To give our People a Testimony of our founding all our security, rather in their affections, then in any Military Pow­er; the sole strength and security, we shall ever confide in, shall be the hearts and affections of our Subjects indeared and confirmed to us by our Gratious and Steady manner of Govern­ment, according to the antient known Laws of the Land, there being not any one of our Subjects, who doth more from his heart abhor (then we our selves) all sorts of Military and Arbitrary Rule.

As concerning the non performance of our Promises; we remember well the very words of those from Bredah, (viz.) [Page 6] We do declare a liberty to tender Consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted, or called in question for diffe­rences of Opinion in matters of Religion, which do not disturb the Peace of the Kingdom; and that we shall be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament, as upon Mature deliberation shall be offered to us, for the full grant­ing that Indulgence. We remember well the Confirma­tions, we have made of them since upon several occasions in Parliament; and as all these things are still fresh in our me­mory, so are we still firm in the Resolution of performing them to the full.

We do conceive our selves so far engaged, both in ho­nour, and in what we owe to the Peace of our Dominions, which we profess we can never think secure, whilst there shall be a colour left to the disaffected, to inflame the minds of so many Multitudes, upon the scores of Consci­ences, with dispair of ever obtaining any effect of our Pro­mises for their ease.

Such an Act, as in pursuance of our Promises the wisdom of our Parliament shall think fit to offer unto us for the ease of tender Consciences.

We profess it would be grievous unto us to consent, to the putting any of our Subjects to death for their Opi­nions in matter of Religion only.

Our expressing according to Christian Charity, Our dislike of Blood-shed for Religion only.

Our Parliament is an Assembly so eminent in their Loyalty and their Zeal, for the Peace and Prosperity of our King­domes —can no wayes be doubted in the performance of all our Promises, and to the effecting all those gracious inten­tions, which God knows our heart is full of, for the PLENTY, PROSPERITY, and UNIVERSAL SATISFACTION of the NATION.

We think to give them the most important Marks of our care: First, In punishing by severe Laws that Licentiousness and Impiety, which we find to our great grief, hath overspread the Nation.

[Page 7] And lastly so to improve the good consequence—to the ad­vancement of trade, that all our Subject finding the advan­tage —in that prime foundation of plenty, they may all, with minds happily composed by our clemency and indulgence (instead of taking up thoughts of deserting their profes­sions) apply themselves comfortably, and with redoubled industry to their several vocations, &c.

Also in the Votes and Advice of the House of Commons, Febr. 5. 1662. Upon reading the Kings Declaration and Speech, are these words, (viz.) And our hearts are further enlarged in these returns of Thanks-giving when we consider your Majesties most Princely, and Heroick professions of rely­ing upon the affections of your People, AND ABHOR­ING ALL SORTS OF MILITARY AND ARBITRARY RULE, &c.

I designed a Discourse to this purpose, with as much gree­diness, as if I had thought it possible with my Arguments to have perswaded the rough and hard handed Souldiers to have disbanded presently; for I had often thought of the Prophesie, that in the Gospel, our Swords should be turned into Plow-shares, and our Spears into Pruning-hooks.

I thought it my duty to plead for Peace and Charity, and Forgiveness, and Permissions mutual.

Although we must contend earnestly for the Faith, yet this contention must be with Arms fit for the Christian Warfare, the Sword of the Spirit, the Shield of Faith, &c. but not with other Arms; for a Church-man must not be a Striker, for the Weapons of our Warfare are not Carnal, but Spiritual.

I being most of all troubled, that men should be persecuted, and afflicted, for disagreeing in such opinions, which they [Page 9] cannot with sufficient grounds obtrude upon others necessarily, because they cannot propound them infallibly.

Considerations (are to be had) to the Persons of men, and to the Laws of Charity more then to the trimmphing in any Opinion, &c.

If the Persons be Christians in their life, and Christians in their profession; if they acknowledge the Eternal Son of God for their Master, and the Lord, and live in all relations as becomes Persons making such professions, why then should I hate such Persons whom God loves, and who love God, who are partakers of Christ, and Christ hath a Ti­tle to them, who dwell in Christ, and Christ in them, because their understandings have not been brought up like mine, have not had the same Masters, they have not met with the same Books—have not the same Opinions that I have, and do not determine their School Questions to the same sence of my Sect or Interest?

And whatsoever is against the Foundation of Faith or con­trary to good Life—or distructive to humane society—is out of the limits of my Question, and doth not pretend to compliance or tolleration.

The fault I find and seek to remedy is, That men are so dog­matical and resolute in their Opinions, and impatient of others disagreeing in those things wherein is no sufficient means of Union and Determination, but that men should let Opinions and Problems not be obtruded as Actions, nor Questions in the vast collection of the Systeme of divinity be adopted into the Family of Faith.

3. Its hard to say, that he who would not have men put to death or punished corporally for such things, for which no humane authority is sufficient for Cognizance, or Deter­mination, or competent for infliction; that he perswades to an indifferency when he refers to another Judicatory, which is competent, sufficient, infallable, just, and highly severe—for God alone must be Judge of these matters, who alone is Master of our Souls, and hath the Dominion over humane understanding—God alone is Judge of erring Persons.

[Page 10] I earnestly contend, that another mans Opinion shall be no Rule to mine, and that my Opinion shall be no Snare and Prejudice to my self; that men use one another so charitably, that no error or violence tempt men to Hypocrisie, this very thing being one of the Arguments I used to perswade Permis­sions, lest Compulsion introduce Hypocrisie, and make Since­rity troublesom, &c.

From the Dictates of holy Scripture, it is observable, that this, with its appendant degrees, I mean, restraint of Prophe­sying, imposing upon other mens understandings, being Ma­sters of their Consciences, and lording it over their Faith, came in with the retinue and train of Antichrist, as other abu­ses and corruptions of the Church did, by reason of the ini­quity of the times, and the cooling of the first heats of Christianity, and the encrease of interest, and the abatements of Christian simplicity, when the Churches fortune grew bet­ter, and her Sons grew worse, and some of her Fathers worst of all: For in the first three hundred Years there was no sign of persecuting any man for his Opinion, though at that time there were very horrid Opinions commenced—and they who used all means—Christian and Spiritual, for their disim­provement and convi [...]tion, thought not of using corporal force —and therefore I [...] not only urge their not doing it, as an Argument of the unlawfulness of such proceeding, but their defying it, and speaking against such practises as unreasonable, and destructive to Christianity, for so Tertullian is express, Humani juris & naturalis potestatis uni cuique quod putaverit colere, sed nec religionis est cogere religionem quae suscipi debet sponte non vi: its of humane right and natural power for every one to wor­ship what he thinks; but neither is it the part of Religion to compel Religion, which ought to be undertaken of its own accord.

The same is the Doctrine of Cyprian, Lactantius, Hillary, Minutius, Faelix, Sulpitius, Severus, Chrisostom, Hierom, Austin, Damascen, Theophilact, Socrates Scholasticus, and Bernard.

All wise Princes till they were over-born with Faction, and [Page 11] solicited by peevish persons, gave Tolleration to differ­ing Sects—But at first there were some heretical persons, that were so impatient, they were the men that first in­treated the Emperor to persecute the Catholicks: but till four hundred years after Christ, no Catholick persons, or very few, did provoke the secular Arm, or implore its aid against the Hereticks; save only that Arrius behaved himself so seditiously and tumultuarily, that the Nicene Fathers pro­cured a temporary Decree for his relegation; but it was soon taken off, and God left to be his Judge.

But as the Ages grew worse, so men grew more cruel and unchristian; and in the Greek Church Atticus and Nestorius of Constantinople, Theodocius of Synoda, and some few others, who had forgotten the mercies of their great Master, and their own duty, grew implacable, and furious, and impatient of con­tradiction.

It was a bold and arrogant Speech which Nestorius made in his Sermon before Theodotius the younger; Da mihi, O Empe­rator, terram ab Haereticis repugnatum & ego tibi vicissim ca [...]lum dabo; disperde mecum Haereticos, & ego tecum disperdam Pers [...]s; which is in English, O Emperor, give to me the Land purg­ed from Hereticks; and I, instead thereof, will give thee Hea­ven: destroy me the Hereticks, and I will destroy with thee the Persians: It was as groundless, as unwarrantable, as it was bloody and inhumane. And we see the contrary events prove truer; for Theodosius and Valentinian were prosperous Princes, and have the reputation of great piety; but they were so far from doing what Nestorius had suggested, that they restrained him from his violence and immanity; and Theo­dosius did highly commend B. Proclus, for his sweetness of deportment towards erring persons, far above the cruelty of his Predecessor Atticus.

And the experience which Christendom hath had in this last age, is Argument enough▪ That Tolleration of differing Opinions is so far from disturbing the publick peace, or destroying the Interest of Princes, and Common-wealths, that it doth ad­vant [...]ge the Publick, it secures the Peace, because there is not [Page 12] so much as the Pretence of Religion left to such persons to contend for, it being already indulged to them.

When France fought against the Hugonots, the spilling of their own Blood was Argument enough of the imprudence of that way of promoting Religion; but since she hath given permission to them, &c.

The great instance is in the differing Temper, Govern­ment, and Success which Margaret of Parma, and the Duke of Alva had; the clemency of the first had almost distinguished the Flame; but when she was removed, D. Alva succeeded, and mannaged the matter of Religion with Fire and Sword, he made the Flame so great, that his Religion, and his Prince too, had both been almost turned out of the Countrey; Pelli [...]e medio sapientiam quoties vi res agitur, said Ennius, [Wisdom is dri­ven out, when the matter is acted by force.]

[And therefore the best of men, and most glorious of Prin­ces, were alwayes ready to give Tolleration.]

Esebeus in his second Book of the life of Constantine, reports these words of the Emperor, ‘Parem cum fidelibus ij qui errant pacis, & quiet is fruitionem gaudentes accipiant: ipsa si quidem com­municationis & societatis restitutio ad rectam etiam veritatis viam perducere potest; nemo cuiquam molestis sit, quisque quod animo de­stinat hoc etiam faciat;’ Let them which err with joy receive the like fruition of Peace and quietness with the faithfull, sith the restoring of communication and society may bring them into the right Way of Truth: Let none give molestation to any; let every one do as he de­termines in his mind.

And indeed there is great reason for Princes to give Tol­leration to disagreeing persons, whose Opinions cannot by fair means be altered; for if the persons be confident, they will serve God according to their perswasions; and if they be publickly prohibited, they will privately convene, and then all those inconveniences, and mischiefs, which are Argu­ments against the permission of Conventicles, are Arguments for the publick permissions of differing Religions, &c.—they being restrained, and made miserable, indears the dis­contented [Page 13] persons mutuall, and makes more hearty and dangerous confederations.

King Iames in his Letters to the States of the Vnited-Pro­vinces, dated Mar. 6. 1613. thus wrot— ‘Ita ut prohibeatis Mi­nistros vestros ne eas disputationes in suggestum aut ad plebem feran [...]s, ac districte imperetis ut pacem colant se in vicem tolerando in ista opini­onum ac sententiarum discrepantia’—So that you may sorbid your Ministers, that they bring not those Disputations into the Pulpit, or to the People, and strickly command, that they embrace peace among themselves, by Tollerating in that difference of Opinions, and Iudg­ments.

The Counsel like in the divisions of Germany, at the first Re­formation, was thought reasonable by the Emperor Ferdi­nand, and his excellent Son Maximilian; for they had ob­served, That Violence did exasperate, was unblest, unsucces­full, and unreasonable; and therefore they made Decrees of Tolleration.

And the Duke of Savoy repenting of his War, undertaken for Religion against the Peidmontans, promised them Tolera­tion; and was as good as his word—As much is done by the nobility of Polonia: so that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities (but it is known, that the first Persecution of disagreeing Persons was by the Arrians, by Circumcellians, and Donatists, and from them they of the Church took Example, &c.) And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practise, till the question of Images grew hot and high; for then the Worshippers of Ima­ges, having taken their example from the Empress Irene, who put her sons eyes out for making an Edict against Images, began to be as cruel, as they were deceived, especially, being encou­raged by the Pope of Rome, who then blew the Coales to some purpose.

I may upon this occasion give account of this affair in the Church of Rome. It is remarkable that till the time of Iusti­nian the Emperor, A. D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome it self, but the Bishops of Rome, whose interest was much concerned in it, [Page 14] spoke much against it, and laboured the eradication of the No­vatians; and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly; but it is observed by So­crates that when the first persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent the first, at the same instant the Goths invaded Itally, and became Lords of all, it being just in God, &c.

And I have heard it observed as a blessing upon S. Austin (who was so merciful to erring Persons) as the greatest part of his life—to tolerate them, and never to indure that they should be given over to the secular power to be killed) that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo, to besiege it, he died, and went to God; being taken from the miseries to come.

But in the Church of Rome, the Popes were the first Preach­ers of Force and Violence in matters of Opinion, and that so zealously that Pope Vigilius suffered himself to be imprisoned, and handled roughly by the Emperor Iustinian, rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disa­greeing persons, &c.

The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick, the Founder of the begging Order of Friars: The Friars Prea­chers, in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted only to the Fryars of his order; and if there be any force in Dreams, or truth in Legends, &c.—This very thing might be signified by his mothers Dream, who the night before Do­minick was born, dreamed she was brought to bed of a huge Dog, with a Fire-brand in his mouth; sure enough however his Disciples expound the Dream, it was a better sign that he should prove a Rabid, furious incendiary then any thing else, what ever he might be in the other parts of his life; in this Doctrine he was not much better, as appears in his de­portment towards the Abligences, against whom he so preached —Adeo quidem ut centum hereticorum millia ab octo millibus ca­tholicorum fusa & interfecta fuisse probiantur, saith one of him, and of those who were taken one hundred and eighty were burned to death, because they would not abjure their Do­ctrine; [Page 15] this was the the first Example of putting erring Per­sons to death, that I find in the Romish Church.

By this time I hope it will not be thought unreasonable to say, He that teaches mercy to erring Persons teaches indifferency in Religion, unless so many Fathers, and so many Churches, and the best of Emperors, and all the World (till they were abused by Tyranny, Popery and faction) did teach indiffe­rency: For

I have shewn that Christianity doth not puni [...]h corporally persons erring Spiritually, but indeed Popery doth.

The Donatists, and Circumcelians, and Arrians, and Itaciani, they of old did in the middle Ages; the Patrons of Images did, and the Papists at this day do, and have done ever since they were taught it by their St Dominick.

Let all Errors be as much, and as zealously supprest as may be, but let it be done by such means as are proper instruments of their suppression, by Preaching and Disputation, by Charity and Sweetness, by Holiness of Life, Assiduity of Exhortation, by the Word of God, and Prayer.

For these wayes are most natural, most prudent, most peace­able and effectual, only let not men be hasty, in calling every disliked Opinion by the name of Heresie; and when they have resolved that they will call it so, let them use the erring person like a Brother, not beat him like a Dog, or convince him with a Gibbit, or vex him out of his understanding or perswasion.

Thus far Ier. Taylor; these Passages being truly collected out of his Epistle, where are many more to the same purpose; to which the Reader is referred for further satisfaction, if he de­sire it: And further in his Sixteenth Section, for the lawfulness of Princes giving Tolleration to several Religions, he hath these Passages.

For it may be safe in diversity of perswasions; and it is al­so a part of Christian Religion, that the Liberty of mens Consciences should be preserved in all things, where God hath not set a limit—

[Page 16] That the Soul of man should be free, and acknowledge no Master but Jesus Christ.

That matters Spiritual should not be restrained by punish­ments corporal.

That the same meekness and Charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity, that gave it foundation, and increment, and firmness in its first publication.

And that Persons should not more certainly be condemned then their Opinions confuted.

And lastly, That the Infirmities of men, and difficulties of things, should be both put in ballance, to make abatement in the diffinitive sentence against mens persons.

As Christian Princes must look to the interest of their Go­vernment; so especially must they consider the interests of Christianity, and not call every redargution, or modesty, dis­covery of an established Error, by the name of the disturbance of the Peace; For,

It is very likely that the peevishness, and impatience of con­tradiction in the Governors may break the peace.

Let them but remember the Gentleness of Christianity; the Liberty of Consciences which ought to be preserved; and let them do justice to the persons, whoever they are that are peevish; provided no mans person be over-born with preju­dice: For

If it be necessary for all men to subscribe to the present esta­blished Religion; by the same reason, at another time, a man may be bound to subscribe to the contradictory, and so to all Religions in the World. Uncharitableness is much prevented when no person is on either side engaged upon revenge, or troubled with disgrace, or vexed with punishments, by any de­cretory sentence against him: It was the saying of a wise States-man, (I mean Thuanus) Haeretici qui pace data factionibus scinduntur, persecutione uniuntur contra. Remp.If you persecute Hereticks, or Discrepants, they unite themselves as to a common de­fence if you permit them, they divide themselves upon private interest, and the rather, if this interest was an ingredient of the Opinion.

I have for long season determined, said one of the Kings of France, to reform the Church, which without Peace (said he) I cannot do, and it is impossible to re­form, or convert people by violence.

I am King, as a Shepherd, (said he) and will not shed the Blood of my Sheep; but will gather them through the mildness and goodness of a King, and not through the power of Tyranny: And I will give them that are of the reformed Religion right Liberty to live and dwell free, without being examined, perplexed, molested, or compelled to any thing contrary to their Consciences; for they shall have the free exercise of their Religion, &c. vide Chron. Vande Vnderg 2. deel. pag. 1514.

Pag. 28. Make them at length seriously to consider, that no­thing violent and injurious can be religious.

Pag. 70. Nor is it so proper to hew out religious Reforma­tions by the Sword, as to pollish them by fair and equal Disputa­tions, among those that are most concerned in the Differences, whom, not Force, but Reason ought to convince.

Sure in Matters of Religion, those Truths gain most upon mens Judgements and Consciences, which are least ur­ged with Secular Violence, which weakens Truth with Pre­judices.

Pag. 91, 92. In point of true conscientious tenderness, I have often declared, how little I desire my Laws and Scepter should intrench on Gods Soveraignty, which is the only King of mens Consciences.

Pag. 123. Nor do I desire any man should be further sub­juect unto me, then all of us may be subject unto God.