THe Author of Englands Settlement, is by many wise men thought to be a disguised Jesuite, or a Je­suited Sectary: '[The voice is Jacobs voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.] He personates in his words, a Protestant, putting himself amongst us, as one of us, but his Design is, under a pretence of an Ʋniversal Tolera­tion, of all Religions; as to asperse our both Church and State, with the ugly crime of Persecution; so especially to plead for Liberty of Conscience to Papists and Recusants, as shall be made appear in ventilation of the Tract it self. He hath scraped together, out of several Sectarian Books or Pamphlets, Anabaptists, Levellers, Fifth Monarchy men, &c. no less then ten Arguments, which as they are very plausible (like a fair picture upon course cloath afar off) to simple and weak apprehensions; so being looked on nea­rer hand, and touched by the hand of a solid understanding, are like the Apples of Sodom, which touched turn to ashes, and prove but so many thred-bare Sophisms, or transparent Fallacies, often confuted. His method of proceeding (that they that have not his Tract may see what he hath said, and judg the better of it) is this:

[Page 4]1. He seemes, out of pity and compassion to the Nation, (whiles he is secretly piling up his barrels of Gunpowder, (once more) under the Parliament House, to blow it up, by procuring an Act of Toleration for all Religions) to ex­emplifie, and bewaile out past and present miseries, as the Amazement of the world, and the intolerable burden of ‘the nation; for so he sayes; [They experience, that their so much talk'd of, and so often promised liberty, has pro­ved nothing but real and almost intolerable Slavery: their plenty has been turned into miserable poverty; and their peace,’ into endless troubles] How truly let o­thers judg.

2. ‘He tells us (what indeed we find) [There has been a curse upon the Government these ten years; it hath been all that time a rolling, like Sysiphus stone, and in­constant like the Moon: The judgments of God have been very terrible and universal, both over Church and State, and have gone round over all sorts of Persons, as well of high as low degree. For the late English Church hath been quite overturned, the King himself, the Head thereof, tragically beheaded, and his posterity rigorously excluded. The Nobillity is in a manner degraded, the house of Peeres abolished, the Ancient Gentry slighted, the Marchants and Commons, by decay of trade, and by the unhappy conjunction of extraordinary Taxes, impo­verished, Yea the Parliaments themselves, have not gone without some chastisement. For their own hired servants, have oftener, than once, lifted their heels against them, and without any lawful Authority, but according to their own pleasures or interests, have dissolved, called, anni­hilated and revived them. Only the Souldiers, whom God hath used as Instruments to punish others, may seem to have gone hitherto unpunished]’ How true this is also let others judg.

3 He seems to take upon him to be a prophet, and to foretel what is like to come upon those (the Army) that ‘have not yet smarted: for so he says: [Every thing must have its time, to come to maturity: and God Almighty [Page 5]has begun already to manifest his judgments, upon some of their principal Heads and first Movers: O. P. his posterity, and others of his chief Officers &c. which may serve for a warning for all the rest, to prevent Gods Judgments, [...]est they sall heavily upon them,’ here, or hereafter] They may do well to consider it, and lay it to heart

4. Having done this, he inquires into the causes of these judgments and divine visitations, and our so long unsettle­ment: ‘and resolves well in general, [Some very heinous sin or sins have provoked them; but what these sins are in particular, is not so easie to determine, to every mans satisfaction.] Yet he goes on, in the search of them, and first gives us his own judgment upon the case; [it may probably be affirmed, if not averred as a certain truth, that Soul-tyranny, or coercive power over mens conscien­ces, is the principal sin that hath drawn down these judg­ments from heaven, (for some reasons,) For first it is an heinous sin in it self, (as he will shew shortly) and especi­ally if it be exercised against the true Religion:]’ Before we hear the rest, consider this; First, he should have said, Soul Tyranny is an heinous sin, (not especially, but) only when it is exercised against the true Religion: Coercive power exercised against false Religion, is no Tyranny, no sin at all, but an Act of Justice, or Religion. Secondly he forgot himself in this Assertion; and did not remember, that in Rome it self, Italy and Spaine, &c. where that Soul Ty­ranny is most rigorously exercised, (setting up a false Reli­gion, and persecuting the true, in their High commission, and Inquisition Courts:) there is as yet, the greatest peace and prosperity, and flourishing of those Nations, their sins being not yet mature, for their long ago determined judg­ments. However, it seems, those Politician, are not of this mans Cabinet Council, that Toleration of all Religions, is one of the Pillars of a States Settlement: Its experimented too much, and too long, through many ages, that no hatreds (and so, no differences,) are like those of different Religi­ons: and (which is observable) the nearer they come unto an union in matters of Religion, (if yet there be some diffe­rence) [Page 6]the more strong and deadly are their hatreds, the more fierce and violent their Animosities. The Jew and the Samaritan were; The Protestants and Papists, The Lu­theran Arminians and Calvinists &c. are at this day, the most deadly enemies. The reason is well given, by one not ‘meanly learned, [They both plead for their God; and that man hath no Religion, that can put up an Indignity offered to his God.]’ See that story Act. 19.23. &c. But Thirdly, he forgot himself once more; and did not con­sider, that all those miseries (or most of them) have fallen upon this Nation, since the desired Liberty of conscience was gratified with a Toleration, or Connivence at least. And whither they will ever end, till Religion be established in truth, purity and power, is a probleme not yet determi­ned, but may be, ere we have done.

A second Reason why Soul tyranny is so heinous a sin, and cause of our miseries, he gives to be this; that [This ‘Nation hath been deeply gurley of it above these hundred years]’ He means forsooth in prosecuting Papists, not for their Religion, but their Rebellion, and rebellious prin­ciples▪ What is this, but to call our Church and State Per­secutors? But of this more anon.

It is true, (which is his third Reason of our miseries) ‘[Each party objects persecution to another, as the cause of all their miseries]’ But one party only truly: For, as there is but one true Religion, so there can be no persecu­tion properly but of that, the rest is a just prosecution of errors and heresies, that destroy not only the Faith, but the Souls of many. And his distinction I desire may be remem­bred, Arbitrary Go­vernment was one of the al­ledged grounds of the late war, &c. p. 5. ‘as of use hereafter. But that this was the cause, [or principle ground of the late wars between King and Parli­ament]’ is is utterly false: The ground of their differen­ces (as they held them forth) was the encroachment upon their civil Liberties, and priviledges of Parliament: but I leave this to them whom it concerns; as for what is made the judgments of others, concerning our miseries, by Papists, Presbyterians, Royalists Independents it is not worth the while to debate; Its like every party will remove the ob­jection [Page 7]from it self, and charge it upon others, let them agree it.

3. ‘He is now drawing towards his main business; [what ever the sin be, that hath drawn the foresaid Judgments upon these Nations; it is certain, with allmost all Pru­dent and Unbyassed men, that this State especially as matters now stand, in such a variety of Religions shall never be firmly setled, under any form of Government, unless it be built upon such a solid Foundation, as may as­sert and secure the peoples liberties, both Religious and Civil.]’ leave but out these words [especially as matters now stand in such a variety of Religion] which have a secret design, as we shall hear presently; the thing will be granted ‘by all prudent men, [that no State can be firmly setled, un­less it be built upon such a solid foundation, as may assert and secure the peoples liberties, both civil and Religious.]’ But, I pray, what is that foundation? In his Title page he speaks of two solid foundations for the settlement of Eng­land; and makes them there and here, to be the peoples civil and Religious Liberties: when as these themselves, do need a foundation to secure and settle them upon, which he cunningly conceals and is unwilling to discover; for ‘thus he asserts again, page 4. [The two pillars whereupon this State must be setled, are the Spiritual and civil liberties of the people, that is, in the Parliaments language, as Men, as Christians.]’ But upon what foundation, shall these two pil­lars stand? The peoples Liberties civil or Religious, are but the walls, or roof of this building; and as he said before, must be built upon some other solid foundation, which what ‘it is, I desire to know. He seems to resolveit, into [just Lawes, to free the people from Slavery in their Persons, and Oppression in their Goods.]’ And indeed, that may go for one of the foundations to settle a State upon, (viz) Righteousnes, to assert and secure their Civil and Religious Liberties; but there is another, and a stronger foundation, and that is, the True Religion established and practised; of which more hereafter.

For the first pillar or foundation, that of civil liberties of [Page 8]the people, he says, he shall speak but a little; and I less; it is not our main business in hand: Three things only he ‘delivers concerning the civil Liberties. [1 That they were much more violated since the Kings death, then before in his time; viz. 1. In their Representatives, when the Major part of the Parliament members were violently thrust out of the House, and divers of them Imprisoned; and much more when they were dissolved without any Lawful Authority, by force and power of the sword, which the peoples servants turned against themselves. 2. By the change of Government and Election of a new supreme Magistrate, without the suffrages of the peo­ple, &c. 3. When freeborn persons were imprisoned by Arbitrary power, and inhumanly used in Prison; Trepanning men into Plots, and then cruelly executed &c. Lastly in their Goods, by exorbitant and continual Ta­xes, &c.]’

Then 2. like a good Physitian or Statesman, he prescribes the Remedies to these our Maladies: I shall but ‘name them: 1. [That some course be taken to make the power of the sword subordinate to the civil power; that the Souldiers be not suffered any more to domineere over their Masters: as the Romane Praetorian bands did, and the Turks Janisaries do. 2. That no person be impri­soned, nor his goods touched, without breach of a known Law 3. That at length the people may be freed from their long and exorbitant Taxes; by reducing the Army to as small and competent a number as can be, &c. 4. All possible means used to quicken Trade, &c.]’ 3. He seems to prophesie once more to the little comfort of the people. ‘[When all is done, (let them make the best Settlement they can) the people are not like to be in so good a case, as they were in the Kings time, &c. The Government set­led, cannot be maintained without a continued Army, and Navy, nor those, without continual Taxes, Ex­cise, and other insupportable burthens, &c.]’ which with him, I leave to the consideration of the Present pow­ers.

‘He now comes to the [other maine Basis or Pillar, that must uphold the great Fabrick of this State, to make it stand firme and sure, the Spiritual or Religious Liberties of the people; which consists in this, that no person professing Faith in Christ, be molested or oppressed in his conscience, for his judgment in matters of Re­ligion, or in things relating to the worship of God.]’ 1. That true Religion maintained in its power and purity, is a maine B [...]sis or Power of a State, I have often heard; but the peoples Religious Liberties, are but the product and fruit of that Religion, or of civil Righteousnes, in a well setled State, 2. If by Religious Liberty, he meane, (as he does) Toleration of all Religions, in all that pretend to conscience; that every man, may not only think and be on what Religion he please, but practise accordingly, it is to be feared, it will in stead of a solid foundation, prove a quicksand or quagmire, and quickly sink, or draw after it the peoples civil Liberties, which is his other pillar: For is there not a conscience to be made in civil Liberties? And must not a man follow his conscience in civil things as well as in Religious? Suppose a man be an Anabaptist, that out of conscience denies all Magistracy; or a Leveller, or Fa­milist, that hold all things ought to be common, goods and wives and all; may he be suffered to follow his Conscience in these things? Or may he be restrained or punished, if he take another mans goods, or abuse his wife? &c. If so, is not this to exercise a coercive power over Conscience? If not, will it not destroy, as some Principles of Religion, so all Humane Society? Let him but make the peoples civil Liberties commensurable, with his Religious Liberties, that is, that as any man may be of any Religion, so every man may, in civil affairs, do what seems good in his own eyes, without restraint upon his Conscience, and see what a Common-wealth he hath Setled, upon the foundations of Civil and Religious Liberties. He may find the patterne of it, in the 5. or 6. last Chapters of the Book of Judges.

3. ‘But wherein doth this Spiritual Liberty consist? [In this, that no person professing faith in Christ, be mole­sted [Page 10]or oppressed in his conscience, for his judgment in matters of Religion &c.]’ If this be the meaning, that no man shall be molested in his conscience, for his judg­ment only, in matters of Religion, and Worship, it will easily be granted; for what Magistrate, or Church, can take cognizance of mens judgments, while they keep them to themselves? But the question is, whether every man that professes faith in Christ, must be left to himself, to publish and propagate his erroneous and heretical judgment to others; and to practise openly, what worship he, in his er­ring judgment, thinks to be true? Besides conscience pre­tended, (and so Religion) is true or false; if it be truly in­formed in the true Religion, he ought not to be molested or oppressed in conscience, in matters of Religion: But if false; to deny some kind of molestation (though we allow not opression) to such a conscience, is to deny charity to a soul running headlong to Hell for feare of troubling a misleading Conscience: Contrary to that Scripture Rule; [Of some have compassion, Jude v. 22. 23. making a difference, and others save with feare, pulling them out of the fire:]

Lastly, He makes the Religious Liberty of the people, to consist in this, [That no person professing faith in Christ, be molested in his conscience &c.] But this Rule is too narrow, and too strait-laced; allowing a coercive power, to molest some consciences; viz. of such as profess not faith in Christ; And such an abortive brat, is that late Act of Parliament (falsly so called) made in more hast, than good Speed, (the night before their last dissolution by the Army) for Tole­ration of tender consciences, almost in the same words. For if no person may be molested for conscience, then not a Jew, that denies and blasphemes Jesus Christ: not a Turke for Mahometan worship; not an Heathen, that worships the Sun, or some old worm-eaten Idol; not any man of any Religion whatever. All or any of these may set up their Temples, and worship of their Gods in England, without any molestation of conscience: For they have consciences as well as other men; and act according to their consciences; as well as they, and conscience (says he, say all men) may [Page 11]not be forced: Behold an Universal Toleration indeed. Would he see a parallel to it? He may find it (I say not, in New Rome, where Jews and others find far more favour than protestants; but) either in old Rome, where they had a Pantheon of all Gods; or in Solomons old age and do­ting times, allowing, (under the view of Gods own Tem­ple) high places to all his wives Idols, and a Toleration to ‘worship them: 1. King 11.7, 8. [Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh the abomination of Mo­ab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem; and for Moloch, the abomination of the children of Ammon; and like­wise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed to their Gods.]’ England (it seems) is grown old, and is come to Solomons dotage; an hundred year (or thereabouts, the age of Solomon) it is, since the first Reformation from Popery, by protestant Religion, (so long this Author accounts this our Religion, to have persecuted the Papists, as above:) and that which she could never be perswaded to do, in her younger days, (viz. to grant a Toleration to Papists or other Sectaries) she now in her dotage, in favour to her outlandish Paramours, the Je­suites, hath by a pretended Parliament, too liberally gran­ted: That which the former Kings and Parliaments, both when Popish, and since they had the name of Protestants, would never yield; that which the King of Scots, would rather loose the Assistance offered by two potent Popish Princes, to settle him in his Throne, than yeild unto: That which Papists and Jesuites deny to yield to Protestants, in their dominions, that this lower and latter end of a bro­ken Parliament, hath yielded to Papists, and the worst of Sectaries; To the shame of Parliaments, our Nation, and Religion; But I forbear.

But to the Setlement, he says; [The Government of these Nations as the case now stands, cannot be firmly set­led, without taking away all Restraint over Mens consci­ences and granting an innocent Toleration.] This is the question now between us. In the stating whereof, are these things very considerable. 1. He qualifies it, with these [Page 12]words, [as the case now stands] which a little after, he explains by these words [especially when variety of Reli­gions have got footing in a Nation.] 1. It seems then, where the case is otherwise, that variety of Religions have got no footing, it may be lawful to lay some Restraint up­on erring consciences, and to deny the most innocent To­leration: But did he not say universally, no man profe­ssing Christ, is to be molested in conscience, for his judg­ment in matters of Religion? Which if it were true, no ca­ses nor exeptions need to be put in; no Restraint must be laid upon mens consciences, to start or publish some new Religion, according to their consciences; for that will prove a way to unsettle that Nation or Church. 2. Must all restraint of conscience be taken away? What, of those consciences, whose principles are destructive, not only to Religion in the Church, but also to the peace and safety of the State; as those of Papists, that it is Lawful to murder Kings, made heretical by the Pope; or to follow Impulses of Spirit, to kill Anti-Christian Priests, as the Quakers (the Jesuites disciples) now begin to assert and avow? That State that will allow such consciences with such prin­ciples, deserve to be destroyed, as having neither Policy, Prudence, nor Piety: Yet all Restraint, in this case must be taken away, says our Author, and an innocent tolle­ration (which is a kind of contradiction) granted: 3. But see the Impudence of Jesuites: They have been the Instru­ments to give variety of Religions footing in the Nation; and now, they tell us, as the case now stands, the Govern­ment cannot be setled, till all restraint of conscience be taken away, and an Innocent toleration granted: But hear his reasons.

1. ‘[All men know, the freedome of conscience in matters of Religion, is the last, and highest interest of man, valued by him above all earthly things, and there­fore nothing can be more earnestly desired by him: And nothing is more repugnant to man, than a Restraint or Coercive Power over his conscience; and therefore can­not but raise a deep discontent in him, and earnest desire [Page 13]to be free of that soul-tyranny; and to wish, and work (if it be in their power) and make a change of that Go­vernment: whence it clearly followes, that that state which puts a restraint upon mens consciences, especially when variety of Religions hath got a footing in it, can­not be well and solidly setled, but is exposed to unavoi­dable troubles,’ jealousies, and danger of ruine.] Thus far the Jesuite; To which we say, Liberty of Conscience, in profession of the true Religion, is a thing of special va­lue, and by all desired; but liberty granted to erroneous and heretical consciences, is a thing most dangerous and destructive, to their own and other souls, and by no wise man to be desired, nor by any religious State to be granted. But observe again, those interposed words (especially when variety of Religions hath got a footing in a Nation.) And again, (especially as the case now stands) observe, (what was noted above) that it was the design of the Jesuites, on purpose, to break our Religion into fractions, that so they might plead for toleration of all; upon this ground, that the State cannot now be solidly setled, if they put a restraint upon mens consciences: At Rome, and else where, where they are all of one false Religion; they may, and do put restraint upon mens consciences, that whatever they think in their judgments, they may not dare to publish their opinions, and set up new Religions: May not a Protestant Magistrate, lay a restraint upon all Religions, but the true, by way of remedy, which they do by way of prevention, knowing, that if variety of Re­ligions be suffered to get footing in a Nation, they will unsettle the peace of the Nation, as well, as where they have already got footing: But enough of that; In particu­lar to the Argument, I say many things. 1. It is no Pa­radox to say, conscience it self (though the body may) cannot be forced or restrained, (as the will cannot) but is ever seen, when the tongue or body may be bound: [The Word of God is not bound,] though I be, said the great Apostle in Prison. The conscience hath its freedome, either to practise according to it, or to suffer in its restraint, not [Page 14]with discontent (as he) but upon choice, and joyfully too. 2. That's no good conscience, that desires, and works to be free from soul-tyranny, by working a change of that Government, by which it is racked. The Apostles and primitive Christians, (when they had power in their hand, as the greater number) did not so, but pleaded and urged, obedience either active or passive, to the worst of Govern­ments. Whence it appears, that this is no part of the Do­ctrine of Jesus, but a drop of Jesuitisme: That restraint of conscience may (lawfully) put men upon designs to ruine the State, under which they live and suffer. This may be part of the Politicians Catechisme, which he speaks of, hatched in the Conclave of Rome, or the Jesuites juncto's; but is wisedome earthly; sensual, divelish, yea, too often practised by them, as in other States, so in ours of England; ‘His own instances shall convince him, [that of the forraign Invesion, in the year 88, and again by a detestible Gunpow­der Plot, of some few desperate Papists, &c.]’ Detestible Plots indeed, and desperate, not by some few Papists (or as one called them, unfortunate Gentlemen, not for the undertaking, but unfortunate in their success) not by some few Papists, but by an Armado the one, the other not without the Approbation of many Priests and Jesuites, and the Canonization of the chief Contriver, Garnet, at Rome. True Protestants have ever hated such Religion, as allowes People to rebell against, and endeavour the ruine or sub­version of the State, rather then suffer for Religion: As for those instances, in France, Holland, Scotland, or any o­ther; I shall not take upon me to justifie or condemn them, because I know not their grounds; they are old enough, and able to plead for themselves: But this only I shall com­mend to the consideration of the present Powers; ‘[That though some other Sects or several Religions (as he calls them) have made Insurrections, since the change of the Government (above ten years since) to the danger of the State; yet, those that are true Presbyterians, have never in the least, devised any Plots, or moved a Finger a­gainst any of the Powers that have been uppermost, but [Page 15]have sat still in silence and submission, resolved to yield active obedience to their commands, where lawfully they may, or passive obedience, to suffer, where their consci­ences dare not act, or approve.]’ And to this man, I say, The Presbyterians have never exercised any Soul tyranny over mens consciences, upon any of different opinions from them, in matters of Religion, (as never having had any such power granted them) unless upon their own con­senting Members, in a spiritual way, which himself allowes. Whom have they ever punished in their bodies, mulcted in their goods, cropt off their ears imprisoned, banished, &c. They abhor the thoughts, (much more the practise) of such soul-tyranny, and leave it either to the former Go­vernment, or to his holy Father the Pope, from whence it had its Original. Yet these are the men, whom this bold ‘Calumniator dare asperse [as overturners of the State, (some more precise sort of Protestants, who past all be­fore, under the name of Puritans) and that upon the same score of Religion, to be free of all restraint of their consciences, and enjoy a greater freedome.]’ The Lord rebuke thee, thou slanderous Tongue; that restraint was laid upon the consciences of those honest men, who were unjustly called Puritans, is too evident to be denyed: That they might seek to be free from that restraint, may also be yielded, but not in any seditious, or tumultuous way; but in a way of Address to the Supream Power of Parliament, abhorring the very thought of overturning the State; though by the fraud and subtilty of some, that have followed, which they never intended: Himself hath told us, what was one, (and a chief, if not the only) cause ‘of the late Wars, [Arbitrary Government, and en­croaching upon the Peoples Civil Liberties.’ p. 5.] not at all or not primarily, [upon the score of Religion] though they might justly fear, that by Arbitrary Government, Religion at last might come to suffer; as all that know the state of those times, cannot but confess. 3. As for his in­nocent ‘toleration, let us hear what he sayes; [An inof­fensive Toleration in matters of Religion secures all, and [Page 16]cements the Peoples greatest Interest, to preserve and de­fend the Common-wealth; whereof we see a near and clear example in the Common-wealth of Holland.]’ But 1. Why may he not conclude the like for Peoples civil Liberties? An innocent, and inoffensive community of all things, will secure all, and cement the Peoples Interest, to preserve and defend the Common wealth, wherein they enjoy such freedome: It is propriety that puts wicked men upon Breach of Peace; that puts men upon stealing one from another: Let rich men but be perswaded, to let their houses, goods, and money be free, and common to all, there will be no disturbance in the State; so in mat­ters of Religion; let men have liberty to be of any Reli­gion, or none, true, or false; let them blaspheme the Name of God, and Jesus Christ, worship them with what worship they please, though forbidden; and the Church and States need not trouble themselves, or sear any troubles. It is the Magistrate, or the Church, that by denying People this liberty, and laying restraint upon their consciences, that are guilty of all unsetling disturbances, &c. 2. The To­leration of the Hollander: I never yet heard a truly re­ligious man to commend or approve, till now, if now it is, I fear, more out of policy, than piety: But I believe, if the Hollander had not a better Guard by Sea and Land to secure and defend his State, than the cement, or untem­pered Mortar of Toleration; he had long ere this been reduced, either to his old Master, or to utter destruction: However, malè parta, male dilabentur, when the time comes: We see the fruit of Toleration in England, since it hath been granted; the variety of Religions, as it hath served in one sense, to strengthen a prevailing party, by the politick Maxim, Divide & Impera: So it hath made no small disturbances in the Church and State; and had they not an Army to quiet them, had long ere this, laid them in the dust, and the Nation in ashes: And what will be the issue, God only knows.

2. His next Reason, or Argument, is borrowed from one Mr. Collier, an Anabaptist at least, if not Jesuited, and [Page 17]consists of many, no less than sour Arguments, which all ‘have respect to the Magistrate, [As by Coercive power in matters of Religion, becoming guilty of high Treason, against Jesus Christ, in usurping upon his prerogative:]’ But the man hath quite mistaken the question, (as no doubt this Author knows, but would take no notice of it.) This ‘he undertakes to prove, [That it is unlawful for the Magi­strate to pretend any right of Coercive power, over mens consciences, and an heinous sin in him to exercise it.]’ The thing is true in it self, but not to the question. The Magistrate hath no more Coercive power over mens consciences, than the Church hath over mens bodies: Christ only is Lord over the conscience: Magistrates cannot impose any Laws of their own over the consciences of men, nor force any to believe or practise, contrary to the Laws of Christ, or con­trary to their consciences; or punish them for not so believ­ing, &c. But the question is, whether a Magistrate Christian, at least, professing the true Religion, may not use his pow­er to command professed Christians, to the observance of the Laws of Christ, and the outward prescribed worship of God, and punish them for not conforming thereunto? whe­ther also, he may not restrain men from publishing and pra­ctsing of Errors and Heresies, and false worship, contrary to the true Religion, to the perverting and destroying of mens souls? And if his Arguments prove not the Negative of these, they prove nothing. But let us hear them.

1. ‘[The Magistrate hath received no such power, from Christ in the New Testament, in matters relating to Faith and Worship: Ergo, Christ hath reserved the power over conscience to himself, as Lord of it.]’ The whole of this may be granted, and is granted above, in a right sence, without any prejudice to the question between us: Christ only is Lord over the Conscience, to prescribe Laws of Faith, and Worship: 2. The second is the same with the first in fense. The Magistrate cannot impose Rules of Faith and Worship upon people, &c. But may he not impose the Laws of God and Christ upon his people? And ought he not therein to be obeyed? And Punish those that re­fuse [Page 18]them, or walk contrary to them? And if he com­mand contrary to those Rules of Christ, though he must not be therein obeyed, must he not Passively be submitted to? And what if Christ have not in the New Testament committed such power to the Magistrate, (as will be proved he hath) is it not sufficient that he hath committed it to him in the old Testament. And that not only the Kings of Judah, but Heathen Kings have executed such a Power? See Dan. 3.29. and 6.26. So that it is a Moral duty of a Magistrate, known by the light of Nature, as Gods Vice­gerent, to publish the Laws of God, to command obedience to them, and to punish Trangressors: and is not this a Coercive power committed to the Magistrate? 3. He ‘thus argues; [If the Magistrates have such a power, then all or some: If all, then Heathen Magistrates have it, but that's absurde: If Christian only, they may be of divers Religions, and command contrary to Christs Rules, one, one Religion, another, another, &c.]’ This is the sum of his Dilemmatical discourse. But the Answer is easie; this power (we speak of) belongs to all Magistrates, as Magistrates, (even Heathens as afore) though all are not in a capacity, or have ability to perform it. As in the fifth Commandment, all parents are bound to instruct, and command their children to know and fear God, and cor­rect their disobedience; but Heathen parents cannot right­ly do it: The power of the Magistrate (who is pater patriae) is the very same, in a greater latitude, and belongs; to the same Commandment: though all cannot perform it, but ‘that's their fault. Obj. [They may be of different Re­ligions or beliefs, and think themselves in the right, and so every one that hath power, will persecute another; Protestants, Papists, and contra.]’ At their perill be it, if they believe falsly, and persecute the true Religion: But ought they to do so? May they that are of a false Religion persecute those that profess the true Religion? Did he not say, above, this was the most heinous sin? And may not they that profess and have the true Religion, prosecute those that are heretical, to bring them to a true belief and pra­ctise: [Page 19]This case is parallel: A Magistrate may pu­nish offenders against righteousness in civil affairs, Ergo, He or another may persecute others for righteousness; but ‘(sayes he) [Allow this, that divers Religions may per­secute one another, and what confusion will this bring into a State, into the World?]’ Sol. 1. Is there no dif­ference between prosecution of evil doers? and persecution of the innocent, every Thief, and every Heretick, if pu­nished or restrained, cry out of persecution. But how unjustly? 2. Hath not Christ foretold it, and by his Providence so orders it, that there shall be persecution of the good for his sake, and for righteousness sake? yea, and command his people to suffer it (not with opposition, or a desire to ruine and subvert that State that offers it) but without impatience, with greatest joy and gladness. How unlike to Jesus, are our Jesuites? 4. His fourth Argument ‘is this; [Christ hath committed his authority in mat­ters of Religion, relating to worship, to his Church; and commands to tell the Church, &c. Ergo, Not to the Magistrate.]’ But 1. Why did he leave out in matters of Faith, that might have given us cause to suspect the Jesuite, who allowes to his Pope, power in matters of Faith, in his Trent Creed; but in worship, the Church (he would have us believe) have some latitude of power, which she hath not, except in meer circumstances, not to ap­point the worship it self. 2. For I ask, Hath Christ com­mitted his Authority to the Church, to coin new Articles of Faith, and new forms of Worship? If not, the Church and Magistrate are herein equal in their power; between whom this Argument would insinuate a difference. The Church hath no Authority Coercive upon mens consciences, in matters relating to Faith and Worship, more then the Magestrate hath; but both are, in their own way, to pub­lish and look to the execution of Christs rules in both: The only difference is, that the power of the Church is Spiritual, that of the Magistrate Corporal. And they may not meddle with each other Powers; the Magistrate may no more exercise the spiritual power of the Church, than the [Page 20]Church may exercise power over mens bodies or estates. 3. This Disputer, (if he understand what he sayes) would insinuate, that Christ hath committed Authority over mens consciences, to the Church, which the Apostle earnestly disclaims, 2 Cor. 1.24. And yet the Church hath some kind of Coercive power over her Members, as appears in her censure of Excommunication; which our Author sayes, is a worse punishment, than all the Magistrate can inflict ‘upon the body; [as giving men over to the World, and to Satan.] Now look back a little, and sum up all. It is a general rule, laid down by all sides; [Conscience may not, must not be forced in matters of Religion, by any Coercive power:]’ Then, neither by the Church, nor Magistrate, neither spiritually nor corporally: The Church may no more force conscience, than the Magistrate; yet the Church exercising and executing Examination upon an Heretick, or scandalous person, exercises a Coersive power; and (as they will say) over their consciences; for they verily believe themselves in the right Religion: Therefore, either the exercise of Coercive power by the Church, is also unlawful, and so he hath destroyed the power of the Church in matters of Religion, as well as of the Magistrate, or else, it is no force over mens con­sciences, but over the errors of their consciences. And laftly, If it be lawful for the Church to restrain and cha­ftise an Heretick by her spiritual censures, without any force to her conscience; Why may it not be lawful for the Magistrate to restrain such a soul destroying Heretick, by bodily punishments, and yet without force upon his con­science? Why may not the Magistrate deliver such a man to the Jaylor, as the Church delivers him to the Devil? Especially, the end of both being, (as much as in them lies) to save his soul: Whence I conclude against him; this Power of the Magistrate, is no Ʋsurpation of the Dominion of Christ, or the Power of the Church; much lefs, Treason against Christ: Thus weakly hath M. Collier argued hitherto; we shall hear of him again are long.

[Page 21]3. His third Reason is borrowed from as wise an Author, ‘[The Vindicatour of Sir Henry Vane. [Nothing can be more against the spiritual good of People, than to make them hypocrites in Religion, professing to believe what they do not] Learned Soul!’ Hath not the State and Church of England commanded all their People to fre­quent our Congregations, under a penalty, every Lords Day? Hath not this man accordingly frequented them? And hath he been all this while an hypocrite, professing to believe, what he doth not? But if force in Religion make men hypocrites, why did God commend Abraham to cir­cumcise all the males of his family? Why did the Godly Magistrates command all their Subjects, under the Old Testament, to serve the Lord, according to the worship prescribed? Did God or men intend to make them hypo­crites? Which they must have done, if Coercive power did make them so: Alas, most men are hypocrites alrea­dy, though they be not forced to worship God; there­fore Coercive power does not make, but find, and discovers hypocrites: Must not God be obeyed, though men be hypocrites? But real Christians, (who only can truly be forced against conscience) do not turn hypocrites, but re­fuse obedience, and chuse to suffer, which discovers their faith and patience, and bring much glory to God. There must be persecution (as well as Heresies) that they which are approved may be known, It is therefore by accident, that such force makes men appear hypocrites, by com­manding them to obey the Laws of God; the Law of God irritates corruption, but causes it not, Rom. 7.13, 23. If then God, or men from God, command men to worship God; according to his will, they find many hypocrites, but do not make them such: They sin, if they serve him not; and if hypocritically, they sin also; and its hard to say, which is worst: But this is some of the new light of this age; that Children must not be taught their Commandments, Creed, or Lords Prayer, or to read the Scriptures, because they are yet hypocrites; or none must receive the Lords Supper, that knows not himself regenerate, lest it make him an hypocrite. Enough of this.

[Page 22]4. His fourth Reason is taken out of the Levellers Cate­chism. A Levelling Principle indeed, to deny the Magistrates power in matters of Religion first, and then in civil affairs: If all were levelled, and but content to be so, what need, what use of a Magistrate? But hear their worthy Reason: ‘[It's against the nature of faith and worship to be for­ced: Christ hath ordained the preaching of the Gospel, to be the outward means of converting souls, and spiri­tual Ordinances for punishment of erroneous and hereti­cal persons, &c.]’ This hath been spoken to in answering Mr. Colliers first and second reasons, and in the last before: But I add further, it contradicts it self twice: 1. In saying, that the preaching of the word is the outward means of Conversion; and yet denies any force to bring professed Christians to the attending on that means. 2. That they allow spiritual punishment, which is a greater force, for reducing erroneous and heretical persons; and yet denies not only the Magistrate, to use any the least force to the bodies or estates of men, but any force at all over mens consciences: If no force may be used, then not the spiri­tual, as was said afore. Lastly, he takes for granted (what we utterly deny) that we allow the Church a power, to punish mis-believers (or mis-livers) in bodies or purses. Some have done so, but I hope they have had time to repent it, for so dishonouring the Church.

5. The next is from a better Author, but to as little ‘purpose [From the parable of the Tares among the Wheat, both must be let alone till the Harvest; the Wheat are the elect, the Tares are Hereticks, &c.]’ It might be enough to answer this, that it is a parable, which is a similitude, and must not be strained beyond its scope, which is, to let us know, that good and bad, upright and hypocrites must be in the Church, till the end of the World: And yet some are about to make a Church of all Saints, and to pluck up the Wheat, in pretence of pulling up the Tares: But 2. By Tares, cannot well be meant heretical persons (not in Austin's judgment) for he and other Do­ctors, with the Scripture, allow Excommunication of He­reticks [Page 23]and scandalous persons, which is not only a pluck­ing up of the Tares, but a casting them out of the Church, into Hell, without repentance. 3. Our Saviour himseif tells us, who are the tares, the children of the wicked one, and such as do iniquity. Mat. 13.38.41. Now hence it would follow, that neither Church, nor Magistrate must punish such, but let them alone to the end of the World; a pleasiing Doctrine to thieves, and all wicked persons. But if, notwithstanding this parable, it be lawful for the Church, to punish Hereticks spiritually, and for the Ma­gistrate to punish them corporally; he hath mistaken the parable: And if the Magistrate may punish a murdour bodily, for killing the bodies of men; why should it be unlawful for him to punish an heretical seducer, that de­stroyes mens souls, and that eternally? I leave him to con­sider it.

‘6. He fetches this next Reason from far [from the judgment of the ancients, and practise of the primitive Church; Lactan. Tertull. &c. who seem to deny all force in Religion:]’ A little may serve for this. There is a difference to be put between Heathens and Christians, in matters of Religion: The Ancients speak against forcing Heathens into Christianity, till they first be in­formed, and convinced of the truth thereof, not of com­pelling professed Christians, to the outward Worship of God, as the King of Judah did. 2. The practise of Christian Emperours, was accordingly, for the most part, with respect to Heathens. Yet some of them made Edicts, to command all their subject to be of the Christian Religi­on: Justinian, and others, as were easie to instance. 3. In Pressing this ARgument too far, he forgot himself, that he makes his Pope, and Popish Princes worse then Turks, and Furies, in their persecution of Protestants. And let them but give this liberty of conscience to all their subjects, which he pleads for in England, and lay a­side their coercive power, and I believe Popery will have but a few clients; most of them would quickly forsake their Church and Religion, especially, if they might have the truth freely taught by some Protestants.

[Page 24]7. But a reason fatcht from a principle of nature, and ‘natural light, will convince any reasonable man: [It's against the golden rule of natural righteousness; do as we would be done by; and do not to others, what we would not have done to our selves; but who would be content to be persecuted by others for his Religion? &c.]’ Truly, no man would, or at least should be persecuted for his true Religion; but he that would not be prosecuted for a false Religion, argues himself to be unrighteous, and to violate that principle of nature; and another like it, Aequo animo paenam, qui meruere luant. Let him make this rule universal, and thieves, and malefactors will give him many thanks: What Thieves would be content to be hang'd by a Magistrate? Ergo, If he get to be a Magistrate, he must not hang a Thief, &c. Bring it neerer to himself, what Je­suite would be content to be executed, for sedition, and seducement of Protestants, from their Religion, and Loy­alty, Ergo. nor should they persecute Protestants in their Dominions: How likes he this? The Golden Rule, is made for true rectifyed consciences, not for every one that pre­tends it: What in true reason, I would have another do, or not do, to me; that I should be content to do, or not do to another: If a man should argue thus; I would not be content to be persecuted for the true Religion, Ergo, I must not prosecute one that is in the false: Or thus, If I am an Heretick, perverting Souls, and would not be restrain­ed or punished for so doing; Ergo, I must let others alone, and not punish them for the same; both these consequen­ces are false and unreasonable, and meer pervertings and crooknings of that Golden Rule: This is a Jesuitical con­sequence; I would not be punished for my seduce ment in England; Ergo, I may plead for Toleration of Popery, and all Religions: This consequence, I say, is good now in England, to cheat simple souls; but would be denyed with an Inquisition at Rome or in Spain. Such another fallacy is that; which followes, a Christian must pray for his Ene­mies; Ergo, he must not persecute his brother, be he never so wicked. (q. d.) I must pray for a Thief or Murderer, [Page 25]Heretick; Ergo, I may not prosecute them to just punish­ment, corporally the one, spiritually the other.

8. The next reason comes yet neerer home; ad hominem, as we say; and that is thus. [It is against our own prin­ciples] and the testimony of an Adversary is most strong against himself: Wherein? In three things.

‘1. [We profess our selves to be fallible, in judging universally in matters of Religion, and object it to the Papists, pretending infallibility; but by persecuting others for conscience, we make our selves infallible, as Mr. Collier wiely observes.]’ For this, he hath been told; we per­secute no man for his conscience, but may prosecute a man for an erring conscience; which he still concludes, a just prosecution, with an unjust persecution. 2. We profess our selves to be fallible, or not infallible, in the Popish sense: He deludes us, with the equivocation of the words. If he mean that we hold our selves fallible, universally in all matters of Religion, that we are uncertain of all points of Religion, and certain of nothing, that were to make us meer Scepticks in our Religion, and we own not such a fallibility: On the other side, we do not think our selves infallible uni­versally in matters of Religion, as the Pope does; but that in some fundamental truths, we are infallible, that is, most certain of the truths of our Religion, clearly revealed in Scripture, which is an infallible rule; though we are not alwayes able to apply it. But the Pope as he makes him­self infallible in all points of Religion, which he determines out of the Pontifical Chair; so he does it, in things besides, and against the Scripture; and this we object to him, as an hainous crime, and high usurpation of the prerogative of Jesus Christ, speaking in the Scripture. 3. What need is there that we must be infallible, to judg and punish an ‘He­retick? why this [We cannot rationally persecute any man for his conscience, unlesswe we do not only know that he is in an ertor, but also be infallibly sure, that we are bring­ing him to an undoubted truth:]’ Be it so, then we as­sume; we may know that the man is in an errour, (if we may know the truth) and be infallibly sure, we are bring­ing him to an undoubted truth; Ergo, we may persecute [Page 27](we say, prosecute) him for his erring conscience: e. g. We know certainly, that he that denies a God, or Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, and Saviour of the World, is in an error, and we are infallibly sure, we are bring­ing him to an undoubted truth, to profess a God, and Je­sus Christ: and Ergo, we may, by his own premises, per­secute, or rather prosecute him for his erring conscience. ‘Whereupon the following assertion is most unchristian and uncharitable: [It would be better for us, to let him alone in his (known, damning) errors, than to force him to ours, which we, (not falsly as he) truly esteem truth.]’ [The very mercies of the wicked are cruel:] 4. These men seem to be Scepticks in their Religion; for if there be any Religion, or rules of faith and worship de­livered in Scripture, we may come to be infallibly sure, that this is the Truth of God, and thereby discover errors, and consequently may prosecute them, though we be not uni­versally infallible. The Magistrates of the Old Testament might not force any mans conscience, more than now; nor were more infallible, than ours are now; yet having a cleer rule of Religion, and worship given them; they compelled their subjects to observe it; why may not ours do so now, having a cleer light, and greater illumination? Is it not a certain and infallible truth, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and only Saviour of the World? If not, what an uncertain thing is Christianity, which depends upon that one principle? If it be, shall any man profes­sing the Christian Religion, be suffered to deny that truth, and blaspheme that holy name with impurity, because the Magistrate, or Church, is not in all things infallible? Lastly, as to this first principle, ex ungue leonem; we may descry and discover (the Fox) the Jesuite, by his strong plea for Toleration to his Recusants, or Papists. Though he speak in the person of Protestants, as if one of them; yet his secret, or open girding at the State, shews what he is; ‘[Who having laid aside the King, by whom, and for whom, those laws (of restraint) were made, which is indeed the abolishing of those Laws; yet we keep up the penalties of those Laws, in vigour against Recusants, [Page 19]which seems to be a very irrational Act:]’ And puts this Jeer upon the present powers, ‘(by way of thanks or scorne) for their granted soleration, [That as we have not one particular positive Religion setled, for undoubted truth amongst us: So we purpose not any one Religion to the Recusants, to be followed by them, but at most hold them out a medly of all Sects profest in the Nation, &c.]’ Quis tulerit Gracchos, de Seditione querentes? The Subtle cursed Jesuites, self condemned men, have broken our Re­ligion into so many Sects and Fractions, to keep us from Set­ling the true Religion, and then make themselves merry with our divisions. The Lord rebuke them. This to our first principle.

2. ‘The next is: [We have always pretended a general Toleration for all tender consciences, of which kind, there are some amongst the Prelatical and Popish party:]’ And yet they only are excepted from Toleration by the Parlia­ment: for so he means it. ‘But he goes on still, [Grant it to a poor sneaking foolish fellow, that can scarce speak sense, and hath hardly a groat in his purse, to lose for his conscience, and deny it to men of Honour, Prudence and Estates, suffering meerly for their conscience, as having no tender consciences.] 1. Me thinks I hear the proud Pharisees speak, in this Jesuite, [This people that knoweth not the Law is cursed;’ and Lord I thank thee, I am not as other men:] He cals mean simple Christians, Sneaking Fel­lows, as if they had no conscience, ‘because they have no Estates; He may remember, [Not many Wife, not many Noble or Mighty.]’ were called, or honoured to be pri­mitive Martyrs; to suffer meerly for conscience: They had too much to lose, to dare to profess Christianity; [But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to con­found the wise, &c.] He may read the rest, 1 Cor. 1.26 &c. And he makes men of Honour, Prudence and Estates, to have tender consciences, meerly for suffering in their E­states: whereas he knows many such may and do suffer on­ly, for the Religion delivered them by Tradition from their Fathers, or out of some carnal respects: If a man desired to be loose and profane, he need not chuse an easier Reli­gion, [Page 28]than Popery: And the Divel hath had his Martyrs and Confessors, as well as Christ: Martyres Satanicae vir­tutis, as Cyprian: &c 2. But I have, I confess, often wondered, that those in power, who pretend so much fa­vour to all tender consciences, should so often, by name, except the Prelatical and Popish party; when as, there may be as tender consciences in some of them as in some, whom they tolerate; and also, their laxe and loose principles, and these reasons carry toleration for all, or none.

Some Satisfaction I received from one, that also pleads for Toleration, (as I thought) for all Religions, (for his Arguments are as strong for all, as for any) why the Popish party should not have any Toleration granted them, above all the rest. Let him be heard speak in his own words. ‘[As for Popery and Idolatry, J. Mil [...]on. tract. of civil power, in Ecclesiasti­cal causes. p 35. why they also may not plead to be tolerated, I have much less to say: Their Re­ligion, the more considered, the less can it be acknow­ledged a Religion; but a Roman principallity, rather en­devouring to keep up her old universal Dominion, under a new name and meer shadow of a Catholick Religion; being indeed more rightly named, a Catholick heresie a­gainst the Scripture, and except in Rome, supported mainly by a civil and forrain power; justly therefore to be suspected, not tolerated by the Magistrate of another Country. Beside [...], of an Implicite Faith which they profess, the conscience also becomes implicit, and so by voluntary servitude to mans law, forfeits her Christian Liberty. Who then can plead for such a conscience, as be­ing inthraled implicitly to man, instead of God, almost becomes no conscience, as the will, not free, becomes no will. Lastly, for Idolatry, (whereof the Romish Church, is justly charged, to be deeply guilty) who know; it not to be evidently against all Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament. And therefore a true Herefie, or rather Impiety; wherein a right conscience can have nought to do, and the works thereof so manifest, that a Magistrate can hardly err, in prohibiting, and quite removing at least the publick and scandalous use thereof.]’ How this will please Jesuits, or how they will answer it, I he ther [Page 29]know, nor care: But I satisfied my self, with one or both of these considerations. 1. That they might except them, not out of conscience, but out of state pollicy; because, on the one side; if the prelatical party should have a Tole ration, they might in time return to challenge and take from them, those fat and sweet morsels of the Bishops Revenues, which some of them have swallowed down, and would be loath to vomit up again. On the other side, if the Popish party should be tolerated (I will not say, they should lose a good Revenue from Sequestration of two parts of their Estates, though some give this for a reason) their Princi­ples are destructive to Heretical Magistrates, as the Pope can easily make them, and so subversive of their New Com­mon-wealth: Thats one. 2. The other consideration to stay my wonder, was, That, that exception was so of­ten inserted, by some Jesuitical finger, that if ever that party got power into their hands, they might the more colourable deny Toleration to those, who being in place, did first deny it to them: for this is a maxime amongst the ‘Sectaries [They that deny toleration to others tender consciences, I Milt. ubi su­pra. p. 36. deserve not to have it for themselves]’ And then they that now plead for Toleration of the worst sort of tender consciences, will at last, grant more to those, whose consciences are truly tender, and most rightly prin­cipled: I wish I may be a false prophet, in this considera­tion. But hear the next.

3. ‘[It is against another Principle of ours; we allow people the Bible in the vulgar language, and press them to search the Scripture, to find out the mind of God, and at last by our coersive power, will have them believe, as the the Church believes; we bid men (as wisely Mr Collier speaks) see with their own eyes, and yet put them to see with others eyes.]’ We bid men (with our Saviour) to search the Scriptures, and with the Bereans, not content them­selves, to believe as the Church believes, (that was the Colliers, and the Papists beliefe) but to try the truths held out by Church or Magistrate; which if they do faith­fully and sincerely, they will see the truths with their own ‘eyes: [If any man, will do his will, he shall know of the [Page 30]Doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of my self, Jo 7.17.]’ And we suppose and take for granted, (which this man makes doubtful) that there is a pattern of sound words, the true fai [...]h and worship of God, held forth fi [...]st in the Scriptures, and then by the Church or Magistrate; and thereupon exhort men, not to take any thing upon trust of men, which is not faith, but ignorance, or Popish credulity; but in matters of Salvation, to search and see by their own eyes. And if it happen that private persons mistake error for truth, they must either be meekly willing to hearken to instruction, (which is a sign of a good conscience) or resolve rather to suffer for their judgment, than to disturb the peace of the Church or State: For while they keep it to themselves, none can take notice of it, or judg them for it. But this dispute allowes them, either to resist the coercive power, and labour their subversion (as in his first Argument) or else to be tolerated, though never so damnably he­retical, and practically destructive to themselves or others. True chari­ty of Protestants, bids those that have the charge of their souls (which both Ministers and Magistrates have, in their own way.) First, with meekness, and much patience to instruct them, and if they still continue obstinate, like mad men to mischief themselves and others, to lay setters of restraint upon them, either spiritual or corporal, that they may do no further hurt.

‘9. The next Reason is this: [It was against the judgment of King James, and other Kings, and against the peoples frequent peti­tions, for toleration, &c,] First, for King James, two of his sayings are produced; [That God never plants a Church, by violence and bloodshed.]’ True, for he left that for the Jesuites amongst the poor Indians: So spake Tertullian and Lantanc. above; Religion is not to be forced upon Heathens; God does not fi [...]st plant a Church by vio­lence, much less by bloodshed; but when a Church is planted (as a Vine) he allows pruning and purging of it, by spiritual censures; which (in this mans sense) is a kind of force upon conscience: And the Magi­strate being a guardian, or nurse-keeper of the Church, as Gods vicege­rent, is to publish and maintain Religion, in the puri [...]y of it, which cannot be done without coercive power, not upon mens consciences, but ‘upon their bodies or estates. His other speech, [That he never in­tended any persecution any against the Papists, for conscience sake, but desired to be secured for civil obedience, which they cannot deny.]’ Not to tell him that King James did not own, but oppose their Religion ‘as false,’ [whose Faith is Faction, whose Religion is Rebellion:] he knows who said it: If he did restrain them from practising it pub­lickly, it was not persecution of them for conscience sake, but prose­cution of an erring conscience: But I say, when they were restrained from exercise of their Religson, it was with respect to a principle of their Religion, denying to give him security in civil obedience; from ‘a stated-destroying opinion and practise of theirs, [That it is law­ful, yea, necessary, if the Pope command it, to murder and kill here­tical Kings;]’ Whereof his predecessors and himself, had frequent experience, in such like attempts; the examples of other Kings in to­lerating other Keligions, I fear, is rather out of political Interest, than ‘real piety: As for that scandal upyn the powers, [That the State in [Page 31]persecuting them now, will be greater persecutors then the old Magistra [...]s and Bishops were, yea, than the Spanish Inquisition it self:]’ I leave to them to answer, or chastise such Jesuitical insolence. One thing aspersive upon the B [...]shops and others, is fouly, and foolishly affe [...]ted, ‘and easily wiped away. [They to prove the lawfulness of their vo­cation, against the Puritans, derived their orders from Rome; yet con­curred with the State to make the Laws, that any that received orders from Rome, were Traitors, which was most ridiculous.]’ But 1. The Puritans did not brand their vocation from Rome; in the first Protestant Bishops in England; some of them were ordained Presbyters by such; the Browninsts and Anabaptists did that. 2. The Bishops with the State, made a Law, that none of their Ministers should take orders from Rome, in a State way; first, because that was a denial of our ministry to be good at home. Secondly, it was an owning of the Popes supremacy spiritual, in England; which appears by this, that they so far allowed or­dination by a Romish Bishop, that they did not re-ordain those Priests, which were converted unto the Protestant Religion. But if Papists and Jesuites be of the same opinions as afore: That heretical Magistrates may be murdered, and maintain revelations, and impulsies of spirit, to kill any, whom their spirit bids them kill, (which our young Quakers have learnt of them) as the State or Government, what ever it be, (though Kings be gone) have no reason in policy to tolerate such; so it will be no persecution of them for conscience sake, but a wise and just prosecution of them, for such destructive principles, as make the owners of them unfit to live amongst men, in any civil society. And as for the petitions of the peo­ple, for liberty of conscience; as they were made tendered by some few Se­ctaries, whose loose opinions and practises will abide no government, not by the generality of the most and best people of the Land; so in a ‘right­sense, it is grated by these, [That a care be had of truly tender conscien­ces, viz. [Who profess faith in Christ, and live peaceably, in godliness and honesty;]’ But they only desire some discipline may be exercised up­on such, us either deny Jesus Christ, directly, or by necessary consequence, or live not peaceably, but by earnest propagation of their errors and he resies, destroy both their own and others souls, and disturb the peace of Church and State; or have neither godliness nor holiness in their lives. Yet these that plead for such a Government, are the men against whom he ‘cunningly inveighs p. 25. [As dangerous persons, that desire to domi­neer and tyrannize over other mens consciences; and as their judgments are not greatly to be heeded, so themselves are rather closly to be looked too, lest they set all on fire again], as the Jesuites have lately done, as the [...]cendiaries of all States, when ever they come: And again, he stirs up the Nation against them p 30.’ [It were just, that such boutefeues.]

‘10. Lastly, (sayes he) [coercive power is against our own Interest at home, and the Protestant Interest abroad; at home, because by fit, we say a foundation of persecution to our selves and posterity. If it be lawful for us to persecute others; so it will be for them, towards us if they get power: So M^r. Collier]’ According to the proverb, like to like, quoth the Divel to the Collier; for what a fine new way have these men found, to frustrate the predictions of Christ, and his [...] [In the World [...] [Page 32] ‘shall have tribulation, Job. 16. last. All that will live Godly, shall suffer persecution, &c.]’ Their best Interest were to sit still, and meddle with no bodies sins or errors: How foolish was Paul to excom­municate those Hereticks, that is, in this new canting Language, to per­secute them; if it was lawful for Paul to persecute and molest them for their faith and conscience, it was lawful for them to persecute and excom­municate him; and what a disturbance might this cause in the Church? Foolish Politicians; the profession of the Gospel in truth and sincerity, looks not at our own Interest in the World, but expects persecution; teaching men to deny themselves, to forsake all, their goods, their peace, their lives, were not this as politick an Argument in a Corporation, ‘where Officers are Annual: [Be favourable to drunkards and pro­sane persons in this your year, lest one of them get into place next year, and persecute you: It is for your Interest, lest you lay a [...]oun­dation of persecution, to your selves, or your posterity; for if it be lawful for you to exercise coercive power over others, by the same rule of reason, it will be lawful for others to persecute you.] 2. Say the same for the Protestant Interest abroad; [If we persecute m [...]n of their Religion here, they will persecute ours there, &c.]’ If be shall say, there is not the same reason in matters civil, as in Religion; I shall choak him first by a Scripture Instance; Nehemiah was a prudent man, but he had not learned the Jesuites politicks: He used coercive power towards the Heathen Merchants (as well as his own Nations) in a matter of Religion, the profanation of the Sabbath; threatning to lay them by the heels, if they brought any more Wares to sell, on that day: How imprudently with respect to the Jewish Interest abroad! Did he not lay a foundation of persecution of his Country-men, in their domini­ons, in that, or some other point of their Religion? Secondly, I con­fute his policy, by Scripture reason: The Magistrate is the Minister of ‘God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.’ Rom. 13.4.] Therefore, he must either say, that it is not evil, for an heretical seducer to destroy the subjects souls, or else the Magistrate must use coercive power to restrain and punish such; let his Interest be what it will, at home or abroad. In a word, there is as great a distance between persecution, and prosecution, as between innocency, and wickedness, truth and error; and surely both ought not to enjoy the same priviledges, shall truth have but a Toleration, as well as error? He must therefore make this ‘consequence (the foundation of his error) good; [It is lawful for truth and innocency, to presecute error and wickedness. Ergo, It is lawful, by the same reason, for error and wickedness, to persecute truth and innocency] or be shews himself a very Sophister,’ Cheater, [...] S [...]ducer, and that he hath done suff [...]ntly, in all his reasons.