enough to answer this that it is a parable which is a similitude and must not be strained beyond its scope which is to let us know that good and bad upright and hypocrites must be in the Church till the end of the World And yet some are about to make a Church of all Saints and to pluck up the Wheat in pretence of pulling up the Tares But 2. By Tares cannot well be meant heretical persons not in Austin's judgment for he and other Doctors with the Scripture allow Excommunication of Hereticks and scandalous persons which is not only a plucking up of the Tares but a casting them out of the Church into Hell without repentance 3. Our Saviour himseif tells us who are the tares the children of the wicked one and such as do iniquity Mat. 13.38.41 Now hence it would follow that neither Church nor Magistrate must punish such but let them alone to the end of the World a pleasiing Doctrine to thieves and all wicked persons But if notwithstanding this parable it be lawful for the Church to punish Hereticks spiritually and for the Magistrate to punish them corporally he hath mistaken the parable And if the Magistrate may punish a murdour bodily for killing the bodies of men why should it be unlawful for him to punish an heretical seducer that destroyes mens souls and that eternally I leave him to consider it 6. He fetches this next Reason from far from the judgment of the ancients and practise of the primitive Church Lactan. Tertull. c. who seem to deny all force in Religion A little may serve for this There is a difference to be put between Heathens and Christians in matters of Religion The Ancients speak against forcing Heathens into Christianity till they first be informed and convinced of the truth thereof not of compelling professed Christians to the outward Worship of God as the King of Judah did 2. The practise of Christian Emperours was accordingly for the most part with respect to Heathens Yet some of them made Edicts to command all their subject to be of the Christian Religion Justinian and others as were easie to instance 3. In Pressing this ARgument too far he forgot himself that he makes his Pope and Popish Princes worse then Turks and Furies in their persecution of Protestants And let them but give this liberty of conscience to all their subjects which he pleads for in England and lay aside their coercive power and I believe Popery will have but a few clients most of them would quickly forsake their Church and Religion especially if they might have the truth freely taught by some Protestants 7. But a reason fatcht from a principle of nature and natural light will convince any reasonable man It 's against the golden rule of natural righteousness do as we would be done by and do not to others what we would not have done to our selves but who would be content to be persecuted by others for his Religion c. Truly no man would or at least should be persecuted for his true Religion but he that would not be prosecuted for a false Religion argues himself to be unrighteous and to violate that principle of nature and another like it Aequo animo paenam qui meruere luant Let him make this rule universal and thieves and malefactors will give him many thanks What Thieves would be content to be hang'd by a Magistrate Ergo If he get to be a Magistrate he must not hang a Thief c. Bring it neerer to himself what Jesuite would be content to be executed for sedition and seducement of Protestants from their Religion and Loyalty Ergo. nor should they persecute Protestants in their Dominions How likes he this The Golden Rule is made for true rectifyed consciences not for every one that pretends it What in true reason I would have another do or not do to me that I should be content to do or not do to another If a man should argue thus I would not be content to be persecuted for the true Religion Ergo I must not prosecute one that is in the false Or thus If I am an Heretick perverting Souls and would not be restrained or punished for so doing Ergo I must let others alone and not punish them for the same both these consequences are false and unreasonable and meer pervertings and crooknings of that Golden Rule This is a Jesuitical consequence I would not be punished for my seduce ment in England Ergo I may plead for Toleration of Popery and all Religions This consequence I say is good now in England to cheat simple souls but would be denyed with an Inquisition at Rome or in Spain Such another fallacy is that which followes a Christian must pray for his Enemies Ergo he must not persecute his brother be he never so wicked q. d. I must pray for a Thief or Murderer Heretick Ergo I may not prosecute them to just punishment corporally the one spiritually the other 8. The next reason comes yet neerer home ad hominem as we say and that is thus It is against our own principles and the testimony of an Adversary is most strong against himself Wherein In three things 1. We profess our selves to be fallible in judging universally in matters of Religion and object it to the Papists pretending infallibility but by persecuting others for conscience we make our selves infallible as Mr. Collier wiely observes For this he hath been told we persecute no man for his conscience but may prosecute a man for an erring conscience which he still concludes a just prosecution with an unjust persecution 2. We profess our selves to be fallible or not infallible in the Popish sense He deludes us with the equivocation of the words If he mean that we hold our selves fallible universally in all matters of Religion that we are uncertain of all points of Religion and certain of nothing that were to make us meer Scepticks in our Religion and we own not such a fallibility On the other side we do not think our selves infallible universally in matters of Religion as the Pope does but that in some fundamental truths we are infallible that is most certain of the truths of our Religion clearly revealed in Scripture which is an infallible rule though we are not alwayes able to apply it But the Pope as he makes himself infallible in all points of Religion which he determines out of the Pontifical Chair so he does it in things besides and against the Scripture and this we object to him as an hainous crime and high usurpation of the prerogative of Jesus Christ speaking in the Scripture 3. What need is there that we must be infallible to judg and punish an Heretick why this We cannot rationally persecute any man for his conscience unlesswe we do not only know that he is in an ertor but also be infallibly sure that we are bringing him to an undoubted truth Be it so then we assume we may know
money be free and common to all there will be no disturbance in the State so in matters of Religion let men have liberty to be of any Religion or none true or false let them blaspheme the Name of God and Jesus Christ worship them with what worship they please though forbidden and the Church and States need not trouble themselves or sear any troubles It is the Magistrate or the Church that by denying People this liberty and laying restraint upon their consciences that are guilty of all unsetling disturbances c. 2. The Toleration of the Hollander I never yet heard a truly religious man to commend or approve till now if now it is I fear more out of policy than piety But I believe if the Hollander had not a better Guard by Sea and Land to secure and defend his State than the cement or untempered Mortar of Toleration he had long ere this been reduced either to his old Master or to utter destruction However malè parta male dilabentur when the time comes We see the fruit of Toleration in England since it hath been granted the variety of Religions as it hath served in one sense to strengthen a prevailing party by the politick Maxim Divide Impera So it hath made no small disturbances in the Church and State and had they not an Army to quiet them had long ere this laid them in the dust and the Nation in ashes And what will be the issue God only knows 2. His next Reason or Argument is borrowed from one Mr. Collier an Anabaptist at least if not Jesuited and consists of many no less than sour Arguments which all have respect to the Magistrate As by Coercive power in matters of Religion becoming guilty of high Treason against Jesus Christ in usurping upon his prerogative But the man hath quite mistaken the question as no doubt this Author knows but would take no notice of it This he undertakes to prove That it is unlawful for the Magistrate to pretend any right of Coercive power over mens consciences and an heinous sin in him to exercise it The thing is true in it self but not to the question The Magistrate hath no more Coercive power over mens consciences than the Church hath over mens bodies Christ only is Lord over the conscience Magistrates cannot impose any Laws of their own over the consciences of men nor force any to believe or practise contrary to the Laws of Christ or contrary to their consciences or punish them for not so believing c. But the question is whether a Magistrate Christian at least professing the true Religion may not use his power to command professed Christians to the observance of the Laws of Christ and the outward prescribed worship of God and punish them for not conforming thereunto whether also he may not restrain men from publishing and practsing of Errors and Heresies and false worship contrary to the true Religion to the perverting and destroying of mens souls And if his Arguments prove not the Negative of these they prove nothing But let us hear them 1. The Magistrate hath received no such power from Christ in the New Testament in matters relating to Faith and Worship Ergo Christ hath reserved the power over conscience to himself as Lord of it The whole of this may be granted and is granted above in a right sence without any prejudice to the question between us Christ only is Lord over the Conscience to prescribe Laws of Faith and Worship 2. The second is the same with the first in fense The Magistrate cannot impose Rules of Faith and Worship upon people c. But may he not impose the Laws of God and Christ upon his people And ought he not therein to be obeyed And Punish those that refuse them or walk contrary to them And if he command contrary to those Rules of Christ though he must not be therein obeyed must he not Passively be submitted to And what if Christ have not in the New Testament committed such power to the Magistrate as will be proved he hath is it not sufficient that he hath committed it to him in the old Testament And that not only the Kings of Judah but Heathen Kings have executed such a Power See Dan. 3.29 and 6.26 So that it is a Moral duty of a Magistrate known by the light of Nature as Gods Vicegerent to publish the Laws of God to command obedience to them and to punish Trangressors and is not this a Coercive power committed to the Magistrate 3. He thus argues If the Magistrates have such a power then all or some If all then Heathen Magistrates have it but that 's absurde If Christian only they may be of divers Religions and command contrary to Christs Rules one one Religion another another c. This is the sum of his Dilemmatical discourse But the Answer is easie this power we speak of belongs to all Magistrates as Magistrates even Heathens as afore though all are not in a capacity or have ability to perform it As in the fifth Commandment all parents are bound to instruct and command their children to know and fear God and correct their disobedience but Heathen parents cannot rightly do it The power of the Magistrate who is pater patriae is the very same in a greater latitude and belongs to the same Commandment though all cannot perform it but that 's their fault Obj. They may be of different Religions or beliefs and think themselves in the right and so every one that hath power will persecute another Protestants Papists and contra At their perill be it if they believe falsly and persecute the true Religion But ought they to do so May they that are of a false Religion persecute those that profess the true Religion Did he not say above this was the most heinous sin And may not they that profess and have the true Religion prosecute those that are heretical to bring them to a true belief and practise This case is parallel A Magistrate may punish offenders against righteousness in civil affairs Ergo He or another may persecute others for righteousness but sayes he Allow this that divers Religions may persecute one another and what confusion will this bring into a State into the World Sol. 1. Is there no difference between prosecution of evil doers and persecution of the innocent every Thief and every Heretick if punished or restrained cry out of persecution But how unjustly 2. Hath not Christ foretold it and by his Providence so orders it that there shall be persecution of the good for his sake and for righteousness sake yea and command his people to suffer it not with opposition or a desire to ruine and subvert that State that offers it but without impatience with greatest joy and gladness How unlike to Jesus are our Jesuites 4. His fourth Argument is this Christ hath committed his authority in matters of Religion relating to worship to his Church and commands to tell
that the man is in an errour if we may know the truth and be infallibly sure we are bringing him to an undoubted truth Ergo we may persecute we say prosecute him for his erring conscience e. g. We know certainly that he that denies a God or Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and Saviour of the World is in an error and we are infallibly sure we are bringing him to an undoubted truth to profess a God and Jesus Christ and Ergo we may by his own premises persecute or rather prosecute him for his erring conscience Whereupon the following assertion is most unchristian and uncharitable It would be better for us to let him alone in his known damning errors than to force him to ours which we not falsly as he truly esteem truth The very mercies of the wicked are cruel 4. These men seem to be Scepticks in their Religion for if there be any Religion or rules of faith and worship delivered in Scripture we may come to be infallibly sure that this is the Truth of God and thereby discover errors and consequently may prosecute them though we be not universally infallible The Magistrates of the Old Testament might not force any mans conscience more than now nor were more infallible than ours are now yet having a cleer rule of Religion and worship given them they compelled their subjects to observe it why may not ours do so now having a cleer light and greater illumination Is it not a certain and infallible truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour of the World If not what an uncertain thing is Christianity which depends upon that one principle If it be shall any man professing the Christian Religion be suffered to deny that truth and blaspheme that holy name with impurity because the Magistrate or Church is not in all things infallible Lastly as to this first principle ex ungue leonem we may descry and discover the Fox the Jesuite by his strong plea for Toleration to his Recusants or Papists Though he speak in the person of Protestants as if one of them yet his secret or open girding at the State shews what he is Who having laid aside the King by whom and for whom those laws of restraint were made which is indeed the abolishing of those Laws yet we keep up the penalties of those Laws in vigour against Recusants which seems to be a very irrational Act And puts this Jeer upon the present powers by way of thanks or scorne for their granted soleration That as we have not one particular positive Religion setled for undoubted truth amongst us So we purpose not any one Religion to the Recusants to be followed by them but at most hold them out a medly of all Sects profest in the Nation c. Quis tulerit Gracchos de Seditione querentes The Subtle cursed Jesuites self condemned men have broken our Religion into so many Sects and Fractions to keep us from Setling the true Religion and then make themselves merry with our divisions The Lord rebuke them This to our first principle 2. The next is We have always pretended a general Toleration for all tender consciences of which kind there are some amongst the Prelatical and Popish party And yet they only are excepted from Toleration by the Parliament for so he means it But he goes on still Grant it to a poor sneaking foolish fellow that can scarce speak sense and hath hardly a groat in his purse to lose for his conscience and deny it to men of Honour Prudence and Estates suffering meerly for their conscience as having no tender consciences 1. Me thinks I hear the proud Pharisees speak in this Jesuite This people that knoweth not the Law is cursed and Lord I thank thee I am not as other men He cals mean simple Christians Sneaking Fellows as if they had no conscience because they have no Estates He may remember Not many Wife not many Noble or Mighty were called or honoured to be primitive Martyrs to suffer meerly for conscience They had too much to lose to dare to profess Christianity But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise c. He may read the rest 1 Cor. 1.26 c. And he makes men of Honour Prudence and Estates to have tender consciences meerly for suffering in their Estates whereas he knows many such may and do suffer only for the Religion delivered them by Tradition from their Fathers or out of some carnal respects If a man desired to be loose and profane he need not chuse an easier Religion than Popery And the Divel hath had his Martyrs and Confessors as well as Christ Martyres Satanicae virtutis as Cyprian c 2. But I have I confess often wondered that those in power who pretend so much favour to all tender consciences should so often by name except the Prelatical and Popish party when as there may be as tender consciences in some of them as in some whom they tolerate and also their laxe and loose principles and these reasons carry toleration for all or none Some Satisfaction I received from one that also pleads for Toleration as I thought for all Religions for his Arguments are as strong for all as for any why the Popish party should not have any Toleration granted them above all the rest Let him be heard speak in his own words As for Popery and Idolatry J. Milâ—on tract of civil power in Ecclesiastical causes p 35. why they also may not plead to be tolerated I have much less to say Their Religion the more considered the less can it be acknowledged a Religion but a Roman principallity rather endevouring to keep up her old universal Dominion under a new name and meer shadow of a Catholick Religion being indeed more rightly named a Catholick heresie against the Scripture and except in Rome supported mainly by a civil and forrain power justly therefore to be suspected not tolerated by the Magistrate of another Country Besideâ— of an Implicite Faith which they profess the conscience also becomes implicit and so by voluntary servitude to mans law forfeits her Christian Liberty Who then can plead for such a conscience as being inthraled implicitly to man instead of God almost becomes no conscience as the will not free becomes no will Lastly for Idolatry whereof the Romish Church is justly charged to be deeply guilty who know it not to be evidently against all Scripture both of the Old and New Testament And therefore a true Herefie or rather Impiety wherein a right conscience can have nought to do and the works thereof so manifest that a Magistrate can hardly err in prohibiting and quite removing at least the publick and scandalous use thereof How this will please Jesuits or how they will answer it I he ther know nor care But I satisfied my self with one or both of these considerations 1. That they might except them not out of conscience but