to what purpose our Author brings into this consideration a passage of Scripture about Unity where he pleads for the Establishment of Division There is one Body one Spirit one Lord one Faith one Baptism Since several of the Dissenters have neither the same Faith nor Baptism much less the same Body or Spirit The Anabaptists look upon our Baptism as void The Quakers and Socinians for the most part use no Baptism at all Now I would fain understand by what figure of Speech these may be said to have the same Baptism with us Well admit there be some things of moment about which we differ yet the number of those is greatest about which we are agreed therefore there is much more reason to love one another for the many things wherein we agree than for to fall out for those wherein we differ Whether we ought to love one another for those things in which we agree is not the question for it is certain we ought to love one another whether we agree in many things or few but the point in dispute is whether this love obliges us to permit those that differ from us to Confirm themselves in those errors which are the occasion of our difference by having them Preach'd and Argu'd and Maintain'd in their Assemblies Is it an Act of Christian Charity to suffer Quakers to enjoy all opportunities of being confirm'd in their madness and of seducing silly people If we love the Person of a Socinian must we therefore give him leave to propagate his Doctrine and to teach men to deny their Lord that bought them because we have Charity for Anabaptists ought we therefore to Tolerate them to Re-baptize those they have seduc'd to believe themselves no Christians or the Independants because our Faith is not much different from theirs shall they out of pure love be licens'd to gather Select Congregations to draw away as many as they can from the Church to oblige them by a Vow as Solemn as that of Baptism not to return thither nor to forsake their new Fraternity These are the things which we would gladly have the Dissenters forbear and use all lawful means to hinder them not because we have no love for them but out of pure compassion because these things they are so desirous to be indulg'd in would do them and others hurt and this is all the quarrel we have with them this is the falling out with which our Author is offended What shall we say now to the Mahomitan Parable That variety of Flowers may grow on the same Bank It is certainly more agreeable to the Principles of him that spoke it than those of a Christian for the Turks permit Jews and Christians to live among them and to enjoy the Exercise of their Religion because they think both of them may be sav'd by vertue of that Religion they respectively profess But our Church passes a very severe Censure upon those that shall say that every man may be sav'd by that Law or Sect which he professes But what if these Flowers prove Weeds and grow too fast what if they annoy and hurt the rest what if they are like Flowers de Luce ill Neighbours according to the Old Proverb what then They must certainly in prudence be a little discouraged and kept under or by some good Art be brought to change their destructive and unsortable nature In what manner this Prophecy of the Reconciliation of Dissenting Natures The Wolf shall lye down with the Lamb and the Leopard with the Kid is to be accomplish'd I am not well assur'd however I have some reason to suspect that it is not to be done by the way of an universal Toleration because this description shews not only that they shall not hurt one the other but that they shall be of one Fellowship and Communion they shall feed and lye down together whereas Toleration seems to do no more than to shut up these several Creatures in distinct apartments of the same Grate but if you would know when a Presbyterian or Independant or Anabaptist will not hurt I can tell without the Spirit of Prophecy it is then only when they have no power to do hurt Cons 7. The French Protestants who are Dissenters from the Establish'd Government of that Kingdom are kindly receiv'd and succour'd by England and when the French King is highly blam'd by English Protestants and perhaps too by some English Catholicks for Persecuting his peaceable Subjects shall we do the same thing in our Kingdom which we condemn in another Therefore thou art inexcusable O Man that judgest for thou that judgest another doest the same thing I will not enquire what English Protestants do highly blame or condemn the Actions of the French King those of my acquaintance are not very forward to censure and condemn Princes nor can it be concluded that whosoever is kind to a Stranger forc'd out of his Countrey does presently engage himself in the whole Merit of his Cause But as for the French Protestants we conceive our compassion to be the more due to them because they suffer for a Religion which we verily believe to be true which we are not able to say of several of those that plead for Toleration In the next place they were peaceable and had not provok'd their Prince by any Seditious or Turbulent Behaviour in the Minority of this King when the discontents of France were very high and the Authority of the Government low They behav'd themselves so well as to deserve his publick acknowledgment which I believe our Dissenters are too modest to pretend to for if they should yet there is hardly any body so ignorant of their proceedings but can justly reproach them with having laid hold on every advantage of publick distress to weaken first then to destroy the Government They never fail'd to join themselves with every Faction against the Crown and still brought a form'd Faction to every discontented great Man and offer'd themselves ready instruments of his Ambition or Revenge But we have yet farther cause to Commiserate the sufferings of the French Protestants because they tell us and we have no reason to disbelieve them that they were inflicted without Process or Form of Law and directly against particular Rights and Priviledges granted to them by former Kings For their Churches had been long ago taken into the protection of the Government and establish'd by Laws Special Judicatures were erected in their favour where the one half were of their Religion and several other Priviledges granted them to secure their persons and estates from Oppression and the malice of their Enemies and how they have forfeited all I do not know But our Protestant Dissenters were never own'd by our Laws nor mentioned in them but as a factious and seditious â—arty that was by all due means to be suppress'd There never was any agreement or accomodation between the Government and them for while they could hold their arms in their hands they
would never hearken to any and therefore it is no wonder if we have so many Laws against Dissenters to forbid Conventicles to oblige them to come to Church since this Government thought they could never take too great security from a Party they had found to be implacable Therefore thou art inexcusable O man whoever thou art that wouldst stir up the Reader nay recommend to the Parliament for a Parellel Case with ours one that has so little resemblance with it Top. 3. We are come now to the third and last Topick of the Advocates for Toleration and that is the benefit and advantage of the Kingdom by Improvement of Trade to which Indulgence is esteem'd to be so singular a Nurse that it cannot possibly thrive or subsist without it Wherefore the D. of B. makes this Quere Whether the practice of it i. e. of using any compulsion or restraint towards mens Consciences has not alwaies been ruinous and destructive to those Countreys where it has been us'd either in Monarchies or Common-wealths and whether the contrary practice has not been succesful in all those Countreys where it has been us'd either in Monarchies or Common-wealths We have great obligation to this Noble Person for waving all the advantages which a fruitful wit might have given him upon this Subject of reasoning without end of the possible or probable mischiefs or advantages arising to Monarchies or Common-wealths from the granting or refusing Toleration and for referring this whole dispute to the decision of experience The Question therefore cannot but have an easy issue because any man of ordinary understanding that has read some History or made any Observation in the World may be capable of deciding it As to the first part of the demand I do believe there have been and are several Kingdoms that have receiv'd no manner of damage by denying a Toleration to several Religions What Calamity has befallen Denmark or Sweden upon this account where you will meet with no other Churches but the Lutherans and if some Indulgence has been heretofore offered there to People of other Nations this comes not under our Question for strangers may be more safely tolerated than Subjects because the removal of them when they grew troublesome is more easy and has not so bad consequence But not to Travel so far for an exception to this General Quaere I beleive there was no Kingdom more flourishing than this was under Queen Elizabeth and King James I. And yet then there was as great or greater restraint upon Conscience as at any time since The Roman Catholicks though a very numerous and formidable Party in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth were brought to our Churches by the single force of the Act of Uniformity which left Dissenters to the Censures of the Church and added no other punishment than a light mulct of a Shilling for every default And this Uniformity that is the Contradiction of Toleration did in a few years so diminish that Party that the Pope was oblig'd to command those who retain'd any reverence for his Authority to separate themselves and to abstain from coming to our Churches It would have been a strange Paradox in Politicks in those daies to plead for the Toleration of those the Government did so much fear But however this Compulsion did not prove in the least ruinous or destructive to this Kingdom And when that Party fell into dangerous enterprizes the Laws grew still more and more severe in obliging them to a conformity with the establish'd Religion The Puritans were as little indulg'd by that Queen as the Papists as her Laws do sufficiently declare and all her time by due execution of Laws that Faction was low and inconsiderable that the care taken then to suppress them seemed to proceed rather from the foresight of such troubles as this Faction might create to succeeding Princes than any apprehension of present danger I need not mention those Anabaptists and wild Fanaticks that were put to death in her time not so much I conceive for matters of Religion as crimes against the State it is enough that all the World knows that there was no Toleration in those daies and yet they were as serene as prosperous as happy as any pass'd over the head of this Nation at leastwise during the late Usurpation which was the only time of Toleration in this Kingdom If we can give any credit to those Observations which our Republicans and Dissenters have made of the Original of the late Confusions we owe them all to a pretended Toleration or some secret Connivance which they suspected and from this root they deduce all that followed true or false real or pretended the Enemies of the Government made much more advantage of it than either the Government or those for whom the favour was said to be intended I might instance in Monarchy's and Common-wealths of the Roman Communion that are of Opinion that they have received no great prejudice by not granting a Toleration for all Sects of Religion and if some of the most zealous Persecutors of the Reformation have fallen into extraordinary decay we may impute it to the Judgment of God upon them for resisting the Truth with so great Cruelty and not for denying licence to every thing or Sect that had the pretence or Cant of Religion Besides in those Countreys some that have inquired into the reasons of their decay have observed several other false measures much more pernicious than the denying of Toleration The last Exception I shall make is from the Common wealth and Kingdom of the Jews which never flourish'd more than when there was no Toleration never was in worse Condition than when there was And this instance has something more of Authority than the rest because this People were govern'd by Gods own Laws and sometime more immediately by God himself as it were in Person and yet during all the time of his Theocracy there is not the least Indulgence or Liberty of Conscience to be found upon Record Nay so far was his Government from any such thing that he made a perpetual Decree that if any Person or City or Tribe should fall away from his Worship and serve other Gods the rest instead of Indulging or neglecting the errors were to prosecute them to utter destruction Now lest it may be thought that under Theocracy this might be just because Idolatry was a sort of High Treason but in other Governments the reason ceases it is plain that the same Law was put in Execution by the Kings of Israel and Judah who are not only commended by the inspir'd Writers but observed to have been bless'd with unusual prosperity for those prosecutions I would not be thought to recommend these Proceedings as Precedents to be transcrib'd by Christian Princes it is only upon the Question of Fact that I produce this instance to shew there may be such a thing as a prosperous Kingdom or Common Wealth without the help of a general
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