and having in yourselves a Christian liberty of your own, which at one time or other may be oppressed, thereof truly sensible, it will concern you so long as you are in power, so to regard other men's consciences, as you would your own should be regarded in the power of others, and to consider that any law against conscience, is alike in force against any conscience, and so may one way or other justly redound upon yourselves. One advantage I make no doubt of, that I shall write to many eminent persons of your number, already perfect and resolved in this important article of Christianity."

He explains what he intended by liberty of conscience: "I here mean by conscience or religion, that full persuasion whereby we are assured that our belief and practice, as far as we are able to apprehend and probably make appear, is according to the will of God and his Holy Spirit within us, which we ought to follow much rather than any law of man, as not only his word every where bids us, but the very dictate of reason tells us, Acts iv. 19, Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. That for belief or practice in religion according to this conscientious persuasion, no man ought to be punished or molested by any outward force upon earth whatsoever, I distrust not, through God's implored assistance, to make plain, by

these following arguments. To sum up all in brief: if we must believe as the magistrate appoints, why not rather as the church? If not of either without convincement, how can force be lawful? But some are ready to cry out, 'What shall then be done with blasphemy?' Them I would first exhort not thus to terrify and pose the people with a Greek word; but to teach them better what it is, being a most usual and common word in that language, to signify any slander, any malicious or evil-speaking, whether against God or man, or any thing to good belonging. Blasphemy, or evil-speaking against God maliciously, is far from conscience in religion, according to that of Mark, ix. 39, There is none can do a powerful work in my name, and can lightly speak evil of me. If this suffice not, I refer them to that well-deliberated Act, August 9th, 1650,* where the Parliament defines blasphemy against God, as far as it is a crime belonging to civil jurisdiction, plenius ac melius Chrysippo est Cranton; in plain English, more warily, more judiciously, more orthodoxally, than twice their number of divines have done in many a prolix volume; although, in all likelihood, they whose

* With the following title-" An Act against several Atheistical, Blasphemous, and execrable Opinions, derogatory to the honour of God, and destructive to Human Society."

whole study and profession these things are, should be most intelligent and authentic therein, as they are for the most part, yet neither they nor these unerring always, or infallible.

"No Protestant, therefore, of what sect soever, following Scripture only, which is the common sect in which they all agree, and the granted rule of every man's conscience to himself, ought, by the common doctrine of Protestants, to be forced or molested for religion. But as for popery and idolatry, why they also may not hence plead for idolatry, I have much less to say. This religion, the more considered, the less can be acknowledged a religion; being indeed more properly named a Catholic heresy against the Scriptures, supported mainly by a civil, and, except in Rome, by a foreign power; justly therefore to be suspected, and not tolerated by a magistrate of another country. Besides, of an implicit faith which they profess, the conscience also becomes implicit, and so by voluntary servitude to man's law, forfeits her Christian liberty. Who then can plead for such a conscience, as being implicitly enthralled to man, instead of God, almost becomes no conscience, as the will, not free, becomes no will. Nevertheless, if they ought not to be tolerated, it is for just reason of state more than of religion; which they who force, though professing to be Protestants, deserve as little to

be tolerated themselves, being no less guilty of popery in the most popish point. On these four reasons, the Scriptures, Testimonies, Examples, and Experiences, as on a firm square, this truth, the right of Christian and evangelick liberty, will stand immoveable against all those pretended consequences of license and confusion, which, for the most part, men most licentious and confused themselves, or such as whose severity would be wiser than Divine wisdom, are ever aptest to object against the ways of God; as if God without them, when he gave us this liberty, knew not of the worst which these men in their arrogance pretend will follow, yet knowing all the worst, he gave us this liberty as by him judged bcst.

"What evangelical religion is, is told in two words, Faith and Charity, or Belief and Practice; and that both these flow either the one from the understanding, the other from the will, or both jointly from both; once indeed naturally free, but now only as they are regenerate, and wrought on by Divine grace, is in part evident to common sense and principles unquestioned; the rest by Scripture."

He thus concludes: "The brevity here, not exceeding a small manuel, will not therefore, I suppose, be thought the less considerable, unless with them perhaps who think that great books

only can determine great matters. I rather chose the common rule, not to make much ado where less may serve, which in controversies, and those especially of religion, would make them less tedious, and by consequence read often by many more, and with more benefit."

In 1658, he dedicated to the Parliament a treatise entitled, "Considerations touching the likeliest way to remove Hirelings out of the Church." In this he employs the same plain and bold style by which his former works are distinguished. The design of this work was to stir up the parliament to abolish the system of tithe, and, instead of it, to leave the support of the established clergy to the voluntary contributions of their respective flocks. The parliament had voted, in 1649, that tithes should be taken away, as soon as another maintenance for the clergy should be agreed upon. Several petitions came out of the country, praying the House to bring the affair to an issue. One member advised that the tithes all over the kingdom might be collected into a treasury, and that the ministers might be paid their salaries out of it; while others, looking upon tithes as unlawful, would have had all the livings valued, and the parish to engage to pay the minister; this subject was now revived, and the Presbyterians became seriously alarmed lest they should be deprived of