THE Gospel was at first planted and propagated by mild and gentle Me­thods. Our Saviour did not send out his Disci­ples arm'd with Swords or Spears, or any other Instruments of War. Their Weapons were wholly Spiritual: Charity and Humility, Kind­ness and Condescention, were the Arms which the first Preachers of Christi­anity made use of to conquer the World, and bring it into Subjection to Christ. By these means was the Chri­stian Religion spread over the World: And it overcame all Opposition, by the irresistable force of Truth only. And though the forward Zeal of after-Ages has prompted them to call in the Fo­reign assistance of Force and Power, yet Experience shows, That their En­deavours have very rarely been Crown'd with Success; which we need not wonder at, because it is very Natural that Religion should be preserved by the same means by which it was at first produc'd.

For my part, I am so far from en­vying the Dissenters the Liberty they now enjoy, or being angry with the Parliament for passing the late Act in their Favour, that I think they have done us of the Church of England a Kindness in it, as well as the Dissen­ters. Since now we no longer lie un­der any Obligation of troubling or dis­quieting our Neighbours for Matters of Religion. This Act cannot but calm all Minds that are truly dispos'd to Peace, and still those peevish Animo­sities which were occasion'd by the Mis­carriages of some few weak, or passio­nate, or interessed men, whose over­hasty Zeal carried them beyond the true Rules of Conduct. We all now know who it was set those weak men a-work, and made Tools of them, to do a business which they they never dream'd of. But now they have seen their Error, and repented. And we hope, that the good Nature of the Dissenters will not Father a persecu­ting Spirit upon our whole Church, by reason of the Mistakes of some few un­thinking men in it.

But methinks I could have wish'd that the Act had been more Compre­hensive. For I fear, that it being built upon too narrow a Foundation, it can­not last long: Since by this Act several Persons are still liable to the Lash of the Law, upon the account of their bare Opinion in matters of Religion. For upon the same grounds that these are excepted, succeeding Parliaments may think fit to except others whom they judge to hold Opinions equally false and dangerous, and so more and more by degrees, till at length the whole Toleration dwindles into nothing. For if it be once allow'd, That some per­sons may justly be punished for Mi­stakes in Judgment, in such things as have no relation to Civil Affairs, it will be very difficult to assign any good Reason why others should be wholly exempted from the Penalties of the Law, and not be punished for hold­ing false Opinions, provided the Go­vernment shall at any time so think fit.

It seems a strange Paradox, that men should contend for Liberty of Conscience, as a Natural Right, and yet not be willing to allow all men this Priviledge; as if Nature were so far a Step-Dame to some of her Children, as to deny them a Ti­tle to the Common Rights of Hu­manity.

I must confess, That ever since I came to consider things, I have been of Opinion, That Conscience ought not to be forc'd; and that no man was justly punishable for differing in his Judgment (in any Point whatever) from the Established Religion. For the Confirmation of which Opinion, I humbly propose these following Consi­derations.

1. It is not in our own power to believe as we please. If upon mi­staken Grounds, I believe that to be true, which is really false; yet still I so believe, and cannot but believe, till I am convinc'd of my Error. But after a clear and full Conviction, I throw aside my former Opinion, and cannot possibly (though I would) be­lieve it. For as Plato well observes, Every Soul is unwillingly deprived of Truth. And 'tis beyond the power of a Man to resist Truth, when it once plainly shews its self unto him.

Since therefore our Errors are not voluntary, we ought not to be pu­nish'd for them. For what we can­not help, is at least excusable, if not justifiable. And all Error intrudes it self against a Man's Will; and there­fore is not punishable. For 'tis unjust to punish where there is no Fault; and it is to Fault for a man not to do what it is impossible for him to do.

Nor doth Force make any Altera­tion in the Case. It may indeed make us dissemble, and play the Hypocrites, and cause us to profess that we be­lieve what we really do not believe: But it cannot change our Minds. For we shall still (so long as our Judg­ment is not convinc'd) retain the same Sentiments we had before. Therefore Men should be reason'd, and not forc'd into a right Faith.

2. Though an Erroneous Faith be supposed to be never so dangerous and destructive to the Soul that en­tertains it, yet it injures no body but him that has it. If my Neigh­bour embraces Heretical Opinions, the hurt is only to himself. It nei­ther hinders my Salvation, nor is it any prejudice to my Temporal Affairs. Indeed, if false Opinions did any way violate the Rights of others, then there might be some Colour for prose­cuting the Authors of them; even tho they could not help what they did, and so consequently were guilty of no Crime. For Self-preservation is an unalterable Law of Nature, which warrants every one to defend his own Right. Thus we commonly destroy Vermine, Birds and Beasts of Prey, because they injure us; though we know (at the same time) that they only act according to their Natures, and are not Criminal in so doing.

But here some may urge, That dif­ference in Opinions gives birth to Fa­ction and Sedition, and often ends in Rebellion; it fills all places with Dis­order and Confusion, and is inconsi­stent with the Quiet and Happiness of Society.

Now if it could be prov'd, That such dismal Consequences would na­turally and necessarily flow from a Toleration, then I confess, That every man that lov'd his Countrey, ought to oppose it. It would be a great happi­ness, if Mankind were united in one Faith, and we all thought and spake the same things: But this is a blessing rather to be wish'd than hoped for. Mens apprehensions of things being so [Page 7]various, it is morally impossible, that we should not differ in Opinion.

But however, Force is not the best, nor only, way of preserving Peace. For if men would but be prevailed upon to lay aside prejudice and passion, and bear with one another; if they would be so rational, as not to suffer their Love and Kindness to be lessen'd by a difference in Opinion; if every one had Liberty to enjoy his own Opinion, and thought it his duty to permit o­thers to do the like; we should never have any the least occasion to quarrel or contend about Religion. If this mild and peaceable Doctrine were once heartily embrac'd, and generally enter­tain'd, it would soon stifle all Heats and Animosities, and restore that Love and Charity, which by the Gospel we are obliged to practice, even towards our Enemies and Persecutors, much more towards our Friends and Brethren, though in some Points their Opinions are different from ours. And then, though we were not united in Opini­on, yet if we were in Love, that very Love would compose our differences, and settle a firm and undisturb'd Peace among us.

And that this is not a meer Notional Chimaera, which has been entertained only by some few Bookish men, who were never versed in the World, and so understand little or nothing of the Temper and Inclinations of Mankind; but that it is a thing really practicable, is evident from the Experience of a­bove 4000 years; during which time, the Heathen World, though divided in­to as many Opinions as we now are (and some of them about matters of the highest Consequence in Religion) did nevertheless enjoy a constant and unin­terrupted Peace, being never troubled with any Wars, Feuds or Disturbances, upon the account of their differences in Religion.

If it be asserted, That later Ages have afforded Instances of a quite con­trary Nature, and that our Disputes a­bout Religion, have not only banish'd all Love and Kindness from among us, but have oftentimes involved us in Blood: I answer, That 'tis not the dif­ference in Opinions, but the refusing to give Liberty to those who dissent from us, that has been the chief occasion of those Miseries and Calamities that have befallen us. Oppression unites the se­veral Sects, and causes them to joyn as one, that they may regain their lost Li­berty. This occasions a continual strug­gling betwixt them and the Establish'd Church. And from hence all the Wars and Bustles that have happen'd in the Christian World, upon the account of Religion, have had their Rise. If therefore a full and impartial Tolera­tion were once settled, all occasion of difference would immediately cease; and the Dissenters having no just cause of Discontent, would be no longer dan­gerous Subjects. But if any prevail­ing Party, moved by Ambition, and encourag'd by the considence of their great Numbers, should attempt any thing against the Goverment, 'tis pro­bable that many sober and peaceable Men even of their own Party would oppose them; since they would now want the most plausible pretence of drawing them in. But, to be sure, Interest would oblige all other Dissen­ters to stand by the Government, and to guard and support it; because they know that under it they shall enjoy the freedom of their Religion, and that they need not fear the severity of the Laws, so long as they neither injure their Neighbours, nor offend a­gainst the Civil Peace. Hence it ap­pears that it is the interest of Gover­nors to indulge Dissenters, since that will make them to sit more safe and secure.

A Toleration likewise would very much conduce to the preservation of the established Church. For this would cause the several Sects to watch and [Page 8]have an Eye upon one another. Every Party would fear another's being upper­most. Because if that should ever hap­pen, they could not easily hope for so kind and charitable dealing, as they had formerly receiv'd from those they had dispossess'd, who had given them Liberty.

3. Tho' some Men pretend that it is out of Charity to their Souls, that they force Dissenters into the Church, Jest by dying in an erroneous Opini­on they should perish eternally, yet is this pretence vain and groundless. For we all know that it is not the ma­king profession of the true Religion, nor the outward Conformity to its worship, that will save us. 'Tis the Mind that God chiefly regards; and what ever we do, if we do it not in the sincerity of our Heart, it is nothing worth.

4. Truth oftentimes lies so much in the dark, that it is very difficult to find it out; And Error carries oftentimes along with it such a fair appearance of Truth, that it doth not only im­pose upon the weak and careless, but does also sometimes deceive the wise and diligent Enquirer. Since then there is so great hazard of our be­ing betrayed into Errors, (and that upon probable grounds,) methinks good nature should encline us to make poor mistaken Souls, objects of our pity rather than anger.

Besides, since no Person is ever the more infallible for being invested in the Supreme Power, it is not impos­sible but that the Rulers and Magi­strates themselves (not being able to see through the thick Mists where­with Truth is veiled) may instead of their supposed Jum embrace a Cloud; And the seeming Truth they so ear­nestly contend for, may possibly be Er­ror hid under a fair disguise. This, me­thinks, should cause Magistrates to be very cautious how they punish Men for their opinion in Religion; lest while they fancy themselves to be rooting out Error, they should indeed oppose the Truth. This we know was St Paul's own Case, who out of his great zeal to the glory of God per­secuted the true Religion, and cruel­ly murthered the best and most faith­ful of the Servants of God. And if we examine the Opinions of the pre­sent Rulers of the World, we shall find amongst them more Patrons of Error, than Defenders of the true Faith; which may convince us of the Reasonableness of our Saviours Rule, viz. To let the Tares grow until the Harvest, lest we root up also the Wheat with them.

Lastly. We are not only by Scri­pture enjoyned to try all things, but our Church likewise encourages us to examine things our selves, and to make use of our own judgments in the choice of our Religion. Now it seems a little hard to put us upon searching and judging for our selves, and yet to force us to comply with the former determinations of other Men. This were to punish us for fol­lowing that Rule, which she her self hath recommended to us.

Having thus laid down some of those Reasons which induced me to adhere to the Opinion above-menti­oned, I shall proceed to the Excepti­tions in the Act; and consider what there is in the Opinions, there men­tioned, that renders those that hold them unfit to be tolerated. And,

1. All those are excluded from the benefit of this Toleration who do not believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it is believed and taught in the Church of England. Concerning which, I ob­serve that this Doctrine has no rela­tion at all to Civil Affairs. And there­fore all who are punished for their mistakes in this point, are punish'd for their bare Opinion only in Religi­gion: and for an Opinion which is not in the least prejudicial to the State; [Page 9]And therefore they may properly be said to suffer for Conscience sake.

It cannot be proved that That Arch-Heretick Socinius himself, or any of his followers, ever endanger'd the publick Peace, or were worse Subjects than o­ther men. And consequently they may as safely be permitted to enjoy the free­dom of their Religion as any other Dis­senters whatsoever.

Besides, if we seriously consider this Doctrine, we shall find it clog'd with so many and so great difficulties, that an honest and sincere Soul may easily be mistaken. If we examine the Scrip­ture proofs, we shall find no clear and express Declaration, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one and the same Divine, Essence, in all that Sacred Vo­lume: but that it is proved by Conse­quences and Deductions, and those of­tentimes so far fetch'd, that they may possibly be overseen by a diligent searcher. And on the other hand, John 14.28. and some other places, seem so favourable to the Socinian Hy­pothesis, that if there were no other places of Scripture relating to those points besides those, we should be apt to interpret them in the same sense as our Adversaries do. And tho' in this Controversie we multiply Scripture quo­tations, yet so many of them are by the most learned Men of our own side, con­fessed to be unconcluding, that perhaps some may from thence be encouraged to suspect the rest.

If from Scripture we pass to Reason, that rather discourages, than any ways supports or defends the Orthodox Opi­nion. The Arguments which are urg'd from thence are confessed to be such as we can give no clear solution to. And it is no wonder that our weak understan­dings are puzzelled in the Contempla­tion of so sublime a Mystery. Nor is it a­ny disparagement to our Cause that we refuse to make Reason a Judge in a Case she has so very little knowledge of. 'Tis not a sufficient Argument to overthrow our Doctrine, that we can­not solve all the difficulties that are started about a matter which is of so high a nature, that it is above humane understanding. We confess it to be too great for us to fathom. For it would be rashness and inadvertency, if not madness, for a finite Being to propose to it self the Comprehension of Infinity. But as for the Socinians (who believe the Objections to be ut­terly unanswerable, and think that it may be proved that the Doctrine of the Trinity implies a Contradiction,) They lie under a strong temptation of being of an Opiinon contrary to us, and to interpret such places of Scrip­ture as relate to this Doctrine in a different sense from what we usually give of them. For it is a Maxim ge­nerally allowed by Protestants, that what can be clearly proved to be con­trary to Reason is impossible to be true; and therefore ought upon no account whatever to be received. And tho' we know that no such thing can be proved of the Doctrine of the Trinity, yet there are such seeming appearances, as may probably misguide an honest and well­meaning Man.

If we are willing to be guided by the Authority of the Fathers, we shall find that those who are most ancient, and lived in the first Ages of Christia­nity, are claim'd both by the Socinians and us, and both sides equally pretend to quote them as Favourers of the O­pinion which each Party holds. And the truth is, they have deliver'd them­selves in such ambiguous and obscure Terms about this question, that 'tis a hard matter to un-riddle what their true Sentiments were concerning it. For they (as St. Jerom observes, A­pol. 2. Adv. Ruff. p. 223.) before the Southern Devil Arrius arose at Alexan­dria, innocenter quaedam, & minùs cautè locuti sunt. And therefore a very lear­ned Man, who is at present in an emi­nent station in our Church, might upon [Page 10]good grounds justifie what he has de­clared in private, that this is the hardest Controversie we have to manage.

The Consideration of which should, methinks, be sufficient to bespeak the Candor of all charitable persons, in the behalf of those unfortunate Souls, who are unwillingly involv'd in this Error, since they have such difficulties to en­counter with, as are almost insuperable.

Such Thoughts as these might prevail with Salvian to entertain so favourable an Opinion of the Arrians, that though he sufficiently dislik'd their Heresie, yet because they firmly believ'd themselves to be in the right, he refused to con­demn rhem; and conceived more hopes of such mens Salvation, than of the most Orthodox Christians, who lead ill Lives; and he gives his Opinion of them in these mild Terms, How they shall be punished for it, in the Day of Judg­ment, none can know but the Judge. Nay, a very Learned Man of our Church, (Dr. Crakenthorp) goes further, and ex­cuses all such from Herefie, who profess Arrianism in the simplicity and sincerity of their hearts, and are willing to for­sake it, upon manifestation that the Scriptures teach the contrary; and he compares their Case to St. Cyprian's professing Re-baptization, and Irenaeus the Millenary Heresie, p. 109. Vigilius dormitans.

Dr. Hammond urges this Principle higher still; for thus he argues: Sure he that makes right Reason the Judge of his very Principles, must needs be so rational and ingenuous, that he can never be an He­retick, though he say the very things that Hereticks do. (Infallibility of the Church of Rome, p. 51.)

If it be objected to the Socinians, That they are Atheists, and deny the True God; and Idolaters, in worship­ping a Creature instead of God, I reply:

The Charge of Atheism is so ill-ground­ed and extravagant, that it needs no Answer. For how is it possible, that they should deny the True God, who own the same God that the Scriptures declare unto us, and whom all Christians adore? The difference between the So­cinian and the Orthodox, is not about, which is the True God (for they both worship the same), but about the Man­ner of his Subsistence, whether this God doth subsist in but One Person, or in Three? Now if every Mistake about the Nature of God, be a Denial of him, I fear there are but few who confess the True God. But if not, then we may allow the Socinians to hold the True God, see­ing they acknowledge him to be God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; tho they differ about the Mode of his Being, and deny that he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

If it be urg'd, That this is no slight and trivial Error, but of pernicious consequence, highly derogating from the Honour of the Second and Third Person; I answer, That several other Dissenters profess Opinions as blasphe­mous as this, and as dishonourable to the whole Godhead, as this is to the Two Last Persons; and yet these are tolerated. As for Instance; The Do­ctrine of Absolute Reprobation, is utterly inconsistent with the Wisdom and Goodness of God. Now certainly they who rob the Deity of these Two Glo­rious Attributes, make a more disad­vantageous Representation of him to Mankind, than either the Arrians or Socinians do. If it be alledged in be­half of these Persons, That it was their great Zeal for the Glory of God, and their desire to extol his Power, as abso­lute Sovereign of Mankind, that first drew them into this Error; Why then may not those who deny the Trinity, make use of the like plea? For 'tis well known, that this Heresie first sprung from the great Antipathy which some men bore to the Heathen Idolatry, who for fear they should admit of a Rival into God's Throne, as a Partner with him in his Divine Empire, unhappily denied the Trinity.

To the charge of Idolatry I shall op­pose nothing: (for I do not pretend to be the Socinians Advocate) But if from thence it be inferr'd, That they ought not to be Tolerated, I deny the Conse­quence. For if we once grant, That the Magistrate may force men from a false Religion, by the Penalties of the Law, we shall never know where to stop; because the same Reasons which justifie the rooting out of Idolatry, will soon be made use of for the suppressing all such Errors as shall be judged hurt­ful and dangerous to mens Souls, till at length all men shall be forc'd to conform to that Rule of Faith which the Su­preme Magistrate esteems to be the only true one.

Besides, That power which we allow the Supream Magistrate to pull down and destroy an Idolatrous Church, may in another time and place be made use of to the subversion of the true one. As for Example, in the Case before us: We are as much Idolaters in the Opinion of the Socinians, as they are in ours; and consequently where the power is in their hands, they will be as much obli­ged to destroy us, as we ure bound, now the Magistrate is on our side, to root out them. For every one supposes himself to be in the right. So that in­stead of the Legacy of Peace which our Saviour left to his Disciples, if we give way to these persecuting Principles, we shall intail upon the World a perpetual War. And those barbarous and inhumane Tortures, for the Exercise of which we have a just Aversion to the French King, will in time gain sa gene­ral approbation, and be universally pra­ctis'd.

But suppose, for Argument's sake, that these Hereticks, upon the account of the greatness of their Error deserve to be excluded from all Favour, yet is the Exception in the Act 100 large; since it shuts some from the benefit of the Act, whom it expresly names, as persons sit to be Tolerated, viz. the Quakers. For it appears from their Writings, as well as private Discourses, That many, if not most of them, are Heterodox, as to this Point of the Trinity, and conse­quently cannot, with a safe Conscience, subscribe the Test required of them; which perhaps may cause some of them to look upon this Act as a Mockery of them, and an Abuse; since (though all the Acts against them are actually re­peal'd, yet) if they should be Indicted upon any of these Statutes, they have no right to this Plea, unless they first subscribe a Declaration, which they in their Consciences judge to be false.

The Followers of Origen are likewise uncapable of receiving any benefit from this Act. For though Origen held every One of the Three Hypostases to be truly and properly God, yet his Opinion is something different from what is at pre­sent profess'd by the Church of Eng­land. Now if any one who delighted in the Writings of this Pious and Judi­cious Father, should by degrees be drawn in, to approve of the Origenian Hypothesis concerning this Point, surely so small an Error in such a nice questi­on would not render him unworthy of that Kindness which we willingly be­stow on those who openly maintain Te­nents of a far more mischievous Na­ture.

I might likewise instance in such as adhere to the Opinions of the Eastern Church, since our Divines are generally very favourable to these. Dr. Stilling fleet (now Bishop of Worcester) in his Vindi­cation of his Answer to the King's Papers, pleads in their behalf, p. 23. Is it not (says he) a very hard case, these should be excluded the Catholick Church, and consequently from Salvation, for not rightly understanding the subtilties of the distincti­on betwixt Nature and Person; as whe­ther Subsistence can be separated from in­dividual Nature; or whether an Hyposta­tical Ʋnion doth imply that the indivi­dual Nature doth lose its own Subsistence. I appeal to the Conscience of any good Chri­stian, [Page 12]whether he thinks that Christ and his Apostles did ever make the knowledge of these things necessary to Salvation, which the subtillest of their School-men are never able to explain to the Capa­cities of the far greatest part of mankind. Now if any of this Opinion amongst us should urge this Argument for a Tole­ration, I cannot think it would lose much of its strength.

Add to this, that it looks a little se­vere, when we have given so general a Liberty, to tie Men up so strictly in the most nice and difficult point; concerning which Dr Falkn [...]r owns that the Athanasian Creed gives some explica­tions which are not so necessary to be un­derstood and believed by the meanest Ca­pacities. Lib. Ecc. c. 4. §. 4. p. 146.

Moreover, by this Act most of the Dissenters are obliged to subscribe to they know not what. For to under­stand throughly the Doctrine of our Church in this point, they must be ver­sed not only in our Articles, Common-Prayer Book, and Book of Homilies, but even in the first four General Coun­cils; since we profess to believe what e­ver they have determin'd. And Ibelieve there are but few (even of their Teachers) will pretend to be mighti­ly acquainted with them.

As for the Papists, though they are not included in this Toleration, yet I cannot plead so much on their behalf, because both their Doctrines and Pra­ctices are prejudicial to the publick Peace. However, I cannot but wish that we had rather excluded them the benefit of the Toleration upon the account of such of their Principles as undermine the very Foundation of Go­vernment, (such as these, That the Pope has power to depose Heretical Kings, or that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks) Then upon account of their believing Transubstantiation; which is a meer religious Doctrine, and the believing of which one way or the other, injures no Man's private Right, nor any ways disturbs the pub­lick Peace.

But if we must have something a­bout this absurd Doctrine, let it be this; That every Person who is tolerated shall declare that no one ought to be punished for holding either side of the question. And I verily believe if the Papists were secure of enjoying the freedom of their Religion here, dis­claiming only such Doctrines as are in­consistent with the Government, they would not be so violently bent to King James's Interest, as to hazard the ut­ter ruine of themselves and Families for his sake.

I pray God to encline our Minds to mild and moderate Councils. For as the Bishop of Rochester says in the conclusion of his second Letter to the Lord Dorset, — To calm Mens Minds for the future, to settle Affairs in a secure and lasting Peace, most certainly a gentle, generous, charitable Temper is the best.