SAMARITANISM OR, A TREATISE OF Comprehending, Compounding, and Tolerating SEVERAL RELIGIONS IN ONE CHURCH, DEMONSTRATING, The Equity and Necessity of the Act, and Late Vote of Parliament against Non-conformists. From Reason, the Ancient Church, and the Opinions, and Practice of Papists, and Puritans, now Plotting, and Pleading for Toleration.  
LONDON Printed for Robert Clavel, and are to be sold by Henry Broom, in Little Britain and Westminster-Hall.   

Of Liberty of RELIGION.  

CHAP I. A Preparative Enquiry into the Nature of Human Ecclesiastical Societies, in general.  
MAN being a Sociable Creature, according to the Observation of the Philosopher, and Common Experience; That Human Societies ought to excel Herds and flocks of , is most reasonable to conclude. For, a Multitude is one thing, and a Society another; and differ as much as a Common, and a Commonwealth. Yet, as such is the sagacity and subtlety of some Animals as that witty Philosophers have had enough to do to distinguish the supreme acts of some Beasts from the reasonable actions of Men; so have some acute Observers of the nature and order of certain Animals in community, discovered so much Decorum and perfection that they have entitled merely sensitive Creatures to the dignity of Human Societies: and do espy a semblance of Monarchy in the Regiment of Bees, and Popular Government in that of Ants. But the definition which Bodin gives of a Commonwealth, 
Bodinus de Rep. lib. 1. init. Respublica est Familiarum rerumque interipsas communium summa potestate ac ratione moderate multitudo.  doth sufficiently put a difference between them, which is this. A Commonwealth is a multitude of Families and Common Matter administered by a Supreme Power and Reason: For what ever we may judge, there is in some brutish Communities a Supreme Command; and that is founded on Sense and natural Instinct: And in Human Societies there is, and of necessity must be, a Supreme Authority founded on Reason and Natural Instinct. For as Common Sense proceedeth from Natural Instinct given to Beasts; so Reason proceedeth from, or is the Natural Instinct in Man: The Supreme act in Man being termed Reason; and the highest in Beasts, Sense. Though I confess the matter remains very difficult still, to distinguish clearly the one from the other; not in a definition (for that is easy enough to frame) but in the exercise of Acts, whether they belong to, or may be comprehended in the definition of Reason or no? Let others strain their Wits to that purpose; our present Subject calls us another way. And in the first place to note freely the pretty, pitiful, and fine presumptions of divers enquirers into the grounds and occasions of Human Societies; which because, forsooth, taken from Reason at first, some Men have imagined that Natural Instinct in Man was not principal in the Constitution of Commonwealths. Some therefore have wittily (at least as they suppose) said, That necessity was the cause why men combined together in one: Necessity of heat drove divers straggling Men to the same fire; and meeting there, they took up several Discourses and Counsels for their common Welfare. Others more seriously, if not more wisely, are of opinion. That self-defence and preservation against common Adversaries impelled many persons to associate together, and to elect some principal Defender of their Persons, and Director of their Affairs. But they consider not, nor give any account how such Enemies to some, came first to conspire into such a powerful Society, as to be able to offend others. Was this occasioned likewise from fear of others? If so, I will demand perpetually, How came those others so together? And at length it must of necessity be answered, From some other cause, & that cause must be at length, Natural Reason, Justice, and Law; whereby, according to Man, some were obliged to Subjection, as some had right of Dominion. Now what manner of Dominion that was, I leave to be inquired into.  
Yet withal I cannot but smile a little at the boldness and vain presumption of such who passing over the most visible original of Government, and what the facto it first was, (which certainly in all reason must needs be the most natural way of making out the truth) do betake themselves to the uncertain mazes and labyrinths of human imagination, which we find to be swayed and bribed to argue and conclude according to Self-interest, and particular cases of their own. Thus we read the Assertors of the Germane Empire to strain their Reasons to prove the Constitution of that Government according to the famous Golden Bull of Charles the Fourth, Emperor, to be most perfect, and natural. But Experience showeth us plainly, that nothing hath divided, and consequently weakened, more that once most potent and flourishing Nation, than those Immunities and Laws have; and rendered the Supreme Power so uncertain and obscure, that 'tis an hard matter to find where it is seated; or, if so to find that to be a Monarchy, and not a Commonwealth, or at lest a Combination of Monarchies and Commonwealths.  
The like course hath Contarenus taken in his description of the State of Venice, (for that too must be held to be most natural) bending his Wits to draw the Law and course of Nature to a conformity to his reason, and his reason to the condition of that Commonwealth.  
The same course hath Bellarmine (and other, especially Jesuitical Authors of the Church of Rome) followed in his Previous Controversies to his Disputations of the Power, and Regiment of the Pope, contending hard, that the Government is most Reasonable and Christian, which suits best with the Actual Power of the Roman Bishop and Clergy. And some have proceeded to that degree of admiration of that Form, that they have ventured to affirm, That Christ had not done wisely, if he had not ordained and disposed matters just as they now stand among them. And are not there to be found amongst us, who have delivered the very same expressions in behalf of the Presbytery?  
And this eyeing of instances rather than following the clue of his own most rational Wit was that which caused the Philosopher Aristotle to be so inconstant to himself in his Politics. For when he handled the case abstractly, he judged excellently of the true nature of Government, and the most natural Government. But then, having before his eyes what great offence he must necessarily give to his Country of Greece, which abounded with several Polities of a strange nature; he found it requisite to strain his Leather to their Lasts. Especially considering, that if those Nations, who were for Wit and Learning, the most eminent of all the World, should disrelish his Schemes (as in all probability they would, as they disagreed from their plat-forms) it might prove an incurable prejudice to his Works. For, as it is seen in Religion, it happens in Civil Polities too, that the more it is with acuteness and subtlety penetrated, and discussed, the more corrupt and degenerate it is in the use and practice.  
For that there is a Government of Divine appointment, as well in Secular as Religious Societies, is not to be much doubted of; and that all in specie cannot be such, is evident from the variety and contrariety of them: For the voice of God is either that innate direction, and natural, and indeliberate election and inclination to which Men by a  universal consent do tend, and plainly is to one kind of Political Government only, and not indifferently to any, as by instances may be given from all people, whose first Governors were always Monarches without exception. For that after a State hath for a long time been founded and selted, Men out of several regards and motives set their Wits on work, and changed the same, not to that Form which really was best but best pleased them, cannot prejudice the title it hath to be Divine and Natural: for as much as we see that nothing is so natural or indisputably divine, but it may be, and hath been altered, and thwarted by the bold and unquiet Wits of Men; and no where are such alterations oftener to be found than where Wit and Learning most flourish; for from an opinion these breed in men, are they tempted to despise the simplicity, and direct path of Natural reason to seek more fine and curious ways of administering the common Interest; Or, the voice of God is that Scriptural word of God which gives neither precedent nor rule, nor precept for above one Government in either of the Polities.  
Some suppose to moderate and compound the matter by affirming, that Government in general is of Divine Institution but God hath left it to the liberty of Men to make choice of one Species or kind of Government, according as it shall suit best with the Genius and Humours of the people to be governed. But against this I have more to object than may be proper for this occasion. I shall therefore demand first, By what Rules of Reason, or Philosophy such Men proceed? for, hitherto in other things it was never heard of that God should positively create or ordain a thing in the Genus or Species, and so that the Individuum under them should take its being and subsist; when as, what ever Being is in the Genus or Kind is owing to the Particular subsisting by itself. For more plainness: Can we say, that God first made a living Creature in general, and from thence sprang Man and Beast? or an Horse, and Socrates? Did he not rather first of all create this Man in particular, and so Human Nature had its original specifical; and first create this Individual Beast, and so from thence that nature of Animals take its denomination and being. And thus was it in the Institution of Governments. God cannot rationally nor truly be said to make Government in general, or ordain it, and not first institute some one particular Government, from whence the like might be termed Divine, and the Species itself such.  
Consider we farther, how more than ridiculous it were that Divine Institution should be of such immense extent and capacity, as that it were impossible for the boldest and wildest wit of Man to invent such a form as should not be divine? Which must of necessity follow, or the quite contrary, that no Government is of divine appointment in specie; both which are equally and utterly false and absurd. The former, in that it makes Divine Right like the fabulous fiction of Poets concerning Victory between two Armies engaging, hanging in the Air, and hover over men's heads, until the main stroke be struck, and Men have voted especially for one sort of Government, and then forthwith down comes Divine Right amain, and lighting on it makes it undoubtedly Divine. And to hold that no Government is of Divine Original, is to destroy all Right of Rule; and, as some enemies to Mankind have with impudence and stupidity (even while they seek nothing so much as to appear transcendent) proportionably to reduce all kinds and actual possession of Empire to the base principle of Beasts, strength and force; and his it is, as well in Justice as Act, who can catch it. Such a Philosopher indeed as this (and, as Reason and Religion now goes, such an one is no small fool amongst us) deserves to have the edge of his acute wit turned against him, and to be disputed with, as Men are wont to do with his fellow beasts destructive to Mankind, with a Kennel of hounds, spears, and staffs.  
But I return to demand further, Whether that Charter is extant, to whom it properly and by divine intention pertains, that Men may choose what Government they please? That which God would have is sufficiently made known unto us from the nature and form of that which by his special Providence first, and only appeared for hundreds of years in the World. Those which succeeded and excluded the Primitive, were the effect of passions principally: But no sooner had Lust, Interest, and Error caused men to introduce their own devices, but instantly Nature and Scripture were drawn to assert and sustain them; as Bastards left in distress and helpless, are put to honest Women to Nurse and bring up.  
I know very well, and readily grant that all sorts of Governments have somewhat Divine in them; but this they have not as several sorts, nor as such Forms, but in respect of the matter they are concerned in, which principally is that truly Divine Law, Justice; which as to the matter of it, may as really, though not so regularly, be administered in one kind, as another.  
But he that would faithfully and successively settle his judgement in the true and genuine kind of Government, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, ought not to proceed in that long, tedious, and most uncertain way of men's minds and Interests, of enquiring, which of all seems most reasonable, most equal, most holy, and beneficial to the ends of all Rule; and conclude that to be so, which seems to their understanding, to be blessed most plentifully with these; but must impartially and sincerely inquire after the Fact immediately; which of all these have the fairest and clearest proofs of being de facto institututed of God. For, a quite contrary method may be observed in the Will and Laws of Men, and of God: Man chooseth and decrees a thing because it is good and laudable; but on the contrary, because God wills and ordains a thing, therefore is it good of necessity; according as Gerson hath excellently observed, Deus non ideò vult res ed extra fieri quia bonae sunt, 
Gerson de Consolation Theologiae. Pros. 2.  quemadmodum movetur humana voluntas ex objectione boni, vel veri vel apparentis. Est è contra potius, quod ideò res ad extra bonae sunt, quia Deus vult eas tales esse: Ideóque si vellet eas vel non esse, vel aliter esse, id quoque jam bonum esset, etc. Thus he. For instance, We all, or mostly agree, that the Parts of Man's body are placed most aptly for use and service of the whole, and most beautifully for ornament placed in the same. Yet supposing that it had been the will of God to have set the Nose of Man behind him, his Eyes in his Breast, his Ears on the Crown of his Head, and his Mouth on the Navel of his Belly, without dispute this had been the most wise, beautiful, and useful order. In like manner, had it seemed good to God to cast Civil and Church-Government into any other shape, form, or condition than actually he hath, it were not to be questioned but it would be most perfect and excellent. From all which (ending this Chapter) I infer these Conclusions as certain and pious:  
First, That both Polities have a Government especially Divine.  
Secondly, I conclude, That Government so Divine is not to be altered under specious pretexts, and Human ratiocinations and presumptions offering themselves, that another sort would serve the ends of Community better: For the fault may be, and most commonly is, in the knottiness and cross-grainness of the piece of Wood, and not in the Tool, or Artificer. And more reasonable it is divers times, the People should be changed, than their Laws or Government; though the contrary is commonly seen, that when they offend in untractableness, they cast off the accusation from themselves, by chastising the Laws, controverting Titles, and quareling at the imperfections and inconveniences of that Government they live under, as not good enough for them.   

CHAP. II. A Second General Preparation to the determining the Question, by removing vulgar mistakes concerning Tyranny, Antichristianism, Christian Liberty, Extremes, and Moderation.  
IT is too plainly seen, that words, which at first were instituted to serve Man's understanding, and guide it into the knowledge of things, do command, pervert, and hurry it into many mistakes and errors: Or perhaps, to speak more properly, the vulgar use corrupting them causeth this mischief. And hence it is that an opprobrious name maliciously or ignorantly given, and commonly applied is abundantly sufficient to captivate ordinary Minds into an evil opinion of things undeservedly. Call therefore a Government Tyrannical, Antichristian, Extreme, Immoderate, and against Christian Liberty; this with the Common sort, proves such a Government ought not to be endured, though it be not all proved that such terms properly belong to it, nor indeed such persons who are so liberal of their ill language know well what they say, or whereof they affirm. Let us endeavour then to come very briefly to a true notion of some of them.  
Concerning Tyranny then, a grand and current mistake there is that it is properly a Species or kind of Government; which is true indeed if it be taken in the Ancientest, not Modern sense, for the same with Monarchy, or the Government of One. And thus in truth divers have of late taken it, supposing that Monarchy and Tyranny are the same; and that the Rule of One absolutely must of necessity be Tyranny, which is altogether as true as the other extreme they fall into, viz. That all Government by many is a Government of Liberty. Aristotle when he said, That Monarchy easily degenerates into Tyranny, did not say or mean that it was so in its own nature: Neither, did he say Polycratie did not, nor could fall into the same. For he that will be at the small pains to weigh the matter sincerely, shall easily perceive that Tyranny is no Government of itself, but the corruption of Government. And Liberty is no more essential to Aristocracy, or such like Government, Constituted of many Rulers, than to Monarchy; and that dreadful thing, called Arbitrary Power, is altogether as incident to the Rule of Many; as when One alone has the Supreme Power: Nay, there must of necessity be an Arbitrary Power, and Actually is, in all Commonwealths, 
Anarchy of mixed Monarchy.  as hath been Irrefragably Demonstrated by others already, who are not of the Clergy, who are often Censured, for driving matters of this nature too high. For it is impossible any Commonwealth should subsist, or continue without a Supreme Absolute Power; and where ever this is, there is that we call Arbitrary Power. Many People indeed, observing the evils of this, have so Framed their Government, and Constituted Governors as to prevent the same; and have almost infinitely multiplied Governors, and Inspectors over Governors, and Check over Check, but could never find success answerable; the last Remedy of all therefore against Courts, Princes, and Greatest Councils, have been to entitle the People in Gross, to take account of such Irregularities: but such a remedy, 
Populum autem non omnem coetum multitadinis, sed coetum juris consensu & utilitatis communione sociatum esse determinat. Scipio. Ciceronianus apud Augustinum de Civitate Dei. Lib. 2. cap. 21.  as it could never so much as take place, for as much as never did, or can the People concur Universally to such Ends but the Major, or more Active, and busy part carried the name of all, which commonly is a piece of as great injustice, and injury, as any they would cure by such jealous Vigilancy: and if it could be done, Were not this as Arbitrary a Proceeding, as the very First of all?  
There is therefore, and must be in all Government an Absolute, and Arbitrary Power. Now, that, when this Supremest Power is vested in One, it must presently be called a Tyranny; when in many, Liberty, is a miserable cheat of the Common-people by ambitious, and discontented persons, seeking the advancement of themselves, by the Oppression of others. For, as the Apostle in another Case hath it; Thou art inexcusable, O man, who so ever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest, dost the same things. So that if it be unjust for One who is Supreme, to do such a thing towards such as are Subject to him, it is unjust for Many so to do; and if it be Tyrannical for Him, it is Tyrannical in Many, even in a Senate: For, what is Tyranny, but an excessive use, or exercise of Power, contrary to the Law of Reason, and Justice: So that Tyranny, doth not consist in the abundance of Power, but in the abuse: as other Moral Vices, do not consist in full power to offend, but in the ill use of such Power. For, as Drunkenness consisteth not in having plenty of Wine, nor Gluttony in having choice and command of rich and various Fare (and so in other things); but in taking too liberally, and inordinately of them: So Tyranny is not the uncontrollableness of Power in One Person or more, but the unreasonable and immoderate use according to Power. For he indeed is a Tyrant that thus carries himself, and that Council is Tyrannical, yea, that People is Tyrannical, which contrary to the Law of Reason Invadeth, and Mutilateth the Rights of Dominion belonging to their Governors, which may be their Property as justly, and reasonably, as any Goods, or Possessions belonging to Subjects, may be so termed, in respect of them. A thing, which if it were impartially, and conscionably considered, methinks People would be more modest, than to think all those Privileges, and Liberties (they can, by flattery, craft, or taking advantage of necessities into which their Governors may be brought, gain to themselves) lawful spoil; or indeed, though at first sight they may appear so, profitable for themselves: For suppose we, that a people studious of Liberty, should not only procure a Law that they should be free from all contributions to common good but what voluntarily they should please to give; 

August. Devit. Dei. Lib. 2. ca 21.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch. De sera Numinis. & Psal. 94.20.   but likewise, by such a Law, that they should never be compelled (which we vulgarly, and corruptly call, Pressed) to the Wars; this surely would seem a glorious Liberty, and benefit to the common sort, but really would in short time prove the ruin of the whole. There is such an Immunity claimed by the Commons of the Confederate Netherlands, which hath endangered; and certainly, had not the Governors found out some pretty tricks to elude it, had unavoidably brought those Commonwealths to nothing. St. Austin in his Book of the City of God, tells us, That Scipio in Tully calls an unjust King a Tyrant; and unjust Nobles, Governing, a Faction; and speaking of the excess of Popular Government, to that, saith he, Nomen non reperit, nisi ut etiam & ipsum Tyrannum vocaret, i.e. He could find no name for them, but Tyrants also: Neither have such just excuse, because perhaps they have a Law on their side. For the Law itself, may have been extorted; and, if freely Enacted, yet unjust in itself, as that we last mentioned; and that Law of which the Psalmist speaketh, framing mischief; and that Law, which many vehemently plead for in Church-Discipline, as that wherein consisteth (as they fond, and falsely imagine, or perhaps would seem to believe rather) Christian Liberty, That every man should do as he pleases, in things so Indifferent that they are not under any Precept or Prohibition of God's Word: For this would inevitably produce differences; and differences, in such inconsiderable matters, will infallibly proceed to Animosities and Divisions in greater matters, and there terminate in the overthrow of all Discipline, or Government: I say, All Discipline. Now there is a Discipline which Mr. Beza held to be a third Essential part of a true Church, 

Cartwright in Second Reply p. 53.  
Id. First Reply. pa. 14.   if we believe Mr. Cartwright, relating his opinion or his own: Which is, That matters of Discipline, and kind of Government, are not to be distinguished from matters necessary to Salvation and Faith: So that however they seem to be of this destructive Opinion (and indeed, they often and plainly affirm so much) yet they be no longer of it, than till such time as the Power be in their own hands: just as the Miller stops the course of the Waters, not that he is absolutely against Rivers, what ever he may seem to be, but till he shall find it necessary for his own Grist. Now to return to the Application of what we have said, concerning Tyranny, which our Church-Government is commonly, and boldly charged with by Sectaries, and particularly, in their Synodical Letters to Transmarine Churches; They may learn at Length, that no Government in its Nature is Tyrannical, but the evil Administration of any Government makes any so, though Democratical. For it is not necessary, that the Persian, Turkish, or Tararian Government should be Tyrannical, more than That of Venice, or of the United Provinces. For these have as Absolute and Arbitrary Dominion as they. 'Tis true, these have more Moderate and Favourable Laws of Ruling than They: But who shall constrain them to observe them, if they please to break them? The People? So may the People bring those Barbarous Kings to more equal dealing, if they can, as well as the other. If therefore Many in Authority, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical do the same things, and have as much Power as One; the Tyranny of this differs from the Tyranny of them, just as much as a pound of Lead doth from a pound of Feathers; which is no small matter with vulgar Judges. Therefore, until Reformers of Governments deny the power to themselves which they deny to others, and the exercise thereof; let them accustom their mouths to more ingenuous and sincere language, and either forbear to traduce others with that ignominious term, or begin to hollow it by their profession and practice. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot. Ethic. lib. 1. c. 10. Basil. M. in Princip. Prov. Isido. Pelusiot. lib. 3. Epi. 194. & lib. 4. Epist. 142.  For 'tis but changing the singular into the plural number, and Aristotle's description of a Tyrant will suit as well with States and Classes, as with King and Bishops: viz. The Tyrants seek their own good, but Princes seek the good of them they govern: Wherein he is followed by Saint Basil; as is he, by I sidore Pelusiotes. But let us proceed to what follows.  
Next in order, nature, and abuse, is infamous Extremity, immoderateness, or want of moderation, in managing Controversies, and composingand curing Divisions and Differences: For, whoso shall go under such imputations of the Vulgar shall have enough to answer for, though no more be objected against him. Let us see therefore what is Moderation, and consequently Extremities, according to vulgar acception. After this manner then, Moderation is the same in effect with the art of cleaving of Billets, cutting or chopping a thing in the middle, and dividing the live-Child into two equal parts between the unjust pretender, and the true Mother, without any due consideration of the cause itself, 
Plutarch. in Symposias.  in justice, but the peace of different Parties. For as Plutarch observeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. With Fools and Knaves there is no such thing as the Mean, as to the Thing. But if Men be extremely distant from, or opposite to a thing or person, then presently do they accuse the same of Extremes, not considering that it is in the power of any Man to declare & denominate a thing extreme, by his only act of extremely departing from it, as easily as it is in his power by turning himself about, to cause a thing to stand to the left or right hand. If then to reconcile Matters and come to a Mediocrity, we shall think it fit to clap into the middle, and give one of the Dissenters one part, and another, the other; we shall quickly dispatch and destroy all Virtue, all Religion, and all Justice, in pretending fairly, and intending foully to conserve them. But Truth, as Plutarch hath wisely noted, 
Plutarch. de Adulatore.  is to be sought out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. for virtue's sake, not for the extreme vice: Unless therefore Men shall first agree upon a rule and standard to measure opinions and actions, and accusations, besides what is famed or defamed for Extreme, it is in vain and foolish to talk of Moderation or extreme. For, had our Ancestors held only to that kind of trial, and accommodating differences either in State or Church; we had had neither Justice, nor Religion, to strive or contend about at present; or, at least, that far from the true. For first, Judaisme may be said to be a Mean between Mahometism and Christianism; Popery a Mean between Judaisme and Socinianism: Again, the Reformation a Mean between Papism and Socinianism; and the English Reformation, a Mean between Popery and Puritanism: And, if we must be forced to farther Moderation still, Independency will be found a Mean between Presbyterism and Episcopal Government, as Presbyterism is a Mean between Episcopacy and Independency; and Independency a Mean between Presbytery and Anabaptism, and Anabaptism a Mean between Independency and Quakerism; and so on, till the wit of Man shall be able to invent no more Extremes; which whether that will ever be, I know not. Now would I demand, (if it were lawful) Which of all these is truly eligible for the Mean sake? and when that shall be pitched on and chosen, Upon what account and ground? Must it not be rather because of some special Virtue proper to it as coming nearer to that we constitute and propound to ourselves, as a certain Rule and Principle, than for that it stands between two Extremes, which is common also to that Religion which we reject? For 'tis evident by Antiquity, that by the fair face of Mediocrity the Arians under Constantius the Emperor prospered to the cozenage of the simpler, and overthrow of the wiser Catholics. But how well Hilary thought of this method of Pacification and quieting stirs in the Church, 
Hilarius contra Constant.  these his words to Constantius plainly testify, Haec ille pater tuus humanarum mortium docuit, vincere sine contumacia, jugulare sine gladio, persequi sine infamia, odir sine suspicion, mentiri sine intelligentia, profiteri fine fide, blandiri sine bonitate, agere quod velis, nec manifestare quae velis, i. e. This your Father, the mortal Enemy to man taught you, to Conquer without Fierceness, to Stab without a Sword, to make Profession and yet have no Faith, to flatter without goodness, to obtain your will, and yet not to discover your will. Thus he. And this certainly and generally do they, who contend for Moderation, after so many, and great Instances, as may already be given of their condescensions and concessions, from whom still boldly and afresh more Moderation is exacted, as if nothing had been done to seek their Peace and good Opinion; whose immodesty and immoderateness will not suffer them to rest, so long as they have any hope left them to obtain their Ends, under the specious pretext of Moderation: For if what, and as often as, they demand, be granted; upon that account, they must of necessity, in time (and that not long) exhaust and quite destroy them insensibly: If they be not gratified in this, so fair and Popular request; then will they shrewdly endanger their Reputation and Interest, by bringing them under the Odium and Infamy with the Multitude, for Persons in Extremes, and who will yield nothing for Peace and Unitie's sake. But for my own particular, I had rather be Rob than Cheated; and suffer the same loss by open violence and aggressions, than by fair frauds, by which I must believe at the same time I am dealt Friendly, and Equally with.  
It being then in the Power of any single Person, and much more of a Faction, to make a Church, or, more truly, to denominate it, Extreme and Immoderate, when ever they please to run far enough from it, by their roving Inventions and Innovations; When will there be any rest, or stability from such accusers; if such a Church shall presently be obliged by the Sacred Bonds of Charity, Unity, and Peace, to leave its ground and follow them, at lest in part, and to relinquish its Possession and Right, lest by the foresaid Engine of show and pretence of Moderation, it be turned out of doors? Surely, God must be trusted in such Cases, if there were no other reason (as there are many and weighty) besides the necessity of discouraging such Attempts, which would never be wanting, when such success is hoped for, upon such general and weak, though plausible, Pleas.  
It is wont to be said, that all this may be true, for it is not fit all Pretenders and Opinions should be Tolerated, or yielded to; but this makes nothing against the Sober, Godly, and Conscientious Party, who can do somewhat, in order to a Reconciliation; and keep close to the Rule of the Scripture.  
I do observe, that the best Arms (even such men have to prevail with), are, very frequent and large praises of themselves, and profuse self-commendation, which hath had wonderful great success: For if you demand an Argument, and some competent Proof that they are so Conscientious, or how possibly they can be said to be so, who have been so enormous in Sins of a Party, and not Personal Sins; you shall find shameful tergiversation, or more shameful Justification of such Practices, as, in our estimation no Sober, Honest, or truly Conscientious man can be subject to, and much less defend.  
And as touching the great Regard, pretended to be had to the Word of God, we see no cause to take them at their Word, or that they should measure, and judge their own Last. It is a stronger and more reasonable Proof, that they have not the Scriptures on their side, than any they can bring that they have, That all indifferent standers by, give it against them: I mean, the Tradition and Practice of the best and ancientest Churches  
Neither will the Doctrine of Christian Liberty relieve these; if better understood, than vulgarly it is. For, not to make a set Dispute of that Subject at present, two general Errors may be noted which have evil Influence upon men: First, That Christian Liberty is only Negative, being completed in a freedom from Judaical Servitude, or Bondage under Moses his Law; or not doing what was indispensably Imposed by that Law, on that People: and not in any thing Positive, or a Licence to act more than it was free or Lawful for them. Though I do not find that it was by Moses his Law, made utterly Unlawful, for that People to Act any thing, besides what was Commanded expressly by it; It is plain, that in process of time they did contrive many things Extrinsecally related to the Worship of God. Neither are such their Ordinances any where reprehended in Scripture; but such are often, which are contrary to their Law, or justle out the orders of God, and his precepts, and these are the places brought so against Human Inventions subservient to God's command; very ignorantly, or peevishly. But however, Liberty of Christians extendeth as well to the Affirmative as Negative part; that is, to do those things which are not prohibited any ways by God's Word, as well as not to do those things which the Jews were bound to do. Hence it follows, that, were it so, that the Jewish Church was tied up so strictly (which I do not believe) that it could not act any thing circumstantiating the service of God but what was directly required, yet Evangelical Liberty, being as well of a far more ample as noble condition, doth permit such things, contrary to the superstition of late Pastors.  
Another Mistake is concerning the proper seat or subject of Evangelical Liberty. For, divers there are that suppose that such Liberty we now treat of (for I know there are divers other sorts of far more excellent nature, but not concerning us at present) belongeth immediately and entirely, to each single good Christian; which is far from truth and sobriety to conceive: For Christ gave this Donative primarily and immediately to his Church and the Administrators thereof; that they, according to Christ's Charter, should have liberty to institute, abrogate, order, and dispose matters, such Rites and Observances as shall seem to them most conducible to the Faith and Worship of God under the Gospel; yet with such limitations both for number and nature, that none be introduced contrary to the tenor thereof, or Analogy of Faith, or tend to the burying of any integral part or practise thereof under such rubbish; yet are not presently all private Christians allowed to preside over their Superiors, to the determining what is of evil consequence, and what not, against public judgement: For Instance, To have power to determine the eating of Flesh on Friday or not, is undoubtedly a Liberty Evangelical; but 'tis not immediately posited in every particular Christian, but the Church Representative; and private persons have no liberty but as it is dispensed by public Authority. When I call this a Liberty Evangelical, I mean not as too many do, as if such an indifferency must properly belong to Christians; for it doth not: For Infidels and Heathen have that liberty as fully as Christ's Church; and they in Authority amongst them may as well grant or deny this Liberty as Christians; and no question but such as are subject to them should offend if they perversely refused to comply with their Superiors orders. Does therefore, think we, Christian Religion and Liberty exempt us from that kind of obedience which is naturally due? For my part, that I hold a double obligation, rather of Christians to submit; and that I can rather pity, than help such as are of the contrary Opinion, is all that I shall say at this time: Yet we see that too common amongst us, which Calvin himself end eavoured to scoff men out of, in these Words, 
Calvin. jastitut. Lib. 3. cap. 9  Videas quosdam quibus sua libertas non videtur consistere, nisi per esum carnium die Veneris in ejus possessionem venerint, i.e. You may see some who suppose their Liberty cannot hold, unless they take Possession of it, by eating Flesh on Fridays. To conclude then, It is directly repugnant to Christian Liberty to deny, the Church hath power to appoint the use, or disuse of things Indifferent; and 'tis absolutely inconsistent with Evangelical Piety, and the power of Godliness (which consist much in denying our own Wills and Appetites) to glory how easily we Contemn such Lawful Orders.  
I had thought to have said somewhat, against the bold Charge of Antichristianism laid to our Church; and a reason, why men that cannot Rule us must not obey it: But I perceive the  of our late Reformers to be somewhat abated, and like men newly come out of Calentures, they begin to come to their senses, to see they were monstrously out, though not so much to their Reason, as to make satisfaction for such Frantic Miscarriages by a sober retractation, and disabusing of Men, (as in Conscience they are bound) from that, and such like Extravagancies.  
But for Peace-sake, and to prevent a Schism, we ought to condescend to our Brethren, who (to use their own Phrase, which they best know what it means) can come up to us in many things. But what means this great and sudden Change in these men? Are not they the very same, who formerly made it Criminal, yea Capital to Preach Peace, and propound Reconciliation? Yes sure, but Times, not Manners are altered. Surely somewhat extraordinary is at the bottom of all this. They Act not according to Nature, but outward necessity: and such a Peace is not worth the having, which can never be held any longer, than men shall be able to break it, or work their ends by Insinuations and fair Promises; open force failing them. Like as it is seen with an impure Assailant of Virginity, the party being Rescued by an extraordinary Providence out of his wicked Hands, he turns to her again, and tempts her to his Lust by promises of Marriage; but having obtained his ends, despises, whom he hath undone: Or as the Lion and the man's Daughter, in the Apologue: The Lion sought the Father's consent for his Daughter: Very willingly, said the man, upon condition that you will suffer your Claws to be pared close, and your Teeth taken out, lest you hurt my tender Daughter: The Lion's extreme love caused him to do so; and then demainding his Spouse, was not only denied her, but, not being able to help himself, was knocked ' o'th' head for his kind Condescensions. When the Church of England hath spoiled itself of its proper and natural Guards, then will the fair Discipline be monstrously kind to it: and the event every man sees. But what at length do they intent by their enigmatical speech of Coming up to us? Will they Renounce one branch of their Covenant? Will they for ever lay aside one of the Cords of their Whip with six strings? I have seriously asked and urged some of them, and could not get any lasting Concession, any longer than they shall be enabled to exact the whole: And do we admire they should, until that time, seem at least satisfied with part? Let them name one thing, that for Peace-sake for these Hundred years, they would give to us more than we had before; But very many Relaxations have been make already, and are we awhit the nearer? Or is it not then time to make a stop of Dispensations; when the Dispensation for a time shall be alleged against the Law, and Canon itself? And it is no kindness at all (in their opinions) that such Mitigations and Connivance have been; but Extremity, Tyranny, Injustice, Uncharitableness, to restore the Pristine force and vigour to Ecclesiastical Laws. Upon these and the like Considerations, I conclude with Tully to Antony. 
Cic. Philip  Quaeris quare pacem nolo? Quia turpis; Quia periculosa; Quia esse non potest. Would ye know, why I will have no peace? Because it is dishonest, because it is dangerous, and because it cannot be. It must needs be dishonest and dishonourable, because of the conditions required. For they having extremely separated themselves from us, and standing at that distance firmly, do cast the odious terms of Extremes, upon them they have so left; and call their dragging us to them, their coming home to us; and their pulling us down to their pleasures, their coming up to us. And that it is dangerous, appears from manifold Tenets, interpreted clearly against their own temporising Glosses; by their apparently wicked attempts and practices: And if there were no more than present ambiguous, 
John Cerbet's Interest of England. pag. 24. pag. 57  and two-handled Phrases whereby they  themselves, and distinguish themselves from others, they are much to be suspected. For we often do hear them Magnifying their Capacities and Genius's, as that they are Freeborn Subjects; they are a free spirited People; a freeborn People; and such like: which as they are special pieces of flatteries to make the common sort proud of themselves, so truly, we cannot throughly understand what they signify: but this we know, such Phrases change like water, in Weather-glasses: If it be a fair and clear time with us, than do they fall down low, to a very tolerable sense; but if fowl and troublesome, then do they rise to a higher Meaning a great deal, and Actions suitable. And what possibility of Reconciliation and Peace durable, is to be expected from those men, whom nothing truly will content less, than their entire Discipline? but if they accept less for the present, they take it, only as men do debts hard to be got in, in part of payment, until they shall be able to recover all. Hear what the above mentioned Pretended Moderator saith, and you will begin to see, what great hopes, or advantage may be had of them.  
The Public State of these Differences is such, 
John Corbet's Interest. pag. 109.  that the Prelatists may, and aught to descend to the Presbyterians in the proposed Moderate Way; but the Presbyterians cannot come up to the Prelatists in the height of their Way. For the Prelatists' Condescension, stands only in the omission of certain things, which seem to them laudable; but the Subjection of the Presbyterians stands, in Subscribing, and Conforming to certain things, which seem to them unlawful. Thus he. But, according to what Rule does it appear, which is here weakly and childishly taken for granted, that the Prelatists (as this Jack-straw miscalls those of the Church of England) are so high? Let it be showed, what is the Mean they have so far exceeded; and what Laws of Church-Government they have, or do Transcend? If they make their Interpretations of Scripture, the Law; their Models, the Rule; their Discipline, the Mean, we ought to compare, examine and judge ourselves by, we must confess we are out; we are in the Extreme, we are very high: but who could be so bold besides these men, to expect such a fond and absurd concession? And who so stupid among us, to yield, to that most Ridiculous way of Trial? when We being the only Legal Visible Church of this Nation, as to outward Constitutions, in all equal men's reason have a Right to judge them, and rather Condemn them of Extreme, on the contrary side, to which, we neither can, nor aught to descend. But it will be said, The Reformed Churches abroad may direct us. Ye are to know, and consider, That there is not One Reformed Church that We can hear of, that (were it their Case, as it is yours) would thus tug, and stand out against us: as Mr. Durel hath amply showed. Again, Our Church hath no such Obligations, to receive the Sentence of All the Reformed Churches put together; as you have, to submit to Ours, as being generally Educated in, and under the same. And Thirdly, I Appeal to all the World, What an unwise, and ungodly Charity it would be in us, so to condescend to your Pitch, and conceptions of Church-Government, and Orders for the gaining of a very uncertain Peace with you, and thereby put ourselves out of a possibility, of having any Communion, or Peace with almost infinite Churches abroad; who will receive into Communion and Fellowship, none that want such things, as you require us to lay away, for love of you. I speak not so much of the Romish Church, as Greek and Eastern churches; with whom to hold Communion and Peace, by retaining such Constitutions and Orders as we now enjoy, is ten times more desirable, and Charitable, than for your sakes to part with them. And we are assured, under your devices, we shall never obtain it. Furthermore, whence hath this Author, That they of the Church hold those things only Laudable, wherein it differeth from Sectaries? And that it is not as unlawful according to our Consciences to omit them, as it is with their Consciences to do them? We do not ('tis true) hold them to have any Moral Good in them, of themselves, and therefore we call them Indifferent. And the Presbyterians do not affirm they have any Moral Evil, and therefore grant they may be observed. There must therefore be something more in the wind than Conscience, on these men's parts, which detain them: For as much as neither they, nor any man else, can pretend an Offence of Conscience, where there is neither real, nor apparent Evil: but 'tis a contradiction that any thing should so much as appear to be Evil, or Sinful, while it appears Indifferent. Therefore according to the Presbyterians own Tenets, they may come up to us; for it can only be pretended to be against their Consciences. And if they Allege any Cause, why that, which in itself is not Evil, nor against their Conscience, may be, and is, upon another account, which 'tis easy to guests at; I will answer, That, just so it is with the Church of England: Many things which being not absolutely, and in themselves good, or necessary, and so consequently may be omitted with a safe Conscience; for certain adventitious advantages, and Exterior Accounts, no whit inferior to those of the other side, they cannot with a good Conscience be Abolished, or Omitted. And thus we see the Vanities and Mistakes in alleging Extremities, Moderation, Tyranny, and tender Conscience, in these Cases.   

CHAP. III. A General determination of the Question according to Reason.  
THat all Factions, Parties, Persons, or Religions are not to be Tolerated, or granted Liberty; I think all agree. It will be necessary then in the First place, to lay down certain Distinctions, serving to judge of the reasonableness of such Inhibition towards some, rather than others. And they may concern either the Persons or the Religion, or lastly, the kind of Tolerations or Restraint, themselves.  
Persons pleading for Liberty of Religion are First, either such as are of themselves altogether Free from any Civil, or Moral Subjection from us, or such as by Birth and Education being incorporated into the same Body, and Polity, are, and aught to be, subordinate unto the Head thereof.  
Secondly the Religion Insisted on, and Pleaded for, is either Repugnant to the light and prime Principles of Nature and human Society, or Consistent with the same.  
Thirdly, because all Restraint Moral, such as is Dissuasion, Refutation, Exclusion from the Society of others, is by the concession of all Parties insufficient to suppress a growing Evil, oftentimes; and therefore outward Civil Mulcts, and Punishments are in such Case, to be Inflicted; the diversity of such Punishment is to be considered. For according to the Civil Law, Punishments are either Corporal, or Non-corporal. And Corporal, are either Capital, or Not-Capital, Punishment Not-Corporal is that, which divests a man of any Profits, Emoluments, or Dignities. Corporal, and Not-Capital, is that, which is Inflicted on a man's Body, without taking away the Life. Capital, is that which destroys Life. According to these therefore, it may be answered to the main Querie:  
First, That it is not only Lawful and Reasonable to allow a Toleration to Persons in Co-ordination to us, and not depending upon us; But it is very unjust, and unnatural to attempt by Force, to reduce them to our way of serving God: 
Humani juris & naturalis potestatis est, unicuique quod putaverit colere; nec alii obest aut prodest altertus Religio. Sed nec Religionis est cogere Religionem, quae sponte suscipi debet: non enim cùm & hostiae animo libenti suscipi expostalentur. Tertullianus Ad ●●capulam. ca 2. Vide Thomam 22. qu. 10. Artic. 8.  For such kind of Force, or Violence, cannot be offered, but by Civil Power assumed; and Civil Power ought never to be exercised, but by Lawful Authority: and they, whom we suppose to be of distinct Societies and Regiments, can have no Legal right to Invade, or Usurp upon one another. And this being against Justice (which always is to be preferred before the best Religion) it would be a contradiction to advance and build Religion upon the Ruins of that which Found'st all Religion: as Tertullian excellently argues.  
And if this holds good in Persons , so far that it is most unjust for Either, to impose upon Other their Faith, or Worship: it can scarce be expressed, the horrible Crime and Unjustice of them, who being as Legally Subordinate and Subject as 'tis possible for People to be, take the confidence to Arm, to the end, they may reduce their Prince, and Pastors to the Rule of their Consciences: And having oppressed both, though failing in their Main design, the Scene changed, to exceed themselves in Immodesty, and demand that benefit, they would not ways grant others, whom they had no right at all to deny; upon reasons infinitely Inferior to them, they a while since rejected. In these shameful straits, they say with one of their late Politicians, The Presbyterian Party in England, 
Corbet's Interest of England. pag: 57  never engaged under a less Authority, than That of both Houses of Parliament. Good Sir, clear up, and speak out. Did they do well, or not, in so Engaging, even with both Houses on their side? If they did well, then did we very ill, to Oppose and Resist; Then were all your Enemy's Rebels, the King himself not excepted: Then why do you not Preach Repentance to us, as we do to you? Then will you, then may you, nay, then ought you to do so again, as we profess we are bound to do, and always did in our greatest Persecutions: And are you not well to be looked to, think you? But your Case is still worse: For it will never be granted, what is here supposed. viz. That those Two Houses were Houses of Parliament, but a Conventicle of Private Men, after the Expulsion of that Part of the Lords-House which have been proved to be no less Essential to a Parliament than the remaining States, had they remained with the Presbyterians: but 'tis apparent, not the Major Part continued with them, but manifested against them: But especially, the King's Authority withdrawn from them, they like Samson the Nazarite being shaved, became as other men, and the Spirit of Power, and all Legal Authority departed from them. Or if after all these Ruins and Dilapidations, they must still be called Houses; in what doth Presbyterian excel the following Factions, who had those things, they called Two Houses too, and with no more prejudices?  
But my Author proceeds, and indeed speaks plainly. 
Id: ibid.  I have read (saith he), That the Parliament of England, is of a Twofold capacity. First, Representing the People, as Subjects; and so, that it can do nothing, but manifest their Grievances, and Petition for Relief. Secondly, By the Constitution, it hath part in the Sovereignty; and so it hath part in the Legislative Power, and in the final judgement. You have read. You may have read, and that from your own party, infinite passages of Sedition, and Treason: But had you so little Wit and Loyalty, pretending so much to both, as to Publish and approve it, and to justify wicked Practices by as bad Principles? But they are in the Faction still, and though like Water in a sponge or clout scarce discernible, when let alone, being pressed a little, out they come. But must he that speaks Treason, speak Nonsense and Impossibilities too? For, 'tis not possible that the same persons should consist of such a Contradictory Capacity, as that of the Subject and Sovereign. But I return:  
It is worse than Barbarous to Attach, or Oppress any People, merely upon account of Religion, not repugnant to the Light of Nature, as I shall show by and by: For otherwise, Religion, whose chief End is to Conserve Mankind, in Peace and Justice, would turn the Earth upside, down, and fill the World with incessant Combustions, and Massacres. For it will be as reasonable that the Infidel, and Indians should Invade the Christian upon that score, as the Christian Him. And then where will such Depredations end?  
Again, 
Thom. 22. Quaest 10. Art: 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isidor. Pelusiot: li. 3. Epist. 362 Lactant. Lib. 5 Instit. ca 19 Christus Apostolos misit ad seminandam fidem, qui etc. Ambros. In Luc. Lib. 7. Pict. ad Constant. Joan: Duil: De Vero Vsu Patrum. Lib. 2. ca 6.  as Thomas hath observed, Religion being a Free Thing, there is no Reason Infidels should be thereunto Compelled. Nay, as Isidore Pelusiotes noteth well, To Force and Drag others to the true Religion, who are absolutely at their own disposal; neither is, nor seems, Decent or Convenient. And Lactantius saith, Non opus vi & injuriâ, quia Religio cogi non potest. There is no need of Force and Injury, for as much as Religion cannot be Compelled. And St. Ambrose Testifies truly, That Christ sent his Apostles to sow the Faith, who were not to Compel, but Teach, nor to Exercise Force, or Power, but extol the Doctrine of Humility. And agreeable thereunto St. Hillary writes, Deus cognitionem sui docuit potius quàm exegit, God rather Taught, than Extorted the knowledge of himself. To these, and this effect, I might add such Fathers as Monsieur Duillee hath collected; endeavouring, though in vain, to prove thereby, that the present Church, hath fallen from the Opinions of the Ancient, because they were against Compulsion in point of Religion; which, with what I have observed seeming to favour Liberty in Religion, is easily answered by distinguishing of Persons educated in, and subject to a Church, to whom they never granted a Licentiousness of his Nature; from such as were not under any Obligation of Obedience and Conformity to a Society: Of these they are to be interpreted, and not of them: For herein they followed the Doctrine of St. Paul who says, What have I to do, to judge them that are without? And of these, are the words of the Psalmist, 
1 Cor. 5.12.  to be understood; abused by trifling Sectaries: 
Psal. 110.13.  Thy People shall be willing in the day of thy Power. Which implies, a freeness of consent to the Service and Faith of Christ under the Gospel, in such as first received the knowledge thereof.  
Secondly, According to the Second Distinction, it may be said, that there being some Religions not only contrary to ours, but even to the Light, and commonly received Law of Nature; such are not only, not to be admitted into any Christian Commonwealth, but it is Lawful for Christians, or not Christians, in vindication of Common-Laws of Nature, even such, which being once and lightly offered to the Consideration of such as do not observe the same, do in a manner constrain Assent thereunto; provided that Interest, Passion, and unnatural Vices, have not taken away that sight, which Nature had given. For we know who says, That the God of this World blinds the eyes of some: 
2 Cor. 4.4. 2 Pet. 3.5.  and who saith, Some things men are wilfully ignorant of. Therefore Actual Ignorance neither excuses, nor exempts men from Punishment, even of such, as are not in Political Authority over them. The reason whereof, is, Because, however the World be divided into several Countries, and those Country's subdivided into several Nations and Governments, absolute in themselves, as to Political Administration; yet, are All Men of the same Flesh and Blood, and kind, and nature, yea, Commonwealth, 
Act. 17.26.  and Family, as to certain Principles of Reason, and Nature, which are as Laws containing men in the same Society; and as to the Design that God had, in placing Man upon Earth, which was to live at least so Humanely, as might continue the Work of God's hands upon Earth, and the Recognition of a Superior Cause of them, and Power and Dominion over them, which is a Deity; contrary to which, is that most brutish and degenerous Sin of Atheism. For though Atheism, be not a Religion (of which we now speak), yet it is to be reduced to this Subject, as all Privations are there to be handled, where their habits are properly treated of. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diog baert: In Zenone. Ephes. 2.12.  Now the Stoics, (as Laertius tells us,) were wont to make a Twofold Atheism; Dogmatical, whereby men not only know no God, but would prove, There is no God: And Practical, whereby men in general having a true, but weak, and obscure knowledge of God, do, as the Apostle saith, live as without God in the World; as if there were no such thing Existent. But we shall rather divide Atheists into Purely Negative, such as have, nor ever had, no knowledge of a God; and Positive, such as have had the knowledge, and sense of a Deity; and after, are fallen into such open Apostasy, and Defiance, that they Dogmatise such Unnatural Opinions. Of these Latter, we hold it just and reasonable, that where they live mixed with other People who do revere a Deity, they should be put to Death, after serious and plain Proposal made of their Abominable Errors; without any laborious, or Learned controverting the Point. And this affirmeth Perkins, 
Perkins Cases of Conscience. Lib. 2. ca 2.  before me, in these Words, As for those that are commonly called Atheists, which deny that there is a God, they are to be punished with Death, as not worthy to live in human Society; and the greatest Torment, that can be devised by the Wit of Man, is too good for them: For, if they be holden for Traitors to an Earthly Prince, and are most deservedly adjudged to Death, etc. But I suppose, a greater reason than this, is, The certain Destruction which such Embrutized men do bring to human Society itself: which, whoever is a direct and professed Enemy unto, may be put to Death, as lawfully as Wolf's, Lions, and Tigers. And yet, not at the pleasure, or Power of every one that meets them, as wild Beasts may, because Judgement against the most open Malefactors condemned by the Law, must not be executed, but by Sentence, and Commission from the Supreme Power. For to make good one part of Justice, we must not destroy another; nor secure God's Ordinance in one Point, by endangering it in another. But it is God's Ordinance, that the Supreme Power should be respected and obeyed; and it is scarce possible, that any Commonwealth should be of any long continuance, where private Persons take on them to administer or execute Justice, upon their own presumptions And if it be, as the wit of some Atheists lead them to conceive, that Religion is only a trick of Policy, to keep men in order, and obedience to their Superiors, and that they do confess, that it is necessary to keep together a Civil Society; do they deserve any thing less than Death, who shall treacherously discover, and endeavour to Null such a Mystery of State, without which, Human Society cannot be maintained? And surely, if Chrysostom's zeal carried him so far, 
Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis, pag. 182.  as to advise any one that met a Blasphemer of God, or his Worship, to smite him presently on the Face; yea, though he were sure to be had before the Judge for so doing: it is more reasonable to bait Atheists and Persecute them, the Supreme Authority not gainsaying. Escobar tells us the Practice of Spain, to be against Blasphemers, That for a Light Blasphemy, he only abjures it: Yet, the Punishment doth answer the Sin. u.g. If they Blaspheme out of sudden Anger, or some other Passion, they are Condemned to the Galleys: or else standing bare Foot, and bare Head, girt with a Cord, and holding a Light Torch in their Right hand, they stand in some Festival day in the Church, and the Service being ended, they receive their Sentence with the rest of their Penances, i.e. Fast, Prayers, and Pecuniary Mulcts. And where Authority is Defective and Remiss, in this so horrible Provocation; It is observed by many dreadful Instances, how God himself taketh Vengeance: as, amongst others, Matthew of Westminster tells us How, in the year of Grace 501, Olympus a most Mad Fellow, while bathing, he Blasphemed the Holy Trinity, that he was consumed with a Fiery Thunderbolt falling on him from Heaven. Thus he. And that, not only Corporal, but even Capital Punishment is due to such an one, doth from hence appear; because a man being of a Religion which asserts the Deity under such and such Forms, 
Cunaeus DeRepublic. Hebrae. Li. 1. cap. 1. Item Maimonides in Misna ractat. de Regibus. ca 9  or Notions; the Professed dishonouring thereof, implies a self Condemnation, and with all such an unnatural humour of impiety, which leads him against all Religions, and human Practice.  
And it is observed by Cunaeus, That such was the Force of the Seven Precepts of Noah, and extended so to all men, that the Israelites were commanded, such who were ignorant of them to slay by War, and remove them from human Society.  
Again, 
Tertul. Apol. cap. 8. August. Civit. Dei lib. 7. ca 19 Alex. ab Alexand, lib. 6. ca 26. Ludovic. Vives in Aug. de Civ. Dei. Hugo. Grot. contra Socin. pag. 200, 201, 202. Bod. De Repub. li. 1. cap. 5. 2 Kings 23.10 Jer. 32.33 36. Psal. 106; v. 37, 38, 39 Jerem. 7.31. Selden de diis Syris Syntag. 1. cap. 6. Porphyr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2.  it were (I suppose) Lawful for any Prince, or Person to compel any People that should Worship their God, or gods by the Sacrifice of Mankind: And yet we read how far this Devilish Superstition prevailed over the World, as may appear from Tertullian, Austin, Alexander ab Alexandro, Ludovicus Vives, Grotius, and others. In a Word, Learned Bodin tells us, That there was never any People, or Nation, who imagined not, that the Gods might be pacified with human Sacrifices, such as the Peruvians, and Brasilians at this day use: And, that the Canaanites in ancient days Accustomed themselves to such Sacrifices, Offering their Sons and Daughters unto Molech, that Fiery Idol; the Scripture Testimonies are many, and express; and not to be eluded, by the vain and bold glosses of Rabbis, attempting, I suppose, to extenuate the foul Apostasies of their Predecessors; and that Children were not killed, and burnt, but drawn only through two Piles of Fire, and so consecrated to Molech, as Mr. Selden hath observed out of them. But that Molech was the same with Saturn, and the Phoenicians offered to him such inhuman Human Sacrifices, Porphyry witnesseth; which agrees perfectly, with the Practice of the Carthaginians, who themselves, together with their Superstitious Abominations, descended from the Phoenicians. For that the Carthaginians used to Offer such Sacrifices; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plutarch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Plutarch, not only assureth us, but tells us who, and upon what occasion, caused that Custom to cease. For Gelon, King of Syracuse, having Conquered them, would not make Peace with them, unless, they would first give over Sacrificing their Children to Saturn. Possibly, this unnatural Religion took its Original from the Design of Abraham Offering up his Son Isaac; which being performed amongst the Phoenicians, might be cause of misunderstanding to them, as Innumerable acts of the Patriarches and Israclites, were first corruptly imitated by the neighbouring Heathens, and by them transmitted and propagated into other parts: so that it was not an inward suggestion of Nature, though very common, so much, as Imitation.  
Again, were it so, that any Nation should freely admit, and practise the unnatural Sin, of Coupling with Beasts after the manner of human Sexes; I doubt not, but it were Lawful, and Laudable in any Foreign Prince, to endeavour the abolishing of such a Custom, by Force of Arms, because this is against human Nature, by confounding the Species of Man.  
In the Last place, according to our distinctions, we are to consider, the kind, and condition of Punishment to be inflicted upon Offenders against Religion; of which, in the ensuing Chapters.   

CHAP. IU. That the Ancients, as well Christian as un-Christian, constantly denied Toleration of Religion's dissonant and contrary.  
IT is a most frequent and plausible Maxim which Sectaries have got by the end, to slip their Necks from the uneasy Yoke of Government, and duty of Obedience incumbent on them, many times against their Wills and Interests; He is most a King, that rules in the Hearts of his Subjects; and that Prince is alwates best served, and obeyed who by gentleness and kindness, gains the good will of his People. And this, though it hath much truth, soberly understood and modestly taken; yet, as by divers of late applied, includes in it a world of Knavery and Mischief. For when will that be, that a Prince shall win the hearts of such dissatisfied, and fond Persons as these, but when he shall lay the Sceptre so lightly over them, as not to hurt them; when he shall give them so much Line, as that they may do what they please; when he shall remit, and relax the kerbing and punishing part of the Laws so far, as that they may be dallied with, and played with at pleasure, without Censure; when they may Inrovate according to the Fancies of their own Brains, and Lusts of their Hearts: Such a King as this is fit to Rule over a Free Spirited People, Freeborn Subjects: and then shall he have their hearts when he requires nothing else, and can command nothing else. But methinks such should do well, to think sometimes upon Rules of good Subjects: and that he is a good Subject (according to St. Paul) who doth all things [Lawful and Honest] without murmuring, and disputing; and that makes a Conscience of limitin; his Superiors in their commands, where God hath not Limited; and should spend some of that time, and show some of that Piety which they profess, in regulating and assisting their Superiors, by their Precepts to govern them well, in putting in Practice the difficult Art of obeying Well; which Flesh and Blood takes so little content in, that nothing is more ungrateful to them, and an unmortified carnal Man discovers himself in nothing more, than in that humour. But this, the Learning of the wisest, and common Experience, may teach us; that, as no Society of men can subsist without Laws, so no Laws without Coercion and Force; and no Coercion can take place, without Punishment. For as Tully in Brutus, and Plutarch after him; All Commonwealths, continue, and rest upon Two Principal Columns, Punishments and Benefits. For neither is Virtue so excellent and amiable in the eyes of all, no, nor Religion, nor Piety; as that men should be so Ravished with their intrinsic beauty, as to need no External Motives to commend them to us, and excite our Affections; neither is there such a loathsome Turpitude, or eminent danger in Vice, 
Plato in Gorgia.  Heresy, or Impiety as that, no outward Discouragments propounded, men of themselves, must as necessarily Flee from them, 
Seneca de C'ement. lib. 1. cap. 21. Paena ad tria respicere debet. Aut ut cum quem pu nit emendet; aut ut poena ejus caeteros meliores reddat; au sublatis malis securiores caeteri vivant. Galenw. Quod Mor● sequnutur etc.  as they do from Serpents, or Mad-Dogs.  
Plato therefore assigneth Two principle Ends in punishing Malefactors: First, Satisfaction for the wrong done unto the Community, by the Offence committed. Secondly, Prevention of like Miscarriages, by bringing a Terror upon others. Seneca makes Three Causes of inflicting Punishment. First, that the Punished may be amended. Secondly, or others corrected by their Sufferings. Thirdly, That the Evil being taken away, the Good may be more safe. Somewhat, not much differing from these, doth Galen likewise give Three Reasons of Punishment. First, lest they should mischief the Good. Secondly, That a few being Chastised, others may be Reform. Thirdly, That wicked Men proceed not too far in wickedness: All which, hold no less in a Religious Commonwealth, than Profane. For, what safety can the sound Sheep be in, amongst whom the corrupt and rotten shall be permitted to Walk? And what security can the Righteous and true Believer be in, so long as the Infectious Doctrine and Example of Heretics and Schismatics, 
2 Tim. 2.17.  which do creep and eat like a Grangrene, whereby the whole Body is in great danger, to be dissolved, and dissipated. 
1 Tim. 5.20.  And the Apostle adviseth Timothy to rebuke them that sin, before all, that others also may fear. It hath been therefore the constant practice of the Church of Christ, for the better conserving itself in Unity, and Charity; First, to admonish and rebuke Litigious Dissenters and Dividers; and, that not taking due effect, to proceed to such severe Punishment, as may render such unable to Propagate their mischievous Tenets. And not the Church only, hath taken this necessary course, but even Heathens have thought it necessary to deny a Liberty of Introducing new devices into Religion, to the disturbance, and Dissettlement of Others. 
Valerius Max. li. c. 1  For Valerius Maximus showeth how that certain Books being found in Rome, making against the Established Religion; the City- Praetor, by command of the Senate, caused them to be burned. And Tully tells us of Protagoras Abderites, that having wrote certain Books of dangerous consequence to Religion, he was Banished by the Athenians out of their City and Country, and his Books burnt in an open Assembly. And what is so manifest, as the sore Persecutions the Jews suffered under Antiochus for their Religion? and, How many and dreadful Persecutions Christians suffered under the Heathen Emperors for the Faith of Christ? insomuch, that it is observed by Polydore Vergil, and others; that from St. 
Polydorus Vergil lib. 8. ca 1. Invent. Rer.  Peter to Sylvester the First, there being Thirty two Bisheps of Rome, all saving Seven, were Martyrized. But when Christian Religion, partly by the Invincible Fortitude of Believers, and partly by the favour of some Christian Emperors became so Public and Rooted, and many were sprung up from the Loins of Christian-Parents, so that they never tasted of Gentilism; it seemed reasonable to that greatest Enemy to Christians, to constrain none to Gentile-Worship. For thus he writeth to one of his Governors. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Julian Epi. 52  We permit not that any of the Christians should be forced to our Altars.  
But to draw nearer, 
Nec de Vet●ri Testam. profero exempla quamvis etiam Propheticis exemplis doceri illa dixisti. Il la, in quam, nimis antiqua non profero; fuerunt enim alterius dispensationis & Temporis. Augustin. Lib. 4. Contra Crescon: Grammat: Exod. 22. v. 21. Deuteron: 13.12, 13, 14, 15. Deuteron: 17.12:  I shall with St. Austin disputing this against Cresconius, wave the Instances which may be brought out of the Old-Testament, because they may be said to be of a divers Oeconomie, from those of the New. But most manifest it is, that such as varied from the Religion in which they were Educated, were to be Cut off from their People; which I know is diversely understood, but by All acknowledged to be a severe Punishment. And besides it is undeniable, that such as would not hear the Priests whom God had set over them in matters of Religion, were to be put to Death. Let us see what was the Practice of the Christian-Church.  
Learned Pedro Paolo of Venice, 
Pedro Paolo Hidorie of Inquisition. pag: 6.  seemeth to dislike Persecution for Heresy: in that, treating of the Inquisition he argues against it from the Practice of the Church until Constantine the Great his time; 
Non invo itur exemplum in Evangelicis & Apostolicis Literis, altquid petitum à Regibus Terrae pro Ecclesia. Quis ●egat non inventri. Sed non dum impleba tur illa prophetia, Et nunc Reges intelligite etc. Psal. 2. Aug. Epist. 48.  saying, that until the Reign of Constantine i. e Three hundred and Twnety years after Christ, no Penalties were inflicted upon Heretics But I cannot but marvel, such a judicious Person should take that to be an argument of the Church's Opinion, That Heretics ought not to be punished; when as, until Constantine's days, the Church was never possessed of any Civil Power; and it knew well enough it was against Christian Religion to Usurp it, though to the favouring and furthering of the same. But scarce was Constantine rid of that Tyrant, and Heathen, Lycinius, but, as Lycinius, out of Zeal, persecuted the Christians (which was the Ground of their quarrel, how ever malicious Zozimus Fables it otherwise,) Constantine endeavoured the suppressing of the Idolatrous Gentile-Worship, commanding (as Optatus telleth us) the Temple Doors of the Gentiles to be shut up, 
Optatus Melevita lib. 2. Contra Parm: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Eusebius de Vita Constant. lib. 2. ca: 43, 44: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & Socratis Hist. lib. 2. ca 6. Nicephor. lib 8. ca 25.  and that the Christian Religion should be only protected, and maintained Publicly. And Eusebius tells us, that he not only caused their Idol Temples to be shut up, but prohibited Sacrifices to them. And this his zeal did not end only in destroying Idolatry, but extended to Heresy also. For, after the First Council of Nice had determined the Faith Controverted, Constantine made it an Offence Capital, so much as to conceal Haeretick Books; as Socrates and Nicephorus relate. Austin likewise, in an Epistle against the Donatists showeth, 
Augustinus Epist: 166 Donec Faelix ipse jussu etc.  how after the Donat●sts-Appeal to the Emperor, against Faelix who ordained Caecilianus, had been heard and rejected, by Helianus the Proconsul, and that he was declared Innocent, that Constantine the First, made a Decree most strict against the Donatists; and that his Son after him, followed therein his Steps, which continued until julian's Reign, who, Desertor Christi & inimicus, supplicantibus vestris Rogatiapo & Pontio, libertatem perditioni Partis Donati permisit. An Apostate from Christ, and an Enemy to your Supplicants Rogatianus and Pontius, gave Liberty to the pernicious Sect of Donatus. And St. Amb●ose makes it no small matter of his praise of Gratian, 
Ambros. Epist. 26.  That he brought peace and quietness to the Church, and stopped the mouths (of Arians:) 
Id. De Fide lib 3. cap. 3.  and would to God (saith he) you could have shut the hearts of such wicked men, and mischievous; And that, this he did aswel by the Faith, as his own Power. And no wonder that Father should so write, who saith also, That Heretics are more abominable, than the very Jews that crucified Christ. 
Histor. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 16  And Theodoret relates at large, how Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium prevails with Theodosius, to exclude the Arian Conventicles out of the Cities. And Bellarmin, in the Life of Theodosius relateth, 
Bellarm. in Vita Theodos. pag. 285, & 286.  that Hono●ius and Theodosius published an Imperial Edict, whereby they decreed, that the Pelagians should be wholly suppressed and expelled Rome: and after sent their Rescript to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage in which they Commanded that they should be driven out of Africa. And, as Cardinal Hosius hath observed, 
Hosius De Coucilio Oecomeu. cap. 24.  there is Extant amongst the Proemial Epistles to the Council of Chalcedon, an Epistle of Pulcheria the Empress to the Governor of Bythinia, to expel out of the City and Places where that Council was to be held, all Clergymen, Monks, and Laymen, who would by no means be brought to the Council. It is true, 
Bilson, True difference between Christian Subjection and etc. pag 19, 20.  what Bishop Bilson hath observed, concerning Gratians Toleration of all, at his First entrance into the Empire, That finding all places full of Arians; and the Laws of Valens his Uncle, making for them; Fearing some general Tumult, if he should presently distress so many, gave leave, that every Religion should have Churches and Oratories, with freedom and immunity; but being once settled and joined with Theodosius, he commanded that all Heresies should keep silence for ever. And this was the Course, as Beda well observeth, which Ethelbert the Saxon King, took; who being converted to the Christian Faith himself, gave order, that none of his Subjects should be compelled to become Christians; only he shown them most favour, 
Beda lib. 1. cap. 26. Hist.  and kindness, who embraced that Faith which he did. And the reason hereof, is observable in the same Author, Didicerat enim & à Doctoribus, Autoribusque suae salutis, servitum Christi voluntarium, non coactitium esse debere: For he learned from the Masters and Authors of saving Doctrine, That Christ's Worship ought to be Voluntary, and not Compelled. But the First of our Nation, That by Law destroyed Idolatry, was Ecombertus, in the Year, 640. who also commanded that the Fast of 40. days should be observed through his whole Kingdom. Quae ne facile à quopiam possint contemni, dignas punitiones fieri in transgressores jussit, 
Matthew Westmonasteriensis. pag. 224.  saith Matthew of Westminster. And because it may be that some Heretics will plead for favour, from the carriage of Ethelbert above mentioned, it is to be noted, that there is a vast difference between Heretics and Schismatics, and Heathens who never had Knowledge of the Truth, as Bishop Bilson hath truly noted, upon the like occasion; saying, Heretics of all sects and sorts, 
Bilson Difference between Christi-Subj. etc. pag. 26.  may be compelled to follow truth, though Infidels might not; and so your Inference faileth when you say, No Law forceth Jews, or Pagans from their Persuasion, therefore not Christians. Nay rather, if we grant Jews, and Turks excusable for these two Reasons, Lack of Knowledge, and Want of Promise; certainly, Papists being neither void of the First, nor free from the Last, may, yea must, be compelled of Christian-Magistrates, for dread of Punishment tempered with good Instructions, to forsake their Heresies, and forbear their Idolatries wherewith Christ is dishonoured, and his truth defaced. Thus he: Whereby their Plea is further made Void, whereby some argue from Toleration of Heathen, over whom there is no Authority, the Liberty due to Christians, who do owe submission as well in general, by being Members of such a Society, as particular by way of Promise, either Implicit, or Explicite; which each man makes to the Body, to which he is to conform in all Lawful things in themselves; not measuring things Lawful by the Bent of our Consciences (than which nothing can be more proudly contrived) but by the straitness of some Rule superior to them both. Whence it was, that Cyprian, more ancient than the Nicene-Council, or Constantine, persecuted so far as he was able the Novatians, having no secular Power on his sides; and so did other Catholick-Bishops after him, namely chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem, for which some Puritans of our days with a fellow-feeling, as it were, of their brethren's sufferings, and a never failing Animosity against Bishops of all Ages, have not spared such speeches as these, against them. chrysostom, whom none can sufficiently praise, 
Meditatio de Autipuritanismo. pag. 70. Appendicis ad Laudensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  took away many Churches from the Puritans; but this same violence was thought the Principal Cause, for which that most divine Person, suffering such calamities as soon oppressed him, died in Banishment: Cyril likewise oppressed the Puritans [i. e. Novatians] and this man besides many other evils and adversities which he endured, as well at home as abroad, is branded with this note of Infamy, that he was the First of all Bishops, that Lorded it; i. e. Introduced secular Pride and Tyranny into the Church. Let them beware, again and again, who in these days bear deadly enmity with Puritans, lest they pull upon their heads the ancient Punishments of the Persecutors of Puritans. Thus far that Frontless, and Witless Patron of Puritans, of the Scottish Faction, if I mistake not.  
And here before we draw down the Practice of the Catholic Church any lower, because antiquity abounds with the like grievous complaints of Heretics and Schismatics being punished, as this age doth also; Let us consider a little what themselves did, when ever their strength served them.  
The Arians, as we have showed, were Persecuted by the Catholics, and having secular Authority on their side, did they not stir up most grievous Persecutions against the Church, upon all occasions? Are not all Histories full of their Impious and Bloody Pranks? In so much, 
Onuphrius in Sylvest.  that Onuphrius on the Life of Sylvester the First by Platina, says, The Nine Persecutions being taken away by Constantine the Great; the Tenth, from the A rians, ensued, more dangerous than all the others: which beginning under the Emperor Constantius, continued upon the Church of God in such manner, for Forty years together. So far Onuphrius; Whose Opinion might easily be confirmed by the Authorities of Hilary of Poitiers, Hierome, Socrates, Theodo●et, and others; were not that superfluous Labour, in a matter confessed.  
And were the Donatists any whit more favourable, and mild when they had any, though but small advantage, over the Catholics? He that reads Optatus against Parmenianus, the main Treatises of St. Austin against them, the Conference of Carthage between the Schism of the Donatists and the Church-Catholicks, shall find, that the fame Faction which was ever most querulous under Persecution, and moving pity and compassion in those that would hear them, 
Et maximè Episcopi & Clerici horrenda & dura perpessi quae commemorare longum est quando quorundam oculi extincti &c Augustin. Epist 5. Vide & Epistol. 166.  of their hard measure, and of the unreasonableness of the Civil Powers interposing in such matters which ought to be free, were themselves most Cruel and Violent against others; and especially, the Bishops and Clergy men suffered horrible things, which were tedious to rehearse; putting out the Eyes of some; and they cut off the Hand and Tongue, of one Bishop, and some they slew right-out. I say nothing of the cruel Slaughters (saith he) and Plundering of Houses by Nightinvasions, and Burn; and that not only, of Private Houses, but Churches also, into which Flames there wanted not some who cast in the Books of God. Do not these words of Austin come somewhat near a description of our late furious and wicked zeal. And what Possidonius in the Life of St. Austin, 
Possidonius in vita August. ca 9 Vide ca 10. etiam.  addeth of this nature against that Holy Bishop, calleth to our minds afresh, the Perfecution of the Tongue against our Bishops: The Donatists (saith he) railed at Austin, called him Seducer of Souls, both Publicly and Privately; and said, That he ought to be slain as a Wolf to their Flock; and that without doubt all their Sins should be forgiven them, 
Augustin Epistol. 68  who could bring this to pass. And in another Epistle of St. Augustine, is the Inhumanity of those pure Zelots the Circumcellians, a branch of the Donatists, against such as differed in Opinion from them, described; concluding, In quibus omnibus illi non deponunt facta Latronum, & honorem sibi exigunt Matyrum. i. e, In all which, they cease not to act the parts of Assasins, and yet require the honour of Martyrs. And, so infinitely Devilish and Malicious was their humour, that when they could not destroy the Orthodox by Butchering them, they would needs terrify them, by Murdering themselves; and so, as Austin hath, 
Quidam eorum miserabili instinctu, & Deo & Homivibus ingrati, si suis caedibus nos vastare non ●ossunt, ●uo nos exitio terrere credunt; aut laetitiam suam quarentes de mortibus nostris, aut tristitiam nostram de mortibus suis. August. Epist. 61.  either Solacing themselves in the destruction of us, or sadding us by their own Deaths. And such in some degree, do our days afford, who because they cannot have their Will-worship, will put themselves into such an untractable and brutish posture, that if you let them alone they have their ends, if you attempt to bring them to Justice, they will create great hatred to their Adversaries, by parting with their Lives, rather than stir upon fair or necessary means, or motives. To conclude, 
Legimus, vidimus, quotid● éque comprobamus; Quando persecutio contra Ecclesiam oritur, multo pejores persecutores Judaeos & Haereticos, quàm Ethnicos. Hieronymus in Obad. v. 10.  It is the observation of St. Hierome, We have read, we have seen, we have daily found it true, that when ever Persecution hath arose in the Church, the Jews and Heretics were always more grievous Persecutors of the Christians than were the Gentiles.   

CHAP. V A Continuation of the former Subject, and particularly, of putting Heretics and Schismatics to Death.  
IN man may be said to be a Twofold Life, Natural and Civil. The First is an Union of the Natural parts of a man; which being dissevered, death follows; understanding here the principal which are either simply Essential, as the Soul and Body or such, as are therefore called Vital, because being corrupted, or taken away, a separation of the more Essential parts do immediately follow. Man's Civil Life is that, whereby he being a member of the Civil Body, separated from that (as all Integral parts of a Body Natural) loaf that life of common Influence and Protection. Hence it is, that some Civil Lawyers do interpret Capital Punishment so often denounced against Heretics in the Civil Law, of the later Death; as doth Huckleman, and some others. The Imperial Constitutions which absolutely inflict Capital Punishment on Heretics, 

Constitutiones Imp. Simplici●er capitis poenam instigen●es Haereticis non de Naturali sed de Civili Capite asserit. Wessembeck: in Vara. num 6. Huckelmanus Illustr. Difput. 34. Thes 14. lit 6. God li. 1. 'tis 5. God. li. 1 Ti●. 5 Sect. 4.  
Volumus esse publicum crimen etc.   are not to be understood of Natural, but Civil Death, as Transportation and such like. But I make no doubt, but this is too favourable, and forced an Exposition, as he that shall observe the Practice, the best comment on the Law, must confess. For when the Code saith, Manichaei undique expelluntur & capite puniuntur. And immediately before, Manichaeo, in loco Romano degere deprehenso, caput ampuatur. i e. The Manichees are to be expelled, and punished Capitally, The Manichee that shall be found in the Roman Territory shall have his Head cut off; cannot be meant of Civil Head. I confess the most common punishments, are such, as we read in the same Title against the Manichees and Donatists, made by Honortus and Theodosius Emperors. viz. 1. We decree it a Public Offence; because an Offence against Divine Religion, is an injury to all: wherefore we Persecute such with the Confiscation of all their Goods. 2. We will likewise that they be Defeated of all Liberality and Succession coming to them by any Title whatever. 3. Furthermore, we leave such no Power to give, or buy, or sell, or make bargains, being convict. 4. Inquiry ought to be made at his Death. For if it be Lawful in matters of Treason, to tax the memory of the dead; not undeservedly ought there here also to pass a judgement. 5. Therefore his last Writing is to be Null, whether by Will, or Codicil, or any other way, he hath made his Testament; if found to be a Manichee. 6. Neither do we suffer his Sons to Inherit, unless they forsake their Father's Errors. For we allow Pardon to the Penitent. 7. We like well, that they feel the sting of our Authority, who shall entertain them in their Houses, by a culpable providing for them. 8. And we Will, that their Servants be faultless, if avoiding such Sacrilegious Masters, they pass into the Catholic Church by a more Faithful Service.  
Thus far the Imperial Edict of Theodosius, whereby we may easily discern how severe the Ancients were in chastising Heretics, and the several kinds of Punishments devised against them. But the great question is, Whether it be just to punish Heretics with Corporal Death, according to the Judgement of the Ancient Church. The first instance of such severity, is that of Priscillianus who was put to Death for his Heresy: about which I find the Fathers themselves divided. Hierome against Ctesiphon seems not only to approve of it himself, but to say, that the whole Christian Church consented thereto, 
Hierom. Advers 〈◊〉 Ctesiphon.  Quid loquar (saith he) the Priscilliano, qui & Seculi gladio, & totius Orbis authoritate damnatus est? Why should I speak of Priscillianus, who was Condemned by the Secular Sword, and the Authority of the whole World? But Severus Sulpitius liked not this Fact, as appears by his words, 
Severus Sulpit. Sacrae Hist. Lib.  Priscillianus cum soclis Capite plectuntur, pessimo exemplo necati. Priscillianus with his complices were beheaded, being killed with a very ill precedent. And Theognostus condemned Idacius, or Ithacius Clarus an eminent Bishop of Spain, 
Isidor. Hisp. Deviris' Illustr. ca 2.  as witnesseth Isidorus Hispalensis, because he procured the death of Priscillian, as did also other Catholic Bishops, as a bloody man: yet, by a Council held at Triers, about the year 386. 
Vide Baron. An 386 nu. 25  he was absolved by the favour and intercession of the Emperor Maximus, by whose Authority it was done. 
August. Epi. 48.  St. Augustine is known to have been of an opinion once, that Heretics ought not at all to be Compelled to the true Faith; but afterward his judgement altered, and that (as he saith) from the experience he had of the excellent effect such coercion had; and especially, in that divers, who at first took upon them the profession upon compulsion, afterward embraced it sincerely and freely: And in the same Epistle, answereth the allegation of Pedro Paolo above mentioned, which the Donatists likewise urged against the Catholics persecuting them, viz: No example is to be found either in the Evangelists, or Apostles writings, whereby any thing was begged of Earthly Kings in behalf of the Church, against the Church's Enemies. 
Augustin. Epistol. 48.  Quis negat non inveniri (saith he)? Sed nondum implebatur illa prophetia, Et nunc Reges intelligite etc. Psal. 2. i. e. Who denies that? for as yet, that Prophecy was not Fulfilled, And now understand ye Kings, etc. 
Id Epistol. 50  Yet do I not find, that this Father approved of kill Heretics; but in another Epistle proceeds in a milder, and middle way, that is, Neither to Tolerate the Heresy, nor Condemn the Heretic to Death; because that were to cut off all possibility of Repentance, and Reconciliation to God, and the Church; which is very hard to deny any man, before God doth; And that God doth, no man can say, so long as he granteth him life. And to me, it seemeth not very difficult to answer Thomas his Arguments and Bellarmine's who are for the death of Heretics.  
Thus then argues Thomas. 
Thom. 22. qu. 11 Art. 3.  If he may be burnt who counterfeits money, Why should not he that Forges, and Publishes false Doctrine? If he that counterfeits the King's Letters deserveth death, What doth he that counterfeits, that falsifies the Scriptures and the Divine Letters of the Lord? A woman that breaks the Conjugal Faith made to her Husband, aught to die; and not much more he, who keeps not his Faith with God? And he that takes away the Life of another unlawfully, suffers the loss of his own for it; shall not he therefore who destroys his own, and neighbour's Soul? To these pretty Analogies and colourable arguments for the Death of Heretics, we readily answer, by granting all that the arguments crave, which is, that Heretics deserve to suffer as much, and more if you please, than such notorious offenders against the Commonwealth, and Civil Justice. But must therefore this punishment be necessarily corporal and outward as the other, whose cause is Civil? this, by Thomas his good leave, follows not. But rather the contrary. That their Punishment should be Proportionable to their offence; Their offence was Spiritual, and their sufferings must be such too: their offence was greater, and so shall their punishment be in Soul by eternal Death. 
Bellarm. De Laicis. li. 3. ca 21.5. Probatur, etc.  And this answers Bellarmine's six arguments to prove, that Heretics ought to suffer such Capital Punishment. First because, as all confess, Heretics may be Excommunicated lawfully, therefore they may be killed: The Consequence is thus driven; Because Excommunication is greater punishment than temporal Death. To which I answer, That therefore it should have a greater death; but that, that death must be of the same kind, doth not follow, that is, temporal. Secondly, he saith Experience teacheth that there is no other remedy. But I deny any such experience: For I make no doubt but the punishments mentioned even now in the Code, will in a short time extirpate Heretics; and perhaps sooner, considering what a pride some Heretics take in suffering, even death, for their errors. Thirdly, His Third is that with Thomas his, viz. Heretics are Cheats and Counterfeits. And so is his Fourth taken from a Woman's falseness to her Husband. The Fifth is, because All the reasons that Galen alleged against Malefactors, hold here. Answ. First, That they should be punished, they do: Secondly, that they would be punished with death also, but not necessarily with Natural death; but Civil death may suffice here, and Eternal death hereafter. Sixthly, (Lastly) he saith, It is a kindness to take obstinate Heretics out of this life: for the longer they live, the more Errors they devise; and increase greater damnation to themselves Ans. We must distinguish between temporary, and perpetual obstinacy: And between that which may be, and is, certainly known to Judges for to be. Judge's must proceed according to the Evidence of the Fact, not the probability. But no man can certainly know, that, how ever a person be Actually obstinate, he will persist in the same to his Death.  
But, notwithstanding there be no more than we have heard in Reason, or Religion, for their putting to death, and not many examples are to be found in Antiquity; yet for the last Five hundred years since Christ, hath it been but too much put in practice under Roman-Tyranny. For that Hotspur Genebrard, whose design it was to give us an account of the Church's Practice, speaking in defence of that cruelty shown against the Kathari (or Puritan) who were burnt at Colen, in the year of our Lord 1163. 
Genebrard. Chronol: An: 1163.  merely for Religion, and that none of the worse; and endeavouring to justify that Fact from ancient Precedents of the Church, could, it should seem, find none much above 60. years older than that; and that was of that Arch-haeretick Basilius a Physician, who in the last year of Christ 1102 was by the Command of the Emperor Alexius burnt at Constantinople for his Heresy. But after-Ages abound with so many sad Instances of that nature, that it were superfluous and tedious to rehearse them: From all which, I only infer thus much: That they, who generally approved, and practised such extreme rigour, could not but much more commend such more moderate means of reducing, restraining, and extinguishing them. And I presume, if I can show what much more severe course hath been used towards Heretics and Schismatics since our Reformation in England, it will not appear so great inhumanity, to put in strict execution such Laws as have of old and later days been made against them.  
In the Reign of Henry the Third, saith Hollinshed, were two Impostors hanged, for giving out, that they were Christ's. In the Reign of Richard the Second, and Henry the Fourth of England, Statutes were made for the putting Heretics to death, which stood in force until the Reign of Henry the Eighth, who caused them to be repealed: but in lieu of them, he made such an Edict (consisting of Six Articles, called therefore, The Whip with the six strings) that thereby, the Life's Blood of many a good and sober Christian, was taken from them. But in the First of Queen Mary, the former Statutes, as more for her Bloody purposes, were revived and reinforced: of which, as a thing too apparent for Impudence itself to encounter, I shall not speak at present, and but touch afterward.  
But neither have there been wanting instances since the Reformation, of such Capital Punishments executed. For in the Fourth year of Edward the Sixth, or Third (as Mr. Stow hath it) Joan Butcher, 
Stow Chron. Ari. 3. Edw 6  otherwise called Joan Knell, and vulgarly Joan of Kent, was burned for her Heresy, denying Christ to have taken Flesh of the Virgin Mary. And on the 24th. of April, the same year, George Paris, a Dutchman, was burnt in Smithfield for Arianism: And in the same King's Reign, an Anabaptist of Cholchester was burned. And truly, he that is of an Opinion, that no man ought to suffer death purely for Religion, may notwithstanding approve of the putting to death, such as shall bear false witness, in such a Caseat least, as that of professing themselves to be that Person they in truth are not, whereby manifest and intolerable evils are done to private Persons, but much more to the Weal-public; when one shall pretend himself to be some Prince, or Public Person: Much more therefore he that shall have the Impudence to give out that he is Christ (have he a particular Cant of his own to evade the common sense his words import, when he comes into danger) ought not less to undergo death, than he that shall seek to Translate the Government of a People, properly belonging to another Prince, upon himself. And as for Anabaptists, though I think their Dogms are a little purged of late, over what some years since they have been, (as most Heretics, and Schismatics are, when they perceive they will not take, nor be endured in their original Rankness): yet, if they stick but to one or two, charged commonly on them, such as are, Denying to the Civil Magistrates, Power of the Sword; and affirming an Exemption of (their) Saints from human Laws; suffering corporal death for the same, they have no wrong done them; neither can they plead Religion to protect them in causes of Civil cognisance, as they are. And to hold an opinion (as many now adays do) that their Governors have no Authority Ecclesiastical over them, in things neither forbidden nor commanded by God's word, is to draw very much nearer to the pernicious Extremes of the Anabaptist, than can consist with the good opinion such have of themselves, and would beget in others of being very moderate Men. But I return.  
In the third of Queen Elizabeth, one Jeffrey taught publicly, 
Stow An. 3d. of Qu. Eliz.  That John Moor was Christ; who were both first whipped, and then upon repentance were committed to Prison for half a year. This was a favour shown upon repentance. The more pitiful and strangely tender conscienc'd Judges were they in the Houses called a Parliament of late years, who could discharge John Naylor an Impostor, as foul and blasphemous as any of his Predecessors, without any considerable notes of true repentance. So far did the Doctrine of Liberty of Conscience drive many Patrons of it.  
Again, in the Seventeenth year of Queen Elizabeth, 
Stow in Eliz.  twenty-seven Anabaptists were brought to justice, whereof two were burnt in Smithfield; four renounced their Heresies at Paul's Cross, and thereupon were released, the rest were condemned to die, but were only banished. In the twenty one year of the same Queen, 
Id.  one Hammond, a most insolent Arian, denied Christ to be God, and blasphemed Him, and the Gospel, and was burnt in Norwich: And about three years after, one John Lewis was burnt in the same place for the like Heresy. And in the Reign of King James one Legate was burnt in Smithfield for Arianism.  
For King James his Reign, and Queen Elizabeth's, it is generally known how they put not any Papist to death for their Religion, though presently they were Sainted for dying in the Roman cause, and, as they will have it, for Religion; and if they will have it so, so let it pass, for me: But then we must take leave to turn to, and adhere to our old Notes, which tell us of their Faith, that it is Faction; and their Religion, Rebellion. For, were it so that the Laws interdicting Popish Priests of this Nation, bred and ordained beyond the Seas, from coming into this Nation, this were no such sanguinary practice as many Popish Ministers loudly and indeed childishly give out. For I would know whether the Supreme power of this, as well as any other Nation, have not power to inflict the punishment of banishment upon lighter causes than this? For instance, Might it not be reasonable for an Act of Banishment to take place upon all such as should transport Wool, or Fuller's-earth into foreign Countries? The person that should do this returns into England, and is put to death, according to the Law. But he cannot be said to be put to death for having transported prohibited Commodities, but for breaking the Law of his Banishment. No more can Popish Priests, taking Orders from that Church, and returning, be said to suffer for taking Orders, or for their Religion, but for breaking the Act of their Banishment; for, by Law they all stand banished; and if a greater punishment than banishment be not annexed to that Decree to make it good, instead of being sanguinary it will become ridiculous and ludicrous, and so will the Authors of such Laws also. In the year, One thousand, six hundred, forty and one, Ward, Walker, or Waller (for, as I take it, the man after the Roman custom had three or four names) being a Popish Priest was hanged at Tyburn, where he confessed, he had been banished no fewer than three or four times. Do not such mockeries and contempt of Laws as this, deserve death, yea, though the Law itself were unreasonable?  
And now, as to the other side, with which we have to do, the Puritan Faction; let us see how they have been proceeded against, before these three last Decades of years, and whether it be so new and strange a matter that they should be molested, or oppressed; and the rather because of that Officious Author of the Interest of England, who puts on the Countenance of a Moderator, and grave and wise decider of the point of Toleration: but alas, besides his many lamentable failings, he could not keep on his Mask above a leaf or two; and in a certain place speaks thus, much more boldly than knowingly or truly. 
Corbets Interest of England, pag 129.  Take notice that the Episcopal Clergy did not go about to exterminate the Puritans before their latter times; and then he that had half an eye could discern the notable advance and the confiden expectation of the Popish Faction. And may not he that hath never a bit of an eye perceive what is so palpable, that since the Puritans had such influence, and favour shown them as of late, that the Popish Faction is advanced ten times more than when they were better kept under? And, this partly through the infinite scandal given to our Reformation by them; partly, forsooth, that for their tender Consciences sake such an indulgence and connivance general must be allowed, that Papists (who have no less to show for a Toleration than have they) must be comprehended in it too. But what doth this Man mean to write so at a venture? but that which moves them all, prevailed with him; viz. that the common people would not trouble themselves so far as to suspect what he says, while he speaks what they would have him. What think you of those that Doctor Crackenthorp says against the Fugitive Bishop of Spalleto, 
Crackenthor. Defensio Eccl. Anglicanae Con. Archiepise. Spa. cap. 33.  (who for that reason, that Puritans were tolerated in England, took a prejudice against the Church of England) were persecuted for their Consciences? Was not Cartwright cast into Prison? Was not Brightman degraded, and put from his Priesthood? Were not Wigginton, Culverwell, Salesbury, Field, Hildersh. Parker, Stoughton, Smith, Jackson, and others, turned out of their Live, and suspended from their Priest's Office? Udal and Penry adding to their obstinacy revile of the Queen's Majesty, one of them was put to death, and the other received capital sentence, and was punished? Were all these or any of these of so late standing as you mean? Do we not hear of most lamentable complaints of old, made by the Puritans, of the sore persecution they ever sustained, and do they now accuse later times, holding the former innocent? 
Fuller Ecclesi. Hist.  The Letters between the Lord Burleigh and Archbishop Whitgift are yet extant, whereby it appears that there were very many Ministers turned out of their Benefices in those days, in the County of Essex, only for scrupuling the Rites and Ceremonies of our Church. And more for the satisfaction of others, who are apt to think Civil severity too much for the Church to have on their side against such Men as these, than for this Author's sake; 
Sir George, his Life of Bishopwhitgift. pag. 40.  Consider what Sir George Paul writes in the Life of Bishop Whitgift, and we shall be easily convinced that our Church acts no new thing, nor the Civil Magistrates so much as was wont to be done in behalf of the Church in the earlier days of Reformation. Thomas Cartwright and Edmund Snapo, with others, were called in question, and proceeded withal in the Star-Chamber for setting forth and putting in practice, without warrant or Authority, 
Id. pag. 54.  a New Form of Common Prayer, Administration of Sacraments and Presbyterial Discipline in the year 1591. Again, the Queen was offended that Cartwright should preach without Subscription. Again, Good execution of Laws (his own words) against Puritan kept things quiet; 
Id. pag. 55.  especially by the assistance of the Lord Chancellor Hation. And had he who so lately bore that name and office dealt more sincerely and uprightly towards the Church, I suppose he had had no more to answer for, either before God or Man, than now he hath. Again, he proceeds. 
Id. pag. 58. Id. ibid.  After him, Sir John Puckering was a friend to the Church. And lastly, Sir Thomas Egerton Lord Keeper was very careful to suppress the foresaid Libels. And those Libels were none other but the religious stuff invented and vented against the Church of England, and the Asserters thereof.  
And this may suffice to have shown what the ancient Churches judged of Heretics, and Schismatics, and the allowance of them, and what our Churches hath done in reference to them. It is now more than time that we come to show what both the opinion and practice of both of them have been towards us, that so, if there be remaining any Candour in the breasts of these importunate demanders of the same, they may blush to require it, or at least, give us leave not to blush to deny the same. And the God of all Justice do that which is right in his eyes between us. And first let us hear the Papist, as briefly as the cause will permit.   

CHAP. VI Papists directly and absolutely against Toleration of many Religions, or any besides their own.  
WE have shown out of Thomas and Bellarmine already, that Heretics ought to be put to death, and why; and he that will be further satisfied therein may easily turn to Commentators on Thomas, and find his opinion confirmed and justified, without any further trouble here undertaken, to the drawing out this discourse to a length more tedious, than necessary to the Reader. Only from hence we may infer, what is a manifest consequent to what hath been said, viz. That if such may be cut off so by the Secular sword, they, according to such men's judgement, may and aught to be restrained and suppressed by punishments of an inferior rank, 
Johan. Houlettus Praefatione ad Regiam Majestatem: apud Humphredum Admonit: de Curiae Romanae praxi; contendit, de Evangelicis posse, de Romanensibus non posse sumi supplicium.  and milder nature; unless it be said by Papists (as in truth it is by some) what the Presbyterians say for themselves, as we have showed, That Prelatists may and aught to come to the Presbyterians, but the Presbyterians cannot, nor aught to come to the Prelatists; That punishment ought to be taken of the Evangelical [Professors] that is, the Reformed, but the Romanists ought not to be punished. So Demonstrative are the reasons, and so ingenuous are the writings of both Papist and Puritan. But we must not altogether be guided by such Oracles as speak so broadly and vainly; if there be any such thing remaining or to be respected in the World, sure this is reason that men's testimonies should conclude against themselves, when there is nothing but disadvantage to them which make their cases different. For, neither the one nor the other can modestly deny the Principles and Doctrine of the Church of England to be less inconsistent with the Civil Government, and not so rank in persecution of opinions differing from it, as are they; and yet forsooth they, where they cannot persecute, must not be persecuted, or touched; where they can, must not be questioned. Now that the Romanists will not endure anycompetition in Religion, appears by what is said above; and by these several instances.  
In the year of our Lord Five hundred fifty five, as Funcius tells us, 
Hic Hereticos & Schismaticos no●entes ad saniorem Doctrinam reduci rationibus, seculari manu coerceri posse definivit. Funcius Comment. Chronol. lib. 8. Ribadeneira de las virtudes del Principe Christiano lib. 1. cap. 24. cap. 23.26, 27, 28.  Pelagius was made Bishop of Rome in the room of Vigilius, by the Emperor Jestinian. This Man (saith he) defined that Heretics and Schismatics who refused to be brought home to sound Doctrine, were to be restrained by the Secular Power. And that this hath been the currant judgement of that Church, their Modern writers declare. Do they not make this Defence of theirs, and Offence of their Enemy's Religion, one of their First Principles and Documents which they season Princes with? Let the Work of Ribadeneira the Jesuit speak for all. In the year 1597 he wrote a Treatise in Spanish, Printed at Antwerp, Of the Virtues of a Christian Prince; The Subjects of some of the Chapters of which Book, are these. That it is impossible, that Heretics and Catholics should make a good League, in one and the same Commonwealth. Chap. 24. Examples of Certain Emperors, who suffered not many Religions. Chap. 23. The same is proved by the Authority, and Examples of Saints. Chap. 26. That Heretics ought to be punished: and how prejudicial Liberty of Conscience most be, Chap. 27. That Heresies are the Causes of Revolutions and Ruins of States. Chap. 28. From such Titles as these, it is easy to divine, what is contained in that Work: I have thought good to leave all to the ingenuity of the Reader to judge, rather than to exceed in unnecessaries. 
Becanus De Fide Haeret●●is servanda, Contra Paraeum.  To this Author, let us add one of the same Fraternity, Becanus, in a tractate against Paraeus: where he lays down this as a Second Principle, Liberty of Religion and Faith is unlawful, and contrary to Christian Doctrine, and hurtful and pernicious to the Commonwealth. His Reasons are these. First, Because, as Divines teach very right, Heresy is a greater sin than Adultery, Murder, or Theft. Secondly, The Doctrine of Christ is true: But true and false, are contrary. Thirdly, Liberty is hurtful: First, In respect of the Salvation of Souls; Secondly, In respect of outward Peace and Tranquillity: For this cannot be preserved without Unity of Faith.— A third Principle of his is this, A Catholic Prince can neither prescribe, approve, or introduce Liberty of Religion, but must hinder the same, as much as possibly he can. But yet, if he cannot hinder it without greater damage to the Public good, he may permit it, as the less Evil: Hitherto Becanus. And that very Villain Parsons, 
Parson's Mitigation. cap. 2 num. 5.  in a Treatise of Mitigation, writeth thus, We agree with the Protestants in this, that there can be no agreement between us and them in Religion. Yea, so far did this man's Zeal hurry him for Religion, who himself was by his own side suspected to be an Atheist in heart, that presuming at length by his many State-Stratagems, and Treasonable Practices, to subvert both Church and State, as they were then established, that one of his requests to the Pope was, That England being reduced to his Model, none other Popish Orders might be Tolerated in England save the Jesuits and Franciscans, which were not like to disagree so much as Secular Priests with other Orders and the Jesuits; while these kept to their particular Rules of having all they can lay their hands on, and they of having nothing. And I have been told, that even since the Restauration of his Present Majesty, the Emulation and Animosities have been so great, that after several Pamphlets, For, and Against Secular Priests and Jesuits, the Secular Priests with the assistance of some of other Orders undertook with some Great Persons that, upon condition they might have a Toleration (which is the most that any Faction did at first Petition for) they would take care, that the Jesuits should never be admitted in England: of which, Mr. Cressie, that busy Apostate, can give you a farther account. But when a man considers how that subtle, industrious, and powerful Faction hath baffled all the severest Edicts against them in such Countries where Popery flourishes, he will scarce believe that such a device could take effect, or, if it did, could continue long. Can any Decree be more solemn, or sharp against them, than that, made by Henry the Fourth of France, whereby, the Jesuits were all to departed Paris within Three days, and within Fifteen, 
An. Dom. 1594  to forsake the whole Kingdom; and a Pillar to be erected in Public, for Posterity to read their wickedness and doom; for the Assasination of that Great Prince in his own Chamber, by a young bird John Chastel of about 18 years of age, of the Jesuits bringing up: And yet, such was their Dexterity, Dissimulation, and Interests with Pope and all Princes of their Religion, that about Ten years after, the very same King should be imposed upon so far, as to demolish the Monument of their Wickedness; repeal his Banne, restore them again: And in the very same year (as most then, and there living, judged) the same King being Murdered right-out by Ravilliac, instigated by those holy men; they not only escaped censure, but carried the matter with such artifice, that the King's heart must be given to them, as his best Friends; and conveyed to a Convent of theirs at La Flech: Notwithstanding, thus much Ravilliack confessed (who would confess but little) that by reading Mariana the Jesuits Book, he was impelled to commit that Fact: Whereupon Cotton, the Jesuits Chief Father, wrote a Book to the Queen, endeavouring to show, that they held no such opinions: But another Author wrote a Book, which he entitled Anti-Cotton, wherein he manifestly proved the contrary.  
And did not the State of Venice in Paul the Fifths time, upon discovery of their treacherous, and mischievous Pranks, expel them their Dominions, adding a Law after them, which made it Death for any, to propound any thing to the Senate, in order to their Return; yet have they so brought it about, by the Pope their singular Friend; and by the Turk their happy Enemy; and lastly, by their infinite Treasure, That admittance and welcome is granted them into their Countries.  
But to return: Judge we yet farther of their Opinions, concerning Toleration of others, from that profane Fop, Author of Fiat Lux, 
Pag. 260.  who, in a good humour, professes great kindness to both Prelatical and Puritan Party; but that forced feigned Part being soon laid down, and he returning to himself, compares them both to the Bondmaid, and her Son Ishmael, and then nothing less will satisfy him, than, ejice Ancillam cum Puero suo. Out with them both; Surely that the Papists may enter, and have not only free, but alone Possession! For he adds; This is the only remedy and means of Peace.  
But Bellarmine, where we above quoted him, gives us not only his opinion, but reasons, why Heretics may not be suffered, which are worth the reciting on this occasion. This then is the subject of one Chapter, 
Bellarm: li. 3. To. 2. ca 19  Non posse conciliari Catholicos cum Haereticis, i. e; There can be no Reconciliation between Catholics, and Heretics: And whom he means by both, no doubt is to be made. First, than he gins with Cassander, and quarrels with, and confutes him: whose opinion, and design he tells us it was, That Princes ought to find out an Expedient toreconcile Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists: and that until this could be effected, every one should be permitted his Faith; provided he received the Scriptures and Apostles Creed. But herein the Cardinal was mistaken: For in that Treatise, De Officio Pii Viri, etc. quoted by him, Cassander has neither any such words, nor design: but this must be rather found in his Consultations; and even there, he doth not propound any thing for the Toleration of divers Religions, but the reduction of Religion to Primitive Rule of Holy Scriptures, Interpreted by purest Antiquity, which was the most equal, and visible outward means of Reconciling Differences. But his Reasons, why neither Lutherans, nor Calvinists ought to be Tolerated, because they are such for the most part, that War against himself, and Pretenders to Moderation at present; we will here set down. First, because we agree not in the Creed itself. Secondly, Lutherans and Calvinists are no true Members of the Church. Thirdly, Lutherans and Calvinists differ more, than in Rites; in such things as are of greatest moment, and yet not contained in the Creed itself. 4. The Holy Fathers, and the Apostles, require that we should observe not only the principal, but less Matters. 5. If it be free to believe as men please in one point, by the same reason they may be suffered to believe so in others also. 6. This is a new opinion of Cassander, and therefore to be suspected. 7. This opinion renders the Church altogether obscure and invisible.  
And in his 21th. Chapter propounding this subject, Posse Haereticos ab Ecclesia damnatos temp ralibus poenis, etiam morte, multari: He first tells us how John Huss at the Council of Constance affirmed that it was not lawful to deliver incorrigible Heretics to the Secular power, and suffer them to be burnt; and how Luther affirmed the same, and that it is no new error; for as much as the Donatists held the same: after all this he adds, Contrarium docent omnes Catholici, & aliqui etiam Haeretici; i.e. All Catholics teach the contrary, and some Heretics; of which sort is Calvin, who caused Servetus to be burnt at Geneva: and so Aretius caused Valentinus Gentilis to be put to death at Berne. You may see his Thesis proved afterward by several places of the Old and New Testament, which I list not here to relate; they are obvious of themselves. Stapleton in his Sermons confirms this saying, Qui libros Haereticorum legere, etc. 
Staplet. Prompta Moral. Domin 7. post Penned.  They who think it no sin to read Heretics Books, or suppose they may be suffered safely, consider not what that imports which our Saviour says, Beware of false Prophets, etc. And to imprint this the better in our minds, he tells us with great gravity and seriousness, a Tale out of the common Budget, thus. ' The Abbot Cyriacus Presbyter of Laura Calamon, near the River Jordan, 
Pratum Spiritu. cap. 46.  saw in his sleep the Blessed Virgin pass by his Cell; and being very importunate with her that she would vouchsafe to come in [and surely to take an hard bed] she replied. How can I enter into thy Cell while thou keepest by thee mine enemy? and, so having said thus, went her way. But he waking, marvelled what this should mean; but at length having ransacked all his Cell, he found two Books of Nestorius stitched to a Volume of Jsychius. 
Surius Commentar-rerum gectarum in Orb. Au. 1540 pag. 400.  Answerable hereunto is the applause given by Surius to the Emperor's Decree made in the year 1540 for the burning of Heretics Books; and his own opinion largely delivered in justification of such punishment towards Heretics. And though Guiliclmus Parisiensis were a Man of that moderation and gravity in other points, 
Guilielmus Farisiensis, De Fide, cap. 2.  herein he seems to be most severe; saying, Quicquid contra veram credulitatem est, error est. Consequens igitur est, omnem credulitatem quae c●mmuni fidei contradicit, errorem esse impietatis; & ideo g●adio & igne exterminandam. i e. What ever is against true Faith, is an error. From whence it follows, That all belief which is against the common Faith, is an impious error, 
Consideres deinde● Ecclesiam Romanam, etc. Episcop. Respons. ad Wadding. Epist. De Regula.  and to be driven out by fire and sword. So that true is that of Episcopius to Wadding the Jesuit, whom he advises to consider it; The Roman Church holds this for an undoubted Axiom according to his confession, and particularly Rosweden in his late Treatise of the evil Faith of Capellus, that Heretics are to be put to death, their Books to be burnt, and their Faith to be kept under by eternal silence.  
But this short taste of a plentiful table of such stuff as this, may suffice, as to the Romanists opinion, which their practices have superabundantly confirmed; of which to speak a little, as it will not be impertinent, so to speak much altogether superfluous; the whole being but too apparent.  
And here we may begin with the Romish Inquisition constituted of so much injustice and cruelty as scarce can be matched any any where. It began, (saith Pedro Paolo) after the year One thousand, 
Pedro Paolo, Histor. Inquisit. pag. 6.  two hundred; the principal Inquisitors being the Dominicans and Franciscans, who sprang up about that time. And about the year of Grace, One thousand, two hundred, forty four, Frederick the Second, Emperor, published four Edicts at Padua, in favour of the Inquisitors; whereby, obstinate Heretics were to be cast into the Fire; and, such as repent, were yet to be kept in Prison perpetually. And this Inquisition in tract of time hath acquired so much strength and sury, that Princes themselves have been subject to it, and oppressed by it, as lamentably appears in the sad instance of Charles Prince and Heir of Spain, who upon suspicion only, that he favoured Heretics, falling into the Paws of these merciless Lions, was put to death against his Father Philip's will, 
Joac. Ursin. Praefat. ad lib. Reginal. Ursin de Inquisitiove.  and endeavour to the contrary; as Joachimus Vrsinus witnesseth. Yet I know there goes a tradition that his own Father caused his death, upon such a suspicion: which, if so, the matter is but little mended as to the extreme rigour used by the Inquisitors, and the Roman Zealots against Heretics. Which the Duke of Alva (that Butcher of Christians) further demonstrated in his Generalship over the Netherlands, so that he gloried at his Table, that, for the extirpating of Heresy, in the space of six years only, he had caused to be grievously tormented and put to death about Eighteen thousand, 

Meteranus Histor Belgic. lib. 4. pag. 127. Bellarm. lib 3. cap. 12. De Lai cis.  
Baronius: An. 1199. numb. 33.  
Guilielmus Armon. De rebus 〈◊〉 ●hilip. gest. apud Bzovium.   besides such as he had destroyed in the War out of hatred, by private murders also, as Metaranus writeth. And long before this, In the days of Innocent the third, were burnt of the Albigenses a Hundred and eighty at one time, as Bellarmine testifieth, and justifieth too: But Baronius outvies him: for he saith, that in one day in the year One thousand, one hundred, eighty three, in the City of Bordeaux alone, Seven thousand of them were slain. But another's report much more surpasses his, affirming that in the year One thousand, two hundred and nine, in the same City were slain Sixty thousand Albigenses. In the same year, in the Village Minerva an hundred and eighty were burnt alive. In the year One thousand, two hundred, and a eleven, Four hundred were burnt at Pulchra Vallis. Again, 

See Bzovius, Matth. Paris, and quoted ●y Doctor Crackenthorp. Defen●. Eccles. Angl. Cont. Spalatens. cap. 18. Sleiden Com. lib 6  
Meminimus loco vicino Basileae crematum esse quendam propter esum carnium.  
Melancthon Epistola ad Marchiacas Ecclesias Causs. 23. q. 5. cap. Excomm●. Summar. of Religion, p. 31.   in the same year in Lavarum, Eighty were put upon Gibbets. In the same year Eighty of the Nobles were beheaded; neither did they spare the Women. Again, in the year One thousand, two hundred, and thirteen at Mirellum many were cut off by the Sword, more consumed in the River, twenty (Prateolus saith, Seventy) thousand were slain. In the year One thousand, two hundred, and ninteen, at Miromanda were slain 5000. In the year 1236. about fifty were burnt or buried alive. And in the year One thousand, two hundred, forty two, in a small Village in the Diocese of Tholouse, about Two hundred were burned. By all which we see clearly what Execution the Inquisition did, newly then erected. Sleiden tells us further of one who was burnt, because he could not approve of all the Roman Rites. And Melancthon of another, who was burnt in a place not far from Basile, because he did eat Flesh. All which agrees perfectly with the definition of Pope V●ban, who saith, We do not judge them to be Murderers, who, out of zeal to Catholic Church, shall kill some Excommunicate persons.  
And in France Twenty thousand men were slain in, and about Paris, upon the Licence given, by the Duke of Guise, to root out the Evangelicks, as Sleiden reports to us. To this, if we add the inhuman as well as unchristian Fact of Charles the 9th. of France, by whose Connivance and Concurrence, if not command, so many thousands of Hugonots were Massacred for no other real Reasons, but because they were of The Religion; however blushing at the Immanity of the Fact, a pitiful groundless tale was told concerning Plots should nave been laid by them; we need proceed no further: For such an intolerable and treacherous piece of Barbarity it was, that our Adversaries, and their Friends that committed the same, have nothing more, or better, to answer for it; but that we are too prone to remember it: and they too prone to commit such Butcheries and Inhumanities' against them, that differ from them in Religion, and are too unwilling to learn of them.  
Not long after the First Light of Reformation in Spain, were estimated about 2000 of that Profession, 
Sr. Edwin Sands.  and were it not, (saith a diligent Observer of Men and Countries) for the Inquisition, all the Country would soon be overspread with them of the Reformed Religion. In Sevil alone were thought to be 12000, who all by the violence and vigilance of the Inquisition, have been suppressed and brought to nothing. Let not Papists therefore wonder and brag both, of their plentiful Harvest they have of late days reaped of Proselytes, by putting their Sickle into our Corn, for, were it so, that such remission of Laws, such an indifferency were cherished and countenanced in Persons, such a permission and favour to Seducers were granted, as is apparent hath been given to our Adversaries, it would appear in a short time in Spain and Italy, what a great difference there would be in the success, to the advantage of our Religion.  
And can any doubt be made, what favour or Toleration we are to expect from Papists here, in this Nation; were we in the power of their hands, as they either are, or might be in ours, how they would dispose of us; when it is so unanswerably evident how it tolerably they have Persecuted our Religion already in England: so that, as one observes, in two of the six years' Reign of Queen Mary only, 
Epistola Ante Ridleium De Coena Domini.  divers Testimonies and Letters testify no fewer than 800 persons were put to most cruel deaths in England, for their Religion only. And our Acts and Monuments, of their Bloody minds and hands are such lasting evidences against them, that they have no better way to save their reputation, but by scoffs, and merry Flouts, which with such as are ambitious to be counted Wits, rather than Religious, is of greatest Force. And that Lack-manners and honesty Parsons shall be heard upon his scurrilous humour, rather than he, whose Shoes he was unworthy to carry; as to Learning, Fidelity, or Piety. 'tis not denied what is most colourably objected, that Mr. Fox, might set such down for Martyred Persons who suffered not. But considering that he, following the Decrees and Sentence of Death publicly extant against such persons, together, with the time and place determined for that end, might authentically deliver that for done (though peradventure such things might interpose, between the Lips and the Cup, which might alter Sentence given) which particularly, and precisely to find out through all England, was very hard.  
And to write a History, or rather a Tragedy of what was Acted by Rebellions, Treasons, and Conspiracies in King Edward the Sixths, Queen Elizabeth's, and King James his days only, for their Religion, were to speak truths most pertinent to our subject, but shameful to such, as are of that Communion, and plead for Liberty. How do we wish for no other testimony, than that of their own Consciences; how incompatible with Civil Unity and Peace this Design is? how certainly it would turn, and is by them intended for our Ruin and Destruction, as well as their own safety? and we needed not such, and so many sad and invincible Instances of their Irreconcilableness to, and Inconsistency with us, in any co-ordination or equality of Privileges? How do we wish that men would be so fair, as to stand to their own Hands of outward Practices, and then needed there no curious Inquiries into men's judgements, or resolutions: But when men's Cause and Hearts so far fail them, that they dare stand to the Trial of neither of these, but will have judgement pass on them by the future, which is invisible, and impossible to be known but by what is past; and when neither their Pens, nor their Swords shall conclude, but a sorry word or two in their straits, shall be taken for sufficient proof of Natures and Wills: then doth there remain nothing for us, to betake ourselves to, but our Prayers; and them, not so much that God would keep us in our Religion, but Wits.  
Divers are their Papers and Pamphlets, whereby they would amuse such as understand or regard nothing, with the reasonableness of their Religion, and the merits of their Persons; but both the one and the other have been, with all ocular Demonstrations, convicted of the contrary by sober and plain replies made unto them. They Mascarate themselves most frequently under the plausible and taking Appellations of Old Cavaliers, and having so disparaged the King and Church's party, they exspatiate with strange levity and vain glory in the common place of Self-admiration, and highest commendations: 
Letter of an Old Cavalier in Yorkshire to one in ●ondon.  viz. What Men of parts, and power, and ingenuity, and fortitude of mind, in bearing Persecutions, which have been hitherto nothing but acts of Grace and favour. But they tell us not how they laugh in their sleeves at all Proclamations and Laws for their restraint, and banishment of their Seminaries, and Incendiaries, as being secure in the midst of such insignificant thunders, and presumptuous in the midst of their pretended fears. And from truth and sobriety of language are they degenerated in their writings into such frivolous, fallacious, and mere childish humours of moving compassion, where reason cannot be shaken, that a Man of any insight in the course and causes of things cannot but despise their empty and groundless Apologies. I shall touch but two of their more common pleas, and places for themselves, and so leave them. The one is, That Papists are tolerated in divers Parts of Germany, in Holland, Switzerland, in France, and I know not where else: as if that were all true which they affirm in this particular; or, as if so much as is true were any whit to our present case: For, neither in the Free Cities in Germany, or certain Countries (as they would suggest and persuade against the certain knowledge of the wisest) are either Papists tolerated in Protestant Countries, or Protestants in Popish. But in the first troubles and dissensions (even to civil discords and armings on both sides) an accord was at length made, and composition, That such Churches and Places should belong to Papists, and such to Protestants; so that they never had one over another perfect Dominion, either Ecclesiastical or Civil, from the ruptures made amongst them; whence it is evident, that the one beareth indeed with the other, but neither gives Toleration to other. And this is the Case chief of France: where, though the true Sovereign of both be of the Romish Church, yet cannot it be said that he freely gives them Toleration, since that was concluded upon when it was not in the King's power to deny, and was ratified in the Agreement, which they of the Religion (as they are called) made with their Prince (whether orderly or irregularly is not now under question) upon the mutual pacification; so that the Laws of that Nation and the constitution thereof do as truly require the inviolable observation thereof on one side as on the other, and secure the Protestants. But our Laws are directly contrary thereunto, and the reason hereof is well known to be, the unreasonableness and indomitable malice and mischief of Papists extorting these severe Edicts.  
And in Holland, what Toleration have they? Any Legal, or Public Act of Grace in that behalf, which is pleaded for here? Nothing less: but they and their Religion are at the disposal of Military Officers to repress, or permit, according as gain shall arise to them from a Connivance. And let any indifferent Person judge, whether the Cases be alike: and especially in this, That such as are Papists in the United Provinces have expended their lives and treasures to bring the State to that condition it now enjoys; and surely may with good reason expect some benefit of quiet and ease under the same: On the other side, our Papists have perpetually machinated, and to their Power executed Plots and practices pernicious to our present Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical, and thereby forfeited all Protection of Laws, and common sufferance.  
And whereas they never cease, as with the swelled cheeks of Fame to sound out their own praises for their late adherence to Charles the First, in his Wars against the Rebels (which is their Second main Topick for Indulgences;) How do these their Merits melt away, not so much before the Sun, as Candle; showing these great Flaws in their pretences, and Insolidities? First, put Case that they had done such singular and signal service (though I think that the King's Cause was never, in the gross, advanced by the most valiant common Drunkard, or noted Papist, through the Scandal given to them of sober Manners, or Religion) Did they rise in their Allegiance above the duty of Subjects? Again, Were they all on that side? Were they all of that mind? Did none of the Popish Faction, act to the prejudice of the King? How apparent is it, what a mixture of Papists heads there was, in the laying the Design of the Rebellion, as well in England, as Ireland? and how Priests of all sorts mingled themselves, disguised in the Parliaments Army, to widen and inflame Differences? There are Treatises extant showing this, which though peradventure, may have over acted their part, yet so much of reality do they contain, 
William's Bishop of Ossory Discovery of Mysteries. pag. 52.  which notably may allay the brags of unspotted fidelity to their King and Country. Bishop Williams, in a Treatise be wrote in the heat, and height of Rebellion, tells us upon his own knowledge, that of Fifty, or Sixty Soldiers that billetted in Adthorp, there was no less than three or four Papists of the Parliaments Army. Add hereunto the idle, as well as treacherous Piece of Mr. White, Of Government, whereby he asserted the Right of Rule, belonging only to the Line of our Kings, to him that villainously Usurped it, or any one else that could get it; and their faithfulness shrinks into a less compass. Besides, be it true, that they were so generally Courageous, and Faithful to their King, as is talked of; Can not sufficient agnition, or remuneration be thought of, but such as turned to the extreme damage of such, as were no less Faithful and Loyal, than were they? Or, did they not only purchase glory and benefit to themselves, but misery and undoing to others, by their Merits? They were not (it may be as truly, as boldly said) above the Twentieth Part of the King's Forces. Whence comes it then, that they make more noise than all others? From their generous minds which they boast of? And must the Generality of the Nation be certainly undone that they may receive their just reward? But that the whole Nation must in short time lose its Religion, and Sacrifice it to theirs, is most apparent, out of what hath been showed of their Tenets, and Facts, who never rest till they are chief; and being chief, never suffer men of another Persuasion to live, so much as basely under them. But then, must they not be requited and gratified for their Acts? Surely, their reward hath followed them, in that their Persons and Estates have been Rescued out of the hands of their, and our Enemies, by the favourable Influence of the King's Government; and more they cannot modestly contend for. Or, if we should grant a Proportion greater to them, than any of the King's Subjects else, might it not suffice that they have personal Privileges of Preferment, Dignities, or Liberty to themselves; but must their Acts so far preponderate all of another Religion in the same service with them, that they ought to transmit to Posterity such rewards; and these immunities from Laws must they for their sakes be granted to all as are nothing akin to them but by Religion? But consider we lastly, with what circumstances, and motives, their Loyalties were qualified: and we may easily discern that Self-preservation might be as strong an argument, as was their famed Loyalty. For they saw plainly the Rebel-Houses aimed at their Ruin, and seized their Estates. Had they any more profitable way than left them, or probable, to oppose their Enemies, than by giving Assistance to the King? And when their own Interest might suffice to join with him, as is frequent for neighbours to assist their weaker Enemies, to prevent a more potent and dangerous Adversary; must this be cried up, as such incomparable good Service, as can never, nor any other way, be recompensed but by opening a door to our own Perdition? When they so cheerfully, and clearly espouse the Cause of King and Country against their Religious Interest, (as hitherto they have only jointly with it) it will be much more seasonable and proper to demand such Remunerations (though not so great) as now they expect. But to stretch to such length, breadth, and height their late Actions by Amplifications and Encomiums, as if they could as easily merit Earth, as Heaven, by doing scarce their duty; and to feign themselves even half mad with admiration, and astonishment, that any of the Friends to the King, should yet suspect them of Disloyalty, is but to follow the humour of their Religion, which teaches, Because their Church hath not erred at sometimes, therefore at no time must it be thought for to Err. Which yet, as unreasonable as to all the World it appears, we will engage to comply with them in, when they shall be able to give but the tithe of Instances for their peaceableness and loyalty, as we shall for their Seditions, Treasons, Rebellions, and Conspiracies against all Government not hallowed with their Profession. In a word, never let their unparallelled confidence in justification of themselves as to Obedience and Loyalty prevail over them, to imagine we will deny our Senses and Experience, and all Record, and Histories to the contrary: For, we●e there no more ingenious way to put these things out of doubt, we would readily pawn our Heads against their Beards, and our Lives against their meanest Limbs, that so far as writings and actions past can give any proof of future dispositions, and motions, (I do not say a Papist, but) Popery cannot consist with the Peace of this Nation or Church, as now established, we will undertake to Demonstrate; when ever they shall be so bold as to tempt us to put them to so much just and necessary shame. And in truth, this has been so far and fully done, and that lately by others, that were, it my present design (as it is not) to paint them out in their Postures, and Colours, the labour would be unnecessary: This therefore will I leave for them to be still astonished at, and me to prove; That a Papist, as a Papist and following the most received and current Doctrine taught by that Church, (some I easily grant, as in all other points, may vary somewhat, but they are but few, and contemptible with them,) and put in practice can never be a Loyal Subject, under any Prince not of the Romish-Church, any longer than necessity humbles him, and despair of prosperous success keeps him tame. Let us therefore hear what the other Extreme, the Puritan, hath to plead for, or rather against, himself; and whether he be a Child of better hopes, who gives us the very same promises with the other, and himself the same praises.   

CHAP. VII. The Opinions and Practice of Puritans, directly opposite to that kind of Liberty of Conscience they argue for, and at present desire.  
IT hath been observed by some, that the Jesuits and Puritans had their Original at the same time, with the difference of one year only. For the Puritans began to show their Head in the year 1536; and the Jesuits were admitted at Rome in the year 1537. 
Sanderus De Haeresih. p. 221. Genebrardus. Chronol. Anno 1566.  But Sanders and Genebrard affirm they sprang up in the year 1566. And I have heard the Providence of God towards the Church admired and magnified amongst Foreign Papists, who at the same time that the Presbyterians arose, stirred up the Jesuits to oppose and countermine them. And I find it one of the best popular arguments in the mouths, and lately in the writings, of Presbyterians, That they ought to be tolerated, and not only so but cherished in this Church, for their singular enmity and opposition to Popery; which, when they are once put down, they give out must needs enter in. For thus speaks one of no small account with them, 
John orbets Interest of England, pag. 46.  And verily if there were a design to reconcile England to Rome, let all means be used totally to quash the Puritans or Presbyterians; but if England will keep herself pure from Romish abominations, let her be a kind Mother to th●se her Children; for this Interest is one chief strength of the Reformed Protestant Religion. Thus he.  
An argument, as current as it is, this is, consisting equally of Folly and Knavery, as will thus appear. First, because we having found by direful experience that the Presbyterians, as well as the Papists, have not only contrived and conspired against our Church's welfare, but have actually most scandalously and cruelly endeavoured the utter overthrow of the same, and still stick firmly to the same Principles, which instigated them to such unnatural and unjust practices; may not their argument (as indeed it hath been) be turned thus against them for the Papists? Verily if there be a design to become Presbyterians, then let the Papists be totally quashed; but if England will keep herself pure from the Dominations of Scottish Presbytery, then let her be kind to the Papists, who have done as much against them as they have against the Papists; thus does the extreme vanity of their argument appear; the only course to preserve ourselves in peace and unity being to serve them both alike. Again, were it so that by accident (for it cannot be said out of design to the good of our Church) either of them might contribute somewhat to the good of the Church as now established, the rule which Seneca gives us in such cases is not to be neglected, 
Seneca lib. 1. cap. 12.  Non ideò vitia recipienda surt quia aliquando al quid boni ●ffecerunt, Evils are not to be admitted, because at certain times they have had some good effect. So neither ought we to run to Popery for fear of Presbytery, nor run to Presbytery, for fear of Popery. But the way of arguing is likewise very knavish, in that by implication, a wicked slander is cast upon our Church, that it must needs favour Popery, if Puritanism be wholly rejected; But if we deny them such prevaricating Reasonings, we cut them out of all their prime confidences, and take away their most principal and successful Weapons. Therefore, leaving this, let us come nearer to their testimonies against themselves. In which, because they pretend great reverence to Foreign Divines of the Reformation, it will not be much out of the way to set down one or two of their Authorities against them.  
It is well known that Beza hath written a Tractate on purpose, 
Beza de Hareticis a Magistratu puniendis.  That Magistrates may, and aught to punish Heretics, which they of his side, who doubt of this point, may turn to, and be convinced. I shall cite this only passage out of him, and so leave him. Cedò igitur Christus quo jure flagella his corripuit? Quo jure Petrus Annaniam & Sapphiram occidit? Quo jure Paulus Elymam excoecavit? Num Ecclesiastici Minist●rii? Minimè profectò. etc. [you that hold that the Magistrate ought not to punish Heretics] Tell me I pray, By what authority did Christ twice take a whip up? By what authority did Peter put to death Annanias and Sapphira? By what authority did Paul put out the eyes of Elymas? What, by the Ecclesiastical Ministry? Nothing less truly, unless thou wilt confound Jurisdictions. Therefore was it done by the authority of the Civil Magistrate: For, there is no third way.  
Peter Martyr writeth not only against professed Heretics, but such as call themselves tender-conscienced men too, allowing them toleration no longer than they may receive sufficient instruction; and addeth, 
Petrus Martyr Loc. Com. Clas. 2. cap. 1. numb. 32, etc.  Imò neque in ipsis mediis rebus Infirmis est assentiendum, nisi tantisper dum melius ac per fectiùs doceantur. Ac cum rem, etc. Yea, neither in things indifferent are we to yield to the weak, unless for a while, until they may be better and more fully instructed: But so soon as they have understood the matter, and yet are doubtful, their weakness is not to be cherished. Besides, so much ought not to be attributed unto such, as that by our example we should hurt others, and more of the members of Christ. Thus Martyr. And it is to us plain (however they must and may be of another opinion) that by giving way to them that thus pretend tender Consciences, we should offend Consciences a great deal better settled, and more to be regarded and valued than theirs, which (as experience from cruel havoc they have made in Church and Commonwealth, assures us) strain at a guat and swallow a Camel.  
And what other course took the Contra-remonstrants against their Brethren in the Netherlands, after the Council of Dort, but this; when they refused to submit to the sentence then given? 
Act. Synodal. pag. 324.  They decreed, That every one should be deprived of all, as well Ecclesiastical as. Scholastical Offices, who refused to submit punctually to the Acts of the Synod; and, 
Synodal Remonstrate. in Praefat.  that no man should be admitted to the Ministry for the time to come, who refused to subscribe to the Doctrine there declared, and preach according unto the same: And in pursuance of that final determination, no fewer than two hundred of the Opposite Party, who could not conform to the Acts thereof, were forthwith banished the Country; a Proclamation following them from the Magistrate, That no Man should afford them any help or maintenance. Does not this match for a hair the extremest persecution can at present be objected to the Church against Puritans? Or rather doth it not exceed it?  
Bullinger telleth us with full approbation and commendation, 
Bullingerus Epist ad Calvinum Epist. ●●3 inter Cal. vini Epi●●olas.  Dudum D. Vrbanus Regius una cum om●ibus Luneburgensibus Ecclesiae Ministris, edito etiam libro Germanico jure divino & humano coerceri Heretics, tum etiam ju e civil●; si non desinant impia, etc. i. e. Master Urbanus Regius, together with all the Ministers of Luneberg hath lately published a Book in the Germane tongue, whereby he showeth that by the Law of God and Man, and Civil Law too, Heretics ought to be restrained, if they cease not to scatter wicked Doctrines, or have scattered blasphemies against God. And in the same Epistle he telleth us, Not long since Titian, an Italian Anabaptist, an Hebionite, and Helvidian was cast into prison by the three Confederate Countries of Rhetia, and had been burnt, had he not made a Recantation; and yet, notwithstanding that, was whipped by the Court.  
And what Calvin's opinion was in this point we needed not inquire further than we are taught from his Fact, principally in causing Servetus to be burnt at Geneva. But his Institutions and Epistles, where he is much displeased with good Melancthon for straightening the breaches, and qualifying the distempers of both sides; and on the other side, his Book against the Anabaptists do clearly show and prove unto us.  
But whoever pleaseth to satisfy himself more fully and particularly concerning the opinions of Foreign Divines in the case of conscience about the granting liberty to scrupulous persons in matters of Indifferency, may consult Mons●eur Durels diligent Collections of several of them, negatively concluding against Liberty in indifferent things, to any or many single persons, contrary to the constitutions of a Church: And in truth, they that contend for the same cannot show a Church upon earth that indulges so far. So equal and ingenuous are they to tug so undeniably for it of us. 
Bilson's Difference of Christian Obedience from, etc. pag. 33.  But I now draw homeward, where I may be the more brief, because Bishop Bilson hath to any reasonable man's hand, already proved this Thesis, That Magistrates may compel their Subjects against their pretended consciences to Ecclesiastical Orders.  
Who of them can refuse Mr. Cartwright, the Aurhors of the Admonition compiled in Queen Elizabeth's days, and many Supplications to the Parliaments in those days? do not they all run in one strain of abolishing utterly the established Government? and Cartwright in particular excepting against the Common Prayer for permitting the people to departed at the time of Communion; saith, It ought to provide that all those who would withdraw themselves, 
Th. Cartwright Reply to Whitgist. pag. 117.  should be by Ecclesiastical Discipline at all times, and now also under a Godly, etc. _____ by Civil punishment brought to communicate with their Brethren. And this is the Law of God, and this is now, and hath been, the practice of the Churches Reform, etc.  
And I hope they take not Mr. Perkins to be any of their Enemies, though I think he had too much Learning and Honesty to be a Fautor of such designs and practices as are now on Foot: He, in a certain place, 
Perkins on Galat. 1. vers. 13, 14. pag. 201, & 202. vide.  writes thus, In persecution of the Church by Paul, two points are to be considered, The manner or measure, and accomplishment; the manner is, That he persecuted the Church extremely, or above measure. That which Paul did in his Religion we must do in ours. His meaning plainly is, That as Paul in a false Religion and Zeal did persecute the true, so we in the true (and surely every man supposes himself of the true Religion) ought to persecute the false. And afterward he hath these words, The Toleration of two Religions in one Kingdom is the overthrow of Peace. 
Id. Galat. 5.15.  And in another place of the same Comment upon the Galatians, he hath these words, For this cause, the Jews had but one Temple, 
Id. Gal●t. 3.23 pag. 289.  one Mercy-seat, one Highpriest, etc. Hence it follows, that in all Godly Christian Commonwealths where true Religion is established, there may be no Toleration of any other Religion. For, that which is the end of God's Laws, must likewise be the end of all good Laws, in all Commonwealths and Kingdoms, namely to shut up the people into the unity of one Faith. Thus far Mr. Perkins. And before all these he gives a notable reason for Constraint. For, saith he, The multitude of people amongst us are like Wax, 
Id. Galat. 1.6, 7.  and are fit to take the stamp and impression of any Religion; and it is the Law of the Land, that makes most receive the Gospel, and not Conscience. And as he brings a reason here for constraint, so doth he else where remove an Objection commonly brought against it; which is this, It may be said, 
Id. Galat. 5.15.  that Faith and Conscience are free. I answer (saith he) though Faith in the heart, and Conscience be free in respect of man's authority, yet is not the publishing of Faith and Profession of Conscience free in like sort, but it stands subject to the power of the Magistrate.  
But it is time now to descend yet lower to the Doctrine of such who were of the same Confederacy with the present suers for liberty. In the year of our Lord 1641. Mr. Marshal preached his famous piece on Numbers 23.5. of, Curse ye Meroz; 
Mr. Marshal his Sermon before the House, 1641.  which is nothing less than Toleration of tender Consciences (if it be lawful to suppose any conscience can be tender which differs from them) but drives on with a fury them who were not backward to oppress men in their Consciences and Religion. Amongst other things this he leaves with his Auditors, coming to Application, that being obliged to curse their Adversaries, this Cursing consisted in two things, Maledicere Verbo, and Malefacere Re. They were to curse or speak evil of them in Word. And they were to do them mischief in Deed.  
Mr. Faircloth, preaching in the same year against Achans Villainy, 
Sam. Faircloth Sermon before the House of Commons, Apr. 4. 1641.  and Josuah's zeal against him, declares much against the Achans that hindered the intended Reformation, and the toleration of the Church-party, yea, against Procrastination of Severities against them; pag. ●7. Doct. 4. And pag. 40, 41. he answereth the argument of delay taken from Fabius Maximus, with Application, 1. of Praise. 2. of Prayer. Then comes he to Motives: 
pag. 44, 45.  It is God's will, 
pag. 49.  you make speed. 2. Achaus make speed to do hurt. 3. Delay hinders the joy and jubilee of the Church. 4. Ye shall bring blessings to yourselves. 
pag. 50, 51.  5. Justice executed on them, is the only end of all your Prayers. Thus he. Now if they by an usurped authority acting, taught such zeal against their Superiors; can they hold it unreasonable that Legal authority should proceed according to their own Maxims? But I shall not need to repeat innumerable instances which might be given of their impatience at the name of Toleration or Moderation, which they were wont to brand with the note of Detestable Neutrality. What was that language or design which Cartwright of old taught our late sticklers, but a thorough Reformation? 
Cartwright Preface to his Reply.  and how did he, and they after him, propound the examples of Ezechiah, Josiah, and Jehoshap●at, for that they made whole and thorough. Reformation, etc. and is there any amongst them, or us, so ignorant that knows not what they meant by thorough-reformation? and that in truth, as their Covenants and Actions demonstrated, was nothing else but the utter exstirpation of the established Government and subversion of the Church then, and so constituted: But peradventure they would now for peace sake (and so ought we too) divide and share alike. I know this is the tale they have got at their tongues end now a days, whereby they procure the esteem by some, of Moderate Men. But is this with any serious or discerning man a tolerable argument for them, when as never were there any persons so violent, rank, or extreme in their principles but when they found it not possible to obtain what their principles, and design impel them to contend for, seem at least satisfied with so much as they can get, though they will no longer rest so than advantage shall carry them further. But let us hear what Mr. Cartwright spoke, when the Faction was low, against such a peace as now is preferred to us: And you may not only read the same design, but words and arguments exactly in these more modern Reformers, which Mr. Ca●twright had, and the same spirit acting both him and these, Peace (saith he) is commended to us with these conditions. 
Cartwright Preface to his Reply.  [If it be possible, if it lies in us.] Now it is not possible it lieth not in us, to conceal the truth; we can do nothing against it, but for it. It is a profane saying of a profane man. That an unjust peace in better than a just War? Who sees not from hence most plainly, that nothing but every thing will satisfy these men? And do they not hold that an unjust peace, whereby they are kept in quiet without their discipline? and is not that a just War which is made for its sake? More a great deal (all know) might be added against them from their own mouths and hands; he that still doubts may look into that Treatise called Evangelium Armatum; which, though an imperfect, and indeed an abortive piece in comparison of what was due to such a subject, yet doth sufficiently declare their tempers and constitutions to be against all mediocrity or compounding of Differences. I have not touched any thing therein; nor is that famous Mr. Love the Presbyterian Martyr there mentioned (as I remember) or at least, not his Ranting and Rail at the attempted or pretended accommodation to be made by the Presbyterian Faction at uxbridg, with the King; nor his Sermon at Windsor, where, in the flame of his zeal for the Cause, he exhorted the people to sell their Bibles, and buy Muskets to fight against the King, and being (as he supposed) lead to it by his Text, spoke thus, That if God should go before the King's Party, He should be the greatest sinner upon Earth: which passage so exorbitant being heard and excepted against by one of the Church of England, he was called to account for speaking irreverently of Mr. Love, before the Governor of Windsor Castle; but publicly affirming and proving the same to be as he reported, by appeal to many Auditors of his, then present, who could not deny they heard the words; he was rebuked for not making the best construction of what godly men taught. The same Mr. Love (so pacific and charitable a spirit are they acted by) mounting the Scaffold at the Execution of the most Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury, put to death to satiate the Scots appetite, and such as symbolise with them, after Prelatical blood, with greatest exsultation springing at the sight, uttered these words, Art thou come Little Will? I am glad to see thee here, and hope to see the rest of the Bishops here e'er long: And that most innocent blood being shed on the Stage at his beheading, he took out his Handkerchief and ●●ained it therewith; and the Murder being over he road with it to uxbridg, and drawing it forth in the presence of divers persons spoke thus most triumphantly, Here is the blood of that proud Prelate; I hope for more of their bloods e'er long. Which Mr. A. F. Commissary to the Earl of Essex hearing, said to some then present, and divers elsewhere afterwards before his death; that he could not believe such a bloody man would die in his bed. And so by the strange and just hand of Providence it came to pass, himself suffered in the very same manner that he had rejoiced to see in others. But yet because he made use of the King's name to advance his Presbytery from Sco●land into England, this must be set on the score as an high instance to prove, what good Subjects Presbyterians can be, when their Discipline requires it.  
But passing simple authorities and testimonies of Puritans against themselves pleading for Toleration; we may come to a further double self-condemnation of them. And to this end I might insert here what hath been so lately reprinted and published of the Presbyterian Brethren of Sion-Colledg, 
A Letter of the Ministers of London, from Sion-Colledg to the Synod of Divines against Toleration, ●rinted.  or Ministers of the City of London, to their Brethren of the Synod then at Westminster, against Toleration of Independents. Which is so pregnant and cutting a way of arguing against them, that I know not what possibly can be urged more justly and reasonably by us, or less answered by them. For, I think they will blush (who have not forsworn it) to say, we have any greater or better grounds to tolerate them, than they the Independents. For my part, I could never understand they had any Authority over these, or the separation of Independents from Presbytery was ever any more a Schism than the Presbyterians opposition to, or separation from, the Independents. For, though both of them (I mean some of both Parties) might be said in some sense to be of a Church, neither of them were ever a true Church, as bungled and patched together by their novel imaginations. Yet such was the jealousy and emulation of Presbyterians, that they would be no means have any  Faction with their own, suffered.  
I had once therefore determined, to the end that all the World, and especially themselves, might stand convicted of the unreasonableness of their demands and expectations at present, to give the sum of their arguments; but considering how small a Treatise that is, and how lately it is come forth, I shall presume that it is already well known. And I shall only give the sum of Mr. Edward's Reasons, famous for his Pieces called the Gangreen, wherein he argues strenuously against the Toleration of Independents then, 
Edward's his Reasons against Toleration, Anno 1641.  and of his own Party now. To prove this then more methodically and strongly, he lays these two general grounds against Toleration. First, says he, Apostolical Practice is against this. Secondly, It causes men to run into the Violation of the constant practice and example of the Church, during all the time of the Apostles: and puts Churches upon practices that are absurd, and unreasonable, and prejudicial to the good of Souls: That Government that is not of Divine Institution, is not to be received: But the Independent doth so, faith Mr. Edward's; and we much more justly, But the Presbyterian doth so. 
Pag. 3.4.  And we prove it by Mr. Edward's his words following, They force men to have Ministers and Officers without being Ordained, contrary to the practice of the Churches all along the New Testament: as Act. 6. v. 6. Act. 4.23. No man being Ordained Officer of the Church, without Ordination: Let them produce one Instance if they can. Thus Mr. Edwards. Now, Mr. Edward's being dead, I in his stead challenge any, yea, all the Presbyterians, to give one Instance thorough all the Old, or New-Testament, or the whole Church of God for 1500 years since the Incarnation, that a naked Presbyter, or Priest, ever Ordained; or, if by highest Usurpation, they did attempt such a thing at any time, such Ordination was ever accepted, or held good by the Church. But I desire they would find some better ground to prove this, than the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter anciently: For First, this is no less doubted of, than that they would prove by it. Secondly, If because St. Hierome is thought to have been of that Opinion, (as some take his words) we should suppose, and not grant, that they were so once, it proves nothing now: when it is most certain they are not so, nor have been so, for many hundred years. And therefore men and women both, imposing hands upon their Pastor among Independents, if the Ordination of these be condemned by Presbyterians; the Presbyterians Ordination may altogether be of no account among us.  
After this Mr. Edward's proceeds to prove particularly, 
Edward's. ibid.  That Toleration is not to be allowed: And First, from the Vanity and Impertinency of the texts of Scripture brought to prove it. For though (saith he) the Scripture speaks much for Tolerating and bearing one with another in many things, both in matters of Opinion and Practice, as these places tel●ifie. Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, v. Rom. 15.1, 2, 7. Ephes. 4, 23. Philip. 3. v. 15, 16. Yet, when differences come either to Heresy or Schism, and Points to be maintained by men, so as to trouble and disturb the Church, than the Scriptures are express against their Toleration and sufferance, requiring them who have Power, to hinder it, as may be seen, Revel. 2.20. Titus. 1. v. 10. Tit. 3.10. Galat. 5. v. 10, 12. and so on. And are not the differences now among us come already to Schismatical and Seditious Divisions amongst us? are they then any longer to be Tolerated? Or were these and the following Reasons, only intended for the use of Presbytery, but must lose all their virtue and validity, when that is the Case against which they make directly?  
Secondly, he at the same time answers a Principal argument now in great use; and confirms his Thesis thus. The Toleration desired will not help to heal the Schisms and Rents of this Church, but will much foment and increase them. For whilst some Congregations, and they accounted of note both for Ministers and People, will not submit to the Reformation, and Government settled by Law; this will breed in the People's minds many thoughts ex natura rei, that this Church is not settled according to the word of God, and is unlawful, etc. Reason's hereof follow.  
3. This Toleration will not only breed Divisions and Schisms disturbing the Peace of Churches and Towns, by setting them who are of different Families, and more remote Relations one against another; but it will undoubtedly cause much Disturbance, Discontents, and Divisions between the nearest Relations of Husbands and Wives, Fathers and Children, Brothers and Sisters, Masters and Servants; the Husband being of one Church, and the Wise of another, etc.  
4. There will be great danger of continual Divisions, Distractions, and Disputes among us, not only from the Different Form of Government and Worship in their Churches and ours; but from other Doctrines and Practices held by some of them for the present.  
5. The most eminent Ministers of this Kingdom for grace, parts, and labours, can have little assurance of the continuance of their Flocks to them, if such a Toleration be granted; For they will draw away their People and admit them into their Churches, and even gather and increase their Churches out of the labours of the best Ministers, etc.  
6. It will be, undoubtedly, a means and way of their infinite Multiplication and Increase; even to increase them thirty Fold.  
7. The prime and Fundamental Principles of this Independent (and likewise Presbyterian) way, upon which they erect their Churchway, are very prejudicial and dangerous, and unsufferable to this Kingdom.  
8. These Independents, (and much more Presbyterian) men where they have power, would not give a Toleration for any other Ecclesiastical Government, or Churches but in their own way: They would not suffer men of other Opinions in Doctrine and Government, to live within the ●ounds of their Patent, though at the farthest bounds; but have Banished them, etc.  
9 A Toleration may be demanded upon the same grounds for all the rigid Brownists of the Kingdom, and for all Anabaptists, Familists, and other Sectaries, who profess 'tis Conscience in them.  
And thus you have the Heads of the Presbyterian Reasons in the Words of Mr. Edward's: which if they may not be more strongly turned against themselves, now moving for Toleration, I must profess myself to understand neither Them, nor their Logic, nor the English Tongue. And if men will still persist in their unseasonable, unreasonable, and unconscionable demands against all these so irrefragable Arguments to the contrary; we have nothing left but our Prayers, Tears, and Confusion, which our notorious Flagrant Sins have brought upon us: And if Authority deserts us with such advantages on our sides, as nothing on Earth can minister greater, nor any siqual Judge require better; we shall easily see from whence this Judgement comes, and why, (not for any wrong in this Case done to our Antagonists) viz. because we have sinned, and are come down wonderfully.  
I might here conclude all; but that, as I have disputed against them out of their own mouths and books; so I judge it not Impertinent to show the insufficiency of their reasons from their answers, or such as they are not wont to question, unless when they are to express. And having by the way answered some already; one or two, may suffice to be here touched.   

CHAP. VIII. Certain Exceptions, which may be made by Puritans against what hath been delivered, answered.  
WE have already prevented the vulgar, and general Refuges, made by ignorant and undiscerning men against the way of our Church, and in behalf of their Discipline, taken from the misunderstanding of Tyranny, Extremes, Moderation, and Christian Liberty: with which Notions, Seducers are wont to make a great show amongst well-affected, but ill-advised People. We have likewise even now answered that which they offer to the People plausibly in most of their late books, though heretoforewe could never wring a syllable from them to that purpose, from the great benefit of the Peace of the Church; out of Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Edward's. And that Objection is likewise removed by Mr. Perkins most clearly, which urges us, that Conscience is Free and cannot be forced. So that there appears not much to remain behind, alleged by them, deserving further answer. Yet two, or three things we shall add out of them, to the former; and so end.  
And First, I fore see it may be Excepted, that our discourse generally runs against grievous Heretics, where we show the Judgement and Practice of the ancient Church against them, which will not hold against those of our days and Church, who are no Heretics. To which I thus answer:  
First, That according to the sense of the Code, the Laws made against Heretics do comprehend Schismatics, and such as differ from the Church in lesser and lighter matters. Haereticerum autem vocabulo continentur, & latis adversus eos sanctionibus succumbere debent, qui vel levi argumento a judicio Catholicae Religionis & tramite deetcti fuerint deviare. i e. Under the name of Heretics, are comprehended, and aught to be punished by the Sanctions made aegainst them, all such as are found to swerve in a light matter from the judgement, and path of Catholic Religion. Secondly, They themselves, (as appears plainly by Mr. Edward's his Reasons) will no more suffer Schismatics, (no not their brethren the Independents, whom they dare not call Here ticks, and who had deserved so well at their hands, (which as yet they never did at ours) than Heretics. 3ly, The practice of the ancient Church as in part we have showed, did aswaies persecute Schismatics as well as Heretics. 4ly, The Pseas and Excuse of our Dissenters are not so allowable in the principle point of Heresy, as are most Heretics. For, there being two Essential parts of Heresy generally received, A Formal part, consisting in the pravity of the mind, and disposition of the heart, and obstinacy of the will; And a Material part, consisting in the Error itself maintained: Men of our Age and Country, have more of the Formality of Heretics, than they who are direct Heretics: Forasmuch as an Heretic erring in Articles of Faith, may be truly said, and allowed to make a conscience of what he (though Erroneously) believes: for being matters of Faith, they are proper Objects of Conscience, whose Sphere is good, and Evil. But they who do not differ, not descent (as they say) in Matters of Faith from the Church, but yet keep themselves at a distance from the Authority of the same, may indeed (whether we will or no) call their dissenting by the name of Conscience; but it is well known in reason, or propriety of speech, it cannot be so termed; when there not so much as appears Good, or Evil, in the thing itself: And therefore it must of necessity be Resolution not to agree or yield, and that is nothing else but obstmacy, as their own justifications do imply, when, being demanded, why they cannot in Conscience comply? They (to my knowledge) answer, They cannot do it. Fifthly, As Mr. Edward's said against the Independents, we may say against the Presbyterians, viz. That we know not the bottom of their Reformation, nor where it will end, nor what it doth hold, notwithstanding their published Confessions, and Catechisms Larger, or Lesser; there being infinite Points, which, like obstructions to a man travailing by Maps when they shall come to put in practice, will arise unexpectedly. And besides Mr. Cartwright, whom they follow as their Modern Apostle, tells us in their stead, 
Cartwright's Reply to Bishop Whitgift, pag. 5.  Cortain of the things we stand upon are such, that if every hair of our head were a life, we ought to afford them for the defence of them. Again, in the same Treatise he reproveth Bishop Whitgift for distinguishing between matters of Faith and necessary to Salvation; 
Id. pag. 14. And Reply to the Answer, pag. 1.  and Ceremonies Orders and Discipline of the Church; as though (saith he) matters of Discipline and kind of Government were not matters necessary to Salvation and of Faith. Are these men understood, or to be trusted, when they say, they demand only such things as we may easily grant? Will they lay down their lives for them?  
Secondly, They profess that they are ready to come up to us, if we would grant certain light matters.  
But with what truth and sincerity let their Actions all along speak, which aimed at nothing less than the ruin and absolute dissolution of our Church. And let Thomas Cartwright in the next place tell us in these words, 
Id. Reply pag. 102.  Indeed it were more safe for us to conform our indifferent Ceremonies to the Turks which are far off, than to the Papists which are so near. And we well know how altogether Popish we are in our Ceremonies, according to their opinion. And we being as near their Discipline, as they are to our Ceremonies, and Government, may we not as well say, Indeed it were more safe for us to conform our indifferent Ceremonies to the Heathens, than to the Disciplinarians, which are so near? And thus ye see, how according to their principles we are like to come to a good agreement, and an happy composure, as when they would smooth over the matter they dissemblingly speak, calling small and new Acquifi●ions, Moderation.  
Thirdly, They say, that Indifferent things ought to remain so, and they ought not to be obliged any further than Christ and the Scripture binds them.  
The first part of this argument is as false, dangerous and pernicious to all Churches and all Ecclesiastical Authority, as the wit of man can invent any thing; and is quite contrary to Scriptures, which require obedience (as likewise themselves do being in power) to Superiors. And therefore to deny Superiors that wherein only their power is seen and exercised, is to take away what the Scripture grants them. Now to the second part. Christ and the Scripture oblige men to be subject in such cases to men: 
Calvinus Adversus Anaba. pag. 27.2. in ●●tavo.  And Calvin expressly saith, Improbare quod nunquam improbavit Deus, nimiae est hom●ni inquam mortali temeritatis & arrogantia: Ho autem perpetuò teneamus, usurpari, etc. i. e. To condemn that which God never Condemned, is too great rashness and arrogance for Mortal man. But let us hold to this constantly, that the authority of God is usurped, when that which he hath permitted is condemned. And show where God hath not permitted any one of our Rites, or Ceremonies. And if ye cannor (as we are sure you cannot;) How do ye not take God's Office out of his hands in condemning that he hath not, being all Private men, and of no authority over us? To this, let us add Mr. Perkins speaking thus, 
Perkins on Galat. 2. v. 3.  Things are not called Indifferent, because we may use them indifferently, or not use them, when we will, and how we will: but because in themselves, or in their own nature they are neither good, nor evil; and we may again not use them well, or ill: Furthermore, there are two things which Restrain the use of things Indifferent, The Law of Charity, and the Laws of Men, etc. ANd the same Author in another place saith, 
Perkins Cases of Conscience. Lib. 1. Chap. 5.  Actions Indifferent in the case of Offence, or Edification, cease to be Indifferent, and come under some Commandment of the Moral Law. In which, St. Paul saith, If eating Flesh will Offend. etc. Thus he. Now eating Flesh doth offend at some times, and that not equals, of whom St. Paul speaks, but Superiors; And a man would think, that a Sincere Conscience ought to have greater regard to these, than to other persons. 
Calvin. Institut. Lib. 3. Cap. 9  And yet we find true what Calvin laughed at in his days thus, You may see some, who imagine their Liberty cannot hold, unless by eating Flesh on Fridays, they stand possessed of it.  
Lastly, because they see their own acts to testify so expressly against Toleration, in raising and acting one of the most sad and unjust Tragedies that ever England felt, and groaned under; and this principally to introduce a strange Worship, contrary to the Laws, and Consciences of so many Thousands, and their Superiors, it not being possible to shake this off them, some of them shift thus, away: That if they did evil, we ought not to do so too. For though the matter be so gross, that for arguments sake they do seem outwardly to relent, and recede from their injustice, and rigour, to the end, they may with more confidence demand favour at our hands, to whom they could do no justice; yet in truth they repent of nothing so much, as that they did not use greater extremities towards us, appears by their reserving to themselves, all true signs and effects of true Repentance: For to one another or to the People, whom they have grossly miss so far, that it is frequent with them to say, that they could conform, but that they have taught the People otherwise, (an imprudent, as well as an ungodly evasion) they never make any such acknowledgement: But whereas they, upon the nature of true Repentance, are obliged to do their plain and utmost endeavours to undeceive, and restore them to the truth; they on the contrary, use all subtle and secret artifices to nourish such wicked Errors as they have bred in them, while they themselves in close discourse being expostulated with, 
Corbet's Interest.  for the occasion, will say as Mr. Corbet doth, There might be some excess heretofore, by the Presbyterian committed. But to the Point: It no ways followeth, that if the Presbyte ians offended (and that notoriously) in Persecuting deadly the Church, therefore a retaliation of the same measure should be called (as they would have it) revenge, or be unjust. For, waving at present the differences of the Causes (which how ever equal and indifferent judges would certainly give against them) they no doubt will to the last keep up disputable) the manner of proceeding and acting make a foul difference. For there was wanting all Legal Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical, on that side; and yet dreaded they not to impose their pleasures and Innovations both, on their brothers; who were no more suject to them, than were they to these; but also usurped over their Governors too, and brought them either to obey their Wills, or suffer their Vengeance: Which was an higher piece of iniquity than that of the Pope himself. For as we of this Church were free from his power; so have we nothing to do to give law to him: But these men were in all Lawful and Canonical subjection under those they would give Law unto, as well in Reference to Conscience, as Civil property. Yet am I not without a Witness of their own against them, even in this Particular. For thus reasonably writes one of them. 
Mysteries of God●●es and to ●abbala. pag. 2.  We declare it, that it is true indeed we cannot come up in all things to their judgement who are over us, as we know they could not come up to ours, when we were advanced over them. As we could not allow them any public employment, or encouragement, when they could not comply with us, and our Laws and Constitutions. So we cannot expect any public employment, or encouragement from them, now we Dissent from them, and cannot close with their Laws and Constitutions, etc. This hath much of Ingenuity, if we compare it with the more common temper of them, which leads them only to take away Liberty from others, but to grant none. But neither must we suffer this concession to pass without Censure. For according to their common and current Craft with the Ignorant, fain they would shuffle and confound all Power so and Lawful Authority, as that theirs it should fairly and fully be, who can lay hold of it by Injustice, and retain it by Violence: And therefore because once indeed by spoil and rapine, they possessed themselves of Power in Church and State; do they compare themselves with such, upon whom it descends fairly and orderly, by the received course of known Justice and Religion. But grant them this, we grant them almost all: But they must know, there is an infinite disparity, which they can never remove, though they have put fair for it, some of them in resolving, First, all Civil-Power, and next, with little more infatuation and boldness, all Ecclesiastical Government into the power of the People; and the power of the People, into the power of the Sword. So that Person, or those should be unquestionably vested in Civil Dominion, and that Society rightly constituted in Ecclesiastical Rule, who have invaded the same, and are able to hold it: A Tenet of which I shall speak no more at present than I have already, only that God would give us if not Grace, human Prudence, and reason so far to judge of, as may draw us to lament and prevent by humble Suits the unavoidable Disasters and Confusions it must again cover the face of that Earth with where it abides; And that God would restore so much of lost man in us, before we pretend to be christian's (and that of the best sort) as to stand to our own Judgements and not to alter and vary according to our advantage, and necessities of our espoused Interests; producing quarrels and babbles to Eternity itself, if we could live so long; as they certainly would, who will neither yield to Reason, nor suffer their own Rules and Opinions to take place in them, so as to reduce them to order.  
But the solemn and indissoluble band of their League and Covenunt cast upon themselves and others in authority, must by no means be violated; and besides, some Posteriorities are pretended & urged to the great advantage of the Discipline, and these arising from promises made of having regard to tender Consciences upon the entrance of his Majesty into his Throne, and some Disciplinarians great merits.  
To the first part of these, it may be reasonably demanded, What that strange sacredness is, what unheard-of Excellency it hath, and new divineness that neither any Oaths or Obligations, wherewith men were bound before, nor any which they have since regularly taken, should be of any force or virtue at all against the Covenant? But what ever went before, is made void by the Covenant, what ever follows is made abortive by the Covenant. How comes this about? Was the authority of the Inventors, or the just power of the propounders, or the divineness and sacredness of the matter such that this, and none but this, must be of any validity or worth with us? Nothing less sure: For, all these are unansw. Arg. against it; for, neither circumstance, 
The Covenants Plea against absolver's.  nor substance was either legal, or just, or holy; as may appear from the infinite falsifications, direct falsities both as to History and Reason, with which that Treatise is fraught to justifieit, and confirm men of little conscience and judgement, in that bond of Iniquity.  
But let their great Casuist Alexander Hirderson be here admitted to speak, and how easy will it be to resolve this doubt? That King of Blessed Memory to whom he wrote, to his own confusion; objecting against his New Oath the Covenant, his old Oaths taken directly to the contrary at his Coronation, was then answered that the Parliament and people to whom they were made, might free him from such engagements, (not that the King ever made such Oaths otherwise to Parliaments in his sense, but as they are the People's Representatives.) Which though as the King solidly replies, is a false Supposition, yet hereby are evident the principles of such Doctors, that Parliaments may lawfully quit the Prince of Oaths taken in reference to the People. Therefore, according to them, the perfect Parliament having not only declared against such Obligations, but by strong reasons manifested the nullity of them; what pretence can they have who are, and always were, but private men in such cases to urge their Sovereign with such burdens & bonds?  
But further, The pretended promise was made to tender Consciences, and how doth it appear that the Presbyterians are comprehended under that expression? We absolutely deny the same. And what force can their bare Assertions and Testimonies given of themselves be to prove it; when we have such store of Instances of matter of Fact which no men of good Conscience, much less tender in the received sense, can willingly commit, and much less persevere to justify? But if it must be so, that such a sense of tenderness of Conscience must needs be true because 'tis common and current, How will they not in opening that door for themselves let in such a Rabble as they shall have but little joy in their possessions? Will they multiply beggarly proofs, and say, They are a sober, a godly, a moderate party; and so conclude just as much as they did before?  
To shut up all, some there are who distinguish of Heretics and Schismatics. For, they are (say they) either peaceable, or unquiet and seditious: The seditious and unquiet Heretic or Schismatic (according to these) may not be suffered, but the modest, and sober, 
Mentzerus in Exegesi Augustanae Confess. Art. 10.  and peaceable aught to be born with; and this is Mentzerus his decision; and the Plea of both Papist and Puritan with us at present. For now forsooth, No such good Subjects as Catholics. And the Anabaptist himself writes at large, Saints no Smiters. 
Thomb's Saints no Smiters.  And now go round about, enter into the midst of all that have been bitter Enemies to the King, and you must have as rare luck as he that draws a Prize at a Lottery, if you can pick out a disloyal subject; in discourse, All Factions contend which should pretend most Loyalty.  
But in answer to this distinction, we shall craveleave in like manner to distinguish of Rooks: for, some Rooks set upon trees, and they pick not up the new-sown Corn, and therefore may be born with, and not molested; and some Rooks set upon Lands, and they are not to be suffered, for they do hurt to Corn. Just such an one, and so to be favoured is the Heretic and Schismatic. I confess, the distinction had been tolerable, had it been made of the Abstracts, Schisms and Heresies. For true it may be, that some of both sorts contain nothing in them turbulent or seditious. But to take this in the Concrete, Schismatics and Heretics, is no less ridiculous than we have made; and no less falsely supposed of them who at present put it into their Pleas than of any other. Are not they, think we, of a very gentle quiet, and peaceable Nature and Disposition who being in power (not else you may be sure) in pursuance of their Schism, turned out of their Live but 85 Ministers of the 97 Parishes within the Walls of London, whereof 16. died with sorrow, and 14 out of the 16. Parishes, without the Walls, and out of the 10. Out-Parishes 9; and so proportionably where they were Masters; 
Plin. Natur. Hist. lib. 11. cap. 37.  especially while they retain the very same Principles, whereby they so acted: Pliny tells us that the Lion as fierce a beast as it is, may be made very gentle and tame by severe and seasonable treatments, so that one may suffer it to lick his very flesh; but his tongue being very rough, if in fawning and licking he chances to draw the least blood from a man, together with its slaver, he is so ravished with the savoriness of it, that he is put into rage & fury. So in truth, no question but the fiercest Schismatic or Heretic may be brought to a very gentle and familiar condition; but suffer him to have such near access to Majesty, as to but taste the infinite sweets of Power, and Rule; through a secure confidence in his general Innocency, so transported is he beyond his own ordinary, yet unnatural and forced temper, that his Ingenuity will soon end in injustice, and his fairness in fury: And then shall you beg Toleration of him, and be sure to go without it and that deservedly.  
Some there are of no mean place and policy, who advise seriously, to avoid the Infamy of Persecuting poor Souls for Religion, and let them be Executioners of their own Mischief and Ruin: For (say they) Let them (for instance the Quakers) alone, and in time they will certainly destroy one another. Which I may easily grant to be true, and yet the Counsel very weak, and unreasonable. For 'tis true, that many Religions shall I call them or superstitions rather, now pleading for Toleration, would in their progress fall foul with themselves, and they devoted to them confound one another. And it is most probable, if Wild-Beasts were set at liberty from their Pens into some open place they would tear and worry one another to Piece, but not till they had put to flight, or devoured their Keepers. It is very likely, that fanatics, and Schismatics of the same Denomination, would in time Fight out the truth of Religion amongst them; but their Common Enemy (as they call us) must first lie gasping at their Feet. And will it not be a notable Solace to a wise man to foresee, that by casting away his own life for nothing, preparation will be made to destroy his Adversary? such is the safety in many Religions.  
The Decency (to all sober Christians) is answerable to the safety. For, as Lucian tells how Ptolemie Son of Lagus King of Egypt pre●ented to his People a Black ●amel for a Show, a thing, where those Beasts abound most, never seen; and a Man one half of whom was perfect Black, and the other half of his Body very Fair. It the Camel they all stood amazed: but at the Man, most of the beholders burst out into a loud laughter; others in scorn and detestation turned away from such a ridiculous Monster, and reproach to mankind: and yet this person differed not from other men, as to parts, or substance, but Ceremony only, and Accidents: So what ever may be Tolerated, and perhaps Admired in matters not of divine concernment and nature in Religion to exhibit a Church to Christian spectators so most strangely divided and dissonant to itself, though but in things, not Essential or Substantial to Faith, but circumstances, is to render it ridiculous to one half of the World, the merry sort; and to the other sort, the sober and judicious, odious, and so Scandalous, that few of these will ever yield to become Proselytes to it, or tarry with it long. And we may be sure, that they whose Policy, rather than Piety, or Prudence incline them to favour such Monstrosities, have nothing so much in their design as to have us laughed out of the present Religion, and to make way for No Religion or for another Religion. For to encounter either of which nothing can be more profitable than by a generous Constancy, to follow and persevere in our own Religion: For then will the sly underminer of it, find himself in the end baffled, the impudent opposer ashamed, and the witty scoffer, ridiculous to himself, having nothing else to bear him out but boldness, and multitude of Offenders.   
FINIS.