petent to take notice of it, and infallible to determine it, and fit to judge; and therefore no human authority is sufficient to do all those things, which can justify the inflicting temporal punishments upon such, as do not conform in their persuasions to a rule or authority, which is not only fallible, but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived.

4. But I consider, that in the toleration of a different opinion, religion is not properly and immediately concerned, so as in any degree to be endangered. For it may be safe in diversity of persuasions, and it is also a part of Christian religion, that the liberty of men's consciences should be preserved in all things, where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint; that the soul of man should be free, and acknowledge no master but Jesus Christ; that matters spiritual should not be restrained by punishments corporal; that the same meekness and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity, that gave it foundation and increment and firmness in its first publication; that conclusions should not be more dogmatical than the virtual resolution and efficacy of the premises; and that the persons should not more certainly be condemned than their opinions confuted; and lastly, that the infirmities of men and difficulties of things should be both put in balance, to make abatement in the definitive sentence against men's persons. But then, because toleration of opinions is not properly a question of religion, it may be a question of policy: and although a man may be a good Christian, though he believe an error not fundamental, and not directly or evidently impious, yet his opinion may accidentally disturb the public peace, through the overactiveness of the persons, and the confidence of their belief, and the opinion of its appendant necessity: and therefore toleration of differing persuasions in these cases, is to be considered upon political grounds, and is just so to be admitted or denied as the opinions or toleration of them may consist with the public and necessary ends of government. Only this; as Christian princes must look to the interest of their government, so especially must they consider the interests of Christianity, and not call every redargution or modest discovery

* Humani juris et naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere. Sed nec religionis est cogere religionem, quæ suscipi spontè debet, non vi. Tertul. ad Scapulam.

of an established error, by the name of disturbance of the peace. For it is very likely that the peevishness and impatience of contradiction in the governors may break the peace. Let them remember but the gentleness of Christianity, the liberty of consciences which ought to be preserved, and let them do justice to the persons, whoever they are, that are peevish, provided no man's person be overborne with prejudice. For if it be necessary for all men to subscribe to the present established religion, by the same reason at another time a man may be bound to subscribe to the contradictory, and so to all religions in the world. And they only who by their too-much confidence entitle God to all their fancies, and make them to be questions of religion, and evidences for heaven, or consignations to hell, they only think this doctrine unreasonable, and they are the men that first disturb the church's peace, and then think there is no appeasing the tumult but by getting the victory. But they that consider things wisely, understand, that since salvation and damnation depend not upon impertinences, and yet that public peace and tranquillity may,-the prince is, in this case, to seek how to secure government, and the issues and intentions of that, while there is in these cases directly no insecurity to religion, unless by the accidental uncharitableness of them that dispute: which uncharitableness is also much prevented when the public peace is secured, and no person is on either side engaged upon revenge, or troubled with disgrace, or vexed with punishments by any decretory sentence against him. It was the saying of a wise statesman, I mean Thuanus, "Hæretici, qui, pace data, factionibus scinduntur, persecutione uniuntur contra rempublicam." If you persecute heretics or discrepants, they unite themselves as to a common defence: if you permit them, they divide themselves upon private interest; and the rather, if this interest was an ingredient of the opinion.

5. The sum is this: it concerns the duty of a prince, because it concerns the honour of God, that all vices and every part of ill life be discountenanced and restrained: and therefore in relation to that, opinions are to be dealt with. For the understanding being to direct the will, and opinions to guide

y Dextera præcipuè capit indulgentia mentes ;

Asperitas odium sævaque bella parit. Ovid. A. A. 2. 145.

our practices, they are considerable only as they teach impiety and vice, as they either dishonour God or disobey him. Now all such doctrines are to be condemned; but for the persons preaching such doctrines, if they neither justify nor approve the pretended consequences, which are certainly impious, they are to be separated from that consideration. But if they know such consequences and allow them, or if they do not stay till the doctrines produce impiety, but take sin beforehand, and manage them impiously in any sense, or if either themselves or their doctrine do really, and without colour or feigned pretext, disturb the public peace and just interests, they are not to be suffered. In all other cases it is not only lawful to permit them, but it is also necessary that princes and all in authority should not persecute discrepant opinions. And in such cases wherein persons not otherwise incompetent are bound to reprove an error (as they are in many), in all these if the prince makes restraint, he hinders men from doing their duty, and from obeying the laws of Jesus Christ.

SECTION XVII.

Of Compliance with disagreeing Persons, or weak Consciences, in general.

1. UPON these grounds it remains, that we reduce this doctrine to practical conclusions, and consider, among the differing sects and opinions which trouble these parts of Christendom, and come into our concernment, which sects of Christians are to be tolerated, and how far; and which are to be restrained and punished in their several proportions.

2. The first consideration is, since diversity of opinions does more concern public peace than religion, what is to be done to persons who disobey a public sanction upon a true allegation, that they cannot believe it to be lawful to obey such constitutions, although they disbelieve them upon insuf

Exstat prudens monitum Mecenatis apud Dionem Cassium ad Augustum in hæc verba; Eos verò qui in Divinis aliquid innovant, odio habe, et coerce, non deoram solùm causâ, sed quia nova numina hi tales introducentes multos impellant ad mutationem rerum: unde conjurationes, seditiones, conciliabula exsistunt, res profecto minimè conducibiles principatui. Et legibus quoque expressum est, quod in religionem committitur, in omnium fertur injuriam.

ficient grounds; that is, whether in constituta lege' disa greeing persons or weak consciences are to be complied withal, and their disobeying and disagreeing tolerated.

3. First in this question, there is no distinction can be made between persons truly weak, and but pretending so. For all that pretend to it, are to be allowed the same liberty, whatsoever it be; for no man's spirit is known to any but to God and himself: and therefore pretences and realities in this case are both alike in order to the public toleration. And this very thing is one argument to persuade a negative. For the chief thing in this case is the concernment of public government, which is then most of all violated, when what may prudently be permitted to some purposes, may be demanded to many more, and the piety of the laws abused to the impiety of other men's ends. And if laws be made so malleable as to comply with weak consciences, he that hath a mind to disobey, is made impregnable against the coercitive power of the laws by this pretence. For a weak conscience signifies nothing in this case, but a dislike of the law upon a contrary persuasion. For if some weak consciences do obey the law, and others do not, it is not their weakness indefinitely that is the cause of it, but a definite and particular persuasion to the contrary. So that if such a pretence be excuse sufficient from obeying, then the law is a sanction obliging every one to obey that hath a mind to it, and he that hath not, may choose; that is, it is no law at all; for he that hath a mind to it, may do it if there be no law; and he that hath no mind to it, need not for all the law.

4. And therefore, the wit of man cannot prudently frame a law of that temper and expedient, but either he must lose the formality of a law, and neither have power coercitive nor obligatory, but ad arbitrium inferiorum;' or else it cannot, antecedently to the particular case, give leave to any sort of men to disagree or disobey.

5. Secondly suppose that a law be made with great reason, so as to satisfy divers persons pious and prudent, that it complies with the necessity of government, and promotes the interest of God's service and public order, it may easily be imagined that these persons, which are obedient sons of the church, may be as zealous for the public order and discipline of the church as others for their opinion against it,

and may be as much scandalized if disobedience be tolerated, as others are if the law be exacted: and what shall be done in this case? Both sorts of men cannot be complied withal: because as these pretend to be offended at the law, and by consequence (if they understand the consequents of their own opinion) at them that obey the law; so the others are justly offended at them, that unjustly disobey it. If therefore there be any on the right side as confident and zealous as they who are on the wrong side, then the disagreeing persons are not to be complied with, to avoid giving offence: for if they be, offence is given to better persons; and so the mischief, which such complying seeks to prevent, is made greater and more unjust, obedience is discouraged, and disobedience is legally canonized for the result of a holy and a tender conscience.

6. Thirdly such complying with the disagreeings of a sort of men, is the total overthrow of all discipline, and it is better to make no laws of public worship, than to rescind them in the very constitution; and there can be no end in making the sanctification, but to make the law ridiculous, and the authority contemptible. For, to say that complying with weak consciences, in the very framing of a law of discipline, is the way to preserve unity, were all one as to say, to take away all laws is the best way to prevent disobedience. In such matters of indifferency, the best way of cementing the fraction, is to unite the parts in the authority; for then the question is but one, viz. whether the authority must be obeyed or not. But if a permission be given of disputing the particulars, the questions become next to infinite. A mirror when it is broken, represents the object multiplied and divided: but if it be entire, and through one centre transmits the species to the eye, the vision is one and natural. Laws are the mirror in which men are to dress and compose their actions, and therefore must not be broken with such clauses of exception, which may, without remedy, be abused to the prejudice of authority, and peace, and all human sanctions. And I have known in some churches, that this pretence hath been nothing but a design to discredit the law, to dismantle the authority that made it, to raise their own credit and a trophy of their zeal, to make it a characteristic note of a sect, and the cognizance of holy persons: and yet the men that claimed exemption from the