LIberty of Conscience ( as you have stated it ) is An Universal Toleration for People to say and do what they please , under the Warrant and Pretext of Conscience .

That is to say , In Matters properly the Subject of Conscience , with Reference to the future Judgment of God .

By This Rule , Pagans are to be tolerated as well as Christians : For They have Consciences as well as We : They are convinc'd , that there is a God ; and that That God ought to be Worship't ; and may plead for the same Freedom , in the way and manner of their Proceeding .

But Paganism is not within the Pale of the Question .

Why then , no more is Conscience . If you say , They are in the Wrong , and so debar them the Exercise of their Opinion , because of the Error of it , your Exception lies to the Error , n●…t to the Conscience ; and may be turn'd upon your selves : For They say as much of You ; and have as much right to condemn You , as You Them : Neither have you any more Right to be Judges in your own Case , then they in theirs .

Well , but we have a Law to Iudge our selves by .

And so have They too : For , They without a Law , do by Nature the things Rom. 2. 14. contained in the Law , and are a Law unto Themselves .

But how can that Law-have any Regard to the future Judgment of God , when they deny the Immortality of the Soul :

There is a future Iudgment of God in This Life , as well as in the next : And the Conscience that hath no Light at all of another World , is not yet without Apprehensions of Divine Vengeance in This. Raro Antecedentem Scelestum deseruit pede poena claudo . You 'l be as much to seek now , if you restrain your Argument to Christianity ; for you must either prove , That there are no Erroneous Consciences among Christinas ; or , That Error of Conscience is no Sin ; or else , That Sin may be Tolerated .

There is no doubt but there are Erroneous Consciences ; and it is as clear that Sin is not to be Tolerated : But I do not take every Error of Conscience to be a Sin ( understand me of Consciences labouring under an Invincible Ignorance . )

It is very true , That as to the Formality of Sin , which is the Obliquity of the Will , An Error of Conscience under an Invincible Ignorance is no Sin : But Sin Materially considered , is the Transgression of the Divine Law ; and Conscience it self becomes Sinful , when it dictates against That Law .

Can there be any Sin without Assent ; or any Assent without Knowledge ; or any Knowledge in a Case of Invincible Ignorance ? The Transgression of the Law implies the Knowledg of it , or at least the Possibility of Knowing it ; without which , it has not the Nature of a Law , as to me . [ The Conditions Laud against Fisher , p. 197. requisite to a Rule are These : It must be Certain ; and it must be Known . If it be not Certain , it is no Rule ; If it be not Known , it is no Rule to Us. ] I had not known Sin , but by the Law Rom. 7. 7. ( says the Text ) And in another Place , Where there is no Law , There is no Transgression . From whence the Deduction Rom. 4. 15. is clear , That Sin is not barely the Transgression of a Law , but the Transgression of a Known Law ; the Inconformity of the Will to the Understanding .

The Perversness of the Will being a Sin , does not hinder the Enormity of the Iudgment to be so too . [ Until the Law , Sin was in the World ; but Sin is not imputed , Rom. 5. 13. when there is no Law . ] In few words , The Word of God is the Rule of Truth , and all Disproportion to that Rule is Error : God's Revealed Will is the Measure of Righteousness ; and all Disproportion to that Measure is Sin . Now the Question is not , Whether imputed , or no ; but , Whether a Sin , or No : And you cannot make Error of Conscience to be No Sin , without making the Word of God to be No Rule .

Can you imagine that any Condition in the Delinquent can operate upon the Force and Equity of the Law ? Because God spares the Offender , shall Man therefore tolerate the Offence ? David was pronounced a Man after God's own Heart ; shall Authority therefore grant a License to Murder and Adultery ?

What is David's Case to ours ? You instance in Sins of Presumpt●…on , and the Question is touching Sins of Ignorance .

I was a Blasphemer , a Persecutor , and Injurious ( says St. Paul ) but I obtain'd 1 Tim. 1. 13. Mercy ( he does not say APPROBATION ) because I did it in Ignorance and Unbeleif . Again , The Magistrate has a Conscience , as well as the Subject . It may be Ignorance in him that Commits the Sin , and yet Presumption in him that Suffers it . Briefly , in pleading for all Opinions , you plead for all Heresies , and for the Establishment of Wickedness by a Law . What Swarms of Anabaptists , Brownists , Familists , Antinomians , Anti-Scripturists , Anti-Trinitarians , Enthusiasts ( and what Not ? ) have started up even in our days , under the Protection of Liberty of Conscience ? What Blasphemous and Desperate Opinions , to the Subversion both of Faith and Government ! Where 's the Authority of the Scriptures , and the Reverence of Religion , when every Man shall make a Bible of his Conscience , divide the Holy Ghost against it self , and dash one Text upon another ? He that has a mind to rake further in this Puddle , let him read Edwards his Gangraena , Bayly's Disswasive , Paget's Haeresiography , &c.

To pass now from Opinions , to Practices . The Liberty you challenge , opens a door to all sorts of Villany and Outrage imaginable ; to Rapine , Murder , Rebellion , King-killing .

As if any Man that has a Conscience Indulg . & Toler . p. 13 , 14. of his own , or knows what Conscience is , could give Entertainment to so fond an Imagination , as to suppose , that God at the last day will approve of Murders , Seditions , and the like Evils : Since what is Evil in it self , and against the Light of Nature , there is no direction unto it , no approbation of it from Conscience in the least .

But what will this amount to ? when , first , Every Man's Word shall be taken for his own Conscience : And secondly , That Conscience pleaded in defence of his Actions . That which you stile Murther , and Sedition , He 'll tell you is only a Gospel-Reformation , The Destroying of the Hittites and the Amorites , &c. So that you are never the better for tying a Man up to the Light of Nature in his Actions , if you leave him at Liberty in his Creed : For there is not that Impiety in the World , but he 'll give you a Text for it . The Adversaries of God , that refuse to enter into a holy Covenant with the Lord , and submit themselves to Christ's Scepter , may be Sequestred and Plundered , without the Imputation of Rapine ; for it is written , The Meek shall Mat. 5. 5. inherit the Earth : And it is no more then God's People the Israelites did to the Egyptians . Nay , if they be Refractary , they may be put to Death too , without Murder , [ Those mine Enemies , which would not that I should Reign over them , Luke 19. 27. bring hither , and slay them before me . ] If any Man has a spight at the Church , it is but calling it Antichristian , and Mr. Case * In his Book of the Covenant . shall give him a Commission to take this Agag , and Hew it in pieces before the Lord . Taking up Arms against the Government , is helping the Lord against the Mighty . And King-killing it self , is justified by the Example of Ehud to Eglon.

But do you believe any Man so mad , as to take these Extravagances for Impulses of Conscience ?

Or rather , Is not he madder that doubts it ? Considering the Evidences we have both from Story and Experience , and the very Authority of Scripture it self , in favour of believing it . Does not our Saviour foretell us of False Christs , and False Mat. 24. Prophets , that shall arise and deceive many ; yea , if it were possible , the very Elect ? Parties are engag'd in all sorts of Abomination , under the Masque of Conscience . Those of the League in Flanders , 1503. under Maximilian , bound themselves by Oath , to cast off the Yoke of Government , and to kill and slay all Opposers ; but with such regard to Religion ( I warrant ye ) that every Member of that Confederacy was to say five Ave Maryes and Pater Nosters daily , For a Blessing upon the Undertaking . The Holy League at Peronne , under Henry the Third of France , was for the Glory of God too , and the Preservation of the King : What Horrible Effects it produced , I need not tell you . Sleydan reckons upon Fifty Thousand slain in one Summer , in the Boores Sleydan's Comment. l. 4. Rebellion in Germany , 1525. And charges the Tumult upon Seditious Preachers , whereof Muncer was chief . I shall not need to mind you of the Damned Villanies that were acted by Muncer , Phifer , ( Beold , or ) Iohn of Leyden , Rottman , Knipperdolling , Kippenbroke , Iohn Matthias , and the rest of that Gang , under the Imposture of Inspiration , and Conscience : Their Sacking and Burning of Towns , Rapes , and Massacres : And all this under the pretense of God's Command , and the Direction of his Holy Spirit . Nay , so strongly was the deluded Multitude possest with the Doctrine and Ways of their False Prophets , that the Muncerians , upon the Charge of the Landtzgrave of Hesse , stood stone still , without striking a Blow ; calling upon the Holy Ghost to their Succour ( as Muncer had promised them ) till they were all Routed and Cut off .

Was it not a Holy Father , and the Prior of the Convent ( one of the Heads of the League ) that confirm'd Clement in his purpose of Murthering Harry the Third of France ? For his Encouragement , Davila delle Guer. Civ . di Fran. l. 10. they assur'd him , That if he out-liv'd the Fact , he should be a Cardinal ; If he dy'd , a Saint . What was it again that originally disposed this Monster to that cursed Act ? Stimolato dalle Predicationi , Ibid. che giournallmente sentiva fare contra Henrico di Valois , nominato il persecutore della Fede , & il Tyranno . Seditious Sermons against the King , as a Persecutor of the Faith , and a Tyrant . See in the same Author , the Confession of Iohn Castle , concerning his Attempt upon Harry the Great . He had been brought Lib. 14. up in the Jesuites School , and Instructed , That it was not only Lawful , but Meritorious , to destroy Harry of Bourbon , That Revolted Heretique , and Persecutor of the Holy Church . [ Esaminato con le solite Forme , confesso liberamente , &c. ] What was it that Animated Ravillac to his Hellish Practise upon that Brave Prince ? but ( by his own Confession ) A Discourse of Mariana's , De Rege , & Regis Institutione . It was a Divine Instinct too , that mov'd Balthasar Gerard to Murther the Prince of Aurange . [ Divino tantùm Instinctu , id Strada de Bello Belgieo , l. 5. à se patratum constanter affirmabat , diu Tortus . ] To conclude now with That fresh and execrable Instance here at Home , upon the Person of the Late King : It was the Pulpit that started the Quarrel ; The Pulpit that Enflam'd it ; The Pulpit that Christen'd it God's Cause ; The Pulpit that conjur'd the People into a Covenant to defend it ; The Pulpit that blasted the King , that pursu'd him , that prest the putting of Him to Death ; and the Pulpit that applauded it when it was done . And how was all this effected ? ( I beseech ye ) but by Imposing upon the weak and inconsiderate Multitude , Errors for Truths ; by perverting of Scriptures ; and by These Arts , moulding the Passions and the Consciences of the People to the Interest of a Tumultuary Design . These are the Fruits of the Toleration you demand . Reflect soberly upon what has been said ; and Tell me , Do you think such a Toleration either fit for You to Ask , or for Authority to Grant ?

The Truth is , In this Latitude there may be great Inconveniences : And yet methinks , 't is Pitty ( in Cases of some Honest Mistakes ) that a Good Man should be punished for not being a Wise Man .

And were it not a greater Pitty , do ye think , for a State to keep no Check upon Crafty Knaves , for fear of disobliging some Well-meaning Fools ? As to the Sparing of the Man , I wish it could be done , even where it were Impious to give Quarter to the Opinion : But how shall we separate the Errour from the Person , so as to make a General Law take notice of it ? It were Irreligious to Tolerate Both , and it seems to me Impossible to sever them . If you your self now can either prove the former to be Lawful ( that is , to do Evil , that Good may come of it ) or the latter to be Practicable , I 'le agree with you for a General Toleration : If not , I hope you 'l joyn with me against it .

I am not for a Toleration ( as I told you ) against the Light of Nature ; Liberty of Consc. upon its true and proper Grounds , p. 12. nor would I have any Pretense of Conscience admitted , that leads to the Destruction of the Magistrate , and the Disturbance of the Government .

That is to say , You will content Your self with a Limited Toleration : which , I fear , upon the Debate , will prove as much too narrow for you , as the Other was too wide .

IN the Question of Toleration ( says a Learned Prelate ) the Foundation of Faith , Good Life , and Government is to be secured : Wherein is comprised a Provision and Care , that we may live as Christians toward God , As Members of a Community toward one another , and as Loyal Subjects toward our Sovereign . If you 'l take This for the Standard of your Toleration , we have no more to do , but to apply Matters in Controversie to the Rules of Christianity , Good Manners , and Government ; and to entertein or reject all Pretensions , thereafter as we find them Agreeable , or Repugnant , to Religion , Morality , and Society .

Uery well stated truly , I think .

All the Danger is , the falling to pieces again , when we come to bring This and That to the Test. For if we differ at last upon the Application of Particular Points , and Actions , to the General Heads of Faith , and Government already laid down and agreed upon , We shall yet lose our selves in Uncertainty , and Confusion .

There will be no fear of That , if we tye up our selves to Fundamentals .

What do you mean by Fundamentals ?

There are Fundamentals of Faith , that bind Us as we are Christians ; And there are Fundamentals of Practice , that oblige us as we are Members of a Community . From These Fundamentals there lies no Appeal to Conscience . In other Matters ( which we look upon as Non-Fundamental ) we think it reasonable to Desire a Toleration .

This Distinction has a fair Appearance ; but there is no trusting to it . First , it proposes a thing neither Practicable , nor Reasonable ; which is , The Uniting of all People under one Common Bond of Fundamentals . What possibility is there of attaining such an Agreement , among so many Insuperable Diversities of Judgment , as reign in Mankind ? Insomuch , that what is a Fundamental Truth to One , is a Fundamental Error to Another ; and Every Man is ready to abide the Faggot for his own Opinion . It is also very unreasonable to exact it . God Almighty does not require the same Fundamentals from all Men alike ; But Much from Him to whom Much is given , and Little from Him , to whom Little : And from All , according to their differing Degrees , and Measures , of Grace , and Knowledg . You will likewise find your self under great Uncertainty about the Stating of your Fundamentals : For divers Circumstances , of Little , or No value in Themselves , become Fundamental in respect of their Consequences . As for Instance ; That Christ died for Sinners , I presume shall be one Article of your Faith : But whether upon Mount Calvary , or some other part of the Neighbourhood , seems of no great Moment , as to the Main of Our Salvation . And yet he that denies , that Our Saviour suffer'd upon Mount Calvary , puts as great an Affront upon the Veracity of the Holy Ghost in the Gospel , as He which denies that he suffer'd upon the Cross.

I give it for Granted , that from some , more is required ; from others , less : In proportion to their Differing Gifts and Graces . But then there are some Principles , so Essential to Christianity , and so clear in Themselves , as to admit of no Dispute .

Saving That Grand Foundation of Our Faith , that Iesus Christ is come in the Flesh ; and that Whosoever confesses , 1 Joh. 4. 3. ●…5 . that Iesus Christ is the Son of God , God dwelleth in Him , and He in God . ( Saving ( I say ) That Radical Principle , which if we disbelieve , we are no longer Christians ) There is scarce One Point that has not been subjected to a Controversie . If you reduce your Fundamentals to This Scantling , Your Creed will lie in a very Narrow Compass : But your Toleration will be Large Enough , if you are at Liberty for the rest . Touching the Clearness of them , I do not comprehend it : For Supernatural Truths hold no Proportion at all with the Ordinary Motions of Humane Reason . If They be so clear , Tell us , What they are ; Where we shall look for them ; and How we shall know them when we have found them .

Where should we look for the Foundation of our Faith , but in the New-Testament of Jesus Christ ?

But still we do not all read the Bible with the same Spectacles . To draw to an Issue ; Generals conclude nothing , so long as we are left at Freedom to wrangle about Particulars ; and you will find much surer footing upon the Foundations of Establish'd Law , then upon the Whimseys of Popular Speculation . To my thinking , the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England , as it is settled by Acts of Parliament , with other Legal Constitutions , for the Peace , and Order of the Government , are every whit as competent a Provision for the Good of the Publique , as your new Fundamentals .

Very Good : And you refer us to your Distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals , as to a Rule , how far we are at Liberty , and wherein we are Bounded . But This will not do the work ; and I have spent the more words about it , because I find This Distinction the Ordinary Retreat of Your Party . The Truth of it is , there 's not One of a Hundred of you , but takes This Question by the wrong Handle . You make it a Question of Conscience , and Religion , What may be Tolerated , and what not : Whereas the thing falls properly under a Consideration of State . In Matters not to be Tolerated ( as in Articles of Religion ) The Magistrate is positively bound up ; In other Cases , He may chuse , whether he will Tolerate , or Restrain ; That is to say , with a perpetual Regard to the Q●…iet , and Security of the Publique . Where Particulars may be relieved , without Inconvenience to Communities , it is well : But otherwise , Private Consciences weigh little in the Scale against Political Societies : And Toleration is only so far allowable , as it complies with the Necessities , and Ends of Government .