SAMARITANISM OR, A TREATISE OF Comprehending, Compounding, and Tolerating SEVERAL RELIGIONS IN ONE CHURCH, DEMONSTRATING, The Equity and Necessity of the Act, and Late Vote of Parliament against Non-conformists. From Reason, the Ancient Church, and the Opinions, and Practice of Papists, and Puritans, now Plotting, and Plead­ing for Toleration.

LONDON Printed for Robert Clavel, and are to be sold by Henry Broom, in Little Brittain and Westminster-Hall.

Of Liberty of RELIGION.

CHAP I. A Preparative Enquiry into the Nature of Human Ecclesiastical Societies, in general.

MAN being a Sociable Creature, according to the Observation of the Philosopher, and Common Experience; That Human Societies ought to excell Herds and flocks of Cattel, is most reasonable to conclude. For, a Multitude is one thing, and a Soci­ety another; and differ as much as a Common, and a Common­wealth. Yet, as such is the sagacity and subtilty of some Animals as that witty Philosophers have had enough to do to distinguish the supream acts of some Beasts from the reasonable actions of Men; so have some acute Observers of the nature and order of certain Animals in community, discovered so much Decorum and perfecti­on that they have entitled meerly sensitive Creatures to the dig­nity of Human Societies: and do espy a semblance of Monarchy in the Regiment of Bees, and Popular Government in that of Ants. But the definition which Bodin gives of a Commonwealth, Bodinus de Rep. lib. 1. init. Respubli­ca est Familiarum rerum (que) interipsas communium summa potestate ac ratione moderate multitudo. doth sufficiently put a difference between them, which is this. [Page 2]A Commonwealth is a multitude of Families and Common Matter administred by a Supream Power and Reason: For what ever we may judge, there is in some brutish Communities a Supream Com­mand; and that is founded on Sense and natural Instinct: And in Human Societies there is, and of necessity must be, a Supream Authority founded on Reason and Natural Instinct. For as Com­mon Sense proceedeth from Natural Instinct given to Beasts; so Reason proceedeth from, or is the Natural Instinct in Man: The Supream act in Man being termed Reason; and the highest in Beasts, Sense. Though I confess the matter remains very difficult still, to distinguish clearly the one from the other; not in a defi­nition (for that is easie enough to frame) but in the exercise of Acts, whether they belong to, or may be comprehended in the definition of Reason or no? Let others strain their Wits to that purpose; our present Subject calls us another way. And in the first place to note freely the prety, pitiful, and fine presumptions of divers enquirers into the grounds and occasions of Human So­cieties; which because, forsooth, taken from Reason at first, some Men have imagined that Natural Instinct in Man was not princi­pal in the Constitution of Commonwealths. Some therefore have wittily (at least as they suppose) said, That necessity was the cause why men combined together in one: Necessity of heat drove divers stragling Men to the same fire; and meeting there, they took up several Discourses and Counsels for their common Wel­fare. Others more seriously, if not more wisely, are of opinion. That self-defence and preservation against common Adversaries impelled many persons to associate together, and to elect some principal Defender of their Persons, and Directer of their Affairs. But they consider not, nor give any account how such Enemies to some, came first to conspire into such a powerful Soci­ety, as to be able to offend others. Was this occasioned likewise from fear of others? If so, I will demand perpetually, How came those others so together? And at length it must of necessity be answered, From some other cause, & that cause must be at length, Natural Reason, Justice, and Law; whereby, according to Man, some were obliged to Subjection, as some had right of Dominion. Now what manner of Dominion that was, I leave to be inquired into.

Yet withal I cannot but smile a little at the boldness and vain presumption of such who passing over the most visible original of Government, and what de facto it first was, (which certainly in all reason must needs be the most natural way of making out the truth) do betake themselves to the uncertain mazes and labyrinths of human imagination, which we find to be swayed and bribed to argue and conclude according to Self-interest, and particular cases of their own. Thus we read the Assertors of the German Empire to strain their Reasons to prove the Constitution of that Government according to the famous Golden Bull of Charles the Fourth, Emperor, to be most perfect, and natural. But Expe­rience sheweth us plainly, that nothing hath divided, and conse­quently weaken'd, more that once most potent and flourishing Nation, than those Immunities and Laws have; and render'd the Supream Power so uncertain and obscure, that 'tis an hard matter to find where it is seated; or, if so to find that to be a Monarchy, and not a Commonwealth, or at lest a Combination of Monar­chies and Commonwealths.

The like course hath Contarenus taken in his description of the State of Venice, (for that too must be held to be most natural) bending his Wits to draw the Law and course of Nature to a conformity to his reason, and his reason to the condition of that Commonwealth.

The same course hath Bellarmine (and other, especially Jesuiti­cal Authors of the Church of Rome) followed in his Previous Controversies to his Disputations of the Power, and Regiment of the Pope, contending hard, that the Government is most Reasonable and Christian, which suits best with the Actu­al Power of the Roman Bishop and Clergy. And some have pro­ceeded to that degree of admiration of that Form, that they have ventured to affirm, That Christ had not done wisely, if he had not ordained and disposed matters just as they now stand among them. And are not there to be found amongst us, who have deli­vered the very same expressions in behalf of the Pres­bytery?

And this eying of instances rather than following the clue of his own most rational Wit was that which caused the Philosopher Aristotle to be so inconstant to himself in his Politicks. For [Page 4]when he handled the case abstractly, he judged excellently of the true nature of Government, and the most natural Government. But then, having before his eyes what great offence he must ne­cessarily give to his Country of Greece, which abounded with several Polities of a strange nature; he found it requisite to strain his Leather to their Lasts. Especially considering, that if those Nations, who were for Wit and Learning, the most emi­nent of all the World, should disrelish his Schemes (as in all pro­bability they would, as they disagreed from their plat-forms) it might prove an incurable prejudice to his Works. For, as it is seen in Religion, it happens in Civil Polities too, that the more it is with acuteness and subtilty penetrated, and discussed, the more corrupt and degenerate it is in the use and practice.

For that there is a Government of Divine appointment, as well in Secular as Religious Societies, is not to be much doubted of; and that all in specie cannot be such, is evident from the va­riety and contrariety of them: For the voice of God is either that innate direction, and natural, and indeliberate election and in­clination to which Men by a tacite universal consent do tend, and plainly is to one kind of Political Government only, and not in­differently to any, as by instances may be given from all people, whose first Governors were always Monarchs without exception. For that after a State hath for a long time been founded and selted, Men out of several regards and motives set their Wits on work, and changed the same, not to that Form which really was best but best pleased them, cannot prejudice the title it hath to be Di­vine and Natural: for as much as we see that nothing is so natu­ral or indisputably divine, but it may be, and hath been altered, and thwarted by the bold and unquiet Wits of Men; and no where are such alterations oftner to be found than where Wit and Learning most flourish; for from an opinion these breed in men, are they tempted to despise the simplicity, and direct path of Natural reason to seek more fine and curious ways of admini­string the common Interest; Or, the voice of God is that Scrip­tural word of God which gives neither precedent nor rule, nor precept for above one Government in either of the Polities.

Some suppose to moderate and compound the matter by af­firming, that Government in general is of Divine Institution but [Page 5]God hath left it to the liberty of Men to make choice of one Spe­cies or kind of Government, according as it shall sute best with the Genius and Humours of the people to be governed. But a­gainst this I have more to object than may be proper for this oc­casion. I shall therefore demand first, By what Rules of Reason, or Philosophy such Men proceed? for, hitherto in other things it was never heard of that God should positively create or ordain a thing in the Genus or Species, and so that the Individuum under them should take its being and subsist; when as, what ever Being is in the Genus or Kind is owing to the Particular subsisting by it self. For more plainness: Can we say, that God first made a living Creature in general, and from thence sprang Man and Beast? or an Horse, and Socrates? Did he not rather first of all create this Man in particular, and so Human Nature had its original specifi­cal; and first create this Individual Beast, and so from thence that nature of Animals take its denomination and being. And thus was it in the Institution of Governments. God cannot rationally nor truly be said to make Government in general, or ordain it, and not first institute some one particular Government, from whence the like might be termed Divine, and the Species it self such.

Consider we farther, how more than ridiculous it were that Divine Institution should be of such immense extent and capaci­ty, as that it were impossible for the boldest and wildest wit of Man to invent such a form as should not be divine? Which must of necessity follow, or the quite contrary, that no Government is of divine appointment in specie; both which are equally and utterly false and absurd. The former, in that it makes Divine Right like the fabulous fiction of Poets concerning Victory be­tween two Armies engaging, hanging in the Air, and hovering over mens heads, until the main stroke be struck, and Men have voted especially for one sort of Government, and then forth­with down comes Divine Right amain, and lighting on it makes it undoubtedly Divine. And to hold that no Government is of Divine Original, is to destroy all Right of Rule; and, as some enemies to Mankind have with impudence and stupidity (even while they seek nothing so much as to appear transcendent) pro­portionably to reduce all kinds and actual possession of Empire to [Page 6]the base principle of Beasts, strength and force; and his it is, as well in Justice as Act, who can catch it. Such a Philosopher indeed as this (and, as Reason and Religion now goes, such an one is no small fool amongst us) deserves to have the edge of his acute wit turned against him, and to be disputed with, as Men are wont to do with his fellow beasts destructive to Mankind, with a Kennel of hounds, spears, and staffs.

But I return to demand further, Whether that Charter is extant, to whom it properly and by divine intention pertains, that Men may chose what Government they please? That which God would have is sufficiently made known unto us from the nature and form of that which by his special Providence first, and only appeared for hun­dreds of years in the World. Those which succeeded and excluded the Primitive, were the effect of passions principally: But no sooner had Lust, Interest, and Error caused men to introduce their own de­vices, but instantly Nature and Scripture were drawn to assert and sustain them; as Bastards left in distress and helpless, are put to ho­nest Women to Nurse and bring up.

I know very well, and readily grant that all sorts of Governments have somewhat Divine in them; but this they have not as several sorts, nor as such Forms, but in respect of the matter they are con­cerned in, which principally is that truly Divine Law, Justice; which as to the matter of it, may as really, though not so regularly, be administred in one kind, as another.

But he that would faithfully and successively settle his judgment in the true and genuine kind of Government, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, ought not to proceed in that long, tedious, and most uncertain way of Mens minds and Interests, of enquiring, which of all seems most reasonable, most equal, most holy, and beneficial to the ends of all Rule; and conclude that to be so, which seems to their under­standing, to be blessed most plentifully with these; but must impar­tially and sincerely enquire after the Fact immediately; which of all these have the fairest and clearest proofs of being de facto institu­tuted of God. For, a quite contrary method may be observed in the Will and Laws of Men, and of God: Man choseth and de­crees a thing because it is good and laudable; but on the con­trary, because God wills and ordains a thing, therefore is it good of necessity; according as Gerson hath excellently observed, [Page 7] Deus non ideò vult res ed extra fieri quia bonae sunt, Gerson de Consolatione Theologiae. Pros. 2.quemadmodum movetur humana voluntas ex objectione boni, vel veri vel apparentis. Est è contra potius, quod ideò res ad extra bonae sunt, quia Deus vult eas tales esse: Ideóque si vellet eas vel non esse, vel aliter esse, id quo­que jam bonum esset, &c. Thus he. For instance, We all, or mostly agree, that the Parts of Man's body are placed most aptly for use and service of the whole, and most beautifully for ornament placed in the same. Yet supposing that it had been the will of God to have set the Nose of Man behind him, his Eyes in his Brest, his Ears on the Crown of his Head, and his Mouth on the Navel of his Belly, with­out dispute this had been the most wise, beautiful, and useful order. In like manner, had it seemed good to God to cast Civil and Church-Government into any other shape, form, or condition than actually he hath, it were not to be question'd but it would be most perfect and excellent. From all which (ending this Chapter) I infer these Conclusions as certain and pious:

First, That both Polities have a Government especially Divine.

Secondly, I conclude, That Government so Divine is not to be altered under specious pretexts, and Human ratiocinations and pre­sumptions offering themselves, that another sort would serve the ends of Community better: For the fault may be, and most com­monly is, in the knottiness and cross-grainness of the piece of Wood, and not in the Tool, or Artificer. And more reasonable it is divers times, the People should be changed, than their Laws or Govern­ment; though the contrary is commonly seen, that when they of­fend in untractableness, they cast off the accusation from them­selves, by chastising the Laws, controverting Titles, and quarel­ing at the imperfections and inconveniences of that Government they live under, as not good enough for them.

CHAP. II. A Second General Preparation to the determining the Question, by removing vulgar mistakes concerning Tyranny, Antichristianism, Christian Liberty, Ex­treams, and Moderation.

IT is too plainly seen, that words, which at first were instituted to serve Man's understanding, and guide it into the knowledg of things, do command, pervert, and hurry it into many mistakes and errors: Or perhaps, to speak more properly, the vulgar use corrup­ting them causeth this mischief. And hence it is that an opprobrious name maliciously or ignorantly given, and commonly applied is a­bundantly sufficient to captivate ordinary Minds into an evil opinion of things undeservedly. Call therefore a Government Tyrannical, Antichristian, Extream, Immoderate, and against Christian Liberty; this with the Common sort, proves such a Government ought not to be endured, though it be not all proved that such terms properly belong to it, nor indeed such persons who are so liberal of their ill language know well what they say, or whereof they affirm. Let us endeavour then to come very briefly to a true notion of some of them.

Concerning Tyranny then, a grand and current mistake there is that it is properly a Species or kind of Government; which is true indeed if it be taken in the Ancientest, not Modern sense, for the same with Monarchy, or the Government of One. And thus in truth divers have of late taken it, supposing that Monarchy and Tyranny are the same; and that the Rule of One absolutely must of necessity be Tyranny, which is altogether as true as the other extreme they fall into, viz. That all Government by many is a Government of Liberty. Aristotle when he said, That Monarchy easily degenerates into Tyranny, did not say or mean that it was so in its own nature: Neither, did he say Polycratie did not, nor could fall into the same. For he that will be at the small pains to weigh the matter sincerely, shall easily perceive that Tyranny is no Government of it self, but the corruption of Government. And Liberty is no more essential to [Page 9] Aristocracie, or such like Government, Constituted of many Rulers, than to Monarchy; and that dreadful thing, called Arbi­trary Power, is altogether as incident to the Rule of Many; as when One alone has the Supream Power: Nay, there must of necessity be an Arbitrary Power, and Actually is, in all Common­wealths, Anarchie of mixed Mo­narchy. as hath been Irrefragably Demonstrated by others alrea­dy, who are not of the Clergy, who are often Censured, for driving matters of this nature too high. For it is impossible any Commonwealth should subsist, or continue without a Supream Absolute Power; and where ever this is, there is that we call Arbitrary Power. Many People indeed, observing the evils of this, have so Framed their Government, and Constituted Governours as to prevent the same; and have allmost infinitely multiplyed Governors, and Inspectors over Governors, and Check over Check, but could never find success answerable; the last Reme­die of all therefore against Courts, Princes, and Greatest Coun­cills, have been to entitle the People in Gross, to take account of such Irregularities: but such a remedy, Populum au­tem non om­nem coetum multitadinis, sed coetum ju­ris consensu & utilitatis com­munione soci­atum esse deter­minat. Scipio. Cice­ronianus apud Augustinum de Civitate Dei. Lib. 2. cap. 21. as it could never so much as take place, for as much as never did, or can the People concurr Universally to such Ends but the Major, or more Active, and busie part carried the name of all, which commonly is a piece of as great injustice, and injury, as any they would cure by such jealous Vigilancy: and if it could be done, Were not this as Arbitrary a Proceeding, as the very First of all?

There is therefore, and must be in all Government an Abso­lute, and Arbitrary Power. Now, that, when this Supremest Power is vested in One, it must presently be called a Tyrannie; when in many, Liberty, is a miserable cheat of the Common-people by ambitious, and discontented persons, seeking the advance­ment of themselves, by the Oppression of others. For, as the Apostle in another Case hath it; Thou art inexcusable, O man, who so ever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self, for thou that judgest, dost the same things. So that if it be unjust for One who is Supream, to do such a thing towards such as are Subject to him, it is unjust for Many so to do; and if it be Tyrannical for Him, it is Tyrannical in Many, even in a Senate: For, what is Tyrannie, but an excessive use, or exercise of Power, contrary to the Law of Reason, and Justice: [Page 10]So that Tyrannie, doth not consist in the abundance of Power, but in the abuse: as other Moral Vices, do not consist in full power to offend, but in the ill use of such Power. For, as Drunk­enness consisteth not in having plenty of Wine, nor Gluttonie in having choice and command of rich and various Fare (and so in other things); but in taking too liberally, and inordinately of them: So Tyrannie is not the uncontrollableness of Power in One Person or more, but the unreasonable and immoderate use according to Power. For he indeed is a Tyrant that thus carries himself, and that Council is Tyrannical, yea, that People is Tyrannical, which contrary to the Law of Reason Invadeth, and Mutilateth the Rights of Dominion belonging to their Governours, which may be their Property as justly, and reasonably, as any Goods, or Possessions belonging to Subjects, may be so termed, in respect of them. A thing, which if it were imparti­ally, and conscionably considered, me-thinks People would be more modest, than to think all those Privileges, and Liberties (they can, by flattery, craft, or taking advantage of necessities into which their Governours may be brought, gain to themselves) lawful spoil; or indeed, though at first sight they may appear so, pro­fitable for themselves: For suppose we, that a people studious of Liberty, should not only procure a Law that they should be free from all contributions to common good but what voluntarily they should please to give; August. De­vit. Dei. Lib. 2. ca. 21. [...]. Plutarch. De sera Numinis. & Psal. 94.20. but likewise, by such a Law, that they should never be compelled (which we vulgarly, and cor­ruptly call, Pressed) to the Warrs; this surely would seem a glorious Liberty, and benefit to the common sort, but really would in short time prove the ruine of the whole. There is such an Immunity claimed by the Commons of the Confederate Netherlands, which hath endangered; and certainly, had not the Governours found out some prettie tricks to elude it, had una­voidably brought those Commonwealths to nothing. St. Austin in his Book of the City of God, tells us, That Scipio in Tullie calls an unjust King a Tyrant; and unjust Nobles, Governing, a Faction; and speaking of the excess of Popular Government, to that, saith he, Nomen non reperit, nisi ut etiam & ipsum Tyrannum vocaret, i.e. He could find no name for them, but Tyrants also: Neither have such just excuse, because perhaps they have a Law on [Page 11]their side. For the Law it self, may have been extorted; and, if freely Enacted, yet unjust in it self, as that we last men­tioned; and that Law of which the Psalmist speaketh, framing mischief; and that Law, which many vehemently plead for in Church-Discipline, as that wherein consisteth (as they fondly, and falsly imagine, or perhaps would seem to believe rather) Christi­an Liberty, That every man should do as he pleases, in things so Indifferent that they are not under any Precept or Prohibition of Gods Word: For this would inevitably produce differences; and differences, in such inconsiderable matters, will infallibly pro­ceed to Animosities and Divisions in greater matters, and there terminate in the overthrow of all Discipline, or Government: I say, All Discipline. Now there is a Discipline which Mr. Beza held to be a third Essential part of a true Church, Cartwright in Second Reply p. 53. Id. First Re­ply. pa. 14. if we believe Mr. Cartwright, relating his opinion or his own: Which is, That matters of Discipline, and kind of Government, are not to be distinguished from matters necessary to Salvation and Faith: So that however they seem to be of this destructive Opinion (and indeed, they often and plainly affirm so much) yet they be no longer of it, than till such time as the Power be in their own hands: just as the Miller stops the course of the Waters, not that he is absolutely against Rivers, what ever he may seem to be, but till he shall find it necessary for his own Grist. Now to re­turn to the Application of what we have said, concerning Tyran­ny, which our Church-Government is commonly, and boldly charged with by Sectaries, and particularly, in their Synodical Letters to Transmarine Churches; They may learn at Length, that no Government in its Nature is Tyrannical, but the evil Ad­ministration of any Government makes any so, though Demo­cratical. For it is not necessary, that the Persian, Turkish, or Tararian Government should be Tyrannical, more than That of Venice, or of the Ʋnited Provinces. For these have as Absolute and Arbitrary Dominion as they. 'Tis true, these have more Moderate and Favourable Laws of Ruling than They: But who shall constrain them to observe them, if they please to break them? The People? So may the People bring those Barbarous Kings to more equal dealing, if they can, as well as the other. If therefore Many in Authority, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical [Page 12]do the same things, and have as much Power as One; the Ty­ranny of this differs from the Tyranny of them, just as much as a pound of Lead doth from a pound of Feathers; which is no small matter with vulgar Judges. Therefore, until Reformers of Go­vernments deny the power to themselves which they deny to others, and the exercise thereof; let them accustom their mouths to more ingenuous and sincere language, and either forbear to traduce others with that ignominious term, or begin to hallow it by their profession and practice. [...]. Aristot. Ethic. lib. 1. c. 10. Basil. M. in Princip. Prov. Isido. Pelusiot. lib. 3. Epi. 194. & lib. 4. Epist. 142. For 'tis but changing the singu­lar into the plural number, and Aristotle's description of a Ty­rant will suit as well with States and Classes, as with King and Bi­shops: viz. The Tyrants seek their own good, but Princes seek the good of them they govern: Wherein he is followed by Saint Basil; as is he, by I sidore Pelusiotes. But let us proceed to what follows.

Next in order, nature, and abuse, is infamous Extremity, immo­derateness, or want of moderation, in managing Controversies, and composingand curing Divisions and Differences: For, whoso shall go under such imputations of the Vulgar shall have enough to answer for, though no more be objected against him. Let us see therefore what is Moderation, and consequently Extremi­ties, according to vulgar acception. After this manner then, Mo­deration is the same in effect with the art of cleaving of Billets, cutting or chopping a thing in the middle, and dividing the live-Child into two equal parts between the unjust pretender, and the true Mother, without any due consideration of the cause it self, Plutarch. in Symposias. in justice, but the peace of different Parties. For as Plu­tarch observeth, [...]. With Fools and Knaves there is no such thing as the Mean, as to the Thing. But if Men be extreamly distant from, or op­posite to a thing or person, then presently do they accuse the same of Extreams, not considering that it is in the power of any Man to declare & denominate a thing extream, by his only act of extream­ly departing from it, as easily as it is in his power by turning himself about, to cause a thing to stand to the left or right hand. [Page 13]If then to reconcile Matters and come to a Mediocrity, we shall think it fit to clap into the middle, and give one of the Dissenters one part, and another, the other; we shall quickly dispatch and destroy all Vertue, all Religion, and all Justice, in pretending fairly, and intending foully to conserve them. But Truth, as Plutarch hath wisely noted, Plutarch. de Adulatore. is to be sought out [...], i.e. for Vertue's sake, not for the extream vice: Unless therefore Men shall first agree upon a rule and standard to measure opinions and actions, and accusations, besides what is famed or defamed for Extream, it is in vain and foolish to talk of Moderation or extream. For, had our Ancestors held only to that kind of trial, and accommodating differences either in State or Church; we had had neither Justice, nor Religion, to strive or contend about at present; or, at least, that far from the true. For first, Judaism may be said to be a Mean between Mahometism and Christianism; Popery a Mean between Judaism and Socinianism: Again, the Reformation a Mean between Papism and Socinianism; and the English Reformation, a Mean between Popery and Purita­nism: And, if we must be forced to farther Moderation still, In­dependency will be found a Mean between Presbyterism and Episco­pal Government, as Presbyterism is a Mean between Episcopacy and Independency; and Independency a Mean between Presbytery and Anabaptism, and Anabaptism a Mean between Independency and Quakerism; and so on, till the wit of Man shall be able to in­vent no more Extreams; which whether that will ever be, I know not. Now would I demand, (if it were lawful) Which of all these is truly eligible for the Mean sake? and when that shall be pitched on and chosen, Upon what account and ground? Must it not be rather because of some special Vertue proper to it as coming neerer to that we constitute and propound to our selves, as a cer­tain Rule and Principle, than for that it stands between two Ex­treams, which is common also to that Religion which we reject? For 'tis evident by Antiquity, that by the fair face of Mediocrity the Arians under Constantius the Emperor prospered to the cousenage of the simpler, and overthrow of the wiser Catholicks. But how well Hilary thought of this method of Pacification and quieting stirs in the Church, Hilarius contra Constant. these his words to Constantius plainly testifie, Haec ille pater tuus humanarum mortium docuit, vincere [Page 14]sine contumacia, jugulare sine gladio, persequi sine infamia, odir sine suspicione, mentiri sine intelligentia, profiteri fine fide, blandiri sine bonitate, agere quod velis, nec manifestare quae velis, i. e. This your Father, the mortal Enemy to man taught you, to Conquer without Fierceness, to Stab without a Sword, to make Profession and yet have no Faith, to flatter without goodness, to obtain your will, and yet not to discover your will. Thus he. And this cer­tainly and generally do they, who contend for Moderation, af­ter so many, and great Instances, as may already be given of their condescensions and concessions, from whom still boldly and afresh more Moderation is exacted, as if nothing had been done to seek their Peace and good Opinion; whose immodesty and immode­rateness will not suffer them to rest, so long as they have any hope left them to obtain their Ends, under the specious pretext of Moderation: For if what, and as often as, they demand, be granted; upon that account, they must of necessity, in time (and that not long) exhaust and quite destroy them insensibly: If they be not gratified in this, so fair and Popular request; then will they shrewdly endanger their Reputation and Interest, by bring­ing them under the Odium and Infamy with the Multitude, for Persons in Extreams, and who will yield nothing for Peace and Unitie's sake. But for my own particular, I had rather be Rob­bed than Cheated; and suffer the same loss by open violence and aggressions, than by fair frauds, by which I must believe at the same time I am dealt Friendly, and Equally with.

It being then in the Power of any single Person, and much more of a Faction, to make a Church, or, more truly, to denomi­nate it, Extream and Immoderate, when ever they please to run far enough from it, by their roving Inventions and Innovations; When will there be any rest, or stability from such accusers; if such a Church shall presently be obliged by the Sacred Bonds of Charity, Unity, and Peace, to leave its ground and follow them, at lest in part, and to relinquish its Possession and Right, lest by the foresaid Engine of shew and pretence of Moderation, it be turned out of doors? Surely, God must be trusted in such Cases, if there were no other reason (as there are many and weighty) besides the necessity of discouraging such Attempts, which would never be wanting, when such success is hoped for, upon such general and weak, though plausible, Pleas.

It is wont to be said, that all this may be true, for it is not fit all Pretenders and Opinions should be Tolerated, or yielded to; but this makes nothing against the Sober, Godly, and Conscien­cious Party, who can do somewhat, in order to a Reconciliation; and keep close to the Rule of the Scripture.

I do observe, that the best Arms (even such men have to pre­vaile with), are, very frequent and large praises of themselves, and profuse self-commendation, which hath had wonderful great suc­cess: For if you demand an Argument, and some competent Proof that they are so Consciencious, or how possibly they can be said to be so, who have been so enormous in Sins of a Party, and not Personal Sins; you shall find shameful tergiversation, or more shameful Justification of such Practises, as, in our esti­mation no Sober, Honest, or truly Consciencious man can be sub­ject to, and much less defend.

And as touching the great Regard, pretended to be had to the Word of God, we see no cause to take them at their Word, or that they should measure, and judge their own Last. It is a stronger and more reasonable Proof, that they have not the Scriptures on their side, than any they can bring that they have, That all indifferent standers by, give it against them: I mean, the Tradi­tion and Practise of the best and ancientest Churches

Neither will the Doctrine of Christian Liberty relieve these; if better understood, than vulgarly it is. For, not to make a set Dispute of that Subject at present, two general Errors may be noted which have evil Influence upon men: First, That Christian Liberty is only Negative, being completed in a freedom from Judaical Servitude, or Bondage under Moses his Law; or not do­ing what was indispensably Imposed by that Law, on that Peo­ple: and not in any thing Positive, or a Licence to act more than it was free or Lawful for them. Though I do not find that it was by Moses his Law, made utterly Unlawful, for that People to Act any thing, besides what was Commanded expressely by it; It is plain, that in process of time they did contrive many things Extrinsecally related to the Worship of God. Neither are such their Ordinances any where reprehended in Scripture; but such are often, which are contrary to their Law, or justle out the orders of God, and his precepts, and these are the places brought so [Page 16]against Human Inventions subservient to God's command; very ignorantly, or peevishly. But however, Liberty of Christians ex­tendeth as well to the Affirmative as Negative part; that is, to do those things which are not prohibited any ways by God's Word, as well as not to do those things which the Jews were bound to do. Hence it follows, that, were it so, that the Jewish Church was tyed up so strictly (which I do not believe) that it could not act any thing circumstantiating the service of God but what was di­rectly required, yet Evangelical Liberty, being as well of a far more ample as noble condition, doth permit such things, contrary to the superstition of late Pastors.

Another Mistake is concerning the proper seat or subject of Evangelical Liberty. For, divers there are that suppose that such Liberty we now treat of (for I know there are divers other sorts of far more excellent nature, but not concerning us at present) belongeth immediately and entirely, to each single good Christian; which is far from truth and sobriety to conceive: For Christ gave this Donative primarily and immediately to his Church and the Administrators thereof; that they, according to Christ's Charter, should have liberty to institute, abrogate, order, and dispose mat­ters, such Rites and Observances as shall seem to them most con­ducible to the Faith and Worship of God under the Gospel; yet with such limitations both for number and nature, that none be introduced contrary to the tenor thereof, or Analogy of Faith, or tend to the burying of any integral part or practise thereof under such rubbish; yet are not presently all private Christians allowed to preside over their Superiors, to the deter­mining what is of evil consequence, and what not, against pub­lick judgment: For Instance, To have power to determine the eating of Flesh on Friday or not, is undoubtedly a Liberty E­vangelical; but 'tis not immediately posited in every particular Christian, but the Church Representative; and private persons have no liberty but as it is dispensed by publick Authority. When I call this a Liberty Evangelical, I mean not as too many do, as if such an indifferency must properly belong to Christians; for it doth not: For Infidels and Heathen have that liberty as fully as Christ's Church; and they in Authority amongst them may as well grant or deny this Liberty as Christians; and no [Page 17]question but such as are subject to them should offend if they per­versly refused to comply with their Superiors orders. Does there­fore, think we, Christian Religion and Liberty exempt us from that kind of obedience which is naturally due? For my part, that I hold a double obligation, rather of Christians to submit; and that I can rather pitty, than help such as are of the contrary Opi­nion, is all that I shall say at this time: Yet we see that too common amongst us, which Calvin himself end eavoured to scoff men out of, in these Words, Calvin. Ia­stitut. Lib. 3. cap. 9. Videas quosdam quibus sua libertas non videtur consistere, nisi per esum carnium die Veneris in ejus possessi­onem venerint, i.e. You may see some who suppose their Liberty cannot hold, unless they take Possession of it, by eating Flesh on Fridays. To conclude then, It is directly repugnant to Christian Liberty to deny, the Church hath power to appoint the use, or dis [...]use of things Indifferent; and 'tis absolutly inconsistent with Evangelical Piety, and the power of Godliness (which consist much in denying our own Wills and Appetites) to glory how easily we Contemn such Lawful Orders.

I had thought to have said somewhat, against the bold Charge of Antichristianism laid to our Church; and a reason, why men that cannot Rule us must not obey it: But I perceive the Feavour of our late Reformers to be somewhat abated, and like men newly come out of Calentures, they begin to come to their sen­ses, to see they were monstrously out, though not so much to their Reason, as to make satisfaction for such Phrantick Miscarria­ges by a sober retractation, and disabusing of Men, (as in Consci­ence they are bound) from that, and such like Extravagancies.

But for Peace-sake, and to prevent a Schism, we ought to con­descend to our Brethren, who (to use their own Phrase, which they best know what it means) can come up to us in many things. But what means this great and suddain Change in these men? Are not they the very same, who formerly made it Criminal, yea Capital to Preach Peace, and propound Reconciliation? Yes sure, but Times, not Manners are altered. Surely somewhat extraor­dinary is at the bottom of all this. They Act not according to Nature, but outward necessity: and such a Peace is not worth the having, which can never be held any longer, than men shall be able to break it, or work their ends by Insinuations and fair [Page 18]Promises; open force failing them. Like as it is seen with an impure Assailant of Virginity, the party being Rescued by an ex­traordinary Providence out of his wicked Hands, he turns to her again, and tempts her to his Lust by promises of Marriage; but having obtained his ends, despises, whom he hath undone: Or as the Lyon and the mans Daughter, in the Apologue: The Lyon sought the Fathers consent for his Daughter: Very willing­ly, said the man, upon condition that you will suffer your Claws to be pared close, and your Teeth taken out, lest you hurt my tender Daughter: The Lyons extream love caused him to do so; and then demainding his Spouse, was not only denied her, but, not being able to help himself, was knock't 'oth' head for his kind Condescentions. When the Church of England hath spoil­ed it self of its proper and natural Guards, then will the fair Discipline be monstrously kind to it: and the event every man sees. But what at length do they intend by their aenigmatical speech of Coming up to us? Will they Renounce one branch of their Covenant? Will they for ever lay aside one of the Cords of their Whip with six strings? I have seriously asked and urged some of them, and could not get any lasting Concession, any longer than they shall be enabled to exact the whole: And do we admire they should, until that time, seem at least satisfied with part? Let them name one thing, that for Peace-sake for these Hundred years, they would give to us more than we had before; But very many Relaxations have been make already, and are we awhit the nearer? Or is it not then time to make a stop of Dispensations; when the Dispensation for a time shall be alledged against the Law, and Canon it self? And it is no kind­ness at all (in their opinions) that such Mitigations and Conni­vance have been; but Extremity, Tyranny, Injustice, Unchari­tableness, to restore the Pristine force and vigour to Ecclesiastical Laws. Upon these and the like Considerations, I conclude with Tullie to Antonie. Cic. PhilipQuaeris quare pacem nolo? Quia turpis; Quia periculosa; Quia esse non potest. Would ye know, why I will have no peace? Because it is dishonest, because it is dangerous, and because it cannot be. It must needs be dishonest and dishonou­rable, because of the conditions required. For they having ex­treamly separated themselves from us, and standing at that distance [Page 19]firmly, do cast the odious termes of Extreams, upon them they have so left; and call their dragging us to them, their coming home to us; and their pulling us down to their pleasures, their coming up to us. And that it is dangerous, appears from mani­fold Tenets, interpreted clearly against their own temporizing Glosses; by their apparently wicked attempts and practises: And if there were no more then present ambiguous, John Cerbet's Interest of England. pag. 24. pag. 57. and two-handl'd Phrases whereby they Characterize themselves, and distin­guish themselves from others, they are much to be suspected. For we often do hear them Magnifying their Capacities and Ge­nius's, as that they are Free-born Subjects; they are a free spirited People; a free-born People; and such like: which as they are special pieces of flatteries to make the common sort proud of themselves, so truly, we cannot throughly understand what they signify: but this we know, such Phrases change like water, in Weather-glasses: If it be a fair and clear time with us, than do they fall down low, to a very tolerable sense; but if fowl and troublesome, then do they rise to a higher Meaning a great deal, and Actions suitable. And what possibility of Reconciliation and Peace durable, is to be expected from those men, whom nothing truly will content less, than their entire Discipline? but if they accept less for the present, they take it, only as men do debts hard to be got in, in part of payment, until they shall be able to recover all. Hear what the above mentioned Pretend­ed Moderator saith, and you will begin to see, what great hopes, or advantage may be had of them.

The Publick State of these Differences is such, John Corbet's Interest. pag. 109.that the Prelatists may, and ought to descend to the Presbyterians in the proposed Mo­derate Way; but the Presbyterians cannot come up to the Prelatists in the hight of their Way. For the Prelatists Condescention, stands only in the omission of certain things, which seem to them laudable; but the Subjection of the Presbyterians stands, in Subscribing, and Conforming to certain things, which seem to them unlawful. Thus he. But, according to what Rule does it appear, which is here weakly and childishly taken for granted, that the Prelatists (as this Jack-straw miscalls those of the Church of England) are so high? Let it be shewed, what is the Mean they have so far exceeded; and what Laws of Church-Government they [Page 20]have, or do Transcend? If they make their Interpretations of Scripture, the Law; their Models, the Rule; their Discipline, the Mean, we ought to compare, examine and judge our selves by, we must confess we are out; we are in the Extream, we are very high: but who could be so bold besides these men, to ex­pect such a fond and absurd concession? And who so stupid among us, to yield, to that most Ridiculous way of Tryal? when We being the only Legal Visible Church of this Nation, as to out­ward Constitutions, in all equal Mens reason have a Right to judge them, and rather Condemn them of Extream, on the contrary side, to which, we neither can, nor ought to descend. But it will be said, The Reformed Churches abroad may direct us. Ye are to know, and consider, That there is not One Reformed Church that We can hear of, that (were it their Case, as it is yours) would thus tugg, and stand out against us: as Mr. Du­rel hath amply shewed. Again, Our Church hath no such Obligations, to receive the Sentence of All the Reformed Churches put together; as you have, to submit to Ours, as be­ing generally Educated in, and under the same. And Thirdly, I Appeal to all the World, What an unwise, and ungodly Cha­rity it would be in us, so to condescend to your Pitch, and conceptions of Church-Government, and Orders for the gaining of a very uncertain Peace with you, and thereby put our selves out of a possibility, of having any Communion, or Peace with almost infinite Churches abroad; who will receive into Com­munion and Fellowship, none that want such things, as you re­quire us to lay away, for love of you. I speak not so much of the Romish Church, as Greek and Eastern Chruches; with whom to hold Communion and Peace, by retaining such Constitutions and Orders as we now enjoy, is ten times more desirable, and Charitable, than for your sakes to part with them. And we are assured, under your devices, we shall never obtain it. Furthermore, whence hath this Author, That they of the Church hold those things only Laudable, wherein it differeth from Sectaries? And that it is not as unlawful according to our Consciences to omitt them, as it is with their Consciences to do them? We do not ('tis true) hold them to have any Moral Good in them, of themselves, and therefore we call them Indifferent. [Page 21]And the Presbyterians do not affirm they have any Moral Evil, and therefore grant they may be observed. There must there­fore be something more in the wind than Conscience, on these Mens parts, which detain them: For as much as neither they, nor any man else, can pretend an Offence of Conscience, where there is neither real, nor apparent Evil: but 'tis a contradiction that any thing should so much as appear to be Evil, or Sinful, while it appears Indifferent. Therefore according to the Presbyterians own Tenets, they may come up to us; for it can only be pretended to be against their Consciences. And if they Alledg any Cause, why that, which in it self is not Evil, nor against their Conscience, may be, and is, upon another account, which 'tis easie to guess at; I will answer, That, just so it is with the Church of England: Many things which being not absolutely, and in themselves good, or necessary, and so consequently may be omitted with a safe Conscience; for certain adventitious ad­vantages, and Exteriour Accounts, no whit inferiour to those of the other side, they cannot with a good Conscience be Abo­lished, or Omitted. And thus we see the Vanities and Mistakes in alledging Extremities, Moderation, Tyranny, and tender Conscience, in these Cases.

CHAP. III. A General determination of the Question according to Reason.

THat all Factions, Parties, Persons, or Religions are not to be Tolerated, or granted Liberty; I think all agree. It will be necessary then in the First place, to lay down certain Distincti­ons, serving to judge of the reasonableness of such Inhibition towards some, rather than others. And they may concern either the Persons or the Religion, or lastly, the kind of Tolerations or Restraint, themselves.

Persons pleading for Liberty of Religion are First, either [Page 22]such as are of themselves altogether Free from any Civil, or Moral Subjection from us, or such as by Birth and Education being incorporated into the same Body, and Polity, are, and ought to be, subordinate unto the Head thereof.

Secondly the Religion Insisted on, and Pleaded for, is either Repugnant to the light and prime Principles of Nature and human Society, or Consistent with the same.

Thirdly, because all Restraint Moral, such as is Disswasion, Refutation, Exclusion from the Society of others, is by the concession of all Parties insufficient to suppress a growing Evil, oftentimes; and therefore outward Civil Mulcts, and Punish­ments are in such Case, to be Inflicted; the diversity of such Pu­nishment is to be considered. For according to the Civil Law, Punishments are either Corporal, or Non-corporal. And Corpo­ral, are either Capital, or Not-Capital, Punishment Not-Cor­poral is that, which divests a man of any Profits, Emoluments, or Dignities. Corporal, and Not-Capital, is that, which is Inflicted on a mans Body, without taking away the Life. Capital, is that which destroyes Life. According to these therefore, it may be answered to the main Querie:

First, That it is not only Lawful and Reasonable to allow a Toleration to Persons in Co-ordination to us, and not depending upon us; But it is very unjust, and unnatural to attempt by Force, to reduce them to our way of serving God: Humani ju­ris & naturalis potestatis est, unicui (que) quod putaverit cole­re; nec alii ob­est aut prodest altertus Reli­gio. Sed nec Religionis est cogere Religio­nem, quae spon­te suscipi debet: non enim cùm & hostiae animo libenti suscipi expostalentur. Tertullianus Ad [...]capulam. ca. 2. Vide Thomam 22. qu. 10. Artic. 8. For such kind of Force, or Violence, cannot be offered, but by Civil Power assum­ed; and Civil Power ought never to be exercised, but by Law­ful Authority: and they, whom we suppose to be of distinct Societies and Regiments, can have no Legal right to Invade, or Usurp upon one another. And this being against Justice (which alwaies is to be preferred before the best Religion) it would be a contradiction to advance and build Religion upon the Ruines of that which Founds all Religion: as Tertullian excellently argues.

And if this holds good in Persons Co-ordinate, so far that it is most unjust for Either, to impose upon Other their Faith, or [Page 23]Worship: it can scarce be expressed, the horrible Crime and Unjustice of them, who being as Legally Subordinate and Sub­ject as tis possible for People to be, take the confidence to Arme, to the end, they may reduce their Prince, and Pastors to the Rule of their Consciences: And having oppressed both, though fail­ing in their Main design, the Scene changed, to exceed them­seves in Immodestie, and demand that benefit, they would no wayes grant others, whom they had no right at all to deny; up­on reasons infinitely Inferiour to them, they a while since rejected. In these shameful straits, they say with one of their late Politici­ans, The Presbyterian Party in England, Corbet's In­terest of Eng­land. pag: 57. never engaged under a less Authority, than That of both Houses of Parliament. Good Sir, clear up, and speak out. Did they do well, or not, in so Engaging, even with both Houses on their side? If they did well, then did we very ill, to Oppose and Resist; Then were all your Enemies Rebells, the King himself not excepted: Then why do you not Preach Repentance to us, as we do to you? Then will you, then may you, nay, then ought you to do so again, as we profess we are bound to do, and alwayes did in our greatest Persecutions: And are you not well to be look'd to, think you? But your Case is still worse: For it will never be granted, what is here supposed. viz. That those Two Houses were Houses of Parliament, but a Conventicle of Private Men, after the Expul­sion of that Part of the Lords-House which have been proved to be no less Essential to a Parliament than the remaining States, had they remained with the Presbyterians: but 'tis apparent, not the Major Part continued with them, but manifested against them: But especially, the Kings Authority withdrawn from them, they like Sampson the Nazarite being shaven, became as other men, and the Spirit of Power, and all Legal Authority departed from them. Or if after all these Ruines and Delapidations, they must still be called Houses; in what doth Presbyterian excel the following Factions, who had those things, they called Two Houses too, and with no more prejudices?

But my Author proceeds, and indeed speaks plainly. Id: ibid. I have read (saith he), That the Parliament of England, is of a Twofold capacity. First, Representing the People, as Subjects; and so, that it can do nothing, but manifest their Grievances, and Petition for Re­lief. [Page 24]Secondly, By the Constitution, it hath part in the Soveraignty; and so it hath part in the Legislative Power, and in the final judg­ment. You have read. You may have read, and that from your own party, infinite passages of Sedition, and Treason: But had you so little Wit and Loyalty, pretending so much to both, as to Publish and approve it, and to justifie wicked Practises by as bad Principles? But they are in the Faction still, and though like Water in a spunge or clout scarce discernible, when let alone, being pressed a little, out they come. But must he that speaks Treason, speak Nonsense and Impossibilities too? For, 'tis not possible that the same persons should consist of such a Contradictory Ca­pacity, as that of the Subject and Soveraign. But I return:

It is worse than Barbarous to Attach, or Oppress any People, meerly upon account of Religion, not repugnant to the Light of Nature, as I shall shew by and by: For otherwise, Religion, whose chief End is to Conserve Mankind, in Peace and Justice, would turn the Earth upside, down, and fill the World with in­cessant Combustions, and Massacres. For it will be as reasonable that the Infidel, and Indians should Invade the Christian upon that score, as the Christian Him. And then where will such Depre­dations end?

Again, Thom. 22. Quaest. 10. Art: 8. [...]. Isidor. Pelusiot: li. 3. Epist. 362 Lactant. Lib. 5 Instit. ca. 19. Christus Apo­stolos misit ad seminandam fidem, qui &c. Ambros. In Luc. Lib. 7. Pict. ad Constant. Joan: Duil: De Vero Ʋsu Patrum. Lib. 2. ca. 6. as Thomas hath observed, Religion being a Free Thing, there is no Reason Infidels should be thereunto Compelled. Nay, as Isidore Pelusiotes noteth well, To Force and Dragg others to the true Religion, who are absolutely at their own disposal; neither is, nor seems, Decent or Convenient. And Lactantius saith, Non opus vi & injuriâ, quia Religio cogi non potest. There is no need of Force and Injury, for asmuch as Religion cannot be Compelled. And St. Ambrose Testifies truly, That Christ sent his Apostles to sow the Faith, who were not to Compel, but Teach, nor to Exercise Force, or Power, but extol the Doctrine of Humility. And agreable thereunto St. Hillary writes, Deus cognitionem sui docuit potius quàm exegit, God rather Taught, than Extorted the knowledg of himself. To these, and this effect, I might add such Fathers as Monsieur Duillee hath collected; endeavour­ing, [Page 25]though in vain, to prove thereby, that the present Church, hath fallen from the Opinions of the Auncient, because they were against Compulsion in point of Religion; which, with what I have observed seeming to favour Liberty in Religion, is easily answer­ed by distinguishing of Persons educated in, and subject to a Church, to whom they never granted a Licenciousness of his Na­ture; from such as were not under any Obligation of Obedience and Conformity to a Society: Of these they are to be interpre­ted, and not of them: For herein they followed the Doctrine of St. Paul who saies, What have I to do, to judge them that are without? And of these, are the words of the Psalmist, 1 Cor. 5.12. to be understood; abused by trifling Sectaries: Psal. 110.13.Thy People shall be willing in the day of thy Power. Which implies, a freeness of consent to the Service and Faith of Christ under the Gospel, in such as first received the knowledge thereof.

Secondly, According to the Second Distinction, it may be said, that there being some Religions not only contrary to ours, but even to the Light, and commonly received Law of Nature; such are not only, not to be admitted into any Christian Common­wealth, but it is Lawful for Christians, or not Christians, in vindi­cation of Common-Laws of Nature, even such, which being once and lightly offered to the Consideration of such as do not ob­serve the same, do in a manner constrain Assent thereunto; provided that Interest, Passion, and unnatural Vices, have not taken away that sight, which Nature had given. For we know who saies, That the God of this World blinds the eyes of some: 2 Cor. 4.4. 2 Pet. 3.5. and who saith, Some things men are willfully ignorant of. There­fore Actual Ignorance neither excuses, nor exempts men from Punishment, even of such, as are not in Political Authority over them. The reason whereof, is, Because, however the World be divided into several Countries, and those Countries sub-divided into several Nations and Governments, absolute in themselves, as to Political Administration; yet, are All Men of the same Flesh and Blood, and kind, and nature, yea, Common-wealth, Act. 17.26. and Familie, as to certain Principles of Reason, and Nature, which are as Laws containing men in the same Society; and as to the Design that God had, in placing Man upon Earth, which was to live at least so Humanely, as might continue the Work of Gods [Page 26]hands upon Earth, and the Recognition of a Superior Cause of them, and Power and Dominion over them, which is a Deity; contrary to which, is that most brutish and degenerous Sin of Atheism. For though Atheism, be not a Religion (of which we now speak), yet it is to be reduced to this Subject, as all Priva­tions are there to be handled, where their habits are properly treated of. [...]. Diog [...]aert: In Zenone. Ephes. 2.12. Now the Stoicks, (as Laertius tells us,) were wont to make a Two-fold Atheism; Dogmatical, whereby men not only know no God, but would prove, There is no God: And Practical, whereby men in general having a true, but weak, and obscure knowledg of God, do, as the Apostle saith, live as with­out God in the World; as if there were no such thing Existent. But we shall rather divide Atheists into Purely Negative, such as have, nor ever had, no knowledg of a God; and Positive, such as have had the knowledg, and sense of a Deity; and after, are fallen into such open Apostasie, and Defiance, that they Dogmatize such Unnatural Opinions. Of these Latter, we hold it just and reasonable, that where they live mixt with other People who do revere a Deity, they should be put to Death, after serious and plain Proposal made of their Abominable Errors; without any laborious, or Learned controverting the Point. And this affirm­eth Perkins, Perkins Ca­ses of Consci­ence. Lib. 2. ca. 2. before me, in these Words, As for those that are commonly called Atheists, which deny that there is a God, they are to be punished with Death, as not worthy to live in human Society; and the greatest Torment, that can be devised by the Wit of Man, is too good for them: For, if they be holden for Traytors to an Earthly Prince, and are most deservedly adjudged to Death, &c. But I suppose, a greater reason than this, is, The certain Destruction which such Embrutiz'd men do bring to human Society it self: which, whoever is a direct and professed Enemy unto, may be put to Death, as lawfully as Wolfs, Lyons, and Tygers. And yet, not at the pleasure, or Power of every one that meets them, as wild Beasts may, because Judgment against the most open Malefactors condemned by the Law, must not be executed, but by Sentence, and Commission from the Supream Power. For to make good one part of Justice, we must not destroy another; nor secure Gods Ordinance in one Point, by endangering it in another. But it is Gods Ordinance, that the Supream Power [Page 27]should be respected and obeyed; and it is scarce possible, that any Common-wealth should be of any long continuance, where pri­vate Persons take on them to administer or execute Justice, upon their own presumptions And if it be, as the wit of some Atheists lead them to conceive, that Religion is only a trick of Policy, to keep men in order, and obedience to their Superiours, and that they do confess, that it is necessary to keep together a Civil Society; do they deserve any thing less than Death, who shall treacherously discover, and endeavour to Null such a Mystery of State, without which, Human Society cannot be maintain'd? And surely, if Chrysostom's zeal carried him so far, Matthaeus VVestmona­steriensis, pag. 182. as to advise any one that met a Blasphemer of God, or his Worship, to smite him presently on the Face; yea, though he were sure to be had before the Judg for so doing: it is more reasonable to bait A­theists and Persecute them, the Supream Authority not gainsaying. Escobar tells us the Practice of Spain, to be against Blasphemers, That for a Light Blasphemy, he only abjures it: Yet, the Punishment doth answer the Sin. v.g. If they Blaspheme out of suddain Anger, or some other Passion, they are Condemned to the Gallies: or else standing bare Foot, and bare Head, girt with a Cord, and holding a Light Torch in their Right hand, they stand in some Festival day in the Church, and the Service being ended, they receive their Sentence with the rest of their Penances, i.e. Fastings, Prayers, and Pecuni­arie Mulcts. And where Authority is Defective and Remiss, in this so horrible Provocation; It is observed by many dreadful In­stances, how God himself taketh Vengeance: as, amongst others, Matthew of Westminster tells us How, in the year of Grace 501, Olympus a most Mad Fellow, while bathing, he Blas­phemed the Holy Trinity, that he was consumed with a Fiery Thunder-bolt falling on him from Heaven. Thus he. And that, not only Corporal, but even Capital Punishment is due to such an one, doth from hence appear; because a man being of a Religion which asserts the Diety under such and such Forms, Cunaeus DeRe­public. Hebrae. Li. 1. cap. 1. Item Maimoni­des in Misna ractat. de Re­gibus. ca. 9. or Notions; the Professed dishonouring thereof, implies a self Condemnation, and with all such an unnatural humour of impi­ety, which leads him against all Religions, and human Pra­ctice.

And it is observed by Cunaeus, That such was the Force of the [Page 28]Seven Precepts of Noah, and extended so to all men, that the Israelites were commanded, such who were ignorant of them to slay by War, and remove them from human Society.

Again, Tertul. Apol. cap. 8. Au­gust. Civit. Dei lib. 7. ca. 19 Alex. ab Alex­and, lib. 6. ca. 26. Ludovic. Vives in Aug. de Civ. Dei. Hu­go. Grot. con­tra Socin. pag. 200, 201, 202. Bod. De Repub. li. 1. cap. 5. 2 Kings 23.10 Jer. 32.33 36. Psal. 106; v. 37, 38, 39. Jerem. 7.31. Selden de diis Syris Syn­tag. 1. cap. 6. Porphyr. [...] lib. 2. it were (I suppose) Lawful for any Prince, or Per­son to compel any People that should Worship their God, or gods by the Sacrifice of Mankind: And yet we read how far this De­vilish Superstition prevailed over the World, as may appear from Tertullian, Austin, Alexander ab Alexandro, Ludovicus Vives, Grotius, and others. In a Word, Learned Bodin tells us, That there was never any People, or Nation, who imagined not, that the Gods might be pacified with human Sacrifices, such as the Peruvians, and Brasilians at this day use: And, that the Canaanites in ancient days Accustomed themselves to such Sacrifices, Offer­ing their Sons and Daughters unto Molech, that Fiery Idol; the Scripture Testimonies are many, and express; and not to be eluded, by the vain and bold glosses of Rabbies, attempting, I suppose, to extenuate the foul Apostasies of their Predecessors; and that Children were not kill'd, and burnt, but drawn only through two Piles of Fire, and so consecrated to Molech, as Mr. Selden hath observed out of them. But that Molech was the same with Saturn, and the Phoenicians offered to him such inhu­man Human Sacrifices, Porphyrie witnesseth; which agrees per­fectly, with the Practice of the Carthaginians, who themselves, together with their Superstitious Abominations, descended from the Phoenicians. For that the Carthaginians used to Offer such Sacrifices; [...], Plutarch. [...] &c. Plutarch, not only assureth us, but tells us who, and upon what occasion, caused that Custom to cease. For Gelon, King of Syracuse, having Conquered them, would not make Peace with them, unless, they would first give over Sa­crificing their Children to Saturn. Possibly, this unna­tural Religion took its Original from the Design of Abraham Offering up his Son Isaac; which being performed amongst the Phoenicians, might be cause of mis-understanding to them, as In­numerable acts of the Patriarchs and Israclites, were first corrupt­ly imitated by the neighbouring Heathens, and by them trans­mitted and propagated into other parts: so that it was not an in­ward suggestion of Nature, though very common, so much, as Imitation.

Again, were it so, that any Nation should freely admit, and practise the unnatural Sin, of Coupling with Beasts after the manner of human Sexes; I doubt not, but it were Lawful, and Laudable in any Forrein Prince, to endeavour the abolishing of such a Custom, by Force of Arms, because this is against hu­man Nature, by confounding the Species of Man.

In the Last place, according to our distinctions, we are to con­sider, the kind, and condition of Punishment to be inflicted up­on Offenders against Religion; of which, in the ensuing Chap­ters.

CHAP. IV. That the Ancients, as well Christian as un-Christian, constantly denied Toleration of Religions dissonant and contrary.

IT is a most frequent and plausible Maxim which Sectaries have got by the end, to slip their Necks from the uneasie Yoke of Government, and duty of Obedience incumbent on them, many times against their Wills and Interests; He is most a King, that rules in the Hearts of his Subjects; and that Prince is alwates best served, and obeyed who by gentleness and kindness, gains the good will of his People. And this, though it hath much truth, soberly understood and modestly taken; yet, as by diverse of late applied, includes in it a world of Knavery and Mischief. For when will that be, that a Prince shall win the hearts of such dissatisfied, and fond Persons as these, but when he shall lay the Scepter so lightly over them, as not to hurt them; when he shall give them so much Line, as that they may do what they please; when he shall remit, and relax the curbing and punishing part of the Laws so far, as that they may be dallied with, and played with at pleasure, without Censure; when they may Inrovate accor­ding to the Phansies of their own Brains, and Lusts of their Hearts: Such a King as this is fit to Rule over a Free Spirited [Page 30]People, Free-born Subjects: and then shall he have their hearts when he requires nothing else, and can command nothing else. But me-thinks such should do well, to think sometimes upon Rules of good Subjects: and that he is a good Subject (according to St. Paul) who doth all things [Lawful and Honest] without mur­muring, and disputing; and that makes a Conscience of limitin; his Superiours in their commands, where God hath not Limited; and should spend some of that time, and shew some of that Piety which they profess, in regulating and assisting their Superiours, by their Precepts to govern them well, in putting in Practice the difficult Art of obeying Well; which Flesh and Blood takes so little content in, that nothing is more ungrateful to them, and an unmortified carnal Man discovers himself in nothing more, than in that humour. But this, the Learning of the wisest, and com­mon Experience, may teach us; that, as no Society of men can subsist without Laws, so no Laws without Coercion and Force; and no Coercion can take place, without Punishment. For as Tullie in Brutus, and Plutarch after him; All Common­wealths, continue, and rest upon Two Principal Columnes, Pu­nishments and Benefits. For neither is Vertue so excellent and amiable in the eyes of all, no, nor Religion, nor Piety; as that men should be so Ravish't with their intrinsick beauty, as to need no External Motives to commend them to us, and excite our Affections; neither is there such a loathsome Turpitude, or emi­nent danger in Vice, Plato in Gor­gia. Heresie, or Impiety as that, no outward Dis­couragments propounded, men of themselves, must as necessarily Flee from them, Seneca de C'e­ment. lib. 1. cap. 21. Pae­na ad tria res­picere debet. Aut ut cum quem pu nit emendet; aut ut poena ejus caeteros melio­res reddat; au sublatis malis securiores caete­ri vivant. Galenw. Quod Mor [...] sequnu­tur &c. as they do from Serpents, or Mad-Dogs.

Plato therefore assigneth Two principle Ends in punishing Ma­lefactors: First, Satisfaction for the wrong done unto the Com­munity, by the Offence committed. Secondly, Prevention of like Miscariages, by bringing a Terrour upon others. Seneca makes Three Causes of inflicting Punishment. First, that the Punish­ed may be amended. Secondly, or others corrected by their Sufferings. Thirdly, That the Evil being taken away, the Good may be more safe. Somewhat, not much differing from these, doth Galen likewise give Three Reasons of Punishment. First, lest they should mischief the Good. Secondly, That a few being Chastised, others may be Reformed. Thirdly, That wicked [Page 31]Men proceed not too far in wickedness: All which, hold no less in a Religious Commonwealth, than Prophane. For, what safe­ty can the sound Sheep be in, amongst whom the corrupt and rotten shall be permitted to Walk? And what security can the Righteous and true Believer be in, so long as the Infectious Doctrine and Example of Hereticks and Schismaticks, 2 Tim. 2.17. which do creep and eat like a Grangrene, whereby the whole Body is in great danger, to be dissolved, and dissipated. 1 Tim. 5.20. And the Apostle adviseth Timothy to rebuke them that sin, before all, that others also may fear. It hath been therefore the constant practice of the Church of Christ, for the better conserving it self in Unity, and Charity; First, to admonish and rebuke Litigious Dissenters and Dividers; and, that not taking due effect, to proceed to such severe Pu­nishment, as may render such unable to Propagate their mischie­vous Tenets. And not the Church only, hath taken this necessa­ry course, but even Heathens have thought it necessary to deny a Liberty of Introducing new devices into Religion, to the distur­bance, and Dissettlement of Others. Valerius Max. li. c. 1 For Valerius Maximus sheweth how that certain Books being found in Rome, making against the Established Religion; the City-Praetor, by command of the Senate, caused them to be burned. And Tullie tells us of Pro­tagoras Abderites, that having wrot certain Books of dangerous consequence to Religion, he was Banished by the Athenians out of their City and Countrey, and his Books burnt in an open Assembly. And what is so manifest, as the sore Persecutions the Jews suffered under Antiochus for their Religion? and, How ma­ny and dreadful Persecutions Christians suffered under the Hea­then Emperors for the Faith of Christ? insomuch, that it is ob­served by Polydore Vergil, and others; that from St. Polydorus Ver­gil lib. 8. ca. 1. Invent. Rer. Peter to Sylvester the First, there being Thirty two Bisheps of Rome, all saving Seven, were Martyriz'd. But when Christian Religion, partly by the Invincible Fortitude of Believers, and partly by the favour of some Christian Emperours became so Publick and Root­ed, and many were sprung up from the Loyns of Christian-Parents, so that they never tasted of Gentilism; it seemed reasonable to that greatest Enemy to Christians, to constrain none to Gentile-Worship. For thus he writeth to one of his Governours. [...]. Julian Epi. 52 We permit not that [Page 32]any of the Christians should be forced to our Altars.

But to draw nearer, Nec de Vet [...]ri Testam. profero exempla quam­vis etiam Propheticis ex­emplis doceri il­la dixisti. Il la, in quam, nimis an­tiqua non pro­fero; fuerunt enim alterius dispensationis & Temporis. Augustin. Lib. 4. Contra Crescon: Grammat: Exod. 22. v. 21. Deuteron: 13.12, 13, 14, 15. Deute­ron: 17.12: I shall with St. Austine disputing this against Cresconius, wave the Instances which may be brought out of the Old-Testament, because they may be said to be of a diverse Oeconomie, from those of the New. But most manifest it is, that such as varied from the Religion in which they were Educated, were to be Cut off from their People; which I know is diversely understood, but by All acknowledged to be a severe Punishment. And besides it is undeniable, that such as would not hear the Priests whom God had set over them in matters of Religion, were to be put to Death. Let us see what was the Practice of the Christian-Church.

Learned Pedro Paolo of Venice, Pedro Paolo Hidorie of In­quisition. pag: 6. seemeth to dislike Persecution for Heresie: in that, treating of the Inquisition he argues against it from the Practice of the Church until Constantine the Great his time; Non invo i­tur exemplum in Evangelicis & Apostolicis Literis, altquid petitum à Regibus Terrae pro Ecclesia. Quis [...]egat non in­ventri. Sed non dum impleba tur illa prophe­tia, Et nunc Reges intelligi­te &c. Psal. 2. Aug. Epist. 48. saying, that until the Reign of Constantine i. e Three hundred and Twnety years after Christ, no Penalties were in­flicted upon Hereticks But I cannot but marvel, such a judicious Person should take that to be an argument of the Churche's Opinion, That Hereticks ought not to be punished; when as, un­til Constantines daies, the Church was never possessed of any Civil Power; and it knew well enough it was against Christian Religion to Usurp it, though to the favouring and furthering of the same. But scarce was Constantine rid of that Tyrant, and Heathen, Lycinius, but, as Lycinius, out of Zeal, persecuted the Christians (which was the Ground of their quarrel, how ever malicious Zozimus Fables it otherwise,) Constantine endeavoured the suppressing of the Idolatrous Gentile-Worship, commanding (as Optatus telleth us) the Temple Doors of the Gentiles to be shut up, Optatus Me­levita lib. 2. Contra Parm: [...] &c. Eusebius de Vita Constant. lib. 2. ca: 43, 44: [...] & Socratis Hist. lib. 2. ca. 6. Nicephor. lib 8. ca. 25. and that the Christian Religion should be only protected, and maintained Publickly. And Eusebius tells us, that he not only caused their Idol Temples to be shut up, but prohibited Sacrifices to them. And this his zeal did not end only in destroying Idola­try, [Page 33]but extended to Heresie also. For, after the First Council of Nice had determined the Faith Controverted, Constantine made it an Offence Capital, so much as to conceal Haeretick Books; as Socrates and Nicephorus relate. Austine likewise, in an Epistle against the Donatists sheweth, Augustinus Epist: 166 Donec Faelix ipse jussu &c. how after the Donat [...]sts-Appeal to the Emperour, against Faelix who ordained Caecilianus, had been heard and rejected, by Helianus the Proconsul, and that he was declared Innocent, that Constantine the First, made a Decree most strict against the Donatists; and that his Son after him, followed therein his Steps, which continued until Julians Reign, who, De­sertor Christi & inimicus, supplicantibus vestris Rogatiapo & Pontio, libertatem perditioni Partis Donati permisit. An Apostate from Christ, and an Enemy to your Supplicants Rogatianus and Pontius, gave Liberty to the pernicious Sect of Donatus. And St. Amb [...]ose makes it no small matter of his praise of Gratian, Ambros. Epist. 26. That he brought peace and quietness to the Church, and stopped the mouths (of Arians:) Id. De Fide lib 3. cap. 3. and would to God (saith he) you could have shut the hearts of such wicked men, and mischievous; And that, this he did aswel by the Faith, as his own Power. And no wonder that Father should so write, who saith also, That Haereticks are more abominable, than the very Jews that crucified Christ. Histor. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 16 And Theodoret relates at large, how Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium prevailes with Theodosius, to exclude the Arian Conventicles out of the Cities. And Bellarmin, in the Life of Theodosius relateth, Bellarm. in Vita Theodos. pag. 285, & 286. that Hono [...]ius and Theodosius published an Imperial Edict, whereby they decreed, that the Pelagians should be wholly suppressed and expelled Rome: and after sent their Rescript to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage in which they Commanded that they should be driven out of Africa. And, as Cardinal Hosius hath observed, Hosius De Cou­cilio Oecomeu. cap. 24. there is Extant amongst the Proemial Epistles to the Council of Calcedon, an Epistle of Pulcheria the Empress to the Governour of Bythinia, to expel out of the City and Places where that Council was to be held, all Clergy-men, Monks, and Lay-men, who would by no means be brought to the Council. It is true, Bilson, True difference be­tween Christ­ian Subjecti­on and &c. pag 19, 20. what Bishop Bilson hath observed, concerning Gratians Toleration of all, at his First entrance into the Empire, That finding all places full of Arians; and the Laws of Valens his Uncle, making for them; Fearing some general Tumult, if he should presently distress so [Page 34]many, gave leave, that every Religion should have Churches and Oratories, with freedom and immunitie; but being once setled and joyned with Theodosius, he commanded that all Haeresies should keep silence for ever. And this was the Course, as Beda well ob­serveth, which Ethelbert the Saxon King, took; who being convert­ed to the Christian Faith himself, gave order, that none of his Subjects should be compelled to become Christians; only he shewed them most favour, Beda lib. 1. cap. 26. Hist. and kindness, who embraced that Faith which he did. And the reason hereof, is observable in the same Author, Didicerat enim & à Doctoribus, Autoribusque suae sa­lutis, servitum Christi voluntarium, non coactitium esse debere: For he learn'd from the Masters and Authors of saving Doctrine, That Christs Worship ought to be Voluntarie, and not Compelled. But the First of our Nation, That by Law destroyed Idolatry, was Ecombertus, in the Year, 640. who also commanded that the Fast of 40. days should be observed through his whole Kingdom. Quae ne facile à quopiam possint contemni, dignas punitiones fieri in transgressores jussit, Matthew Westmonasteri­ensis. pag. 224. saith Matthew of Westminster. And because it may be that some Hereticks will plead for favour, from the carriage of Ethelbert above mentioned, it is to be noted, that there is a vast difference between Hereticks and Schismaticks, and Heathens who never had Knowledg of the Truth, as Bishop Bilson hath truly noted, upon the like occasion; saying, Hereticks of all sects and sorts, Bilson Diffe­rence be­tween Christi-Subj. &c. pag. 26.may be compelled to follow truth, though Infidels might not; and so your Inference faileth when you say, No Law forceth Jews, or Pagans from their Perswasion, therefore not Christians. Nay rather, if we grant Jews, and Turks excusa­ble for these two Reasons, Lack of Knowledg, and Want of Promise; certainly, Papists being neither void of the First, nor free from the Last, may, yea must, be compelled of Christian-Magistrates, for dread of Punishment temper'd with good Instructions, to forsake their Heresies, and forbear their Idolatries wherewith Christ is dishonou­red, and his truth defaced. Thus he: Whereby their Plea is fur­ther made Void, whereby some argue from Toleration of Heathen, over whom there is no Authority, the Liberty due to Christians, who do owe submission as well in general, by being Members of such a Society, as particular by way of Promise, either Implicite, or Explicite; which each man makes to the Body, [Page 35]to which he is to conform in all Lawful things in themselves; not measuring things Lawful by the Bent of our Consciences (than which nothing can be more proudly contrived) but by the strait­ness of some Rule superiour to them both. Whence it was, that Cy­prian, more ancient than the Nicene-Council, or Constantine, per­secuted so far as he was able the Novatians, having no secular Power on his sides; and so did other Catholick-Bishops after him, namely Chrysostome, and Cyril of Hierusalem, for which some Puritans of our daies with a fellow-feeling, as it were, of their brethrens sufferings, and a never failing Animosity against Bi­shops of all Ages, have not spared such speeches as these, against them. Chrysostome, whome none can sufficiently praise, Meditatio de Autipuritanis­mo. pag. 70. Appendicis ad Laudensium [...].took away many Churches from the Puritans; but this same violence was thought the Principal Cause, for which that most divine Person, suffering such calamities as soon oppressed him, died in Banishment: Cyril likewise oppressed the Puritans [i. e. Novatians] and this man besides many other evils and adversities which he endured, as well at home as abroad, is branded with this note of Infamy, that he was the First of all Bi­shops, that Lorded it; i. e. Introduced secular Pride and Tyranny into the Church. Let them beware, again and again, who in these daies bear deadly emnity with Puritans, lest they pull upon their heads the ancient Punishments of the Persecutors of Puritans. Thus far that Frontless, and Witless Patron of Puritans, of the Scottish Faction, if I mistake not.

And here before we draw down the Practise of the Catholick Church any lower, because antiquity abounds with the like grie­vous complaints of Hereticks and Schismaticks being punished, as this age doth also; Let us consider a little what themselves did, when ever their strength served them.

The Arians, as we have shewed, were Persecuted by the Ca­tholicks, and having secular Authority on their side, did they not stir up most grievous Persecutions against the Church, upon all occasions? Are not all Histories full of their Impious and Bloody Prancks? In so much, Onuphrius in Sylvest. that Onuphrius on the Life of Sylvester the First by Platina, saies, The Nine Persecutions being taken away by Constantine the Great; the Tenth, from the A rians, en­sued, more dangerous than all the others: which begining under the Emperor Constantius, continued upon the Church of God [Page 36]in such manner, for Forty years together. So far Onuphrius; Whose Opinion might easily be confirmed by the Authorities of Hilary of Poitiers, Hierome, Socrates, Theodo [...]et, and others; were not that superfluous Labour, in a matter confessed.

And were the Donatists any whit more favourable, and mild when they had any, though but small advantage, over the Catho­licks? He that reads Optatus against Parmenianus, the main Trea­tises of St. Austine against them, the Conference of Carthage between the Schism of the Donatists and the Church-Catholicks, shall find, that the fame Faction which was ever most querulous under Persecution, and moving pitty and compassion in those that would hear them, Et maximè Episcopi & Clerici horrenda & dura perpessi quae commemo­rare longum est quando quo­rundam oculi extincti &c Au­gustin. Epist 5. Vide & Epi­stol. 166. of their hard measure, and of the un­reasonableness of the Civil Powers interposing in such matters which ought to be free, were themselves most Cruel and Violent against others; and especially, the Bishops and Clergy men suffer­ed horrible things, which were tedious to rehearse; putting out the Eyes of some; and they cutt off the Hand and Tongue, of one Bishop, and some they slew right-out. I say nothing of the cruel Slaughters (saith he) and Plundring of Houses by Night­invasions, and Burnings; and that not only, of Private Houses, but Churches also, into which Flames there wanted not some who cast in the Books of God. Do not these words of Austine come somewhat near a description of our late furious and wicked zeal. And what Possidonius in the Life of St. Austine, Possidonius in vita August. ca 9. Vide ca. 10. etiam. addeth of this nature against that Holy Bishop, calleth to our minds afresh, the Perfecution of the Tongue against our Bishops: The Donatists (saith he) railed at Austine, called him Seducer of Souls, both Publickly and Privately; and said, That he ought to be slain as a Wolfe to their Flock; and that without doubt all their Sins should be forgiven them, Augustin E­pistol. 68. who could bring this to pass. And in another Epistle of St. Augustine, is the Inhumanity of those pure Zelots the Circumcellians, a branch of the Donatists, against such as differ­ed in Opinion from them, described; concluding, In quibus om­nibus illi non deponunt facta Latronum, & honorem sibi exigunt Ma­tyrum. i. e, In all which, they cease not to act the parts of Assa­sins, and yet require the honour of Martyrs. And, so infinitely Devillish and Malicious was their humour, that when they could not destroy the Orthodox by Butchering them, they would needs [Page 37]terrifie them, by Murthering themselves; and so, as Austin hath, Quidam eo­rum miserabili instinctu, & Deo & Homiui­bus ingrati, si suis caedibus nos vastare non [...]ossunt, [...]uo nos exitio ter­rere credunt; aut laetitiam suam quarentes de mortibus nostris, aut tristitiam nostram de mortibus suis. August. Epist. 61. either Solacing themselves in the destruction of us, or sadding us by their own Deaths. And such in some degree, do our daies afford, who because they cannot have their Will-worship, will put themselves into such an untractable and brutish posture, that if you let them alone they have their ends, if you attempt to bring them to Justice, they will create great hatred to their Ad­versaries, by parting with their Lives, rather than stir upon fair or necessary means, or motives. To conclude, Legimus, vi­dimus, quotid [...] éque comproba­mus; Quando persecutio con­tra Ecclesiam oritur, multo pejores persecutores Judaeos & Haereticos, quàm Ethnicos. Hieronymus in Obad. v. 10. It is the obser­vation of St. Hierome, We have read, we have seen, we have daily found it true, that when ever Persecution hath arose in the Church, the Jewes and Hereticks were alwaies more grievous Persecutors of the Christians than were the Gentiles.

CHAP. V. A Continuation of the former Subject, and particularly, of putting Hereticks and Schismaticks to Death.

IN man may be said to be a Twofold Life, Natural and Civil. The First is an Union of the Natural parts of a man; which being dissevered, death follows; understanding here the principal which are either simply Essential, as the Soul and Body or such, as are therefore called Vital, because being corrupted, or taken away, a separation of the more Essential parts do immediately follow. Mans Civil Life is that, wereby he being a member of the Civil Body, separated from that (as all Integral parts of a Body Natural) lofe that life of common Influence and Protection. Hence it is, that some Civil Lawyers do interpret Capital Punish­ment so often denounced against Hereticks in the Civil Law, of the later Death; as doth Huckleman, and some others. The Im­perial [Page 38]Constitutions which absolutely inflict Capital Punishment on Hereticks, Constitutio­nes Imp. Sim­plici [...]er capitis poenam insti­gen [...]es Haereticis non de Natura­li sed de Civili Capite asserit. Wessembeck: in Vara. num 6. Huckelmanus Illustr. Difput. 34. Thes 14. lit 6. God li. 1. Tit 5. God. li. 1 Ti [...]. 5 Sect. 4. Volumus esse publicum cri­men &c. are not to be understood of Natural, but Civil Death, as Transportation and such like. But I make no doubt, but this is too favourable, and forced an Exposition, as he that shall observe the Practice, the best comment on the Law, must confess. For when the Code saith, Manichaei undique expelluntur & capite puniuntur. And immediately before, Manichaeo, in loco Romano degere deprehen­so, caput ampuatur. i. e. The Manichees are to be expell'd, and punisht Capitally, The Manichee that shall be found in the Ro­man Territory shall have his Head cut off; cannot be meant of Civil Head. I confess the most common punishments, are such, as we read in the same Title against the Manichees and Donatists, made by Honortus and Theodosius Emperors. viz. 1. ‘We decree it a Publick Offence; because an Offence against Divine Reli­gion, is an injurie to all: wherefore we Persecute such with the Confiscation of all their Goods. 2. We will likewise that they be Defeated of all Liberality and Succession coming to them by any Title whatever. 3. Furthermore, we leave such no Power to give, or buy, or sell, or make bargains, being convict. 4. Inquiry ought to be made at his Death. For if it be Law­ful in matters of Treason, to tax the memory of the dead; not undeservedly ought there here also to pass a judgment. 5. Ther­fore his last Writing is to be Null, whether by Will, or Co­dicil, or any other way, he hath made his Testament; if found to be a Manichee. 6. Neither do we suffer his Sons to Inherit, unless they forsake their Fathers Errours. For we allow Pardon to the Penitent. 7. We like well, that they feel the sting of our Authority, who shall entertain them in their Houses, by a culpable providing for them. 8. And we Will, that their Ser­vants be faultless, if avoiding such Sacrilegious Masters, they pass into the Catholick Church by a more Faithful Service.

Thus far the Imperial Edict of Theodosius, whereby we may easily discern how severe the Ancients were in chastising Here­ticks, and the several kinds of Punishments devised against them. But the great question is, Whether it be just to punish Hereticks with Corporal Death, according to the Judgment of the Anci­ent Church. The first instance of such severity, is that of Pris­cillianus who was put to Death for his Heresie: about which I [Page 39]find the Fathers themselves divided. Hierome against Ctesiphon seems not only to approve of it himself, but to say, that the whole Christian Church consented thereto, Hierom. Ad­vers [...] Ctesi­phon. Quid loquar (saith he) de Priscilliano, qui & Seculi gladio, & totius Orbis authoritate damna­tus est? Why should I speak of Priscillianus, who was Condemn­ed by the Secular Sword, and the Authority of the whole World? But Severus Sulpitius liked not this Fact, as appears by his words, Severus Sul­pit. Sacrae Hist. Lib. Priscillianus cum soclis Capite plectuntur, pessimo exemplo necati. Priscillianus with his complices were beheaded, being killed with a very ill precedent. And Theognostus condemned Idacius, or Ithacius Clarus an eminent Bishop of Spain, Isidor. Hisp. DeViris Illustr. ca 2. as witnesseth Isidorus Hispalensis, because he procured the death of Priscillian, as did also other Catholick Bishops, as a bloody man: yet, by a Coun­cil held at Triers, about the year 386. Vide Baron. An 386 nu. 25 he was absolved by the favour and intercession of the Emperor Maximus, by whose Authority it was done. August. Epi. 48. St. Augustine is known to have been of an opinion once, that Hereticks ought not at all to be Compelled to the true Faith; but afterward his judgment altered, and that (as he saith) from the experience he had of the excellent effect such coercion had; and especially, in that divers, who at first took up­on them the profession upon compulsion, afterward embraced it sincerely and freely: And in the same Epistle, answereth the allegation of Pedro Paolo above mention'd, which the Donatists likewise urged against the Catholicks persecuting them, viz: No example is to be found either in the Evangelists, or Apostles writ­ings, whereby any thing was begged of Earthly Kings in behalf of the Church, against the Churches Enemies. Augustin. Epistol. 48. Quis negat non in­veniri (saith he)? Sed nondum implebatur illa prophetia, Et nunc Re­ges intelligite &c. Psal. 2. i. e. Who denies that? for as yet, that Prophesie was not Fulfilled, And now understand ye Kings, &c. Id Epistol. 50 Yet do I not find, that this Father approved of killing Hereticks; but in another Epistle proceeds in a milder, and middle way, that is, Neither to Tolerate the Heresie, nor Condemn the Heretick to Death; because that were to cut off all possibility of Repentance, and Reconciliation to God, and the Church; which is very hard to deny any man, before God doth; And that God doth, no man can say, so long as he granteth him life. And to me, it seemeth not very difficult to answer Thomas his Arguments and Bellar­mines who are for the death of Hereticks.

Thus then argues Thomas. Thom. 22. qu. 11 Art. 3. If he may be burnt who counter­feits money, Why should not he that Forges, and Publishes false Doctrine? ‘If he that counterfeits the Kings Letters deserveth death, What doth he that counterfeits, that falsifies the Scrip­tures and the Divine Letters of the Lord? A woman that breaks the Conjugal Faith made to her Husband, ought to die; and not much more he, who keeps not his Faith with God? And he that takes away the Life of another unlawfully, suffers the loss of his own for it; shall not he therefore who destroys his own, and neighbours Soul?’ To these prety Analogies and colou­rable arguments for the Death of Hereticks, we readily answer, by granting all that the arguments crave, which is, that Hereticks deserve to suffer as much, and more if you please, than such notorious offenders against the Commonwealth, and Civil Justice. But must therefore this punishment be necessarily corporal and outward as the other, whose cause is Civil? this, by Thomas his good leave, follows not. But rather the contrary. That their Pu­nishment should be Proportionable to their offence; Their offence was Spiritual, and their sufferings must be such too: their offence was greater, and so shall their punishment be in Soul by eternal Death. Bellarm. De Laicis. li. 3. ca. 21.5. Probatur, &c. And this answers Bellarmines six arguments to prove, that Hereticks ought to suffer such Capital Punishment. First because, as all confess, Hereticks may be Excommunicated lawfully, therefore they may be kill'd: The Consequence is thus drove; Because Excommunication is greater punishment than temporal Death. To which I answer, That therefore it should have a greater death; but that, that death must be of the same kind, doth not follow, that is, temporal. Secondly, he saith Experience teacheth that there is no other remedie. But I deny any such experience: For I make no doubt but the punishments mentioned even now in the Code, will in a short time extirpate Hereticks; and perhaps sooner, considering what a pride some Hereticks take in suffering, even death, for their errors. Thirdly, His Third is that with Thomas his, viz. Hereticks are Cheats and Counterfeits. And so is his Fourth taken from a Womans falseness to her Husband. The Fifth is, because All the reasons that Galen alledged against Malefactors, hold here. Answ. First, That they should be punished, they do: Secondly, that they would be pu­nished [Page 41]with death also, but not necessarily with Natural death; but Civil death may suffice here, and Eternal death hereafter. Sixthly, (Lastly) he saith, It is a kindness to take obstinate He­reticks out of this life: for the longer they live, the more Errours they devise; and increase greater damnation to themselves Ans. We must distinguish between temporary, and perpetual obstinacy: And between that which may be, and is, certainly known to Judges for to be. Judges must proceed according to the Evidence of the Fact, not the probability. But no man can certainly know, that, how ever a person be Actually obstinate, he will persist in the same to his Death.

But, notwithstanding there be no more than we have heard in Reason, or Religion, for their putting to death, and not many examples are to be found in Antiquity; yet for the last Five hun­dred years since Christ, hath it been but too much put in practice under Roman-Tyranny. For that Hot-spur Genebrard, whose de­sign it was to give us an account of the Churche's Practice, speak­ing in defence of that cruelty shewed against the Kathari (or Pu­ritans) who were burnt at Colen, in the year of our Lord 1163. Genebrard. Chronol: An: 1163. meerly for Religion, and that none of the worse; and endeavou­ring to justifie that Fact from ancient Precedents of the Church, could, it should seem, find none much above 60. years older than that; and that was of that Arch-haeretick Basilius a Physitian, who in the last year of Christ 1102 was by the Command of the Em­peror Alexius burnt at Constantinople for his Heresie. But after-Ages abound with so many sad Instances of that nature, that it were superfluous and tedious to rehearse them: From all which, I only inferr thus much: That they, who generally approved, and practised such extream rigour, could not but much more com­mend such more moderate means of reducing, restraining, and extinguishing them. And I presume, if I can shew what much more severe course hath been used towards Hereticks and Schis­maticks since our Reformation in England, it will not appear so great inhumanity, to put in strict execution such Laws as have of old and later dayes been made against them.

In the Raign of Henry the Third, saith Hollinshed, were two Impostors hanged, for giving out, that they were Christs. In the Raign of Richard the Second, and Henry the Fourth of Eng­land, [Page 42]Statutes were made for the putting Hereticks to death, which stood in force until the Raign of Henry the Eighth, who caused them to be repealed: but in lieu of them, he made such an Edict (consisting of Six Articles, called therefore, The Whip with the six strings) that thereby, the Life's Blood of many a good and sober Christian, was taken from them. But in the First of Queen Mary, the former Statutes, as more for her Bloody purposes, were re­vived and re-inforced: of which, as a thing too apparent for Im­pudence it self to encounter, I shall not speak at present, and but touch afterward.

But neither have there been wanting instances since the Refor­mation, of such Capital Punishments executed. For in the Fourth year of Edward the Sixth, or Third (as Mr. Stow hath it) Joan Butcher, Stow Chron. Ari. 3. Edw 6 otherwise called Joan Knell, and vulgarly Joan of Kent, was burn'd for her Heresie, denying Christ to have taken Flesh of the Virgin Mary. And on the 24th. of April, the same year, George Paris, a Dutchman, was burnt in Smithfield for Aria­nism: And in the same King's Raign, an Anabaptist of Cholchester was burned. And truly, he that is of an Opinion, that no man ought to suffer death purely for Religion, may notwithstanding approve of the putting to death, such as shall bear false witness, in such a Caseat least, as that of professing themselves to be that Person they in truth are not, whereby manifest and intolerable evils are done to private Persons, but much more to the Weal-Publick; when one shall pretend himself to be some Prince, or Publick Person: Much more therefore he that shall have the Im­pudence to give out that he is Christ (have he a particular Cant of his own to evade the common sense his words import, when he comes into danger) ought no less to undergo death, than he that shall seek to Translate the Government of a People, proper­ly belonging to another Prince, upon himself. And as for Ana­baptists, though I think their Dogm's are a little purg'd of late, over what some years since they have been, (as most Hereticks, and Schismaticks are, when they perceive they will not take, nor be endur'd in their original Rankness): yet, if they stick but to one or two, charged commonly on them, such as are, Denying to the Civil Magistrates, Power of the Sword; and affirming an Ex­emption of (their) Saints from human Laws; suffering corpo­ral [Page 43]death for the same, they have no wrong done them; neither can they plead Religion to protect them in causes of Civil cognisance, as they are. And to hold an opinion (as many now adays do) that their Governors have no Authority Ecclesiastical over them, in things nei­ther forbidden nor commanded by God's word, is to draw very much nearer to the pernicious Extreams of the Anabaptist, than can consist with the good opinion such have of themselves, and would beget in others of being very moderate Men. But I re­turn.

In the third of Queen Elizabeth, one Jeffrey taught publickly, Stow An. 3d. of Qu. Eliz. That John Moor was Christ; who were both first whipt, and then upon repentance were committed to Prison for half a year. This was a favour shown upon repentance. The more pittiful and strangely tender conscienc'd Judges were they in the Houses called a Parlia­ment of late years, who could discharge John Naylor an Impostor, as foul and blasphemous as any of his Predecessors, without any con­siderable notes of true repentance. So far did the Doctrine of Liberty of Conscience drive many Patrons of it.

Again, in the Seventeenth year of Queen Elizabeth, Stow in Eliz. twenty-se­ven Anabaptists were brought to justice, whereof two were burnt in Smithfield; four renounced their Heresies at Pauls Cross, and thereupon were released, the rest were condemned to die, but were only banished. In the twenty one year of the same Queen, Id. one Hammond, a most insolent Arian, denied Christ to be God, and blasphemed Him, and the Gospel, and was burnt in Norwich: And about three years after, one John Lewis was burnt in the same place for the like Heresie. And in the Raign of King James one Legate was burnt in Smithfield for Arianism.

For King James his Raign, and Queen Elizabeth's, it is gene­rally known how they put not any Papist to death for their Religion, though presently they were Sainted for dying in the Roman cause, and, as they will have it, for Religion; and if they will have it so, so let it pass, for me: But then we must take leave to turn to, and adhere to our old Notes, which tell us of their Faith, that it is Faction; and their Religion, Rebellion. For, were it so that the Laws interdicting Popish Priests of this Nation, bred and ordained beyond the Seas, from coming into this Nation, this were no such sanguinary practise as many Popish Ministers loudly and indeed [Page 44]childishly give out. For I would know whether the Supream power of this, as well as any other Nation, have not power to inflict the punishment of banishment upon lighter causes than this? For in­stance, Might it not be reasonable for an Act of Banishment to take place upon all such as should transport Wool, or Fuller's-earth into foreign Countries? The person that should do this re­turns into England, and is put to death, according to the Law. But he cannot be said to be put to death for having transported prohibited Commodities, but for breaking the Law of his Banishment. No more can Popish Priests, taking Orders from that Church, and re­turning, be said to suffer for taking Orders, or for their Religion, but for breaking the Act of their Banishment; for, by Law they all stand banished; and if a greater punishment than banishment be not annext to that Decree to make it good, instead of being sanguinary it will become ridiculous and ludicrous, and so will the Authors of such Laws also. In the year, One thousand, six hundred, forty and one, Ward, Walker, or Waller (for, as I take it, the man after the Roman custom had three or four names) being a Popish Priest was hanged at Tyburn, where he confessed, he had been banished no fewer than three or four times. Do not such mockeries and contempt of Laws as this, deserve death, yea, though the Law it self were unreasonable?

And now, as to the other side, with which we have to do, the Puritan Faction; let us see how they have been proceeded against, before these three last Decads of years, and whether it be so new and strange a matter that they should be molested, or oppressed; and the rather because of that Officious Author of the Interest of England, who puts on the Countenance of a Moderator, and grave and wise decider of the point of Toleration: but alas, besides his many la­mentable failings, he could not keep on his Mask above a leaf or two; and in a certain place speaks thus, much more boldly than knowing­ly or truly. Corbets Inte­rest of Eng­land, pag 129. Take notice that the Episcopal Clergy did not go ab [...]ut to exterminate the Puritans before their latter times; and then he that had half an eye could discern the notable advance and the confiden ex­pectation of the Popish Faction. And may not he that hath never a bit of an eye perceive what is so palpable, that since the Puritans had such influence, and favour shown them as of late, that the Popish Faction is advanced ten times more than when they were [Page 45]better kept under? And, this partly through the infinite scandal given to our Reformation by them; partly, forsooth, that for their tender Consciences sake such an indulgence and connivance general must be allowed, that Papists (who have no less to show for a Tole­ration than have they) must be comprehended in it too. But what doth this Man mean to write so at a venture? but that which moves them all, prevail'd with him; viz. that the common people would not trouble themselves so far as to suspect what he says, while he speaks what they would have him. What think you of those that Doctor Crackenthorp says against the Fugitive Bishop of Spalato, Crackenthor. Defensio Eccl. Anglicanae Con. Archie­pise. Spa. cap. 33. (who for that reason, that Puritans were tolerated in England, took a prejudice against the Church of England) were persecuted for their Consciences? Was not Cartwright cast into Prison? Was not Bright­man degraded, and put from his Priesthood? Were not Wigginton, Cul­verwell, Salesbury, Field, Hildersh. Parker, Stoughton, Smith, Jackson, and others, turned out of their Livings, and suspended from their Priests Office? Udal and Penry adding to their obstinacy revilings of the Queen's Majesty, one of them was put to death, and the other received capital sentence, and was punished? Were all these or any of these of so late standing as you mean? Do we not hear of most lamentable complaints of old, made by the Puritans, of the sore persecution they ever sustained, and do they now accuse later times, holding the former innocent? Fuller Ecclesi. Hist. The Letters between the Lord Bur­leigh and Arch-Bishop Whitgift are yet extant, whereby it appears that there were very many Ministers turn'd out of their Benefices in those days, in the County of Essex, only for scrupuling the Rites and Ceremonies of our Chvrch. And more for the satisfaction of others, who are apt to think Civil severity too much for the Church to have on their side against such Men as these, than for this Authors sake; Sir George, his Life of Bishop­VVhitgift. pag. 40. Consider what Sir George Paule writes in the Life of Bishop Whitgift, and we shall be easily convinc'd that our Church acts no new thing, nor the Civil Magistrates so much as was wont to be done in behalf of the Church in the earlier days of Reformation. Thomas Cartwright and Edmund Snapo, with others, were called in question, and proceeded withal in the Star-Chamber for setting forth and putting in practice, without warrant or Authority, Id. pag. 54. a New Form of Common Prayer, Administration of Sacraments and Presbyterial Discipline in the year 1591. Again, the Queen was offended that [Page 46] Cartwright should preach without Subscription. Again, Good exe­cution of Laws (his own words) against Puritans kept things quiet; Id. pag. 55. especially by the assistance of the Lord Chancellor Hation. And had he who so lately bare that name and office dealt more sincerely and uprightly towards the Church, I suppose he had had no more to answer for, either before God or Man, than now he hath. Again, he proceeds. Id. pag. 58. Id. ibid. After him, Sir John Puckering was a friend to the Church. And lastly, Sir Thomas Egerton Lord Keeper was very careful to sup­press the foresaid Libels. And those Libels were none other but the religious stuffe invented and vented against the Church of England, and the Asserters thereof.

And this may suffice to have shown what the ancient Churches judged of Hereticks, and Schismaticks, and the allowance of them, and what our Churches hath done in reference to them. It is now more than time that we come to shew what both the opinion and practise of both of them have been towards us, that so, if there be remaining any Candor in the brests of these importunate demanders of the same, they may blush to require it, or at least, give us leave not to blush to deny the same. And the God of all Justice do that which is right in his eyes between us. And first let us hear the Papist, as briefly as the cause will permit.

CHAP. VI. Papists directly and absolutely against Toleration of many Religions, or any besides their own.

VVE have shewn out of Thomas and Bellarmine already, that Hereticks ought to be put to death, and why; and he that will be further satisfied therein may easily turn to Commen­tators on Thomas, and find his opinion confirmed and justified, without any further trouble here undertaken, to the drawing out this discourse to a length more tedious, than necessary to the Reader. Only from hence we may infer, what is a manifest consequent to what hath been said, viz. That if such may be cut off so by the Secular sword, they, according to such mens judgment, may and ought to [Page 47]be restrained and suppressed by punishments of an inferior rank, Johan. Hou­lettus Praefati­one ad Regiam Majestatem: apud Hum­phredum Admonit: de Curiae Ro­manae praxi; contendit, de Evangelicis posse, de Ro­manensibus non posse sumi supplicium. and milder nature; unless it be said by Papists (as in truth it is by some) what the Presbyterians say for themselves, as we have shewed, That Prelatists may and ought to come to the Presbyterians, but the Pres­byterians cannot, nor ought to come to the Prelatists; That punishment ought to be taken of the Evangelical [Professors] that is, the Reformed, but the Romanists ought not to be punished. So De­monstrative are the reasons, and so ingenuous are the writings of both Papist and Puritan. But we must not altogether be guided by such Oracles as speak so broadly and vainly; if there be any such thing remaining or to be respected in the World, sure this is reason that Mens testimonies should conclude against themselves, when there is nothing but disadvantage to them which make their cases different. For, neither the one nor the other can modestly deny the Principles and Doctrine of the Church of England to be less incon­sistent with the Civil Government, and not so rank in persecution of opinions differing from it, as are they; and yet forsooth they, where they cannot persecute, must not be persecuted, or touched; where they can, must not be questioned. Now that the Romanists will not endure anycompetition in Religion, appears by what is said above; and by these several instances.

In the year of our Lord Five hundred fifty five, as Funcius tells us, Hic Hereticos & Schismaticos no [...]entes ad sa­niorem Doctri­nam reduci rationibus, se­culari manu coerceri posse definivit. Funcius Com­ment. Chronol. lib. 8. Ribadeneira de las virtudes del Principe Christiano lib. 1. cap. 24. cap. 23.26, 27, 28. Pelagius was made Bishop of Rome in the room of Vigilius, by the Emperor Jestinian. This Man (saith he) defined that Hereticks and Schismaticks who refused to be brought home to sound Doctrine, were to be restrained by the Secular Power. And that this hath been the currant judgment of that Church, their Modern writers declare. Do they not make this Defence of theirs, and Offence of their Enemies Religion, one of their First Principles and Do­cuments which they season Princes with? Let the Work of Riba­deneira the Jesuite speak for all. In the year 1597 he wrote a Treatise in Spanish, Printed at Antwerp, Of the Virtues of a Christian Prince; The Subjects of some of the Chapters of which Book, are these. That it is impossible, that Hereticks and Catholicks should make a good League, in one and the same Commonwealth. Chap. 24. Examples of Certain Emperors, who suffer'd not many Religions. Chap. 23. The same is proved by the Authority, and Examples of Saints. Chap. 26. That Hereticks ought to be pu­nished: [Page 48]and how prejudicial Liberty of Conscience most be, Chap. 27. That Heresies are the Causes of Revolutions and Ru­ines of States. Chap. 28. From such Titles as these, it is easie to divine, what is contained in that Work: I have thought good to leave all to the ingenuity of the Reader to judge, rather than to exceed in unnecessaries. Becanus De Fide Haeret [...]is servanda, Con­tra Paraeum. To this Author, let us add one of the same Fraternity, Becanus, in a tractate against Paraeus: where he lays down this as a Second Principle, Liberty of Religion and Faith is unlawful, and contrary to Christian Doctrine, and hurtful and pernicious to the Commonwealth. His Reasons are these. First, Because, as Divines teach very right, Heresie is a greater sin than Adultery, Murther, or Theft. Secondly, The Doctrine of Christ is true: But true and false, are contrary. Thirdly, Li­berty is hurtful: First, In respect of the Salvation of Souls; Se­condly, In respect of outward Peace and Tranquillity: For this cannot be preserved without Unity of Faith.—‘A third Princi­ple of his is this, A Catholick Prince can neither prescribe, ap­prove, or introduce Liberty of Religion, but must hinder the same, as much as possibly he can. But yet, if he cannot hinder it without greater dammage to the Publick good, he may per­mit it, as the less Evil:’ Hitherto Becanus. And that very Vil­lain Parsons, Parsons Mi­tigation. cap. 2 num. 5. in a Treatise of Mitigation, writeth thus, We agree with the Protestants in this, that there can be no agreement between us and them in Religion. Yea, so far did this mans Zeal hurrie him for Religion, who himself was by his own side suspected to be an Atheist in heart, that presuming at length by his many State-Stra­tagems, and Treasonable Practises, to subvert both Church and State, as they were then established, that one of his requests to the Pope was, That England being reduced to his Model, none other Popish Orders might be Tolerated in England save the Je­suites and Franciscans, which were not like to disagree so much as Secular Priests with other Orders and the Jesuites; while these kept to their particular Rules of having all they can lay their hands on, and they of having nothing. And I have been told, that even since the Restauration of his Present Majesty, the Emulation and Animosities have been so great, that after several Pamphlets, For, and Against Secular Priests and Jesuites, the Se­cular Priests with the assistance of some of other Orders under­took [Page 49]with some Great Persons that, upon condition they might have a Toleration (which is the most that any Faction did at first Petition for) they would take care, that the Jesuites should ne­ver be admitted in England: of which, Mr. Cressie, that busie Apostate, can give you a farther account. But when a man considers how that subtil, industrious, and powerful Faction hath bafled all the severest Edicts against them in such Countries where Popery flourishes, he will scarce believe that such a device could take effect, or, if it did, could continue long. Could any Decree be more solemn, or sharp against them, than that, made by Henry the Fourth of France, whereby, the Jesuites were all to depart Paris within Three daies, and within Fifteen, An. Dom. 1594 to for­sake the whole Kingdom; and a Pillar to be erected in Publick, for Posterity to read their wickedness and doom; for the Assa­sination of that Great Prince in his own Chamber, by a young bird John Chastel of about 18 years of age, of the Jesuites bring­ing up: And yet, such was their Dexterity, Dissimulation, and Interests with Pope and all Princes of their Religion, that about Ten years after, the very same King should be imposed upon so far, as to demolish the Monument of their Wickedness; repeal his Banne, restore them again: And in the very same year (as most then, and there living, judged) the same King being Mur­thered right-out by Ravilliac, instigated by those holy men; they not only escaped censure, but carried the matter with such ar­tifice, that the Kings heart must be given to them, as his best Friends; and conveighed to a Convent of theirs at La Flech: Notwithstanding, thus much Ravilliack confessed (who would confess but little) that by reading Mariana the Jesuites Book, he was impelled to commit that Fact: Whereupon Cotton, the Jesu­ites Chief Father, wrote a Book to the Queen, endeavouring to shew, that they held no such opinions: But another Author wrote a Book, which he entituled Anti-Cotton, wherein he ma­nifestly proved the contrary.

And did not the State of Venice in Paul the Fifths time, upon discovery of their treacherous, and mischievous Prancks, expel them their Dominions, adding a Law after them, which made it Death for any, to propound any thing to the Senate, in order to their Return; yet have they so brought it about, by the Pope [Page 50]their singular Friend; and by the Turk their happy Enemy; and lastly, by their infinite Treasure, That admittance and welcom is granted them into their Countries.

But to return: Judg we yet farther of their Opinions, con­cerning Toleration of others, from that prophane Fop, Author of Fiat Lux, Pag. 260. who, in a good humour, professes great kindness to both Prelatical and Puritan Party; but that forced fained Part being soon laid down, and he returning to himself, compares them both to the Bond-maid, and her Son Ismael, and then no­thing less will satisfie him, than, ejice Ancillam cum Puero suo. Out with them both; Surely that the Papists may enter, and have not only free, but alone Possession! For he adds; This is the only remedy and means of Peace.

But Bellarmine, where we above quoted him, gives us not on­ly his opinion, but reasons, why Hereticks may not be suffered, which are worth the reciting on this occasion. This then is the subject of one Chapter, Bellarm: li. 3. To. 2. ca. 19. Non posse conciliari Catholicos cum Haere­ticis, i. e; There can be no Reconciliation between Catholicks, and Hereticks: And whom he means by both, no doubt is to be made. First, then he begins with Cassander, and quarrels with, and confutes him: whose opinion, and design he tells us it was, That Princes ought to find out an Expedient toreconcile Catholicks, Lutherans, and Calvinists: and that until this could be effected, every one should be permitted his Faith; provided he received the Scriptures and Apostles Creed. But herein the Cardinal was mistaken: For in that Treatise, De Officio Pii Viri, &c. quoted by him, Cassander has neither any such words, nor design: but this must be rather found in his Consultations; and even there, he doth not propound any thing for the Toleration of diverse Reli­gions, but the reduction of Religion to Primitive Rule of Holy Scriptures, Interpreted by purest Antiquity, which was the most equal, and visible outward means of Reconciling Differences. But his Reasons, why neither Lutherans, nor Calvinists ought to be Tolerated, because they are such for the most part, that War against himself, and Pretenders to Moderation at present; we will here set down. First, because we agree not in the Creed it self. Secondly, Lutherans and Calvinists are no true Mem­bers of the Church. Thirdly, Lutherans and Calvinists differ [Page 51]more, than in Rites; in such things as are of greatest moment, and yet not contained in the Creed it self. 4. The Holy Fathers, and the Apostles, require that we should observe not only the prin­cipal, but less Matters. 5. If it be free to believe as men please in one point, by the same reason they may be suffered to believe so in others also. 6. This is a new opinion of Cassander, and therefore to be suspected. 7. This opinion renders the Church altogether obscure and invisible.

And in his 21th. Chapter propounding this subject, Posse Haereti­cos ab Ecclesia damnatos temp ralibus poenis, etiam morte, multari: He first tells us how John Huss at the Council of Constance affirmed that it was not lawful to deliver incorrigible Hereticks to the Secular power, and suffer them to be burnt; and how Luther affirmed the same, and that it is no new error; for as much as the Donatists held the same: after all this he adds, Contrarium docent omnes Catholici, & aliqui etiam Haeretici; i.e. All Catholicks teach the contrary, and some Hereticks; of which sort is Calvin, who caused Servetus to be burnt at Geneva: and so Aretius caused Valentinus Gentilis to be put to death at Berne. You may see his Thesis proved afterward by several places of the Old and New Testament, which I list not here to relate; they are obvious of themselves. Stapleton in his Sermons confirmes this saying, Qui libros Haereticorum legere, &c. Staplet. Prom­pta Moral. Domin 7. post Pente. ‘They who think it no sin to read Hereticks Books, or suppose they may be suffered safely, consider not what that imports which our Savi­our says,’ Beware of false Prophets, &c. And to imprint this the better in our minds, he tells us with great gravity and seriousness, a Tale out of the common Budget, thus. 'The Abbot Cyriacus Presbyter of Laura Calamon, near the River Jordan, Pratum Spiri­tu. cap. 46. saw in his sleep ‘the Blessed Virgin pass by his Cell; and being very importunate with her that she would vouchsafe to come in [and surely to take an hard bed] she replied. How can I enter into thy Cell while thou keepest by thee mine enemy? and, so having said thus, went her way. But he waking, marvelled what this should mean; but at length having ransacked all his Cell, he found two Books of Nesto­rius stitched to a Volume of Jsychius. Surius Com­mentar-rerum gectarum in Orbe. Au. 1540 pag. 400. Answerable hereunto is the applause given by Surius to the Emperor's Decree made in the year 1540. for the burning of Hereticks Books; and his own opinion largely deliver'd in justification of such punishment towards Here­ticks. [Page 52]And though Guiliclmus Parisiensis were a Man of that mode­ration and gravity in other points, Guilielmus Farisiensis, De Fide, cap. 2. herein he seems to be most severe; saying, Quicquid contra veram credulitatem est, error est. Consequens igitur est, omnem credulitatem quae c [...]mmuni fidei contradicit, errorem esse impietatis; & ideo g [...]adio & igne exterminandam. i. e. ‘What ever is against true Faith, is an error. From whence it follows, That all belief which is against the common Faith, is an impious error,’ Consideres de­inde [...] Ecclesiam Romanam, &c. Episcop. Re­spons. ad Wad­ding. Epist. De Regula. and to be driven out by fire and sword. So that true is that of Episcopius to Wadding the Jesuit, whom he advises to consider it; The Roman Church holds this for an undoubted Axiome accor­ding to his confession, and particularly Rosweden in his late Treatise of the evil Faith of Capellus, that Hereticks are to be put to death, their Books to be burnt, and their Faith to be kept under by eternal silence.

But this short tast of a plentiful table of such stuffe as this, may suffice, as to the Romanists opinion, which their practises have su­perabundantly confirmed; of which to speak a little, as it will not be impertinent, so to speak much altogether superfluous; the whole being but too apparent.

And here we may begin with the Romish Inquisition constitu­ted of so much injustice and cruelty as scarce can be matched any where. It began, (saith Pedro Paolo) after the year One thou­sand, Pedro Paolo, Histor. Inqui­sit. pag. 6. two hundred; the principal Inquisitors being the Dominicans and Franciscans, who sprang up about that time. And about the year of Grace, One thousand, two hundred, forty four, Frederick the Second, Emperor, published four Edicts at Padoa, in favour of the Inquisitors; whereby, obstinate Hereticks were to be cast into the Fire; and, such as repented, were yet to be kept in Prison perpetually. And this Inquisition in tract of time hath acquired so much strength and sury, that Princes themselves have been subject to it, and oppressed by it, as lamentably ap­pears in the sad instance of Charles Prince and Heir of Spain, who upon suspicion only, that he favoured Hereticks, falling in­to the Paws of these merciless Lions, was put to death against his Father Philip's will, Joac. Ursin. Praefat. ad lib. Reginal. Ur­sin de Inquisi­tioue. and endeavour to the contrary; as Joachi­mus Ʋrsinus witnesseth. Yet I know there goes a tradition that his own Father caused his death, upon such a suspicion: which, if so, the matter is but little mended as to the extream rigor used by the Inquisitors, and the Roman Zealots against Hereticks. [Page 53]Which the Duke of Alva (that Butcher of Christians) further demonstrated in his Generalship over the Netherlands, so that he gloried at his Table, that, for the extirpating of Heresie, in the space of six years only, he had caused to be grievously tor­mented and put to death about Eighteen thousand, Meteranus Histor Belgic. lib. 4. pag. 127. Bellarm. lib 3. cap. 12. De Lai cis. Baronius: An. 1199. numb. 33. Guilielmus Armon. De re­bus [...] [...]hilip. gest. apud Bzo­vium. besides such as he had destroyed in the War out of hatred, by private mur­ders also, as Metaranus writeth. And long before this, In the days of Innocent the third, were burnt of the Albigenses a Hundred and eighty at one time, as Bellarmine testifieth, and justifieth too: But Baronius out-vies him: for he saith, that in one day in the year One thousand, one hundred, eighty three, in the City of Burdeaux alone, Seven thousand of them were slain. But anothers report much more surpasses his, affirming that in the year One thousand, two hundred and nine, in the same City were slain Sixty thousand Albigenses. In the same year, in the Village Minerva an hundred and eighty were burnt alive. In the year One thousand, two hundred, and a eleven, Four hun­dred were burnt at Pulchra Vallis. Again, See Bzovius, Matth. Paris, and quoted [...]y Doctor Cracken­thorp. Defen [...]. Eccles. Angl. Cont. Spala­tens. cap. 18. Sleiden Com. lib 6 Meminimus loco vicino Ba­sileae crematum esse quendam propter esum carnium. Melancthon Epistola ad Marchiacas Ecclesias Causs. 23. q. 5. cap. Excomm [...]. Summar. of Religion, p. 31. in the same year in Lavarum, Eighty were put upon Gibbets. In the same year Eighty of the Nobles were beheaded; neither did they spare the Women. Again, in the year One thousand, two hundred, and thirteen at Mirellum many were cut off by the Sword, more con­sumed in the River, twenty (Prateolus saith, Seventy) thousand were slain. In the year One thousand, two hundred, and ninteen, at Miromanda were slain 5000. In the year 1236. about fifty were burnt or buried alive. And in the year One thousand, two hundred, forty two, in a small Village in the Di­ocess of Tholouse, about Two hundred were burned. By all which we see clearly what Execution the Inquisition did, newly then erected. Sleiden tells us further of one who was burnt, because he could not approve of all the Roman Rites. And Melancthon of another, who was burnt in a place not far from Basile, because he did eat Flesh. All which agrees perfectly with the definition of Pope Ʋ [...]ban, who saith, ‘We do not judg them to be Mur­derers, who, out of zeal to Catholick Church, shall kill some Excommunicate persons.’

And in France Twenty thousand men were slain in, and about Paris, upon the Licence given, by the Duke of Guise, to root [Page 54]out the Evangelicks, as Sleiden reports to us. To this, if we add the inhuman as well as unchristian Fact of Charles the 9th. of France, by whose Connivence and Concurrence, if not com­mand, so many thousands of Hugonots were Massacr'd for no o­ther real Reasons, but because they were of The Religion; how­ever blushing at the Immanity of the Fact, a pitiful groundless tale was told concerning Plots should nave been laid by them; we need proceed no further: For such an intolerable and trea­cherous piece of Barbarity it was, that our Adversaries, and their Friends that committed the same, have nothing more, or better, to answer for it; but that we are too prone to remember it: and they too prone to commit such Butcheries and Inhumanities against them, that differ from them in Religion, and are too un­willing to learn of them.

Not long after the First Light of Reformation in Spain, were estimated about 2000 of that Profession, Sr. Edwin Sandes. and were it not, (saith a diligent Observer of Men and Countries) for the Inquisition, all the Country would soon be overspread with them of the Reform­ed Religion. In Sevil alone were thought to be 12000, who all by the violence and vigilance of the Inquisition, have been sup­pressed and brought to nothing. Let not Papists therefore won­der and brag both, of their plentiful Harvest they have of late days reaped of Proselytes, by putting their Sickle into our Corn, for, were it so, that such remission of Laws, such an indifferency were cherished and countenanced in Persons, such a permission and favour to Seducers were granted, as is apparent hath been gi­ven to our Adversaries, it would appear in a short time in Spain and Italy, what a great difference there would be in the success, to the advantage of our Religion.

And can any doubt be made, what favor or Toleration we are to expect from Papists here, in this Nation; were we in the pow­er of their hands, as they either are, or might be in ours, how they would dispose of us; when it is so unanswerably evident how it tolerably they have Persecuted our Religion already in England: so that, as one observes, in two of the six years Raign of Queen Mary only, Epistola An­te Ridleium De Coena Domini. diverse Testimonies and Letters testifie no fewer than 800 persons were put to most cruel deaths in England, for their Religion only. And our Acts and Monuments, of [Page 55]their Bloody minds and hands are such lasting evidences against them, that they have no better way to save their reputation, but by scoffs, and merrie Flouts, which with such as are ambitious to be counted Witts, rather than Religious, is of greatest Force. And that Lack-manners and honesty Parsons shall be heard upon his scurrilous humour, rather than he, whose Shoes he was un­worthy to carry; as to Learning, Fidelity, or Piety. Tis not de­nied what is most colourably objected, that Mr. Fox, might set such down for Martyr'd Persons who suffered not. But consi­dering that he, following the Decrees and Sentence of Death publickly extant against such persons, together, with the time and place determined for that end, might authentickly deliver that for done (though peradventure such things might interpose, be­tween the Lips and the Cup, which might alter Sentence given) which particularly, and precisely to find out through all England, was very hard.

And to write a History, or rather a Tragedy of what was Acted by Rebellions, Treasons, and Conspiracies in King Edward the Sixths, Queen Elizabeths, and King James his daies only, for their Religion, were to speak truths most pertinent to our subject, but shameful to such, as are of that Communion, and plead for Li­berty. How do we wish for no other testimonie, than that of their own Consciences; how incompatible with Civil Unity and Peace this Design is? how certainly it would turn, and is by them intended for our Ruine and Destruction, as well as their own safety? and we needed not such, and so many sad and in­vincible Instances of their Irreconcilableness to, and Inconsistency with us, in any co-ordination or equality of Priviledges? How do we wish that men would be so fair, as to stand to their own Hands of outward Practices, and then needed there no curious Inquiries into mens judgments, or resolutions: But when mens Cause and Hearts so far fail them, that they dare stand to the Tryal of neither of these, but will have judgment pass on them by the future, which is invisible, and impossible to be known but by what is past; and when neither their Pens, nor their Swords shall conclude, but a sorry word or two in their straits, shall be taken for sufficient proof of Natures and Wills: then doth there remain nothing for us, to betake our selves to, but our [Page 56]Prayers; and them, not so much that God would keep us in our Religion, but Wits.

Divers are their Papers and Pamphlets, whereby they would amuse such as understand or regard nothing, with the reason­ableness of their Religion, and the merits of their Persons; but both the one and the other have been, with all ocular Demonstra­tions, convicted of the contrary by sober and plain replies made unto them. They Mascarate themselves most frequently under the plausible and taking Appellations of Old Cavaliers, and ha­ving so disparaged the King and Churches party, they exspatiate with strange levity and vain glory in the common place of Self-admiration, and highest commendations: Letter of an Old Cavalier in Yorkshire to one in [...]on­don. viz. What Men of parts, and power, and ingenuity, and fortitude of mind, in bearing Persecutions, which have been hitherto nothing but acts of Grace and favour. But they tell us not how they laugh in their sleeves at all Proclamations and Laws for their restraint, and banishment of their Seminaries, and Incendiaries, as being secure in the midst of such insignificant thunders, and presump­tuous in the midst of their pretended fears. And from truth and sobriety of language are they degenerated in their writings into such frivolous, fallacious, and meer childish humours of moving compassion, where reason cannot be shaken, that a Man of any insight in the course and causes of things cannot but despise their empty and groundless Apologies. I shall touch but two of their more common pleas, and places for themselves, and so leave them. The one is, That Papists are tolerated in divers Parts of Germany, in Holland, Switzerland, in France, and I know not where else: as if that were all true which they affirm in this particular; or, as if so much as is true were any whit to our pre­sent case: For, neither in the Free Cities in Germany, or certain Countries (as they would suggest and perswade against the cer­tain knowledg of the wisest) are either Papists tolerated in Prote­stant Countries, or Protestants in Popish. But in the first troubles and dissentions (even to civil discords and armings on both sides) an accord was at length made, and composition, That such Churches and Places should belong to Papists, and such to Protestants; so that they never had one over another perfect Dominion, either Ecclesiastical or Civil, from the ruptures made [Page 57]amongst them; whence it is evident, that the one beareth in­deed with the other, but neither gives Toleration to other. And this is the Case chiefly of France: where, though the true Sove­raign of both be of the Romish Church, yet cannot it be said that he freely gives them Toleration, since that was concluded upon when it was not in the King's power to deny, and was ratified in the A­greement, which they of the Religion (as they are called) made with their Prince (whether orderly or irregularly is not now under question) upon the mutual pacification; so that the Laws of that Nation and the constitution thereof do as truly require the inviolable observation thereof on one side as on the other, and secure the Pro­testants. But our Laws are directly contrary thereunto, and the reason hereof is well known to be, the unreasonableness and indomi­table malice and mischief of Papists extorting these severe Edicts.

And in Holland, what Toleration have they? Any Legal, or Publick Act of Grace in that behalf, which is pleaded for here? Nothing less: but they and their Religion are at the disposal of Military Officers to repress, or permit, according as gain shall arise to them from a Connivance. And let any indifferent Per­son judg, whether the Cases be alike: and especially in this, That such as are Papists in the Ʋnited Provinces have expended their lives and treasures to bring the State to that condition it now en­joys; and surely may with good reason expect some benefit of quiet and ease under the same: On the other side, our Papists have perpetually machinated, and to their Power executed Plots and practises pernicious to our present Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical, and thereby forfeited all Protection of Laws, and common sufferance.

And whereas they never cease, as with the swell'd cheeks of Fame to sound out their own praises for their late adherence to Charles the First, in his Warrs against the Rebells (which is their Second main Topick for Indulgences;) How do these their Merits melt away, not so much before the Sun, as Candle; shewing these great Flaws in their pretences, and Insolidities? First, put Case that they had done such singular and signal service (though I think that the Kings Cause was never, in the gross, advanced by the most valiant common Drunkard, or noted Papist, through the Scandal given to them of sober Manners, or Religion) Did [Page 58]they rise in their Allegiance above the duty of Subjects? Again, Were they all on that side? Were they all of that mind? Did none of the Popish Faction, act to the prejudice of the King? How apparent is it, what a mixture of Papists heads there was, in the laying the Design of the Rebellion, as well in England, as Ireland? and how Priests of all sorts mingled themselves, disguised in the Parliaments Army, to widen and inflame Differences? There are Treatises extant shewing this, which though peradven­ture, may have over acted their part, yet so much of reality do they contain, Williams Bishop of Ossory Discovery of Mysteries. pag. 52. which notably may allay the braggs of unspotted fidelity to their King and Countrey. Bishop Williams, in a Trea­tise be wrote in the heat, and height of Rebellion, tells us upon his own knowledg, that of Fifty, or Sixty Soldiers that billetted in Adthorp, there was no less than three or four Papists of the Par­liaments Army. Add hereunto the idle, as well as treacherous Piece of Mr. White, Of Government, whereby he asserted the Right of Rule, belonging only to the Line of our Kings, to him that villanously Usurped it, or any one else that could get it; and their faithfulness shrinks into a less compass. Besides, be it true, that they were so generally Couragious, and Faithful to their King, as is talk'd of; Could no sufficient agnition, or remunera­tion be thought of, but such as turned to the extream dammage of such, as were no less Faithful and Loyal, than were they? Or, did they not only purchase glory and benefit to themselves, but misery and undoing to others, by their Merits? They were not (it may be as truly, as boldly said) above the Twentieth Part of the Kings Forces. Whence comes it then, that they make more noise than all others? From their generous minds which they boast of? And must the Generality of the Nation be certainly undon that they may receive their just reward? But that the whole Na­tion must in short time lose its Religion, and Sacrifice it to theirs, is most apparent, out of what hath been shewed of their Tenets, and Facts, who never rest till they are chief; and being chief, ne­ver suffer men of another Perswasion to live, so much as basely under them. But then, must they not be requited and gratified for their Acts? Surely, their reward hath followed them, in that their Persons and Estates have been Rescued out of the hands of their, and our Enemies, by the favourable Influence of the Kings [Page 59]Government; and more they cannot modestly contend for. Or, if we should grant a Proportion greater to them, than any of the Kings Subjects else, might it not suffice that they have personal Priviledges of Preferment, Dignities, or Liberty to themselves; but must their Acts so far preponderate all of another Religion in the same service with them, that they ought to transmit to Posterity such rewards; and these immunities from Laws must they for their sakes be granted to all as are nothing akin to them but by Religion? But consider we lastly, with what circum­stances, and motives, their Loyalties were qualified: and we may easily discern that Self-preservation might be as strong an argument, as was their famed Loyalty. For they saw plainly the Rebel-Houses aimed at their Ruine, and seized their Estates. Had they any more profitable way then left them, or probable, to oppose their Enemies, than by giving Assistance to the King? And when their own Interest might suffice to joyn with him, as is frequent for neighbours to assist their weaker Enemies, to pre­vent a more potent and dangerous Adversary; must this be cry­ed up, as such incomparable good Service, as can never, nor any other way, be recompenced but by opening a door to our own Perdition? When they so cheerfully, and cleerly espouse the Cause of King and Country against their Religious Interest, (as hitherto they have only joyntly with it) it will be much more seasonable and proper to demand such Remunerations (though not so great) as now they expect. But to stretch to such length, breadth, and height their late Actions by Amplifications and En­comiums, as if they could as easily merit Earth, as Heaven, by do­ing scarce their duty; and to faign themselves even half mad with admiration, and astonishment, that any of the Friends to the King, should yet suspect them of Disloyalty, is but to follow the humor of their Religion, which teaches, Because their Church hath not erred at sometimes, therefore at no time must it be thought for to Erre. Which yet, as unreasonable as to all the World it appears, we will engage to comply with them in, when they shall be able to give but the tithe of Instances for their peace­ableness and loyalty, as we shall for their Seditions, Treasons, Rebellions, and Conspiracies against all Government not hallow­ed with their Profession. In a word, never let their unparallel'd [Page 60]confidence in justification of themselves as to Obedience and Loy­alty prevaile over them, to imagine we will deny our Senses and Experience, and all Record, and Histories to the contrary: For, we [...]e there no more ingenious way to put these things out of doubt, we would readily pawn our Heads against their Beards, and our Lives against their meanest Limbs, that so far as wri­tings and actions past can give any proof of future dispositions, and motions, (I do not say a Papist, but) Popery cannot consist with the Peace of this Nation or Church, as now established, we will undertake to Demonstrate; when ever they shall be so bold as to tempt us to put them to so much just and necessary shame. And in truth, this has been so far and fully done, and that lately by others, that were, it my present design (as it is not) to paint them out in their Postures, and Colours, the labour would be un­necessary: This therefore will I leave for them to be still astonish­ed at, and me to prove; That a Papist, as a Papist and following the most received and current Doctrine taught by that Church, (some I easily grant, as in all other points, may vary somewhat, but they are but few, and contemptible with them,) and put in practise can never be a Loyal Subject, under any Prince not of the Romish-Church, any longer than necessity humbles him, and despair of prosperous success keeps him tame. Let us therefore hear what the other Extream, the Puritan, hath to plead for, or rather against, himself; and whether he be a Child of better hopes, who gives us the very same promises with the other, and himself the same praises.

CHAP. VII. The Opinions and Practice of Puritans, directly opposite to that kind of Liberty of Conscience they argue for, and at present desire.

IT hath been observed by some, that the Jesuites and Puritans had their Original at the same time, with the difference of one year only. For the Puritans began to shew their Head in the year 1536; and the Jesuites were admitted at Rome in the [Page 61]year 1537. Sanderus De Haeresih. p. 221. Genebrardus. Chronol. Anno 1566. But Sanders and Genebrard affirm they sprang up in the year 1566. And I have heard the Providence of God towards the Church admired and magnified amongst Foreign Papists, who at the same time that the Presbyterians arose, stirred up the Jesuites to oppose and countermine them. And I find it one of the best popular arguments in the mouths, and lately in the writings, of Presbyterians, That they ought to be tolerated, and not only so but cherished in this Church, for their singular enmity and opposition to Popery; which, when they are once put down, they give out must needs enter in. For thus speaks one of no small account with them, John orbets Interest of England, pag. 46. And verily if there were a design to reconcile England to Rome, let all means be used totally to quash the Puritans or Presbyterians; but if England will keep her self pure from Romish abominations, let her be a kind Mother to th [...]se her Children; for this Interest is one chief strength of the Reformed Protestant Religion. Thus he.

An argument, as current as it is, this is, consisting equally of Folly and Knavery, as will thus appear. First, because we having found by direful experience that the Presbyterians, as well as the Papists, have not only contrived and conspired against our Churches welfare, but have actually most scandalously and cruelly endeavoured the utter overthrow of the same, and still stick firmly to the same Principles, which instigated them to such unnatural and unjust practises; may not their argument (as indeed it hath been) be turned thus against them for the Papists? Verily if there be a design to become Presby­terians, then let the Papists be totally quashed; but if England will keep her self pure from the Dominations of Scottish Presbytery, then let her be kind to the Papists, who have done as much against them as they have against the Papists; thus does the extream vanity of their argument appear; the only course to preserve our selves in peace and unity being to serve them both alike. Again, were it so that by accident (for it cannot be said out of design to the good of our Church) either of them might contribute somewhat to the good of the Church as now established, the rule which Seneca gives us in such cases is not to be neglected, Seneca lib. 1. cap. 12. Non ideò vitia recipienda surt quia aliquando al quid boni [...]ffecerunt, ‘Evils are not to be admitted, because at certain times they have had some good effect.’ So nei­ther ought we to run to Popery for fear of Presbytery, nor run to Presbytery, for fear of Popery. But the way of arguing is likewise [Page 62]very knavish, in that by implication, a wicked slander is cast upon our Church, that it must needs favour Popery, if Puritanism be wholly rejected; But if we deny them such prevaricating Reasonings, we cut them out of all their prime confidences, and take away their most principal and successful Weapons. Therefore, leaving this, let us come nearer to their testimonies against themselves. In which, because they pretend great reverence to Foreign Divines of the Reformation, it will not be much out of the way to set down one or two of their Authorities against them.

It is well known that Beza hath written a Tractate on purpose, Beza de Hare­ticis a Magi­stratu puni­endis. That Magistrates may, and ought to punish Hereticks, which they of his side, who doubt of this point, may turn to, and be convinced. I shall cite this only passage out of him, and so leave him. Cedò igitur Christus quo jure flagella his corripuit? Quo jure Petrus Anna­niam & Sapphiram occidit? Quo jure Paulus Elymam excoecavit? Num Ecclesiastici Minist [...]rii? Minimè profectò. &c. [you that hold that the Magistrate ought not to punish Hereticks] Tell me I pray, By what authority did Christ twice take a whip up? By what authority did Peter put to death Annanias and Sapphira? By what authority did Paul put out the eyes of Elymas? What, by the Ecclesiastical Ministry? Nothing less truly, unless thou wilt con­found Jurisdictions. Therefore was it done by the authority of the Civil Magistrate: For, there is no third way.

Peter Martyr writeth not only against professed Hereticks, but such as call themselves tender-conscienc'd men too, allowing them toleration no longer than they may receive sufficient instruction; and addeth, Petrus Martyr Loc. Com. Clas. 2. cap. 1. numb. 32, &c. Imò neque in ipsis mediis rebus Infirmis est assentiendum, nisi tantisper dum melius ac per fectiùs doceantur. Ac cum rem, &c. ‘Yea, neither in things indifferent are we to yield to the weak, un­less for a while, until they may be better and more fully instructed: But so soon as they have understood the matter, and yet are doubt­ful, their weakness is not to be cherished. Besides, so much ought not to be attributed unto such, as that by our example we should hurt others, and more of the members of Christ.’ Thus Martyr. And it is to us plain (however they must and may be of another opi­nion) that by giving way to them that thus pretend tender Consci­ences, we should offend Consciences a great deal better setled, [Page 63]and more to be regarded and valued than theirs, which (as experi­ence from cruel havock they have made in Church and Common­wealth, assures us) strain at a guat and swallow a Camel.

And what other course took the Contra-remonstrants against their Brethren in the Netherlands, after the Council of Dort, but this; when they refused to submit to the sentence then given? Act. Synodal. pag. 324. They de­creed, That every one should be deprived of all, as well Ecclesi­astical as. Scholastical Offices, who refused to submit punctually to the Acts of the Synod; and, Synodal Re­monstrat. in Praefat. that no man should be admitted to the Ministry for the time to come, who refused to subscribe to the Doctrine there declared, and preach according unto the same: And in pursuance of that final determination, no fewer than two hundred of the Opposite Party, who could not conform to the Acts thereof, were forthwith banished the Country; a Proclamation following them from the Magistrate, That no Man should afford them any help or maintenance. Does not this match for a hair the extreamest persecution can at present be objected to the Church against Puri­tans? Or rather doth it not exceed it?

Bullinger telleth us with full approbation and commendation, Bullingerus Epist ad Cal­vinum Epist. [...]3 inter Cal. vini Epi [...]olas. Dudum D. Ʋrbanus Regius una cum om [...]ibus Luneburgensibus Ec­clesiae Ministris, edito etiam libro Germanico jure divino & hu­mano coerceri Haereti [...]s, tum etiam ju e civil [...]; si non desi­nant impia, &c. i. e. ‘Master Urbanus Regius, together with all the Ministers of Luneberg hath lately published a Book in the German tongue, whereby he sheweth that by the Law of God and Man, and Civil Law too, Hereticks ought to be restrained, if they cease not to scatter wicked Doctrines, or have scatter'd blasphemies a­gainst God.’ And in the same Epistle he telleth us, Not long since Titian, an Italian Anabaptist, an Hebionite, and Helvidian was cast into prison by the three Confederate Countries of Rhetia, and had ‘been burnt, had he not made a Recantation; and yet, notwithstanding that, was whipt by the Court.’

And what Calvin's opinion was in this point we needed not in­quire further than we are taught from his Fact, principally in causing Servetus to be burnt at Geneva. But his Institutions and Epistles, where he is much displeased with good Melancthon for straitning the breaches, and qualifying the distempers of both sides; and on the other side, his Book against the Anabaptists do clearly shew and prove unto us.

But whoever pleaseth to satisfie himself more fully and particular­ly concerning the opinions of Foreign Divines in the case of con­science about the granting liberty to scrupulous persons in matters of Indifferency, may consult Mons [...]eur Durels diligent Collections of several of them, negatively concluding against Liberty in indifferent things, to any or many single persons, contrary to the constitutions of a Church: And in truth, they that contend for the same cannot shew a Church upon earth that indulges so far. So equal and ingenuous are they to tug so undeniably for it of us. Bilson's Dif­ference of Christian O­bedience from, &c. pag. 33. But I now draw home­ward, where I may be the more brief, because Bishop Bilson hath to any reasonable mans hand, already proved this Thesis, That Magi­strates may compell their Subjects against their pretended conscien­ces to Ecclesiastical Orders.

Who of them can refuse Mr. Cartwright, the Aurhors of the Admonition compiled in Queen Elizabeths days, and many Suppli­cations to the Parliaments in those days? do not they all run in one strain of abolishing utterly the established Government? and Cartwright in particular excepting against the Common Prayer for permitting the people to depart at the time of Communion; saith, ‘It ought to provide that all those who would withdraw themselves, Th. Cartwright Reply to Whitgist. pag. 117. should be by Ecclesiastical Discipline at all times, and now also under a Godly, &c. [...] by Civil punishment brought to communicate with their Brethren. And this is the Law of God, and this is now, and hath been, the practise of the Churches Reformed, &c.’

And I hope they take not Mr. Perkins to be any of their Enemies, though I think he had too much Learning and Honesty to be a Fautor of such designes and practises as are now on Foot: He, in a certain place, Perkins on Galat. 1. vers. 13, 14. pag. 201, & 202. vide. writes thus, ‘In persecution of the Church by Paul, two points are to be considered, The manner or measure, and accom­plishment; the manner is, That he persecuted the Church ex­treamly, or above measure. That which Paul did in his Religion we must do in ours.’ His meaning plainly is, That as Paul in a false Religion and Zeal did persecute the true, so we in the true (and surely every man supposes himself of the true Religion) ought to persecute the false. And afterward he hath these words, ‘The Tole­ration of two Religions in one Kingdom is the overthrow of Peace.’ Id. Galat. 5.15. And in another place of the same Comment upon the Galatians, he [Page 65]hath these words, ‘For this cause, the Jewes had but one Temple, Id. Gal [...]t. 3.23 pag. 289. one Mercy-seat, one High-Priest, &c. Hence it follows, that in all Godly Christian Commonwealths where true Religion is esta­blished, there may be no Toleration of any other Religion. For, that which is the end of Gods Laws, must likewise be the end of all good Laws, in all Commonwealths and Kingdoms, namely to shut up the people into the unity of one Faith.’ Thus far Mr. Per­kins. And before all these he gives a notable reason for Constraint. ‘For, saith he, The multitude of people amongst us are like Wax, Id. Galat. 1.6, 7. and are fit to take the stamp and impression of any Religion; and it is the Law of the Land, that makes most receive the Gospel, and not Conscience.’ And as he brings a reason here for constraint, so doth he else where remove an Objection commonly brought against it; which is this, ‘It may be said, Id. Galat. 5.15. that Faith and Conscience are free. I answer (saith he) though Faith in the heart, and Consci­ence be free in respect of mans authority, yet is not the publishing of Faith and Profession of Conscience free in like sort, but it stands subject to the power of the Magistrate.’

But it is time now to descend yet lower to the Doctrine of such who were of the same Confederacy with the present suers for liberty. In the year of our Lord 1641. Mr. Marshal preached his famous piece on Numbers 23.5. of, Curse ye Meroz; Mr. Marshal his Sermon before the House, 1641. which is nothing less than Toleration of tender Consciences (if it be lawful to suppose any conscience can be tender which differs from them) but drives on with a fury them who were not backward to oppress men in their Consciences and Religion. Amongst other things this he leaves with his Auditors, coming to Application, that being obliged to curse their Adversaries, this Cursing consisted in two things, Male­dicere Verbo, and Malefacere Re. They were to curse or speak evil of them in Word. And they were to do them mischief in Deed.

Mr. Faircloth, preaching in the same year against Achans Villany, Sam. Faircloth Sermon be­fore the House of Commons, Apr. 4. 1641. and Josuah's zeal against him, declares much against the Achans that hindered the intended Reformation, and the toleration of the Church-party, yea, against Procrastination of Severities against them; pag. [...]7. Doct. 4. And pag. 40, 41. he answereth the argu­ment of delay taken from Fabius Maximus, with Application, 1. of Praise. 2. of Prayer. Then comes he to Motives: pag. 44, 45. It is [Page 66]God's will, pag. 49. you make speed. 2. Achaus make speed to do hurt. 3. Delay hinders the joy and jubilee of the Church. 4. Ye shall bring blessings to your selves. pag. 50, 51. 5. Justice executed on them, is the only end of all your Prayers. Thus he. Now if they by an usur­ped authority acting, taught such zeal against their Superiors; can they hold it unreasonable that Legal authority should proceed accor­ding to their own Maxims? But I shall not need to repeat innu­merable instances which might be given of their impatience at the name of Toleration or Moderation, which they were wont to brand with the note of Detestable Neutrality. What was that language or design which Cartwright of old taught our late sticklers, but a thorow Reformation? Cartwright Preface to his Reply. and how did he, and they after him, propound the examples of Ezechiah, Josiah, and Jehoshap [...]at, for that they made whole and thorow. Reformation, &c. and is there any amongst them, or us, so ignorant that knows not what they meant by thorow-Reformation? and that in truth, as their Covenants and Actions de­monstrated, was nothing else but the utter exstirpation of the e­stablished Government and subversion of the Church then, and so constituted: But peradventure they would now for peace sake (and so ought we to) divide and share alike. I know this is the tale they have got at their tongues end now a days, whereby they procure the esteem by some, of Moderate Men. But is this with any serious or discerning man a tolerable argument for them, when as never were there any persons so violent, rank, or extream in their principles but when they found it not possible to obtain what their principles, and design impell them to contend for, seem at least satisfied with so much as they can get, though they will no longer rest so than advantage shall carry them further. But let us hear what Mr. Cartwright spake, when the Faction was low, against such a peace as now is preferred to us: And you may not only read the same design, but words and ar­guments exactly in these more modern Reformers, which Mr. Ca [...]t­wright had, and the same spirit acting both him and these, ‘Peace (saith he) is commended to us with these conditions. Cartwright Preface to his Reply. [If it be pos­sible, if it lies in us.] Now it is not possible it lieth not in us, to conceal the truth; we can do nothing against it, but for it.’ It is a prophane saying of a prophane man. That an unjust peace in better than a just War? Who sees not from hence most plainly, that no­thing but every thing will satisfie these men? And do they not hold [Page 67]that an unjust peace, whereby they are kept in quiet without their discipline? and is not that a just War which is made for its sake? More a great deal (all know) might be added against them from their own mouths and hands; he that still doubts may look into that Treatise called Evangelium Armatum; which, though an imper­fect, and indeed an abortive piece in comparison of what was due to such a subject, yet doth sufficiently declare their tempers and consti­tutions to be against all mediocrity or compounding of Differences. I have not touched any thing therein; nor is that famous Mr. Love the Presbyterian Martyr there mentioned (as I remember) or at least, not his Ranting and Railings at the attempted or pretended ac­commodation to be made by the Presbyterian Faction at Ʋxbridg, with the King; nor his Sermon at Windsor, where, in the flame of his zeal for the Cause, he exhorted the people to sell their Bibles, and buy Muskets to fight against the King, and being (as he suppo­sed) lead to it by his Text, spake thus, That if God should go be­fore the King's Party, He should be the greatest sinner upon Earth: which passage so exorbitant being heard and excepted against by one of the Church of England, he was called to account for speaking ir­reverently of Mr. Love, before the Governour of Windsor Castle; but publickly affirming and proving the same to be as he reported, by appeal to many Auditors of his, then present, who could not deny they heard the words; he was rebuked for not making the best con­struction of what godly men taught. The same Mr. Love (so paci­fick and charitable a spirit are they acted by) mounting the Scaffold at the Execution of the most Reverend Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, put to death to satiate the Scots appetite, and such as symbolize with them, after Prelatical blood, with greatest exsultation springing at the sight, utter'd these words, Art thou come Little Will? I am glad to see thee here, and hope to see the rest of the Bishops here e're long: And that most innocent blood being shed on the Stage at his beheading, he took out his Handkerchief and [...]ained it therewith; and the Murther being over he rode with it to Ʋxbridg, and drawing it forth in the presence of divers persons spake thus most triumphant­ly, Here is the blood of that proud Prelate; I hope for more of their bloods e're long. Which Mr. A. F. Commissary to the Earl of Essex hearing, said to some then present, and divers elsewhere afterwards before his death; that he could not believe such a bloody man would [Page 68]die in his bed. And so by the strange and just hand of Providence it came to pass, himself suffered in the very same manner that he had rejoyced to see in others. But yet because he made use of the King's name to advance his Presbytery from Sco [...]land into England, this must be set on the score as an high instance to prove, what good Sub­jects Presbyterians can be, when their Discipline requires it.

But passing simple authorities and testimonies of Puritans against themselves pleading for Toleration; we may come to a further double self-condemnation of them. And to this end I might insert here what hath been so lately reprinted and published of the Presbyterian Brethren of Sion-Colledg, A Letter of the Ministers of London, from Sion-Col­ledg to the Synod of Divines a­gainst Tolera­tion, [...]rinted. or Ministers of the City of London, to their Brethren of the Synod then at Westminster, against Toleration of Independents. Which is so pregnant and cutting a way of argu­ing against them, that I know not what possibly can be urged more justly and reasonably by us, or less answered by them. For, I think they will blush (who have not forsworn it) to say, we have any grea­ter or better grounds to tolerate them, than they the Independents. For my part, I could never understand they had any Authority over these, or the separation of Independents from Presbytery was ever any more a Schism than the Presbyterians opposition to, or separation from, the Independents. For, though both of them (I mean some of both Parties) might be said in some sense to be of a Church, neither of them were ever a true Church, as bungled and patched together by their novel imaginations. Yet such was the jealousie and emulation of Presbyterians, that they would be no means have any co-ordi­nate Faction with their own, suffered.

I had once therefore determined, to the end that all the World, and especially themselves, might stand convicted of the unreaso­nableness of their demands and expectations at present, to give the sum of their arguments; but considering how small a Trea­tise that is, and how lately it is come forth, I shall presume that it is already well known. And I shall only give the sum of Mr. Edwards Reasons, famous for his Pieces called the Gangreen, wherein he argues strenuously against the Toleration of Indepen­dents then, Edwards his Reasons a­gainst Tolera­tion, Anno 1641. and of his own Party now. To prove this then more methodically and strongly, he lays these two general grounds against Toleration. First, says he, Apostolical Practice is against this. Secondly, It causes men to run into the Violation of the [Page 69]constant practise and example of the Church, during all the time of the Apostles: and puts Churches upon practises that are ab­surd, and unreasonable, and prejudicial to the good of Souls: That Government that is not of Divine Institution, is not to be re­ceived: But the Independent doth so, faith Mr. Edwards; and we much more justly, But the Presbyterian doth so. Pag. 3.4. And we prove it by Mr. Edwards his words following, They force men to have Ministers and Officers without being Ordained, contrary to the practice of the Churches all along the New Testament: as Act. 6. v. 6. Act. 4.23. No man being Ordained Officer of the Church, without Ordination: Let them produce one Instance if they can. Thus Mr. Edwards. Now, Mr. Edwards being dead, I in his stead challenge any, yea, all the Presbyterians, to give one In­stance thorow all the Old, or New-Testament, or the whole Church of God for 1500 years since the Incarnation, that a na­ked Presbyter, or Priest, ever Ordained; or, if by highest Usurpa­tion, they did attempt such a thing at any time, such Ordination was ever accepted, or held good by the Church. But I desire they would find some better ground to prove this, than the Iden­tity of Bishop and Presbyter anciently: For First, this is no less doubted of, than that they would prove by it. Secondly, If because St. Hierome is thought to have been of that Opinion, (as some take his words) we should suppose, and not grant, that they were so once, it proves nothing now: when it is most cer­tain they are not so, nor have been so, for many hundred years. And therefore men and women both, imposing hands upon their Pastor among Independents, if the Ordination of these be con­demned by Presbyterians; the Presbyterians Ordination may al­together be of no account among us.

After this Mr. Edwards proceeds to prove particularly, Edwards. ibid. That Toleration is not to be allowed: And First, from the Vanity and Impertinency of the texts of Scripture brought to prove it. ‘For though (saith he) the Scripture speaks much for Tolera­ting and bearing one with another in many things, both in mat­ters of Opinion and Practise, as these places tel [...]ifie. Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, v. Rom. 15.1, 2, 7. Ephes. 4, 23. Philip. 3. v. 15, 16. Yet, when differences come either to Heresie or Schism, and Points to be maintaind by men, so as to trouble and [Page 70]disturb the Church, then the Scriptures are express against their Toleration and sufferance, requiring them who have Pow­er, to hinder it, as may be seen, Revel. 2.20. Titus. 1. v. 10. Tit. 3.10.’ Galat. 5. v. 10, 12. and so on. And are not the differences now among us come already to Schismatical and Sedi­tious Divisions amongst us? are they then any longer to be Tole­rated? Or were these and the following Reasons, only intended for the use of Presbytery, but must lose all their vertue and validi­ty, when that is the Case against which they make directly?

Secondly, he at the same time answers a Principal argument now in great use; and confirms his Thesis thus. ‘The Tolera­tion desired will not help to heal the Schisms and Rents of this Church, but will much foment and encrease them. For whilest some Congregations, and they accounted of note both for Mi­nisters and People, will not submit to the Reformation, and Government setled by Law; this will breed in the Peoples minds many thoughts ex natura rei, that this Church is not set­led according to the word of God, and is unlawful, &c. Rea­sons hereof follow.’

3. ‘This Toleration will not only breed Divisions and Schisms disturbing the Peace of Churches and Towns, by setting them who are of different Families, and more remote Relations one against another; but it will undoubtedly cause much Distur­bance, Discontents, and Divisions between the nearest Relations of Husbands and Wives, Fathers and Children, Brothers and Sisters, Masters and Servants; the Husband being of one Church, and the Wise of another, &c.

‘4. There will be great danger of continual Divisions, Distractions, and Disputes among us, not only from the Diffe­rent Form of Government and Worship in their Churches and ours; but from other Doctrines and Practises held by some of them for the present.’

5. ‘The most eminent Ministers of this Kingdom for grace, parts, and labours, can have little assurance of the continuance of their Flocks to them, if such a Toleration be granted; For they will draw away their People and admit them into their Churches, and even gather and encrease their Churches out of the labours of the best Ministers, &c.

6. ‘It will be, undoubtedly, a means and way of their infinite Multiplication and Encrease; even to encrease them thirty Fold.’

7. ‘The prime and Fundamental Principles of this Independent (and likewise Presbyterian) way, upon which they erect their Church-way, are very prejudicial and dangerous, and unsuffe­rable to this Kingdom.’

8. ‘These Independents, (and much more Presbyterian) men where they have power, would not give a Toleration for any other Ecclesiastical Government, or Churches but in their own way: They would not suffer men of other Opinions in Doctrine and Government, to live within the [...]ounds of their Patent, though at the farthest bounds; but have Banished them, &c.

9. ‘A Toleration may be demanded upon the same grounds for all the rigid Brownists of the Kingdom, and for all Ana­baptists, Familists, and other Sectaries, who profess 'tis Consci­ence in them.’

And thus you have the Heads of the Presbyterian Reasons in the Words of Mr. Edwards: which if they may not be more strongly turned against themselves, now moving for Toleration, I must profess my self to understand neither Them, nor their Lo­gick, nor the English Tongue. And if men will still persist in their unseasonable, unreasonable, and unconscionable demands against all these so irrefragable Arguments to the contrary; we have nothing left but our Prayers, Tears, and Confusion, which our notorious Flagrant Sins have brought upon us: And if Authority deserts us with such advantages on our sides, as no­thing on Earth can minister greater, nor any siqual Judg require better; we shall easily see from whence this Judgment comes, and why, (not for any wrong in this Case done to our Antagonists) viz. because we have sinned, and are come down wonder­fully.

I might here conclude all; but that, as I have disputed against them out of their own mouths and books; so I judg it not Im­pertinent to show the insufficiency of their reasons from their answers, or such as they are not wont to question, unless when [Page 72]they are to express. And having by the way answered some already; one or two, may suffice to be here touched.

CHAP. VIII. Certain Exceptions, which may be made by Puritans against what hath been delivered, answered.

VVE have already prevented the vulgar, and general Re­fuges, made by ignorant and undiscerning men against the way of our Church, and in behalf of their Discipline, taken from the mis-understanding of Tyranny, Extreams, Moderation, and Christian Liberty: with which Notions, Seducers are wont to make a great show amongst well-affected, but ill-advised Peo­ple. We have likewise even now answered that which they offer to the People plausibly in most of their late books, though here­toforewe could never wring a syllable from them to that purpose, from the great benefit of the Peace of the Church; out of Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Edwards. And that Objection is likewise removed by Mr. Perkins most clearly, which urges us, that Con­science is Free and cannot be forced. So that there appears not much to remain behind, alledged by them, deserving further an­swer. Yet two, or three things we shall add out of them, to the former; and so end.

And First, I fore see it may be Excepted, that our discourse generally runs against grievous Hereticks, where we shew the Judgment and Practise of the ancient Church against them, which will not hold against those of our days and Church, who are no Hereticks. To which I thus answer:

First, That according to the sense of the Code, the Laws made against Hereticks do comprehend Schismaticks, and such as differ from the Church in lesser and lighter matters. Haeretice­rum autem vocabulo continentur, & latis adversus eos sanctionibus succumbere debent, qui vel levi argumento a judicio Catholicae Religi­onis & tramite deetcti fuerint deviare. i. e. Ʋnder the name of [Page 73]Hereticks, are comprehended, and ought to be punished by the Sancti­ons made aegainst them, all such as are found to swerve in a light matter from the judgment, and path of Catholick Religion. Second­ly, They themselves, (as appears plainly by Mr. Edwards his Rea­sons) will no more suffer Schismaticks, (no not their brethren the Independents, whom they dare not call Here ticks, and who had deserved so well at their hands, (which as yet they never did at ours) than Hereticks. 3ly, The practise of the ancient Church as in part we have shewed, did aswaies persecute Schismaticks as well as Hereticks. 4ly, The Pseas and Excuse of our Dissenters are not so allowable in the principle point of Heresie, as are most Hereticks. For, there being two Essential parts of Heresie gene­rally received, A Formal part, consisting in the pravity of the mind, and disposition of the heart, and obstinacy of the will; And a Material part, consisting in the Errour it self maintained: Men of our Age and Countrey, have more of the Formality of Hereticks, than they who are direct Hereticks: Forasmuch as an Heretick erring in Articles of Faith, may be truly said, and allowed to make a conscience of what he (though Erroniously) believes: for being matters of Faith, they are proper Objects of Conscience, whose Sphere is good, and Evil. But they who do not differ, not dissent (as they say) in Matters of Faith from the Church, but yet keep themselves at a distance from the Authority of the same, may indeed (whether we will or no) call their dissenting by the name of Conscience; but it is well known in reason, or propriety of speech, it cannot be so termed; when there not so much as appears Good, or Evil, in the thing it self: And therefore it must of necessity be Resolution not to agree or yield, and that is nothing else but obstmacy, as their own justifi­cations do imply, when, being demanded, why they cannot in Conscience comply? They (to my knowledge) answer, They cannot do it. Fifthly, As Mr. Edwards said against the Indepen­dents, we may say against the Presbyterians, viz. That we know not the bottom of their Reformation, nor where it will end, nor what it doth hold, notwithstanding their published Confessions, and Catechisms Larger, or Lesser; there being infinite Points, which, like obstructions to a man travailing by Mapps when they shall come to put in practice, will arise unexpectedly. And be­sides Mr. Cartwright, whom they follow as their Modern Apo­stle, [Page 74]tells us in their stead, Cartwright's Reply to Bi­shop Whitgift, pag. 5. Cortain of the things we stand upon are such, that if every hair of our head were a life, we ought to afford them for the defence of them. Again, in the same Treatise he re­proveth Bishop Whitgift for distinguishing between matters of Faith and necessary to Salvation; Id. pag. 14. And Reply to the Answer, pag. 1. and Ceremonies Orders and Discipline of the Church; as though (saith he) matters of Discipline and kind of Government were not matters necessary to Salvation and of Faith. Are these men understood, or to be trusted, when they say, they demand only such things as we may easily grant? Will they lay down their lives for them?

Secondly, They profess that they are ready to come up to us, if we would grant certain light matters.

But with what truth and sincerity let their Actions all along speak, which aimed at nothing less than the ruin and absolute dissolution of our Church. And let Thomas Cartwright in the next place tell us in these words, Id. Reply pag. 102. Indeed it were more safe for us to conform our indiff [...]rent Ceremonies to the Turks which are far off, than to the Papists which are so near. And we well know how altogether Popish we are in our Ceremonies, according to their opinion. And we being as near their Discipline, as they are to our Ceremonies, and Government, may we not as well say, Indeed it were more safe for us to conform our in­different Ceremonies to the Heathens, than to the Disciplinarians, which are so near? And thus ye see, how according to their principles we are like to come to a good agreement, and an happy composure, as when they would smooth over the matter they dissemblingly speak, calling small and new Acquifi [...]ions, Moderation.

Thirdly, They say, that Indifferent things ought to remain so, and they ought not to be obliged any further than Christ and the Scripture binds them.

The first part of this argument is as false, dangerous and perni­cious to all Churches and all Ecclesiastical Authority, as the wit of man can invent any thing; and is quite contrary to Scriptures, which require obedience (as likewise themselves do being in power) to Su­periors. And therefore to deny Superiors that wherein only their power is seen and exercised, is to take away what the Scripture grants them. Now to the second part. Christ and the Scripture oblige men to be subject in such cases to men: Calvinus Ad­versus Anaba. pag. 27.2. in [...]tavo. And Calvin expressly saith, Im­probare quod nunquam improbavit Deus, nimiae est hom [...]ni inquam mortali temeritatis & arrogantia: Hoe autem perpetuò teneamus, [Page 75]usurpari, &c. i. e. ‘To condemn that which God never Con­demned, is too great rashness and arrogance for Mortal man. But let us hold to this constantly, that the autority of God is usurped, when that which he hath permitted is condemned.’ And show where God hath not permitted any one of our Rites, or Ceremonies. And if ye cannor (as we are sure you cannot;) How do ye not take Gods Office out of his hands in condemning that he hath not, being all Private men, and of no authority over us? To this, let us add Mr. Perkins speaking thus, Perkins on Galat. 2. v. 3. Things are not called Indifferent, because we may use them indifferently, or not use them, when we will, and how we will: but because in themselves, or in their own nature they are neither good, nor evil; and we may again not use them well, or ill: Furthermore, there are two things which Restrain the use of things Indifferent, The Law of Charity, and the Laws of Men, &c. ANd the same Author in another place saith, Perkins Ca­ses of Consci­ence. Lib. 1. Chap. 5. Actions Indifferent in the case of Offence, or Edification, cease to be Indifferent, and come under some Commandment of the Moral Law. In which, St. Paul saith, If eating Flesh will Offend. &c. Thus he. Now eating Flesh doth offend at some times, and that not equals, of whom St. Paul speaks, but Superiours; And a man would think, that a Sin­cere Conscience ought to have greater regard to these, than to other persons. Calvin. In­stitut. Lib. 3. Cap. 9. And yet we find true what Calvin laught at in his daies thus, ‘You may see some, who imagine their Liberty cannot hold, unless by eating Flesh on Fridays, they stand possessed of it.’

Lastly, because they see their own acts to testifie so expresly against Toleration, in raising and acting one of the most sad and unjust Tragedies that ever England felt, and groaned under; and this principally to introduce a strange Worship, contrary to the Laws, and Consciences of so many Thousands, and their Su­periours, it not being possible to shake this off them, some of them shift thus, away: That if they did evil, we ought not to do so too. For though the matter be so gross, that for arguments sake they do seem outwardly to relent, and recede from their injustice, and rigour, to the end, they may with more confidence demand favour at our hands, to whom they could do no justice; yet in truth they repent of nothing so much, as that they did not use greater ex­tremities towards us, appears by their reserving to themselves, all true signs and effects of true Repentance: For to one another or to the People, whom they have grosly missed so far, that it is [Page 76]frequent with them to say, that they could conform, but that they have taught the People otherwise, (an imprudent, as well as an ungodly evasion) they never make any such acknowledgement: But whereas they, upon the nature of true Repentance, are obli­ged to do their plain and utmost indeavours to undeceive, and re­store them to the truth; they on the contrary, use all subtile and secret artifices to nourish such wicked Errours as they have bred in them, while they themselves in close discourse being expostu­lated with, Corbet's In­terest. for the occasion, will say as Mr. Corbet doth, There might be some excess heretofore, by the Presbyterian committed. But to the Point: It no ways followeth, that if the Presbyte ians offended (and that notoriously) in Persecuting deadly the Church, therefore a retaliation of the same measure should be called (as they would have it) revenge, or be unjust. For, waving at present the differences of the Causes (which how ever equal and indifferent judges would certainly give against them) they no doubt will to the last keep up disputable) the manner of proceed­ing and acting make a foul difference. For there was wanting all Legal Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical, on that side; and yet dreaded they not to impose their pleasures and Innovati­ons both, on their bre [...]hren; who were no more suject to them, than were they to these; but also usurped over their Governours too, and brought them either to obey their Wills, or suffer their Vengeance: Which was an higher piece of iniquitie than that of the Pope himself. For as we of this Church were free from his power; so have we nothing to do to give law to him: But these men were in all Lawful and Canonical subjection under those they would give Law unto, as well in Reference to Conscience, as Civil propertie. Yet am I not without a Witness of their own against them, even in this Particular. For thus reasonably writes one of them. Mysteries of God [...]es and to [...]abbala. pag. 2. ‘We declare it, that it is true indeed we cannot come up in all things to their judgment who are over us, as we know they could not come up to ours, when we were advanced over them. As we could not allow them any publick imploy­ment, or encouragement, when they could not comply with us, and our Laws and Constitutions. So we cannot expect any pub­lick imployment, or incouragement from them, now we Dissent from them,’ and cannot close with their Laws and Constitutions, &c. This hath much of Ingenuity, if we compare it with the more [Page 77]common temper of them, which leads them only to take away Li­berty from others, but to grant none. But neither must we suffer this concession to pass without Censure. For according to their common and current Craft with the Ignorant, fain they would shuffle and confound all Power so and Lawful Authority, as that theirs it should fairly and fully be, who can lay hold of it by In­justice, and retain it by Violence: And therefore because once indeed by spoil and rapine, they possessed themselves of Power in Church and State; do they compare themselves with such, up­on whom it descends fairly and orderly, by the received course of known Justice and Religion. But grant them this, we grant them almost all: But they must know, there is an infinite disparity, which they can never remove, though they have put fair for it, some of them in resolving, First, all Civil-Power, and next, with little more infatuation and boldness, all Ecclesiastical Govern­ment into the power of the People; and the power of the Peo­ple, into the power of the Sword. So that Person, or those should be unquestionably vested in Civil Dominion, and that Society rightly constituted in Ecclesiastical Rule, who have inva­ded the same, and are able to hold it: A Tenet of which I shall speak no more at present than I have already, only that God would give us if not Grace, human Prudence, and reason so far to judg of, as may draw us to lament and prevent by humble Suits the unavoidable Disasters and Confusions it must again cover the face of that Earth with where it abides; And that God would restore so much of lost man in us, before we pretend to be Christi­ans (and that of the best sort) as to stand to our own Judgments and not to alter and vary according to our advantage, and necessi­ties of our espoused Interests; producing quarrels and babbles to Eternity it self, if we could live so long; as they certainly would, who will neither yield to Reason, nor suffer their own Rules and Opinions to take place in them, so as to reduce them to order.

But the solemn and indissoluble band of their League and Cove­nunt cast upon themselves and others in authority, must by no means be violated; and besides, some Posteriorities are pretended & urged to the great advantage of the Discipline, and these arising from promises made of having regard to tender Consciences upon the entrance of his Majesty into his Throne, and some Disciplinarians great merits.

To the first part of these, it may be reasonably demanded, What [Page 78]that strange sacredness is, what unheard-of Excellency it hath, and new divineness that neither any Oaths or Obligations, wherewith men were bound before, nor any which they have since regularly taken, should be of any force or vertue at all against the Covenant? But what ever went before, is made void by the Covenant, what ever follows is made abortive by the Covenant. How comes this about? Was the authority of the Inventers, or the just power of the propoun­ders, or the divineness and sacredness of the matter such that this, and none but this, must be of any validity or worth with us? Nothing less sure: For, all these are unansw. Arg. against it; for, neither circum­stance, The Cove­nants Plea a­gainst Absol­vers. nor substance was either legal, or just, or holy; as may appear from the infinite falsifications, direct falsities both as to History and Reason, with which that Treatise is fraught to justifieit, and con­firm men of little conscience and judgment, in that bond of Iniquity.

But let their great Casuist Alexander Hirderson be here admitted to speak, and how easie will it be to resolve this doubt? That King of Blessed Memory to whom he wrote, to his own confusion; ob­jecting against his New Oath the Covenant, his old Oaths taken di­rectly to the contrary at his Coronation, was then answered that the Parliament and people to whom they were made, might free him from such engagements, (not that the King ever made such Oaths otherwise to Parliaments in his sense, but as they are the Peoples Representatives.) Which though as the King solidly re­plies, is a false Supposition, yet hereby are evident the principles of such Doctors, that Parliaments may lawfully quit the Prince of Oaths taken in reference to the People. Therefore, according to them, the perfect Parliament having not only declared against such Obligations, but by strong reasons manifested the nullity of them; what pretence can they have who are, and always were, but private men in such cases to urge their Soveraign with such burdens & bonds?

But further, The pretended promise was made to tender Consci­ences, and how doth it appear that the Presbyterians are compre­hended under that expression? We absolutely deny the same. And what force can their bare Assertions and Testimonies given of them­selves be to prove it; when we have such store of Instances of mat­ter of Fact which no men of good Conscience, much less tender in the received sense, can willingly commit, and much less persevere to justifie? But if it must be so, that such a sense of tenderness of Conscience must needs be true because 'tis common and current, How will they not in opening that door for themselves let in such a [Page 79]Rabble as they shall have but little joy in their possessions? Will they multiply beggarly proofs, and say, They are a sober, a godly, a moderate party; and so conclude just as much as they did before?

To shut up all, some there are who distinguish of Hereticks and Schismaticks. For, they are (say they) either peaceable, or unquiet and seditious: The seditious and unquiet Heretick or Schismatick (according to these) may not be suffered, but the modest, and sober, Mentzerus in Exegesi Augu­stanae Confess. Art. 10. and peaceable ought to be born with; and this is Mentzerus his de­cision; and the Plea of both Papist and Puritan with us at present. For now forsooth, No such good Subjects as Catholicks. And the Anabaptist himself writes at large, Saints no Smiters. Thomb's Saints no Smiters. And now go round about, enter into the midst of all that have been bitter Enemies to the King, and you must have as rare luck as he that draws a Prize at a Lottery, if you can pick out a disloyal subject; in discourse, All Factions contend which should pretend most Loyalty.

But in answer to this distinction, we shall craveleave in like manner to distinguish of Rooks: for, some Rooks set upon trees, and they pick not up the new-sown Corn, and therefore may be born with, and not molested; and some Rooks set upon Lands, and they are not to be suffered, for they do hurt to Corn. Just such an one, and so to be favoured is the Heretick and Schismatick. I confess, the di­stinction had been tolerable, had it been made of the Abstracts, Schisms and Heresies. For true it may be, that some of both sorts contain nothing in them turbulent or seditious. But to take this in the Concrete, Schismaticks and Hereticks, is no less ridiculous than we have made; and no less falsly supposed of them who at present put it into their Pleas than of any other. Are not they, think we, of a very gentle quiet, and peaceable Nature and Disposition who being in power (not else you may be sure) in pursuance of their Schism, turned out of their Livings but 85 Ministers of the 97 Parishes within the Walls of London, whereof 16. died with sorrow, and 14 out of the 16. Parishes, without the Walls, and out of the 10. Out-Parishes 9; and so proportionably where they were Masters; Plin. Natur. Hist. lib. 11. cap. 37. especially while they re­tain the very same Principles, whereby they so acted: Pliny tells us that the Lion as fierce a beast as it is, may be made very gentle and tame by severe and seasonable treatments, so that one may suffer it to lick his very flesh; but his tongue being very rough, if in fawning and licking he chances to draw the least blood from a man, together with its slaver, he is so ravisht with the savoriness of it, that he is put into rage & fury. So in truth, no question but the fiercest Scismatick or Heretick may be [Page 80]brought to a very gentle and familiar condition; but suffer him to have such neer access to Majesty, as to but taste the infinite sweets of Power, and Rule; through a secure confidence in his general Innocency, so transported is he beyond his own ordinary, yet unnatural and forced tem­per, that his Ingenuity will soon end in injustice, and his fairness in fury: And then shall you beg Toleration of him, and be sure to go without it and that deservedly.

Some there are of no mean place and policie, who advise seriously, to avoid the Infamy of Persecuting poor Souls for Religion, and let them be Executioners of their own Mischief and Ruine: For (say they) Let them (for instance the Quakers) alone, and in time they will certainly de­stroy one another. Which I may easily grant to be true, and yet the Coun­sel very weak, and unreasonable. For 'tis true, that many Religions shall I call them or superstitions rather, now pleading for Toleration, would in their progress fall foul with themselves, and they devoted to them con­found one another. And it is most probable, if Wild-Beasts were set at li­berty from their Pens into some open place they would tear and worrey one another to Piece, but not till they had put to flight, or devoured their Keepers. It is very likely, that Phanaticks, and Schismaticks of the same Denomination, would in time Fight out the truth of Religion amongst them; but their Common Enemy (as they call us) must first lye gasping at their Feet. And will it not be a notable Solace to a wise man to fore­see, that by casting away his own life for nothing, preparation will be made to destroy his Adversary? such is the safety in many Religions.

The Decencie (to all sober Christians) is answerable to the safety. For, as Lucian tells how Ptolemie Son of Lagus King of Egypt pre [...]ented to his People a Black [...]amel for a Show, a thing, where those Beasts abound most, never seen; and a Man one half of whom was perfect Black, and the other half of his Body very Fair. It the Camel they all stood amazed: but at the Man, most of the beholders burst out into a loud laughter; others in scorn and detestation turned away from such a ridiculous Monster, and reproach to mankind: and yet this person differed not from other men, as to parts, or substance, but Ceremonie only, and Accidents: So what ever may be Tolerated, and perhaps Admired in matters not of divine concern­ment and nature in Religion to exhibit a Church to Christian spectators so most strangly divided and dissonant to it self, though but in things, not Essential or Substantial to Faith, but circumstances, is to render it ridicu­lous to one half of the World, the merry sort; and to the other sort, the sober and judicious, odious, and so Scandalous, that few of these will ever yield to become Proselytes to it, or tarry with it long. And we may be sure, that they whose Policy, rather than Piety, or Prudence incline them to favour such Monstrosities, have nothing so much in their design as to have us laughed out of the present Religion, and to make way for No Religion or for another Religion. For to encounter either of which nothing can be more profitable than by a generous Constancy, to follow and perse­vere in our own Religion: For then will the slie underminer of it, find himself in the end bafled, the impudent opposer ashamed, and the witty scoffer, ridiculous to himself, having nothing else to bear him out but bold­ness, and multitude of Offenders.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.