(1.) To the question itself.
(2.) To the manner of handling it.
OF TOLF.RATIOX. 211
(1.) To the question itself. For herein I suppose,
[1.] That the persons enjoying authority do also enjoy the truth, which is to the advantage of the affirmative.
[2.] That their power in civil things is just and unques- tionable, which also looks favourably on that side.
[3.] That non-toleration makes out itself in positive in- fliction of punishment; which is so, oris nothing. Casting men out of protection, exposing them to vulgar violence, is confessedly unworthy of men representing the authority of God, and contrary to the whole end of their trust.
(2.) To the manner of handling this question among per- sons at variance. And here I cannot but observe,
[1.] That if I have taken my aim aright, there is no one thing under debate amongst Christians, that is agitated with more confidence, and mutual animosity of the parties liti- gant ; each charging other with dreadful inferences, streams of blood, and dishonour to God, flowing out from their several persuasions. So that ofttimes instead of a fair dis- pute, you meet on this subject with a pathetical outcry, as though all religion were utterly contaminated and trampled under foot, if both these contradictory assertions be not em- braced. Now seeing that in itself it is a thing wherein the gospel is exceedingly sparing, if not altogether silent, cer- tainly there must be a farther interest than of judgment alone, or else that very much prejudicated with corrupt affections, or men could not possibly be carried out with so much violence, upon supposed self-created consequences, wherewith in this cause they urge one another.
[2.] That generally thus much of private interest ap- pears in the several contesters, that non-toleration is the opinion of the many, and these enjoining the countenance of authority ; toleration of the oppressed, who always o-q under the name of the faction, or factions, the unavoidable livery of the smaller number professing a way of worship by themselves, be it right or wrong. I do not desire to lay forth the usual deportment of men, seeking the suppressing of others differing from them, towards those in authority. It is but too clearly made out by daily experience. If they close with them, they are ' custodes utriusque tabulae,' the churches nursing fathers, &c. what they please; but if they
p 2
212 OF TOLERATION'.
draw back, for want of light or truth, to serve them, logs and storks find not worse entertainment from frogs, than they from some of them. Such things as these may, nay ought to be, especially heeded by every one, that knows what influence corrupt affections have upon the judgments of men, and would willingly take the pains to wipe his eyes for the discerning of the truth.
These things premised, I assert, that
Non-toleration in the latitude, which is for persons in authority enjoying the truth (or supposing they do enjoy it) to punish in an arbitrary way, according to what they shall conceive to be condign, men, who will not forsake their own convictions, about any head or heads of Christian religion whatsoever, to join with what they hold out, either for be- lief or worship, after the using of such ways of persuasion as they shall think fit, is no way warranted in the gospel; nor can any soundproof for such a course be taken from the Old Testament.
The testimonies out of the law, which 1 can apprehend to have any colour or appearance of strength in them, with the examples approved of God, that seem to look this way, I considered at our entrance into this discourse.
I speak of punishing in an arbitrary way, for all instances produced to the purpose in hand, that speak of any punish- ment, mention nothing under death itself; which yet, at least in the first place, is not aimed at by those that use them in our days, as I suppose. Now some divines of no small name, maintain, that God hath not left the imposition of punishment in any measure to the wills of men.
Some arguments for the proof of the former assertion as laid down, I shall in due place make use of; for the present, I desire to commend to the serious pondering of all Chris- tians in general, especially of those in authority, these en- suing considerations.
1. That it is no privilege of truth to furnish its assertors with this persuasion, that the dissenters from it ought forci- bly to be opposed, restrained, punished.
No false religion ever yet in the world did enthrone itself in the minds of men, enjoining a civil sovereignty over the persons of others, but it therewithal commanded them.
OF tolj:iiatiox. 213
under pain of neglect and contempt of itself, to crush any underling worship that would perk up in inferior con- sciences.
The old heathens carried their gods into the war (as did the Philistines, 1 Chron. xiv. 12. and the Israelites the ark with heathenish superstition, 1 Sam. iv. 3.) to whom they ascribed the success they obtained ; and in requital of their kindness, they forced the dunghill deities of the conquered nations, to attend the triumph of their victorious idols ; and unless they adopted them into the number of their own gods, all farther worship to them was forbidden. Hence were these inventions among the old Romans, by spells and en- chantments to entice away a deity from any city they be- sieged (they being as expert at the getting of a devil, as To- bias's Raphael, or the present Romanists at his fumigation) by which means they shrived into the honour of having thirty thousand unconquered idols,' and deserved worthily that change of their city's epithet, from Ittitohi) olKovfjivrjg, to iiriTOfjLTj SEtCT/Saijuovme, which it justly inheriteth to this very day. Rabshakeh's provocation to the example of the gods of the nations, 2 Kings xviii. 33, 34. and the Roman senate's consultation concerning the admitting of Christ to a place among their idols, that he might have been freely worshipped (their consent being prevented, by his almighty providence, who will not be enrolled among the vilest works of his most corrupted creatures) do both declare this thing.