LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE Asserted and Vindicated By a Learned Country-Gentleman Humbly offered to the Consideration of the LORDS and COMMONS in this present PARLIAMENT LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's-Church-Yard 1689. THE PREFACE Courteous Reader MY Purpose in the following Treatise is not to satisfy all the Questions which may be put as What if any one should preach in the Pulpit in terminis that Jesus is not the Christ or against the Resurrection of the Dead or any other Article of our Faith which all who call themselves Christians do acknowledg or affront the Minister at the Communion and pull the Cloth and Vtensils off the Table such things by the place and manner of doing them may be reduced to moral Impiety and punished as Crimes against natural Light. But my Business is to assert a just Liberty in such controversial things of Religion as they who have forsaken the Church of Rome do differ in and have as they suppose some able and learned sober and Godly Men of their Persuasion supposing that in the mean time they behave themselves peaceably and live without any Civil Injury for my own part I am so sar from thinking that any of these Sects ought to be punished that I believe they might communicate each with other notwithstanding any Opinion in Religion which they hold if that be all had they but Charity enough to bear with and forbear one the other for he who believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God 1 John 5. 1. and is built upon the Rock Matth. 16. 16 18. Although I will not deny but I should prefer a purer Church before a less pure and perhaps one that is not of my own Persuasion before one that is for other causes but I cannot communicate with any Church which will require me to subscribe to or by my Practice and Gesture to justify any the least thing which I judg to be unlawful or else I shall not communicate for Example The Baptism of Infants is not so material a thing either way as that Men should break Communion upon it for there is for it neither Precept nor Precedent On the other side it is not forbidden but if he who thinks it unlawful to baptize his Infant shall not communicate except he doth he cannot lawfully communicate and the Schism is on their part who will force it as a necessary Condition of Communion for they cause Divisions Rom. 16. 17. I think there are in our Church others who deserve Toleration less than any Dissenters whom I know as notorious Prophaners of the Lords Day Haunters of Ale-houses at unseasonable times of the Night or when according to their Consciences they should be at Church and other debauched Persons whom we hear daily in the Streets cursing and swearing bidding God to damn themselves and others Now that they are grosly mistaken who tolerate such Persons as these that offend against their own Consciences and yet severely punish Dissenters in matters of mere Religion will be sufficiently proved in the following Discourse G. C. Of Liberty of Conscience QVI bene distinguit bene docet it will therefore be requisite to premise a word or two for distinction's sake And First We need not trouble our selves to define Conscience logically but taking that word grosly and as it is vulgarly understood we mean by Conscience any Man's Perswasion of what he is to believe and practise which may be of two sorts 1. Either first of such things as may be known by the common Light of Nature Or 2. Such things as are known only by Divine Revelation And these are of two sorts 1 st Such as concern the revealed Will of God under the Old Testament which is called the Law Or 2 dly The Revealed Will of God under the New Testament which is called the Gospel And Secondly By Liberty we mean an Immunity from Punishment and that is either 1. Divine viz. the just Judgments of God. 2. Humane and those are twofolde 1. Civil and Temporal Punishments by loss of Life Limb or Estate c. 2. Ecclesiastical by the Admonitions and spiritual Censures of the Church These things being premised the Truth concerning Liberty of Conscience will be cleared by the proof of the following Propositions I. First then if the Conscience be erroneous by any great Fault against the common Light of Nature we cannot assert any Freedom to it For God will punish it and the King will punish it and so should the Church too by her spiritual Censures and the greater the Error is as to the clearness of the Light against which it is committed or as to the Mischief and Malignity of it the more punishable it is for else we should introduce a Liberty for professed Atheism Blasphemy Murther Adultery Theft c. for Catilines and Ravilliacks c. for Punishments in such cases may be proper and more likely to amend the Delinquent and save the Community from such Mischiefs as such Errors tend to bring upon it Yet do not good Magistrates write all their Laws in Blood but decree Capital Punishments only against Capital Offenders and especially for such Offences as are against the second Table which Magistrates are better able to judg of and strike at the Root and Being of Civil Societies as Murther Paricide c. I mentioned gross Errors in the Proposition for as Aquinas saith in his Summes All Faults against natural Light belong not to the Cognizance of the Civil Magistrate who is a publick Person but are to be corrected by Oeconomicks and Ethicks so for the most part the Faults of Children are to be corrected by their Parents Besides some gross Errors may be excepted as they may be circumstantiated or over-ruled by Education and Religion therefore the Christians did not persecute the Heathens as the Heathens persecuted them although the Idolatries of the Heathens were contrary to common Light nor do the Protestants persecute the Papists as the Papists persecute the Protestants though some of the Errors of the Papists as Transubstantiation are grosly against the common Light of Reason and Sense it self but more tolerable as Errors meerly than paying Peter-pence to the Pope is in Civil Government II. Prop. Such Jews as lived in the Times of the Old Testament were not to have the Liberty of their Consciences as to humane Punishments though a great part of that Law consisted only of the revealed Will of God for God's Will was likewise revealed that they should be punished Now these Ordinances unto which the Jews were bound were mostly concerning the outward Man and very clearly revealed Besides the Jews had their Vrim and Thummim their Priests and Prophets whom God according to his Promise Deut. 18. 18. raised up from time to time for their Direction whom the People were bound to hear under penalty of Excision neither were the Strangers that dwelt in the Land and were but Proselytes of the Gate to be tolerated in
there is no trusting to their Words Promises or Oaths VII My Seventh and last Argument shall be taken ab Authoritate Ecclesiae affirmativè from the Authority of Christians both ancient and modern the Antient Christians generally denied the Persecution of Hereticks for at least well nigh the first 400 years for which there are well-known Testimonies cited out of Tertullian Lactantius c. that Faith is to be perswaded not forced St. Austin is very express contra Cresconium Gra 〈…〉 maticum l. 3. c. 50. Nullis bonis in Catholicâ hoc placet 〈◊〉 usque ad mortem in quenquam licet haereticum saeviatur It pleaseth no good Men in the Catholick Church that Hereticks should be put to Death This Testimony sheweth not his private Opinion but the Judgment of the Universâ—l Church which no Man knew better than he and strongly proves that the Papists are neither the Catholick Church nor good Men for he saith Nullis bonis hoc placet in Catholicâ but it is no wonder for Apostates to alledg the whole Primitive Church as for them when it is all against them This place is quoted by Bishop Jewel Apol. c. 32. Div. 1. p. 431. who cites also Chrysostom Homil 19. in Matth. Num Ovis persequitur Lupum Christianus haereticum c. Doth the Sheep persecute the Wolf No but the Wolf doth persecute the Sheep Doth the Christian persecute the Heretick No but the Heretick doth persecute the Christian And again Whomsoever you see rejâ—icing in the Blood of Persecution he is the Wolf and wisheth that God would kill the Heretick with spiritual Darts and the two-edged Sword of the Spirit Eusebius relates in Vitâ Constantini that Constantine decreed that they which erred should have equal fruition of Peace and Quiet with the Faithful and that we may know Constantine was in earnest he puts it into his Prayer l. 2. c. 55. It is true he banished Arius but he banished likewise Athanasius and neither of them for their Opinions which he accounted trifling and Bp. Jewel saith in Apol. c. 3. Div. 2. p. 524. was thought to encline in his own Opinion rather to Arius but for other Causes and Immoralities and unchristian Contentions not to be reconciled by the Emperours Tears Letters and the Mediation of his Legate Hosius Bishop of Corduba This is certain that Athanasians Arians and Novatians were all suffered in the same Cities to have Churches and Bishops of their own whose Successions are delivered in Ecclesiastical History till Pope Celestine banished the Novatians out of Rome deprived them of their Churches and constrained Rusticula their Bishop to raise private Conventicles anno 425. Socrates Schol. l. 7. c. 11. For now he and Cyril of Alexandria were grown â—reat having gone beyond the Bounds of Priesthood and gotten the temporal Sword. He that would see more of Antiquity may consult Mr. Daillé of the right use of the Fathers and read the Comments of the Fathers upon the Parable of the Tares c. Ye know not what Spirit ye are of I shall add some modern Testimonies of our own Country-men The Apology of the Church of England set out by Authority p. 431. mihi As for us we run not to the Fire as these Mens Guise is but we run to the Scriptures neither do we reason with the Sword but with the Word of God. Indeed the Writ de Haeretico comburendo is now out of Doors and I hope his Fellow de Excommunicato capiendo will follow him ere long See Dr. Hammond in his Defence of my Lord Falkland who writes very fully to this Purpose but especially see his last Words about Paedobaptism in his six Queries His Words are And God forbid we that desire to reduce Dissenters should ever think of damning killing or persecuting any that dissent in this or any other particular And I think it but Duty to pray against that treacherous Prosperity which should be able to infuse any greater Degree of Unkindness or Roughness into the Minds of Men whether Sons or Fathers of the Church than what I here avow to be strict Duty in every Christian Dr. Taylour since Bishop of Down and Conner wrote a whole Book de Libertate Prophetandi the like hath been done by several Conformists in their Pleas for Nonconformists Mr. Hudson who rode with King Charles the first in Disguise in his Treatise of Monarchy c. dedicated to the King asserts Liberty of Conscience boldly and perhaps too boldly but that it was Mr. Hudson who carried his Life in his Hand and at last lost it in the King's Cause See what Dr. More in his Appendix to his Antidote against Idolatry saith p. 55. of Nadab and Abihu's offering strange Fire before the Lord Lev. 10. 1. where he compares it with Luke 9. 54. John 16. 2. and saith Whether Protestants or Papists that kill one the other for conscientious Difference in Religion as thinking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make an Oblation of Divine Worship to God thereby do turn the living God of the Christians who is Love it self into the foulest Idols of the Heathens who used to be worshipped with the bloody sacrificing of Men. This holds good in Proportion against Religious Robbery by Fines or Confiscation of Goods Mr. Day on Isa 1. 21. saith that to take away Mens Livelihood is there called Murther Lastly To name no more Dr. Burnet hath written very learnedly and solidly in Defence of Liberty of Conscience in his Preface to the History of the persecuting Emperours Now from what hath been said appears the Vanity of those Men who are content to give a private Liberty but noâ— to assemble which signifies little to many Men who think themselves bound to do so from Heb. 10. 25. and not to live like Atheists Others will give Men Liberty if they will hold their Tongues and distinguish betwixt the outward Exercise or Profession of Faith and the internal Acts of Faith which they say are not to be forced thank them for nothing did the primitive Church only tolerate the Thoughts of Hereticks and who can think any sober Man should dispute of Mens private Thoughts which as such no Man can know or if they be declared and punished yet cannot a Man certainly say that they are forced viz. that his Thoughts are altered for that may be dissembled but all Men have hitherto supposed that Mens Consciences are capable of being forced that is punished taking the inward and outward Acts together as they ought in this Question some I see would give such a Liberty as Antichrist never denied Now it may be fit to answer the principal Arguments which are produced by the Adversaries 1. From Rom. 13. where Magistrates are said to be a Terror to evil-Doers c. I answer that Text only authorizeth the Magistrate to punish civil Injuries and moral Evils He may punish Treason Rebellion Murther c. Such Heresies are Works of the Flesh and against the Light of Nature such
as the Apostle mentions Gal. 5. 20. and what they are may be known by their Companions there enumerated that the Apostle doth not speak of Errors in the Faith is plain because the Magistrates were then Heathens and he seems to speak of the present Powers when he saith The Powers that be c. though 't is true he speaks of them rather according to what they ought to be than according to what they were as may appear by those Words He is the Minister of God to thee for good which some in alledging this Scripture do little consider Doth the Apostle make Caligulâ— and Nero and Commodus with the whole Tribe of Usurpers Judges of the Faith of Christians and therefore Paul could appeal to Caesar only whether there was any Immorality or Crime in him deserving Death as the Jews caluminated 2. It is objected that the King is bound to serve God not only as a Man but as a King. I answer It is true and that may be done without Violation of Conscience in matters of Faith He may punish Immoralities Impieties and such as sin against their Profession and Conscience He may serve God by Protection of his Church by his Treasure Munificence praising and encouraging good Christians without bribing Men by extravagant Rewards and Wages which bear no Proportion to the Work by good Perswasions and Advice by his Wisdom in calling Councils and presiding in them and by defending even honest and well-meaning Hereticks from such cruel Men as put honest Men into Bear-Skins and then set the Dogs on them and care not what censure they pass upon Dissenters so lavish are they in calling every little thing Heresy Blasphemous and Damnable of which Chrysostom complains as too rife in his time in his Comment on Matthew but these Men learnt that Language of Antichrist the old Anathematizer Some urge the Power of the Kings of Israel in 2. Chron. 15. 13. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to Death But this is already answered in Propos 2 d. 3. Some say if Liberty of Conscience be granted there will be Confusion I answer This is a Selfish Objection for I dare say the Objector would not use it if he stood in need of Liberty himself Unity and Uniformity are good things but we must come honestly by them I am for Unity but as Bp. Latimer said Unity in Verity and not in Popery There is Unity enough amonst Mahumetans in Spain and Muscovie and yet in Reality there is the greatest Babylonical Confusion that is mixture of Truth and Error which is the Mother of the greatest Dissension for whensoever the Force shall be taken off as is fit there must of necessity be the greatest Differences when Men shall use their own Judgments from proper Arguments and not as now one Judg for them all right or wrong at Adventures then it will appear that he who pretends himself most infallible and other Men to be Hereticks is most deceived and the greatest Dâ—ceiver and Heretick of all as 't is usual with them to be who most of all cry out upon other Men as Hereticks and Sâ—hismaticks to be indeed such themselves and if Hereticks were to be punished they deserve most of all to be punished 4. Some say If Liberty of Conscience be granted that then there can be no National Church I answer Was there then no National Church for the first three hundred Years before the Emperor received the Faith It is true there can be none with Coercion to it nor should there be any such What National Church can there be where the major part of the Nation are Infidels or Papists What Parochial Church where the major part of the Parish are such What National Churches can there be where the Soveraign Authorities are Infidel or Popish must they appoint the Bishops They are sure like to be good ones Constantine would set up no such National Church but suffered Arians Novatians and others to have their Churches and Bishops And Mr. Heylin saith there were Bishops in Poland but no Man forced by the Civil Sword and Bishops could uphold when the Emperours were against them but now we think as good no Bishop if all that live within such a part of the Country be not forced to be subject to him as being in his Diocess That Church may be said to be National when the most are of it and especially when the Soveraign Authority doth countenance it doth establish and encourage it by favourable Laws and Priviledges The best way to make a National Church was by such healing Principles as these For Magistrates to command as little as may be and People to obey as much as they can besides the Test against Popery to require as little to be subscibed to as is possible and that in the words of the Scripture To let the Parishes where the Fault is committed to examine and censure gross and notoriously scandalous Offendors and order the needful Rites and Ceremonies of their own Church without chargeable Travelling tedious Suits crafty Pleadings Quirks of Law and Pettefoggeries Fees and Charges Extortion and Barretry in forreign Courts who indeed have nothing to do in such matters not easily to impose a Pastor upon a Parish without their Consent nor a President Bishop upon his Clergy without their Consent And he with the chief of them to ordain Ministers and see that they who receive the Magistrates Maintenance do the Work accordingly I am so far from being against Bishops that where there is one I would there were many more 5. Others say Why do they then deny the Papists Liberty 1. Because the Papists are gross Idolaters against Natural Light. 2. Because the Papists will give no Liberty And if they do promise it and swear it by virtue of the Decrees of Popes and Councils they must not perform it longer than the Pope pleaseth if they will be true to their Religion 3. Because the Papists introduce a Foreign Power viz. the Pope with his Locusts to burthen the Land and emunge the People and cheat them of their Money and therefore no more tolerable than Regraters or Forestallers c. 4. Because the Papists where they get full Power are unmeasurably cruel Bishop Bramhall against Militeir saith that they have equalled if not exceeded the Heathens in Cruelty and now of late they have outdone themselves witness their Dragooning in France and Savoy and the like in other places Otherwise The Papists are not to be punished as Hereticks Queen Elizabeth and our Kings do expresly deny that they punished them meerly for their Religion Indeed our Laws were very cruel against them but never executed in any very high degree and as to any great Violence or Severity I wish they were so moderated as to be fit to be executed and with consideration of all mollifying Circumstances and not one Man to suffer for the Offence of another IV. My fourth and last Conclusion is this An