if any sort of Men be intolerable they are such who truly deserve that Title Consideration 1. Another Author stirr'd up by the excellent discourse of the D. of B. enlarges upon this Head and shews that the Apostles were only commission'd to Preach and Teach the Christian Doctrine that they were Embassadors to beseech Men to be reconcil'd to God and not to use any forcible means to bring People to conform to his Worship An Author after all his pains may surely be allow'd to give his Book what Title he pleases provided the Reader may have his Freedom to Interpret This Book is made up of several parcels which he calls Considerations and if this first must pass under that Title it cannot be in the literal sense but should be interpreted as Dreams are by contraries For if our Author had considered tho' never so little he must needs have discerned that all this is no more against all forcible means than it is against humane Learning the Apostles used as little of one as of the other in converting of the World let us allow then that the Apostles us'd no forcible means to convert the World but reduced it only by perswasion what then Then no body else ought to think themselves wiser than the Apostles and to endeavour to convert the World by force agreed But what is all this to our present purpose Then no forcible means ought to be us'd to bring Dissenters to Church or to hinder their Meetings Here the consideration is too short and draw it as long as you please will never come to the point unless he can satisfy us in this one thing that there may be no other Methods us'd in the Government of a Church already Establish'd than those that have been us'd in the Conversion of Infidels this whole matter will perhaps be much clearer to him if he please to take notice of these plain and certain Truths 1. That the Apostles had and us'd greater Authority over those they had already converted than over those that were yet to be converted 2. That tho' they were sent onely as Ambassadors to unbelievers to perswade them to be reconcil'd to God yet when they had effected that Reconciliation they were by vertue of the Commission the Rulers and Governours of those new Conquests of the Gospel 3. That tho' their Commission gave them no civil Authority yet were they impower'd to use forcible means in matters of Religion and to reduce those to Conformity that walk'd disorderly and departed from the form of wholesom Doctrine delivered to them For I take Discipline to be somewhat different from persuasion and the Rod that St. Paul speaks of how Metaphorical soever it be to be somewhat more than beseeching In short those that resisted their Authority felt the weight of it Some were delivered to Satan to learn not to Blaspheme because they had made Shipwrack of the Faith They were cast out of the Society of Christians not only from all correspondence in matters of Religion but also from commerce of civil Society and good Neighbourhood and therefore supposing any one whole City or Province then of the Christian Religion the Excommunication of an Apostle would have had the same force with a civil Out-lawry or Banishment and how can you think him not banisht to all effect with whom no Person of his Country will have any communication And what would have become of Cerinthus in a Christian City where St. John had been Bishop if all would have been of the sme mind with the Apostle as probably they had not to come under the same roof with that Blasphemous Heretick 4. The Destruction of the flesh that the Spirit might be saved though I dare not be positive in the explication does without dispute signify something of forcible means and of a different nature from perswasion and the vehement expression of St. Paul concerning the Turbulent people that disturb'd the Churches of Galatia I wish they were cut off that trouble you is of a strein beyond beseeching I shall not insist upon these passages lest I should be thought to plead for the Inquisition and to justify the putting of men to death for Religion which I am as far from approving as I am from a desire that I might be the first sufferer by such a Law for I look upon all Capital punishments not only too severe for the mistakes of the understanding though there might be some wilfulness and perverseness mix'd with them but of all sorts the most improper and absurd since he that takes away the Life of a Heretick commits an invisible cruelty greater than that which is seen by taking from him at the same time all opportunity of returning to a better mind and since all forcible means us'd in matters of Religion ought to be directed to the benefit of those toward whom they are us'd as well as the safety of others nothing can be more contrary to or destructive of that end than the putting of men to death for errors of belief how gross or dangerous soever they may be And this practice is the more inexcusable because there are other means sufficient to prevent the spreading of the disease and may contribute not a little to the cure of the infected 5. Lastly if the Apostles who had no Civil Power did yet punish their Dissenters not only by sharp reproofs but with Civil inconveniences too surely the Christian Magistrate who is endu'd with that power from above may so far make use of it upon the account of Religion as to secure the Peace of the Church and Purity of the Christian Doctrine as to render men of corrupt and turbulent minds uneasy in the outward circumstances of Life and to tye up their hands from dispersing the mischief among the People And lastly to discourage wanton or perverse or designing persons to attempt upon the Faith and Charity by which his Subjects are united Consid 2. To the same Head we may reduce the second Consideration That the using of outward Compulsion in matters of Religion does only serve to make men Hypocrites but works no saving Conversion That compulsion in matters of Religion may make some Hypocrites must be allow'd so do all Encouragements Laws sense of shame and the Opinion of the World and if nothing that may serve to make a Man a Hyprocrite may be us'd we must lay aside not only all Penal Laws but all Charity too But that this Compulsion should serve only to make men Hypocrites dropt I am afraid from our Author without consideration for there may be some that resure to conform to the establish'd Worship because they are asham'd to depart from what they have once profess'd they dread the reproach of their Party and the gaze of a Congregation upon a new Convert There may be others that refuse to conform as much upon the account of Interest as of Conscience for who does not know that the Dissenters are more engag'd by their mutual
from the intolerable The Presbyterians have declar'd all the other Sects to be intolerable the Independants will not endure Anabaptists or Quakers where they have any Authority the Scotch Covenanters declare against all those that are without the Covenant the Anabaptists and Quakers exclaim against Presbyterians and Independants as intolerable pereunt per mutua vulnera Fratres Since therefore the considerer was not pleas'd to direct either the Parliament or any body else to discern between those Sects that are tolerable and those that are not and between what is tolerable in every particular Sect and what is not I shall leave this point as needing farther explication And I have some kind of suspition that he will hardly think it advisable to be very particular in distinguishing for several things that may be to him intolerable may be the chiefest delights of the several Sects and if they are not tolerated in these they would not much care whether they had any Toleration at all what thanks will the Sectaries pay him for being tolerated by halves to have one part of their Conscience free and the other bound up And they will think themselves no more enlarg'd by such a limited favour than a man that has but one Foot at liberty while the other is fast in the Stocks In the mean time I will take the liberty to examine certain Queries and Considerations which havebeen made lately in the behalf of a general Toleration All these I conceive may be reduc'd to these three Heads 1. Either to Religion which they pretend enjoins forbearance and forbids all constraint in Religious matters 2. Or to Reason that condemns all Compulsion as unseemly and absurd 3. Or to civil prudence that inclines to Toleration as conducing much to the peace and benefit of Society 1. Quer. Upon the first Head a Noble Person demands Whether there be any thing more directly opposite to the Doctrine and Practice of Jesus Christ than to use any kind of force upon men in matters of Religion and consequently whether all those that Practice it let them be of what Church or Sect they please ought not justly to be called Antichristian If a poor man might be so bold with so great an Author as to pretend to understand any thing he affects to be ignorant of I would answer directly to so vehement a question and affirm that I knew several things more directly opposite to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ than to use force in matters of Religion For Example Irreligion Atheism Blasphemy Burlesquing of the Scripture Murder Adultery Fornication Licentiousness These we are sure are directly contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ But as for using of force in matters of Religion I do not know any passage in all the Gospels that absolutely and expresly forbid it Where does Christ forbid a Christian Magistrate to silence Imposters Blasphemers turbulent Persons pretending Religion Where does he condemn a Religious Prince that makes use of his Authority to preserve the Christian Doctrine uncorrupted by restraining those that mistake dangerously themselves and would seduce others into the same errors If any such place there be I 'm sure it is not in my Copy of the Gospels and I have the less reason to suspect it of any fault because there is no such thing in the Geneva Bible at leastwise it could not be found when Servetus was put to death for Blasphe my Nor could any such passage be in the Datch Text or Annotations when the Remonstrants were forced to travel or go to Jaol Nor is it likely the Lutherans would be so fierce if they could have spy'd any such passage as this in their Books The vulgar Latin I need not mention to be sure there is no such Doctrine there nor can it be since it is so directly opposite to the Holy Inquisition it would be too confident a Criticism to adventure to give an account how this difference happens and what Book it should be that his Grace has mistaken for the Bible But are there not several passages of Scripture alledged to this purpose there are indeed some but very sore against their own sense and inclination and when they are urg'd they will have a speedy an swer However is not this using of force contrary to the Practice of Christ To none that I know Christ indeed did never use any force No more did he condemn the Woman taken in Adultery nor sentence Peter to the Pillory for denying him by a false Oath Can therefore no Magistrate use any force nor punish these Crimes without forfeiting his Christianity Our Saviour to prevent such consequences as might be draw n from his Practice declar'd himself to be but a private Person in all civil respects his Kingdom was not of this World he was no Magistrate and therefore did use no force upon any account and therefore his example in this case can be no direction to him that is invested with civil power and sustains a Person quite different from the Character our Saviour bore It is true indeed that Christ rebuked James and John for demanding his order or permission to command Fire from Heaven to consume the Samaritans that refus'd to receive him and what could be more unwarrantable or barbarous then this Proposal Why should they desire the sudden destruction of Men over whose lives they had no power and for a fault that no Law made capital Nay Christ himself as man had no power to take away their Lives tho' they had deserv'd it nor can we be sure that this which so much provokes their indignation was any matter of Religion at all but only a refusal of a Civil and Hospitable Reception to our Saviour on his Journey towards Jerusalem but whether he preach'd there or no or that they did any affront to his Character and his Doctrine the Scripture doth not say and the contrary is most probable from the Relation of the Evangelist but neither this or any other instance of our Saviours Practice obliges the Conscience of the Civil Magistrate not to punish such Persons or Sects of Christians that corrupt the Religion and disturb the quiet of the Church or State under his charge since therefore the Practice of punishing Dissenters is contrary neither to the Doctrine nor Practice of Christ I hope they that use it upon great occasions may be discharg'd of the odious imputation of Antichristian But if all those that Practice this odious method to use forcible means in matters of Religion what Church or Sect soever they may be of are Antichristian What shall we do for Christians The Church of Rome at this rate must be the most Antichristian of all The Presbyterians were always as much Antichristian as they were able and the Independants of New-England are as visibly Antichristian as if they had all the Horns and Marks of the Beast and if these be all Antichristian who have we left capable of the benefit of Toleration For surely
Toleration As to the second part of the Quere Has not the contrary practice been always successful to those Countries where it has been us'd either in Monarchies or Common Wealths I think it a hard matter to find many Kingdoms or Common Wealths where a general Toleration has been us'd some have endur'd one or perhaps two sorts of Dissenters in Religion but this does not answer the end of those Queres or of the Considerations which is universal Toleration but have not those been most successful that have tolerated most This is not certain for I think in the time of the late Usurpation there was a great variety of Sects permitted to use their several ways but the success God be thanked was such as honest men did wish and pray for they had too great success indeed at first against the King and the Church but then Toleration was scarce begun or design'd there was then but one Rule of Uniformity the Covenant was impos'd upon all And the Independants did for a good while dissemble their Exceptions But afterwards when every Sect demanded the liberty of its own way and Religions were multiply'd beyond Computation the Fruits of Toleration did quickly appear every Sect as it gather'd a little strength from a State of Toleration began to affect Dominion and this did quickly so disunite and rend the Body of those Tyrants that it was impossible for them longer to subsist and so made way to that glorious Revolution whose influence makes us still happy and prosperous and it makes no difference in this case whether a Government be rightful or usurp'd the same method of Indulgence will have the same consequence only Usurpers have more excuse for allowing Toleration because it is more necessary for them than for a Rightful and long Establish'd Dominion and therefore tho' it be a dangerous course they must take it because they have no better to take I know the Example of the United Privinces is often Recommended by our Dissenters and is mentioned by the Authour of the Considerations and indeed it equally serves both their occasions for a Common Wealth and Toleration however I believe this instance is commonly swallow'd down whole without considering the particular reasons or circumstances that may induce them to tolerate some Religions which may render their case very different from ours Some Religions I say because they do not tolerate all or whatever they do at this time they have been in the memory of man so far from allowing an Universal Toleration that they exceeded all their Protestant Neighbours in violence and severity against those that dissented from their Establish'd Religion tho' in matters very obscure and of insuperable difficulty However since this Example of the Dutch is insisted upon by all the Advocates for Toleration as an unanswerable Argument of the benefit of that course I will give a brief account of such circumstances as determined them to Indulgence and the security they take a gainst all the civil consequences of it neither of which are to be found in our Government In the first place their Common Wealth was Originally made up of several Religions or Sects which are as essential parts of their Constitution for they were not only preserv'd by Strangers from England and France and Germany that Fought their Battels but many out of Germany and France fled thither as to a common refuge and were all as it were incorporated into this Common Wealth every one of these Nations had their Churches not only tolerated but Establish'd by Authority and paid by the Governments so every Nation and Sect use their own Forms and Languages only the English are much degenerated partly by their own fault inclining to the Puritan way and accommodating themselves to the manner of the Country partly by the care which the Dutch do and have ever us'd to discourage Episcopal Ministers making great scruple of admitting any one they suspect to have Episcopal Ordination So Toleration was at first the necessity not the choice of that People But after this Establishment the measure of their Toleration being full whoever oppos'd the Religion Establish'd and departed from the Rule of their Church found but very sorry quarter When the Socinians appear'd first in those Countries the States took the Alarm and Banish'd those Hereticks out of all their Dominions Then Arminius his Scholars presum'd to find fault with the Dutch Catechism which was their Establish'd Doctrine of their Church and to divide Communion upon it they were condemned by the Synod of Dort and the Sentence was Executed by the Magistrate with so great severity that all the Neighbouring Countries were fill'd with the complaint of the suffering Remonstrants The most Eminent and Active of whom were forced to fly their Country or to endure close Imprisonment at home so that tho' they had more different Religions in their first Constitution than we yet they endeavour'd we see to keep their first Establishment entire as well as we do ours by forcibly suppressing those that assaulted it nay they us'd greater severities upon this occasion towards their Dissenters than ever we have done to ours Yet during this prosecution of Dissenters they had the best success that ever happened to that Common Wealth before that time they struggl'd for life but now they enlarg'd their Frontiers and their Trade and advanc'd so far in strength and reputation as to become the most powerful Common Wealth in Europe not that their success and prosperity is to be imputed to this Persecution but it seems by this instance that forcible means in matters of Conscience does not always ruin nor is the good success of a People in Trade or War always to be imputed to a general Toleration I do not pretend to justify those proceedings nor do I alledge them upon any other account than to shew that Dutch Toleration has bounds and that they have been prosperous while they prosecuted a very considerable Party both for number and interest upon the account of Religion But besides the difference of their first Constitution and ours there are several other circumstances in their Government that renders Toleration less dangerous to them than it is to us 1. The Dutch Populace have no voice at all in chusing of their Magistrates there are neither Mayors nor Aldermen nor Sheriffs nor Common Council nor Knights and Burgesses for Parliament to be Elected by their Commonalty There are no Juries to Judge of Matter of Fact or of Right by way of Concomitance in any Causes Criminal or Civil So that tho' the number of any Sect may increase yet has it but very little influence upon the Government since it can have no hand in disposing of Publick Offices nor are the Members of it capable of any whereas no Sect can thrive with us but you presently find the evil effect of it in our Parliaments in our Juries and consequently in all the distribution of Justice and especially in the Government and temper