ANTI-COTTON ANSWERED. Who comes with five hundred Questions against two and twenty of the Examiner Examind, and yet leaves it out of Question, That the Magistrate ought to suppresse IDOLATRY, &c.
This also were an Iniquity to be punished by the Judge; for I should have denyed the God that is above.
The Magistrate ought to be a terrour to evill workers.
But Idolatry is an evill worke [per eminentiam] Therefore the Magistrate ought to be a terrour to Idolatry.
London, Printed for John Wright, dwelling at the Kings-Head in the Old-Bayley 1653.
To the READER.
SInce the Question is come down the Staires, and delivered over by him that first awakt it to a second; The Author of the Examiner Examind may think it a just reason for himselfe to doe the like.
Accordingly I have taken upon me as a second to answer that second; though in truth there is very little in his discourse that hath need of answering, the chiefest of his matters having beene already foild in New England, and the rest being but frothy words and impertinent divagations, mistakes of the Questioner, frivolous Questions, and full of contradictions.
His words would better become a Play, then sober Truth, who contents her selfe within a modest comely habit; nay she had rather be Nuda then fucata. And though she speaks plaine English, yet abhors scurrilousnesse and railings.
How many long-land digressions doth this Author make in his Booke. He must goe out of his way to meet Tythes, and to fall upon the Ministry &c. Indeed I thinke he is never out of his way, for I am of opinion that he never proposed any to himselfe, not knowing whither his unruly fancy would lead him when he puts pen to Paper.
His mistakings of those short Questions are grosse and frequent, sometimes adding to them, sometimes diminishing them, and grounds many of his Questions upon his owne mistakes, as you have instanced in this ensuing discourse. Besides, he is mistaken in [Page]his whole discourse; there being nothing in the Question that puts Magistrates upon forcing of consciences; and punishing misbeliefe or unbeliefe, but externall acts as Idolatry and Blaspemy, and infection by communicating of Heresie.
Neither is there any thing in the Questions to put the Magistrate upon waging war with Turks or Jews upon the account of Religion. And for the Magistrates judgeing of Heresie, the first Question of the second Examiner doth tax it by way of supposall. That the Magistrate doth know the saving truth and his judgement right in it, and then whether it's not his duty to cause it to be propogated by Lawes,Pag. 41. by maintenance, and suppressing the outward Acts that are contrary: Here is no occasion given for suspending of Magistrates, or for Pagans or Turks to act in Religious matters; for the Questioner speaks of onely such as know the truth. How many frivolous Questions, as what would we doe if Christ should be born againe amongst us, &c. I am loath to cast about how to order things that are impossible to be,Pag. 53. I leave this worke to idle melancholy braines. But I thinke if this Author had lived when Christ was borne, he would not have owned him, because he little respects Moses and the Prophets. His Contradictions are many, and such as destroy his owne Tenet. He confesses all Kings, Queenes, Judges in the World ought to be nursing Fathers and Mothers to Christ and his Followers;Pag. 3. and yet this must be no truth when it's spoken by another, but he'le question it; Is not this to be guilty of a Spirit of Contradiction.
I shall no longer Epistolize the Reader, keeping him from the perusall of the ensuing Discourse, onely I desire him to take notice, that this Defendant of the first Examiner being much given to repetitions in his booke. His clamorous Arguments doe occur almost in every Page, yet though the Defendant speake four times the same thing, I answer the same thing but once; after once Answering esteeming his Arguments when I meet them not to be alive againe, but onely apparitions or Ghosts of Reason walking in a vaine shaddow.
If any thing seem doubtfull in the Replies, some following question or othe will helpe to explaine it, so that by the helpe of comparing one place with another the Reader may be satisfied.
Anti-Cotton Answered.
THIS Defendant goes out top-gallant with his Rhetoricall Sayles hoisted up; as soone as he comes to the maine, I'le encounter him, in the Interim I'le busie my selfe in questioning his setting forth.
I aske,
Qu. 1. Whether he thinks that the Army fought for liberty in Idolatry,Pa. 4. Heresy and Blasphemy, and did prosper for this.
Q. 2. Whether such a Soul-freedome being granted to every man as he points out Pag. 5. would be a meanes to preserve the Common-wealth; Pa. 5. or not rather kindle a desire and an endeavour in the Commonalty after the obtaining of such a liberty for their Bodyes and Estates as is granted them for their Soules, viz. that they might maintaine whom they pleased to rule them according to their abilities and consciences; which being granted in a short time Actum erit de Rep.
Q. Whether he can militate for a toleration of the two great evils, Idolatry and Heresy; and hang out a Flag with this Motto, Soule-freedome. Whereas liberty in whatsoever is evill the Scripture terms bondage.
Now he is come forth: let us heare what he can say against these maine Questions; I'le first propose the questions in their order, and then give a briefe yet full summe of his severall Answers; and then subjoyne a Reply, vindicating those serious Questions from his triviall Questionings.
Question 1.
Whether a Magistrate that knowes the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ Jesus, doe fulfill the Office of a Nursing Father, if he doe not cause this saving Food to be given to his Children; and Poyson, that is a contrary Doctrine to be kept from them?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1.Pa. 7.8.10. Whether this Prophecy (If. 49.23.) is not fixt to the distinct Nation of the Jewes, by (vers. 22) of this Chapter.
2. Whether these Kings and Queenes must needs be such spirituall Fathers as Paul was.
These two Questions joyning issue make up his sixt Question.
3.Pa. 8. Whether Magistrates be not as essentially civill as the Master of a Ship.
4.Pa. 9.11. Whether Pagan Magistrates be not as truly Magistrates as the best Christians; and whether Pagans converted receive any addition to their Magistracy.
5.Pa. 12.20 21. Whether Magistrates have not often been mistaken and given poyson for food, and whether this Doctrine of Kings and Queenes being Nursing Fathers cost not the late King Charles his head.
Reply.
Ad. 1. This Answerer interprets (Isa. 49.23.) to be a Prophecy pecaliar to the Jewes, and fixes this interpretation from (verse 23.) Yet for all this his Spirit is not fixed, but he enclines rather to another interpretation as appeares from his owne words int he later end of this page, viz. whether here is not promised to this People, or rather (saith he) to these Saints whether literall or spirituall Jewes. Thus he enervates the strength of his first Answer by choosing another interpretation; but he is so unconstant that in the tenth Page he seemes to be out of love with his choice, saying that some Kings were thus impowred by God, but what is this to all Kings and Queenes and Magistrates in the world.
To thesE words of his I subjoyne his owne confession in the third page, and desire to know what Harmony there is bet wixt them; page 3. (saith he) I confesse that all Nations, all Peoples, Kings and Judges ought to be nursing Fathers and Mothers to Christ and his followers.
Ad. 2. 1. It is not asserted that Kings and Qneenes should be such spirituall Fathers as Paul was, for then they should give Food to their Children, but the words in the Question are that they should cause this Food to be given. This word (cause) carefully inserted in the Question carelesly omitted by this Answerer perhaps carefully and of set purpose) takes off this needlesse question.
2. I aske whether Magistrates countenancing and maintaining such as Paul for to nurture up their People in the feare of the Lord may not be called nursing Fathers. This Answerer in his next words allowes them to be Shepheards of the People, as Poets (saith he) use to call them; he might have said as Scripture cals them.Ezek. 34.23.
Now a Shepheard ought to provide for his Sheepe and to drive away the Wolves from the Flocks. How much comes this short of a nursing Father.
3. It is said (verse 23.) that Kings and Queenes should bow downe to the Saints; yet from these words there cannot be necessarily drawne this inference, viz. that Magistrates should be so far from challenging this Title of being nursing Fathers, as that they should bow downe and acknowledge the Saints to be their Superiours; for I desire to know, if I bring up a Kings sonne whom I honour above my selfe, whether I may not challenge the Office of a nursing Father without degrading the Infant by setting my selfe above him.
Ad. 3. 1. A Magistrate differs much from a Master of a Ship, in regard that those in the Common-wealth are the Magistrates subjects, but the Passengers in a Ship are not the Masters Subjects, neither was he constituted by them.
2. Notwithstanding this vast difference the Magistrate is desired to doe no more then this answerer allowes to a [Page 4]Master of a Ship, viz. that he shew kindnesse and countenance according to the quality and temper of his owne beliefe and conscience. Vpon this concession the Question will follow, viz. that a Magistrate, &c.
Ad. 4. 1. It is granted that Pagan Magistrates are as truly Magistrates; for by God they rule as well as Christians; but they cannot discharge this their Office so well as Christians; so likewise Pagans are as truly Fathers, but cannot fully discharge their duties till they be Christians, viz. to bring up their Children in the feare of the Lord.
2 A Pagan converted receives no new addition of power to his Magistracy, but onely is enabled to mannage this power which he received from God to a right end, viz. for God.
Ad. 5. 1. What followes upon this that Magistrates pretending to be nursing Fathers have mistaken Poyson for Food; he cannot draw this conclusion that Magistrates ought to take no more care for their Subjects in matters of Religion; by the same Logicke I'le argue that Parents having been mistaken grosly in the education of their Children: Fathers are not to looke after the bringing up of their Children. What a petious Arguments is this?
2. The true consequence will be this, that seeing Magistrates have been often mistaken, therefore they ought to take the greater care and to doe nothing rashly but be well advised.
3. This Doctrine did not cost King Charles his Life, he was farre from being a nursing Father; for he hugged in his bosome that stinging Serpent Idolatry.
4. King Charles was cut off for miscarriages in civill affaires, for not mannaging his power for the good of his Subjects; yet this example should not deterre men from taking the Magistracy upon them, but should rather stir them up to remove the Idols of their Fathers, and to give heed that they rule with diligence and Justice.
Question 2.3.
Whether the Doctrine of Grace that bringeth Salvation, doe [Page 5]not teach men to live Godly, Righteously and soberly; and more particularly, to obey Magistrates, and to live in Love and peace among themselves; and whether such a Doctrine doe not advance the peace and prosperity of a Nation; and consequently, whether a Magistrate be not bound to advance this Doctrine, which doth advance the peace and prosperity of a Nation?
Whether Godlinesse hath not the promise of this life and that to come? And whether these promises doe not containe in them all good and happinesse? and if so whether the Magistrate be not bound, to his power, to advance that godlinesse which gives all good and happinesse to a Nation.
The Summe of the severall answers.
1.Pa. 13.19. Whether the Magistrate receiving his power from the People can have any power in Spirituals.
2.Pa. 14. Whether there be any such thing as a Nationall Church.
3.Pa. 17. Whether there be not flourishing States that are Pagans; and whether the godly are not persecuted; and whether Gods people have any other peace then spirituall peace.
4. Mercy to the persecuted is the upholder of a State,P. 17.18.19. and hath raisd Amsterdam.
Reply.
1.Ad. 1. Whether the Magistrate being stiled a Minister of God for his Peoples good, is not to defend the true Religion as well as keepe the civill peace.
2. Whether a Magistrate in making Laws about Spirituals doth exceed the bounds of his calling, seeing that such lawes are for the good of his Subjects, and his Subjexts have given him power to doe what is for their good.
3. Whether Christians may not give power about Spirituals to their Magistrates, seeing in some cases it is allowd them to make Ministers.
4. Whether we read in Scripture of any punisht for not reforming Idolatry in the reigne of the Kings, besides the [Page 6]Kings themselves, which clearly shews that it is the Magistrates duty to punish Idolatry.
5. Whether the People gave the Magistrate power to give liverty to Idolatry and Heresy.Ad. 2.
1. The Answerers three utrums against Nationall Churches are besides the question; for the words in the question viz. that the Magistrate is bound to advance the Doctrine of grace and godlinesse, doe onely denote that the Magistrate is bound to encourage men to preach this Doctrine and to keepe out of the Pulpit Idolatry and Heresy. I cannot perceive that this question doth erect a Nationall Church; for a Magistrate may doe thus much where the Churches are Congregationall. There is a difference between advancing this Doctrine in a Nation, and making a Nationall Church.
2. I desire to know whether those Presbiterians that admit but one of twenty to be of their Church, or those Independents that are stricter in their admission (whom the Author mentions) deny that the Magistrate is bound to advance the Doctrine of Grace. I am sure the late proposals of divers reverent Divines manifests the contrary, and the Author can assure us what New-England holds in this case.
It is granted that there are many flourishing Nations amongst whom the doctrine of Grace hath not been advanced,Ad. 3. but I aske:
1. Whether their peace and happinesse shall be so permanent as the peace of those amongst whom this Doctrine is advanced, and I referre the Answerer for a resolution of this question to the 37. Psalme: and whether there may not be a peace in wrath.
2. It is granted that the Godly frequently suffer persecution; what will the Author inferre hence? If he will inferre any thing against the question, It must be this, viz. that the advancement of godlinesse hinders the peace of a Nation, and therefore the Magistrate should not advance godlinesse in a Nation for feare of Persecution. What an [Page 7]Heathenish Argument is this. Let the great ones of the Earth take heed of being offended at the Crosse of Christ. Christ saith, Blessed are you when men persecute you for my names sake, and rejoyce that you are counted worthy.
3. This Answerer saith that all outward peace promised upon the condition of holynesse is vanisht. Unto the falsity of this tenet, let these Scriptures witnesse, Prov. 16.7. Revel. 6.14.
Nav; Peace is given upon this condition, that we might serve God in holynesse, Luke 1.74, 75.
I'ts true that mercy upholdeth a Throne, but I aske:
1. Whether such a mercy as to spare where the Lord bids to destroy will not rent a Kingdome from the Magestrates;1 Sam. 15 as the sparing of Agag rent the Kingdome from Saul.
2. Whether it is not cruelty to tolerate infected persons to the infection of others. Here the Answerer brings in Ansterdam for an instance; which (saith he) hath flourished many yeares by being a receptacle of all Fugitives whatsoever.
1. He might as well from the flourishing of Rome have pleaded for the erecting of an Asylum for Theeves and Robbers.
2. Hath not Genevah flourisht many yeares, though that City hath sheltered no Malefactors, who escapting the hands of Justice have fled thither. But all such have been tried and executed according to Law.
3. Is New-England ever the worse for casting out some scismaticall Hereticks.
This Answerer haveing a sting in his taile closes with an Invective against Tythes; divers men of such kind of spirits with their Invectives stirre up the People, bid them cry, and then bawle out upon the Magistrate for not appeasing them; if such men were kept from writing we should have few of these out-cryes.
Question 4.
Whether the Magistrate be not bound to love God with all his [Page 8]might, and accordingly to advance his Glory with all his might? And whether he doe so, if he doe not put forth all his might in advancing Gods true worship and service, and the chiefe good of Gods People committed to his care?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1.Pa. 20.21. The weapons of Christians are not carnall but spirituall, 2 Cor. 10. and these are sufficient to batter all strong holds, and the carnall can effect nothing but a storming the Nations into Hipocrisy.
2.Pa. 10.20. Whether in the New Testament Christ hath appointed the civill Sword to be desendor of his Religion.
3.Pa. 21. Whether Religion did even so flourish as under persecution.
Reply.
1.Ad. 1. Whether the spirts intent in (2 Cor. 10. is not to set out the spirituall might of Ministers against those who disgraced their personall weaknesses. Q. D. though some amongst you say that Paul Evangelist powerfully Manu & Pennâ, but his bodily pesence is weake, his speech is contemptable; yet I doe not approve of this saying, for though Paul walkes in the flesh, that is in this Body, yet he warres not after the Flesh, that is the strength of our warsare consists not in Rhetorical words and pronunciation, we put not the stresse of our warfare upon these, for they are carnall weapons, but ours are spirituall; the result of the whole is. That Ministers who have no good utterance are not to be condemned, or their Ministry thought weak; for they come not in Word but in Spirit.
Thus it clearly appears that by carnal weapons is not meant the civill Sword.
2. Spirituall weapons are sufficient, onely sufficient to bring downe the high thoughts of the heart, and Idolatry, Heresy, and Murders in the heart are only batterd by these weapons, but if Heresy, &c. break forth into externall acts, they may be reached and punished by the civill Sword; [Page 9]and questionlesse this outward punishment of Idolatry &c. might truly convert many, as the erecting of the Gallows for Murderers hath brought many to true repentance, and amendment; yet I doe not deny but this rigor might make many Hipocrites, dor feare Wolves might cover themselves in Lambs clothing be outwardly Lambs: Yet I aske,
1. Whether such Hipocrites are not better for society, then Ravenous Wolves.
2. Whether Idolatry, Heresie, Murther, pent up in the heart, not daring to break forth for feare of Laws, be not lesse displeasing to God, then when for want of restraint they break forth into the members, and become reigning sins; for sins of this latter sort God usually punisheth a Nation; therfore the Magistrate is to restraine such sins: further, if such coercive power of the Magistrates be to be omitted because it makes Hipocrites: I aske,
Why the Preaching of the Word is not to be omitted, seeing that thereby many have stormed into Hipocrisie.
Ad. 2. 1. God hath appointed the civill Sword to defend Religion, Rom. 13.34.
2. The Author might as well aske, why God appoining in the old time Kings to be defenders of Religion, suffered so many of them to be Idolators. Take heed of upbraiding God.
3. If the Revelation be not Apocripha with this Author, he hath cause to beleeve that Kings shall burne the Whore with Fire.
Ad. 3. 1. Whether the flourishing of Religion under Persecution, will excuse the Magistrate from not defending of the true Religion; though the Israelites encrese under the Egyptian bondage, yet Pharaoh goes not unpunisht.
2. I aske, whether the Church is not also encreased by peace, viz. Act. 2.47. Act. 9.31.
Question 5.
The People being bound to pray for Magistrates, that under them they [Page 10]may had a peaceable and quiet life in all godlinesse and honesty. Whether the Magistrate be not bound to doe that which the People are bound to pray that he may doe? And whether he be not also bound to give himselfe up to God to be his Servant and Instument, when he granteth this Prayer?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. Whether these words godlinesse and honesty be rightly translited.
2. That Saints should imagine that the civill Sword should defend their godlinesse, and suppresse ungodlinesse implyes a twofold contradiction.
1. That they must imagine the Magistrate, to have a clearer sight in judging of godlinesse then themselves.
2. It's a Parodoxe that they should not be able to live in godlinesse without the helpe of the Magistrate.
3. Whether the Scope of the place be not this, that God would direct the Magistrates to keepe their States in peace; that in the Peace of those Nations the Saints might have Peace.
4. Whether the blessed Spirit that is in all Gods people be not sufficient to preserve them in godlinesse without the helpe of the Magistrate.
5. Whether in these divisions we may pray, that the Magistrate would judge (whose worship and godlinesse is true, and defend that) and prohibite all others as Hereticall, &c.
Reply.
Ad. The Vulgar Latin renders it ut quietam vivam agamus in omni pietate. 2 Bazd: cum omni pietate 1. This Answerer carps at the translation, yet gives no better, neither a reason of the falsity of this translation. I'ts easie to carpe and multiply questions without a wherefore.
If [...] must not be translated godlinesse, we shall have little godlinesse in our Translation. Most translations translate it godlinesse; for the Readers satisfaction let him read the marginall Notes.
Ad. 2. It's a most nuchristan speech that the Apostle should exhort to any duty, that implyes unchristian Paradoxes; The duty doth not imply these Paradoxes.
1. Christians may defire the Magistrate to defend them, and yet need not imagine the Magistrate to have a clearer discerning in godlinesse then themselves; may not a Carnall man defend a Spirituall man.
2. Cannot the Parlament make a Generall, for the defence of their cause, but they must imagine the Generall to have a clearer discerning of the cause then themselves.
3. I'ts not denied but that they might live a godly life without the Magistrate, yet they could not live a peaceable and quiet life in al godlinesse without the Magistrate.
Ad. 3. The Author comes farre short of the Scope of the place.
1. For in the former chapter Paul had delivered Hymeneus to Satan, that others might learn not to blaspheme, and he begins his Chapter with this exhort. I exhort therefore that Prayers be made for all in Authority, that we may live, &c. Q. d. that they may put forth their power against such Disturbers of the Church, that we may live quietly; this appeares further from the reason that inforces this exhort, (vers. 4.) for God would have all men to be saved and come to the truth.
If the Scope of the place had been that God would direct the Magistrates to keepe their States in peace, that so in the peace thereof, the Saints might have peace: The Author needed not have added this reason in (vers. 4.) for Carnall men without comming to the truth might have kept the State in peace; and so the Author have had his end.
2. If the Author gives the true Scop of the place, the Author shold rather have exhorted tem to pray, that the States (wherein) they lived might have had Warre; for then they would not have been at leasure to torment Saints; for when the Persecutors had Warre with other Nations, then the Srs. were free from Persecution, & when they had [Page 12]Peace, then they made Warre against the Saints. In the Peace of the States the Saints had seldome Peace.
Ad. 4 The Spirit is able to keepe Gods people, though they should want nursing Fathers and Teachers, which as this Answerer saith, are respectively necessary, yet all helps are with Humility to be used, where they may be had, (we have no warrant to cast away meanes) and are respectively necessary, as this Author speakes.
Ad. 5. I'ts not defired that the Magistrate would so judge of one worship (as Prebytery or the like) as to set it up, and condemne all others as Alasphemy, &c. But that he would prohibite Blasphemy and Idolatry, and those that are Blasphemers: and I aske,
Why we may not as safely pray such a Prayer though divers be of a contrary mind, as we prayed for the Parlament, when divers were of a contrary mind.
Question 6.
Whether Abraham and the Heads of other Families before the Law, where not Magistrates in their Families? And whether Abraham did not command his Family to keepe the way of the Lord?Gen. 18.19. And whether God did not commend him for doing so? And whether Jacob did not purge his House from Idols,Gen. 34.2. and caused his Household to goe up to Bethel to worspip the true God?Sect. 10. And whether Abraham and Jacob were meerely Fellow Servant with there Servants (as this Examiner saith) and their Houshold might command Abraham and Jacob, as well as Abraham and Jacob command their Houshold?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. Whether the Questioner deales fairly with the Examiner, in saying that the Examiner saith Abrahams Houshold might command him as well as he them.
2. Whether any consequence can be gathered from Abraham, and Jacob (who purged his House from Idols) for Masters now a dayes to follow, seeing that they were typicall.
3. Whether it be not Gods design to chuse men of low degree, and whether it be not against Gods declared Will that we should expect many Christian Magistrates.
4. Whether a Christian that Participates more of the Spirit of Christ, hath not more power in Religion, then the highest Magistrate.
5. Whether a Subject may not reprove a Magistrate for Sin.
Reply.
Ad. 1. The Questioner doth not at all slander the Examiner laying this assertion to his charge, for that it is his owne child, this Answerer himselfe bears witnesse; for this Answerer confesseth that its an assertion of the Examiner, viz. Pag. 26. That in Religious matters the Magistrate and Subjects are Fellow Servants; I aske then, why this Answerer cavels thus, seeing that the Questioner speakes not of Abraham or Jacob in a civill respect, but onely in a Religious?
Ad. 2. Whether Masters of Families may not draw from Abrahams example, this consequence of causing their Family to keepe the way of the Lord, seeing that they draw the consequence of baptizing their children from Abraham.
2. Whether in this case Abraham was Typicall.
Ad. 3. Though there should not be many Christian Magistrates, yet those few that are, ought the rather to advance the Christian Religion.
2. Whether if God choose men of low degree and make them Magistrates, i'ts not Gods will that they should advance godlinesse.
Ad. 4. He that hath most of the Spirit is not highest in Religious matters: for in the Church militant, order is to be kept, and the valiantestman is not always Captaine. Abilities without a calling doth not give a man Power and Authority.
2. Pari ratione I aske, whether a Subject that participates more of Policy, hath not more power in State matters then the highest States-man.
3. I aske, whether Magistrates may not be high in the Spirit.
Ad. 5. The Subject may reprove a Magistrate, Nathan may reprove David; yet it doth not follow that Nathan may as well command in Religious matters as David.
Question 7.
Whether Artaxerxes did well in making a Decree for the advancement of the true wership of the true God, and in causing Ezra to teach them the law of God?Ezra 7. And whether the King of Nineveh did well to command his People to keepe a generall Fast, and to turne from their evil wayes, whereby he saved that great City? Or whether he might not have done better to have left them to a carelesse liberty, and so to destruction?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. Whether these two Instances be not ill coupled, for Artaxerxes gave free liberty of conscience to the Jews, whereas the King of Nineveh forced his People to Fast.
2. Did Artaxerxes compell the Jews to his Religion, or the Persians to the Jews, or the Jews to goe to Jerusalem.
3. What can be gathered hence; but that it pleaseth God sometimes to affect the hearts of Idolatrous Kings with kindnesse to his People.
4. Whether this Instance makes not for Soul-freedome in that the Jewes were not forced to their owne Jerusalem.
As to the King of Nineveh.
1. Whether examples in Scripture bind our consciences in worship.
2. Whether this Example of the King of Nineveh be fit for all Nations to imitate, seeing that mens consciences differ as much as the Climates in which they live.
Reply.
Ad. 1. The Answerer give us in his booke the Summe of this Question, after this manner. Whether Artaxerxes and the King of Nineveh did well in making there decrees, he [Page 15]puts these two instances under one utrum, whereas the Questioner makes two utrums of them.
Now I aske, who is to be blamed for coupling of these two distinct Instances together.
Ad. 2. There is no such thing asserted, but the Question onely is, whether he did well in what he did doe, or no.
Ad. 3. With a little Logicke this conclusion may be gathered, viz. If Artaxerxes did well in making this decree (which impowred Ezra to set Judges, which may judge all the people that know the Law of God, and to execute Judgement upon them that would not doe them) a Christian Magistrate would doe well in Countenancing and Encourage those that teach the law of the Lord, and in punishing those that would not obey it.
Ad. 1. All the liberty that is granted them is, that they might chuse whether they would goe to Jerusalem or no, but those that went to Jerusalem were not left free to what worship they pleased, for vers. 26. whosoever will not doe the Law, let judgement be executed upon him, &c. So noe Christians are desired to come out of Babilon, but those that are willing. Yet if they come out of Babylon, and dwell under the Christian Magistracy, and will not doe the Law of the Lord, let Judgement be executed upon them.
Ad. 1. Whether those things that were writ aforetime, were not writ for our learning.
Ad. 2. Pari ratione, I'le argue the Alcoran is fitter to be followed then the Bible. Why did not Christ make a particular Bible to sute with the Climates according to the elevation of the People.
Question 8.
Whether any of the Prophets, Apostles, yea our Saviour himselfe did ever except at the Mngistrates Authority, for questioning them in matters of Religion?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. The Prophets and Christ are ill coupled in this Question, because the Law & the Prophets were until John, [Page 16]and so their Actions cannot be brought in as witnesses with Christ.
2. Whether Christ did not except against the Magistrates power in Religion, in that distinction, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, &c. was not giving Caesar his due, a giving God his due, what difference can there be between Gods due and Caesars due, but onely that of matter of conscience Spirituall and Religious which Caesar had no power over.
3. The Apostles not only refused to obey ungodly commands, but even to owne the Courts of the highest in matters of Religion, Act. 4.5.
4. If Christs Followers should owne any Trybunall questioning them by Authority, but Christs in matters of Religion, it would be Blasphemy.
Reply.
Ad. 1. 1. Its true the Prophets Prophecyed of Christs comming untill John, Mat. 11.13. but the substance of their Doctrine is not antiquated by Christs coming, Mat. 5.17.
2. I aske, why the Prophets Testimony may not be coupled with Christs, seeing that the same Spirit that was in Christ, was in the Prophets, 1. Pet. 1.11.
Ad. 2. I cannot conceive what objection against the Magistrates Power can be gathered out of Mat. 22.21. the scope of the place is no more then that the maintaining of Gods service, must not excuse them from maintaining the civill power, for they were Caesars Subjects, and therefore must pay Tribute to Caesar: And though in giving Caesar his due, in some sence they gave God his due (because Magistracy is an ordinance of God) yet this was not Gods whole due (for the Ministry is likewise an ordinance of God) and I thinke the payments towards the maintaining of Gods service were easily to be discerned from Caesars Tribute, and might be called Gods due in a peculiar manner. But none so blind as those that will not see.
Ad. 3.1. I aske, whether the Apostles were not often accuse [Page 17]of Heresie before the Magistrates, did they ever plead the Magistrates had no power to judge of such cases.
Nay, is not Gallio branded for his indifferency and carelesnesse in such cases.
2. I'es false that the Apostles Act. 4.5. refused to own the Court, for they pleaded Non-guilty, and made a defence for them selves which is a full owning of a Court.
Ad. 4. Whether the Apostles by Answering to Courts that questioned them concerning their Religion were guilty of Blasphemy.
Whether Paul counting himselfe happy in that he should Answer before Agrippa counted it a happy thing to speake Blasphemy.
Question 9.10.11.12.
If a beleeving Magistrate, as a nursing Father, recommend to his Children the wholsome Food of the Word, that is able to save their Soules, and encourage those that disperse and dispense it; and withall, forbid others to give abroad the Poyson, contrary to it? Whether the Examiner hath just cause to say, that this is a Ground for another Magistrate to command the giving abroad of Poyson, and to forbid the delivering of the wholesome Food that may save his peoples Soules?
Authority being given by God to Asa to advance true Religion and suppresse Idolatry (which he did to deposing of his Mother) Whether this were a ground for Manasseh, (one of his successours) to set up Idolatry, and a principle of Persecution, whereupon he might kill those that would not worship his Idols?
When God made a Law, that Blaspemy proved by two Witnesses, should be punished with Death: Whether he therein did lay a principle of Persecution or Murder, whereby Jesabel by two false Witnesses might unjustly put Naboth to death?
Whether Paul commanding Christian Fathers to bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, doe hereby lay a Principle whereupon Idolatrous Parents may bring up their Children in the nurture and Doctrine of Idolatry; that is, in the Doctrine of Devils?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. The Examiner is not so void of reason as to imagine that corruptions and abuses are sufficient ground to overthrow a truly Christian constitution.
2. Whether Parents may not doe that which Paul exhorts them to (Eph. 5.) except they force their Children to their own worship.
3. By this rule the Child comming to be Magistrate must force his Father according to that Typicall example of Asa.
By this rule King Edward did well in forbidding his Sister Mary her conscience; and Mary could doe no other then forbid her Sister Elizabeth the use of her conscience.
Reply.
Ad. 1. This Answerer that cannot imagine a Man so void of reason is so Irrationall himselfe; for he brings the Magistrates frequent mistakes in Religion as an argument to overthrow his power about Spirituals.
2 Abuses are to be taken away, or else they wil overthrow a Christian Society; but Idolatry, Superstition &c. are abuses of Gods workes, according to this Authors Catalogue; therefore Idolatry is to be taken away.
Ad. 2. 1. If a Father have Children that be Idolators; he cannot fulfill the command of Paul, except he bring them to the worship of the true God.
2. What is this to the Question, the Question is whether this command of Paul layes a principle for the brining up of Children in Idolatry.
The strength of this Question lyes in the Connexion against which nothing is said by this Answerer.
Ad. 3. I aske, whether a Child comming to be Father over his Country may not judge his owne Father.
2. King Edward did well in forbidding Mary the use of her conscience because she was an Idolator; but this act of Edward to Mary doth not justifie Maries Act to Elizabeth: [Page 19]For though it be good to be Zealous in a good cause, yet not in a bad cause. Zeale makes a good cause better. Zeale makes a bad cause worse.
3. I aske, wherher Edwards forbidding Mary forced Mary to forbid Elizabeth the use of her conscience. I aske whether the Shepheard driving Wolves from his Flocke forces the Wolves to devour his Sheepe? I beleeve if the Shepheard should consent to make no use of his Dogges for the keeping of his Sheepe, the Wolves would not desist from devouring his Sheepe.
4. I aske, whether it be lawfull to cease acting vigorously for God, because we would not have the wicked act vigorously for the Devill and their Idols. And whether upon such a cessation of the godly, the wicked would be lesse wicked. And whether this were not to make an agreement with iniquities?
Question 13.
Idolatry being against the light of Nature,Rom. 3.28. Rom. 1. and therefore punishable under the Law of Nature, and so acknowledged by Job, who lived before the Law of Moses; Whether the Magistrate under the Gospel (which gives more light to the discovery of the sinfulnesse and guilt of Idolatry) may not also restraine and punish that sin?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. Whether there be not divers interpretations of this place, 1. the Septuagint renders it thus, viz. this would have been judged a very great iniquity.
2. Some interpret beholding the Sun and Moon, &c. Metaphorically for being pust up with Prosperity and Successe.
2. Shall we follow Jobs example and erect New lands of Canaan?
3. Gods People are commanded to disobey the civill power in Spirituals, Col. 2.16.
4. Is there not two sorts of Idolatry, 1. Religious worshiping false gods, 2. Morall, as Covetousnesse.
5. Is there not a fallacy in the terme Light of Nature.
6. In Jobs time corporall now spirituall judgements re onely proper.
7. Where lies the Harmony betweene these two Scirptures, Rom. 2.1 Cor. 1.
8. Whether naturall wisdome can attaine to a true and saving knowledge of God.
9. The civill Sword is to cut off all incivilities though masked under religious pretences, and when Idolatry breaks forth into Whoredome and Murther i'ts to be punished.
Hence I honour that noble act of Augustus against Ovid, and doubtlesse it is the duty of the civill Sword to cut off long Haire.
10. If God had conceald the old Test. from us, I aske, in what place of the New-Testament he hath commanded the Sword to be drawne in his quarrell.
11. Whether such Nations as were wholly Idolatrous were punished by David.
12. Whether Christ hath not lockt up the Magistrates hands; saying, let the Tares alone untill the Harvest.
Reply.
Ad. 1. 1. I aske, whether the Septuagint being a translation be any further to be credited then it agrees with the Originall.
2. Whether we may not justly suspect the Septuagints translation of verse 28. of this Chapter, seeing that in vers. 11. they omit wholly what they translate in vers. 28. what they omit in one place we have ground to think they will safely translate in another place where it cannot be omitted.
3. Whether Job 31.26. beholding the Sun is to be interpreted Metaphorically for being puft up with prosperity and successe: It's directly opposite to the scope of the place; for 1. this Iniquity was not to be punished by the Judges.
2. This Sentence, (viz. an iniquity to be punished by the Judges) is annexed, vers. 11. unto the hainous crime [Page 21]of Adultery, and is not annexed to any one sin besides in the whole Chapter, but onely to this sin mentioned in this six and twentieth verse.
Therefore I Argue that beholding the Sun, must be an iniquity of greater magnitude then to be puft up with successe.
4. That this iniquity which was to be punished by the Judges is Idolatry, I thus argue:
1. Beholding the Sun and kissing the hand is interpreted to be a Religious worshipping the Sun: For it was a custome in worshipping the gods to kisse them, as appears from 1 King 19.18. Now the Sun being two farre distant they kissed their hands, divers Authors witnesse that this was the manner of worshipping the Sun.
2. Iniquity in the twenty eighth verse may be well put for Idolatry which is iniquity per eminentiam: we have Iniquity put for Idolatry, Josh. 22.17. Numb. 25.4.
That Iniquity is to be thus taken in this place appears from the reason that is immediately subjoyned, viz. for I should deny the God that is above.
Ad. 2. Whether the Magistrates in Jobs time (who was by the concession of this Author before Moses) punishing Idolatry did erect such a Canaan as that which the Jews erected in Moses time.
Ad. 3. Col. 2.16. is spoken of the Ceremoniall uncleannesse that some did put betweene Meats and Drinks &c. which were indifferent in themselves: compare this place with Rom. 14.2.3. 1 Tim. 4.3.4, 5. and it will appeare that there is no such command given as to disobey the civill power commanding a right about Spirituals: Againe, nothing at all is spoken concerning the Magistrate in that place.
Ad. 4. This division of Idolatry is not very acurat, for Covetousnesse is Religious Idolatry as well as the worshipping of false gods.
I shall not further discusse this Question of the Answerers in this place, for (he saith) he hath spoken it before, [Page 22]and afterwards he speaks it againe; indeed most thing, he speaks have two or three Ecchoes.
Ad. 5. 1. I think this Answerer meanes fallacia extra dictionem, for there is no fallacy used at all.
2. This Answerer himselfe knows there is no fallacy used at all in that terme light of Nature. For in pag. 66. of his booke he uses this terme in the same sense that it's used in the Question, his owne words are these, viz. Nations may attaine to (by the light of Nature) many convictions of a Godhead.
Ad. 6. This Answerer will never be able to prove, that under the Law corporall Judgements, and under the Gospell Spirituall Judgements are proper 40. modo. Is not Pharaoh punished with hardnesse of heart a Spirituall Judgement, besides all his Corporall punishments, and are not Corporall punishment spoken of in the Gospell, when it's said the Kings shall burne the Whore with Fire.
Ad. 7. There is a blessed Harmony betweene those two Scriptures Rom. 1.1 Cor. 1.21.
The Scope of Rom. 1. is, that though they know God to be invisible, yet they gave the glory of the Creator to the Creature. That of 1 Cor. 1.21. asserts that by the Creation, the world could have no saving knowledge of God; therefore it pleased God to reveale by preaching.
I aske, what discord there is betweene these two Scriptures.
Ad. 8. What this Author saith against the light of Nature attaining to a saving knowledge of God, I passe by, as Impertinencies; for the Question asserts no such thing.
Ad. 9. This Answerer granteth that if Idolatry breakes forth into Murther and other incivilities, the Magistrate is to suppresse these wicked practises and the principles of them. Now I aske,
Whether Idolatry being the principle of wicked practises (as this Author confesseth, and Paul proves Rom. 2.) be not to be suppressed.
2. If the civill Sword ought to cut off Womens haire [Page 23]from mens heads as being an incivility, I aske, whether the Magistrates ought not to make an Act against the Perewigs about the Chin, and whether this Answerer would honour the Civill Sword, if it should correct Anamolus Beards, and bring them within rule: whether he would not suffer a Nazarite to live.
3. Let the Reader observe the Pharisaical Zeal of this Answerer, who strains at a Gnat and swallowes a Camell: It's a Charracter of a rotten Zeale to be carefull in the lesse, and carelessely to pretermit the weightier matters of the Law.
Ad. 10. God hath commanded the Sword to be drawne against evill doers, Rom. 13. in Rev. It is said the Kings shall burne the Whore with Fire, and 1 Tim. 2.
Ad. 1 1. It's granted David did not punish those Nations that were wholly Idolatrous as the Ammonites, neither were the Israelites punished for Idolatry, when they wholly turned to Idols, viz. 1 Sam 7.2.3, 4.2 King. 23.9. 1 Kin. 18.39. neither could they be punished, it's like the case of the Sonnes of Serviah.
2. If Strangers did sojourne in the land of Canaan, they might be compeld from publicke and scandalous breaking of the Morall Law, Neh. 13.16. Exod. 20.10.
Ad. 12. I aske, whether by Tares is ment Idolators and Blasphemers.
Question 14.
Idolatry by the testimony of Paul, drawing downe heavie plagues upon a People,Rom 1.18. & seq. and delivering them up to a grievous and abominable sinnes, the worst of Plagues, whereof he giveth a Catalogue; and actually causing the Land of Canaan to spue out the Inhabitants;Levit. 20.2.3, 22, 23. Whether it doe not concerne the Magistrate to deliver his People from those Plagues, by taking away Idols, the cause of them, and to cast out Idolatry, rather then it should cast out the People from the Land where he governeth?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. Whether Covetousnesse be not as truly Idolatry as worshiping of false gods, how then can we cry out against [Page 24]Idolators; the greatest Idolator cryes out against the lesse.
2. Doth Idolatry with out other Sins bring Plagues upon a Land; and was there not a remedy for the Idolatry of Gods People (1 Chron. 36.) untill they mocked and despised the Messengers of God?
1. Is it not better to instruct Idolators and Blasphemers then knock them in the Heads?
3. If the Protestants should conquer France, what should they doe with all the Papists?
4. Was not the Land of Canaan and all the People of it Tipicall?
5. Whether all violence in Religion be not for some sinister interest; Jehu pretends Zeale to God, yet having got the Throne of Jeroboam to maintaine that Throne he keeps up the worship of the Calves.
6. Whether any man can professe to be a Minister of Christ, and by the rules of Christ depend on that for maintenance to him and his.
7. By this Tenet many of the Servants of Christ have been hunted as the greatest Hereticks.
Reply.
Ad. 1. It's true that in the Gospell there is a clearer discovery of the Idolatry of the heart then in the Law; and i's also true that in the fifth of Matthew, Christ makes a clearer discovery of the Murther and Adultery of the heart. But I aske, Whether since this discovery of the Idolatry Murther and Adultery of the heart religious Idolatry (as this Author stiles it) may plead non-guilty; the Reader for his further satisfaction in this case may read the eighteenth Question of the worthy Questionist.
2. I aske, whether Covetousnesse is worse Idolatry then Religious worshiping of a false god; many interpret the place, Covetuousnesse is as Idolatry, it being the wont of Scripture, when it would set out the hainousnesse of any [Page 25]sin to compare it to this great sin Idolatry; Covetousnesse is Idolatry by by reduction, the other direct Idolatry.
Ad. 2.1. Idolatry is usually accompanied with other sins.
2. If Idolatry was added to the many crying Sinnes of this Nation it might make us ripe for Judgement.
3. Its not asserted that the committing of a Sin shuts a man out of the Church, but it's obstinacy and pertinacy in his fault that makes him liable to censures; and the Magistrate is to try by faire meanes to reduce such as are out of the way, but if they will not be reclaimed but despise the Messengers and goe on perverting others, the Magistrate is to inflict punishments upon them.
Ad. 3. If the Protestants should be Masters of an Idolatrous Country; none holds that they should kill all the Idolators, but they might take the Prophets of Baal (1 Kin. 18.40.) and cause them to be taught otherwise, and not permit carrying of the Idols about streets, &c. The Magistrate in such a case is not to compell men to become Christians, yet he is to punish them for their Blaspheming 1 King. 20.23.
Ad. 4. Suppose the Jewes to be Tipicall, yet this argument is of no force, for Idolatry was punishable by the morall Law.
Ad. 5. 1. Such reformers as Jehu have their zeale byassed with interest, and that is the reason that they are not thorough-reformers, and that they take not heed with al their heart; but having got the Throne of Jeroboam their maine end, they care not for pulling down the Calves. But God will visite the blood of such.
2. I aske, Whether there have not been Reformers that have pulled downe Idols and not for any sinister end, and whether this Author would submit to such reformers.
Ad. 6. This Question is besides our present discourse, yet because this Answerer desires to be corrected of his error in it, for the correction of his error I referre him to 1 Cor. 9.14.
Ad. 7. Its not this Tenet, but the abuse of it that hath caused persecution against the Saints: so likwise that Tenet of punishing Murtherers by death, hath taken out of the Land of the living many an Innocent: But these abuses cannot be brought as an Argument to destroy the things themselves; for this Answerer confesseth in the thirty ninth page of his Books, that no man can be so void of reason as from Abuses and Corruptions to destroy a true Christian constitution.
Question 15.
Whether this Examiner doe not directly set himselfe to confute the Apostle;Sect. 9. Paul for the Examiner argues that it is not easie to find that the Heathen should not make a graven Image, nor any marvell that they should by the forme of some Creature represent the invisible Being, and worship him in the forme of such a representation. But Paul just on the contrary proveth, That by the things that are made and seen,Rom. 1. the invisible things of God, even his eternall power and God-head are so manifest, that they are without excuse who knowing God doe not justifie him as God, but change the glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man, and to Birds and foure footed Beasts. But this brings to mind that saying concerning Idols; That have eyes and see not, and they that worship them are like them, and so are those that plead for them?
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. The Examiner is unchrstianly dealt withall in this question.
2. If it be so easie to escape Idolatry how comes it to passe that there are so many Idolators, and that Gods People have so often fallen into Idolatry?
3. Since there are may ways of worship in this Nation, as Presbiters & Independency, &c. and all of them are carved Images except that which Christ hath appointed, and yet Gods People have an hand in erecting them: I aske, Whether it be not easier for the Indians to erect Images of Gold.
Reply.
Ad. 1. If the Examiner pursues a Tenet that thwarts the Scripture, it is Christian to deale plainly with him, and tell him that he sets himselfe against the Scripture: rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith.
Ad. 2. 1. The Questioner doth not say its easie to escape Idolatry, but that its easie to find out that the Heathen should not make Idols. There is great difference betwixt finding out a vice, and escaping a vice: Many a Theefe can easily find out that theft is a vice; yet cannot so easily escape it.
By this it plainly appears that the divers Questions urged to prove that it's not easie for the Nations to escape Idolatry, are nothing to the purpose, but heaps of cowardly Sophistry, changing the Question because he cannot Answer.
2. I grant, it's more easie to be an Idolator then a true worshipper of God, for it's difficult to worship in Spirit and truth: Hence it's (because Idolatry is easie and carnall) that there are so many Idolators.
3. It's easie to find out Murther is a Sin; yet (according to this Authors Logick) Iaske, how it came to passe that David fell into this Sin?
Ad. 3. Iaske, whether Presbitery Indep. &c. which destroy no fundamentals be so grosse as Idolatry; or be so easily to be discerned for true or false, as Idolatry which is contrary to the light of Nature.
Question 16.17.18.
Whether Idolatry may not be punished;Sect. 5. because the Magistrate doth not know the heart of the Idolators? And whether this reason do not directly oppose that Law of God which punisht Idolatry, and the execution agreeable to that Law; when those that worshipt the Calfe were slain by the command of Moses; and the worshippers of Baal by Jehu; and the Prophets of Baal by Elias.
17. Whether Idolaters may not be convicted by outward actions, professions and confessions;Sect. 5. and thereby the heart of an Idolator discovered, as well as the heart of a Man-killer? For such a one is condemned behause of Malice in his heart; without which it were not Murder nor he a Murderer?
18. If two sinnes be of a hainous Nature and both deserve punishment, Sect. 5. Whether one that can be discerned should be spared, because the other is not punished for want of discerning; yea, whether of both may be discerned and punishable, yet neither should be punisht, because both are not.
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. Whether those examples of punishing the worshippers of the Calfe are presidentiall; if these example be presidentiall, Its the duty of the Magistrate to destroy the greatest part of the world.
2. As to the instance of Murther there is a threefold difference betweene civill crimes against the State and spirituall crimes against God.
1. There were never any in the world but by the darke light of Nature they have condemned these foure Sins, Murther, Adultery, Theft, Lying.
2. Those foure are easily convinced and ashamed, they cannot but confesse themselves sinners.
3. Without punishing the foure former it's impossible men should live as men.
4. To the punishing of Idolatry is the tow edged sword of no estirnation is the delivering up of the Nations to unnaturall lusts, Rom. 1. no terror with us.
Reply.
Ad. 1. 1. The alledged examples (suppose them to be Tipicall) are sufficient to prove that an Idolator may be punished though a magistrate knows not his heart, and [Page 29]the Examples are alledged to no other purpose.
2. Let the Reader observe how this Answerer nibbles about the sides of these Questions nad dares not meddle with the body of them. And indeed it's his usuall course to speak against some one part of the Question, and he seldome meddles with the connexion that tyes the parts of the Question together, wherein lies the strength of most of the Questions, for as much as they are Hypotheticall.
3. That it's the duty of the Magistrate to destroy the greatest part of the world cannot be gathered from the former Examples: For we read (1 King. 18.39.) in that generall defection of the People, all were not destroyed but onely the Ring-leaders: and I aske,
How consequence can be gathered hence for the punishing of such Nations, as the Moabites; for this is contrary to Davids practise, which this Answerer urgeth before.
Ad. 2. 1. In Answer to the first difference alledged, I say he contradicts himselfe in saying, that all Nations in the World condemne Murther, for in pag. 51. of his booke he saith that the Mexicans murther many thousand Infants to their Dieties, &c. What are not the Mexicans in the World: Againe, sure this Author never heard of Man-eaters, nor of Duellers: farther, if no crime should be punished by the Magistrate, but what hath beene condemned by all Nations, It's plain Murther should not be punished.
2. In answer to his second difference, I aske, whether many resolute Theeves have not been hanged in England, that would not confesse their fault: I beleeve if Idolatry was punished as Murther is, many Idolators and Hereticks would recant, yet I doe not deny but that some Idolators in their gallantry might give their Bodies to be burnt.
3. In Answer to his third I say, without punishing Idolatry and Heresie, it's as impossible men should live as Christians, 1 Tim. 2.2.
Ad. 3. 1. That of the two edged Swords is formerly answered.
2. I aske, whether adding Adultery to Murther, ought [Page 30]to free that Murtherer from the civill Sword: Gods punishing with spirituall judgements should rather awaken the Judges of the Earth to execute Judgement.
Question 19.
Whether Asa did well in forbidding Idolatrous worship, and bringing the People into a Covenant with God;Sect. 22. since (as the Examiner saith) he might thereby have made many to turne Hipocrits: when yet the Scripture saith, that they sware with all their heart and sought God with their whole desire?2 Chr 15 And though Hypocrisie should follow such boly commands, whether the fault of Hypocrisie be not from the Corruption of the Hypocrite,Rom. 7.12.13 and not at all from a holy and good Command.
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. It was no guilt of Hypocrisie in Asa to compell that whole Nation, but now to force thousands to a Religion their Fathers knew not; fils a Nation with Hipocrisie.
There is a twofold Hipocrisie, that which is more hidden and secret as Achitophels with David; that which is more open, as that of the ten Tribes professing the name of the God of Israel, and yet with all the worship of the Calves; Is not this the state of a thousand named Christians professing Christ in word but in workes denying him, over-spread with Abominations and I dolatries.
2. To force the Ignorant prophane Nations into a pretended holy fellowship with God, is more then to force into the Beds of men of Honour impudent Whores.
Reply.
Ad. 1. 1. It was no guilt of Hipocrisie in Asa for it's said the People swore with all their heart: but I aske this Answerer, Whether Josiah was guilty of Hipocrisie of the People that turned fainedly unto the Lord, whether if the Magistrate (Gods vicegerent) and the good Laws he makes and execute [Page 31]be the cause of Hipocrisie, God & his Law may not be said to be guilty of Hipocrisie? whether good commands be not to be executed, notwithstanding the Hipocrisie that may follow, in regard that some men onely yeeld outward conformity: whether God for the outward reforming of some Magistrates hath not spared a Nation for their time, and afterwards punished the Nation for their Hipocrisie: which clearly shews that if the heart of a Magistrate be upright in reforming, he is not guilty of Hipocrisie, though his people hipocrititally conform, &c.
2. Its not desired that men should be forced to a Religion their Fathers, knew not, but that they might be kept from Idolatry and Heresie.
3. The Magistrate may prevent this open Hipocrisie of denying God in their worke by punishing those Abominations: Iaske,
Whether a Magistrate punishing these Abominations would by that means fill a Nation with Hipocrisie of this latter sort; whether Asa his forbidding Idolatrous worship filled the Nation with the worship of the Calves: I think Nations are filled with Hipocrisie of this latter sort be the Magistrate not exercising his power to restraine them.
4. In that first Chapter of Titus quoted by this Answerer, the reason is given why so many Professors denyed God in their works, and it was, because the mouthes of Seducers were not stopt, and ordained Elders set up amongst the Cretians; so that the Magistrates setting up an able Ministry and stopping the mouths of Seducers need not feare the filling of his Nation with Hipocrisie.
Ad. 2. 1. I aske, Who pleads for the forcing of Ignorant prophane men into fellowship with God; It's only desired that they may be taugh the Law of the Lord; I hope this is no defiling the bed of Christ.
2. Whether he that pleads for the permitting of Spirituall whoredomes and abominations amongst Christians is not guilty of this crime?
Question 20.
Whether the parts and portions of Scripture that contain Principles necessary to Salvation,Sect. 9. deserve to be called meerly by the Name of Formes, and much lesse to be despised under that Name? And consequently whether the Examiner think it fit upon the title of Formes to despise the Pinciples of the Doctrine of Christ mentioned by the Author to the Hebrews? Heb. 6.1.
The Summe of the severall Answers.
1. The words of the Examiner are only these (viz. do you yet make so much of Forms as to force men to bow down to them) from which words cannot be gathered that he cals any principle of Salvation a Forme or despiseth it under that name: His words seeme to note that there are many forms of worship, and that every Sect is apt to force others to bow downe to his Forme.
2. Papist and Protestant talke of Principles necessary to Salvation, and yet binde up all in one, To beleeve as the Church beleeves.
3. Divers reckon up many fundamentals, yet I aske what we think of the short word the Lord Jesus, and howsoever some grant that a distinct knowledge of Christ is necessary to Salvation; yet we know what is extant of a possibility of Salvation without a distinct knowledge of Christ. I aske, Whether it be not dangerous to set a bound of so much knowledge (as to the degrees of it) without which there is no Salvation.
4. Forms of worship are usually without the power of godlinesse; yet I acknowledge there have been encreasings of light in Nationall reformings; and I am farre from imagining that people should hold nothing and doe nothing, but I desire men should examine the Scripture and hold fast to the death that which they have received from the Father of lights; And yet better sit still, then still rise and fall.
Have all the Spirit, the calling, the presence of God with them as the Apostles had; were it not better for us to acknowledge [Page 33]how naked and blind we are, and to listen to the councell of Christ.
5. What Christanity is that which commands that no Doctrine be Preached but what the civill sword shall say is true and Orthodox.
Reply.
Ad. 1. 1. I aske whether, if Idolatry and Heresie be directly against the fundamentals or principles of Salvation, the Examiner speaking the fore quoted words in behalfe of Idolators and Hereticks, doth not call the principles of Salvation Formes and despise them under that name.
2. Though there be many forms of worship, as Presbiters, Independents, &c. yet I hope Idolatry cannot be called a forme of worship, for it's placed in direct opposition to worship by the Apostle, viz. they turned from Idols to serve the true and living God.
Ad. 2. I aske, whether it be not one maine point wherein the Protestant differs from the Papist, viz. not to beleeve as the Church beleeves.
Ad. 3. 1. I doe not know what this Author thinkes of this one name, Christ Jesus; for he doth not know himselfe whether to make it a fundamentall or no; as appeares from his doubtfull speeches.
But the Scripture saith there is no other name given under Heaven whereby we must be saved, and no man can lay any other foundation.
3. It's very dangerous to limit saving knowledge as to the degrees of it: but as to limit this knowledge as to the heads or parts of it, there is no danger. Now when we speake of principles of Salvation, we speake meerly of the heads or parts of saving knowledge, but not at all of the degrees of these parts.
Ad. 4.2. If there have been severall encreasings of light in Reforming, why should the Children of the light hinder Reformation? This should rather be a worke of the Children [Page 34]of darknesse, who cannot abide the Light because their works are evil.
2. This Author seems to be in a good mind, he would have the People hold something, and doe something, but he is of another mind quikly, aliud stans, aliud sedens cogitat, for in the next words he thinks it better to sit still then still to rise and fall: I am not of this mans mind, I should rather choose to goe halting and stumble now and then, then not to goe at all. And further, I thinke every man is bound to act according to his light; & though he have not the Spirit, to act as far as the light of Nature and Reason will carry him, Its but a proud Tenet to be no body or else the best; and againe, a man may be illighted by the spirit though no saving work which light may further him in actions of such a Nature.
But more particularly I aske,
1. Whether Magistrates have not a calling, and also the presence of God amongst them.
2. Whether God hath not promised to be with the Ministry to the end of the world.
3. This is good councell, we desire that no mans Inventions might be set up but that Christ and his Word might be the onely Councellors.
Ad. 5. This is false, no such thing asserted but the contrary, viz. that the Magistrate take care that no Doctrine be preached but what the Scripture shall say is true.
Question 22.
If God was to be Blest, Ezr. 7.27. for putting into the Heart of a Heathen Magistrate to make Laws for the advancement of true Religion; Whether he doth not come neer to a curse that would take out of the Heart oj a Christian Magistrate the advancement of true Religion, and perswade him to give a Toleration to the chiefe Enemies of Religion, Idolatry and Heresie.
This Answerer saith, that the Proposer highly esteemes this example of Ezra 7. for he is not content to mention [Page 35]it in the seventh Question, but he brings it in againe at last. I wonder this man is given so much to cavilling; let the Reader judge whether Ezra 7. be not brought in here to another purpose then its in the seventh Question.
And let the Reader observe how highly this man esteemes 1 Cor. 10. Col. 2. indeede every thing he saith, for he hath scarse an Argument in his Booke, but he babbles it over and over againe, and when he hath no way left to bring in his old Traind-Band of Arguments, you shall have them with an omitto usherd in, &c. or not to respect what hath been said before, or the like, and then he tels all his old taile.
But he tels us that to this Question he'le adde some new Queres, but he makes a false Mustam, for these are but old ones fetcht up againe for to make up a number.
For, as for his first Quere that he saith he'le adde, we have this Quere before in Pag. 74. and againe in Pag. 78. and else where: His second Quere by way of addition, we have before in Pag. 31. His third we have often before in his booke, &c.
I shall make an end desiring God, that he would stirre up thr Magistrate to put forth his power for encouragement of the true Religion; for as long as People are kept at this passe, that they will have no King nor Ruler in Israel, every man will doe what is good in his owne eyes.
And those that cut off the Magistrate from acting in Ecclesiasticks, will at last suspect the Magistrates power in Civils: This Author seemes to become so far as to suspect a Murtherous snare in the Law against Theeves and Whores, seeing that these Lawes fall often upon honest chast Persons.