Some grand Objections in the Way must be

considered. Objection 1. But you are a people that meet • with designs to disaffect the people, and to ruin the

government.'

Answer. A surmise is no certainty; neither is a maybe, or conjecture, any proof: that from the first we have behaved ourselves inoffensively, is a demonstration; that our meetings are open, where all may hear our matter, and have liberty to object or discuss any point, is notorious. Ignorant calumnies are fandy foundations to build so high a charge upon : let us be fairly heard in public conference, how far we can justify our principles from being deservedly suspected of sedition or disloyalty, and not over-run us with mere suppositions. We declare our readiness to obey the ordinance of man, which is only relative to human or civil matters, and not points of faith, or practice in worship: but if accusations must stand for proofs, we shall take it for granted that we must stand for criminals; but our satisfaction will be, that we shall not deserve it, otherwise than as prejudice seeks to traduce us.

Object. 2. But you strike at the doctrine, at • least the discipline, of the church; and consequently

are hereticks.

Answ. This story is as old as the reformation : if we must be objected against out of pure reputation, let it be in some other matter than what the Papifts objected against the first Protestants; otherwise you do but hit yourselves in aiming at us? To say you were in the right, but we are in the wrong, is but a mere begging of the question ; for doubtless the Papists said the same to you, and all that you can say to us. Your beft plea was, conscience, upon principles the most evident and rational to you; do not we the like? What

more are we.

if you think our reasons thick, and our ground of separation mistaken? Did not the Papifts harbour the same thoughts of you? You persuaded as few of them, as we of you : were you therefore in the wrong? No

It was not what they thought of you, or enacted against you, that concluded you: and why should your apprehensions conclude us? If you have the way of giving faith beyond what they had, and have the faculty of persuasion, evidence as much : but if you are as deftitute of both, as they were to you; why should fines and prisons, once used by them against you, and by you exclaimed against, as unchristian ways of reclaiming hereticks (supposing yourselves to be such) be employed by you as rational, christian, and convincing upon us? To say we deserve them more, is to suppose yourselves in the right, and us in the wrong, which proves nothing. Besides, the question is not barely this, whether Hereticks or no Hereticks? But whether an Heretick should be persecuted into a disclaiming of his error? Your old arguments run thus, as I well remember.

1. Error is a mistake in the understanding.
2. This is for want of a better illumination.

3. This error can never be dislodged, but by reafon and persuasion, as what are most suitable to the intellect of man.

4. Fines, gaols, exiles, gibbets, &c. are no convincing arguments to the most erring understanding in the world, being Navish and brutish,

5. This way of force makes, instead of an honest diffenter, but an hypocritical conformist; than whom nothing is more detestable to God and man.

This being the Protestants plea, we are not to be diliked by Protestants, for following their own avowed maxims and axioms of conscience in defence of its own liberty.

In short, either allow separation upon the single principle of My conscience owns this, or disowns i that;' or never dwell in that building which knew no better foundation (indeed good enough); but, ac

cusing

cusing your forefathers of schism and heresy, return to the Romish church. What short of this can any say to an Anti-liberty-of-Conscience Protestant?

Object. 3. “But at this rate ye may pretend to cut our throats, and do all manner of favage acts.'

Answ. Though the objection be frequent, yet it is as foully ridiculous. We are pleading only for such a liberty of conscience as preserves the nation in peace, trade, and commerce; and would not exempt any man, or party of men, from not keeping those excellent laws, that tend to sober, just, and industrious living. It is a Jesuitical moral, “To kill a man before he is • born: first, to suspect him of an evil design; and then kill him, to prevent it.

Object. 4. But do not you see what has been the ' end of this separation ? Wars, and revolutions, and

danger to government; witness our late troubles.'

Answ. We see none of all this; but are able to make it appear, that the true cause of all that perplexed disturbance, which was amongst the Homooufians and Arians of old, and among us of latter years (as well as what has modernly attended our neighbouring countries) took its first rise from a narrowness of spirit, in not tolerating others to live the free men God made them, in external matters upon the earth, merely upon some difference in religion.

And were there once but an hearty toleration established, it would be a demonstration of the truth of this affertion. On this ground empire stands safe ; on the other, it seems more uncertain.

But these are only the popular devices of some to traduce honest men, and their principles; whose lazy life, and intolerable advice, become questioned, by a toleration of people better inclined.

Object. Object. s. But what need you take this pains to prove liberty of conscience reasonable and necessary, when none questions it? All that is required is, that

you meet but four more than your own families; and I can you not be contented with that? Your disobe

dience to a law fo favourable, brings suffering upon you.'

Anf. Here is no need of answering the former part of the objection: it is too apparent throughout the land, that Liberty of Conscience, as we have stated it, has been severely prosecuted, and therefore not so frankly enjoined. The latter part I answer thus, if the words lawful or unlawful may bear their signification from the nature of the things they stand for, then we conceive that a meeting of four thousand is no more unlawful than a meeting of four : for number, singly considered, criminates no assembly; but the reason of their affembling, the posture in which and the matter transacted, with the consequences thereof.

Now if those things are taken for granted to be things dispensable (as appears by the allowance of four besides every family) certainly the number can never render it unlawful : so that the question will be this, whether if four, met to worship God, be an allowable meeting, four thousand, met with the same design, be not an allowable meeting?

It is so plain a case, that the matter in question resolves it.

Object. 6. But the law forbids it.'

Answ. If the EnActing any thing can make it lawful, we have done : but if an act so made by the Papists against Protestants, was never esteemed so by a true Protestant; and if the nature of the matter will not bear it ; and lastly, that we are as much commanded by God to meet four thousand, as four ; we muft desire to be excused, if we forbear not the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is. VOL. III. C

Object.

of speech, or men's being obliged to humour times, is a great one: which we find made good by the Florentine republick, as Guiccardine relates.

4. Livy tells us, " It was a wonder that Hannibal's army, consisting of divers nations, divers humours, differing habits, contrary religions, various languages, should live thirteen years from their own country under his command, without so much as once mu

tinying, either against their general, or among them(selves.' But what Livy relates for a wonder, that ingenious marquis Virgilio Malvetsey gives the reason of; namely, 'That the difference of their opinion,

tongues, and customs, was the reason of their pre'servation and conquest:' for, says he, It was im

possible so inany contrary spirits should combine; and if any should have done it, it was in the general's power to make the greater party by his equal hand;

they owing him more of reverence, than they did of « affection to one another. This,' says he, some im

pute to Hannibal ; but how great foever he was, I • give it to the variety of humours in the army. For,' adds he, Rome's army was ever less given to mutiny

ing when joined with the provincial auxiliaries, than " when entirely Roman.' Thus much, and more, in his publick discourses upon Cornelius Tacitus.

5. The same best statist of his time, c. Tacitus, tells us in the case of Cremtius, that it had been the interest of Tiberius not to have punished him; inarmuch as curiosity is begotten by restriction of liberty to write or speak, which never missed of profelytes.

6. Justin Martyr I will forbear to quote in less than his · Two Whole Apologies,' dedicated to Adrian and Antoninus Pius, as I take it.

7. Tertullian ad Scapulam, that learned and judicious apologist, plainly tells us, “That it is not the ' property of religion to compel or persecute for reli• gion :' she should be accepted for herself, not for force; that being a poor and beggarly one that has no better arguments to convince; and a manifest evidence of her superstition and falsehood,