thee?  
The Anabaptist cries, it is against their Brethren. p. 9 The Independent is not satisfied that they are so near of kin, and though they were. Yet Discipline rightly administered, is not against Christian Charity, the want of it does rather argue want of Love, Leu. 19.17.  
It is the part of the men of this World to persecute, (says the Anabap.) yet sometimes (replies the Independent) it proceeds from Godly Zeal against Seducers.  
Gentle means will prevail most according to the Dissenters judgement. p. 10. But experience tells the Independent that such a Rough thing as a New England Anabaptist is not to be handled over-tenderly. The Spirit which they have always discovered under the greatest disadvantages, easily tells us, what they would have been, if circumstanced as those whom they accuse. And Lastly, that they might not be misunderstood, they declare the proper Subject of their jurisdiction. We do not pretend to a Lordship over Conscience, yet the outward man is Subject to us.  
Now he that can reconcile these Laws, this practice, this Doctrine of the Independants, to the Consideration for Toleration, may make a match between Antipathies, and a friendship between contradictions; nay, may reconcile the Conscience of a Scotch Covenanter, to that short prayer for which he holds a singular detestation, i. e. God save the King, idem jungat vulpes & mulgeat Hercos.  
The Anabaptists, Quakers, Socinians, and other Sects, because they are not particularly mentioned, I cannot tell how far they may be concerned in this Plea for a general Toleration, or whether they will be judged tolerable or no, and therefore it will not be necessary to say any thing concerning them. And since these have not yet had the fortune to be uppermost in any of our Revolutions, we cannot conclude with any certainty, whether they would continue as zealous for Indulgence as now they are: It being difficult now to discern whether their importunity for Toleration proceeds from the Inward Man, or only from their outward Circumstances. When they had got some power in Cromwel's Army, they began to be somewhat turbulent, and addicted to Levelling, which employed a very fore imposition upon the Consciences of Rich Men, and those that were in Authority. But in those Countries where the Anabaptists prevailed upon their first appearing, they left such instances of Bloodshed and Devastation, as the story of no Christian Sect can parallel.  
For the Quakers, how their Spirit would determine concerning Toleration, if they were in power, is as hard to foretell, as it would be to show, what course, or frolic a mad man would take, that were broke lose from his Keeper. But if all Bedlam should break lose, and make themselves the Masters, I believe it would be necessary to have recourse to David's Stratagems, and that a man would be in no little danger, that would presume to continue in the Exercise of his own Wits.  
Having shown what Conscience, they that Dissent from us, make of Indulging their Dissenters, and that none are more vehement against. Toleration when they are in place, than those that are now so importunate for it, we may conclude that notwithstanding all they allege from Scripture, and the nature of Christian Religion, to make us believe that we ought in Conscience to indulge Dissenters, they are of our side, and do not believe any thing of what they say, for it is unconceivable how they can reckon that our Duty, which would not be so to them placed in our circumstances.  
Now if neither Christ nor his Apostles have ever enjoined a general Toleration of all Christian Sects, and the Dissenters, when uppermost, declare this to be true: The Christian Magistrate is something more at large, and has greater liberty and scope to judge of the Reasons and Consequences of allowing or refusing it.  
The second Topick from which the D. of B. and the Considerer argue against all Compulsion in matters of Religion, is the absurdity and unreasonableness of the thing: Therefore the D. puts the Question.  
2. Topick. Whether there can be any thing more unmanly, more barbarous or more ridiculous, than to go about to convince a man's judgement by any thing but Reason, it is so ridiculous, that Boys at School are whipped for it, who instead of answering an Argument with Reason, are Loggerheads enough to go to Cuffs.  
If this reasoning be good, the Master that Whips is the veriest Loggerhead of all: Has whipping any demonstration in it to convince the judgement of Boys? The Master therefore should convince those Blockheads by a grave discourse, as a certain Reverend Person of great moderation, is said to have done upon the like occasion, saying, That it was the highest absurdity in Metaphysics for Intellectual or Rational Entities to fall out: Ay, this is convincing, and as certainly parts a fray, as a little dust stops the fury of Bees in the very heat of Battle; for God's sake tell me, you severe Asserters of Priscian, what Rods and Ferula's do in your Schools? What are these twigs of the Tree of Knowledge, or these, are they Chips of any Oracular Oak? What can those things contribute to the enlightening of the understanding? Look to yourselves, for the Assertors of humane Reason and Liberty, will call you to account, for making use of those Ensigns of Tyranny, and Instruments of Persecution; for it is barbarous to go about to convince one's understanding, which is true or false Latin by any thing but Reason; it is ridiculous to imagine that whipping should correct a weak or a mistaking judgement.  
But Boys are perverse and wilful, and will not be persuaded to their Duty by Reason, therefore Discipline must be used, not to convince their judgements, but to mend their temper, and to bring them to a Teachable Disposition; be it so: Now if Men may be sometimes Children in the temper of their minds, as well as in understanding, what shall be done? If they are Perverse, Sullen, Rash, Wanton, to say nothing of Malice, Interest, Design, which are more than childish faults, is there no remedy but downright Reason? And yet these Indispositions will not permit the party affected, to hearken to, or to consider, or comply with Reason, but when these Obstructions are removed, reason may have its effect, and finish the Conviction.  
Yet still, to go about to convince a man's judgement by any thing but Reason, is unmanly, etc. It is certainly so. And an unmannerly Fellow might say, that if his Grace means to convince any man's judgement, by this Quere of the reasonableness of Toleration, he may be in danger of falling under his own Censure. But to the Question, I do not believe we ever had a Parliament so unlearned, as to take Penal Laws for Demonstrations, or to think that any punishment can immediately convince the understanding. Penalties in matters of Religion are designed to remove such evil obstructions as lie in the Passage to a man's right Reason, that it may judge more equally and impartially of that which is laid before it. Every man's reason is not to be spoken with at all times, there may be Prejudice, Wilfulness, or Interest, that like so many surly Doorkeepers, forbidden all access to right reason; they will say perhaps, my Lord is indisposed, or he is in Company, or entertains himself with a private Friend, or is a sleep, and must not be molested; so an ordinary Person must departed, tho' his business be never so reasonable; but if an Officer from the King shall demand Audience, all excuses vanish, the Doors fly open to the Authority, that would not stir before the Justice of the same Message, and the great Person so difficult to be approached, must then hearken to, and comply with Reason; if therefore the Penalties which cannot convince the judgement, may yet rescue it from the sluggishness, and teachlesness it had contracted, and from that Slavery in to which the will and passions its own natural Subjects had reduced it, and restore it to the liberty of considering the Reasons laid before it; every reasonable man I hope will be ready to discharge them of the infamous Titles given them in this Quere.  
Cons. 4 The good Rules of Humanity and Common Civility, are openly violated by using of Force in Matters of Conscience. Men do abhor to thrust that Meat or Drink down their Neighbour's Throat, that will not agree with their Stomaches; they say commonly pray take what likes you, why are they not so civil in Matters of Religion, have compassion one on another, be Pitiful, be Courteous.  
If it were as indifferent a matter, what Religion or Sect one should be of, as whether he should eat Beef or Mutton, I must confess it would be very unhospitable to oblige a man to any one more than another. But I have not heard before of this new mode of Civility, pray take what God or Religion you please, I will not prescribe to you, be of what Sect you please. Yet if in this variety there should be any thing that you knew to be unwholesome or mortal, it would be but a sorry civility not to forbid him to touch it, or not to snatch it forcibly out of his hands. Or if by mistake one should eat Hemlock, and declare he did not love Oil, it could not surely be accounted so very Rude and Barbarous, to pour some down his throat. But it goes against their stomaches: So does many Medicines that have good effect. The Physicians must not use Aloes, or Rhubarb, because they make one sick forsooth, in the way to health, but the Chemist and the Quackcry, be kind to nature; Let your Medicines be comfortable and easy. Indulgence is the only way to heal: After all this, what shall we say to the concluding Text of Scripture. Have compassion one of another, etc. Is it not a very tender compassion, so to suffer a man to go on undisturbed in damnable error? Is it not a most obliging Courtesy, to suffer a man to die, rather than use so much rudeness as to pull him by the Nose? St. Judas has left us another sort of direction, he bids us to make a difference, and to snatch some out of the fire, but according to our Considerers courtesy, we must have a care of being too rough with them, lest while we snatch them out of the fire, we should happen to hurt them, or put out an Arm.  
Consi 5. The Church Protestant's in England have been distressed by hot do heretofore in the Reign of Queen Mary, when they were accounted Criminals for not conforming to that Worship which was then the established Worship of the Kingdom. And they should have taken heed before now, of what they did, and of what Spirit they be still of in persecuting others, since they know not how soon that part of the Wheel which has been, or is on the ground, may come to be at top, and fall the heavier on them upon this account; for with the same measure men meet withal, it shall be meted to them again.  
If ever I understood the just reproach of a Trimmer, it is something of kin to this Argument, it is the name, as I take it, of one that dares not be honest, and do his duty for fear of Consequences. What if the Parliament should be angry? What if there should be a Court Revolution? What if the Faction should get the better? So he floats, and rowls, and reciprocates, as this or that apprehension prevails: How politic this consideration may be, does not much concern me, let the Author abound in his own wisdom, and distant projects of self preservation, the present Question is, What is fit and aught to be done, and not what will come of it; and besides the issue of this consideration is very uncertain, for there may be Inconveniences in the way of forbearance, as well as in that of severity. If you provoke a Party, the Wheel may turn round, and they have their turn of being uppermost, and then will be in a capacity of revenging themselves. If you tolerate and give way to Dissenters, you contribute to their Growth, and with your own hands help the Wheel to turn round, and when they are got to the Top, they may forget all your former connivances. There is no end of pursuing the consequences of things that have such variety of chance, and are influenced by every little incident; the wisest way surely is for a man to be uniform to himself to do his duty, and leave the success to God: I cannot tell how seasonable it may be put people in mind at this time of Queen mary days. Those that can aquiesce in the faith and justice of a King, who has been always so faithful a Subject to his own word, can no more apprehend the hot do of those times would return, than that the time itself so long passed should be recalled: But there are Consciences as full of fears and jealousies of persecution for, as they are of scruples in their Religion, and condemn themselves never to be satisfied. This is not very strange, for it is natural for every man to hope and fear according as he has deserved.  
I wonder our Author should give himself the trouble to go so far back as Queen mary Reign, to humble the Church Protestants, with a prospect of their sufferings, he might have found a Revolution no less calamitous to them, and of a more fresh and smarting Remembrance; I mean the Reign of the Dissenters. The Church Protestant's are sensible enough, that they are mortal, and have had their turns of suffering as well as others. But it is somewhat an odd way of moving for Indulgence, to commemorate the insolence or cruelty, which those that pretend to favour, have heretofore used towards the Church that is established by Law, and it sounds like a threat to suggest, you know what you have suffered, therefore, take heed how you prosecute others. Who are these others? Dissenters? Why should the intimation of Queen mary days, make us take such heed of that? If those times should return, it is not likely that the Prosecution of Dissenters, would be laid to our charge as Heresy, or Roman Catholics. The Dissenters of all men living, have the least reason to reproach us with prosecuting these, since they were the constant Instigators of the Magistrate to execute the Laws made against the Papists, and upon all occasions exposed the Church-Protestants, as Popishly affected, because they did not always prosecute that Party with the uttermost rigour: But if our danger cannot prevail with us to take heed of prosecuting, yet surely our Saviour's admonition must: With what measure you meet, it shall be measured to you again. If the measure be just and reasonable, why should we fear that the same should be returned; If the return be not just, than it is not the same measure. The Judges had need to understand this place better than our Considerer, otherwise they would have but a sorry defence to make if the Criminals they had punished, should come to make reprizals, and to judge them by this Text, according to the intent of this Consideration.  
Consi. 6. Conformists and Non-Conformists, do all agree in the substance of Christianity, in the same Articles of Faith, in the same Rule of Manners, in the Apostles Creed, and the ten Commandments. There is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one Flesh, one Baptism. As a variety of flowers may grow on one Bank, so may Protestants and Papists live in England, etc. There is much more reason to love one another for the many things wherein we agree, than to fall out for those wherein we differ, and though we cannot have Communion in the same external Worship, we can, and have Commwion in the same internal Adoration of the same Blessed Trinity, etc. The Wolf shall lie down with the Lamb, etc.  
It is an intolerable iniquity, to use different and deceitful weights, one sort to buy, and another to sell by. It is the same sort of cheat, to represent things of more or less moment, not as they are in themselves, but only according to the occasion we have to make use of them. When Dissenters speak of Toleration, than we agree all in the main, the differences are only about small matters, and why should not we indulge something to lesser mistakes? But if you desire them to take this Argument back by the same weight, and tell them, that since we agree in the main, why should they be so unreasonable as to separate from us, and to make or continue a perpetual breach for things of little moment? then they presently change their note, and every difference is of the highest importance, i. e. Whatsoever they would have us to grant, is but a slight matter; But for them to yield any of those little things, is as much, as to renounce the Faith, or to Sacrifice to an Idol.  
Now let us observe the truth and consequence of what is offered in this Consideration, all do agree as to the substance of Christianity, and in the same Articles. In what substance? In what Articles? In all? This is too much, for we have some difference I think with the Roman Catholics about the infallibility of their Church, the Supremacy of the Pope, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and these they take to be Articles of Faith, and of the substance of Religion; and we judge to be mistakes very absurd, and of long and dangerous consequences; But we have the same Apostles Creed; So we have the same Scripture, yet if they lay yet broader Foundations, and build upon it what Faith they please, how shall these their Creed or Scripture ever determine any difference about those Additional Articles, or what Plea is it for Indulgence, that we agree in many points, but that we differ in other of great importance; as if an Argument concerning the obligation of nine of the Commandments, should be a reason to permit the observation of the tenth to discretion, and that we should rather consider the many Commandments about which we agreed, than one or two, perhaps short ones, which some tender Consciences might desire to be indulged. The Socinians and we differ about the Person of Christ, and the Merit of his death, about the Doctrine of the Trinity, and many things more of less moment; but these things surely were ever accounted of the substance of Christianity, and yet they make a difference between us and the Socinians: The Quakers who resolve all their Faith into the Authority of their Spirit, and revile the Scripture, and deny it to be the Word of God, do not agree with us so much as in the Foundation of Religion; these two err dangerously concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God, and I am afraid our Author did not consider these Sects, when he tells us; That we can, and have Communion in the same Internal Adoration of the same Blessed Trinity. I cannot tell to what purpose our Author brings into this consideration a passage of Scripture about Unity, where he pleads for the Establishment of Division; There is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Since several of the Dissenters have neither the same Faith, nor Baptism, much less the same Body or Spirit; The Anabaptists look upon our Baptism as void; The Quakers and Socinians for the most part, use no Baptism at all: Now I would fain understand by what figure of Speech, these may be said to have the same Baptism with us? Well; admit there be some things of moment, about which we differ, yet the number of those is greatest about which we are agreed, therefore, there is much more reason to love one another, for the many things wherein we agree, than for to fall out for those wherein we differ. Whether we ought to love one another for those things in which we agree, is not the question; for it is certain we ought to love one another, whether we agree in many things or few, but the point in dispute is whether this love obliges us to permit those that differ from us, to Confirm themselves in those errors, which are the occasion of our difference, by having them Preached and Argued, and Maintained in their Assemblies; Is it an Act of Christian Charity, to suffer Quakers to enjoy all opportunities of being confirmed in their madness, and of seducing silly people? If we love the Person of a Socinian, must we therefore give him leave to propagate his Doctrine, and to teach men to deny their Lord that bought them? because we have Charity for Anabaptists, ought we therefore to Tolerate them to Re-baptize those they have seduced to believe themselves no Christians, or the Independants, because our Faith is not much different from theirs? shall they out of pure love be licenced to gather Select Congregations, to draw away as many as they can from the Church, to oblige them by a Vow as Solemn as that of Baptism, not to return thither, nor to forsake their new Fraternity?  
These are the things which we would gladly have the Dissenters forbear, and use all lawful means to hinder them, not because we have no love for them, but out of pure compassion, because these things they are so desirous to be indulged in, would do them and others hurt, and this is all the quarrel we have with them, this is the falling out with which our Author is offended.  
What shall we say now to the Mahomitan Parable? That variety of Flowers may grow on the same Bank. It is certainly more agreeable to the Principles of him that spoke it, than those of a Christian, for the Turks permit Jews and Christians to live among them, and to enjoy the Exercise of their Religion, because they think both of them may be saved by virtue of that Religion they respectively profess. But our Church passes a very severe Censure upon those that shall say, that every man may be saved by that Law or Sect which he professes. But what if these Flowers prove Weeds, and grow too fast, what if they annoy, and hurt the rest, what if they are like Flowers de Luce ill Neighbours according to the Old Proverb, what then? They must certainly in prudence be a little discouraged and kept under, or by some good Art be brought to change their destructive and unsortable nature.  
In what manner this Prophecy of the Reconciliation of Dissenting Natures, The Wolf shall lie down with the Lamb, and the Leopard with the Kid, is to be accomplished, I am not well assured, however I have some reason to suspect, that it is not to be done by the way of an universal Toleration, because this description shows not only, that they shall not hurt one the other, but that they shall be of one Fellowship and Communion; they shall feed and lie down together; whereas Toleration seems to do no more than to shut up these several Creatures in distinct apartments of the same Grate; but if you would know when a Presbyterian, or Independent, or Anabaptist, will not hurt, I can tell, without the Spirit of Prophecy, it is then only when they have no power to do hurt.  
Cons. 7. The French Protestants, who are Dissenters from the Established Government of that Kingdom, are kindly received and succoured by England, and when the French King is highly blamed by English Protestants, and perhaps too by some English Catholics, for Persecuting his peaceable Subjects, shall we do the same thing in our Kingdom, which we condemn in another? Therefore thou art inexcusable O Man that judgest, for thou that judgest another, dost the same thing.  
I will not inquire what English Protestant's do highly blame or condemn the Actions of the French King; those of my acquaintance are not very forward to censure and condemn Princes, nor can it be concluded, that whosoever is kind to a Stranger forced out of his Country, does presently engage himself in the whole Merit of his Cause. But as for the French Protestants, we conceive our compassion to be the more due to them, because they suffer for a Religion, which we verily believe to be true, which we are not able to say of several of those that plead for Toleration. In the next place, they were peaceable, and had not provoked their Prince by any Seditious or Turbulent Behaviour, in the Minority of this King, when the discontents of France were very high, and the Authority of the Government low. They behaved themselves so well as to deserve his public acknowledgement, which I believe our Dissenters are too modest to pretend to; for if they should; yet there is hardly any body so ignorant of their proceed, but can justly reproach them with having laid hold on every advantage of public distress, to weaken first, then to destroy the Government: They never failed to join themselves with every Faction against the Crown, and still brought a formed Faction to every discontented great Man, and offered themselves ready instruments of his Ambition or Revenge. But we have yet farther cause to Commiserate the sufferings of the French Protestants, because they tell us, and we have no reason to disbelieve them, that they were inflicted without Process or Form of Law, and directly against particular Rights and Privileges granted to them by former Kings.  
For their Churches had been long ago taken into the protection of the Government, and established by Laws. Special Judicatures were erected in their favour, where the one half were of their Religion, and several other Privileges granted them, to secure their persons and estates from Oppression, and the malice of their Enemies; and how they have forfeited all, I do not know. But our Protestant Dissenters were never owned by our Laws, nor mentioned in them, but as a factious and seditious ●arty, that was by all due means to be suppressed. There never was any agreement or accommodation between the Government and them; for while they could hold their arms in their hands, they would never hearken to any, and therefore it is no wonder if we have so many Laws against Dissenters, to forbid Conventicles, to oblige them to come to Church; since this Government thought they could never take too great security, from a Party they had found to be implacable. Therefore thou art inexcusable O man, whoever thou art, that wouldst stir up the Reader, nay recommend to the Parliament for a Parellel Case with ours, one that has so little resemblance with it.  
Top. 3. We are come now to the third and last Topick of the Advocates for Toleration, and that is the benefit and advantage of the Kingdom, by Improvement of Trade, to which Indulgence is esteemed to be so singular a Nurse, that it cannot possibly thrive or subsist without it. Wherefore the D. of B. makes this Quere, Whether the practice of it, i. e. of using any compulsion or restraint towards men's Consciences, has not always been ruinous and destructive to those countries', where it has been used either in Monarchies or Commonwealths? and whether the contrary practice has not been successful in all those Countries, where it has been used, either in Monarchies or Commonwealths?  
We have great obligation to this Noble Person, for waving all the advantages which a fruitful wit might have given him upon this Subject, of reasoning without end of the possible or probable mischiefs or advantages arising to Monarchies or Commonwealths, from the granting or refusing Toleration; and for referring this whole dispute to the decision of experience. The Question therefore cannot but have an easy issue, because any man of ordinary understanding, that has read some History, or made any Observation in the World, may be capable of deciding it. As to the first part- of the demand I do believe there have been, and are several Kingdoms that have received no manner of damage, by denying a Toleration to several Religions. What Calamity has befallen Denmark or Sweden upon this account, where you will meet with no other Churches, but the Lutherans and if some Indulgence has been heretofore offered there to People of other Nations, this comes not under our Question, for strangers may be more safely tolerated than Subjects, because the removal of them, when they grew troublesome is more easy, and has not so bad consequence. But not to Travel so far for an exception to this General Quaere, I believe there was no Kingdom more flourishing than this was under Queen Elizabeth and King James I. And yet then there was as great or greater restraint upon Conscience, as at any time since: The Roman Catholics, though a very numerous and formidable Party in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, were brought to our Churches, by the single force of the Act of Uniformity, which left Dissenters to the Censures of the Church, and added no other punishment than a light mulct of a Shilling for every default. And this Uniformity that is the Contradiction of Toleration, did in a few years so diminish that Party, that the Pope was obliged to command those who retained any reverence for his Authority, to separate themselves, and to abstain from coming to our Churches: It would have been a strange Paradox in Politics, in those days, to plead for the Toleration of those the Government did so much fear. But however, this Compulsion did not prove in the least ruinous, or destructive to this Kingdom: And when that Party fell into dangerous erterprises, the Laws grew still more and more severe, in obliging them to a conformity with the established Religion.  
The Puritans were as little indulged by that Queen, as the Papists, as her Laws do sufficiently declare, and all her time by due execution of Laws; that Faction was low and inconsiderable, that the care taken then to suppress them, seemed to proceed rather from the foresight of such troubles, as this Faction might create to succeeding Princes, than any apprehension of present danger. I need not mention those Anabaptists, and wild fanatics, that were put to death in her time, not so much I conceive for matters of Religion, as crimes against the State, it is enough that all the World knows, that there was no Toleration in those days, and yet they were as serene, as prosperous, as happy, as any passed over the head of this Nation, at leastwise during the late Usurpation, which was the only time of Toleration in this Kingdom.  
If we can give any credit to those Observations, which our Republicans and Dissenters have made of the Original of the late Confusions, we own them all to a pretended Toleration, or some secret Connivance which they suspected, and from this root they deduce all that followed; true or false, real or pretended; the Enemies of the Government made much more advantage of it, than either the Government, or those for whom the favour was said to be intended.  
I might instance in Monarchy's, and Commonwealths of the Roman Communion, that are of Opinion, that they have received no great prejudice by not granting a Toleration for all Sects of Religion; and if some of the most zealous Persecutors of the Reformation have fallen into extraordinary decay, we may impute it to the Judgement of God upon them for resisting the Truth with so great Cruelty, and not for denying licence to every thing or Sect, that had the pretence or Cant of Religion. Besides in those countries', some that have inquired into the reasons of their decay, have observed several other false measures, much more pernicious than the denying of Toleration.  
The last Exception I shall make is from the Common wealth and Kingdom of the Jews, which never flourished more than when there was no Toleration, never was in worse Condition, than when there was; And this instance has something more of Authority than the rest, because this People were governed by Gods own Laws, and sometime more immediately by God himself as it were in Person, and yet during all the time of his Theocracy, there is not the least Indulgence or Liberty of Conscience to be found upon Record.  
Nay, so far was his Government from any such thing, that he made a perpetual Decree, that if any Person, or City, or Tribe, should fall away from his Worship, and serve other Gods, the rest instead of Indulging, or neglecting the errors, were to prosecute them to utter destruction.  
Now, lest it may be thought, that under Theocracy this might be just, because Idolatry was a sort of High Treason, but in other Governments the reason ceases; it is plain that the same Law was put in Execution by the Kings of Israel and Judah; who are not only commended by the inspired Writers, but observed to have been blessed with unusual prosperity for those prosecutions. I would not be thought to recommend these Proceed, as Precedents to be transcribed by Christian Princes, it is only upon the Question of Fact, that I produce this instance, to show there may be such a thing as a prosperous Kingdom or Common Wealth, without the help of a general Toleration.  
As to the second part of the Quere; Has not the contrary practice been always successful to those Countries where it has been used, either in Monarchies or Common Wealths. I think it a hard matter to find many Kingdoms or Common Wealths, where a general Toleration has been used; some have endured one, or perhaps two sorts of Dissenters in Religion, but this does not answer the end of those Queres, or of the Considerations, which is universal Toleration; but have not those been most successful that have tolerated most? This is not certain, for I think in the time of the late Usurpation, there was a great variety of Sects permitted to use their several ways, but the success, God be thanked, was such as honest men did wish and pray for; they had too great success indeed at first against the King and the Church, but then Toleration was scarce begun or designed; there was then but one Rule of Uniformity, the Covenant was imposed upon all; And the Independants did for a good while dissemble their Exceptions. But afterwards when every Sect demanded the liberty of its own way, and Religions were multiplied beyond Computation, the Fruits of Toleration did quickly appear, every Sect as it gathered a little strength from a State of Toleration began to affect Dominion, and this did quickly so disunite, and rend the Body of those Tyrants, that it was impossible for them longer to subsist, and so made way to that glorious Revolution, whose influence makes us still happy and prosperous, and it makes no difference in this case, whether a Government be rightful or usurped; the same method of Indulgence will have the same consequence, only Usurpers have more excuse for allowing Toleration, because it is more necessary for them, than for a Rightful and long Established Dominion; and therefore tho' it be a dangerous course, they must take it, because they have no better to take.  
I know the Example of the United Privinces is often Recommended by our Dissenters, and is mentioned by the Author of the Considerations, and indeed it equally serves both their occasions, for a Common Wealth, and Toleration; however, I believe this instance is commonly swallowed down whole without considering the particular reasons or circumstances that may induce them to tolerate some Religions, which may render their case very different from ours. Some Religions, I say, because they do not tolerate all, or whatever they do at this time, they have been in the memory of man so far from allowing an Universal Toleration, that they exceeded all their Protestant Neighbours in violence and severity, against those that dissented from their Established Religion, tho' in matters very obscure, and of insuperable difficulty. However, since this Example of the Dutch, is insisted upon by all the Advocates for Toleration, as an unanswerable Argument of the benefit of that course, I will give a brief account of such circumstances, as determined them to Indulgence, and the security they take a 'gainst all the civil consequences of it; neither of which are to be found in our Government.  
In the first place, their Common Wealth was Originally made up of several Religions, or Sects, which are as essential parts of their Constitution, for they were not only preserved by Strangers from England, and France, and Germany, that Fought their Battles, but many out of Germany and France, fled thither as to a common refuge; and were all as it were incorporated into this Common Wealth; every one of these Nations had their Churches not only tolerated, but Established by Authority, and paid by the Governments; so every Nation and Sect, use their own Forms and Languages, only the English are much degenerated, partly by their own fault, inclining to the Puritan way, and accommodating themselves to the manner of the Country, partly by the care which the Dutch do, and have ever used to discourage Episcopal Ministers, making great scruple of admitting any one they suspect to have Episcopal Ordination. So Toleration was at first the necessity, not the choice of that People. But after this Establishment, the measure of their Toleration being full, whoever opposed the Religion Established, and departed from the Rule of their Church, found but very sorry quarter. When the Socinians appeared first in those Countries, the States took the Alarm, and Banished those Heretics out of all their Dominions. Then Arminius his Scholars, presumed to find fault with the Dutch Catechism, which was their Established Doctrine of their Church, and to divide Communion upon it; they were condemned by the Synod of Dort, and the Sentence was Executed by the Magistrate, with so great severity, that all the Neighbouring Countries were filled with the complaint of the suffering Remonstrants. The most Eminent and Active of whom were forced to fly their Country, or to endure close Imprisonment at home, so that, tho' they had more different Religions in their first Constitution than we, yet they endeavoured, we see, to keep their first Establishment entire, as well as we do ours, by forcibly suppressing those that assaulted it; nay, they used greater severities upon this occasion towards their Dissenters, than ever we have done to ours. Yet during this prosecution of Dissenters, they had the best success that ever happened to that Common Wealth; before that time they struggled for life, but now they enlarged their Frontiers and their Trade, and advanced so far in strength and reputation, as to become the most powerful Common Wealth in Europe; not that their success and prosperity is to be imputed to this Persecution, but it seems by this instance, that forcible means in matters of Conscience does not always ruin, nor is the good success of a People in Trade or War always to be imputed to a general Toleration. I do not pretend to justify those proceed, nor do I allege them upon any other account, than to show that Dutch Toleration, has bounds, and that they have been prosperous while they prosecuted, a very considerable Party, both for number and interest, upon the account of Religion.  
But besides the difference of their first Constitution, and ours, there are several other circumstances in their Government, that renders Toleration less dangerous to them than it is to us.  
1. The Dutch Populace have no voice at all in choosing of their Magistrates; there are neither Mayors, nor Aldermen, nor Sheriffs, nor Common Council, nor Knights and Burgesses for Parliament, to be Elected by their Commonalty. There are no Juries to Judge of Matter of Fact, or of Right by way of Concomitance, in any Causes Criminal or Civil. So that tho' the number of any Sect may increase, yet has it but very little influence upon the Government, since it can have no hand in disposing of Public Offices; nor are the Members of it capable of any, whereas no Sect can thrive with us, but you presently find the evil effect of it in our Parliaments, in our Juries, and consequently in all the distribution of Justice, and especially in the Government, and temper of our Corporations.  
2. As the People have no part in the choice of their Magistrates, so neither can any one be admitted to any part of their Government, who is not of the State's Religion, and this to appear not by any single Test, as once coming to Church, or Receiving of the Sacrament in order to be qualified, but by the course of their Life, so that if any Person have given any suspicion to that College of Magistrates, into which he is ambitious to be received, that he is not in his Heart of their Religion, there is no more hopes of his succeeding, than that a Person should be made Pope, who is under imputation of Heresy.  
3. It is said, that the Government of their Cities have a more absolute and summary way of Proceeding with Persons suspected of any design or practice, to the prejudice of the public quiet, and those obliqne and squinting discourses, and practices of Sedition, that can scarce give matter to an Information with us, are there easily suppressed by an admonition, for such Persons to departed the place.  
4. The temper of the People is something more Phlegmatic and less zealous than ours; the several Sects are content with following their Trade all the Week, and their Religion on Sunday, without troubling their Heads with gaining Proselytes, or adding to their numbers, whereas with us every Sectary, almost, is a kind of Apostle, and is in season and out of season, still Preaching up his own way, and practising upon all those with whom he has to do, and railing against what is uppermost.  
Now the Dissenters who magnify beyond measure, the happiness of the Dutch in the use of a General Toleration, would be very loath to purchase it at the same rate, that is, by resigning up for that Liberty of Conscience, all such Liberties and Privileges of Englishmen, whereby they are made capable of giving disturbance to the Government. I am afraid there would be many Dissenters found upon the Trial very unwilling for a licence to go to Conventicles; to forbear going to Elections of Parliament Men; and to oblige themselves not to go to the Guild-Hall, provided they be excused for not going to Church.  
Yet after all, the Dutch Toleration has one possible disadvantage, and that a heavy one, that seeing there are some Sects now tolerated, almost as numerous as that Party of the Established Religion, some of these either by Domestic Tumult, or Foreign support, may establish themselves in the place of those who are now in Authority, and by putting out a small number of men, now in Government, not only make themselves Masters of it, but maintain and keep it by the number and strength they have already; and which will more and more increase by the Accession of those whose Religion is gain, of which sort that Country has its share. Whereas in those Countries where there are indeed several Religions, if the Dissenters are so kept under as to bear no proportion to those of the Establishment, though they may make a Tumult, or get the better for some little time by the advantage of a surprise, yet will they never be able to maintain themselves, and must give way to the Restauration of the first Establishment.  
The Considerator is very particular upon this Topick, and does not only tell us that prosecuting of Dissenters destroys Trade, but instances in some Prosecutions of so ill consequence, that the King and Council were forced to overrule them, or else vast multitudes of Poor People, who were not any ways infected with the Opinions of Dissenters, must have been undone.  
Cons. 8. Prosecuting Dissenters (he says) is a great disadvantage to the Trade of the Kingdom, they being a chief Part of the Trading People, and consequently Liberty of Conscience, must be the most effectual means to restore it.  
I have good reason to believe that our Author over-reckons, when he makes the Dissenters a chief Part of the Traders: For though they consist chief of Tradesmen, and those of the smaller sort, yet they are but an inconsiderable Part in respect of the whole. And we must note, that all are not Dissenters out of Conscience, that speak favourably of their Party, or favour them in a Vote; and it is not unlikely, but that an equal Execution of the Laws, might discover to us a great secret, that the twentieth Part of those who are reputed for Dissenters, do not stand in need of a Toleration; what our Considerer says of restering of Trade, is to suggest that it is decayed, whereas it is notoriously known, that it never was at a greater height in this Kingdom, than it is at present. But when Dissenters talk of deadness of Trade, you must understand, that the true meaning is only that they are discontented, and would fain make others so low, and because they have no reason, or dare not tell the true one, venture the shame of the World, by using a pretence that is notoriously false.  
The Relation that follows of a cloathier, that was forced to leave his Trade and Habitation; and to leave the Poor People he employed upon the Parish, and of others of the same Trade, that combined to buy no Wool, and to abuse the Country, to be revenged of the Laws, I dare not vouch for true; But should they be all true, which is a very great rarity in the Reports of that Party, I know not what to say, but who can help it? Suppose that cloathier had broke, for Dissenters are frail and breakable as other men, and the Poor Workmen had gone a begging. It is a sad Case you will say so many People should be undone by a scurvy Law, that prosecutes men for paying of Debts, or suppose the man had died, some Remedy must have been found, and some other means to maintain these Poor People, there might be more of the Trade that would have been glad of the opportunity of succeeding him, for the sullen men, that abused the Country, by combining not to buy, I think they deserved little favour upon that account, and in short upon this whole vapour of Trade, as if it were wedded only to Dissenters, it has been answered long ago, and those that threatened to withdraw their stocks were desired, to make their words good, and the King sufficiently assured, that the General Trade of the Kingdom should not suffer the least diminution, though no one Dissenter were concerned in it. However it was then, it is very well known now, that there is a great deal more money in this Kingdom than can be employed in Trade, and we are so far from being in a Condition that obliges us to Court men to proceed in trading, that the laying down of Trade, is like the laying down of an Office, men are not only courted to it, but bribed and bought to make room for those who are as it were shut out of the Exchange, by the extraordinary throng that is within.  
Consi. 9 Our Consideratour transcribes several passages of late his Majesty's Declaration from Breda, and some other out of Speeches since his Restauration, I will not take upon me too answer them, but remit the Reader to those Reasons of the House of Commons, which satisfied the King himself, so far as to pass the act of uniformity without any regard had to the Dissenters, the Declaration for indulgence set forth some years after, upon better Consideration was revoked by the King, but no Council or Parliament were ever able to convince him so fully of the Reason of putting the Laws in Execution, against Dissenters, as the Dissenters themselves, who made at last such returns of insolence and sedition, for all his indulgence, that he was forced for the preservation of himself and his Government, to call for the assistance of those Laws, and to order them to be put in effectual Execution, and we own it wholly to his wisdom and foresight, that some of the most considerable of them are now in being, I mean that of the 35th of Queen Elizabeth, which he saved by his Prerogative Law, as well as men when it was condemned to be abolished; And if his clemency had saved many, who the Laws had justly condemned, why should it not save a Law, that had done him and his Ancestors no small service, and was then doomed to an undeerved Fate.  
Consi. 10. The Tenth and last Consideration, consists of several Testimonies, take some from Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, some from modern Authors, he deals here in Gross; and is not pleased to name his Author from whence he has taken them, that the particulars might be examined. It is not impossible perhaps to Guess, but why should any man break in upon ones private reading, and intrude in his fecret. If our Author had known any other Church History, or Collector, it is ten to one but he had chosen better, as for the first 800 years, it is true there could not be many Civil Laws against Dissenters in Christian Religion, yet if our Author had heard of the story of Paul of Samesata, he might have known, that the Civil Power was employed in defence of the Catholic Religion against Heresy, even before Constantine's time: He names several Emperors, with whom I perceive he is unacquainted, for I am apt to believe if he had known any thing of them, he would have left, at leastwise Constantius and Vatens, out of his Catalogue of Toleratiours, and put in Julian who out of pure love and kindness to Christian Religion, granted an universal. Toleration to all Sects of dissenting Christians. But their larger permission (he says,) was especially towards Jews. It may be so, for these were indulged, when several Christian Sects were not, nay they have a Toleration in almost all Christian Kingdoms. And even in Rome, where there is small regard had of the Consciences of Protestant Dissenters, and all this, not because they prefer Jews to erring Christians, but because they conceive the Toleration of them, may not have so much danger, at that of Christian Sects.  
Yet of these Emperors whom he names, Constantine prosecuted the Donatists, and the Arnians, and sent several Bishops that refused to subscribe the Nicene Creed into Banishment. Theodosius the Great, and his Sons Arcadius and Honorius did restrain many Christian Sects in the Exercise of their Conscience, and succeeding Emperors were still more and more severe in requiring compliance, with the Religion Established in several Councils.  
Ithacius, and Idacius, our Author observes, were condemned by the Gallican Bishops, for being Authors of bringing the Priscillianists to Execution: What Execution I pray? Of Death, they might be justly condemned for making themselves Prosecutors, in Cases of Blood, but what is all this to our Laws, or Prosecution of Dissenters? St. Augustin was against Sanguinary Laws in Cases of Religion, so are we; several Fathers condemn the use of all force to bring a man to believe the Gospel, so do we Religion must be voluntary, and cannot be forced so say we, and yet there may be discipline used to reduce the wilful & perverse, and they may be brought the better to see their mistake, by the Inconvenenices it may expose them to. The Sects of the Jews, were rather in Philosophy, than Religion, for there was no Schism nor Breach between them, in regard of the main Congregation which the Law required, for they went all into the same Temple to Worship. The Joseptins would not suffer the Trachonites to be circumcised by force, no more do we, either Infidels or their Children to be baptised by force, Ethelbert would not compel the Pagan Saxons to be come Christians, and Constantine, and Licinius' edict, allows all the Liberty of their Worship, because at that time the Circumstances of Christianity, and Heathenism did then require it to be so, and yet Constantine afterward ward forbidden the Heathen to sacrifice to their Idols, and shut up their Temples. Bodin had apostatised to Judaisme, or perhaps Atheism, and it is no great matter what he says, nor is it of any great Authority, what Barc-lay says in a Romance, and the Reflections of Political Writers, when they refine upon any Subject, are not always wise in the practice as wise as they are in the Contemplation: Sir E. Cook was never against the Execution of our Penal Laws against Dissenters, and what Judge Jenkins says is only with respect to the time in which they were spoken, when it seemed Impossible, to make any accommodation without a General Toleration, but it pleased the providence of God to open another way which the wisest men were so far from foreseeing, that they durst hardly hope it, some years before.  
The words of King Charles the Martyr, had respect to the circumstances of this Kingdom when he wrote, and as for the preamble of the Statute of Queen Mary, it is but necessary, that those who cannot be brought to love, may be compelled to fear their Prince, extreme punishments such as are there intended, I believe we have none, and the extremest of ours were forced by the Sedition, and not designed against the Opinions of Dissenters, and if those-just Laws, that were made without any extreme punishment, had been duly executed, there had in probability been no occasion for other more severe penalties, so that if there be any addition of rigour, the Dissenters must thank those that favoured and connived at them for it, that encouraged them to be insolent and enterprizing, and forced the Government, to take greater security of a Party that began to grow ungovernable.  
As to the last ambiguous Citation, it is sufficient to reply, that the increase of Dissenters, did always increase not only the differences between King and People, and divided their interests, but likewise divided the interest and affections of the People, and therefore whatever way contribute most to the growth of a disaffected Party, cannot be healing, how moderate soever it may be, and if the Dissenters thought they would not thrive better under a Toleration, which I cannot see any reason why they should desire it.  
And now having returned this Answer to the Queres and considerations concerning Toleration, I might from the same Topics that are used to persuade to it, proceed to show that such a Toleration as is there demanded, is consistent neither with Christian Religion, right reason, nor the safety and Trade of the Kingdom. For what can be more unchristian, than to give wicked, or infatuated men licence to corrupt the Gospel, and Blaspheme the name of Christ, under pretence of Religion? What more uncharitable than to give leave to presumptuous men, to confirm themselves in their own rash mistakes, or to seduce others into the same snare of the Devil, deceiving and being deceived? What more absurd or contrary to sound reason, then to give course to the most extravagant, the most absurd Opinions under the colour of Religion and Conscience? And to expose the Common People, who do for the most part mean better than they understand, to the Practice and Solicitation of every tempting Imposter, and lastly what more inconsistent with the peace and safety of the Kingdom, than the cherishing of a Faction, which has once already overthrown this Monarchy and Church, and engaged very lately in the same design? And if the safety of the Government cannot consist with To leration, Trade to be sure can never strive under it, for Traders will quickly leave a People, whose Government is at the discretion of a Faction, or at leastwise so much threatened with apprehensions of change, as to be in probable danger. But I shall wave this advantage, being content to keep upon the defensive, however it be esteemed a part no less disadvantageous in controversy than it is in War, nor is it necessary to pursue the debate much farther, since it is sufficient ground for any reasonable man to presume, that the reason and the equity of our Laws, are no less firm than the Authority by which they were enacted, when the shall perceive that all the exceptions made now against them, are either frivolous or false, wherefore since there are no sufficient Reasons alleged why the Laws should comply with the Dissenters, I will briefly suggest some reasons why the Dissenters should comply with the Laws, without entering into the merits of the Cause, but keeping myself only to the Principles of the several Sects; so that it must needs be highly unreasonable to plead for a Toleration of such Dissenters, as might not only lawfully comply with all the Law requires, if their Consciences were rightly informed but may yet comply for the most part, even according to the Rule and the Conscience they profess.  
And here I must treat with them a part, as they are divided into several Religious Tribes, and Gonventicles, for when they are joined in one Politic and Seditious Rendezvous, it is no fit place to speak of Religion. And 

1. Why should any Presbyterian desire the Law against Conventicles should be repealed upon his account, since if he have not departed from his first Principles, he believes that separation from our Churches is not only unnecessary but unlawful. Several of the old Puritans, from whom our Presbyterians own their descent, have written as zealously against Separation, and the erecting of dissenting Congregrations as any of the Divines of the Church of England. Some of them indeed pretend that they go to Conventicles for greater Edification, but how can that be more edifying, that according to their Principles is unlawful? They may by the same way of reasoning, knock an old heavy teacher on the head, to make way for another that may be more powerful, and edifying. Therefore since a Presbyterian Conventicle, is as much a contradiction to the Principle and Conscience of Presbyterians, as to the Law of the Land, why should any body interceded for a Toleration of that, which their Principles disallow?  
2. Why should any Presbyterian desire Toleration for not coming to our Churches, since by their Principles it is not unlawful to hold occasional Communion with our Church, i. e. some time to join with us in Common Prayer, and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the last, and strictest Bond of Communion which Christians hold, and they have been hitherto very much to seek for reasons, why that Communion may not be as lawful to be used constantly, as it is upon occasions, the most plausible excuse they make is this, that they had Pastors of their own before the Re-establishment, of our Church, and therefore tho' they may occasionally communicate with us, as those of one Parish may go to a Neighbouring Church upon occasion, yet they cannot do it constantly, because of their Antecedent Obligation to their own Pastors. This excuse, if it were admitted, would not serve half the turn, for if this had any force, why should it not have been admitted in the cause of those Ministers that were turned out illegally, to make Room for the Presbyterians? Why were these Loyal Ministers deserted by the Presbyterians of those days, when they were forced by usurped power from the exercise of their Function. Besides there are but few of such Ministers now living, so that the excuse serves but very few Presbyterian Assemblies, and there are fewer yet upon the places where they were Ministers in the time of the late Rebellion, and therefore that relation ceases, which this excuse does suppose; for why should a company of Presbyterians in London, join themselves to one that taught in Hull or York, or perhaps in Scotland, upon this pretence that they ought not to forsake their former Ministers? So this can be no excuse why that occasional Communion which the Presbyterians profess lawful to hold with the Church of England, should not be improved into a constant one; therefore there is no need of Toleration for those who by their own Principle may Communicate with us upon occasion, especially the occasion of an Office, for which they are to be qualified by such Communion.  
3. The Independants indeed hold a necessity of separating from our, and all other Churches that are not of their form, and so their Principles render their compliance with some of our Laws more impracticable. Yet they have no reason to desire a Toleration for Conventicles, since those that the Law makes such are not necessary to them according to their own Principles. For The notion they have of a Church, makes such Conventicles as the Law punishes to be unnecessary, for Robinson affirms, that where two or three people are gathered there is a Church. Cotton requires a few more to make up the integrity of an Organic Church, i. e. 7, or 8. Now the Law makes no Assembly to be a Conventicle that has not near this number, besides the Persons of the Family, where this Meeting is held. Therefore, if the Law punish Independent Conventicles of greater numbers, it cannot truly be said that they are persecuted for Conscience, for that which the Law makes their Crime, i. e. their exceeding such a number, is a thing in their own Opinion unnecessary.    
4. If they cannot join with us in Common-Prayer, yet they may come to hear our Sermons, as well as those of the Presbyterians, which they hear occasionally, since no Principle of their Religion forbids it, and they require it in New England, of those who are not of their Church; and there is no reason they should have any Indulgence in such things as a misinformed Conscience makes necessary to them, before they show themselves willing to comply with the Law in every thing wherein their Conscience will give them leave.  
5. Our Anabaptists, being of near kin to the Independants, and having the same notions in a manner with them, concerning the necessity and the number of a Church; are concluded, by the same things as have been offered, against the Toleration of Independent Conventicles.  
6. But of all Sects the Quakers have the least reason to desire Toleration for their meetings, because they have not only cast away the use of all Sacraments, but also of reading and Interpreting the Scriptures in their Assemblies. They profess to be guided by the Spirit, i. e. Every one by his own, and that they have no other Guide or Teacher, but that Spirit that is within them. Wherefore they usually apply that Prophecy to themselves Literally, They shall not teach every one his Neighbour, nor every one his Brother, saying, know the Lord: For they shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest. Wherefore if there is to be no outward teaching, why do they teach in their meetings? Or to what purpose is it to teach there, where either every man is inspired with the Spirit of God, and so needs no teaching, or else can reap no Benefit by any thing that is said, because he has not the Spirit, without which he cannot be taught? Besides, what use is there of silent meetings, where there is nothing at all said? If they have any promise of the Spirit, to be inspired in these meetings, how comes it to fail? If they have not, why do they meet? The Spirit of the Apostles was never wanting on any public occasion, and we read of no Assembly of their time without Prayer, or Preaching: But the Spirit of the Quakers is of another sort, sometimes dumb, such as Christ used to cast out. And there is little Reason there should be any licence for public meeting of Persons only to gape, and groan in an uncertain expectation of being inspired; and since every one by those Enthusiasts is remitted to the Light within him, the most proper place, one would think for such dreamers, is a solitary and dark place, for they can attend better to that inward Light, that private Spirit, by Meditation, and turning their thoughts inwardly, than under the variety of application, that commonly distract men's thoughts in Public Assemblies.  
There are some other Sects among us, very earnest for Toleration, who have as little need of it, in that Part that regards their Assembling for Public Worship, as any of the former, and those especially whose service is performed in a Language they do not understand, have the least need of a Public Assembly; for if a man's understanding be absent from what is done, it does not import how far off the thing is from his presence, for he is as far from me to all intents of Benefit, that is out of the reach of my understanding, as he that is wholly out of my hearing, and a Mass that is said in Rome, may do me as much good by the Intention of the Priest there, as one at which I may be present, where I understand nothing but am only comprehended in the general expression of pro papulo Ciroumstante. Besides, the practice of men telling over their Beads in the Public Worship, declares that they belong not to it, and have no occasion for it, for they cannot in any sense be said to be at the same service, who do not join in the same Prayer. If while the Priest says Domine non sum dignus, I say a Pater, and another an Ave, and a third an Ora pro Nobis, this is no more one service, than it is a Harmony when every one sings or plays what comes in his sancy, without regarding the Tune or the Choras of any of his Fellow Minstrels, whereas if they were separated every man apart, might make some kind of Music.  
When there was no King in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own Eyes.  
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation.  
To the Law and the Testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.  
FINIS