otherwise, until it is harder to fight broken and divided troops, than an entire body of an army, it will be always easier to maintain the government under a toleration of Diffenters, than in a total change of religion, and even then itself has not failed to have been preserved. But whether it be more or less easy, is not our point; if they are many, the danger is of exafperating, not of making them eafy; for the force of our question is, Whether fuch indulgence be safe to the ftate?' And here we have the first and last, the best and greatest evidence for us, which is fact and experience, the journal and refolves of time, and treafure of the fage.

For, firft, The Jews, that had moft to fay for their religion, and whofe religion was twin to their state, (both being joined, and fent with wonders from heaven) indulged ftrangers in their religious diffents. They required but the belief of the Noachical principles, which were common to the world: no idolater, and but a moral man, and he had his liberty, aye, and fome privileges too, for he had an apartment in the temple, and this without danger to the government. Thus Maimonides, and others of their own rabbies, and Grotius out of them.

The wisdom of the Gentiles was very admirable in this, that though they had many fects of philofophers amongst them, each diffenting from the other in their principles, as well as difcipline, and that not only in phyfical things, but points metaphyfical; in which fome of the fathers were not free, the school-men deeply engaged, and our prefent academies but too much perplexed; yet they indulged them and the best livers with fingular kindness: the greatest statesmen and captains often becoming patrons of the fects they best affected, honouring their readings with their presence and applause. So far were thofe ages, which we have made as the original of wisdom and politenefs, from thinking toleration an error of ftate, or dangerous to the government. Thus Plutarch, Strabo, Laertius, and others.

Το

To these instances I may add the latitude of old Rome, that had almost as many deities as houses: for Varro tells us of no lefs than thirty thousand feveral facra, or religious rites, among her people, and yet without a ́ quarrel. Unhappy fate of Chriftianity! the beft of religions, and yet her profeffors maintain lefs charity than idolaters, while it fhould be peculiar to them. I fear, it fhews us to have but little of it at heart.

But nearer home, and in our own time, we see the effects of a difcreet indulgence, even to emulation. Holland, that Bog of the world, neither sea nor dry land, now the rival of talleft monarchs; not by conquefts, marriages, or acceffion of royal blood, the ufual ways to empire, but by her own fuperlative clemency and industry; for the one was the effect of the other: fhe cherished her people, whatsoever were their opinions, as the reasonable stock of the country, the heads and hands of her trade and wealth; and making them easy in the main point, their confcience, fhe became great by them: this made her fill with people, and they filled her with riches and strength.

And if it should be faid, She is upon her declenfion for all that:' I anfwer, All ftates must know it; nothing is here immortal. Where are the Babylonian, Perfian, and Grecian empires? And are not Lacedæmon, Athens, Rome, and Carthage gone before her? Kingdoms and commonwealths have their births and growths, their declenfions and deaths, as well as private families and perfons: but it is owing neither to the armies of France, nor navies of England, but her own domeftick troubles.

Seventy-two ticks in her bones yet: the growing power of the prince of Orange, muft, in fome degree, be an ebb to that ftate's ftrength; for they are not fo unanimous and vigorous in their intereft as formerly: but were they secure against the danger of their own ambition and jealousy, any body might infure their glory at five per cent. But fome of their greatest men, apprehending they are in their climacterical juncture,

give up the ghost, and care not, if they must fall, by what hand it is.

Others chuse a stranger, and think one afar off will give the best terms, and leaft annoy them: whilst a confiderable party have chosen a domeftick prince, kin to their early fucceffes by the fore-father's fide (the gallantry of his ancestors) and that his own greatness and fecurity are wrapt up in theirs, and therefore modeftly hope to find their account in his profperity. But this is a kind of digreffion; only before I leave it, I dare venture to add, that if the prince of Orange changes not the policies of that ftate, he will not change her fortune, and he will mightily add to his

own.

But perhaps I shall be told, That no body doubts that toleration is an agreeable thing to a commonwealth, where every one thinks he has a fhare in the government; aye, that the one is the confequence of the other, and therefore most carefully to be • avoided by all monarchical ftates.' This indeed were fhrewdly to the purpose, in England, if it were but true. But I do not fee how there can be one true reafon advanced in favour of this objection; monarchies, as well as commonwealths, fubfifting by the prefervation of the people under them.

But, firft, If this were true, it would follow, by the rule of contraries, that a republick could not subsist with unity and hierarchy, which is monarchy in the church; but it muft, from fuch monarchy in church, come to monarchy in ftate too. But Venice, Genoa, Lucca, feven of the cantons of Switzerland, (and Rome herself, for fhe is an aristocracy) all under the loftieft hierarchy in church, and where is no toleration, fhew, in fact, that the contrary is true.

But, fecondly, This objection makes a commonwealth the better government of the two, and so overthrows the thing it would establish. This is effectually done, if I know any thing; fince a commonwealth is hereby rendered a more copious, powerful, and beneficial government to mankind, and is made better to

anfwer

anfwer contingencies and emergencies of ftate, because this fubfifts either way; but monarchy not, if the objection be true. The one profpers by union in worship and difcipline, and by toleration of the diffenting churches from the national. The other only by an universal conformity to a national church. I fay, this makes monarchy (in itself, doubtlefs, an admirable government) lefs powerful, lefs extended, lefs propitious, and finally lefs fafe to the people under it, than a commonwealth, in that no fecurity is left to monarchy under diverfity of worships; which yet no man can defend or forbid but it may often arrive, as it hath in England more than five times in the two laft ages. And truly it is natural for men to chufe to settle where they may be fafeft from the power and mifchief of fuch accidents of state.

Upon the whole matter, it is to reflect the last mischief upon monarchy, which the worst enemies it has could hope to difgrace or endanger it by; fince it is to tell the people under it, that they muft either conform, or be deftroyed, or, to fave themselves, turn bypocrites, or change the frame of the government they live under. A perplexity both to monarch and people, than which nothing can be greater, but the comfort of knowing the objection is falfe. And that which ought to make every reasonable man of this opinion, is the cloud of witneffes that almost every age of monarchy affords us.

I will begin with that of Ifrael, the most exact and facred pattern of monarchy, begun by a valiant man, tranflated to the beft, and improved by the wisest of kings, whose minifters were neither fools, nor fanaticks: here we shall find provifion for Diffenters: their profelyti domicilii were fo far from being compelled to their national rites, that they were exprefly forbid to obferve them. Such were the Egyptians that came with them out of Egypt, the Gibeonites and Canaanites, a great people, that, after their feveral forms, worshipped in an apartment of the fame temple. The Jews with a liturgy; they without one: the Jews had priests, but thefe none: the Jews had variety of ob

lations;

lations; these people burnt-offerings only. All that was required of them was the natural religion of Noab, in which the acknowledgment and worship of the true God was, and it ftill ought to be, the main point: nay, fo far were they from coercive conformity, that they did not fo much as oblige them to obferve their fabbath, though one of the ten commandments: Grotius and Selden fay more. Certainly this was great indulgence, fince fo unfuitable an usage looked like profaning their devotion, and a common nuisance to their national religion. One would think by this, that their care lay on the fide of preferving their cult from the touch or acceffion of Diffenters, and not of forcing them, by undoing penalties, to conform. This muft needs be evident: for if God's religion and monarchy, (for fo we are taught to believe it) did not, and would not, at a time when religion lay lefs in the mind, and more in ceremony, compel conformity from Diffenters, we hope we have got the best precedents on our fide.

But if this inftance be of most authority, we have another very exemplary, and to our point pertinent; for it fhews what monarchy may do: it is yielded us from the famous ftory of Mordecai. He, with his Jews, were in a bad plight with the king Ahasuerus, by the ill offices Haman did them: the arguments he ufed were drawn from the common topicks of faction and fedition, That they were an odd and dangerous people, under different laws of their own, and refufed obedience to his; fo denying his fupremacy.' Diffenters with a witnefs! things moft tender to any government.

The king thus incenfed, commands the laws to be put in execution, and decrees the ruin of Mordecai with all the Jews: but the king is timely intreated, his heart foftens, the decree is revoked, and Mordecai and his friends faved. The confequence was, as extreme joy to the Jews, fo peace and bleffings to the king. And that which heightens the example, is the greatnefs and infidelity of the prince: had the instance been in a Jew, it might have been placed to his greater