God save the King, And Prosper Him and His PARLIAMENT: OR, A justification by the Word of God, of the King's gracious proffer for LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE, Made to His Parliament and Subjects, before he came into ENGLAND, In Matters disputable.  
By THEOPHILUS BRABOURN.  
Him that is weak in the Faith, receive unto you; but not put away from you,  Rom. 14.1. 
One believeth that he may eat of all things: another which is weak, eateth herbs  
Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not, condemn him that eateth,  Rom. 14.2, 3. 
For we shall all appear before the Judgement-Seat of Christ,  Rom 14.10. 
And every one of us shall give an account of himself unto God. Let us not therefore judge or condemn one another any more,  Rom. 14.10, 12, 13. 
Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord Christ come,  1 Cor. 4.5. 
London, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold by Booksellers in London, and by William Nowell, Bookseller in Norwich, 1660.   

A JUSTIFICATION BY THE Word of God, of the KING'S gracious proffer for Liberty of Conscience, made to the Parliament and his Subjects before he came into ENGLAND.  
THAT Christians should be all of one heart, and of one mind, in all points of Religion, is a thing highly to be desired by every good man, but not to be expected in this life by the wisest of men.  
Are not the Scriptures dark, and hard to be understood, 2 Pet. 3.16. in many disputable points among us, so as every man cannot light upon the Truth? Are all Ministers and others of one stature in knowledge? Have not one man five talents, another four, and another four? How is it possible then, that every one of these should be of one opinion in all things? Can he that hath but one or two talents understand as much as he that hath five? Or is any one perfect in knowledge? There are and ever were strong Christians, and weak: wherefore the strong must bear with the weak, not persecute the weak, Rom. 15.1.  
In those purest Churches in the Apostles days, they were not all of one heart and mind: for some believers stood up for days and meats, others were of a contrary mind, Rom. 14. Some hold it lawful to eat-meats sacrificed to Idols, but others hold it unlawful, 1 Cor. 10.25, 28. Now if those purest Churches had such differences in opinion, who can think our Churches should be free? What marvel is it that we have Episcoparians, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and other differences in opinions? It will never be otherwise until we get into heaven, where we shall be perfect in Knowledge: in the mean time, we must exercise patience one towards another, the strong must bear with the weak.  
These things premised, I come to the point in question; which is Liberty of Conscience: Touching which, know all men, that I defend not a lose and wicked liberty, for any man to speak or practise contrary to a light in Scripture clearly revealed: I pefend only a liberty in disputable points, such as both parties do allege Scripture one against another, or either of them for himself: or when one allegeth a Scripture, the sense whereof is dark and doubtful to the other.  
Before I prove my question, give me leave to show the original rise, and evil fruits of the Magistrates punishing the people for disputable points in Religion: The Pope began it; for he and his Clergy never left till they had moved Parliaments to enact cruel Laws against Protestants, to burn them to ashes, that so his Catholic Church might be all of one heart and mind: Now the Sacraments of the Altar, or Christ's corporal presence was in those days a disputable point, both sides alleging Scripture: and see the evil fruits of this persecution? The Magistrate made himself guilty of shedding the innocent blood of multitudes of godly Martyrs.  
And since the Pope, our Bishops abusing the King's authority, have imprisoned some, and vexed, sued and molested others in their Courts, for things then disputable, as for opening their Shops, or working on Popish holidays, for refusing the Cross in Baptism, for Surplice, Hood, and Tipet, with other popish trinkets: now see one of the evil fruits hereof to the King; he lost the hearts of many of his Subjects so much, for arming his Bishops with his authority, as when the King and Parliament made War, thousands of his Subjects fell from him in his greatest need of them, and joined with the Parliament. Those that love the King, should not exasperate him, but persuade him for his own safety, to bear as much as possible may be with those who make conscience in matters disputable: But those who persuade him otherwise, are none of the King's best friends. For a King who is over all, must so order his government, as he may have the hearts of all: but not for a disputable point in Religion, to lose the hearts of many. Men will do much for their civil rights, but much more for their Consciences; yet I justify not Rebellion upon any account.  

1. Argument.  
The Magistrate hath not received any Authority from God to compel, or constrain by greater or lesser punishments, the consciences of men in matters disputable: and therefore he may maintain Liberty of Conscience in such things: search the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and you shall find no such authority committed to the Magistrate.  
As for the Old Testament, I confess there the Magistrate had authority to punish with death the Murderer, the Adulterer, and the Idolater, that worshipped the Sun, Moon, and Stars: but these were no disputable points, but errors clearly revealed in Scripture: but you shall no no where find the Magistrate empowered from God, to punish any for matters disputable and doubtful.  
As for the New Testament, neither Christ nor his Apostles left any order for the Magistrate to punish any for the liberty of his Conscience in things doubtful and disputable. Excommunication was for incest, 1 Cor. 5.1. etc. which is a scandalous sin, and clearly condemned in Scripture, but not for points doubtful and disputable: I may therefore conclude, that God hath not given the Magistrate any authority in the Old or New Testament to punish any for liberty of his Conscience in things disputable: wherefore the Magistrate may maintain liberty of Conscience in such things.   

2. Argument.  
It is against the common light of Reason in all men, to punish any for a fault which is disputable and doubtful: so you have the judgement of all men against this.  
Furthermore, in a disputable point, St. Paul reckons him that holds the truth to be a strong brother, and him that is in the error a weak brother, Rom. 14. Now is it not contrary to reason, that a Magistrate should by punishment constrain a weak man to do more than he can do? or carry a burden above his strength?  
But Papists who maintain , and persecution for Conscience-sake will say, as some Protestants do among us, these men can alter their minds if they will, but they are obstinate Heretics, or Schismatics, after a sufficient conviction.  
I reply. 1. Doth perseverance in an opinion signify obstinacy? Why then all that persevere in the truth are obstinate persons, and such were our Martyrs: it signifies self-perswasion, but not obstinacy: and may not a multitude be obstinate as well as a few?  
2. St. Paul knew as well as we or Papists, what belongs to disputable points, yet he made no such objections against an erring person: he calls him a brother, and a weak brother, not an obstinate person, or an obstinate Heretic: he would not have a weak brother burnt or excommunicated, but borne withal, Rom. 15.1. We that are strong, aught to bear the infirmities of the weak.  
3. You talk of sufficient conviction, but where is it? neither at Rome, nor in England: hath any man the spirit of infallibility to determine of all the controversal opinions in Religion? or of all all doubtful and disputable points? But suppose some man had; as if any had, St. Paul had it: yet is not this excellent means often obstructed among us, and made invalid? partly for weakness of understanding and judgement in the party to be instructed, and partly through the flesh and corruption of nature in all men more or less? Gal. 5.17. Rom. 7.18, 19 Mat. 26.41. Now both these render a man a weak brother: and if he be weak, then is he to be born with, not persecuted, Rom. 15.1.  
Yet further, Is there not more reason that one Christian brother should bear the infirmities and weakness in Conscience of another, then to excite or desire the Magistrate to punish him for it? The Scriptures do often excite us to patience, and Ministers in Pulpit do the same, and every man hath it in his tongue, saying, we must be patiented: but where is the man that will practise it? God calls us to patience in these things, but we refuse to use it. Do not the most say, Oh! he is one of dangerous opinions, 'tis pity he lives? Oh that the Parliament would enact some severe Law to punish him? Where's thy patience then, whilst thou desirest revenge? Is there not more reason that the Magistrate should excite such impatient spirits to exercise their patience, then for them to excite the Magistrate by his Law to punish and reunge?   

3. Argument.  
It is against that golden Rule of our Saviour, for the Magistrate to punish, or for the people to desire him to punish any for his Conscience in matters disputable: For Christ said, Whatsoever ye would that men should do you, even so do you to them, Mat. 7.12.  
Now our whole Kingdom are a multitude of none but Sectaries in disputable points: though they be unanimous and orthodox in the clear Fundamentals, yet are they divided into dark Disputables: For the Episcoparian is a Sect divided from all others, so is the Presbyterian, so is the Independent, and so is the Anabapist, etc. And if the Parliament should own none but Presbyterians, yet these are but Sectaries, because divided from all others; and the greatest sort they may be, and yet but a Sect. Now the Episcoparian would have liberty for themselves to read the Common-Prayer, but would not that any of the other sorts should enjoy the liberty of their Consciences: It may be the like is true of those other sorts of Presbyters, Independents, and Anabaptists: But why should Christians be so selfish and partial? is not one man's Conscience as tender to him, as another man's is to him? Where is the practice of our Saviour's rule? to do that for another man, which we would he should do for us. The Magistrate therefore being of one Sect or other, must be as willing to give liberty to others, as to take it for himself.   

4. Argument.  
It is against Christian charity to the souls of the people, for a Magistrate by punishment, to constrain them to sin against their own souls unto perdition.  
For if the people for fear of punishment shall do any thing against their Consciences, they sin against conscience, Rom. 14.14, 23. And the Magistrate by his constraint of them doth what in him is to destroy them eternally, Rom 14.15. and to drive them to everlasting perdition of soul and body, 1 Cor. 8 11, 12.  
Now God forbidden, that any Christian Magistrate should be so severe, as by his hard Laws, to force any man to destroy himself eternally: and not only so, but also to make himself guilty of his people's destruction: Is it not better for him to grant liberty of conscience?   

5. Argument.  
It is against Justice for a Magistrate to punish any man for a disputable opinion.  
In matters of Justice, God forbade the Magistrates to admit of one single witness, as being not clear enough, and therefore for more certainty there must be two or three witnesses, Deut. 19.15. and see Deut. 17.4, 5. our Magistrates will not punish any man, unless the Fact be clearly against the Law, probabilities are nothing: how then can the Magistrate do injustice to punish for a disputable opinion, which is doubtful?  
Yet further, If the Magistrate condemns for a disputable opinion, out of doubt sometime he shall condemn unjustly, and always be in danger so to do, for want of the judgement of certainty: wherefore in these disputable points the Magistrate should do well to forbear his judgement until Christ the Judge come: when we shall all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, and every one of us give an account of himself to God, Rom. 14.10, 12. Let us not therefore judge one another any more, Rom. 14.13. Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, etc. 1 Cor. 4.5.  
But it will be said, may not the Magistrate call into his help ten or twenty learned and godly Ministers, and then judge of the opinion? May not many Ministers judge of the opinion of two or three private persons?  
I answer. 1. There are no learned and godly Ministers who have the spirit of certainty and infallibility, in a doubtful or disputable opinion. 2. The Ministers called into the help of the Magistrate, are ever of a contrary opinion to his who is accused: and therefore they are incompetent judges: May the Plaintiff judge the Defendant? or the Presbyterian the Independent? then may we know the Verdict before the Jury be impanelled: These things considered, oh! that since God hath left many things in Scripture disputable, out Parliaments and Magistrates would leave them so too.   

6. Argument.  
It will be a great folly in the Magistrate to attempt by his authority, to do that which is impossible to be done: Will a wise man attempt to empty the water in the Sea, or to wash a Blackamoor white? Such is his attempt, that thinks by lawful means to bring all men to be of one mind and opinion in things doubtful and disputable: the Magistrate may as well cure one sick of an Ague or Fever by his Sword, as by it to to inform and reform a doubtful and weak Conscience; this is the Ministers office, not the Magistrates.  
In the Apostles days, when the Church was most pure, there was great differences in opinions, and high contests among Christians about days and meats, Rom. 14.2.5, 3.10. Now if all men were not of one opinion in those purest Churches, what hope hath the Magistrate to avoid all differences in opinion in our Church?  
2. Consider the obscurity of Scripture in disputable points. St. Peter saith of St. Paul's Epistles, some things are hard to be understood, 2 Pet. 3.15, 16. And herewithal consider also, that the wisest men know but in part in this life, and the holiest men are sanctified but in part, so as too often their judgement is blinded by unmortified passions and affections: Now how is it possible that the Magistrate should rectify all these by his sword? the which unless he could rectify, it is altogether in vain for him, to attempt to bring all men to be of one mind and opinion.   

7. Argument.  
In the Church of God, in the Jewish Nation, many people were suffered to live under the authority of Moses and the Magistrates, who were of different opinions from the most of the people.  
For they had strangers among them, who were no Proselytes, or of the Jewish Religion, and yet they were not constrained by the Magistrate to become Proselytes: For the Text saith, If a stranger will, etc. let him, etc. Exod. 12.48. It was left to his choice and will: no punishment was appointed to compel them: none though he neglected their Sacraments of Circumcision and the Passeover: none, though he did eat meats which the Jews abhorred to eat, Deut. 14.21. Moses and the Magistrates, with Aaron the high Priest, did all allow of this liberty: and why then may not the King and Magistrates, with all the Clergy, allow of liberty of Conscience in our days, in matters disputable among Christians?   

8. Argument.  
If the King and Magistrates under him will govern by St. Paul's Discipline, than they must govern by the discipline of liberty of Conscience: the which I thus prove.  
St. Paul said, we which are strong aught to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves, Rom. 15.1. and see Gal. 6.1, 2. And he rebuked the believing Romans, for that the strong despised the weak, and the weak judged and condemned the strong, Rom 14.3, 10.13. Now what other thing is this toleration of St. Paul, and bearing with the weak in matters of conscience, but liberty of Conscience? and no other thing is signified by this, that he would not have believers to despise one another, or to judge and condemn one another for conscience sake, and differences in judgements.  
The differences in those days were about the Ceremonies of meats, and drinks, and Holidays, Rom. 14. Now we have too many Ministers of impatient spirits, who cannot endure St. Paul's liberty of Conscience, and to use patience in bearing with the weakness of others; but like better of uncharitable persecution; these have learned an evil art of aggravation, by consequences to wyre-draw, and draw blood from the opinion contrary to themselves, and have drawn the people to hate and despise the persons of that opinion: such Ministers if they had lived in those days, could with the high Priest have made Christ guilty of blasphemy, Mat. 26.65. and St. Paul and Heretic, Acts 24.14. and these weak christian Romans obstinate heretics: For by their use of meats and days after Christ was come, they signified that Christ was not come, but expected to come, as the heretical Jews do at this day: Meats and Days were types and shadows of Christ to come, Colos. 2.16, 17. Now no doubt St. Paul had as sufficiently instructed and convicted these believing Romans of their error, as any Minister in these our days can any man in his error; yet St. Paul did not count them obstinate heretics, nor by aggravations and consequences draw them to be guilty of heresy.  
But it may be said to me, of these different opinions among us, which party is the weaker, and which the stronger?  
I answer, To determine infallibly I cannot; I must leave it for Christ to do it at his coming, 1 Cor. 4.4, 5. I shall only answer by the opinion of our times: The multitude and greatest number countenanced by the King, will think themselves the strong. If so, then say I, those strong ones must bear with those that are weak, and differ in opinion from them, Rom. 15.1. If the Presbyterian think himself the strong, he must bear with the weak Independent: Or if the Independent think himself the strong, he must bear with the weak Presbyterian: and so of other opinionists, we must all bear one with another, Gal. 6.2. and so by a mutual toleration, we shall live in love like Christians. So far of my 8. Arguments  
Thus I have made it appear, that the King and Parliament may maintain Liberty of Conscience, and aught so to do by the Word of God. And now I come to answer sundry objections raised against this truth.  
Object. 1. If the Magistrate tolerate liberty of Conscience, thereby he shall justify, embolden, and harden some in their errors.  
Answ. 1. St. Paul tolerated liberty of Conscience, and yet it will not follow that he did thereby justify, embolden, and harden the weak believers in their errors. 2. The Magistrate hath no authority from God to punish any for a disputable error, as hath been proved, and therefore no blame is in him: he cannot reform that which is not in his power to reform. 3. He hath no infallible guide; to know which side is in the error, how then can he punish any? 4. If any harden their heart in error because it is tolerated, themselves shall answer to God for it, at the appearing of Christ the Judge of quick and dead, Rom. 14.10, 12.  
Object 2. Yea, but if the Magistrate tolerate errors, he tolerates sins: many say, to tolerate error, is to tolerate sin.  
Answ. 1. Sin is the transgression of the Law, 1 John 3 4. Now in disputable points, no opinionist desireth liberty to break God's Law, as to commit idolatry, to profane the Sabbath, to commit adultery, to steal, or deal fraudulently, or to do any thing contrary to a light clearly revealed: now in a disputable point, no man can say for certain which is the sin and which not: But suppose some man could say for certain, his is the sin, yet St. Paul did tolerate the sin of ignorance, t Rom. 14. in weak Christians. 2. Toleration is voluntary or necessary: now the Magistrates toleration is necessary, because God hath not given them authority (as hath been proved) to punish disputable sins.  
Object. 3. Some say, there can be but one truth, and one true Religion: Now to maintain sundry and many opinions, is to maintain sundry and many religions.  
Answ. The question is not about maintaining of sundry opinions which are disputable, but about toleration and bearing with them, so as they may be free of punishment: The Magistrate maintains the Doctrine of the ten Commandments, the Articles of Faith, with faith and repentance, and any thing clearly revealed in Scripture: all these may be reckoned for one truth and one Religion, because we all agree herein as one: but as for disputable points not clearly revealed, the Magistrate may tolerate them, and not maintain or countenance them: and yet he shall not be said to maintain two or many Religions or Truths: St. Paul did tolerate the weak Christians, who were of different opinions from the strong, and yet he did not maintain them, but dispute against them: nor did he maintain sundry Truths, and many Religions. All things clearly revealed, make up but one Religion, and this we maintain: and yet may tolerate many disputable opinions not clearly revealed.  
Object. 4. Papists may say, if you tolerate liberty of Conscience in disputable points, than we Papists must have a toleration.  
Answ. There is more than Religion, and matter of Conscience in this matter: there is matter of State and safety of Commonwealth in it, which admits not of a toleration, unless Papists could give us security for our lives,  
For Papists are professed enemies to Protestants, and to their lives, so as we cannot live in safety by them: for to further their Catholic cause, they hold it their duty to blow up with powder an whole Parliament at once, & to cut the throats of an whole Kingdom of Protestants, as in Ireland of late years, and the like, of the Popish massacre of many thousands of Protestants at Paris in France: No Heretics are so bloody minded as Papists, nor so dangerous to be tolerated as they be: No Heretic seeks the life of his neighbour, and ruin of the Nation wherein he lives, but a Papist: If therefore it were safe to tolerate their Religion, is it safe to tolerate such murderers, who wait daily for a time to cut all our throats.  
Object. 5. Christ rebuked the Angel of the Church at Thyatira, for suffering Jezebel to teach and deceive his people, Rev. 2.18.20. And St. Paul saith of deceivable teachers, their mouths must be stopped, Tit. 1.11. Now this is contrary to toleration.  
Answ. 1. These Texts concern not the office of the Magistrate, but of the Minister, as of the Angel of the Church, Rev. 2.18. He ought to rebuke them sharply, Tit. 1.13. Now it is not meet that the Minister should suffer known errors to be in his Church, but that he should stop them, by convincing them by the Scriptures: but I like not of some Ministers, who in stead of convincing, fall a railing at the persons, crying out against them, oh! these Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, etc. are dangerous persons, etc. I like well to hear these opinions soberly confuted, but not reviled. 2 These Texts speak not against disputable points, but against Idolatry, Rev. 2.20. and lying, Tit. 1.12. which are sins clearly revealed in Scripture.  
Obj. 6. If a kingdom be divided against itself, it cannot stand, Mark 3.24.  
Answ. This parable is true of a Kingdom: for if the Subjects take up Arms one against another, that Kingdom will come to ruin: but the case is not alike in a Church, where all agree in all things clearly revealed, but differ in some disputable points darkly revealed. For 1. In Holland there are many of differing opinions, & yet that Nation stands and flourisheth, and so doth that Church of Presbyterians. 2. In the Commonwealth of the Jews, there were many strangers tolerated, who were no Proselytes of the Jewish Religion: for they were not circumcised, neither did they eat the Passover, Exod. 12.43, 45.48. and see Deut. 14.21. And yet that Commonwealth stood, and so did that Church.  
Obj 7. Then the Master said unto the servant, Go forth into the high ways, etc. and compel them to come in to my Supper, etc. Luk. 14.23. Hereby we see, that compulsion may be made in matters of Religion.  
Answ. By the Servant here, is not meant the Magistrate, of whom our question is: for in these days they had no christian Magistrate that would compel any to be Religious: but we must understand, the Minister, whose office is to invite and call in, yea, to compel the guests to come to Christ his feast: now there is a compulsion and constraint by the forcible exhortations and persuasions of the strong arguments of the Minister, Luke 24.29. Acts 16 15. So notwithstanding this Text, the Magistrate may maintain Liberty of Conscience.  
FINIS