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
THE Antithelemite OR AN ANSWER To Certain QUAERES By the D. of B. And to the Considerations of an unknown Author CONCERNING TOLERATION This may be Printed June 12. 1685. R.L.S. LONDON Printed for Sam. Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. HIS Majesties Gracious Declaration to maintain the Government in Church and State as by Law Establish'd and the Opinion all good men have of the Affection of this present Parliament to those Laws by which the Protestant Religion is fenc'd on every side may seem to render the Labour of a private hand on their behalf useless and superfluous Yet since some have openly others in disguise invaded these Fences and proceeded to that degree of Confidence as to recommend the Attempt to the Parliament now Assembled it may be expected perhaps that those who enjoy the Protection of those Laws should not leave them all defenceless under the odious Imputation of Injustice and Cruelty to depend merely upon the Authority of their first Establishment and the Favour of the Present Government Our Adversaries would then be thought justly to conclude that we despaired of the merit of our Cause and of approving it by Reason to the Judgment of any Impartial man Therefore I have endeavoured in this Treatise to shew the Vanity of those Cavils for I should be guilty of too much Indulgence should I give them the style of Reason or Argument against the Prosecution of Dissenters according to Law And though there should be no great sin or publick inconvenience in a General Toleration yet the Pleas that recommend it are so mean that they who might not be afraid might yet be asham'd to allow it upon such miserable motives Yet I. must confess that the Advocates for Toleration have one considerable Advantage in this Dispute that they are on the popular part of the Question and the seeming good nature of the Plea without much reasoning is sufficient to recommend it Whereas all Punishment is odious to the People and neither Law nor Reason nor Necessity can perfectly reconcile them to it It is madness then to endeavour to persuade men out of their Humanity that is out of their Nature and he truly deserves the utmost severity that can take delight in it What shall we do then Shall we give up the Cause and Subscribe to a Toleration Nothing less and that because in our Circumstances it is not only contrary to Religion and Civil Prudence but also to Charity and Compassion it is not always Mercy to Indulge nor Cruelty to Inflict Punishment Unless we conclude that a Father who corrects his Child has not so much tenderness for him as a Stranger or a Servant that intercedes for his Pardon But if Clemency must take place why should not the Publick challenge it in the first place and why should they be judged merciful who to humour and indulge one Party would expose a whole Nation to Confusion and Ruin If this be tender Mercy it is that the Scripture brands with the name of Cruelty And besides all this a steddy and discreet Execution of the Laws against Dissenters might happily have been a much more merciful Conduct even in respect of them than the remisness or connivance that tempted them to presumptuous sins The Dissenters have been very industrious to let us know that this is the true state of the Case between the Government and them That this Constitution stands no longer when they have strength and opportunity to destroy it Many of them are under an Oath to endeavour the subversion of this Church under the name of a Reformation and could never be brought to renounce that Conspiracy And therefore what can be expected from those that now maintain the Lawfulness of that Covenant but that they should conceive themselves bound in Conscience to execute their Vow as soon as they could recover those Circumstances in which they took it But the Dissenters you 'l say are divided upon this point It is true they are in that part that concerns their own Establishment but they are unanimous in Vowing our Destruction and it would be but poor comfort to a Town that neglected to make a timely Defence to see the Conquerours that were United in the Assault afterwards to fall out at the dividing of the Plunder Nor can we be suspected to surmise groundless and imaginary dangers from the growth of a Party that has devoted us to Ruin and that besides by an unnatural and fortunate Rebellion by the deliberate and solemn Murder of a most Excellent and Merciful Prince by a heavy and tedious Tyranny of many years by several Conspiracies since the Restauration by Association against the Succession of His Majesty and a formed Project of Rebellion which I am afraid is not yet wholly disconcerted and in short by the Incessant working of a Turbulant Spirit have given us much greater demonstrations of our danger than we could have wished and he that pretends not to be convinced by all this to apprehend danger to the Government from the Toleration of such men must surely be desirous of those Events we apprehend and wish the things which we fear Toleration therefore can serve to no other purpose than to be the Nurse of a Faction that is implacable which as it grows up will more and more despise this Infant Dispensation and contend for mastery Nor can we expect that they should acquiesce here when they have got strength to attempt farther no more than that a gang of sturdy Beggars will compound for a small Alms when they have a fair opportunity to Rob. The Advocates for Toleration reply That it is not Faction but Conscience which they plead for But it is an easier matter to distinguish than it is to separate those two things Experience has found them to be inseparable Companions in the body of our Dissenters The mind of man can make a thousand abstractions that are impracticable in the world and a Philosopher may distinguish between the Leaven and the Mass infected by it and yet be never able to part them But when one Dissenter pleads for Toleration in the behalf of all the rest it is not Conscience but Faction he would recommend for the Dissenters differ as much in matters of Conscience among themselves as they do from us and therefore cannot be judged to recommend those Errours and Practices for Toleration which they themselves judge sinful and dam nable upon the account of Conscience nor did those of them that were in Power think it either lawful or fit to permit all the rest What Spiritual Kindred I pray has a Presbyterian with a Quaker or an Independant with a Muggletonian or an Anabaptist with any of the rest But though they make disserent Sects in Religion yet they make but one Faction This is the Center wherein they all unite At an Election or a Riot they make but one Congregation and never fail to go one way or if you would view them in
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
this Answer to the Queres and considerations concerning Toleration I might from the same Topicks that are us'd to persuade to it proceed to shew that such a Toleration as is there demanded is consistent neither with Christian Religion right reason nor the safety and Trade of the Kingdom For what can be more unchristian than to give wicked or infatuated men license to corrupt the Gospel and Blaspheme the name of Christ under pretence of Religion What more uncharitable than to give leave to presumptious men to confirm themselves in their own rash mistakes or to seduce others into the same snare of the Devil deceiving and being deceiv'd What more absurd or contrary to sound reason then to give course to the most extravagant the most absurd Opinions under the colour of Religion and Conscience And to expose the Common People who do for the most part mean better than they understand to the Practice and Sollicitation of every tempting Imposter and lastly what more inconsistant with the peace and safety of the Kingdom than the cherishing of a Faction which has once already overthrown this Monarchy and Church and engag'd very lately in the same design And if the safety of the Government cannot consist with To leration Trade to be sure can never strive under it for Traders will quickly leave a People whose Government is at the discretion of a Faction or at leastwise so much threaten'd with apprehensions of chang as to be in probable danger But I shall wave this advantage being content to keep upon the defensive however it be esteem'd a part no less disadvantagious in controversie then it is in War nor is it necessary to pursue the debate much farther since it is sufficient ground for any reasonable man to presume that the reason and the equity of our Laws are no less firm than the Authority by which they were enacted when the shall perceive that all the exceptions made now against them are either frivolous or false wherefore since there are no sufficient Reasons alledg'd why the Laws should comply with the Dissenters I will briefly suggest some reasons why the Dissenters should comply with the Laws without entring into the merits of the Cause but keeping my self only to the Principles of the several Sects so that it must needs be highly unreasonable to plead for a Toleration of such Dissenters as might not only lawfully comply with all the Law requires if their Consciences were rightly inform'd but may yet comply for the most part even according to the Rule and the Conscience they profess And here I must treat with them a part as they are divided into several Religious Tribes and Gonventicles for when they are join'd in one Politick and Seditious Rendezvous it is no fit place to speak of Religion And 1. Why should any Presbyterian desire the Law against Conventicles should be repeal'd upon his account since if he have not departed from his first Principles he believes that separation from our Churches is not only unnecessary but unlawful Several of the old Puritans from whom our Presbyterians own their descent have written as zealously against Separation and the erecting of dissenting Congregrations as any of the Divines of the Church of England Some of them indeed pretend that they go to Conventicles for greater Edification but how can that be more edifying that according to their Principles is unlawful They may by the same way of reasoning knock an old heavy teacher on the head to make way for another that may be more powerful and edifying Therefore since a Presbyterian Conventicle is as much a contradiction to the Principle and Conscience of Presbyterians as to the Law of the Land why should any body interceed for a Toleration of that which their Principles disallow 2. Why should any Presbyterian desire Toleration for not coming to our Churches since by their Principles it is not unlawful to hold occasional Communion with our Church i. e. some time to join with us in Common Prayer and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the last and strictest Bond of Communion which Christians hold and they have been hitherto very much to seek for reasons why that Communion may not be as lawful to be us'd constantly as it is upon occasions the most plausible excuse they make is this that they had Pastors of their own before the Re-establishment of our Church and therefore tho' they may occasionally communicate with us as those of one Parish may go to a Neighbouring Church upon occasion yet they cannot do it constantly because of their Antecedent Obligation to their own Pastors This excuse if it were admitted would not serve half the turn for if this had any force why should it not have been admitted in the cause of those Ministers that were turn'd out illegally to make Room for the Presbyterians Why were these Loyal Ministers deserted by the Presbyterians of those days when they were forc'd by usurp'd power from the exercise of their Function Besides there are but few of such Ministers now living so that the excuse serves but very few Presbyterian Assemblies and there are fewer yet upon the places where they were Ministers in the time of the late Rebellion and therefore that relation ceases which this excuse does suppose for why should a company of Presbyterians in London join themselves to one that taught in Hull or York or perhaps in Scotland upon this pretence that they ought not to forsake their former Ministers So this can be no excuse why that occasional Communion which the Presbyterians profess lawful to hold with the Church of England should not be improv'd into a constant one therefore there is no need of Toleration for those who by their own Principle may Communicate with us upon occasion especially the occasion of an Office for which they are to be qualify'd by such Communion 3. The Independants indeed hold a necessity of separating from our and all other Churches that are not of their form and so their Principles render their compliance with some of our Laws more impracticable Yet they have no reason to desire a Toleration for Conventicles since those that the Law makes such are not necessary to them according to their own Principles For The notion they have of a Church makes such Conventicles as the Law punishes to be unnecessary for Robinson affirms that where two or three people are gathered there is a Church Cotton requires a few more to make up the integrity of an Organick Church i. e. 7 or 8. Now the Law makes no Assembly to be a Conventicle that has not near this number besides the Persons of the Family where this Meeting is held Therefore if the Law punish Independant Conventicles of greater numbers it cannot truly be said that they are persecuted for Conscience for that which the Law makes their Crime i. e. their exceeding such a number is a thing in their own Opinion unnecessary 4. If they cannot join with us in Common-Prayer