Samaritanism, or, A treatise of comprehending, compounding and tolerating several religions in one church demonstrating the equity, and necessity of the act and late vote of Parliament against non-conformists, from reason, the ancient church, and the opinions and practice of papists and Puritans now plotting and pleading for toleration.

CHAP. III. A General determination of the Question according to Reason.

THat all Factions, Parties, Persons, or Religions are not to be Tolerated, or granted Liberty; I think all agree. It will be necessary then in the First place, to lay down certain Distincti∣ons, serving to judge of the reasonableness of such Inhibition towards some, rather than others. And they may concern either the Persons or the Religion, or lastly, the kind of Tolerations or Restraint, themselves.

Persons pleading for Liberty of Religion are First, either

such as are of themselves altogether Free from any Civil, or Moral Subjection from us, or such as by Birth and Education being incorporated into the same Body, and Polity, are, and ought to be, subordinate unto the Head thereof.

Secondly the Religion Insisted on, and Pleaded for, is either Repugnant to the light and prime Principles of Nature and human Society, or Consistent with the same.

Thirdly, because all Restraint Moral, such as is Disswasion, Refutation, Exclusion from the Society of others, is by the concession of all Parties insufficient to suppress a growing Evil, oftentimes; and therefore outward Civil Mulcts, and Punish∣ments are in such Case, to be Inflicted; the diversity of such Pu∣nishment is to be considered. For according to the Civil Law, Punishments are either Corporal, or Non-corporal. And Corpo∣ral, are either Capital, or Not-Capital, Punishment Not-Cor∣poral is that, which divests a man of any Profits, Emoluments, or Dignities. Corporal, and Not-Capital, is that, which is Inflicted on a mans Body, without taking away the Life. Capital, is that which destroyes Life. According to these therefore, it may be answered to the main Querie:

First, That it is not only Lawful and Reasonable to allow a Toleration to Persons in Co-ordination to us, and not depending upon us; But it is very unjust, and unnatural to attempt by Force, to reduce them to our way of serving God: For such kind of Force, or Violence, cannot be offered, but by Civil Power assum∣ed; and Civil Power ought never to be exercised, but by Law∣ful Authority: and they, whom we suppose to be of distinct Societies and Regiments, can have no Legal right to Invade, or Usurp upon one another. And this being against Justice (which alwaies is to be preferred before the best Religion) it would be a contradiction to advance and build Religion upon the Ruines of that which Founds all Religion: as Tertullian excellently argues.

And if this holds good in Persons Co-ordinate, so far that it is most unjust for Either, to impose upon Other their Faith, or

Worship: it can scarce be expressed, the horrible Crime and Unjustice of them, who being as Legally Subordinate and Sub∣ject as tis possible for People to be, take the confidence to Arme, to the end, they may reduce their Prince, and Pastors to the Rule of their Consciences: And having oppressed both, though fail∣ing in their Main design, the Scene changed, to exceed them∣seves in Immodestie, and demand that benefit, they would no wayes grant others, whom they had no right at all to deny; up∣on reasons infinitely Inferiour to them, they a while since rejected. In these shameful straits, they say with one of their late Politici∣ans, The Presbyterian Party in England, never engaged under a less Authority, than That of both Houses of Parliament. Good Sir, clear up, and speak out. Did they do well, or not, in so Engaging, even with both Houses on their side? If they did well, then did we very ill, to Oppose and Resist; Then were all your Enemies Rebells, the King himself not excepted: Then why do you not Preach Repentance to us, as we do to you? Then will you, then may you, nay, then ought you to do so again, as we profess we are bound to do, and alwayes did in our greatest Persecutions: And are you not well to be look'd to, think you? But your Case is still worse: For it will never be granted, what is here supposed. viz. That those Two Houses were Houses of Parliament, but a Conventicle of Private Men, after the Expul∣sion of that Part of the Lords-House which have been proved to be no less Essential to a Parliament than the remaining States, had they remained with the Presbyterians: but 'tis apparent, not the Major Part continued with them, but manifested against them: But especially, the Kings Authority withdrawn from them, they like Sampson the Nazarite being shaven, became as other men, and the Spirit of Power, and all Legal Authority departed from them. Or if after all these Ruines and Delapidations, they must still be called Houses; in what doth Presbyterian excel the following Factions, who had those things, they called Two Houses too, and with no more prejudices?

But my Author proceeds, and indeed speaks plainly. I have read (saith he), That the Parliament of England, is of a Twofold capacity. First, Representing the People, as Subjects; and so, that it can do nothing, but manifest their Grievances, and Petition for Re∣lief.

Secondly, By the Constitution, it hath part in the Soveraignty; and so it hath part in the Legislative Power, and in the final judg∣ment. You have read. You may have read, and that from your own party, infinite passages of Sedition, and Treason: But had you so little Wit and Loyalty, pretending so much to both, as to Publish and approve it, and to justifie wicked Practises by as bad Principles? But they are in the Faction still, and though like Water in a spunge or clout scarce discernible, when let alone, being pressed a little, out they come. But must he that speaks Treason, speak Nonsense and Impossibilities too? For, 'tis not possible that the same persons should consist of such a Contradictory Ca∣pacity, as that of the Subject and Soveraign. But I return:

It is worse than Barbarous to Attach, or Oppress any People, meerly upon account of Religion, not repugnant to the Light of Nature, as I shall shew by and by: For otherwise, Religion, whose chief End is to Conserve Mankind, in Peace and Justice, would turn the Earth upside, down, and fill the World with in∣cessant Combustions, and Massacres. For it will be as reasonable that the Infidel, and Indians should Invade the Christian upon that score, as the Christian Him. And then where will such Depre∣dations end?

Again, as Thomas hath observed, Religion being a Free Thing, there is no Reason Infidels should be thereunto Compelled. Nay, as Isidore Pelusiotes noteth well, To Force and Dragg others to the true Religion, who are absolutely at their own disposal; neither is, nor seems, Decent or Convenient. And Lactantius saith, Non opus vi & injuriâ, quia Religio cogi non potest. There is no need of Force and Injury, for asmuch as Religion cannot be Compelled. And St. Ambrose Testifies truly, That Christ sent his Apostles to sow the Faith, who were not to Compel, but Teach, nor to Exercise Force, or Power, but extol the Doctrine of Humility. And agreable thereunto St. Hillary writes, Deus cognitionem sui docuit potius quàm exegit, God rather Taught, than Extorted the knowledg of himself. To these, and this effect, I might add such Fathers as Monsieur Duillee hath collected; endeavour∣ing,

though in vain, to prove thereby, that the present Church, hath fallen from the Opinions of the Auncient, because they were against Compulsion in point of Religion; which, with what I have observed seeming to favour Liberty in Religion, is easily answer∣ed by distinguishing of Persons educated in, and subject to a Church, to whom they never granted a Licenciousness of his Na∣ture; from such as were not under any Obligation of Obedience and Conformity to a Society: Of these they are to be interpre∣ted, and not of them: For herein they followed the Doctrine of St. Paul who saies, What have I to do, to judge them that are without? And of these, are the words of the Psalmist, to be understood; abused by trifling Sectaries: Thy People shall be willing in the day of thy Power. Which implies, a freeness of consent to the Service and Faith of Christ under the Gospel, in such as first received the knowledge thereof.

Secondly, According to the Second Distinction, it may be said, that there being some Religions not only contrary to ours, but even to the Light, and commonly received Law of Nature; such are not only, not to be admitted into any Christian Common∣wealth, but it is Lawful for Christians, or not Christians, in vindi∣cation of Common-Laws of Nature, even such, which being once and lightly offered to the Consideration of such as do not ob∣serve the same, do in a manner constrain Assent thereunto; provided that Interest, Passion, and unnatural Vices, have not taken away that sight, which Nature had given. For we know who saies, That the God of this World blinds the eyes of some: and who saith, Some things men are willfully ignorant of. There∣fore Actual Ignorance neither excuses, nor exempts men from Punishment, even of such, as are not in Political Authority over them. The reason whereof, is, Because, however the World be divided into several Countries, and those Countries sub-divided into several Nations and Governments, absolute in themselves, as to Political Administration; yet, are All Men of the same Flesh and Blood, and kind, and nature, yea, Common-wealth, and Familie, as to certain Principles of Reason, and Nature, which are as Laws containing men in the same Society; and as to the Design that God had, in placing Man upon Earth, which was to live at least so Humanely, as might continue the Work of Gods

hands upon Earth, and the Recognition of a Superior Cause of them, and Power and Dominion over them, which is a Deity; contrary to which, is that most brutish and degenerous Sin of Atheism. For though Atheism, be not a Religion (of which we now speak), yet it is to be reduced to this Subject, as all Priva∣tions are there to be handled, where their habits are properly treated of. Now the Stoicks, (as Laertius tells us,) were wont to make a Two-fold Atheism; Dogmatical, whereby men not only know no God, but would prove, There is no God: And Practical, whereby men in general having a true, but weak, and obscure knowledg of God, do, as the Apostle saith, live as with∣out God in the World; as if there were no such thing Existent. But we shall rather divide Atheists into Purely Negative, such as have, nor ever had, no knowledg of a God; and Positive, such as have had the knowledg, and sense of a Deity; and after, are fallen into such open Apostasie, and Defiance, that they Dogmatize such Unnatural Opinions. Of these Latter, we hold it just and reasonable, that where they live mixt with other People who do revere a Deity, they should be put to Death, after serious and plain Proposal made of their Abominable Errors; without any laborious, or Learned controverting the Point. And this affirm∣eth Perkins, before me, in these Words, As for those that are commonly called Atheists, which deny that there is a God, they are to be punished with Death, as not worthy to live in human Society; and the greatest Torment, that can be devised by the Wit of Man, is too good for them: For, if they be holden for Traytors to an Earthly Prince, and are most deservedly adjudged to Death, &c. But I suppose, a greater reason than this, is, The certain Destruction which such Embrutiz'd men do bring to human Society it self: which, whoever is a direct and professed Enemy unto, may be put to Death, as lawfully as Wolfs, Lyons, and Tygers. And yet, not at the pleasure, or Power of every one that meets them, as wild Beasts may, because Judgment against the most open Malefactors condemned by the Law, must not be executed, but by Sentence, and Commission from the Supream Power. For to make good one part of Justice, we must not destroy another; nor secure Gods Ordinance in one Point, by endangering it in another. But it is Gods Ordinance, that the Supream Power

should be respected and obeyed; and it is scarce possible, that any Common-wealth should be of any long continuance, where pri∣vate Persons take on them to administer or execute Justice, upon their own presumptions And if it be, as the wit of some Atheists lead them to conceive, that Religion is only a trick of Policy, to keep men in order, and obedience to their Superiours, and that they do confess, that it is necessary to keep together a Civil Society; do they deserve any thing less than Death, who shall treacherously discover, and endeavour to Null such a Mystery of State, without which, Human Society cannot be maintain'd? And surely, if Chrysostom's zeal carried him so far, as to advise any one that met a Blasphemer of God, or his Worship, to smite him presently on the Face; yea, though he were sure to be had before the Judg for so doing: it is more reasonable to bait A∣theists and Persecute them, the Supream Authority not gainsaying. Escobar tells us the Practice of Spain, to be against Blasphemers, That for a Light Blasphemy, he only abjures it: Yet, the Punishment doth answer the Sin. v.g. If they Blaspheme out of suddain Anger, or some other Passion, they are Condemned to the Gallies: or else standing bare Foot, and bare Head, girt with a Cord, and holding a Light Torch in their Right hand, they stand in some Festival day in the Church, and the Service being ended, they receive their Sentence with the rest of their Penances, i.e. Fastings, Prayers, and Pecuni∣arie Mulcts. And where Authority is Defective and Remiss, in this so horrible Provocation; It is observed by many dreadful In∣stances, how God himself taketh Vengeance: as, amongst others, Matthew of Westminster tells us How, in the year of Grace 501, Olympus a most Mad Fellow, while bathing, he Blas∣phemed the Holy Trinity, that he was consumed with a Fiery Thunder-bolt falling on him from Heaven. Thus he. And that, not only Corporal, but even Capital Punishment is due to such an one, doth from hence appear; because a man being of a Religion which asserts the Diety under such and such Forms, or Notions; the Professed dishonouring thereof, implies a self Condemnation, and with all such an unnatural humour of impi∣ety, which leads him against all Religions, and human Pra∣ctice.

And it is observed by Cunaeus, That such was the Force of the

Seven Precepts of Noah, and extended so to all men, that the Israelites were commanded, such who were ignorant of them to slay by War, and remove them from human Society.

Again, it were (I suppose) Lawful for any Prince, or Per∣son to compel any People that should Worship their God, or gods by the Sacrifice of Mankind: And yet we read how far this De∣vilish Superstition prevailed over the World, as may appear from Tertullian, Austin, Alexander ab Alexandro, Ludovicus Vives, Grotius, and others. In a Word, Learned Bodin tells us, That there was never any People, or Nation, who imagined not, that the Gods might be pacified with human Sacrifices, such as the Peruvians, and Brasilians at this day use: And, that the Canaanites in ancient days Accustomed themselves to such Sacrifices, Offer∣ing their Sons and Daughters unto Molech, that Fiery Idol; the Scripture Testimonies are many, and express; and not to be eluded, by the vain and bold glosses of Rabbies, attempting, I suppose, to extenuate the foul Apostasies of their Predecessors; and that Children were not kill'd, and burnt, but drawn only through two Piles of Fire, and so consecrated to Molech, as Mr. Selden hath observed out of them. But that Molech was the same with Saturn, and the Phoenicians offered to him such inhu∣man Human Sacrifices, Porphyrie witnesseth; which agrees per∣fectly, with the Practice of the Carthaginians, who themselves, together with their Superstitious Abominations, descended from the Phoenicians. For that the Carthaginians used to Offer such Sacrifices; Plutarch, not only assureth us, but tells us who, and upon what occasion, caused that Custom to cease. For Gelon, King of Syracuse, having Conquered them, would not make Peace with them, unless, they would first give over Sa∣crificing their Children to Saturn. Possibly, this unna∣tural Religion took its Original from the Design of Abraham Offering up his Son Isaac; which being performed amongst the Phoenicians, might be cause of mis-understanding to them, as In∣numerable acts of the Patriarchs and Israclites, were first corrupt∣ly imitated by the neighbouring Heathens, and by them trans∣mitted and propagated into other parts: so that it was not an in∣ward suggestion of Nature, though very common, so much, as Imitation.

Again, were it so, that any Nation should freely admit, and practise the unnatural Sin, of Coupling with Beasts after the manner of human Sexes; I doubt not, but it were Lawful, and Laudable in any Forrein Prince, to endeavour the abolishing of such a Custom, by Force of Arms, because this is against hu∣man Nature, by confounding the Species of Man.

In the Last place, according to our distinctions, we are to con∣sider, the kind, and condition of Punishment to be inflicted up∣on Offenders against Religion; of which, in the ensuing Chap∣ters.

Notes

• Humani ju∣ris & naturalis potestatis est, unicui{que} quod putaverit cole∣re; nec alii ob∣est aut prodest altertus Reli∣gio. Sed nec Religionis est cogere Religio∣nem, quae spon∣te suscipi debet: non enim cùm & hostiae animo libenti suscipi expostalentur. Tertullianus Ad ••••capulam. ca. 2. Vide Thomam 22. qu. 10. Artic. 8.
• Corbet's In∣terest of Eng∣land. pag: 57.
• Id: ibid.
• Thom. 22. Quaest. 10. Art: 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Isidor. Pelusiot: li. 3. Epist. 362 Lactant. Lib. 5 Instit. ca. 19. Christus Apo∣stolos misit ad seminandam fidem, qui &c. Ambros. In Luc. Lib. 7. Pict. ad Constant. Joan: Duil: De Vero Ʋsu Patrum. Lib. 2. ca. 6.
• 1 Cor. 5.12.
• Psal. 110.13.
• 2 Cor. 4.4. 2 Pet. 3.5.
• Act. 17.26.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diog ••aert: In Zenone. Ephes. 2.12.
• Perkins Ca∣ses of Consci∣ence. Lib. 2. ca. 2.
• Matthaeus VVestmona∣steriensis, pag. 182.
• Cunaeus DeRe∣public. Hebrae. Li. 1. cap. 1. Item Maimoni∣des in Misna ractat. de Re∣gibus. ca. 9.
• Tertul. Apol. cap. 8. Au∣gust. Civit. Dei lib. 7. ca. 19 Alex. ab Alex∣and, lib. 6. ca. 26. Ludovic. Vives in Aug. de Civ. Dei. Hu∣go. Grot. con∣tra Socin. pag. 200, 201, 202. Bod. De Repub. li. 1. cap. 5. 2 Kings 23.10 Jer. 32.33 36. Psal. 106; v. 37, 38, 39. Jerem. 7.31. Selden de diis Syris Syn∣tag. 1. cap. 6. Porphyr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lib. 2.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plutarch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.