SECT. I. Liberty of Conscience Stated.

IF I do not mistake ye, my Masters, the Thing ye Contend for is a Toleration.

It is so.

And that we may not be Enjoyn'd (upon a Penalty) to do that which we think we ought not to do.

Your Pardon, my Friend; That's not the Que­stion, I do not Ask ye what ye would Not have, but what ye Would: Not what y'are Against, but what y'are For. I know well enough that the Act for Uniformity displeases ye; but I would fain know when That's gon, what will Please ye, that we may not Destroy a Law to no purpose.

Allow us but a Freedome to Worship God, according to the Rule of his own word, and that Freedom shall content us.

In short, the Thing we Desire is Liberty of Con­science.

Liberty of Conscience? What Mortal can pretend to take it from ye?

Do's not the Act for Uniformity Debar us of it?

Not at all; Your Actions indeed are Limited, but your Thoughts are Free; What do's This or That Gar­ment, or Gesture Concern the Conscience?

But if I believe it unlawfull to Worship Thus, or So: Whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin:

At this Rate, for ought that I know, ye may Be­lieve it unlawfull to worship at all: For ye may as well Except to every mode which is Not commanded, as to That which Is. (But we are upon the Merits of the Cause, be­fore we state the Question.) Liberty of Conscience (accor­ding to my Books) is a Liberty of Iudging, not of Acting; but I perceive the Liberty which You claym, is a Liberty of Practice.

No matter for the Word, so long as we Agree upon the Meaning.

Nay, by your favour, Zeal, we are not as yet A­greed upon Either; for that which you seem to Ask in One sense, you Resolve to Take in Another: That is, ye Ask leave to Think what ye will, and ye Take leave to Do what ye will; so that the Liberty You demand, is rather Matter of State, then of Religion: And to Ask, that ye may govern your selves by your own Consciences, is the same Thing with Asking to be no longer govern'd by the Kings Laws.

Cannot Liberty of Conscience then consist with Civil Obedience?

Yes, Liberty of Conscience may, but not Liberty of Action; If Liberty of Conscience will content ye, dis­claim Liberty of Practice; But if ye must needs have Liber­ty of Practice, speak out, and do not call it Liberty of Conscience.

Give it what Name you please; The Liberty I De­sire, is a Liberty towards God in Matters of Religion▪

But what do ye mean by those Matters of Reli­gion?

Whatsoever has the Honour of God for it's Di­rectInterest of Engl. Pa 86. P. 84. 86. 87. 94. and Immediate End, under which Head, may be com­prised [Ceremonies properly sacred and significant by Hu­mane Institution] [Religious Mystical Habits] [Canonical Subscription,] [Holy-dayes]—and in fine, such Inventions of Worship as are not warranted by Gods Word.

So that upon the whole Matter, The Liberty youThe Non-con­formists De­mand. Demand, is a Liberty of Practice, in such Matters of Religion, as have the Honour of God for their Direct and Immediate End. All which, in one word, amounts to a Toleration, and so much for the state of the Question.

SECT. II. Universal Toleration unlawfull.

IF a Toleration you would have, it must be either Absolute, and Generall, or Limited and Partial.

Let it be Generall then, for doubtless if a Man be Oblig'd to Worship, it supposes him Free to do't in such Manner as he finds himself Bound to do't.

This Argument of yours takes in Pagans, as well as Christians, for They have Consciences as well as Wee, and They are convinc'd that there is a God, and that That God ought to be Worship'd; so that to grant a General License, is to Tolerate Paganisme.

But Paganisme is not within the Pale of the Question.

Why then no more is Conscience; for if you ex­clude Pagans, upon what Accompt is't? They perswade Themselves they are in the Right, You think them in the Wrong, and because of the Error of Their Way, deny them the Exercise of their Opinions; so that your Exception lyes to the Error, not to the Conscience.

But their Consciences are Erroneous.

They are so, if You may be Iudges of Them, and so are Yours too, when You come to be Iudg'd by Us. Now tell me, What Right have You to be Judges in your own Case, any more then They in Theirs?

We have a Law to judge our selves by.

And, They, even without a Law, do by Nature the Rom. 2. 14. things contained in the Law, and are a Law to Themselves: [Page 8] But to look nearer Home, 'Tis it seems among Christians only, that you would have a Generall Toleration; and That in my opinion helps ye not much; for to uphold your Claim, you must either maintain that there are no Errone­ous Consciences among Christians, or that Errour of Consci­ence is no Sin, or else that Sin may be Tolerated.

That there are Erroneous Consciences, and that sin is not to be Tolerated, I Grant ye; but I do not take every Error of Conscience to be a sin (understand me, of Con­sciences labouring under an Invincible Ignorance.)

'Tis very true, the Formality of sin is the Obliquity of the Will; but sin, Materially consider'd, is the Transgres­sion of the Divine Law: and Conscience it self becomes sinfull, when it dictates against That Law.

Can there be any sin without Consent? or any Con­sent without Knowledge? or any Knowledge in a Case of In­vincible Ignorance? The Transgression of the Law implies the Knowledge of it, or at least the Possibility of knowing it; without which, it has not the Nature of a Law, as to mee. [The Conditions Requisite to a Rule, are These, it must be Laud against Fisher. pa. 197. Certain; and it must be Known: If it be not Certain, 'tis no Rule; if it be not Known, 'tis no Rule to Us.] I had not Rom. 7. 7. known sin (sayes the Apostle) but by the Law; and in ano­ther place, [Where there is no Law, there is no Trans­gression:]Rom. 4. 15. From whence the Deduction is clear, that sin is not barely the Transgression of a Law, but the Transgression of a known Law; the Inconformity of the Will to the Under­standing.

The Perversness of the Will being a Sin▪ does not hinder the Enormity of the Judgment to be so too, [Untill the Law (says your own St. Paul) sin was in the World, but Rom. 5. 13. sin is not imputed when there is no Law.] Briefly; The Word of God is the Rule of Truth, and All Disproportion to That Rule is Errour; God's Revealed Will is the Measure of Righteousness, and all Disproportion to That Measure is sin. Now the Question is not, Whether Imputed or not, but whether a Sin or no? and you cannot make Errour of Con­science to be no Sin, without making the Word of God to be no Rule.

I do not deny, but it is a fin as to the Law; but it is None as to the Person: It is none constructively, with Him that accepts the Will for the Deed.

Can you imagine, that any Condition in the De­linquent can operate upon the Force, and Equity of the Law? Because God spares the Offender, shall Man there­fore Tolerate the Offence? David was Pronounc'd a Man after God's own Heart; shall Authority therefore grant a License to Murther and Adultery?

What's David's Case to Ours? You Instance in Sins of Presumption, and the Question is touching Sins of Ignorance.

Your Patience, I beseech you: It may be Igno­rance in him that Commits the sin, and yet Presumption in him that Suffers it: You cannot comprehend it, perhaps; but the Magistrate does; and wherein You Doubt, Autho­rity is Certain: I could lead you now by a Thred, from the Toleration of all Opinions, to the Toleration of all Practi­ces; and shew you the execrable Effects of giving way to the Impulses of Deluded Conscience; But what needs That, when Two words will dispatch This Controversie? In Pleading for All Opinions, you plead for all Heresies, and for the establishment of wickedness by a Law. Do ye think such a Toleration as This, either fit for You to Ask, or for Authority to Grant?

But is it not Pity, (considering our Duty is Obedience, and not Wisedom) that a Good man should be punished for not being a Wise Man?

And do not you think we should have fine work, if a State were bound to make no Provision against Crafty Knaves, for fear of Dis-obliging Honest Fools: You'l set no Trapps for Foxes, for fear of catching your Lambs; and Hunt no Wolves for fear some of your Currs should stumble upon a Sheep. In short, the Honest will Obey Good Laws, and let not the Unwise pretend to Mend them. As to the sparing of the Man, (even where 'twere Impious to give Quarter to the Opinion) I wish it could be done; but how shall we separate the Errour from the [Page 18] Person; so as to make a General Law take notice of it? To Tolerate Both were Irreligious, and it seems to Mee Impossible to sever them. If you your self now can either prove the Former to be Lawfull, (that is, to do evil, that Good may come of it) or the Latter to be Practicable, I'le agree with you For a General Toleration: If otherwise, I hope you'l joyn with me, Against it.

The Truth is, I am not yet Resolv'd to Burn for This Opinion; but what do ye think of a Limited, or Partial Tole­ration?

I fear, you'l find That, as much too Narrow for your Conscience, as the other is too Wide: but Wee'l Try't however.

SECT. III. Limited Toleration does not answer Liber­ty of Conscience.

WEE are already Agreed, That a Toleration of All Opinions, is a Toleration of all Wickedness, and consequently Unlawfull. Come now to your Limited, or Partial Toleration, which I take to be A Legal Grant of Freedom, or Immunity, to such or such a Sect, or Way, and to no Other. Will a Toleration of This Latitude con­tent ye?

I See no other Choyce.

Would ye have it Granted in favour of the Con­science that Desires it, or in Allowance of the Tolerated Opinion?

With an Eye to Both; that Nothing, which is Grievous may be Impos'd on the One hand, nor any thing which is Unlawfull Tolerated on the Other.

But what if the Subject shall accompt that Impo­sition [Page] Grievous which the Magistrate thinks Necessary? or That Liberty Conscientious which the Magistrate believes Unlawful? Whether of the Two shall Over-rule? If the Subject, Then is the Magistrate Oblig'd to Tolerate whatso­ever the Subject shall think himself Oblig'd to Doe; and This carries us back into a General Toleration; If the Ma­gistrate Over-rule, (as certainly 'Tis his Right, for no man can be properly said to Suffer, what he has not a Power to Hinder) Your Plea of Conscience, is out of Doors.

By your Leave, Conformity; I would not have Either of them Govern Absolutely and Severally in the Case▪ For if the Magistrate be left to Himself, He may either set up a False Religion, or Suppress the Right, at pleasure; and the People by Themselves, may as well Mistake as the Ma­gistrate: whereas Together, the One Looks to the Other. But tell me, I beseech ye, would you have no Toleration at all?

Upon my word, Scruple; no man is a greater friend to Toleration then I am, if I could but hit upon such a Mea­sure as agrees with Piety, and Political Convenience: with such a Model as would probably answer the End you seem to aim at: but to Dissolve a Solemn Law for the Satisfa­ction of some Particulars, and at last to leave the People more unsatisfi'd then ye found them, were a Course (I think) not very Suitable to the Ordinary Method either of Government, or of Discretion; and That I fear would be the Event of Satisfying your Desires in This Particular. Pray'e try your Skill, if you can contrive it otherwise, and say what 'tis would please ye.

An Exemption from the Lash of the Act of Unifor­mity.

Well! What's your Quarrel to't?

I think it a Great Cruelty to Confine a Multitude of Differing Iudgments to the same Rule, and to punish a Con­scientious People for those Disagreements which they can nei­ther Reconcile, nor Relinquish.

Why do ye then Press That Cruelty your Selves, [Page 12] which you Condemn in Others. For your Limited Tole­ration is an Act of Uniformity to Those that are Excluded. They that are taken In will possibly be well enough plea­sed; but you never think of Those that are left Out: whereas you are to Consider that They that are Out, have Consciences as well as those that are In; and Those that are In, have no more Priviledge, then They that are Out. So that, upon a fair view of the Matter, You can neither Ad­mit All, nor Leave Out Any, without a Check either to your Conscience or to your Argument. For put Case, The King should Grant ye a Limited Toleration; would That Quiet ye?

Yes, beyond doubt it would.

Imagine it then, and your self One of the Re­jected Party. Are not you as well, Now, without any To­leration at all; as you will be Then without the Benefit of it?

To deal freely, I would not willingly be Excluded.

And is not That Every Mans Case as well as Yours? A Limited Toleration must Exclude Some; and why not You, as well as Another? What Prerogative have You above Your Fellows? Or why should not All be To­lerated as well as Any? They can no more Abandon Their Opinions, then You Yours, and Your waies are to Them, just the same Grievances; which (if ye may be credited) Ours are to You.

But are not Some Opinions more Tolerable then Others? Do ye put no Difference betwixt Points Fundamen­tally Necessary, and but Accidentally so? Betwixt the ve­ry Basis of Christianity, and the Superstructure?

Ye persue a Shadow. Who shall define, Which are Fundamentals, and which not? If Both parties, (accor­ding to your former hint) There's only a Confusion of Law, and Subjection, without any Clear, or Certain Result. If the Diffusive Body of the People, your Limited Dispensation, runs into an Indeterminable Liberty. If the Supreme Ma­gistrate, Your claim of Conscience falls to Nothing, so that, step where ye will, You'll Find no Footing upon This Bottom.

[Page 13]Now to the Fundamentals you speak of; bate but That Grand Foundation of our Faith, that Iesus Christ is come in the Flesh; and that Whosoever Confesses that Iesus Christ 1 Joh. 4. 3, 15. is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and Hee in God.—Abating (I say) That Radical Principle (which if we Dis­believe, we are no longer Christians) there's scarce One point that has not been subjected to a Controversie. In a word, The Reason of your Proposal requires Either an Universal Toleration, or None at all: unless you can find out an Expedient to Oblige All by Gratifying Some. I do not press This, as an Utter Enemy to all Indulgence; but I would not have it Extorted by Importunity and Strug­gling; nor Granted in such a Manner as to look liker a Composition then a Favour. If You should ask me indeed whether a Prince, upon Special Grace, and meer Motion, may not Grant a Toleration of some certain Opinions; 'Tis past Dispute, he May; But the Same Freedome granted upon a Popular Claim, is quite Another thing, and nei­ther Safe, nor Lawful.

Pray'e make me understand the Difference.

'Tis only This; If it be the Subject's Due, 'tis none of the King's: so that the People are Supreme, the One Way, and the Prince the Other. Now whether it be either Safe for a Prince to submit his Regality to the Claim of the People; or LAWFUL for him, to devest himself of That Authority, wherewith God has Entrusted him; lay This under your Pillow, and Advise upon't.

SECT. IV. The Non-conformists Plea for TOLERA­TION upon Reason of State.

SInce you are not able to make out your Claim to a Toleration, from the Equity of the Thing; Nay, since it appears (on the Contrary) that all Indulgences of That Quality are totally Dependent upon the Will, and Iudgment of the Magistrate; You should do well do Leave Complaining, as if the Government did ye an Injury, (where Effectually You have no Right at all) and rather labour fairly to possess the world, that you are a Sort of People to whom the King may with Honour and Safety extend a Bounty.

The Ordinary Inducements to Indulgence, are These Three. 1. Reason of State, wherein is propos'd either the gaining of an Advantage, or the Shunning of an Inconve­nience. 2. The Singular Merits of the Party: and Here, Gratitude takes place. 3. The Innocence, and Modesty, of their Practises and Opinions: which is a strong Motive; when Particulars may be Oblig'd without any Hazard to the Publique. To Begin with the First.

What Reason of State can You now produce that may Move his Majesty to Grant the Non-Conformists a Tolera­tion?

If you had put the Contrary Question, Y'had Pos'd me: Are not the Non-Conformists the Kings Subjects? And what's a King without his People?

The Non-Conformists are, by Birth, and Obliga­tion, the Kings Subjects, but they are not so in Practice, and Obedience. They renounce the Law, and in so doing, they Cast themselves out of the Pale of Subjection.

I suppose you will not Deny them however to be a Nu­merous Party, and some Experience you have had likewise [Page 15] of their Conduct, Unity, and Resolution; which Moves me to look upon his Majesty, as (in some Measure) under a Prudential Necessity of Obliging so Considerable an In­terest.

So far am I from admitting any Political Necessity of Yielding, that, to My Judgment, the Necessity appears strong, and clear against it.

Wee'll waive the General Question, if You please, and speak to the Convenience of This Iuncture.

Are not the Non-Conformists Numerous?

Upon the Poll, They are so; and More now too, then they were when His Majesty came In; and so long as they are Suffer'd, 'tis to be Expected they shall En­crease daily. But you say, They are Numerous: If they be, Consequently Dangerous; the Greater the Number is, the Greater is the Hazard; and Therefore, because they are Many Already, and will be More, if they be Suffer'd, they are not to be Tolerated.

But will not People be much more Peaceable, when they are Oblig'd, than when they are Persecuted?

Believe me, Matters are at an Ill pass, when the Prince lies at the Mercy of the People; and certainly the Multitude will be much Quieter without a Power to do Mischief, then with it. But why do ye say, Persecuted? They Persecute the Law, and then you cry the Law Per­secutes Them. I would you'd deal frankly with me: What is (really) your Opinion of the Honesty of your Party?

I do seriously believe the Non-conformists to be an Honest, Conscientious Sort of People.

But they must be Knaves to make your Argu­ment good: for, if they be Honest, They'll be Quiet with­out a Toleration. If they be Dishonest, They'll be Dange­rous with it. Consider again; If there be any Hazard, wherein does it consist? not in the Multitude, but in the Confoederacy. A Million of men without Agreement, are but as One Single Person. Now they must Consult, before they can Agree; and they must Meet before they can Con­sult▪ [Page 16] so that, barely to hinder the Assembling of These Multitudes, Defeats the Danger of them. Whereas, on the Other side, To Permit Separate Meetings, is to Tolerate a Combination.

Right; but Those Meetings and Consultations are pass'd already; for sure the Non-Conformists have been long enough Acquainted to Understand one another.

So much the more Need to look after them; and the less cause to Tolerate them: And for their Agreement in a General Disaffection; That signifies little, without the Means of joyning in a Particular Plot. Again; as 'tis an Advantage on the One side, that the Faction know One another; so is it an Equal Advantage on the Other side, that the King knows the Faction: which renders His Ma­jesty at any time Master of it; when His Royal wisdome shall direct him to suppress the heads of it.

Mistake me not. I do not say 'tis likely they will be Troublesome, in respect of their Judgments; but that it is Possible for them to be so, in regard of their Number.

He that Fears all Possibilities, lives in a cold Sweat. But I beseech ye, Whether do You take to be the Grea­ter Number? Those that singly wish to be Discharg'd from the Act of Uniformity; or Those that would have no Law at all? Those that are troubled because they may not Worship according to their Phansie; or Those that are dis­pleas'd because they cannot Live and Rule, according to their Appetite? The Traytor would have One Law dis­charg'd; The Schismatique Another; The Idolater a Third; The Sacrilegious person a Fourth; The Drunkard a Fifth; The Conventicler a Sixt; The Prophane Swearer a Seventh; The False-Swearer an Eighth; The Murtherer a Ninth; The Seducer a Tenth: And in fine; not One of a Thou­sand, but had rather Command, then Obey. Shall the King therefore Dissolve the Law, because there are so many Criminals? That were to raise an Argument against Au­thority, from the very Reason of its Constitution. Shall the People be left to do what they List, because a great many of them, would do what they should not? Shall his [Page 17] Majesty give up his Government, for fear of some Millions possibly in his Dominions, that had rather be Kings than Subjects. Less Forcible, beyond Question, is the Neces­sity of the Kings Granting a Toleration, than That of Re­nouncing His Sovereignty; for, doubtless, where there's One man that is truly Scrupulous, there are a Hundred Avari­tious, Ambitious, and, in fine, Irreligious persons.

I think we may better decide This Question from Ex­periment, and matter of Fact, than by Speculative Reason­ings. Look back to the beginning of the Late Warr, and tell me; Do not you believe that there are more Non-Confor­mists Now, then there were Then?

Yes, I do verily believe that there are Three, Now, for One, Then.

Why then, the Odds are Three to One against you: for the Third part of This number, was Then the Predominant In­terest of the Nation.

I could allow you even Treble That number too, and the Reason of my Assertion would yet bear it, upon the greater Odds of strength betwixt the Faction then, and now. As for Instance:

At the Beginning of the late Warr, they were Masters of the Tower, the Navy; of all considerable Towns, Forts, and Magazines: They had a great part of the Crown, and Church-Revenues under their Command, and London at their Beck; beside the Plunder of Malignants, and the bountiful Contributions of the well-affected. Scotland was already Confoederate with them, in One Rebellion; and they had made sure of Another in Ireland, (by per­secuting, and with-holding the only Person capable to keep them Quiet: the Earl of Strafford) which Broyle they further Assisted, by manifest Opposals of his Majesty's Resolutions to suppress it. [See the Kings Speech of De­cem.Ex. Coll. P. 2. & 3. 14. 1641, and the following Petition concerning the same] Finally; for the better Countenance of their Usur­pations, They had drawn down the Representative of the People into a Close-Committee, and the Arbitrary Votes of this Seditious Conventicle, passed with the Vulgar, for [Page 18] the Acts of a Regular, and Complete Authority. This was the Condition of the Non-Conformists Power Formerly, but (blessed be God) they are not at present so Formida­ble.

The Three Kingdomes are Now at Peace; and we have a Parliament that's no Friend to the Faction. The King is possest of a considerable Guard, which his Royal Father wanted: and the sword is in the wrong hand for Their bu­siness. His Majesty is Master likewise of his Rights, both of Power, and Revenue; and his Capital-City stands Right in its Obedience. To all which may be added, that al­though several Particulars of the Party are as Rich, as Pil­lage and Pardon can make them; yet they want a Com­mon Stock to carry on a Common Cause: the Thimbles, and the Bodkins fail; and the Comfortable In-comes of [Ex. Coll. P. 84.] Irish Adventures; [P. 339.] Moneys and Plate upon the Propositions; [P. 609.] confiscated Estates; [P. 764.] Twentieth Parts; and [P. 392.] weekly Assessments; and a hundred other Pecu­niary Stratagems (for the Ease of the Subject) are De­parted from them.

If it be so, that These people have none of Those Ad­vantages Now remaining; by virtue whereof they did so much Mischief before; what Necessity can any Mortal Imagine of Tolerating These Naked, and Supportless Creatures, for fear of Dis-obliging them?

Are they more Naked and Supportless, Now, than they were before the Long Parliament? Does it follow that they have no Power, because they do not Exercise it? Certainly, if they be more in Number Now, than they were Then, Those A­bilities that Rais'd them Formerly, may Secure them at. Pre­sent, from being thought Contemptible.

'Tis true, before our Late Troubles they were as they are now (for matter of Power) and out of that No­thing they made themselves Considerable: yet still I cleave to my Opinion, that the same Abilities will not Now produce the same Effects; for the world will not be Twice Cousen'd with the same Trick; and as the Case stands, there is as little danger from their Conduct, as from their Number.

This is a little strange, me thinks, to Grant the Means, and Deny the End. The Two first Principles of Power (Men and Moneys) you have Allow'd them; and it is not for your Credit to say that These people want Conduct, by whom you your selves have been worsted. If you have found them Considera­ble upon Experience, do not make them so Despicable in your Argument.

Have a Care, Friend: For the Men that Worsted us, were a sort of People, that voted down Bishops on the wrong side of the Parliament door; That Cry'd, They Ex. Coll. P. 533. P. 494. would have no more Porters-Lodge at White-Hall; and told his Sacred Majesty in a Publique Declaration [Aug. 8. 42.] that the Pretence that his Person was There in danger, was a Suggestion as false as the Father of Lies could Invent—that Seiz'd the Tower, the Navy, the Kings Towns, Forts, Magazines, Friends and Revenues; that Levied war against, and Imprison'd his Sacred Person, Usurp'd his Soveraign Authority; Embrew'd their Hands in his Royal Bloud, and, in the very Pulpit, Animated and Avow'd the unexampled Murder. These were the Men that worsted us, and These are the People which you plead for, under the Mask of Non-Conformists.

Your Patience yet a little further. The Non-Conformists are Many, beyond Question, (for the whole seditious Par­ty lurks under That Denomination) but so long as they are neither in Order, nor in Office, they are not valuable. They are Wealthy too; but so long as That Wealth lies in Particular Coffers, there's not much fear of it, as to the Publique. Now let them be as wise as you Imagine them, That Policy which over-threw the Late King, signifies no­thing to the Hazzard of This: Nay more, That which was Then, Policy, would be Now, Direct Folly.

This is but Discourse: My opinion is, that if they had the same Will, and Purpose to do Mischief which you suppose they have, they do not want Conduct to their Number, to make the Necessity of Complying with This Interest, to appear evident, past Contradiction.

Now Touching their Conduct. They must either do [Page 20] the same thing over again, or steer another course: and their Method is too Notorious to succeed the one way, as their Persons are too well known to do any good the Other.

I do not well understand what you mean by their Method; for Wisdom, I suppose, does not confine her self to any Certain and prescript manner of working; but shapes the Method to the Occasion.

I am neither totally With you, nor Against you, in This Poynt: For as in the Menage of Publique Af­fairs, there is much left to Habitual Prudence, and Dis­cretion, without need of directing every little Circum­stance, or Tracing every Line; so are there certain Ge­neral Rules; certain Dispositive Means, which all wise men conclude to be of absolute Necessity to such certain Ends.

The Question in hand is This; Whether the Non­conformists be not an Intelligent, as: well as a Numerous and Wealthy Party? and how far Reason of State may prevail for the Toleration of a sort of people in so many Respects con­siderable? Pray speak to This.

If they be very Wise, and very Many, they had need be very Honest too, there may be Danger else; for if they be not Honest, 'tis Unsafe, and consequently Impru­dent to Indulge them. I think, the best Measure both of their Honesty, and Wisdom, may be taken from the Rise, and Menage of the late Warr: Wherein, I must confess, there wanted neither Craft in the Packing of the Cards, nor Conduct in the Playing of them. But what if I should Ask you now, Who were the Prime Conductors in That Enterprize? If you say, The Non-conformists; then They are not Honest enough to be Trusted; (would you have the King Gratifie the Murtherers of his Father?) If you say Otherwise; Then 'twas not Their Conduct that did the work, and they are not Wise enough to be fear'd. In short, (to give them their Due, and no More.) That which Destroy'd us Then, was the Conjuncture of the most Perfidious of Subjects, with the most Pious and Charitable of Princes: The King, in fine, was Ruin'd by his own Goodnesse. [Page 21] First, without the Pacification at Berwick, in 1639. the Rebellion had been blasted in the Bud; And Secondly, his Majestye's Signing of the Bill for the Perpetual Par­liament, put the English in a capacity of seconding their Scottish Brethren. These were the Two Capital Conces­sions that Kill'd the Royal Interest; The latter whereof, his Majesty (of ever blessed Memory) reflects upon, as [No sin of His Will, though an Errour of too [...]. P. 28. & 24. charitable a Iudgement,] and confesses that, [He did not thereby intend to shut Himself out of dores, as some men had then Requited Him.]

There was likewise a fatal concurrence of Sedition and Popular Ignorance, to facilitate the Design. Alas! the late King was oppress'd even by Those that thought they fought for him, before ever they knew what they did; and the folly of the Common Souldier contributed no less to the General Fate, then the skill and malice of their Lea­ders. (Beside some unhappy why-not's and mistakes in the Kings Armyes, which are not at all pertinent to our dis­course.)

Admitting what you say, still it was some Degree of Conduct to Procure those Grants, and to Improve Those Means.

Alas! If Iudas his Betraying his Master with a Kisse; If the Enflaming of the People by false, and scur­rilous Invectives against their Soveraign;—If the Erecting of a Prerogative Conventicle by the force of Tumults, and then giving it the Name of a Parliament;—If the call­ing of God to Attest the Sanction of Perjury and Trea­son; or if to Engage the People by a Sacramental Vow to Defend the King, and then Hang them up for Adhering to him;—If This (I say) be Conduct: let No man pre­sume to Dispute their Title to't. But if by Conduct, you intend a course of Honourable Wisdom, you'l hardly find any foot-steps of That Conduct, throughout the whole Transaction▪ Yet let this pass for Conduct, and let [Page 22] the men that Govern'd the Design, be allow'd for Poli­ticians; still I maintain, that This Party, though endu'd with the Wisdom of Angels, cannot in This Iuncture; no not in This Age, pretend again to be considerable.

That's sooner said, then prov'd.

Truly, I think not much; in regard that both Their Wayes, and their Persons are too well Known, to be either Suffer'd, or Credited.

In Order to the late Warr, the Party had Two Games to play; for they were to make an Interest both with the King, and with the People, wherein their Master­piece was shew'd imprevailing with both King, and People, to Contribute to their own undoing; To which End, They first, Acquainted Themselves with his Majesties Dearest Inclinations; and Next, with the Niceties, and Distresses of his Government, and Fortune: of which Discovery they made such use, as Enabled Them to Overturn the Order both of Church and State, and to perfect their long-Projected Reformation: For the late King's Pre­dominant Affection being Piety, and Compassion, and his most Dangerous Distress being want of Money, the Politicks of the Faction appear'd in nothing more, than in Working upon his Majestye's Goodness, and Necessities.

Their Practices upon the People were chiefly employ'd upon the Two Things, which of all Others they do the least understand, and the most furiously pursue, to wit, Re­ligion and Liberty; wherein the Ministers were the Prime Instruments, and Alaham (in the words of the Excellent Lord Brook) was their Instructor.

This was the Artifice, by which the Faction skrew'd Themselves formerly into an Interest; but alas, what would the same Thing over again avail them now? when his Ma­jesty ha's but to look behind him upon the sad Fate of his Royal Father, to secure Himself against all Possibility of Another Imposture. And for the Multitude, they must be worse than Brutes, in case of any New Attempt, ever to Engage against This King, upon any Man's Credit, that had his Hand in the Death of the Last; so that we are both Wiser and Surer at Present, then we were Twenty years agoe, upon a double Accompt; First, the Calami­tyes of the Last Warr are still fresh in our Remembrance, and I do not find the People generally so sanctifi'd by their. Experience, but they had rather lye still for their Real Profit, then Fight it over again for the Sound of Re­ligion. Secondly, We are pre-acquainted with the most likely Instruments and Pretences of Raising any New Troubles.

As for the Unity ye boast of, 'tis very true; that the Non-conformists Agreed against the Publique, till they found it Impossible for them any longer to Agree among Them­selves; And there's the Utmost of their Unity. Their Re­solution indeed I cannot Deny but it comes up to That in th' Epigram, That, He that Dares be Damn'd, Dares more than fight.

Wee shall do our Cause an Injury to press too farr upon Reason of State in Matter of Religion.

Indeed, I think you'l find it a hard Task, to make it out to any Man of Reason, that the Kingdom will be either the Better for Granting you a Toleration, or the Worse for Refusing it: but 'tis to be hop'd that your Merits will plead better for you then your Politicks.

SECT. V. The Non-Conformists Plea for TOLE­RATION, from the Merits of the Party.

WHat ha's your Party (Gentlemen) Merited from the Publique, that an Exception to a General Rule, should be Granted in Your Favour? Name your services.

Wee ventur'd All to save the Life of the Late King.

And yet Ye ventur'd more to Take it away: for, Ye did but Talk for the One, and Ye Fought for the Other.

We ever Abominated the Thought of Murthering him.

You should have Abominated the Money too, for which Ye Sold him.

Did Wee sell him?

No, You were the Purchasers.

Did not the Presbyterians Vote His Majesties Con­cessions a Ground for a Treaty?

Yes: but withall they held him up to Conditions worse than Death it self; and, in short, They Deliver'd Him up, when they might have Preserv'd Him; and they [Page 25] Stickled for Him, when they knew they could do Him no Good.

What Design could They have in That?

They might have the same Design in -48. which they had in -41. for ought that I know. To make a Party by't; and set up a Presbyterian Interest in the Kings Name.

All the World knowes, that we were so much afflicted for his Sacred Majesties Distress, that we had many solemn Dayes of Humiliation for it.

So ye had for his Successes, for fear he should get the better of ye; and you had your Dayes of Thanks­giving too, for his Dysasters.

What do ye think of Preston-Fight? was That a Iuggle too?

I think ye should do well to let that Action sleep, for the Honour of the Kirk: for though the Cavaliers found it Great Earnest, 'tis shrewdly suspected that there was foul play among the Brethren.

Pray'e let mee ask you One Question: Who Brought in This King?

They that would not suffer. You to keep him out: That Party that by a Restless, and Incessant Loyalty, hinder'd your Establishments.

And what do ye think of the Sccluded Members?

I think, a New Choyce would have done the Kings business every jot as well; and Matters were then at That pass, that One of the Two was unavoydable. In fine, 'tis allow'd at all hands, that the Prime Single Instrument of his Majestyes Restauration was the Duke of Albemarle. But if you come to Partyes, the very Fact appears against ye: For, though all possible Industry was employ'd to make the Next Choyce totally Presbyterian, by Disabling all such Persons, and their Sons, as (in effect) had serv'd the King since -41. without manifesting their Repentance for it since; Yet, so strong was the General Vote of the People, for the Kings True Interest, and against All Factions, that All Endeavour was too little to [Page 26] Leaven the next Convention, as was Design'd. If ye have no more to say for the Merits of your Party, wee'l pass on to the Merits of your Cause:

Do so, and wee'l give you the Hearing.

SECT. VI. The Non-conformists Plea for TOLE­RATION, from the Innocence of their Practices and Opinions.

COncerning the Innocency of your Practices and Opinions, must be our next Enquiry; and how farr your Actions and Principles Comport with the Duties of Society, and with the Ends of Government. If Autho­rity find them Regular and Modest, it will be a fair Motive to his Majesty to Grant ye an Indulgence, upon so fair a Presumption that You will not Abuse it.

And we shall willingly cast our selves upon That Tryal.

Go to then. But I must Ask ye some untoward Questions by the way. What's your Opinion (Gentlemen) of the Warr Rais'd in—41. was it a Rebellion, or no?

'Tis a Point we dare not Meddle with.

Nay, then you falter; for if you Thought it One, you'ld Answer me; and if ye think it None, you'd think the same Thing, over again, to be none too. Suffice it, that in fact there was a Warr, and such a Warr as no Honest English Man can Reflect upon, but with Grief, Shame, Horrour, and Indignation: Can ye tell me what was the Ground of the Quarrel?

I think you were in the Right your self, when ye said, it was Religion and Liberty.

I suppose, I shall not need to tell ye the Event [Page 27] of it; But of which side were the Tender Consciences, For the King, or Against Him?

We were ever for the King: Witness our Petitions, De­clarations, and in a most Signal Manner, our Solemn League and Covenant.

Now I thought ye had been Against Him, because ye Seiz'd his Revenues, Levy'd a War, Hunted and Im­prison'd his Person, and at last took away his Life. But the truth on't is, Ye were Both: Ye were For Him in Your Words, and Against Him in Your Actions.

There were many in Our Party That Lov'd the King as well as Any of You that were about Him.

That is, According to your Covenant: and I do not think but that your Party Loves This King just as they did the Last.

I would his Majesty had no worse Enemies.

And I say, God send Him better Friends. You Love the Bishops too I hope, Do ye not?

Truly when they are out of their Fooleries, I have no Quarrel to the Men.

And to deal plainly, I am not yet Convinc'd of their Lordships Prerogative; nor that there's Any Inherent Holi­ness in a Cope or a Surplice. But why do you Couple the Crown and the Miter so, as if no Man could be a good Sub­ject, that's Disaffected to Prelacy.

To be Free with ye, That's my Opinion, and I'm the stiffer in't, because I think you can hardly shew me, any One Non-Conformist, that upon a voluntary and clear Accompt ever struck Stroke For the King; nor any true Son of the Episcopal Order of the Church, that ever bore Arms Against Him.

What will you forfeit if I shew you Hundreds?

Either my Head, or the Cause, which you please.

What do ye think of the Papists then▪ (but it may be you and they are all One, and so you w'ont reckon them for Non-Conformists)

To say the truth, we were All One in Loyalty to his Majesty, and to Your Eternal Reproach be it spoken, [Page 28] [That the Papists should have a greater Sense [...]. P. 130. of their Allegeance than many Protestant Pro­fessors]

Nay I believe a Machiavellian Jesuit shall ha'your good word, sooner then a Conscientious Puritan.

Truly no; for a Presbyterian Papist, and a Pres­byterian Puritan are Both alike to mee; and I confess, I had rather be Preserv'd by a Man of Another Religion, than ha' my Throat out by One of my Own. But, my Good Bro­ther of the Consistory, no Slipping your Neck out of the Col ar: I was speaking of the Non-Conformists; by which Term is properly meant, Such Persons as Refuse to Obey the Orders of the Church, whereof they Acknowledge Themselves to be Members; so that the Point in Debate, has no Coherence at all with your Digression. To Mind you of it, the Question's This: Whether or no the Pra­ctises of the Non-Conformists have been such, as may pro­bably Dispose his Majesty towards the Granting of a To­leration. And now to hold you to the Question [By Whom was the War in Scotland begun?] By the Non-Con­formists.

By whom I beseech ye was the Rebellion in Ireland begun?

By the Presbyterian Papists, but it was provok'd, and pre-dispos'd by the Presbyterian Puritans; [So that, [...] P. 93. next to the Sin of those, who begun that Re­bellion, Theirs must needs be, who either hin­dred the speedy suppressing of it, by Domestique Dissentions, or diverted the Aids, or exaspe­rated the Rebels, to the most Desperate Re­solutions and Actions, by threatning all Ex­tremities, not only to the known Heads and chief Incendiaries; but even to the whole Com­munity [Page 29] of that Nation, Resolving to Destroy Root and Branch, Men, Women, and Children; without any regard to those usual pleas for Mercy, which Conquerours, not wholly Bar­barous, are wont to hear from their own breasts, in behalf of those, whose oppressive Fears, ra­ther than their Malice, Engag'd them; or whose Imbecillity for Sex and Age was such, as they could neither lift up a hand against them, nor distinguish between their right hand and their left.] These are the Words of that Evangelical Prince, that Dy'd a Martyr for That Religion, and Liberty, which He was Calumniated to have Betray'd. By whom I beseech ye, was He Persecuted, Divested of All his Re­galities, Assaulted, Immur'd, Depos'd, and Murder'd, but By Your Party, Gentlemen? By whom, was Episcopacy Destroy'd, Root and Branch; the Law Trampled upon; Our Churches Prophan'd; Monarchy Subverted; the Free-born People of England Pillag'd, and Enslav'd; the Nation Engag'd in Bloud and Beggery; but by the Non-Conformists?

Why do ye Charge those Exorbitancies upon the whole Party, that were the Crimes only of some Particular and Am­bitious Men? Do you believe, That it should ever have gone so far, if we Two could have Hinder'd it?

No, Indeed do I not; and I do believe that there were Thousands in the Party that Intended it as little as your selves. Now, Me thinks, This Experience should Deterre ye, from the Project you are at this Instant upon; Especially considering that you are upon the very Steps that led to the late Rebellion. The Method, was Petitio­ning; the Argument, was Liberty of Conscience; and the Pretext, Religion▪ Popery, was the Bug-bear; and the Mul­titude, [Page 30] were the Umpires of the Controversie. ▪ Nay, you have the very same Persons to Lead ye On; and They, the very same Matter to work upon. Bethink your selves; Ye meant no hurt (ye say) to the last King, and yet ye Ruin'd him: Ye may perchance Intend as little harm to This King, and yet do him as much. Not that the matter is in Your Power; but I would not have it in your Will, and Endeavour. But enough is said touching the Innocency of your Practices: That of your Opinions, follows; and I am Mistaken, if your Principles prove not Altogether as Into­lerable as your Practices (by Intolerable, I mean, Inconsistent with the Publique Peace)

Sure you'll send me to my Catechism again.

Nay, Marque me; I will make it so clear to ye, that You your Selves shall Confess, that Sedition flowes as Naturally from your Ordinary, and Receiv'd Opinions, as Corrupt Waters from a Poyson'd Fountain; and not as an Accident neither, attendant upon Your Separation, but as a form'd and excogitated Design, wrapt up, and Coucht in the very Mystery of your Profession.

'Wou'd you'd be pleas'd to unvail the Mystery you speak of.

In Obedience, I'll Endeavour it.

The most Sacred of All Bonds, is That of Government, next to That of Religion; and the Reverence which we Owe to Humane Authority, is only Inferiour to That which we Owe to God Himself. Yet, such is the Deprav'd State of Nature, that Every man is touch'd with an Am­bition (more or less) to gain to Himself some share in the Command of the Whole: and from hence proceed Those Struglings of Particular Persons, which we so fre­quently meet with in Opposition to the General Lawes, and Ends of Order and Society. So soon as This Private Humour has Emprov'd, and Ripen'd it Self into a Design, the first Maxim which appears in favour of it, is This; that The Less Obligation must give way to the Greater; as (for Instance) Reason of State must give place to Matter of Re­ligion, [Page 31] and Humane Lawes to the Law Divine: which being Duly Weigh'd, what has any man more to do in Order to the Embroyling of a Nation, but to perswade the People that This or that Political Law has no Foundation in the Word of God; to bid them Stand fast in the Liberty where­with Gal. 5. 1. Christ has Made them Free: and finally to Engage the Name of God, and the Voyce of Religion in the Quar­rel?

And do not You your self believe it Better to Obey God then Man?

Yes, but I think it Best of All to Obey Both: to Obey God, for Himself, in Spirituals; and Man for God's sake in Temporals, as he is God's Commissioner. But let me Proceed. Are not you Convinc'd, that the most like­ly way in the world to stir up Subjects against their Prince, is to Proclaim the Iniquity of his Laws? to tell them (in Effect) that They'll be Damn'd, if they Obey; and (in a word) to make the Rabble Judges of their Governours?

Well, but what's This to Us, or Our Opinions?

I wish it were not; but to Couch the whole in a Little, Shew me, if you can, where ever your Opinions yet gain'd Footing in the world without Violence, and Bloud: Shew me again, Any One Sermon or Discourse (Authoris'd by a Non-conformist) from 1640. to This In­stant, that presses Obedience to the Magistrate, unless where the Faction was Uppermost; which shrew'dly in­timates, that Your Principles are Inconsistent with your Duties, and that the very Grounds of Your Government are Destructive of any Other.

Make That appear if you can.

I will so, and I think we shall not need to tra­vail out of his Majesty's Dominions to Prove it. Come, Zeal; You're of the Classical way; and You, Scruple, of the Independent; Produce Your Doctors; (but let them be the Pillars of your Cause) such Persons, as upon whose Judgment, and Integrity, You'll venture the Sum of the Dispute.

Soft and fair, I beseech ye; what is't you undertake to do?

I do undertake to prove that the Opinions of the Non-conformists, (to say no worse) will very hardly ad­mit a Toleration: and, Now, By whom will ye be Try'd?

What do ye think of Rutherford?

I suppose you mean the Divinity-Professour of St. Andrews. (Iohn Goodwin, I remember, calls him, The Chariot of Presbytery, and the Horsemen thereof) In Truth you have pitch'd upon the Atlas of your Cause. But hear the Rabbi in his own words, [Lex Rex P. 136.] The Power of the- King is but Fiduciary. [156.] The Soveraign Power is Eminently, Fon­tal [...]ter, Originally, and Radically in the People. [140.] The King is in Dignity Inferiour to the People. [113.] There is a Court of Necessity, no less than a Court of Iustice, and the Fun­damental Laws must Then speak; and it is with the People, in This Extremity, as if they had no Ruler.

Well: but Rutherford is but One man, I believe you'll find Gillespy of another Opinion.

Assure your Self, Friend Mine, they all sing the Same Song [Gillespy P. 11. Engl. Pop. Cerem.] [Let not the Pretence of Peace and Unity cool your Fervour, or make you Spare to oppose your selves unto these Idle and Idolized Ceremonies, against which we Dispute] For [245.] Whensoever you may omit that which Princes en­joyn, without Violating the Law of Charity, you are not holden to Obey them, for the Majesty of Princely Authority.

Are not These Sons of Zeal worthy of Encouragement, think ye? You'll say perhaps, Gillespy is but One Man neither. Come, Come, I could shew ye Hundreds of Them; and if you'll but read Spottswood's History of the Church of Scotland, and his Late Majesty's Large Declaration, Printed in 1639. ye shall need go no further for satisfa­ction. To pass over the Desperate Opinions and Con­trivances of Particulars; as Willock, Knox, Melvil, Gib­son, &c. Let us look a little into their more Solemn Acti­ons, and read the Temper of the Kirk in their General Assemblies.

• 1. An Assembly is Independant, either from
  Kings Declar. P. 409.
  [Page 33] King or Parliament in Matters Ecclesiasti­cal.
• 2. An Assembly may Abrogate an Act of
  P. 4 [...]1.
  Parliament, if it any way reflect upon the bu­siness of the Church.
• 3. It is Lawful for Subjects to make a
  P. 409.
  Covenant and Combination without the King, and to enter into a Bond of Mutual De­fence against Him.
• 4. The Major part of the Kingdome (espe­cially
  P. 413.
  being met in a Representative Assem­bly) may do any thing which they take to be Conducing to the Glory of God, and to the Good of the Church; not only Without the Royal Authority, but Expresly Against it.

Were't not a Thousand Pitties now, to refuse This Ten­der Sort of Christians a Toleration?

Nay; In good truth, I never lik't the Extreme Rigour of the Scottish Discipline.

And yet 'twas That you Leagu'd and Covenanted to make your Pattern; but where do you Expect to Mend your Self, under That Form of Government?

Truly, I take our English Divines of that Iudgment to be very Pious, Moderate Persons.

Never a Barrel better Herring; That is, If they come once to Dip into the Controversie.

Do not you take Mr.—for a very sober well-weigh'd Person?

Take you the Measure of him, from his own Hand. [If a People bound by Oath shall Dispossess their Prince, and Chuse, and Covenant with Another; they may be Oblig'd by the Latter, notwithstanding their former Covenant.] The [Page 34] real Soveraignty among us, was, in King, Lords and Commons; and if the King raise War against such a Parliament, in That Case, the King may not only be Resisted, but ceaseth to be a King. Hear now the File-leader of SMECTYMNUUS. A Sacred Pa­negyrick. P. 23 [The Quection in England, is whether Christ or Antichrist shall be Lord, or King: Go on therefore Couragiously: Never can ye lay out your Bloud in such a Quarrel; Christ shed all his Bloud to save you from Hell, venture all yours to set Him upon his Throne. (That is to say, Down with Episcopacy, and Up with Presbytery) This is the Language of One of your Seraphique Doctors; and the Sermon both Preach'd by Command, and Printed by Order. Take notice of his Auditory too: No less then the Two Houses, General, Lord-Mayor, Assembly, and Scotch Commissioners, Ian. 18. 1643.

You will not deny Mr. John Goodwyn (I hope) to be a Reverend Divine.

At the Rate of Your Divinity, indeed I cannot de­ny it, Touching the Righteousness of the Sentence passed upon Defence of the Honourable Sentence pas­sed upon the late King. Pa. 90. the King; Doubtless (says he) never was there any Person under Heaven Sentenc'd with Death upon more Equitable, and just Grounds, in respect of Guilt and Demerit. Mr. Ienkins is of the same opinion, and so is Parker, Milton; and, in fine, the whole Tribe of Medling Non-conformists are of the same Leven. Now, to shew ye that This Agreement comes not by Chance, you are to observe, that whatsoever is first Expos'd and Blown abroad (by the Hirelings of the Fa­ction) from the Press, and Pulpit, is still Seconded (at least, if the People Relish it) with the Approbation of the Coun­sel: so that the main use of Sermons, and Pamphlets, is on­ly to dispose the Multitude for Votes, and Ordinances. If you doubt This; do but Compare the Doctrines of the One, with the Practices of the Other; and you must be Blind, not to discern that they act by Consent, and Intelligence. In case of False-worship (says the Pulpit) and (says the Press) In case of Tyranny, Defensive Arms are Lawful. If the Peo­ple Swallow This; the next news ye hear, is a Vote forEx Coll. Pa. 259▪ putting that Position in Practice. Resolved upon the Que­stion [Page 35] that the King (Seduced by wicked Counsel) intends to make War, &c. [May 20. 1642.] Resolved upon the Ex. Coll. Pa. 457. Question, that an Army shall be forthwith Raised, &c. [Iuly 12. 1642.

Will ye make the Parliament then, and the Synod, Confederate with the Rabble?

Tush, Tush; Turbam, tam Chlamydatos, quàm Co­ronam voco. I speak of a Faction, not of an Anthority; I do not meddle with Parliaments: Yet since you have such a Kindness for the very Names These People Acted un­der, Let me Offer ye a Word or two to Consider upon, touching That Thing, which you call a Synod. First,

The men were neither Legally Conven'd, nor [...] Pa. 183. did They Act in the Name of all the Cler­gy of England: So that no Matter what They Did, as to the Validity of any thing They could pretend to do. Secondly, What was Their Employment, but to Advise upon the Cleanliest way of Shifting the Government, and to do as much for the Bishops, as the House did for his Majesty? Will ye have the Truth on't? They clear'd their Conscience abundantly to Both. First; in Their Let­ter to Reformed Churches Abroad, They Charge the King as the Patron of the Irish Rebellion [Pa. 7.] and, in short, throughout the whole Tenor of it as the most Insupportable Tyrant in Nature. Secondly, Let That (not only Unchri­stian but Inhumane) Collection of White's Scandalous Mi­nisters bear Witness Against Them. Wherein, without any Respect either to Truth, or Modesty, They have Expos'd so Many Reverend Names to Infamy, and Dishonour, for the better Colour of Their own Wickedness in Robbing them of their Livings.

I have here laid before you, the Merits, Practices, and Opinions of the Party you plead for. If I have told ye Truth, Think on't; if otherwise, Disprove it.

I will not Deny, but Ill things have been done: Shall All therefore be Condemn'd, for the Faults of Some?

And I will not deny neither, but there are Good [Page 36] people in the mixture; shall All therefore be Indulg'd for the Honesty of some? Try your skill, my Masters; and if You can contrive such an Expedient, as may Relieve Par­ticulars, without Hazzard, or Dammage to the Whole, ye shall have my Vote for such a Toleration. But before ye propound it, give me leave to offer ye such other Reasons of my Own, Against it, as have not been yet touch'd upon, and then you are at Liberty to speak to All at Once.

SECT. VII. TOLERATION, causes Confusion both in Church and State.

GEntlemen, To come quick to the Business; My Exceptions to your Proposal of Toleration, shall be Reduc'd to Four Heads: My First Exception ari­ses from the very Nature of the Thing it self; My Second, from this Iuncture of Time wherein it is Desired; My Third, from the Consideration of the Partyes that Desire it; and My Last Exception, proceeds from the Reverence I bear to the Authority that is to Grant it. Now, if You please, Wee'l begin with the First, and pass to the Rest in Order.

My First Argument against Toleration, is This: It is (in those that press it) a Tacit Condemnation of an Establisht Law, and not without some Reflection upon the Supreme Authority it self. If there was Reason for the Making of it, There is yet More for the Observing of it; by how much an Universal Obedience is more Profitable to the Publique, than any Particular Constitution.

It would be well, If you would bring all People to the same Mind, before ye force them to the same Rule.

But it would be Ill if you should admit of no [Page 37] Rule at all, till you had found out One, that all the world should be pleas'd with.

We do not ask the Vacating of a Law, but the Re­laxing of it.

Why then, You ask a Worse Thing; for it were Much better for the Publique, utterly to vacate a Good Law, then to suffer the Withdrawing of that Reverence which is due even to a Bad one. If the Reason of such or such a Law be gone, Repeal the Law; but to let the Obliga­tion fall, and the Law Stand, is, not only to Introduce, but to Proclaim a Disorder in the Government. The Law, in fine, is, an Act of Publique, and Impartial Justice, not made for This, or That Particular, but for a Common Good.

My Second Exception to Tolcration, is, Because it Im­plyes a kind of Assent (let me not say Submission) both to the Equity of the Subjects Complaint, and to the Reason of the Tolerated Opinion, which, in some Degree, seems to Authorise a Separation. Now let it be once admitted, that any One Law may be Question'd by the Multitude; the Consequence reaches to all the Rest: Let it be admit­ted, either, that any One sort of People may be allowed to challenge any One Law, All other Opinions have the same Right of Compleyning.

But we do not question either the Prudence of the Law-makers, or the General Equity of the Constitution; only where God has not given us Consciences suitable to the Rule, we do humbly begg of his Majesty to bestow upon us a Rule that may comply with our Consciences.

Would you have a Law made that shall comply with All Consciences? Ye demand an Impossibility. God Himself never made a Law that pleased all people. Oh! but the Imposition under a Penalty troubles ye. Take a­away the Sanction, and what signifies the Law? Well, but You would be exempt I perceive from the general Obli­gation; so would every man else, and then there's no Law at all: In short, Ye cannot say what ye would have. Would ye have a particular Indulgence? Where's the [Page 38] Equity of it as to Those that are Excluded? Will ye have it Generall? Where's the Conscience of it, when all He­resies are entertain'd. You should consider, that Lawes are fram'd with a regard to the Community; and they ought to stand Firm and Inexorable: If once they come to hearken to Particular Clamours, and to side with Parti­cular Interests, the Reverence of Government is shaken.

You have speculated here some Airy Inconveniences; but where's the Real hazard of receding from that Inexorable strictness? (as you call it.)

First, the Magistrate makes himself of a Party with Those that he Tolerates, against Those that he Re­jects, which drawes an envy upon the Government.

Secondly, The Tolerated Party becomes a Sanctuary for all the seditious Persons in the Kingdom. It was well said of one (whom I esteem more for his Wit than his Ho­nesty) speaking of a Thin House of Commons; It looks (says he) like a Parish Church that borders upon a Conventicle. And the very Truth of it is, A Schismatical Lecturer, is as bad as a Rosted Dogg in a Dove-house, he tolls away all the Pigeons i'th Countrey. Not that the People throng to him for the Excellency of the Man, or of the Way, but they Meet to Proclaim Themselves Masters of the Law, and to count how many Thousand souls there are, even in this sinfull Nation, that will not bow the Knee to Baal. Let them go on, and within a while, the King per­haps shall sue to Them, for the same Toleration They now begg from Him, and go without it; that is, unless His Majesty has better luck then his Father (which God send him, for he has several of the very same Persons to deal withall.)

Another Objection may be This; If there be any Reason for Granting a Toleration, 'tis Probable the Reason will be stronger for Continuing it; so that, in Time, the People shall Challenge That as a Right, which They now only Demand as a Favour; and the next Motion is into a Popu­lar Reformation. Let me add to what I have said, that a Toleration does not only Evirtuate the Law, but it natu­rally [Page 39] produces a total Dissolution of Ecclesiastical Order, and consequently begets a Confusion both in Church and State.

You speak as if there were no such thing as a Tolera­tion in Nature.

Of that in place convenient.

SECT. VIII. The Danger of TOLERATION in this Iuncture.

I Need not tell ye (Gentlemen) that I am no great friend to Toleration at Any time: but I must con­fess to ye, that at This time I like it worse then I have done at any Other.

When, to My thinking, there never was more need of it, nor more Hope of the Fruit of it, then is at this Instant. Are not the People ready to Tumult for want of it?

Indeed a very proper Reason why they should have it, that they may be encouraged to Tumult again, for what they have a mind to Next. How long do you believe that Government would stand, where the Multi­tude should take notice that their Rulers are afraid of them? Are they ready to Tumult? then they are not Con­scientious; and if it be not conscience that moves them, 'tis Sedition.

I'm very confident, An Indulgence would Quiet them.

Can you remember the steps of the last Warr, and be of that Opinion? What was it but That which was given to Quiet the Faction that enabled them to take All the Rest? To give you a fresh Instance; What could be more Pious, Gracious, or Obliging, then his Majesties Late [Page 40] Declaration, in Favour of the Non-conformists? All that was possible for the King to doe, in consistence with Con­science, Honour, and the Peace of his Dominions, his Maje­sty has there frankly assur'd them of: and what's the effect of all? Are they one jot the Quieter for't? No, but the worse; for no sooner was his Majesties Tender­ness (in That Particular) made Publique, but the genera­lity (even of Those that had lately entred into a Regular and Dutifull complyance with the Orders of the Church) started into a new Revolt; which Demonstrates, that the true ground of their Separation is not Conscience, but Facti­on, and proves sufficiently the benefit, and necessity, of a strict Rule, and the hazard of a Relaxation: For you see, that rather then abide the Penalty of the Act, they could Conform; but upon the least Glimpse of an Indulgence, they Relapse into a Schism.

Come, Brother Zeal; Your Friend of—shall pin the Basket. That Sermon of his that you wote of, (at least if His it be, and several Impressions of it have pass'd as His, without any Contradiction) That Ser­mon do I take to be one of the Lewdest Requitals of the Kings Mercy and Goodness that ever—But no more, Hee's a Son of the Kirk.

Take him First, as a Person whom his Majesty has Par­don'd, although a Leading, and Pragmatical Instrument to­ward the Ruine of his Royal Father. Consider him Second­ly, as one that has been taken nibbling at Sedition, since his Majesty's Return before now, and yet been wink'd at. Thirdly, take notice of the very point of Time he has cho­sen for his purpose. His Contempt meets the Kings Mercy just in the Face, and his Majesty's Arms are no sooner open to receive him, then he takes that very nick of Oppor­tunity to stabb him in.

And all This Amplifying, and Passion, for Preaching, forsooth, without a Licence.

The least thing in my thought, I assure ye; for I speak to the Dangerous Scope and Application of his [Page 41] Sermon, without any concern at all whether he did Well, or Ill, as to the Act of Uniformity.

I will not justifie his Prudence, but in my Conscience the man never meant any hurt, either to this King, or to his Father, I should abhorre him, if I thought he did.

Wee'l handle that Point at leasure: But to bring what we are now upon, to a Period. I look upon Mr. Calamy as the Mouth of the Party, and ye see with what a seditious Confidence they own his Actions, and avow his Disobe­dience: So that from Mr. Calamy's single Case, we are to take the Measure of the Main Question: And now I ask ye; Whether, or no, do you hold it convenient to dispense with a Law, in favour of That Party, which at the same time both Challenges, and Defies That Law, and Despises that Mercy?

When you have made out the Fact, as you have layd it, I'le tell ye my Opinion.

Again, we are perpetually Alarm'd with Plotts, ye see; Now what better means then a Toleration, to draw the Conspirators into a Body? In Truth; to gratifie a Party that thus outfaces Authority, and to do it too in the very Crisis of the Contest, is a Policy that I can't reach the Bottom of. This Thred might be drawn finer; but I have something to say concerning the Party, as well as the Time.

SECT. IX. Arguments against TOLERATION, in respect of the Party that desires it; with, Animadversions upon a certain Pamphlet, Entituled, A SERMON Preached at ALDERMANBURY-CHURCH, Decemb. 28. 1662. &c.

WE are now entring into a Large Field, Gen­tlemen, and that we may not lose our selves, Let us move orderly toward the Question. Your Party de­sires a Toleration, is't not so?

It is so.

And what is Your Party, I beseech ye? Where do they Dwell? What are their Names? Their Opinions, &c.—For to Tolerate, No body knowes Whom, or What, would be a little with the Largest, I think; would it not?

Truly I think it would. But to Answer your queynt Question; Our Party is a certain number of Godly and Con­scientious men, that desire a Freedom to Worship God in their own way.

But now You must tell me Your Way too.

Our Way must be such a Way as is agreeable to Gods Word.

Do ye mean, that it must be expressly mark'd out, and commanded There; or will it serve the Turn, if it be only not Prohibited?

God forbid, that any sober Christian should imagine that our Saviour left his Church without a Rule, and certainly the Lord's Discipline is the best Pattern, so that we are to stick to the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, without Adding or Di­minishing.

Scruple, What say You to This? for if it be so, there is but One way of Worshipping, Lawfull; and con­sequently, but One way Tolerable.

In Truth, I am content to venture My Soul among Those that serve the Lord according to the Light that he has given them.

So that I perceive 'tis utterly Impossible to please ye Both; for You are for several wayes, and your Brother Zeal but for One. How comes it now that You Two, that can never Agree betwixt your selves, should yet Joyn in a Petition against Us?

We Agree in This, that neither of us would be Limited.

Do not You find your self Foul now upon the Old Rock of Universal Toleration again? I would, You'd be but so honest Once, as to Yield, when Y'are Con­vinc'd. Can you either name Those Opinions, which you would have Indulg'd; or can you Expect a Tolera­tion for all Opinions at a venture?

Provided they be not contrary to Gods Word.

But who shall be Iudg of That? If each Individual, You must admit Right and Wrong, promiscuously, for no man will condemn himself; If Authority, You are conclu­ded by an Ecclesiastical Law. Have a Care now of your old Distinction of Fundamentals, and Non-fundamentals, for then your very foundation fails ye, and ye renounce the most plausible part of your Plea, to wit, your Title of Conscience. A word now to your Brother.

You are for the Holy Discipline, Zeal; for That way, and for no Other.

We are for That way which is prescrib'd in the Word.

Of which way, either the People or the Governours must be the Judges. If you say the People, the Indepen­dent has the Better of ye; if the Governours, you must sub­mit to the Resolutions of the Church: In fine, If ye can­not say what ye would have, never Complain that ye can­not Obtain what ye Ask; and That's my first Reason against [Page 44] Tolerating the Non-conformists. They are a sort of The Non-con­formists would have they know not what. People that would have they know not what. In which, Parti­cular Experience bears witness against them: For, what have they done since—41. but Overturn'd the Govern­ment, Divided the Spoyl, Enrich'd Themselves, Em­broyl'd every thing, and setled nothing? And yet my Masters there was no Act of Uniformity to hinder ye.

You cannot imagine sure that all these Hurli-burlies and Confusions, were Design'd.

Not All perhaps, for I believe ye thought to do your Business with less Trouble: But that the subversion of the Government was Design'd is plain, and certain; and truly that it is now Design'd over again, is scarce less Evident: Upon which special consideration, I ground my Second Exception.

But That would be hard, to ruine so many People of God for an Uncharitable surmise.

Go to Scruple; If That be not the scope of your Monstrous Earnestness for a Toleration, pray'e tell me what is? If ye have no end at all in't, 'tis Frivolous; if This be your end, 'tis Impious; if ye have any other End, make it appear.

'Twill satisfie our Consciences.

Heaven and Earth shall be sooner brought toge­ther then your Two Consciences; will the Establishment of Presbytery satisfie your Conscience, or the Allowance of Liberty satisfie your Brothers? If it be the Uniformity ye Dislike; How come ye to Joyn with the Directory, against the Common-prayer; with That of the Assembly, against That of the Church? In short, Your Disagreements among your selves, are almost as Notorious as your Con­junction Against Us, and ye have given Proof to the World, that it is not possible for any thing Else to Unite you, but a Common Booty; Witness the Contentious Papers and Disputes, betwixt Calamy, and Burton, Edwards, and Good­win, and Others, not to be Number'd, concerning theLetter to the Assembl. Ian. 1. 45. Pag. 3. very Point of Toleration. [The desires of the Independents for a Toleration (say the London-Ministers) are unreasonable, [Page 45] and unequal, and many Mischiefs will follow upon't both to Church and Common-wealth.] Now on the other side, hear what Sterry sayes, [Lord thou hast done Graciously, and Won­derfully, Engl. Deliv. Pa. 7. in saving us from the Bloudy Design of the Egyptian Papacy: But this last Mercy by which thou hast sav'd us from the Black Plotts, and Bloudy Powers of the Northern Pres­bytery, has Excell'd them All.] Rutherford tells ye thatFresh Disput. Pa. 98. [Such Opinions and Practices, as make an evident Schisme in a Church, and set up two Distinct Churches, of different Forms, and Government, &c. cannot be Tolerated.] Milton Tenure of Kings Pa. 36. again, will have the Presbyterians to be [Ministers of Se­dition, not Ministers of the Gospel.] With what face now can those People appear to claim a Toleration from the Publique, whose Principles are so cross, that they cannot afford it One to Another?

Well, but supposing these unhappy Clashings among Themselves, how does that prove them in Confoederacy against the Publique?

Their very Agreement against the Government, and in nothing else, makes it evident enough: but if You'd have it clearer, Look thorough their Proceedings.

In a Petition that accompanyed their black Remon­strance of Dec. 15.—41. You may find the Points chieflyEx. Coll. Pa. 2. insisted upon to be These. The Honour of the King, the Liberty, and Property of the Subject; The Moderating of the Bishops Power; and the Removal of some Unnecessary Cere­monies, for the Ease of Tender Consciences: Nay, so far Remonstr. Ex. Coll. Pa. 19. were they from any Purpose or Desire, to let loose the Golden Reins of Discipline and Government in the Church, that they held it Requisite to Maintain a Conformity throughout the Kingdom, to that Order, which the Lawes Enjoyn'd; and took it very unkindly that the Malignant Party should Infuse into the People, that they meant to Abolish all Church-Government; and leave every man to his own Fancy, for the Service and Worship of God, Absolving him of that Obedience which he Owes under God unto his Majesty, Whom THEY ☜ KNEW TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH THE ECCLE­SIASTICAL LAW, AS WELL AS WITH THE TEM­PORAL, [Page 46] &c.—They confess indeed their intention of Reducing within Bounds that Exorbitant Power which the Pre­lates Ibid. had Assum'd unto Themselves so contrary both to the Word of God, and to the Lawes of the Land. To which end they pass'd the Bill for Removing them from their Temporal Power and Employ­ments, that so the better they might with Meekness apply Them­selves to the discharge of their Functions. Will ye now see the Correspondence betwixt these Gentlemens Words, and their Actions? and First concerning the Honour of the King; wherein This word shall suffice, that they omitted No­thing, in order to the destroying both of his Soul, Body, and Reputation, which either Craft, Violence, or Calumny could Contribute, and not to Rob either of the Two Factions of their deserved Fame, and Interest, in the Ruine of that Glorious Prince. I shall conclude with Parkers decision of the Case, The Presbyterians pass'd the Sentence of Condem­nation, The False Bro­ther. and the Independents executed it.

I shall not pretend to Iustifie all their Actions; but in truth my Charity perswades me, that a great part of the Mis­chief they did, proceeded rather from Necessity then Inclina­tion.

Will yee see then what they did afterward when they were at Liberty to do what they Listed?

They had no sooner Murther'd the Father, but immedi­ately [Part. 2. Pag. 3.] They made it Death to Proclaime the Son. [Pag. 7.] They Scobel Acts, &c. Abolisht Kingly Government. [Pag. 51.] Sold the Crown Lands. [Pag. 65.] Declar'd it Treason to deny the Supremacy of the Commons. [Pag. 178.] Null'd all Honours and Titles granted by the King since 41. [Pag. 293.] Made Scotland one Common-wealth with England, &c.

Have they now kept any better Touch with the Liberty and Property of the Subject? Let their Proceedings witness for them, [Scobels Acts, &c. Pag. 41.] As their Tax upon the Fifth and Twentieth Part. [Pag. 60.] Excise upon Flesh, Victuals, and Salt. [Pag. 73.] A new Excise upon Allom, Copper as, Monmouth-Caps, Hoppes, Saffron, Starch, &c. [Pag. 75.] A Loane of 66666 l. 13 s. 4 d. for supply of the Scots. [Pag. 128.] An Assessement for the Maintenance of the Army. [Pag. 8. Part 2.] The House of Peeres Abolisht, and a Monthly [Page 47] Tax of 90000 l. for the Army. [Pag. 149.] A Monthly Tax of 120000 l. [Pag. 153.] An Imposition upon Coal. [Pag. 400.] A Monthly Assessement of 60000 l. Not to Clogge the Discourse with overmany Particulars: Wee'll see Next, What they have done toward the Moderating of the Power of Bishops, and the Removal of Unnecessary Ceremonies?

[Pag. 42.] The Archbishop of Canterbury Suspended, and his Tempo­ralties Sequestred. [Pag. 53. Monuments of Superstition Demolisht (that is in Short an Ordinance for Sacriledge) [Pag. 75.] The Book of Common Prayer laid aside, and the Directory commanded in stead of it. [Pag. 99.] Archbishops and Bishops Abolisht, and their Lands setled in Trustees. [Pag. 101.] Their Lands Expos'd to Sale. [Pag. 128.] Festivals Abolisht. [Part. 2. Pag. 16.] Deans and Chapters &c. Abolisht, And their Lands to be Sold. This is your way, my Masters, of Moderating the Power of Bishops, and of removing un­necessary Ceremonies; and at the same Rate you have pro­vided for Tender Consciences, witness Your Penalties [Part. 1. Pag. 97.] for Using the Book of Common Prayer, and your Forfeitures for not Using the Directory. Ibid.

Conformity; You should Do better, not to Rip up these Old Stories again.

And if you would not hear of Them again, you should Leave Doing Them again.

Then it seems the whole Number must suffer for the Misdemeanours of Particulars.

No; nor the whole Party scape because of some Particulars neither. Would you ha' me open my Door to a Troop of Thieves, because two or three of my honest Friends are in the Company? And That's the Case. Be­sides: You must permit me to distinguish betwixt Particu­lars and the Party; for the Party of Non-conformists, are in a Direct Confederacy against the Law; whereas there may be divers Particulars, that are mov'd only upon a Prin­ciple of Conscience. And those that are truly Conscien­tious, will be known by This; Their'll endeavour their own Satisfaction without any Importunities upon the Publique: for when they come once to joyn in a Complaint against the Law, 'tis no longer Conscience, but Faction. And [Page 48] the Question is not Here, concerning the Integrity of certain Individuals, but how far a Toleration belongs to the Party, without any consideration of Persons.

Let us suppose then that the Party may have done amiss; I hope 'tis no Sin against the Holy Ghost.

Truly, with Reverence to Charity, I take it to be next a-kin to't, in very many of them. For, First; They sinn'd against an Evident Light, as appears from their seve­ral doublings, and contradictory Proceedings. Next, There was a Malice, Notorious; only I hope it went no further than God's Vicegerent. But I'le comply with the utmost of your Argument: You would have Those In­dulg'd that Repent. With all my heart, if That will Con­tent ye. For still upon That Condition, not a Soul must be admitted that Refuses to Abjure the Covenant: and There lies the very Pinch of the Question. For what the Cove­nant meant, every body knows, from the express Practice, and Explication of Them that made it. The League and The Kirks Testimony a­gainst Tolera­tion. Pag. 10. Covenant (says Rutherford) was the first Foundation of the Ruine of the Malignant Party in England. And They that Impos'd it, Voted it Death for any man, having taken it, to serve his Majesty: So that whosoever Refuses to Disown the Covenant, must be Rationally supposed still to pursue the Ends of it. Which Ends are, The Subjection of the Royal Authoricy to the Conclave of the Kirk, and (in Ter­minis) the Abolition of Episcopacy; (which his Majesty has solemnly vow'd, and Resolv'd to Preserve) From whence it arises undeniably, that, to Tolerate the Non-conformists that still adhere to the Covenant, is to Tolerate the Sworn E­nemies both of Royal, and Episcopal Authority, and of the Peace of the Nation: and in fine, to Tolerate Those that have sworn to persist in that Opposition all the daies of their lives.

From what is already said, it appears, First, That the Non-conformists are not yet Agreed what they would have, and I dare engage my self to be his Slave that clears the Proposition, farther, then that they would have This Government unsetled, and they know not what in the [Page 49] Place on't. Secondly, It is manifest, that Impossible it is to Please them any longer, then while they are united in a Common Design upon us: for next to Publique Order, they are the deadliest Enemies one to another, as being Govern'd by Inconsistent Principles. Thirdly, It is past Dispute, that by virtue of That Favour which they now Aske, and un­der colour of Those Pretences which they now hold forth, They have render'd Themselves the Instruments of all our Late Miseries, and the Masters of the Three Kingdomes. Fourthly, It is not more Plain what they have done, then what they are now about to do; And, that they have the same Design upon the Publique, at this Instant, which they had in 41, is past all Controversie.

Conformity, You out-run the Constable. Will you pretend to enter into Mens Thoughts?

No, I will not; but if I should see a man throw­ing Wild-fire into a Magazine▪ and He tells me that he does it to warm his Fingers; would not you take me for an Asse, if I should Believe him? No, no, my fair Friends. When ye see a Wise man, Frequently, and Deliberately, doing things that manifestly lead to evil Consequences, I think a very good Christian may suspect That wise man's Honesty.

Come; no more of your High-flown Notions, but out with't in good honest English: Where's the Wild-fire, and the Maga­zine that you would give us so learnedly to Understand?

Where is it Not rather; to any man that will but look about him, without winking? Is not That Sermon think ye that you sent me last Night a pretty Squib to cast into a populous▪ Town, that's Preach'd half to Gun­powder already?

And yet ye said E'en now, There was no danger.

I say the same Thing still; that is, without a To­leration.

But where's the Mischief of That Sermon I be­seech ye?

The Book lies there upon the Table, and 'tis Marqu'd to your Hand: but I'm ▪not ready for't yet; if [Page 50] you please, wee'll look it over by and by; and speak a word in the mean time to the Ius Talionis, to the Do as you would be done by of the Matter.

You would be Tolerated by That Government, which of all Others, you your Selves refus'd to Tolerate; Stick now to your own Rule, and tell me, With what Face can ye Demand a Toleration, or for what Sort of People? Begin with your Clergy; would you have Them Indulg'd?

Yes, as They are Ministers of Gods Word, They ought to be Indulg'd.

That can be no Plea for Them that persecuted Gods Ministers Themselves. Charity indeed is a Gene­ral Duty, but it is an Argument that belongs only to Them that Practise it; For, They that never spar'd Any, cannot reasonably desire to be spar'd Themselves.

They are in the second place not to be Tolerated; upon the point of Scandal: For, [Such are Declar'd scan­dalous, Scobell's Acts Pars. 2. Pa. 340. as by Writing, Preaching, or otherwise, publish their Dis­affection to the present Government] 'Tis their own Law, Gentlemen; and upon that score of Disaffection, was In­troduc'd the most Barbarous Persecution of a Gospel-Ministry, that ever was heard of among Christians. I could Instance the Particulars of the Havock They made in London, the Two Universities, and finally throughout the Kingdome. Particularly, in South-Wales; where They did not only Persecute The Ministry, but the very Gospel, by Shutting up their Churches, and Condemning the People to the Dictates and Corruptions of unbridl'd Nature. Nor was it enough to Sequester, unless They Starv'd Them too; For They were not permitted, to live either as School-masters or Chaplains, but upon severe Penalties: a Committee of Middlesex indeed, told Mr. Lance (a Re­verend, and a Sequester'd Minister) that He might Hedge and Ditch for his Living (and that was the utmost of the Liberty They could Afford Them.) I could tell ye of the Ministers that were Poyson'd in Peter-House, &c. but I shall make ye sick, and weary; Asham'd I hope ye are already, to Plead for a Toleration of Those People [Page 51] against the Law, that were Thus Mercyless toward their Brethren that Acted and Suffer'd for it. But to Seal up all with an Authority: Gillespy tells ye, that [The General Useful Case of Conscience, Pa. 19, & 20. Assembly hath ordain'd, that known Complyers with the Re­bels, and such as did procure Protections from the Enemy, or keep Correspondence and Intelligence with him, shall be suspended from the Lords Supper, till they manifest their Repentance be­fore the Congregation] So that ye see we were not only Debarr'd the Common Rights of Subjects, and Benefits of Society; but the very Comforts of our Religion were taken from us, and an Anathema pronounc'd upon us for our Loyalty; and yet these People think it high Reason to be Tolerated Themselves, and have the Confidence to Im­portune it from his most Sacred Majesty, to whose Blessed Father (and That in the Depth, and Bitterness of his Ago­nies) They cruelly Deny'd the Use, and Service of his own Chaplains. [A greater Rigour, and Bar­barity [...]. P. 207. then is ever us'd by Christians to the meanest Prisoners and Greatest Malefactors] But (continues that Pious Prince) [They that Envy Ibid. My being a King, are loth I should be a Christian; while they seek to Deprive Me of all things else; They are afraid I should save My Soul.]

A word now to the Obligations we have to your Civil Authorities, as to the Freedome of our Persons and Estates. Visit but your own Acts, and be your own Iudges, (but take the Crime along with ye; Obedience to God, to the King, and to the Law) Not to Enumerate your Particular, and Personal Outrages, as the Clapping of so many Honoura­ble Persons abord, and Designing Then for Slaves, be­cause They would not Rebel; the Barbarous Treatment of betwixt Three and Fourscore Worthy and Loyal Gen­tlemen [Page 52] in the Business of Salisbury, that were Shipp'd away and Sold (by AN HONEST MAN) to the Barbados. Nor to Insist upon it, how many Honourable Persons have been Smother'd, and Starv'd in Gaoles; how much Noble Bloud hath been Spilt both in the Field, and upon the Scaffold, &c.—I shall rather Confine my self to some few of your General Provisions for securing the Royal Party, and for the Extirpation both of that Line, and Government, to which, Providence has now again Sub­jected ye: which (to run over them in short) shall be These [Scob. Acts Pars. 1. Pa. 37.] An Ordinance for Sequestration of Delinquents E­states. [Pa. 135.] Delinquents Disabled to bear any Office, or have any Vote in Election of any Maior, &c. Here's, Estate, and Legal Freedome, gone already: Now follows Banishment from One Place, and Confinement to Another. [Pars. 2. Pa. 104.] Delin­quents must be Remov'd from London and Westminster, and Confin'd within five Miles of their own Dwelling. [Pa. 175.] Cor­respondency with Charles Stuart or his Party Prohibited un­der Pain of High Treason] and [Pa. 372.] Death to any Man that shall Attempt the Revival of his Claim, or that shall be Aiding, Assisting, Comforting, or Abetting unto any Person Endevouring to set up the Title of Any of the Issue of the Late King. These were the Conditions of Your Favours, Gentlemen, and the Tryals of Our Faith.

If ye are not yet Convinc'd pray'e tell me, What was the Reason, that throughout the whole Course of your Power, ye Treated the Episcopal Party still worse then all the Rest?

Because They were the Most likely of all Others to Disturb our Settlement.

Very Good, and what do ye think as to Matter of Conscience? Did ye do Well, or Ill in't? or rather, Was there any thing of Conscience in the Case?

Truly I wish much of the Severity had been Abated; but Certainly, as 'twas very fit for the Civil Power to secure the Peace of the Nation; so was the Power Ecclesiastical no less concern'd to exact a Conformity to the Lawes and Ordi­nances of Christ.

Can you say This, and not blush to Deny the Force of your own Argument? If ye did well in refusing to Tolerate the Episcopal Way, because ye thought it not Right; the Reason is as strong on the Other Side, that have the same opinion Concerning Yours. If ye did well o'th' Other Side, out of a Political Regard to the Publique Peace, the same Reason lies as strong against ye That Way too: so that you must either Confess, that you did Ill Then, in Refusing a Toleration to Us, or allow that Authority does Well Now, in not permitting it to You. Do not mistake me. I am as much as any man (to borrow his Sacred Ma­jesty's words) for [Those that cannot Conform, Kings Declar. Decemb. 26. 1662. Pa. 8. through Scruple, and Tenderness of misguided Conscience: and for Dissenters that Demean His Majesty's Speech to Both Houses, Feb. 18. 1662. Themselves Peaceably and Modestly under the Government. And That shall appear by and by, when we come to handle That Question.

Wee're Agreed then, if That be your Opinion: and pray'e let's forward to my Friends Sermon now. (A Person whom I take to be within the Limit of your Profess'd Kindness)

A Match; and if you please, I'le Glosse upon him to you.

‘Lo: Eli sate upon a seat by the way side, wait­ing: for his heart trembled for the Ark of God,’ 1 Sam. 4. 13.

THere's his Text; from whence he gathers Two Obser­vations.

First, When the Ark of God is in Danger to be lost, the Peo­ple Pa. 5. of God have thoughtful heads, and trembling hearts. (Or, to put this Doctrine into a Gospel-Dress) When the Gospel is in Danger of losing, when Gospel-Ordinances are in Danger of being lost, and Gospel-Ministers in Danger of losing, then the People of God have trembling heads, and careful and solicitous hearts about it.

[Page 54]Secondly, A true Child of God is more troubled, and more Ibid. solicitous what shall become of the Ark, then what shall become of Wife and Children, or Estate.

He gives you in the next place, Four Reasons, Why thePa. 7. People of God are so much Troubled when the Ark of God is in Danger.

First, For the great Love they bear to the Ordinances of Pa. 8. God, and to the Faithfull Ministers of Christ. They cannot be silent; they cannot but Tremble when they see the Ark of God in Danger.

Secondly, They are Troubled, because of the Interest they Ibid. have in the Ark. The Ordinances of God are the Iewels of a Pa. 8. Christian, and the Treasures of a Christian, and the Loss of them cannot but Trouble them. And Iesus Christ is the Ioy of a Christian, and therefore when Christ is departing, they can­not but be much afflicted at it.

Thirdly, They are Troubled because of their Accessari­nessPa. 9. to the losing of the Ark.

Fourthly, The People of God are Troubled because of the Pa. 8. Mischiefs that come upon a Nation, when the Ark of God is Lost. The Tongue of man is not able to Express the Misery of That Nation where the Ark of God is Taken.

First, When the Ark of God is taken, then the wayesPa. 9. of Sion mourn, and none come to the Solemn Assemblies; It was the complaint of the Church, Lam. 1. 4. That is matter of sadness.

Secondly, The Ministers of Christ are then driven into Corners. And that is matter of heart-trembling.

Thirdly, The Souls of Many are then in Danger, when the Gospel is gone, your Souls are in hazard: There is cause of sadness.

Fourthly, The Enemies of God Blaspheme, and are ready to say, Where is your God? Then do the Enemies of God Triumph.

Fifthly, Then is Jesus Christ trampled under foot,Pa. 10. and the Ordinances of God defiled and trampled on, and then Blasphemy and Atheism comes in like an Armed man.

Very good, and what can you make out of All This; but that The Loss of the Gospel is a Dreadfull Iudgment: The very Fear of Losing it, a Dismal Apprehension; and that All Other Interests are as Nothing in Competition with Iesus Christ?

Agreed, Thus far all's Right, and as it should be; But come now to his Application.

The Ark of God is (at this instant) in Danger of being lost, Pa. 11. D'ye see? Here is no less then All at Stake, the very first Dash. Ask him now, Where the Danger lies? He An­swers ye, that we have lost our first Love to the Gospel, and to Ibid. the Ordinances. Is not This to Charge the Church of Eng­land with Apostacy? Hear him again; and set his Vanity against his Sedition. More particularly, Aldermanbury may Pa. 12. truly fear the Loss of the Ark, and be Unchurched; for want of a Faithfull Minister to go In and Out before them. That is to say, Famous Mr. Calamy (for that Epithete he bestowes upon Himself) is Remov'd, and consequently the Candle­stick.

Another thing that makes him fear the Loss of the Ark, is, The Abundance of Priests, and Iesuits, that are in the midst Pa. 13. of us, and the Preaching of Popery amongst Us, and the Prone­ness of people to run headlong to the Garlick and Onions of Egypt again. But where are our old Eli's now, to sit watching and Trembling for fear of the Ark? Where are our Moses's, Our Elijah's? Our Uriahs, &c.

Observe This Paragraph well. Here's first, an Open and Express Endeavour to Startle the People with a fear of Popery, which was the very Artifice by which This very Person promoted our Late Troubles.

Secondly, Here's a direct Arraignment of the King, and of his Ministers. Where are Our Moses's, &c.—What is This but to say, Beloved, ye see, Iesus Christ is Departing, Idolatry is breaking In upon us, and Our Moses's, Our Ely's, never look after it. Pray'e lay it a little more to Heart, your selves. You can complain (says he) of Taxes, and Decay Ibid. of Trading; of This Civil Burden, and That Civil Burden: but where's the Man or Woman that Complains of This Misery. [Page 56] The Loss of the Ark? Who lays to Heart, Who Regards what shall become of Religion? There is a strange kind of Indiffe­rency, and Lukewarmness upon most Peoples Spirits: so they may have their Trading go on, and Their Civil Burdens re­mov'd, they care not what becomes of the Ark.

What is This, but to bring Authority to the Barr, and set the Subject upon the Bench? What is it, but in plain Terms, to sollicit the Multitude to a Tumult? For Mr. Ca­lamy knowes very well, that they have no other way in the world to do him a service in This Case, but by Sedition. And for fear of Mistakes, Note, I beseech ye, with what Care the Good man leads them to his Meaning: They can complain of Taxes he sayes, but Hee would have them Complain for the Loss of the Ark; That is, in honest English, He would have them Clamour against the Govern­ment of the Church. The very Truth is, This Gentleman speaks both upon Experience, and Foresight; for no man knowes better, both what it has done, and what it may do. First, as to his Foresight, Rebellion can never be made God's Cause, but by taking the Ark into the Quarrel. Next, to his Experience. This Person was one of the Five that Me­nag'd the Cause of the Rabble against Bishops, some Twenty Years agoe. There was compleyning for fear of the Ark too: and what Ensu'd upon it, but the Dissolution of the Government, the Scandal of Religion, and the Murder of the King? He Blames the People next for their Lukewarm­ness; Pray mark me; They have been once in Arms al­ready since the King came in. They make no scruple at all of Affronting the Law: They have Enter'd into several Plotts upon the very Person of his Sacred Majesty, and All This, for fear of the Ark, as the poor Wretches miserably Imagine. If This Zeal be not sufficient, I wonder what Temper it is that our Religious Salamander would perswade them to: Now take the whole Matter in Complication, and you have

First, A Prohibited Minister Preaching Publiquely in De­spite of a Solemn Law.

[Page 57]Secondly, The Sermon it self is within the Reach of The Act for the King's Safety, Where It is Enacted, That what Person soever, shall Malici­ously and Advisedly publish or affirm the King to be an Heretick or a Papist, or that he en­deavours to Introduce Popery; or shall Ma­liciously and Advisedly, by writing, Print­ing, Preaching; or other speaking, express, publish, utter or declare, any Words, Sen­tences, or other thing or things, to incite or stirr up the people to Hatred or Dislike of the Person of his Maiesty, or the Established Government; then every such person and per­sons being thereof Legally convicted, shall be Disabled to have or enioy, and is hereby Disabled and made Incapable of having, holding, enioying, or exercising any Place, Office, or Promotion Ecclesiastical, Civil, or Military, or any other Imployment in Church or State, other than that of his Peerage, &c.

Thirdly, Here's not only a Reproche cast upon the Govern­ment, but an Appeal Offer'd to the People, for the Re­dress of it.

Now to proceed; You have him Here, Charging upon the Peoples Consciences, the sin of not being sufficiently Pa. 14. affected with the Danger that the Ark of God is in.

It is a sign you do not Love the Gospel; if you had any Ibid. Love to it, you would be troubled more for the danger of the Ark, then for any Outward Danger whatsoever.

Is not This, the very style and scope of—43. (I spare his former Hortatives to the Warr, even for theSermon, Iu [...]. 15.—43. pag. 53, & 51. Credit of the Function,) The Glory of God (he sayes) is Imbark'd in the same Ship which This Cause is in. [Page 58] again, [When you are derided for hazarding Lives and Estates in This Cause, you must reply, It is for God, and his Re­ligion. And what was This Cause, I beseech ye, but the Foulest Conspiracy that ever appear'd under that Masque? (and Those are of all others, certainly, the Foulest.) Re­ligion was Then in Danger, it seems: That is, the Pres­byterian was not as yet sure in the Saddle; nor would That Obstinate and Implacable Faction ever be Quiet, till they forc'd their Soveraign to confute the Imposture with his Bloud.

We have it now from the same Hand, that the Ark is in Danger, and what's that but The Good Old Cause over again, only a little vary'd in the Dress? By the Ark, he has al­ready explain'd Himself to Intend, the Interest of the Ejected Clergy [Pa. 6.]; and what he means by pressing so deep a Concern for the Danger of it, let any sober man Imagine. He tells them first, that the Ark is in danger, and Then conjures them, as they Love the Gospel, not to Regard any Outward Danger whatsoever to save it. If This be not to Invite, Provoke, and Warrant any Violence Imagi­nable, either upon the Person of the King, or upon the Authority of the Law, or wherever else the Multitude shall think fit to fasten the Quarrel; let me suffer the shame that belongs to him that's Guilty of such an Offence. Nor shall the Project want Hammering, for hee's over with it again and again, [Let me beseech ye All to Declare Pa. 16. you are the People of God in DEED, and in Truth, by following the Example of Old Eli, to be very solicitous for the Ark of God—[Consider what a sad Condition we are in, Pa. 17. if the Ark be Taken; What will your Estates doe ye Good, or all your Concernments do ye Good, if the Gospel be Gone?—What is the Glory of England; What is the Glory of Christia­nity but the Gospel? If the Gospel be Gone, our Glory is Gone.—Oh! when the Glory is Gone, who would Desire to Live? He goes on, [I am loth to tell you the story of Chry­sostom;Pa. 17, & 18. he was but One Man, yet when he was banish'd Con­stantinople, the People all Petitioned for him, and said, ☞ They could as well lose the Sun out of the Firmament, as [Page 59] lose Chrysostome from among them. Oh the sad, and la­mentable, and woful Condition we are in, if the Ark of God be taken!

Without any Force to his Meaning, take his Sense in few words. What will your Lives, or Estates avail ye, without the Gospel? Petition for your Chrysostome again. (Good Gentleman! as if the Sole Receptacle of the Holy Ghost were Mr. Calamy's Night-cap) Now to what End this Tends, let Any man look that is not blind. No Man runs the Risque either of his Life, or Fortune, for a Petition; so that his Enforcing so much, the Contempt of Outward Dan­gers, and of all other Concernments, in comparison with the Safety of the Ark, (which is now in Hazard) cannot Ra­tionally be Apply'd to an Action that carries along with it No Danger at all. Wherefore you must of Necessity, Grant, that your friend either Meant Nothing, or Worse; and that his Pressing, and Disposing the Multitude to so great a contempt of their Lives, and Fortunes, was but a Tacit Encouragement of them to some Action that might bring Those Interests in Question.

I perceive, a Presbyterian is well helpt up that has you for his Interpreter.

Can you your self Acquit him?

I must confess, I think he might have Worded it with more Caution.

And then his Horrible, Unchristian, Bitterness against the Government,—You have seen Smectymnuus I suppose.

Yes, yes; He is a little Eager in his Way.

Come, Zeal; I'le Disabuse ye: What will you say, if I bring you to a Person, that shall Averre to Mr. Calamy's Face, that since his Majesty's Return, He has Declar'd Himself not Unsatisfy'd with the Govern­ment, and Discipline of the Church of England, and that only the Importunity of his Parishioners Diverted Him from accepting a Bishoprick? You will the less wonder at This when ye Consider, how Absolutely he was For [Page 60] the Church, till he found it more Beneficial to be A­gainst it.

All that I shall say, is This; Let every man speak as he finds: and so, if you please, wee'll leave him to take his For­tune.

SECT. X. Arguments against TOLERATION in Respect of the Authority that is to Grant it.

COme Gentlemen, I have yet one Exception more to your Toleration, and That is upon the Accompt of the Authority that is to Grant it. From whom do ye Expect it?

From the Parliament.

But what is't you call a Parliament? for, one while the King and the Two Houses in Co-ordination are a Par­liament; and when Ye have Screw'd out the Kings Nega­tive Voyce, The Lords and Commons are a Parliament; and Then down go the Lords, and the Commons alone are a Parliament; and at Last, Out with Them too, For the Foun­tain of Dominion is in the People. This is the Scale of your Politicks. But to the Point in hand; You Apply to the Parliament, and your Grievance is Matter of Consci­ence; Do ye make the Civil Power a Judge of Consci­ence?

No, under Favour, My Desire that the Parliament will Relieve my Conscience, does not Consequently make it a Judge of it.

And with Your Pardon too, How shall the Magi­strate know whether your Conscience is opprest, or no, if he be no Judge of it? One of these Two Rules He is [Page 61] to proceed by; Either That of his own Particular, or the General Rule of all Consciences. If He measure your Conscience by the Former, there's no Oppression in the Case; for His Conscience is very well satisfy'd in That which will not down with Yours. If by the Latter, All other Consciences would be Concern'd as well as Yours, in the Violation of a General Rule: So that Evidently, your Scruples are Singular, and if you cannot bring them within his Cognizance, you must Subject them to his Au­thority; and First teach him to Know when your Consci­ence is troubled, before ye Complain because 'tis not Eas'd.

For That, Every man tells his owne Tale best, and may best be Credited in That which No body knows but Him­self.

And under That Colour, so Many Men as make no Conscience at all of an Imposture, shall pretend to make one of a Ceremony. Peruse the Tragedies of our Holy Leagues, Covenants, and Reformations: What Crime so Execrable that has not been Committed under the Motto of Gods Cause, and Patronage of Conscience? What Act so Horrid, that has not past for a Divine Impulse; and (if it Hit) the Author of it for an Inspired Instrument of Iustice? Nay more; not One Notorious Practice of a Hundred, upon the Person of a Prince, but under a Religious Vernish; and Commonly, a Priest at the One End of it, and an Impulse at the Other.

Was it not a Holy Father and the Prior of the Covent (one of the Heads of the League) that Confirm'd Clement in his Purpose of Murdering Harry the Third of France? ForDavila Delle Guer. Civ. di F [...]an. Lib. 10. his Encouragement; They Assur'd him, that if he out-liv'd the Fact, he should be a Cardinal; if he Dy'd, a Saint: and This was it that fixt him in his Determination. What was it again, that Originally Dispos'd this Monster to That Dire­ful Villany; but principally Seditious Sermons against the Ibid. King as a Persecuting Tyrant? [Stimolato dalle predicationi, the giornalmente sentiva fare contra Henrico di Valois, nomi nato il persecutore della fede, & il Tiranno, &c.] See in the [Page 62] same Author, the Confession of Iohn Castle, concerning his Attempt upon Harry the Great, which was, that he had been brought up in the Jesuites School, and Instructed, that it was not only Lawful, but Meritorious to Destroy Harry of Bour­bon, that Revolted Heretick and Persecutor of the Holy Church [Esaminato con le solite forme, confesso libera­mento, Lib. 14. &c.] What was it that Animated Ravillac to his Damn'd Practice upon that Brave Prince, but (by his own Confession) a Discourse of Mariana's, De Rege, & Regis Institutione? 'Twas a Divine Instinct too, that Mov'd Bal­thasar Gerard to Destroy the Prince of Aurange [Divine Strada de Bello Belgico Lib. 5. tantum Instinctu id à se patratum constanter Affirmabat, diu Tortus, &c. To conclude with that Fresh and Horrible Instance here at Home; Acted upon the Sacred Person of the Late King. What was it, but the Operation of That Poyson in the People, which was Instill'd into them by their Ministers? How Inconsistent then is the Liberty of the Pulpit, with the Safety of the Government? and how Great a Madness were it to Expect, that the same Persons should Establish This Prince by virtue of the same Liberty by which They Ruin'd the Last?

You cannot certainly but Confess the Hazard to his Sa­cred Majesty of Granting a Toleration; take a little No­tice now, of the Indignity in proposing it. That Grace which were an Ample Reward even for the most Meritorious Ser­vices, and Loyalty, do These People Mutinously Demand as a Requital for the Contrary.

Will ye oppose the Exercise of a Charity, because it may be Abus'd.

No, but I shall Oppose the Encouragement of a Confidence that Presses to be Requited for an Injury: and in truth, Your Petition properly taken, is rather a Mockery then a Request. As for the Purpose, What is't ye stick at?

The Act for Uniformity.

Is it the Model, or the Uniformity that troubles you?

Why truly I Except to Both; for Neither is the [Page 63] Particular Act fram'd to my satisfaction, nor is it possible, that any One Form of Worship should suit All Judgments.

Will Toleration suit All Judgments any better then Uniformity? Or do ye accompt the Sanction of any One Form Whatsoever, to be Lawfull?

Indeed I do not think it lawfull for a Magistrate to Enjoyn any thing upon a Penalty, which a Private Person may not lawfully obey him in; nor do I think it Warrantable for a Man to Obey any Humane Command against his Con­science.

Now lay together what you have said; First, It is not Possible, that any One Form of Worship should suit All Iudgments; and then it is not lawfull to Enjoyn any thing upon a Penalty, which does not suit All Iudgments. What is This but a meer Trifling of Government, to suppose a Law without an Obligation? Again; If the Magistrate cannot Impose, neither can he Tolerate; unless you'l suppose him a more Competent Judge of Your Conscience, then of his Own: for you Allow him the Cognisance of what he may Tolerate, and Deny him the Knowledge of what he may Impose. In fine, Your Arguments, and Opinions, duely weigh'd, his Majesty has either no Power, or no Reason to permit you a Toleration; No Power, as You state his Capacity, and no Reason as you Disclaim his Suprema­cie.

I do not Oppose the Coactive Power of the Civil Magistrate, in Matters of Civil Concernment; but I take the Case in Question to be of Another Quality, and out of the Verge of the Secular Iurisdiction.

I think it will become you then, not to Impor­tune his Majesty for the Dissolving of an Ecclesiastical Law, before you acknowledge him Vested with the Right of Making it.

If you think fit; let that Point be the Next Que­stion.

Agreed; it shall.

SECT. XI. The Proper Subject and Extent of Humane Power.

AS Reasonable Nature consists of Soul, and Body; so is the Authority that Governs it, Divine and Humane; God, Eminently over All, and Princes Ministe­rially under Him, and as His Substitutes. The Dominion of our Souls God reserves peculiarly to Himself, com­mitting That of our Bodyes to the Care of the Magistrate. Now if Power be a. Divine Ordinance, so consequently is Subjection; for, to Imagine the One without the Other, were to Destroy the Ratio of Relatives. A sober Disqui­sition of This Matter, would save much Trouble that ari­ses about the Bounds and Limits of our Duty; how far Re­ligion binds us, and how far Allegeance. That they are severable, we must not doubt, for Truth it self hath said it; Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's: But that They are only so severable, as never to become Inconsistent, is founded upon the same Immovable Rock, Let every soul be subject, &c.—a Precept of a Perpetual, and Universal Ope­ration, and Limited neither to Time, Place, nor Per­sons.

Your Deduction of Government, and Subjection from Divine Institution, is well enough Coucht, and that we are to Obey the Magistrate for God's sake, and in subordination to God, is Easily Prov'd, and Granted; but I hear Nothing yet of the Particular Bounds and Terms of Humane Juris­risdiction, What 'tis belongs to God, and What to Cae­sar.

That I confess, is the Pinch of the Question; for One Duty comes up so close to the Other, that 'tis not for Every Common Eye to passe between them. [Page 65] Effectually, they Touch; but, in what Point, is of a Nice De­cision. The Readyest way in my opinion, to the strict Knowledge of our Duty, is by the Lawes and Powers of the Authority; for, 'tis Requisite that a Man know the Rule, before he can Observe it. Wee are then to Consider, that the Almighty Wisdom has Invested Kings with an Unli­mited Power of Commanding, or Forbidding, in all matters which God himself has not either Commanded, or Forbidden; which Proposition Resolves it self into This Conclusion,

Whatsoever God has left Indifferent, is the subject of Humane The subject of Humane Pow­er. Power.

Does not That Opinion destroy Christian Li­berty?

No: but the Denyal of it Destroyes Magistracy. If Kings have not This Power, they have none at all; and it Implyes a Contradiction, to suppose any Authority in Nature without it.

But may not a Prince tye himself up in a Thing Otherwise Indifferent?

I speak of Power according to the Institution, not of Power limited by Paction.

May not the same thing be Indifferent to One, and not so to Another?

Granted; and I pray'e follow it a little further. May not every thing Imaginable appear Non-Indifferent to some or other; if nothing can be commanded, but what upon such a Phansy may be Disobey'd?

Pardon me, I do not speak of Matters of Civil Con­cern, but of Matters of Religion.

That's all a Case; for you cannot Instance in any One Civil Action, that may not be made Relative to Re­ligion. But stick to the Mark; We are upon the Extent of Humane Power: That there is such a Power; and That Authoris'd too by God Himself, You have already grant­ed: Now tell me, Upon what shall That Power be Exer­cis'd, if you Exclude things Indifferent? One man may have a Reall Scruple; and All the Rest, Pretend one; Who shall Distinguish? So that the Rule holding from One, to [Page 66] All, the Sacred Authority of the Prince becomes De­pendent upon the Pleasure of the Subject, and the Va­lidity of a Divine and Unchangeable Ordinance, is sub­jected to the Mutable Judgement and Construction of the People.

It may be You Expect the Magistrate should as well have a Power of Judging what's Indifferent, as of Restreyn­ing it.

You may be sure, I do; for otherwise I'm where I was, if I make You the Judge: Is't not all one, as to the Magistrate, Whether you Refuse upon Pretense that the Thing is not Indifferent, or upon Pretense that he cannot Restreyn a Thing Indifferent? The Crime in­deed is differing in the Subject; for the One way 'tis an Usurpation of Authority, and the Other way, 'tis a Denyall of it.

Why then it seems, I am to Believe any thing In­different, which the Magistrate tells me is so, be it never so Wicked.

No; There You 're bound up by a Superiour Law.

Have you forgot your self so soon? 'Twas but just now, you would not allow me to be a Iudge, and here you Make me One.

Right; to your self you are, but not to the Publique: A Judge of your own Thought, but not of the Law.

At your rate of Arguing now from One to All; Authority, methinks, should be as much Endanger'd This way, as the Other; for All may Iudge Thus, as well as One.

'Tis possible they May; Nay wee'll suppose an Imposition foul Enough to move them all to do so; and yet there's a Large Difference; for, Diversity of Iudgment does not shake the Foundation of Authority; and a man may Disobey a sinful Command with great Reverence to the Power that Imposes it.

You were saying even now, that my Duty to God, and to the King, could never be Inconsistent: Pray'e, How shall I behave my self, if the Prince Commands One thing, and God, Another? I cannot Observe the Law, without Violence to my Conscience, nor Discharge my Conscience, without Of­fence to the Law; What Course shall I take to avoid Enter­fering?

Demean your Self as a Christian toward the Law of God, on the One hand; and as a Subject, toward the Ordi­nance of God on the Other: as Considering that you are Discharg'd of your Obedience, but not of your Subje­ction.

Suppose the Supreme Magistrate should by a Law Establish a False Worship.

Hee's still your Prince, and even in This Com­plication, you may acquit your self both to God, and Caesar. Divide the Worship from the Magistrate, and in so doing, you both Fear God, and Honour the King; and it is only This Loyal and Religious Separation of our Duties, that must set us right in the Main Controversie. Where do ye find that Kings Reign upon Condition of Ruling Righte­ously? Or that we owe them less After Misgovernment, than we did Before?

But do ye say, we are bound to Honour an Idolatrous Prince?

Yes, yes: the Prince you are bound to Honour, though not as an Idolater. Shall the Vice or Error of the Person, blemish the faultless Dignity of the Order? By That Rule, the world must Continue without a Govern­ment, till we can find Men without Failings.

So that you allow I perceive of Distinguishing be­twixt the Person and the Office.

Betwixt the Frailty of the One, and the Sacredness of the Other, I do: for Kings Command as Gods, though they Iudge as Men: but I do no more allow of Dividing the Person of a Prince from his Authority, then of Dividing his Soul from his Body.

And, I beseech ye, what is that which you Call Au­thority?

To tell ye Only that it is Gods Ordinance, falls short, I believe, of the Scope of your▪ Question. Where­fore take This in Surplusage. It is the Will and Power of a Multitude, Deliver'd up by Common Consent to One Person or More, for the Good and Safety of the Whole: and this Single or Plural Representative Acts for All. Take This along with ye too. The Disposition of such or such a Number of Persons into an Order of Comman­ding and Obeying is That which we call a Society.

What is the Duty of the Supreme Magistrate?

To procure the Welfare of the People, or, ac­cording to the Apostle; He is the Minister of God, for a Comfort to Those that Do Well, and for a Terrour to Evill-Doers.

How far are his Lawes binding upon his Subjects?

So far as They that parted with their Power had a Right over Themselves.

Whence was the Original of Power, and what Form of Government was First, Regal, or Popular?

Power was Ordain'd of God, but Specify'd by Man; and beyond doubt, the First Form of Goverment was Mo­narchique.

Nay, Certainly the Popular Form was first, for How could there be a King without a People?

So was the Son before the Father (you'll say) for How could there be a Father without a Son. But the Question is First, Was the World ever without a Govern­ment, since the Creation of Man? Secondly, Whether was first in the World, One Man, or More? I see well enough what 'tis You'd be at; You would fain advance the Popu­lar Form above the Regal: which if ye could, 'twere No­thing to our purpose; for we are not upon the Form of Go­vernment, but upon the Latitude of Humaene Iurisdiction, be the Sovereignty where it will; and that it extends to what­soever God has left Indifferent, is my Assertion. If you De­ny This, You Overthrow All Government, (as is already prov'd) and if you Grant it, we are at Liberty for the next Enquiry which is concerning,

SECT. XII. The Bounds of TOLERATION; with some Reflections upon SCHISM, and SCANDAL.

IT is already agreed, that Government is a Divine Eccles. Polit▪ Lib. 1. Pa. 7. Ordinance; and Order (according to the Reverend Hooker) is only, A Manifestation of the Eternal Law of God. So that I think, a Man may safely pronounce (upon This Allowance) First, that What Principle soever is Manifestly Destructive of Government, or but rationally tending to Con­fusion, cannot le of God. Secondly, Every Man is to Con­tent himself in his Station as being no farther accomptable, than for what's committed to his Charge. Under These Two Heads will be found (if I mistake not) whatsoe­ver belongs to the Political Part of our Debate.

We are here to enquire, not how far Toleration may be Convenient, or otherwise; but how far Warrantable and Lawful: and I find it (by a Reverend, and Learned Pre­late) brought to This Standard, [In the Question of To­leration, The Foundation of Faith, Good Life, and Govern­ment is to be Secur'd.] Wherein is compris'd a Provision and Care, that we may live as Christians toward God; as Members of a Community toward one another; and as Loyal Subjects toward our Sovereign. Now if you'll ad­mit Opinions to be only so far Tolerable as they Con­sist with These Duties of Religion, Morality, and Society, We have no more to do, but to apply Matters in Contro­versie to the Rules of Piety, and Good Manners, and to the Ends of Government.

'Tis True; were Men Agreed upon Those Rules: But we see Several Men have Various apprehensions of the same [Page 70] thing; and that which One Man takes for a Rule, Another Counts an Errour.

By your Argument, we shall have no Religion, because Men Differ about the Right; No Bible, because Men Disagree about the Meaning of it: No Rule, in fine, at all to square our Actions by, till Truth, and Reason shall be Establisht by a Popular Vote.

The Law says Worship Thus, or So; use This Form, That Ceremony, Posture, Habit, &c.—The Libertine cries No, 'tis a Confinement of the Spirit; an Invention of Man; a Making of That Necessary which God left Free; a Scandal to Tender Consciences, &c.—And Here's Authority Concluded, as to the Manner of Wor­ship.

So for the Time. How do They know when Christ was Born, or Crucify'd? Nay, They have much adoe to call to Mind when the Late King was Murder'd: but the Relief of Taunton, and the Repulse They gave the Cavaliers at Lyme: This They can very well Re­member, and Celebrate Those Daies of Mercy with a most Superstitious Gravity, and Form. The Churches Fasting-Daies, They make their Iubilees; and still it happens, that Their Consciences and the Law, run Coun­ter.

'Tis the same Thing, as to the Place; Command Them to Church; They'll tell ye, there's no Inherent Holiness in the Walls; the Hearts of the Saints, are the Temples of the Lord. Is not God to be found in a Parlour, as well as in a Steeple-House? In fine, What's their Plea for All This; but that, This is One Mans Iudgment, That, Anothers: This or That may be Indifferent to You, but not to Mee. What's Indifference to Christiani­ty? This sickly Humour opens a door to as many Con­troversies as there are Men; it leaves Authority, naked; and exposes the Law to any mans Scorn, that shall think fit to Scruple his Obedience.

To conclude; This Lawless Liberty, Razes the very [Page 71] foundation of Government; it creates as many Religions, as there are several Phansies; and, briefly, the Assertors of This Liberty are of the Number of Those that are not upon any Terms to be admitted within the Pale of a Tole­ration.

Shall the Magistrate make me Act against my Conscience?

Shall the Subject make Him Tolerate against His? But to proceed; There are that place [Parker, Goodwin, Ru­therford, Mil­ton, &c.] the Soveraignty in the Diffusive Body of the People, that hold it Law­full for the Subjects to enter into Leagues and Covenants, not only Without the Soveraign's Consent, but Against his Authority; that call upon the People in the Pul­pit, [E. Cal. Noble-mans Pattern, pa. 45.] to Assist the Forces raised by the PARLIAMENT, according to their Power and Vocation, and not to Assist the Forces raised by the KING, neither DIRECTLY nor IN­DIRECTLY: That Proclaym [E. C. Phoe­nix, pa. 158, & 159.] the breach of the Natio­nal Covenant, to be a greater sin, then a sin against a Com­mand'ment, or against an Ordinance—a sin of so high a Nature, that God cannot in Honour but be Aveng'd upon't.

These are a People likewise, whose Principles stand in no Consistence either with Piety or with Government; and can as little Pretend to the Benefit of a Toleration as the Former.

There are that Asfirm, [Rutherfords Due Right of Presbyteryee, Pa. 485.] Reformation of Religion to be the People's Duty no Less then the King's: [Ibid. p. 488.] and that the Pastors of the Land are Oblig'd to Reform Themselves and Re­ligion without the King; nay, though the King command the contrary.

There are that Print [Mr. Man­ion's Smectym­nuus, Publisht since his Maje­sties Return, pa. 58.] the English Episcopal Clergy to be sons of Belial; that Press the Cutting of them off; that scandalously Charge Them with Drunkennesse, Prophanesse, Superstition, Popishness: To the Dishonour of that Go­vernment which his Majesty has sworn to Maintain, and to the Hazard of the Publique Peace. These also do I take to be a People, whose Practices and Opinions Threaten a certain and swift Destruction both to Church and State, Wherever They are Tolerated. What secu­rity [Page 72] can a Prince expect, where his Mistakes are made the common Theme of the Pulpit, and where His Regali­ties are subjected, to the Good Pleasure of His Sub­jects.

You do not think it Lawfull then I perceive, to Tolerate the Non-conformists.

Till they renounce their Seditious, and Anti-Mo­narchical wayes, I must confess I do not.

And which are Those I beseech ye?

Their Inconformity to the Law; Their Doctrine of Conditional Obedience: Their Erecting an Ecclesiastical Supremacy to overtop the Prerogative Royall; To say no more, Their Declaring the Magistrate accomptable to the People.

Conformity, You have spoken some sharp Truths, and it is to be presum'd that you'l Allow the Liberty you Take. Whether do you believe Scandal to be any more Tole­rable, than Schism? Or, are not the Sons of the Church (as ye call them) as Guilty of the One, as the Non-con­formists are of the Other.

Scandal, My good Friend, is a General Term; especially as you frequently apply it: and 'tis but Rea­son for me to ask your Meaning, before I give you my Answer. To say, that the Sons of the Church are Guilty of Scandal, when, eo nomine, they appear to you Scandalous, is no more then to say, that the Sons of the Church are the Sons of the Church: for, the Church it self, the Govern­ment, and the Rites of it, are All, Scandalous to You. Wherefore I beseech ye, be a little more Particular, that I may understand what Scandal you intend, and be as plain, as playn may be.

Nay, you shall have it then, and as plainly too as your Heart can wish. Your Position is, that No Tolera­tion can warrantably be Granted to the Hazard of Reli­gion, Good Life, and Government.

According to That Standard, You'ld find, that the Con­formists have as little Right to a Toleration, as their Neigh­bours; and that the Notorious Scandal on the One side, [Page 73] out-weighs the Pretended Schism on the Other. But, to make my self understood; by Scandal, I mean Publique and Habi­tual Prophaneness, Sensuality, Dissolution of Manners, &c.—as, by Schism and Sedition, I suppose You intend our Incomplyances with your Church-Discipline: Our Preach­ing up the Power of Godliness, against the Form of it, (which You Interpret to be a Decrying of your Ceremonies) and our Exhortings, rather to obey God than Man, (which you are apt to take for an Affront to your Master's Preroga­gative.)

'Tis true; We cannot bring up our Consciences to your Ceremonies, and, for Refusing to doe, what we cannot Iustifie the Doing of, we are Baptiz'd, Schismatiques. This Exter­mination of Us from the Publique Assembly, puts us upon the Necessity of Private Meetings; and There We are Charg'd with Plotts; and Practices upon the State. Take it all at the Worst, It is but doing That which the Whole World agrees must Necessarily be done▪ after such a Manner as some People Imagine we ought not to do it. So much for the Schism of the Non-Conformists. Now put the Scandal of the Adverse Party into the Other Scale, and You Your self shall hold the Ballance.

Set but Your Tavern-Clubs against Our Conventicles, and (since you will have it so) Oppose our Plotts against the Government in the One, to your Combinations against God Himself in the Other; (for Atheism is become the Sport, and Wit; the Salt of your most Celebrated Enterteinments.) In Your own Words, [The Eternal Verity is made a Fable; Religion but a Scar-Crow, (the sour Impression of a Super­stitious Melancholy,) nor, is't enough to Abandon Heaven, unless ye Invade it too; and in the Throne of Providence, set up the Empire, and Divinity, of Fortune. When you have dash'd the Bible out of Countenance, with the conceit of The Three Grand Impostors, or some such tart piece of Drolle­ry, (and all This Enterlarded with Execrable, and study'd Blasphemyes) the Man must be cast off, as well as the Chri­stian; and there's the Upshot of your Familiar Conversa­tions. If such People as These may be Tolerated, where's [Page 74] your▪ Foundation of Faith, Good Life, and Govern­ment?

We are fallen, I must confess into a Lewd Age; and yet truly, when I consider, that This Nation has been Twenty years under your Tuition, 'tis a Greater Wonder to me; that it is not quite Overspread with Atheism, than to find it Only Teinted and Infected with it. The Reproche and Load of This Impiety, you have cast upon the Episco­pal Party: but when we come to Trace the Monster to his Den, I'm afraid we shall bring the Footsteps of Him up to your own Dore.

That there are Exorbitants in all Perswasions, is a Thing not to be doubted; and that there are in ours as well as in Others, I will not Deny; but to Asperse the Cause for Personal Misdemeanours, is, to my thinking, very Disinge­nuous. If ye will Charge Personal Crimes upon the Ac­compt of a Party, You should be sure to Make out Those Crimes to be Rationally Consequent to the Tenents, or Actings, of That Party. Now if you can shew me Any Affi­nity betwixt our Principles, and Those Villanyes, you say something; but if ye cannot, the Dust of your Argu­ment puts out your own Eyes.

You forget that you Condemn your own Practice; for why may not I Charge Personal Extravagancies upon your Party, as well as You do it upon Ours?

Only because there is not That Affinity (as I said but now) betwixt the Principles of the Party, and the Faults of the Persons; on the One side, which I find on the Other. To make This as Clear as the Day, wee'l open it Thus.

The Episcopal Party was for the King, and 'tis undeny­able, that the King, and the Church, had both the same Cause, and the same Fate. The Nonconformists were against the King; and it is There as unquestionable, that They were the Men that Destroy'd both Church, and State. So that the Issue lies within This Compass; Whether the Soveraignty be in the King, or in the People? If in the King, the Rebellion was on your side; if in the People, the [Page 75] Guilt of the Warr lyes upon us. Now place the Power where ye please; Do ye own the Kings Authority, or do ye Disclaim it? If ye Disclaim it, why do ye Petition to your Inferiour? or why should the King favour his Compe­titours? If ye Acknowledge it, Wee'l proceed upon This Grant, that the Non-Conformists were in a Rebellion; and prove that all the Transcendent Abominations which you Compleyn of, are but the proper, and Natural Fruits, that have proceeded from That Root.

You know there have been several Popular Tracts written upon This Subject; as—some-bodyes Soveraign Power of Parliaments. Rutherford's Lex Rex, &c. that never were Answer'd yet.

Well said Old True-penny. I think the Assem­blyes Letter to the Reformed Churches, was never Answer'd neither. But, to be serious. There are indeed many dan­gerous, and seditious Treatises that lye unanswer'd (the more's the shame, and Pity.) If no body were wiser then my self; The sum of them All should be Confuted in one☜ just Volume, and the Origina's committed to the Fire, for the security of the Future.

But you were about to tell us how Rebellion begets Atheism.

Well Remembred; and I pray'e Observe. There are but Two sorts of People that are Capable of being drawn into a Rebellion, the Weak and the Wicked; Those that do not understand what they doe, and Those that care not what they doe. The Ordinary Stale, is Religion; the Scene of This spiritual Imposture is the Pulpit, and the Arbitrators of the Cause are the Preachers; by the benefit of which Conjuncture, (to wit) of the Weight of the Mat­ter in Question; [Religion] with the Authority appoynted to Determine it; [God's Ministers] it is no hard business for a Peinfull and Well-affected Ministry (That is, Painfull, and well-affected in, and to the Design) to Preach the Ge­nerality of the People into This Division: [i. e.] Those that cannot reach the Cheat to scruple at every thing; and Those that go along with it, to make a Conscience of No­thing: [Page 76] and hence it comes, that This Kingdome is so Pes­ter'd with Enthusiasts, and Atheists.

But I tell ye again; the Atheists are on the wrong side: The Atheists are Against us.

Let me Enform ye then, that Your Proceedings have Made Atheists, More waies then One.

First, The Meer Quality of your Cause, has made A­theism the Interest of Many of Your Partakers; Who to put off That Horrour which attends them if there be a God, Endeavour to perswade themselves that there is no God at all.

Secondly, The Work has been carried on under the Masque of Holiness; and the most Desperate Atheist, is no­thing else but a Crusted Hypocrite. I speak of your Religi­ous Atheist, who has This odds of the Prophane, and Scoffing Wretch, that he abuses God to his Face, and in his own House. The Great Atheists, indeed, are Hypocrites (sayes Sir Francis Bacon) which are ever handling Holy Things, but Essay of A­theism. without Feeling; so as they must needs be Cauteriz'd in the End. It is Remarquable, (as I have elsewhere observ'd) that in the Holy Scripture there are not so many Woes pro­nounc'd, nor so many Cautions Inculcated, against any Sort of People as against Hypocrites. You shall There find that God has given the Grace of Repentance to Persecutors, Idolaters, Murtherers, Adulterers, &c. but I'm mistaken if the whole Bible Yields any one Instance of a Converted Hy­pocrite.

Thirdly, Let me tell ye, for the Honour of your Pra­ctises, that as to the Defence of Atheism, you have done more then All that ever went before ye; upon that No­ble Argument. Your People were not [a WICKED, PRO­PHANE, E. Calaus. Serm. Dec. 28. 1662. Pa. 21. DRUNKEN Ministry (They would never have Setled the Ark) but SOBER, PIOUS, GODLY Mini­sters, that did the Feat:—a Praying, and Reforming People. Pa. 19. Indeed a People that would Seize a Brother's Benefice with more Reverence, then Any of our Prelates gives a Charity.

Be not severe, Conformity.

Then bid your Brethren leave their Gibbrish, and their Iugling; and wee'll to our Atheism again. Answer me Soberly, What if a State should grant a Toleration, for all men to talk of God-Almighty as they please?

A Horrid, Impious Proposition!

Thou art the Man, Scruple; That which you Ask is more and worse; for the Liberty is the same, and the Danger Infinitely Greater. In Earnest, He that Looks narrowly through our Late Troubles, from 1640 to 60. will find Matter not Only to Stagger a Weak Christian, but to put a Wiseman to a Second Thought; and to make him Exclaim with the Prophet, [Lo, These are the Ungodly, Psal. 73. v. 12. these prosper in the World, and these have Riches in posses­sion—Then have I cleansed my heart in Vain, and washed my hands in Innocency.

To see Nye, and Marshall with their hands lifted up un­the Lord in a Holy Covenant; Swearing to Day to Defend and Preserve the King's Majesty's Person, &c. and a while after with the same Consecrated Lips, Blessing That Cursed Vote, that Manifestly Led to His Destruction (The Vote of Non-Addresses) which was no more then saying Grace to the Kings Bloud. To see a Gang of Pulpit-Weather­cocks Shifting from Party to Party, till they have run through every point of the Compass, Swearing, and Counter­swearing; and when the City was Split into more Factions, then Parishes, Still to Mainteyn, that the whole Schism was acted by the Holy-Ghost. To find the Pulpit in stead of Plain and Saving Truths Trading Only in Dark and Ora­culous Delusions, and the Pretended Messengers of Peace, turn'd Agents for Bloud—To hear and see All This, and More, and the Cause Prosper too. What could the Wit of Man add more to This Temptation to Apostacy?

Lastly, I must Impute much of That Iniquity which now Reigns, to your Necessitated Toleration: I call it Ne­cessitated, for you could never have Crush't the Govern­ment without it. That Toleration started so Many Lewd Opinions, that it was Some Degree of Modesty, for Fear of a Worse Choyce, to be of No Religion at all; and beyond [Page 78] Question, Many People finding it left so Indifferent of What Religion they were; became Themselves as Indif­ferent, whether they were of Any Religion or no.

You have forc'd me here, in My own Defence, to be a little Sharper then I intended; and truly since we are In thus far, and that the Schismatiques think it so Mighty a matter to hit the Prelatical Party i'th' teeth at every Turn, with the Imputation of SCANDAL; I beseech ye tell me,

Which o'the Two do you count the more Tolerable, SCANDAL, or SCHISM?

If by Schism you mean, a Refusal to joyn with That Church where I cannot Communicate without Sin: and if you intend by Scandal, such Actions as are of Ill example, and administer occasion to your neighbour of Falling, I think 'tis easily Determin'd, that the One is not to be Suffer'd, and the Other not to be Condemn'd.

When I speak of Schism, and Scandal, let not me be understood, to speak of This or That Sort, or Degree of Either; but in the Just Latitude both of the One, and the Other: That is; without more Circumstance, Which do you take for the more Tolerable Mischief of the Two?

Truly betwixt a Perverse-Separation, and a No­torious Scandal, I think the Choyce is hard: but I rather In­cline against the Scandal.

Then let me tell ye, Schism is Both; and if ye will believe Sir Francis Bacon, [Heresies and Schisms, are Essay of Unity of Religion. of all others the Greatest Scandals; yea more then Corrupti­on of Manners.] Consider it first, as it stands in Opposition to Unity, (which is the Bond both of Religion, and Society) what can be more Scandalous then That which renders Re­ligion it self, Ridiculous? and That's the Effect of Schism. To see so many several Factions Grinning one upon another, and yet all pretending to the same One, and In­fallible Spirit! To bring it homer, How Great a Shame and Trouble is This to Those that are within us! How great a Discouragement to such as are without us; and How [Page 79] great a Subject of Rejoycing is it to Those that are Against us! How many (in fine) has it driven From us; and how many more has it hinder'd from coming to us! Again; 'tis seldome, (I think I might say, never) seen, that Schism goes Alone: and in Effect, it is but Sedition in a Disguise. For we find that our Scrupulous Dissenters, can with great Ease, and Unity, agree in a War, though not in a Cere­mony.

And may there not be Conspiracies in Scandal, as well as in Schism? There, with an Evident Design to bring Contempt upon Religion: whereas Here, we find at least a Colour, and Pretence to uphold it. Beside; the sins which I accompt Scandalous, are, many of them, Levell'd at the Pre­rogative of God Himself; and, in short, the Question is not properly, and simply, betwixt Schism, and Scandal, but be­twixt Schism, and ail other sins whatsoever that may be Propagated by Conversation; (for That's the Latitude of Scandal)

Again, let me observe from your own mouth, that He­resies are Scandals, and several Heresies you know, both by the Laws of God and Man, are Punish'd with Death. He Numb. 24. 16. that Blasphemeth the Name of the Lord, shall be put to Death. And from hence you may gather some Difference sure, betwixt the heynousness of the One, and of the Other.

If you will measure the Sin by the Punishment, you'll proceed by a very uncertain Rule: for Political Laws regard rather Publique Conveniences, than Particu­lar Cases of Conscience. A man shall lose his Life for Picking a Pocket, and but hazard his Ears for a False Oath. But if you'll refer the matter to the Just and Infallible Judge of all the World, [...] God Himself; look but into that dreadful Judgement upon the Schism of Korah. Korah, Dathan, &c. rose against Moses with two Numb. 16. 1. hundred and fifty Captains of the Assembly, famous in the Con­gregation, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, V. 3. since all the Congregation is Holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Wherefore then Lift ye your selves [Page 80] above the Congregation of the Lord. [And what follow'd?] The Earth open'd her mouth, and swallow'd Them up with V. 32. their Families, and all the Men that were with Korah, &c. A fire came out from the Lord, and consum'd the two hun­dred V. 35. and fifty Men that Offer'd the Incense. This set the Multitude a muttering against Moses and Aaron; saying Ye have kill'd the people of the Lord. See now what cameV. 41. of This Muttring too: Fourteen thousand seven hundred of V. 49. them were consum'd by a Plague.

Well! but what if you'll understand That to be Schism, which I know to be Conscience?

Then have you the same Freedome to be Even with me, upon the Point of Scandal; and so the Con­troversie must be Endless for want of a Judge to De­cide it.

SECT. XIII. The Necessity of a Final, and Unaccomptable JUDGE.

WHat's your Opinion of the Necessity of a Iudge?

I'm clearly for a Judge; that is, for a Iudge furnish'd as well with a Competency of Understanding to Determine Aright, as with a Power and Commission to Determine.

A Iudge supposes One Competency, as well as the Other; But the Determination must be Final, and Deci­sive; No Appeal From it, and no Contending Beyond it.

What not in Case of Errour? I should be sorry to see a Roman Infallibility set up in England.

How you start now from the shadow of an Infal­lible Judge, into the Inconvenience of None at all! You would have a Judge you say: but then, That Judg must be Questionable, in Case of Errour; so that another Judg is to Judg Him, and the very Judg of This Judg is Himself Questionable; and so is His Judg, and his Judges Judg;- (to the end of the Chapter) In case of Errour: Which Case of Errour may be alledg'd, Wheresoever there's no Infallibility; and if there be no Infallibility in Nature, then by Your Rule, there can be no Iudg in Nature.

I do not say but a man may Iudg Certainly in some Cases, though not Infallibly in All; and my demand is only the Free Exercise of my Iudgment of Discretion, without being Ty'd up to an Implicit Resignation. There is (in short) but a Right, and a Wrong; and the One I must Embrace, and Reject the Other. How shall I know This from That, with­out Enquiry? and what am I the better for That Enquiry, if when I have Learn'd my Duty, I am debar'd the Liberty to Practise it?

You turn the Question here from the Necessity of a Judge, to his Infallibility. 'Tis not a half-penny to Me, whether you make him Infallible, or Credible, or Pro­bable; or what you make him, or where you place him, pro­vided that he be acknowledg'd▪ Necessary, and Unaccompta­ble. Necessary, I suppose you will not stick at: for there can be no Peace without him, every man being at Liber­ty to wrangle, where no man is Authoris'd to Deter­mine.

What is it that either Invites Tyranny, or Upholds it, but the Opinion of an Unaccomptable-Sovereignty?

What is it rather (you should have said) that Ex­cites Sedition, and Depopulates Kingdomes, but the Contrary? and the Fiercest Tyranny, is much more supportable then the Mildest Rebellion.

I shall readily allow you the Convenience of a Defi­nitive Judgment, if you will but secure me from the Danger of a Definitive Injustice.

You mistake your self, if you Oppose a Possible In­jury on the One side, to a Certain Strife and Confusion on the Other. If Infallibility you cannot find, why may not the the Fairest Probability Content you?

But would you have That Probability, Govern by Unquestionable, and Authoritative Conclusions?

By any means; Ye do nothing, else; for where Controversies are Inevitable, and Concord Necessary; what can be more Reasonable, than to chuse the most Competent Iudge of the Matter in Controversie, for the Con­cluding Umpire of the Controversie it self?

But a man may Iudge Probably in One Case, and Improbably in Another. Suppose the Determination to be manifest Errour, or Injustice; would you have the same Sub­mission pay'd to't, as if it were Equity, and Truth?

Yes; to the Determination, though not to the Er­rour: You are to stand to the Authority of the Sentence, without Contesting the Equity of it: for Right or Wrong, 'tis a Decision. The Principal Scope, and sure end of a Reference, is Peace: the Hopeful Event, and Issue of it, [Page 83] is, Righteous Judgment. Is it not well then, to be Sure of the One, and in so fair Hopes of the Other? Put it to the Worst: You are not bound to be of the Judge his Opinion, but to be over-rul'd by his Authority: neither do you un­dertake that he shall Judge wisely as to the Subject of the Question, but that he shall Judge Effectually, as to the pur­pose of the Reference.

This Resignation may do well, in Cases of Civil Inte­rest: but it will hardly hold in matters of Conscience. Who shall pretend to Iudge of my Conscience, beside God, and my self?

The Scripture, which is the Rule of all Consciences, shall be the Iudge of Yours. But the Question is not, What your Conscience IS, but what it OUGHT to be: not what your Private Judgment Says, but what the Scripture Means: and the thing I strive for, is a Judge of That; A Iudge of the Rule of Faith; which I take to be all out as Necessary as a Iudge of a Political Law.

You cannot but Allow, that there are Diversities of O­pinions, as well in Religion, as concerning Secular Affairs: and such is our Corruption, that we draw Poyson even from the Fountain of Life, and the Word of God it self, is made the warrant of all Crimes, and the Foundation of all Heresies.

Look behind ye, and you may see a Prince Murther'd by his Subjects, Authority Beheaded by a pretended Law, and All This Defended by a Text. The Church Dovour'd by a Divided Ministry; the Government Overturn'd by a So­lemn League and Covenant, to Support it. An Arbitrary Power Introduc'd by the Patrons of Liberty, and Charity it self extinguish'd for the Advancement of the Gospel. We have liv'd to see as many Haeresies, as Congregations; and among Those of the Classical way, a Consistorian Sarutiny Ex­ercised beyond the Rigour of a Spanish Inquisition. We have seen some that Rom. 2. 22. Abhor Idols, committing Sacriledge; Christ's Kingdome cry'd up, till his By the Familists. Divinity is deny'd: Strictness of Life Inculcated, till the very Rule of it (the By the Antinomians. Decalogue it self) is Rejected. And Blasphemy hunted [Page 84] out of the Tavern, into the Pulpit. In short; what Sin, and Misery have we not known, and felt, since under the Form of Liberty of Conscience, This Freedome of a Private Spirit came in Vogue? Nor are we ever to expect better from it, till all men shall conspire to do the same thing, where every man is left to his own Gust, to do what he pleases: and whence flowes all This Mischief, and Confusi­on, but from a Licence of wandring from the Rule?

Shew the People a Written Law; They'll tell you of a Law of Nature; and distinguish betwixt [The Ruther­ford, Lex. Rex p. [...]1. Poli­tique Power they have given the King, and the Natural Power which they Reserve to Themselves.]

Bid them Reverence the King as the Supreme Gover­nour: They'll Answer you, No: Hee's but the Servant, and Vassal of the People: his Royalty is only a Virtual Emanation from Them; and in Them Radically, as in the first Subject. (According to Rutherford, Parker, Goodwin, Bridges, Milton, and a hundred more)

Come to the Point of Non-Resistence, and you shall hear, that Goodwins Right and Might, Pa. 10. Wheresoever a King, or other Supreme Authority creates an Inferiour, they invest it with a Legitimacy of Ma­gistratical Power, to Punish themselves also, in case they prove Evil-doers: Yea, and to Act any other thing, requisite for the Praise and Encouragement of the Good.

If it be demanded in what capacity the King may be Resisted? hear Rutherford again Lex Rex Pa. 265. The Man who is King may be Resisted, but not the Royal Office; The King in Concreto, may be Resisted; but not the King in Ab­stracto.].

But in what Manner may he be Resisted; and by what Means. Lex. Rex Pa. 324. He may be Resisted in a Pitch'd Battel, and with Swords and Guns. That is; his Pa. 269. Private will may be Resisted, not his Legal Will; Neither is he Present in the Field as a Pa. 334. King, but as an Injust Invader, and Gras­sator.

If he chance to be slain: 'Tis but an Pa. 324. Accident; and who can help it? Pa. 273. Hee's Guilty of his own Death; or Ibid. let them Answer for't that brought him Thither. Ibid. The Contrary Party is Innocent.

[Page 85]But This Resistence, is only Justifiable (I hope) in Ma­gistrates, or Authoritative Assemblies; as Parliaments, &c. Rutherford sayes Nay to that. All Powers must be serv'd with the same sauce, if they Abuse their Trust. Lex. Rex Pa. 152. [The People can give no Other Power, then such as God has given Them; and God has never given a Moral Power to do Ill.] Ibid. [All FIDUCIARY Power, Abus'd, may be Repeal'd; and Parliamentary Power is no Other: which, if it be Abus'd, the People may Repeal it; and Resist them; Annulling their Com­missions; Rescinding their Acts, and Denuding them of their Fiduciary Power: even as the King himself may be Denuded of the same Power, by the Three Estates] and Goodwin tells us, in Little; that Right and Might. All Humane Lawes, and Constitutions, are made with Knees to bend to the Law of Nature and Ne­cessity.

Well; but suppose the Prince has the good hap to scape Gun-shot; and only to become a Prisoner; You have no Law to Try him by, He has no Peers, what course will you take with him? Milton's opinion is that Tenūre of Kings, Pa. 24. Every Worthy Man in Parliament, might, for the Publique Geod, be thought a Fit Peer, and Iudge of the King;] and Goodwin Dogmatizes, that Defence of the Kings Sentence, P. 34. [where there is no Opportunity, for the Interposure of other Iudges, the Law of Nature, and of Nations allows every man to Iudge in his own Case.] Parker comes homer yet English Translation of the Scottish Declaration, Pa. 18. There never was (says he) a greater Har­mony of the Lawes of Nature, Reason, Prudence, and Necessity to warrant any Act, then may be found, and discern'd in That Act of Iustice on the Late King;] Now if you'll see a piece of Treason crown'd with Blasphemy, carry your Eve Four Pages farther. Pa. 22. Printed for Francis Tyton, who has Pub­lished as much since the King came in. God himself had Eclips'd, yea Lost the Brightest Beam of his Divine Glory, that ever shin'd on this Lower World, if he had not some way or other, brought That Person to some Eminent, and Praeter-natural Punishment.]

Me thinks These Practices should put you, and your Cause out of Countenance.

You must understand, that though my Reason lies [Page 86] against Uniformity, yet I'm no Advocate for Anarchy: and 'tis with Non-conformists as with Other People; there are Good and Bad, of All Sorts. But to go with the Moderate: Would you have All mens Consciences Govern'd by the same Rule, when 'tis Impossible to bring them All to the same Mind?

Better, Particulars suffer for Incompliance with the Publique, than the Publique suffer for Complying with Particulars. Uniformity is the Ciment of both Christian, and Civil Societies: Take That away, and the Parts drop from the Body; one piece falls from Another.

The Magistrate, (for Order's sake) requires Uniformity; You, and your Associates Oppose it upon a Plea of Consci­ence; and the Question is, Whether He shall Over-Rule Your Opinions; or You Over-Rule His Authority? This Dispute begets a War, for want of a Iudge, and to Prevent that Mischief, I offer that a Iudge is Necessary. Or put it Thus: You and I Differ, and Possibly we are Both of us in the Wrong; but most certainly, we are not Both in the Right: and yet neither of us but thinks well enough of his own Opinion. What's to be done in This Case? shall we wrangle Eternally?

No; Wee'll rather put the matter to Arbitra­tion.

Well! but the Arbiter himself is Fallible, and may Mistake too; or let him have the Wisdome of an An­gel, he cannot please us Both: for That which seems Right to the One will appear Wrong to the Other. Shall we stand to his Award what ever it be? If not; take into your Thought These Consequences. You Refuse to submit be­cause 'tis Wrong: I may refuse, by the same Reason, though it be Right: (for every Man's Reason is of Equal Force, where there is no Common, and Representative Reason to Bind All) So that by your Reckoning; Every man is in the Right to Himself, and in the Wrong to all the World beside; every man's hand is against his Brother, and his Brother's against Him. (At least if I deceive not my self, in my per­swasion, that Nature never produc'd Two persons, in all [Page 87] points, of the same Judgment.) Now, if you can neither deny Confusion to be the Natural Effect of This Liberty of Judgment; nor the want of a Regulating, and Decretory Sentence, to be the manifest Cause of This Confusion, I hope you'll Grant me the Necessity of an Unaccomptable Judge.

Is not the Word of God a sufficient Iudge?

No; That's no Iudge, but [a Rule for Christians Chillingsworths Safe Way, Pa. 57. to Iudge by] and the Great hazard lies upon the Meaning of That Rule. What swarms of Heresies have Over-spread This Land, since the Bible has been deliver'd up to the Interpretation of Private Spirits?

You say well, if you could direct me to a Iudge that we might All Relie upon.

And You say something too, if you could make ap­pear, that None at All, is better then the best we have: or that Popular Errours, Numberless and Inevitable (with the Dissolution of Communities to boot) are to be preferr'd to the few, and only Possible, Failings of Authority, at­tended with Peace, and Agreement. But to come to the short of the Question; This is it: Whether will you ra­ther have, One fallible Iudge; or, a Million of Damnable Heresies?

Truly, as you have reduc'd it, to a Certainty of Peace the One way, and to as great a Certainty of Discord the Other; to a Certainty of Many Errours without a Iudge, and to a bare Possibility of some few, with One; I am content in this Particular, to think a Final Iudge Neces­sary.

If you find it so in the Church, sure you will not Dispute it in the State, especially against an experience too, the most forcible of all Reasons. We were never troubled with Constructive Necessities; with Cavils about the Receptacle of Power, and the Limits of Obedience: with Distinctions betwixt the Political, and the Natural Right of the People; the Legal, and Personal Will of the Prince; and betwixt the Equity and Letter of the Law; till Judgment was forc'd from its Proper Course, and Channel, and the [Page 88] Decision of Right and Wrong, committed to the Frivolous and Arbitrary Determinations of the Multitude.

Pray'e by your Leave. I am as much for a Iudge, as You; but not for One Judge to All Purposes; nor, I con­fess, for any Iudge so Absolute as you would have him.

I tell ye again; A Iudge, and no Absolute Judge, is No Judge: and you shall as soon find the End of a Circle, as of a Controversie, by such a Iudge. Nor is it my Meaning, that One Iudge should serve for All purposes.

Will you Divide your Matter then, and Assign to every Judicable Point, his Proper Judge?

You say well; For truly I do not take the Ma­gistrate to be any more a Judge of My Conscience, than I am of His.

'Tis very Right; and it were an Encrochement up­on the Prerogative of God Himself, for him to Chal­lenge it.

How comes it now, that we that Agree so well i'the End, should Differ so much 'ith' Way to't? But I hope, the clearing of the next point will set us Through-Right: For after the setling of the Iudge, we have no­thing further to do but to Submit; and so wee'll For­ward.

SECT. XIV. The Three great Iudges of Mankind, are, GOD, MAGISTRATES, and CON­SCIENCE.

SOme things we do as Men; other things as Men in Society; and some again as Christians. In the first place, we are acted by the Law of Individuals; which Law is, in the second place, Subjected to That of Government; and Both these Lawes are, in the third place, Subordinate to That of Religion; i. e. the Law of God's Reveal'd Will. So that the Three great Judges of Mankind, are, God, Magi­strates, and Conscience.

Man, as consisting of Soul, and Body, may be again Sub­divided within Himself. Take him in his Lower Capacity, and hee's sway'd by the General Law of Animal Nature; but in his Divine part, you'll find him Govern'd by the Nobler Law of Refin'd Reason: which Reason, in some Re­spects, may be call'd Prudence; and in others, Conscience; according as 'tis variously Exercis'd. The things which we do purely as Men, (abstracted from any Ingredients of Policy, or Regulated Religion) are either Natural Actions, Prudential, or Moral. Of the First sort, are Those Acti­ons to which we are prompted by a Natural Impulse, in order to the Conservation of Life, and Beeing. Of the Third sort, are such Actions as we perform in Obedience to Moral Principles; (which are no other than the Divine Will veil'd under the Dictate of Humane Reason) and be­twixt These Two, lies the Region of Middle Actions; that is, of such Actions, as although not of simple and strict Ne­cessity, either to Life, or Virtue, are notwithstanding Useful, and Commodious, for the Guidance, and Comfort of the One, and for the Practice of the Other. The Accurate disqui­sition of This Interest, laies the Axe to the Root of the Question; for nothing has Embroyl'd us more, then the [Page 90] Mistaken Rights of Individuals; which Mistakes being once Clear'd, by laying open the Subordination of several Claims, and Powers, every man may take a Distinct view of his Own Province.

Proceed Regularly n [...], and State These Subordina­tions as you go.

Content; and we are now upon the Right of In­dividuals; in which Naked simplicity of considering MAN▪ without any regard to the ordinary motions of Providence, in the Order, and Regiment of the world, we shall yet find a manifest Subordination within Himself, and the Law of Sense, under the Dominion of the Law of Rea­son in the same Subject. These are the Laws which the Apostle calls, the Law of his Members, and the Law of his Rom. 7. 23. Will. The Former (and the less Excellent) Law, is the Law Sensitive; which is no other than the Law of Self-preservation, (indeed, the supreme Law of Animal Beings, as of Rationals, the Lowest;) This Law Sensitive is (effectu­ally) the Manifestation of God, in the Creature. (for what Sense does, Nature does; and what Nature does, God does)

But what is That Power which you call Na­ture?

It is the Ordinary working of God in all his Creatures; by virtue of which Divine Influence, every thing is mov'd to seek the utmost Perfection whereof it is Capable. As for the purpose. The perfection of Man, is the Congruity of his Actions, with his Reason, which is nothing else but That which we call VIRTUE. The Perfection of Beasts, is a degree Lower; they are mov'd only by a Sensual Impulse, toward what's convenient for them, and when they have it, they Rest.

I can but Laugh, when people are Gravell'd, to see how they run to their Impulses, and Occult Qualities; which is but a more Learned way of saying, [They don't know what] Pray'e spare me a word; what Difference is there betwixt Their Impulse, and Our Choyce?

Pre'thee be Quiet, unless thou hast a mind to [Page 91] have a Toleration for thy Dog. Their Impulse carries them on through a Sensitive Search, not any Deliberative Dis­course: and no Election neither at last; but only the sim­ple Prosecution of a Determinate Appetite, without Ima­gining any Proportion, betwixt the Means, and the End.

But still we find that there is a Proportion; and the Motion appears to Us, according to the Method of Reason, and Orderly proceeding from Question to Resolution.

Is it Reason think ye, that makes a Dog follow his Nose, and hunt for Meat when hee's Hungry? Or will ye call it Choyce, if he leaves a Turfe for a Bone? In short; Hee's mov'd by Instinct, toward the End; and Sense car­ries him through the Means.

But why should the same Process of Means, and the same Application of Causes, be Ascrib'd only to In­stinct in Brutes, and to Reason in Man?

You must take notice, that all Natural Operati­ons, are Regular and Ordinate, by what means soever per­form'd; but it does not follow, because the Method is according to Reason, that therefore the Instrument must be Reasonable. But to Mind our Business.

The Law of Self-Preservation, is a Law Common to Beasts with Men; but not of Equal Force: for Their So­vereign Interest is Life, Ours is Virtue; and therefore your Argument for Defensive Arms, upon Pretext of That Extremity, was but a Brutish Plea; For, if the Con­sideration of Virtue be not above That of Life, Where lies the Advantage of our Reason?

But when the Death is Certain, and the Virtue Doubtfull, who shall decide the Question?

In a Case Abstracted from the Tyes, and Duties of Religion, and Government; Every Mans Reason Sits as Iudge upon his own Life. As for Instance; You're in the Hands of Thieves; and upon This Condition, Ei­ther to Take a False Oath, or to Lose your Life. Your Conscience tells ye, you must rather Perish. But if with­out violence to a Superiour Duty, you can preserve your Self, you're your own Murderer, if you do not. [Page 92] Thus far I think wee're safe, and I suppose Agreed; that Every Individual is to Govern himself by his Natural Con­science; but when the several Particulars come to be Bun­dled up in one Community, the Case is Otherwise.

I am sorry to hear ye say That. Why should not every Man be Govern'd by his Own Conscience, as well in Consort, as in Solitude? or, Will ye have it, that our Duty to God ceases, in the Act of becoming Subjects to a Civil Magistrate?

Not so quick, and you shall have it. As to your Conscience, you are as Free now, as you were before; but your Body is no longer your Own, after you're once ad­mitted a Member of a Society; and There's the Difference. You were your Own servant before, and now you are the King's: (for what is Government, but the Wisdom, Resolve, and Force of Every Particular, gather'd into One Under­standing, Will, and Body?) and This comes up to What I have already deliver'd; that, Whatsoever God has left Indifferent, is the Subject of Humane Power.

But who shall be Judg of what's Indifferent?

Wee'l scan That, the very next thing we doe.

You are already satisfi'd, that an Authoris'd Iudg is Ab­solutely Necessary, in Order to the Peace of Church and State; and to the Ending of all Publique Differences: but we are not yet Agreed upon our Judges, or, if we were, yet in Regard our Judges are but Men, and so may Erre, [Infallibility being departed with Christ and his Apostles, in Chilling [...]. Safe way, P. 104. lieu of which Living and Infallible Guides, God has in Provi­dence given us a Plain and Infallible Rule] It may withall be taken into thought, How far a Private Judge may be Allow'd to Opine against a Publique, in Case of a Reluctant Conscience, and (in some sort) to judge his Iudg.

You say very well; for, place the Ultimate Decision where you will, 'tis (as you said before) An Infallible Deter­mination [Page 93] as to the Strife, but not so, as to the Truth; and it comes to This at last, that every man, in some Degree, Re­judges his Judge. If I am fully convinc'd, either that the Command is sinfull in it self, or the Opinion Wicked; I am neither to Obey the One, nor to Embrace the Other; as being ty'd up by the General Obligation, of rather Obeying, and Believing God, then Man. Nay more; If in Obedience to the Magistrate, I commit a sin against God; and that Ignorantly too; That very Act, in Ignorance, is Criminal, if I had the Means of being better Enform'd: for certainly, no Humane Respect, can justifie an Offence against God; Now if I am bound to do nothing that is Ill, I am likewise bound, before I do anything, to satisfie my self whether it be Ill or no: for otherwise, I may swallow a false Religion for a True, and be Damn'd at Last, for not Minding what I Did; Which I take to be Proof sufficient, that no man is so Implicitly Oblig'd to rely upon other Mens Eyes, as Totally to Abandon the Direction of his Own; or so Unconditionally to swear Obedience to Other Mens Lawes, and Perswasions, as to hold no Intelligence at all, with That Sacred Law, and faithfull Counsellor, which he car­ryes in his own Bosom.

Forgive me, If you Imagine that I would have ye Renounce your Reason. No, but on the Contrary, I would have ye to be Guided, and Concluded by't, and only to Obey for Quiet's sake, so far as you can possibly Obey in Conscience.

What if a Single Person hitts That Truth which a General Council Misses? Which will you have him follow? Truth, or Authority?

Why truly Both; Truth with his Soul, and Au­thority with his Body: but so Remote a Possibility must not Presume to Bolster up the Thinkings of a Private Spirit against the Resolutions of Authority; yet for the very Possi­bility's sake, wee'l take That supposition likewise into our Care, and Word the sum of the Whole Matter Plainly Thus:

The Church says, ye May do; and the Law says, ye Must Do, That which your Conscience says, You Ought not to [Page 94] Do. How will you Reconcile your Duty, and your Con­science, in This Case?

Very well; for I think it my Duty to obey my Con­science, upon This Principle, that Conscience is God's Sub­stitute over Individuals.

Keep to That; and Answer me again. Is not the Civil Magistrate God's Substitute too? If he bee, How comes Your Conscience to take Place of His Authority? They are Both Commission'd alike, and consequently, They are Both to bee Obey'd alike; which is Impossible, where their Com­mands are Inconsistent.

The Magistrate is a Publique Minister, and his Commission does not Reach to Particular Consciences.

'Tis very Right; and on the other side, My friend Scruple is a Private Person, and there's as little Reason to pretend that his Opinion should operate upon a Publique Law. So that if I Mistake ye not, Wee are Agreed thus far, That Every Particular is to look to One, and the King to the Whole.

I do not much Oppose it.

If your Brother Zeal, would deal as candidly, with me now about the Ecclesiastical Power, as You have done in the Civill, we might make short work of This Que­stion; and I hope he will not deny, that the Church is as well [Rutherfords Due Right of Presbyt. p. 356.] Authoris'd to TEACH, and INSTRUCT in all the External Acts of Worship, as [Ibid. p. 352.] the Magistrate is to COM­PELL to those External Acts.

There is no Doubt, but [Ibid p 407.] the Church, [as the Church] has a Ministerial Power, Ex Officio, to Define Controversies according to the Word of God; and that [Ibid. p. 415.] A Synod▪ Lawfully Conven'd, is a Limited, Mini­sterial, and bounded visible Judg, and to be Believed in, so far as they follow Christ, the Peremptory and Supreme Judg, speaking in his own Word.

This will not do our business yet; for, if a Synod be but to be Believed in SO FAR as it followes Christ; &c. They that ought to be Concluded by That Act, are left the Iudges of it, and the Credit of the Authority, rests upon the [Page 95] Conscience, (or, if you please, the Phansy or Humour) of the Believer: and so there's no Decision.

[e] The Truth is, we are to believe Truths De­termin'd[d] Ruth. Free Disp. pag. 36. by Synods, to be Infallible, and never again lyable to Retraction or Discussion; nor because [So sayes the Synod] but because [So sayes the Lord▪]

Still y'are short; for 'tis not in our Power to Dis­believe what we acknowledge to be a Truth; but That which is Truth at the Fountain, may become Errour in the Passage; or at least appear so to me; and what Then?

It must be look'd upon as an Errour of the Conscience, which is no discharge at all of your Obedience: from which Er­rour, you are to be Reclaym'd, either by Instruction, or Cen­sure. For, the People are oblig'd to [Obey those that areRuth. Free Disp. pa. 27. over them in the Lord, who watch for their souls, as those who must give an Accompt;] and not Oblig'd to stand to, and Obey the Ministerial, and Official Judgement of the PEOPLE, [He that Heareth You (MINISTERS of the Gospel, not the PEOPLE) heareth MEE, and he that Despi­seth YOU, despiseth MEE.]

Then I find we shall shake hands. You two, Gentlemen, are joyntly engag'd against the Act for Unifor­mity; and yet ye cannot say, that it wants any thing to give it the full Complement of a binding Law: Whether ye Regard either the Civil, or the Ecclesiastical Authority. Here's first, the Judgment of the Church Duely Con­ven'd, touching the Meetness, and Convenience of the Rites and Forms therein Conteyn'd. You have next, the Royal Sanction, Approving, and Authorising Those Rites, and Forms, and Requiring your Exact Obedience to Them. Now so it is, that you can neither Decline the Authority of your Iudges, nor the Subjection of your Dutyes; What is it then that hinders your Obedience?

That which to me is More then all the World; It goes against My Conscience.

Only That Point then, and no More upon This Subject.

[Page 96]That God is the Iudg of the World; that the Church is the Iudg of what Properly concerns Religion; that the Civil Magistrate is the Iudg of what concerns the Publique Peace; and that Every Mans Conscience is the Iudg of what concerns his Own Soul; is already Clear'd: The Remain­ing Difficulty is This, How I am to behave my self in a Case, where the Law bids me do One Thing, and my Con­science, Another.

To take a true Estimate of what's before us, we must first ballance the Two Interests that meet in Compe­tition.

There is in favour, and for the Execution of the Law, (meaning that of Uniformity,) 1. The Personal Conscience, and 2. the Political Conscience of the King. There is like­wise for the Equity of it, the solemn and deliberate Iudg­ment of the Church: which is, Effectually, the Publique Conscience; and lastly, for the Observance of it▪ there is the Duty of the Subject, (which, if it be withdrawn, does not only invalidate This Particular Act, but it loosens the sinews of Sovereign Authority; and, which is more, it de­stroyes even a Divine Ordinance; for, take away Obedience, and Government lapses into Confusion.)

Now for the Counterpoize; AGAINST This Law, and Thus supported, appears your Naked Conscience. Nay, That's the Fairest on't, It may be worse, and in Truth, any thing that's Ill, under that name.

But what's the World to Mee, in the scale against my Soul?

You have great Reason sure, and 'tis no more than every man may challenge: That is, to Stand, or Fall, to his own Conscience: Is That your Principle?

Yes, out of doubt; 'tis Mine, and Yours, and His, and any Man's that's Honest.

Well, hold ye a little: Your Conscience will not down with This Law, it seems; and This Law will as little down with Your Conscience. Weigh now the Good against the Bad; What if it stands? What if it yields? Make the Case worse then 'tis; as Bad as Bad may be, in your own [Page 97] Favour, You cannot Comply with the Law; and the Law will not stoop to You. What follows upon't?

The Ruine of many Godly People that desire to Wor­ship God according to his Word.

That Plea wrought little upon You from Us; but let that pass. What Sort of Ruine do ye mean? Ruine of Liberty? or Estate? (for This Law Draws no Bloud) State your Misfortunes I beseech ye.

No Man must Hold a Benefice, or Teach a School, but upon Terms of such Subscription, or Acknowledgement, as many an Honest Man would rather Dye, then Consent to: So that We are Distrest, not only for our Selves, as being De­priv'd of the Comfort of all Spiritual, and Heavenly Freedomes; But our Poor Infants are Expos'd to be Undone, wanting the Means of a Religious Education.

If This be All, never Trouble your Selves; for Many an Honest Man has Out-liv'd more than this comes to. In short, there's a Huge Clamour; but (God knows) with very Little Reason. Some Particulars will possibly Suffer for want of a Toleration: and who are They; but (Most of Them) the Actual Enemies of the King; and All of Them, the Profest Opposers of the Law?

If you would see the Event of Granting what you ask; Turn but your Face toward—41, and then Blush, and Re­pent. Do so; and thank his Majesty for your Heads, with­out troubling him with your Consciences. Beside; you're not aware, that in Contesting with the Law, you Quarrel with your Self: There's your own Vote Against ye; and all this muttering is no other then your Factious Will, wrang­ling with your Political Consent. Yet still I say, Stick to your Conscience.

Your Raillery is ill Plac'd.

Then 'tis the better for my Earnest: and 'tis in very, very Great Earnest that I speak it. Wee'll come now to the Push, and, without What's, or Why's, lay down for Granted, that there is a Real Distance betwixt This Act, and your Conscience. How will you divide your Duty?

I'll follow your Advice, and Stick to my Con­science.

You do the Better: now, Change Hands; and Phan­sie your self the Supreme Magistrate. He has a Double Conscience. One, that concerns Himself, Th' Other his People.

What his Majesty's Personal Iudgement is, has been De­clar'd Abundantly; what his Prudential Iudgment may dis­pose him to, lies in his Royal Brest. But be That as Hea­ven shall Order it, Here's the Partition of your Rights. The King's Prerogative has nothing to do with your Consci­ence, and your Conscience, has as little to do with His Ma­jesty's Prerogative. The King is accomptable to God for the welfare of his People, and You are only Accompta­ble to God for the Good of your little Particular. If you cannot Obey the Law; do not: but abide the Penalty. If the Sovereign cannot Relax the Law, He's as Free to Execute it. Your Conscience requires Liberty; and your Governour's Conscience requires Order, and the ve­ry ground of your Demand, is the Reason of His Refusal. Now why you should expect that your Sovereign should bring down His Conscience to Yours, when you find, upon experiment, that you cannot perswade your Own up to His, is to me a Mystery. To Conclude; Keep your self within your Sphere, and where you cannot Consent as a Christian, Submit as a Subject.

I cannot much deny the Colour of your Argument, and yet me thinks there's so much to be said too, for Toleration, that I'm affraid you'll Leave me as you found me.

I'll sterve thee first; for thou shalt Eat no Meat till thou'rt my Convert: wherefore Go on, and do thy worst.

SECT. XV. The Toleration, which the Non-Conformists Desire, has neither GROUND nor PRESIDENT.

'TIs a most horrible kind of Persecution.

Why then Government's a most horri­ble Ord'nance. For the Punishment of Evil-Doers, is the one half of the Magistrates Commission: and what's an Evil-Doer, but the Transgressour of a Law?

But, What do ye think, when the Making of One Law is the Transgression of Another?

I think, such a Law is better Broken then Kept. But remember the Iudge, my Friend; and know, that Laws are made for the Community, not for Particulars; and Good, or Bad, they're Laws still. Suppose them Cruel; y'had as good say, The King's a Tyrant, as Call them so; for the Law is no other than the King's written Will. Now to your Persecution again; say what ye will, y'are Safe.

Do not you take the Persecuting Party to be gene­rally in the Wrong?

I was of That Opinion three or four year agoe. But if it be so, the Persecuted have the less reason to Com­pleyn, having so comfortable a marque of being in the Right.

But what can justifie the very Constitution of a Persecuting Law?

You should rather have Asked, What can justifie the Toleration of a Troublesome People? The Law stands Fixt, and Immovable; and yet upon a Guard too. You At­taque That, and then ye cry, That (or the Magistrate) hurts [Page 100] you: which is thereabout, as if you should Throw your self upon the point of a Sword, and then Curse the Cut­ler.

Christians' will not persecute Pagans for Conscience, and yet they worry one another.

And in some Cases they may have reason: for an Infidel is less dangerous to the Publique than an Apostate. And beside: the One is but giving Quarter to a fair, and Open Enemy; the Other is to take a Snake into your Bosome. The One, in Fine, denies but your Opinion; the Other, your Authority. Pray'e take notice by the By, That which you call Persecution, I translate Uniformity.

How shall the Magistrate Distinguish, whom he should Punish, and whom Not?

Better a great deal, whom he should Punish, than whom he should Spare. They Act; and then he brings Those Actions to a Rule, and That shews him whether they are streight, or crooked.

How do you know but you may Persecute God Him­self, in a Right Conscience?

I tell ye, you are not Punish'd for your Thoughts, but for your Actions: and you'd Inferr, that because (for ought I know) Any Man may be in the Right, No Man must therefore be presum'd to be in the Wrong; That were to grant a Sanctuary to Wickedness, and to Confound Sin with Conscience.

Does not God command, that the Tares should be let alone till the Harvest?

But if that were meant of Practical Impieties, how should Governours be a Terrour to Evil-doers; when all Malefactors must be let alone till the day of Judge­ment?

Alas! alas! Severity, at best, does but make Hy­pocrites.

But, by your Leave, Forbearance does it much more: for Those that come In for Fear, never went Off for Conscience, and so were Hypocrites before: and then you never consider Those Infinite Swarms of Seditious Spirits [Page 101] that throw themselves into the Tolerated Party under the veile of Sanctity. In fine; 'tis much more advisable to take away the Liberty of Some, then to Grant a Liberty to All. For betwixt Those that are not Wise, where is great hazard of Errour; and Those that are not Honest, where is great Danger of Design (with your leave, Gentlemen) you'll find well nigh the Computation of your Party. But why do I stand Fencing in a Case, where all that's good for ought, even in the Favour'd Party, runs nigh an equal Pe­rill? Is any honest man the better for the Last War? (I mean, save Those that are Forgiven)

Then you presume a War.

Or what is equal to't; a Standing Army, upon ne­cessity to keep them Quiet. For in This Town, a Toleration of Religion is Cousin-German to a Licence for Rebellion: and at the best, 'tis but One Ill that procreates Another.

And can you Imagine that so many restless Hu­mours, and disturb'd Consciences, will ever be Quiet with­out it?

You talk of Conscience. Shew me a Conscience, make proof of a Conscience. I'll shew ye a Thousand things like Consciences: but alas! narrowly look'd into, what are they but meere Phansie, Artifice, or Delusion? A company of People Thus divided; The one half of them Deceive Us, and the other half of them Deceive Themselves; for 'tis not what every man Thinks, that is presently Conscience; but what every body Thinks, in Congruity with the Word of God; and of That Word, the Church is the best Judge. If Consci­ence Alone be sufficient, the Bible is Superfluous: Nay if Con­science, joyn'd with the Bible, be sufficient, what becomes of the Apostles Commission; [Go, and TEACH all Nati­ons?] We shall undertake to Teach THEM, whom our Saviour has appointed to Teach US.

But This is a little beside our business; for the stress of the Question, in order to a Toleration, does not bear so much upon This Point, whether your Opinions be True or False; as whether Safe or Dangerous. There are a sort of People that Reason by one Principle, and Act by another; [Page 98] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 100] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 102] that begin with Liberty of Conscience, and end with the Liber­ty of the Subject: If You be of That number, There's Death in the Pot, and no Enduring of ye.

Further, Liberty of Conscience turns naturally into Liber­ty of Government, and therefore not to be endur'd; espe­cially in a Monarchy; and to say truth, 'Tis commonly the Method of Embroyling Kingdoms; and but the Embryo of Sedition. Than which, nothing lyes opener to him that will only attend These Two Particulars: First, In those Times, when there is Generally the least care of Religion, you shall observe commonly, the most Talk of it; and That too, among such as least understand it. If This Impulse be not Acted by Conscience, 'tis from a worse Principle, and by no means to be Encourag'd; for the Mass of the People is already in a Distemper; and Those Out-cryes and Trans­ports for Toleration, are but the Convulsions of a Sick Govern­ment. Secondly, Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs are so Twisted and Enterwoven, that what Party soever clayms a Right of Freedom to the former, may be fairly suspected to have a design likewise upon the latter: For the Threds are so Enterlayd, that Both Interests make, Effectually, but One Piece; so that the State that allowes the People a Freedom to choose their Religion, is reasonably to Expect that they will Take a Freedom likewise to choose their Government.

But why should a Toleration do worse Here than in Holland?

I would y'had found a better Instance. But, not to Dispute how They came Thither; let it suffice, That where They are, a Toleration would bring us.

What do ye think of Poland then?

I think, That story speaks little in your Favour, either in Respect of Their frequent Seditions, or in Regard of Their Prodigious and Heretical Opinions; and yet They lye under the strongest Obligation in Nature to keep Them Quiet; the Turk being their Neighbour; which makes Their Case to be an Agreement Rather Against a Common Enemy, than Among Themselves. But back to Holland, Theirs is no Perfect Toleration: For, ye see, in the [Page 103] Case of Arminius; finding Barnevelt in the Head of the Party, (of whose Intendments, the States were at that time Jealous) They would not upon any Terms Allow that Freedom to the Arminians, which they did to Others; but Conven'd a Synod, and Exterminated the Sect.

There's a Great Difference too betwixt the Interest, and Condition, of Their Ministers, and Ours. Theirs Preach but upon Good-behaviour; They live upon the States-Pay; and upon the least Colour of Offence, They may be Turn'd off at Pleasure; Whereas Our Clergy have a Free-hold in their Benefices for Term of Life; and if they be Factiously Dispos'd, they may Evade the Law to do a Mischief, with­out making a Forfeiture. Consider next, that Their Case, was in some sort Your Own, only a Common Cause kept ye United. In fine, Nothing but the fear of a Common Enemy can withhold a Libertine-Nation from falling foul upon it self. If ye would see what work Peters, Bridges Sympson, and Ward, made in Holland, Read Bayly's Dissuasive, Pa. 75. and be Asham'd of Owning such a Party.

You see the Fruit then of driving men to the Ex­tremity of flying their Country for Religion.

You see rather, in what They did Abroad, what They would have done at Home, if They had been Tole­rated; and Particularly, Observe Their Proceedings in New-England, where They Acted at Liberty, and Govern'd Themselves, by Their Own Lawes. Bayly Reports (from People upon the Place) that of Forty Thousand Persons, Three Parts of Four, were not admitted to be in Any Church. If you have a mind to know any more con­cerning Their Heresies, Their Cruelty, Their Sedition, their Hypocrisie, &c. look into his Dissuasive again, Pa. 53.

But ye see the French Allow a Toleration.

They do so; but not a Toleration of several sorts of Roman-Catholiques; Neither do Those of the Religion admit of any Sub-division among Themselves; nay, They have been often Press'd to't, and Refus'd it. Step into Germany next, and see the Deplorable Effects of This [Page 104] Phanatical Persuasion There: but above All, where ever the Beauteous Discipline has set her Holy Foot, All other Iudge­ments suffer a daily Martyrdome. To Conclude, Tolera­tion was That which Queen Elizabeth, in all her Distresses, Resuscitatio Pa. 189. could never be perswaded to. Firm to This Resolution (says Sir Francis Bacon) not to Suffer the State of Her King­dome to be Ruin'd, under pretence of Conscience and Religion. Yet Shee Conniv'd so Long, and the unthankful Faction made such use of Her Favours, that Shee was forc't upon the Rigour of a Strict Uniformity, to Help Her Self, and That Preserv'd Her. To say no more, The Sentence of the Late King was Given in the Pulpit, though the Blow was Struck upon the Scaffold.

Not by the Presbyterians, I hope.

Truly by Them, if by Any.

Well Gentlemen, while you Debate That Point, I'le call for Dinner.

SECT. XVI. At whose Door Lyes the BLOUD of King CHARLES the MARTYR?

ANd why by Them, if by Any, I beseech ye? Was Pe­ters a Presbyterian?

Yes surely was he, as much as Marshall was an In­dependent.

Go to, Let us spare Names, and Fall to the Mat­ter.

The Question is, Upon Whom the Guilt of the Kings Bloud lyes? You charge it upon Us; and I, upon You. [Page 105] [The Presbyterians Spoyl'd Him as a King, before OthersCommon­wealth Stated, P. 72. Executed Him as a Private Man] [Have they not Hunted and Persu'd Him with Sword, and Fire? Have they notMilton's Te­nur. P. 32. formerly Deny'd to Treat with Him, and their now Re­canting Ministers Preach't against Him, as a Reprobate In­curable; an Enemy to God, and his Church? Marqu'd for Destruction? &c.] [The Covenanting-Ministers, withGoodwin's De­fence of the King's Sen­tence, P. 53. their Party clearly Depos'd the King, when They Ac­knowledg'd and submitted unto a Power, as Superiour un­to His; Levy'd war against Him, as against a Traytor, Re­bel, and Enemy to the Kingdome, &c.] [The Scots hadParker's Scot­lands Holy War, P. 17. proceeded so far as to Imprison the Kings Person, and to Sequester all his Royal Power, which is a Temporary De­throning, and Deposing.] Nay hear what some of your Rab­bies have not stuck to say in my Iustification [The RemovalPolicy of Princes, P. 33. of Prelatical Innovations, Altar-genuflexions and crin­gings, with Crossings, and all that Popish Trash and Trum­pery, Countervails for the Bloud and Treasure shed and spent in these late Distractions] (and this was in—56.) Once more and you shall take your Turn. [This may serve to JustifieRobert Dou­glass Sermon in 51 and in the Phoenix, P. 52. the Proceedings of this Kingdome against the late King, who in a Hostile way set Himself to overthrow Religion, Parliaments, Laws, and Liberties.]

I could Afford you Two, for One, and Pay you in your own Coyne. [His Capacity (says Parker) was at Westmin­ster English Tran­slat. P. 18. when His Body was upon the Scaffold at Whitehall Paying unto Justice for his Misgovernment, and Tyranny] [Think not to save your Selves (sayes One of your Mini­sters Flesh Expi­ring, &c. P. 26. to the Commons, about a Month before the King Suffer'd) Think not to Save your Selves (says He) by an Unrighte­ous Saving Them who are the Lord's and the Peoples Known Enemies, for Certainly if ye Act not Like GODS in This Particular against men truly Obnoxious to Justice, They will be like DEVILS against you—Benhadad's Life was once in Ahab's Hand, and He ventur'd God's Displeasure to let him go. But see how Bernhadad Re­wards Him for it. Fight neither with Small nor Great, but with the KING of Israel]

Come Gentlemen, Your Dinner's Ready; but first I Charge ye, by that Love ye bear to Truth, and Honesty; deal Freely with me; What's Your Opinion of your Cause?

Wee'll take time to Consider of it.

And of your Petition too, I beseech ye. Go to; I dare swear, there's Neither of ye will Dye at Stake for't.

But still I'm where I was, as to the Favouring of Tender Consciences.

And truly so am I; where it is possible to Sepa­rate the Errour, from the Person: but to permit a Pul­lique Inconvenience for the Satisfaction of a Private Scruple, were (upon very weak pretence) to Unhinge the Law, and Consequently to Dissolve the Government.