true needs not tend to the breaking of communion, if they can agree in the right administration of that wherein they communicate, keeping their other opinions to themselves, not being destructive to faith. The pharisees and saducees were two sects, yet both met toge ther in their common worship of God at Jerusalem. But here the papist will angrily demand, What! are lutherans, calvinists, anabaptists, socinians, arminians, no heretics? I answer, All these may have some errors, but are no heretics. Heresy is in the will and choice professedly against scripture; error is against the will, in misunderstanding the scripture after all sincere endeavours to understand it rightly: hence it was said: well by one of the ancients, "Err I may, but a heretic I will not be." It is a human frailty to err, and no man is infallible here on earth. But so long as all these profess to set the word of God only before them as the rule of faith and obedience; and use all diligence and sincerity of heart, by reading, by learning, by study, by prayer for illumination of the holy spirit, to understand the rule and obey it, they have done what man can do:: God will assuredly pardon them, as he did the friends. of Job good and pious men, though much mistaken, as there it appears, in some points of doctrine. But some: will say, with christians it is otherwise, whom God hath promised by his spirit to teach all things. True,, all things absolutely necessary to salvation: but the hottest disputes among protestants, calmly and charitably inquired into, will be found. less than such. Thelutheran holds consubstantiation: an error indeed, but not mortal. The calvinist is taxed with predestination, and to make God the author of sin; not with any dishonourable thought of God, but it may be overzealously

asserting his absolute power, not without plea of scripture. The anabaptist is accused of denying infants their right to baptism; again they say, they deny nothing but what the scripture denies them. The arian and socinian are charged to dispute against the trinity: they affirm to believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to scripture and the apostolic creed; as for terms of trinity, triniunity, coessentiality, tripersonality, and the like, they reject them as scholastic notions,. not to be found in scripture, which by a general protestant maxim is plain and perspicuous abundantly to explain its own meaning in the properest words, belonging. to so high a matter, and so necessary to be known; a mystery indeed in their sophistic subtilties, but in scripture a plain doctrine. Their other opinions are of less moment. They dispute the satisfaction of Christ, or rather the word "Satisfaction," as not scriptural: but. they acknowledge him both God and their saviour. The arminian, lastly, is condemned for setting up free will against free grace; but that imputation he disclaims in all his writings, and grounds himself largely upon scripture only. It cannot be denied, that the authors or late revivers of all these sects or opinions were learned, worthy, zealous, and religious men, as appears by their lives written, and the same of their many eminent and learned followers, perfect and powerful in the scriptures, holy and unblamable. in their lives: and it cannot be ima→ gined, that God would desert such painful and zealous labourers in his church, and ofttimes great sufferers for their conscience, to damnable errors and a reprobate sense, who had so often implored the assistance of his spirit; but rather, having made no man infallible, that he hath pardoned their errors, and accepts their pious

endeavours, sincerely searching all things according to the rule of scripture, with such guidance and direction as they can obtain of God by prayer. What protestant then, who himself maintains the same principles, and disavows all implicit faith, would persecute, and not rather charitably tolerate such men as these, unless he mean to abjure the principles of his own religion? If it be asked, how far they should be tolerated: I answer, doubtless equally, as being all protestants; that is, on all occasions to give account of their faith, either by arguing, preaching in their several assemblies, public writing, and the freedom of printing. For if the French and Polenian protestants enjoy all this liberty among papists, much more may a protestant justly expect it among protestants; and yet sometimes here among us, the one persecutes the other upon every slight pretence.

But he is wont to say, he enjoins only things indifferent. Let them be so still; who gave him authority to change their nature by enjoining them? if by his own principles, as is proved, he ought to tolerate controverted points of doctrine not slightly grounded on scripture, much more ought he not impose things indifferent without scripture. In religion nothing is indifferent, but, if it come once to be imposed, is either a command or a prohibition, and so consequently an addition to the word of God, which he professes to disallow. Besides, how unequal, how uncharitable must it needs be, to impose that which his conscience cannot urge him to impose, upon him whose conscience forbids him to obey? What can it be but love of contention for things not necessary to be done, to molest the conscience of his brother, who holds them necessary to be not done? To conclude, let

such a one but call to mind his own principles abovementioned, and he must necessarily grant, that neither he can impose, nor the other believe or obey, aught in religion, but from the word of God only. More amply to understand this, may be read the 14th and 15th chapters to the Romans, and the contents of the 14th, set forth no doubt but with full authority of the church of England; the gloss is this: "Men may not contemn or condemn one the other for things indifferent." And in the 6th article above-mentioned, "whatsoever is not read in holy scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man as an article of faith, or necessary to salvation." And certainly what is not so, is not to be required at all; as being an addition to the word of God expressly forbidden.

Thus this long and hot contest, whether protestants ought to tolerate one another, if men will be but rational and not partial, may be ended without need of more words to compose it.

Let us now inquire, whether popery be tolerable or no. Popery is a double thing to deal with, and claims a twofold power, ecclesiastical and political, both usurp→ ed, and the one supporting the other.

But ecclesiastical is ever pretended to political. The pope by this mixed faculty pretends right to kingdoms and states, and especially to this of England, thrones and unthrones kings, and absolves the people from their obedience to them; sometimes interdicts to whole nations the public worship of God, shutting up their churches and was wont to drain away greatest part of the wealth of this then miserable land, as part of his patrimony, to maintain the pride and luxury of his court. and prelates and now, since, through the infinite mercy

and favour of God, we have shaken off his Babylonish yoke, hath not ceased by his spies and agents, bulls and emissaries, once to destroy both king and parliament ; perpetually to seduce, corrupt, and pervert as many as they can of the people. Whether therefore it be fit or reasonable, to tolerate men thus principled in religion towards the state, I submit it to the consideration of all magistrates, who are best able to provide for their own. and the public safety. As for tolerating the exercise of their religion, supposing their state-activities not to be dangerous, I answer, that toleration is either public or private; and the exercise of their religion, as far as it is idolatrous, can be tolerated neither way: not publicly without grievous and unsufferable scandal given to all conscientious beholders; not privately, without great offence to God, declared against all kind of idolatry, though secret.

[Milton was of opinion, that popery should not be tolerated, and the means he recommends for its removal, are the following: He would have catholics punished neither by fines, nor corporal punishment, unless it should appear necessary to the security of the state. But he would 66 remove their idolatry and all the furniture thereof, whether idols or the mass, wherein they adore their God under bread and wine;" affirming that the plea of conscience, on the part of the catholic, should: not be attended to, in violation of an express commandment. For the same reason, he thinks, they ought not even to be disputed with; it being contrary likewise to the logical maxim that "against them who deny. principles, we are not to dispute." The next mean recommended to hinder the growth of popery is, to read duly, diligently, and constantly the scriptures,]