The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan. Or, A treatise against toleration and pretended liberty of conscience: wherein by Scripture, sound reason, fathers, schoolmen, casuists, Protestant divines of all nations, confessions of faith of the Reformed Churches, ecclesiastical histories, and constant practice of the most pious and wisest emperours, princes, states, the best writers of politicks, the experience of all ages; yea, by divers principles, testimonies and proceedings of sectaries themselves, as Donatists, Anabaptists, Brownists, Independents, the unlawfulnesse and mischeif [sic] in Christian commonwealths and kingdoms both of a vniversal toleration of all religions and consciences, and of a limited and bounded of some sects only, are clearly proved and demonstrated, with all the materiall grounds and reasons brought for such tolerations fully answered. / By Thomas Edvvards, Minister of the Gospel. The first part. Casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan. Part 1 Edwards, Thomas, 1599-1647. 1647 Approx. 639 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 116 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A83437 Wing E225 Thomason E394_6 ESTC R201621 99862121 99862121 114270

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A83437) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 114270) Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 62:E394[6]) The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan. Or, A treatise against toleration and pretended liberty of conscience: wherein by Scripture, sound reason, fathers, schoolmen, casuists, Protestant divines of all nations, confessions of faith of the Reformed Churches, ecclesiastical histories, and constant practice of the most pious and wisest emperours, princes, states, the best writers of politicks, the experience of all ages; yea, by divers principles, testimonies and proceedings of sectaries themselves, as Donatists, Anabaptists, Brownists, Independents, the unlawfulnesse and mischeif [sic] in Christian commonwealths and kingdoms both of a vniversal toleration of all religions and consciences, and of a limited and bounded of some sects only, are clearly proved and demonstrated, with all the materiall grounds and reasons brought for such tolerations fully answered. / By Thomas Edvvards, Minister of the Gospel. The first part. Casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan. Part 1 Edwards, Thomas, 1599-1647. [8], 218 p. Printed by T.R. and E.M. for George Calvert, and are to be sold at the golden Fleece in the Old-Change., London, : 1647. Running title reads: A treatise against toleration. and pretended liberty of conscience. Annotation on Thomason copy: "June 28th". Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Religious tolerance -- England -- Early works to 1800. 2007-03 Assigned for keying and markup 2007-03 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2008-02 Sampled and proofread 2008-02 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

THE CASTING DOWN of the laſt and ſtrongeſt hold of Satan. OR, A TREATISE Againſt Toleration And pretended Liberty of Conſcience:

Wherein by Scripture, ſound Reaſon, Fathers, Schoolmen, Caſuiſts. Proteſtant Divines of all Nations, Confeſſions of Faith of the Reformed Churches, Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtories, and conſtant practiſe of the moſt pious and wiſeſt Emperours, Princes, States, the beſt Writers of Politicks, the experience of all Ages; yea, by divers Principles, Teſtimonies and Proceedings of Sectaries themſelves, as Donatiſts, Anabaptiſts, Browniſts, Independents, the unlawfulneſſe and miſcheif in Chriſtian Commonwealths and Kingdoms both of a Ʋniverſal Toleration of all Religions and Conſciences, and of a limited and bounded of ſome Sects only, are clearly proved and demonſtrated, with all the materiall Grounds and Reaſons brought for ſuch Tolerations fully anſwered.

By THOMAS EDVVARDS Miniſter of the Goſpel.

The Firſt Part.

2 Chron 34. 32, 33. And Joſiah took away all the abominations out of all the Con 〈…〉 that pertained to the childre of Iſrael, and made all that were preſent in Iſrael to ſerve, even to ſ ve the Lord their God. And cauſed all that were preſent in Jeruſalem and Beniamin i ſtand to it.

London, Printed by T. R. and E. M. for George Calvert, and are to be ſold at the golden Fleece in the Old-Change. 1647.

To the Chriſtian Reader.

GOod Reader, I fully intended, and accordingly had provided that this firſt Part of Anti-Toleration ſhould have come into thy hands more compleat and perfect then it does for the preſent: I prepared an Epiſtle Dedicatory to the Honourable Houſes of Parliament ſutable to the nature of Toleration and the Times, as alſo a Preface and Introduction to that Argument and Subject wherein laying down the Prolegomena & Praecognita of this Noble and famous Queſtion of Liberty of Conſcience, as certain Diſtinctions about Magiſtrates and their Power, of Errors and Opinions, of Perſons holding them, of Toleration and Liberty, as ſome Conceſſa, ſome Negata, certain miſtakes and miſrepreſentations of the ſtate of the Queſtion, with divers other Particulars, I drew up the true ſtate of the Queſtion both Theologically and Politically (it being a mixt queſtion) beſides I purpoſed to have added to this Part further proofs out of the New Teſtament againſt Toleration, and for the Magiſtrates power: But theſe Preparatives and Additionals amounting to about ſome en ſheets, (the reviewing, perfecting, and printing whereof would take up at leaſt twenty dayes) and not knowing what a Day might bring forth, the Storm comming on ſo faſt, I thought it beſt, for fear this Book might be ſuppreſſed at the Preſſe and never ſee the Sun, to ſend it forth as it was, that the Church of God at home and abroad might have the benefit of it, and to reſerve the reſt for a ſecond Part (if God ſpare life and liberty.) In this preſent Tractate is handled the Scripturall part of Anti-Toleration (the beſt foundation and only ground-work to build on) wherein there are not only the Scriptures produced for proof, but made good by ſeverall reaſons from the text and context, with all the evaſions to clude and put them off, fully anſwered. The ſubject matter of this Book is the great Controverſie of the times, Toleration being that very thing for which God hath a controverſie with the Parliament and Land, having moſt juſtly, (however tis moſt unjuſt on their part) raiſed up that Generation not to ſuffer them, becauſe they have againſt the councel of God, yea againſt all ſenſe and reaſon, let them alone and ſuffered them to grow to this Head. I remember what God ſaid to his people Iſrael,Numb. 33. 52, 5. that if they did not drive out the Canaanites and deſtroy their pictures &c. they ſhould be pricks in their eyes and thorns in their ſides, and ſhould vex them with their wiles, King 20. 42. What of the King of Iſrael, becauſe that he let go out of his hand a man appointed to deſtruction, therefore his life ſhould go for his life, and his people for that people; as alſo what of the Angel of Thyatira, that Chriſt had a quarrell with him for ſuffering that woman Jezabel to teach and to ſeduce his ſervants.Revel. 2. 20. And we may ſee how God hath now fulfilled this upon the Parliament, Miniſtry, City, Kingdome, vexing us and threatning heavy things againſt us by the Sectaries, puniſhing us wherein we have offended. In all ages and hiſtories of the Church we ſhall find that Hereticks and Sectaries, however whilſt weak and few, have pleaded for Toleration and Liberty, yet when they have come to grow ſtrong and to have power in their hands, they never would ſuffer the Orthodox, but have been the greateſt tyrants and perſecutors, as the Arrians, Donatiſts, Anabaptiſts, Arminians. It was the obſervation ofAug. contra Petil. l. 2. c. 83. Noli dicere, inquit Petiliano Auguſtinus, Abſit, abſit à conſcientia noſtra ut ad noſtram fidem aliquem compellamus: facitis enim ubi poteſtis; ubi autem non facitis non pot ſtis, ſive legum ſive invidiae tim re, ſive reſiſtentium multitudine. Auguſtine many hundred yeers ago, and his anſwer to Petilian, That the Donatiſts (however they pleaded far be it from them to compell any one to their Tenets) where they had power, uſed to force the Orthodox violently; and where they did not, it was not for want of will, but becauſe they could not for fear of the laws or the multitude of refuſers; yea if any of their own party left them and came to the Orthodox, they would fall upon them and beat them, yea kill them; and that Sect of the Donatiſts which was ſtrongeſt, would implore the help of the Magiſtrate againſt their Schiſmaticks the Maximinianiſtae and Rogatiſtae: all which Auſtin ſhows. But for a concluſion, I ſhall turn my prayers unto God, that he would give us to ſee and know our ſin in our puniſhment, and to give him glory in ſaying. Righteous art thou O Lord, and juſt are thy judgements; And for the time to come to give Magiſtrates, Miniſters, and his People more zeal and wiſdome then to tolerate and ſuffer Errors, Hereſies, and Schiſmes. And ſo commending theſe labours to the bleſſing of Chriſt, who yet lives and raigns, (asLuther epiſt. ad Wenceſ. Lin cum. Chriſtus meus vivit & regnat, & ego vivam & regnabo. Luther ſpeaks) and will raign till he hath made all his enemies his footſtool.

I remain, Yours in Chriſt, THOMAS EDWARDS.
The TABLE containing ſome of the principall Heads of this Book. A Ʋniverſall Toleration is againſt the whole current, ſcope and ſenſe of all Scripture, and ſets up the polluted defiled conſciences of men above the Scriptures. p. 4, 5 What God commands Perſons for themſelves and their own Practiſe, he commands to them being in Power and Authoritie for all under them. p. 6, 7 There can be no reaſon given why all other perſons in Authoritie, as Fathers Maſters, &c ſhould be bound to have a care in matters of Religion over children, Servants, and Magiſtrates ſhould have none. p. 7, 8 The godly Magiſtrates ſpoken of in Scripture did de facto make uſe of their Power to ſuppreſſe falſe Doctrine, Seducers. &c 8, 9, 10, 11 They did not only doe it de facto, but de jure, were approved of and rewarded by God for ſo doing. p. 11, 12 Thoſe Magiſtrates who were good that out of any carnall reſpects, forbore to uſe their power, were ſharply reproved and puniſhed by God for it. p. 12, 13 Magiſtrates and Judges before Moſes time, before the Judiciall Lawes or Levitical Prieſthood, did puniſh for matters of Religion, and command men under their power to worſhip God. p. 13, 14 Other Kings beſides thoſe of Iſrael and Iudah uſed their Power for the worſhip of God againſt Idolaters, Blaſphemers, &c p. 14, 15, 16 That objection againſt the Kings of Iſrael and Iudahs power in matters of Religion that they were tipes of Chriſt, and that Land typical anſwered at large in eight diſtinct Anſwers, where divers things are opened concerning Types, and of thoſe Kings being Types and how actions may be Typical, and yet morall, from p. 16, to 27 Idolatry and Idolaters not the adaequate object of the Magiſtrates coercive power under the old Teſtament, but the whole worſhip and truth of God. from p. 27, to 34 The 17. of Deut. 18. 19. opened and proved to give Magiſtrates the care of Religion. p. 34, 35, 36, 37 Ʋnder the Father in the fourth commandement, and under ſanctifying the Sabbath, the Magiſtrates dutie to ſee the publick worſhip of God obſerved by his ſubjects, proved, p. 34, 40. 41 The Magiſtrates dutie qua Magiſtrate in matters of Religion proved, and yet with a difference of the Chriſtian and Heathen Magiſtrates power in ſuch matters. p. 42, 43, 44 The commands in the Old Teſtament for Magiſtrates puniſhing in matters of the firſt Table, as Exod. 22. 13. Deut. 13. 1, 2, 5. Deut. 17. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. Levit. 24. 16. Deut, 18, 20. 22. with divers others laid down, p. 44, 45, 46 Reaſons laid down to prove theſe commands for puniſhing Idolaters falſe Prophets &c. Morall, of common reaſon and equity given to all Nations, and for all Ages, from p. 46. to 53. Of Judiciall lawes under the Old Teſtament being in force under the New, how far and in what reſpects, with the reaſons thereof, from p. 53. to 58. The Magiſtrates puniſhing of ſinnes immediately againſt God, as Blaſphemy, Apoſtaſie, &c. is of the light of nature, p. 58, 59, 60, 61, 72, 73 The Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of Religion, as neceſſary under the Goſpel for the glory of God, ſalvation of mens ſoules, peace of Church and State, as under the Old; yea more reaſons for it under the Goſpel then under the Law, p. 62, 63, 64 The Magiſtrates puniſhing falſe Prophets, &c. is an act of our love to God and our Brethren, p. 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 The reaſons of thoſe commands in 13. and 17. chap. of Deut. concerning putting to death falſe Prophets, Apoſtates have been, were, and are ſtil the ſame, of a like nature and force both before the commands given by Moſes, in Moſes time, and now under the Goſpel p. 76 77, 78 An Anſwer to that objection, that if Moſes laws bind now, then Moſes is alive under the new Teſtament. p. 79, 80 A full Anſwer to that objection, If the Law in Deut. 13. be in force now, tis in force in all the particulars for the manner of the puniſhment for a whole City not only al the Inhabitants, but the cattell alſo &c. in which anſwer many things are opened and cleared, what's morall in that Deut. 13. and what ceremoniall; and that the law concerning the deſtroying of a city, cattell &c. is no part of the command ſpoken of in the firſt part of the 13. chap, of Deut. p. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. 173, 174, 175. 195, 196 An anſwer to that obiection, If Moſes lawes bind under the New Teſtament, then every perſon in an idolatrous State is bound to ſeek the death one of another, yea the Magiſtrate bound to ſentence to death all his ſubiects practiſing idolatry without exception, p. 90, 91, 92, 93 A full anſwer to that Evaſion of Hagiomaſtix againſt the Old Teſtament lawes, that the reaſon why the Magiſtrates did then puniſh falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers &c. was becauſe the Jewes to whom theſe laws were given, in all difficult caſes about matters of Religion had the opportunity of immediate conſultation with God, who did infallibly declare his mind to them; in which anſwer many queſtions are diſcuſſed and cleared, ſeverall texts opened, as whether God gave anſwers by Ʋrim and Thummim in difficulties ariſing about morall tranſgreſſion againſt the firſt Table, or rather whether thoſe anſwers were not concerning the events of future things, as about the ſucceſſe of war &c. as whether Infallibility or Fallibility be the proper grounds and reaſons of puniſhing or not puniſhing in matters of faith and morall tranſgreſſions; as whether there be not, and how far, and by what means an infallibility and certainty in matters of Religion now as well as under the Law? as whether that Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. be any proof for God giving anſwers by Ʋrim and Thummim, or only a ground in difficult caſes to go from lower Courts to higher, and the higheſt of all, who by reaſon of their number and abilities were more able from the law of God to reſolve difficult caſes then the inferior Courts? with divers other particulars uſefull to be known in theſe times, from p. 95, to 165 A full anſwer to that Evaſion brought by Hagiomaſtix and other Patrons of Toleration, that the puniſhments under the Law were more bodily and afflictive to the outward man then under the Goſpel, and conſequently were typicall, Cutting off, of Caſting out, now; and typicall of eternall damnation, and therefore by the comming of Chriſt ceaſed. p. 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 A full anſwer to that objection, That ſuppoſing all thoſe lawes in Deut. 13. &c. were morall and in force, yet they could not reach to Hereticks and falſe Teachers among us, as not being thoſe falſe Prophets, Idolaters, Blaſphemers ſpoken of in thoſe lawes, from p. 171, to 190 An anſwer to that objection, That the Sadduces, Herodians, Phariſes were tolerated by the Jewes, and that Chriſt did never charge that Church and State with ſin for not puniſhing them, p. 29, 30, compared with 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 Severall Reaſons laid down to prove, that if there were no commands nor examples in the New Teſtament to prove the Magiſtrates power of puniſhing Hereticks, falſe Teachers, yet the proofs of the Old Teſtament were binding, p. 199, to 211 Beſides all the Old Teſtament proofs, ſome places of Scripture ſpeaking of the dayes under the New Teſtament brought for Magiſtrates power in Religion and puniſhing falſe Teachers, p. 212, 213, 214, 215 Seven grounds from places of Scripture recorded in the New Teſtament, proving Magiſtrates coercive power againſt falſe Teachers annd Hereticks, laid down and cleared, p 215, 216, 217, 218.

Publiſhed by Authority.

A TREATISE againſt the Magiſtrates Toleration And Permiſſion of a Promiſcuous uſe and Profeſſion of all Religions, Sects and Hereſies, and a partiall limited Toleration of ſome few Sects, or of any one Sect, way of Worſhip, Church Government different from the true Religion eſtabliſhed and ſetled.

HAving in my Preface and Prolegomena both ſtated the queſtion of Toleration and Liberty of Conſcience, and laid down many, Particulars uſefull and neceſſary to bee known, as giving underſtanding and light into the nature of this Controverſie: I now come as to the proving of a Toleration in it ſelf, of Blaſphemies, Hereſies, Errors, Schiſms unlawfull; ſo of ſhowing the Chriſtian Magiſtrates Power and Warrant, yea neceſſity that is laid upon him of hindring and ſuppreſſing all falſe wayes and worſhips, and of promoting and commanding by his Authority with all his ſubjects the true Religion and Faith; and this I ſhall do by laying down divers Theſes and Poſitions one following upon another, and each going further and riſing higher then the other; and the method I propound to follow in this Tractate ſhall be that of the Title page of this Book: Firſt, by Scripture: Secondly, by ſound Reaſons: Thirdly, by Fathers: Fourthly, Councels; and ſo as it there followes, ſetting down upon all thoſe Heads by way of Theſes, the proofs of the points in hand, though upon ſome more, ſome fewer, as the nature of the things may require, and I ſhall judge needfull and convenient.

CHAP. I. The Theſes grounded on expreſſe Scriptures, proving the ſinfulneſſe and wickedneſſe of Tolerations, and the Magiſtrates duty with •• his Territories to ſuppreſſe Blaſphemies, Errors, Hereſies, Schiſms.
1. THESIS.

AS there is but one God, one Lord Chriſt, one Spirit, one Heaven, ſo there is but one Faith, and that once delivered to the Saints, one Truth, one Goſpel, and one Way; the Scripture every where ſpeaking of theſe in the ingular number as of one, not as of many, never calling them Faiths, Truths, Goſpels, Wayes, but the Faith, ſhe Goſpel, the Truth, the way of Truth, the good old way, one way, the right way, the way of righteouſneſſe, and ſuch like; whereas falſhood and error is manifold, the Scripture ſpeaking of falſe wayes 〈…〉 , of Antichriſts as many; Falſum eſt multiplex, verum autem 〈…〉 & ſibi per 〈◊〉 conforme eſt.

2. THESIS.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament in many placeth old forth and command to aske for, follow after, walke in that one good way, to ſtrive and contend earneſtly for that one Faith, to hold faſt the truth, to ſerve God only; and on the contrary reproves, prohibits, condemns turning afide to the right hand or to the left, or halting between two or more Religions and Worſhips; hence thoſe complaints, 1 Kin. 18. 21. of the people halting between two opinions, between God and Baal, of fearing the Lord, and ſerving their owne Gods after the manner of the Nations, 2 King. 17. verſ. 33. 41. of worſhipping and ſwearing by the Lord and by Malcham, Zeph. 1. 5. and thoſe prohibitions of not letting cattell gender with a diverſe kind, of not ſowing fields with mingled ſeed, of not wearing garments mingled of linned and wollen, of not ſowing of Vineyards of divers ſeeds, and of not ploughing with an Oxe and an Aſſe together. Levit. 19. 19. Deut. 22. 9, 10.

3. THESIS.

God both foretels and promiſes in his word, and that more particularly of the dayes of the Goſpel, to give one heart and one way to his people; and as there ſhall be one Lord, ſo his name ſhall be one, and that they ſhall all call upon the name of the Lord, to ſerve him with one conſent, Jer. 32. 39. Ezek. 11. 19. Zeph. 3. 9. Zach. 14. 9. Chriſt praies earneſtly to his Father for beleevers that they all may be one and that they may be perfect in one, John 17: 21, 22, 23. and there are many exhortations to Chriſtians to be of one mind, and of the ſame mind in the Lord, to be of one accord, of one mind, all to ſpeak the ſame thing, that there be no Schiſms among them, but that they be perfectly joyned together in the ſame mind and in the ſame judgement, and that they keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, 2 Cor. 13. 11. Philip. 2. 2. Philip. 4. 2. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Epheſ. 4. 3. Now what God hath promiſed and foretold, what Chriſt hath prayed for in a ſpeciall manner, what the Apoſtles in their Epiſtles have ſo pathetically intreated and exhorted to, that Chriſtians ſhould eſpecially labour after, and all the meane tending thereunto; which the deſiring and granting of a Toleration of all wayes, or many wayes, muſt needs be contrary unto.

4. THESIS.

A Toleration and ſufferance but of any one or two falſe ways and worſhips fights directly againſt theſe and many ſuch like places of Scripture, For we can do nothing againſt the truth but for the truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8. Buy the truth and ſell it not, Prov. 23. 23. be valiant for the truth, ſtrive for the faith of the Goſpel, Be zealous, beware of falſe Prophets, beware of dogs beware of evill workers, beware of the Couciſion, A man that is an Heretick after the firſt and ſecond admonition reject. They that keep the Law contend with the wicked, Pauls not giving place to falſe brethren, no not for an houre that the truth of the Goſpel might continue. Paul and Barnabas having no ſmall diſſention and diſputation with thoſe who taught Circumciſion, If there come any unto you and bring not this Doctrine, receive him not into your houſe, neither bid him God ſpeed, the Angel of Epheſus his commendation for that he could not beare them which are evill, and which ſay they are Apoſtles, and are not, and for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, the Angels of the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira being threatned by Chriſt for ſuffering them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, and that woman Jez abel which called her ſelfe a Propheteſſe, to teach and to ſeduce his ſervants.

5. THESIS.

Whereas a particular partiall Toleration offends againſt many particular places of Scripture, a Vniverſall Toleration is againſt all Scripture, goes againſt the whole current, ſcope and ſenſe of Scripture both in the Old and New Teſtament, both in matters of Faith and Manners, both in the generall rules and commands, and the particular, and that both in perſonall actions, and in all Relations to others: The ſum of the Scriptures is Faith and good life, and the end of the ſeverall ſtates appointed by God, both Politicall, Eccleſiaſticall and Oeconomicall, are to maintain and continue theſe: Now a generall Toleration of all Religions and conſciences is diametically oppoſite to all theſe, againſt the whole will of God overthrowing all that God in the Scripture expreſſes of ſins, duties and relations. I would have any thing in the Scripture named in point of faith, holineſſe, in the relations of Magiſtrates, Miniſters, Governours of Families, which this Toleration ſome way or other does not make void. Other Errors and Hereſies, as Arrianiſme, Anabaptiſme, &c. do not offend againſt all Scripture, but againſt ſuch and ſuch places; but this generall Toleration throws down all at once, it overthrows the Scriptures, in that it allowes a Liberty of denying the Scriptures to be the Word of God, in that it ſets up the conſcience above the Scriptures, making every mans conſcience, even the polluted defiled ſeared conſciences the rule of faith and holineſſe, before the pure and unerring Word of God, crying out that men muſt do according to their conſciences, but never ſpeaking of going according to the Word of God; yea ſetting up mens fancies, humours, factions, luſts, under the name of conſcience, above the Word of God, which is to ſet up the creature, yea the corrupted defiled creature above God, and to make mans conſcience greater then God, whereas God is greater then mens conſciences, 1 John 3. 20.

6. THESIS.

The complaints, prohibitions, comminations, with the commands, directions, cautions againſt giving way unto, tolerating of and following many wayes in religion, and for contending for the Faith, buying the truth, &c. though delivered, and run in generall, they bind (as other Scriptures do) all the ſeverall ſorts of men, every one pro cujuſque officii ratione, the Miniſter in his way according to his office, and the Magiſtrate in his way, and the Maſter of a family in his place, and every private Chriſtian in his way to ſuppreſſe Error, and promote the Truth; yea the commands and precepts which in the letter and primarily belong to men of ſuch a particular relation, the Father, Maſter, Miniſter as being directed by name to them, do alſo concern Magiſtrates, by the common rules of Interpretation of Scripture, given by Divi es, of a Synecdoche, of Analogie and proportion, of common equity, and by the way of the Scripture it ſelfe in applying what's ſpoken at firſt hand to particular perſons in ſuch a ſpeciall relation to all Chriſtians, Joſhua 1. 5. compared with Heb. 13. 5. what to Magiſtrates, to Church Governours, Deu. 13. 11. Deut. 17. 6. compared with 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. with many other ſuch inſtances that might be given, the commands of God being exceeding broad, as David ſpeaks, Pſal. 119. The fifth Commandment which in the letter mentions the naturall parents, as is evident by many other Scriptures, particularly that of Epheſ. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. commands the duties of Magiſtrates to their ſubjects, of Miniſters to their people, as all Divines upon that commandment grant. The fourth Commandment that in the letter is directed to the Father of the family, for his family to keep the Sabbath, comprehends alſo the Magiſtrate: The Father of the family is a Synecdoche including the Magiſtrate; and therein the holy Ghoſt laies downe not only what lies upon the Maſter of every family, but alſo what is the Magiſtrates duty, as Zanch. in quartum praceptum. Chemnitii loci Commun. De lege Dei in quartum praecept. Zanchius, Chemnitius, and many other learned Divines ſhow in their Expoſitions upon this fourth Commandement, all of them upon this Commandement writing of the publick worſhip of God, and the Magiſtrates duty to ſee it preſerved, and the prophanation of it puniſhed, and all under the name of the Father of the family.

7. THESIS.

What God in his Word commands or forbids private ſingle perſons for themſelves and their owne practiſe as conſidered perſonally, viz. to learne to know God, feare the Lord, follow him only, and not follow not ſerve any ſtrange God, to have no fellowſhip with Idols, not the unfruitfull works of darkneſſe, and ſuch like, unto all perſons whom he hath ſet over others, and in any Relation given them power and authority over them, as Miniſters, Parents, Maſters, Husbands, be commands and forbids the ſame not only for themſelves in their owne perſons (thats not all, that will not diſcharge them) but to them for all under their command, they muſt ſee to it and uſe their intereſt, power and authority to cauſe all under them to do ſo likewiſe, and not ſuffer them to go on in falſe wayes, as theſe Scriptures among many other prove, 〈◊〉 . 18. verſe 19. Ezadus 20. verſe 28. Deut, 6. 45. 6, 7. Epheſ. 6. 4. Every private ſervant of God muſt keep the wayes of God; but Abraham who is ſet over others muſt command his children and his houſhold after him to keep the way of the Lord, every Iſraelite muſt keep the Sabbath day holy, but the Governour of the family muſt beſides his own keeping it, ſee to it that all in his family ſanctifie the Sabbath, 'tis the duty of all the Iſrael of God to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and to feare the Lord only, but parents muſt beſides their perſonal loving and fearing God, whet upon their children diligently and talk to them of the commands of God, and bring them up in the 〈◊〉 and feare of the Lord; each perſon ſhould work out his own ſalvation, but a Miniſter muſt ſave others beſides himſelfe, and watch for other mens ſoules, uſe authority for edification; hence in many places we ſhall finde it written in Scripture of perſons in relations of authority to others, that they both undertake for their families, and that their families walked as they walked; ſo Joſhu , I and my houſhold will ſerve the Lord; thus David, Pſal. 101. verſe 4, 6, 7. So the Centurion, a devout man and one that feared God with all his houſe; and in Timothy there was unfained faith which dwelt firſt in his Grandmother Loit, and in his mother E •• ice, and then in him.

8. THESIS.

There can be no reaſon in the world given, that all other perſons in relations who have authority over others, as Maſters, Fathers, Mothers, Tutors, Husbands, Miniſters, ſhould be bound to have a care in matters of Religion over their children, ſervants, &c. and a power of commanding and making them outwardly to worſhip God and keep his way (So 'tis ſaid of Abraham, he will command his children, Vide Maſter Cheynels ſermon before the Houſe of Commons on that text of Abrahams commanding his children pag. 11. make his children and ſervants know that he is their Father and their Maſter; ſo ſpeaks the fourth Commandement to the Father of the family, Thou, nor thy ſonne, nor thy daughter, thy m n-ſervant, &c. Tis not ſaid, do thou remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day, but thou ſhalt admoniſh thy ſonne and thy daughter that they alſo ſanctifie it; God doth not ſay ſo, but thus, remember that thou ſanctifie it, and that all others that are thine, ſanctifie it) and that Princes and Magiſtrates who are the higheſt pow-powers, and have the greateſt authority on earth (who externally and politically have a power over Miniſters, Parents, Maſters, to rectifie their male adminiſtration (as is evident by many inſtances in Scripture) who can alſo help and remedy evils in caſes where Parents, Maſters, Miniſters cannot, and have many advantages to bring men to good above others) ſhould not have a power over their ſubjects to command them to the worſhip of God and reſtraine them from Idolatry and Hereſie. Hence 'tis a good ſaying of Zanchie on the fourth Commandement Zanch. in quartum praecept. pag. 659, 660. Non enim ait tu mementout ſanctifices, monebis autem filium filiamve tuam, ut & ipſi ſanctificent; non ſic ait, ſed memento ut ſanctifices, & ut alii etiam tui ſanctificent. Adigere quiſ que Pater familias potest & debet ſuos domeſticos ad externum cultum; cur non etiam Mag ſtratus ſuos ſubditos? Every Father of a family can and ought to force his family to the outward worſhip of God; why ſhould not the Magiſtrate alſo his ſubjects? I deſire ſome reaſon may be ſhowne why the talents of Authority and Power in all other hands muſt be made uſe of for God in reference to the ſouls of men, and not in the hands of the Magiſtrate; and why Parents, Maſters offend in not caring for their families in matters of Religion, and the Magiſtrate not.

9. THESIS.

The holy Patriarchs, good Judges, godly Kings, and other pious Magiſtrates ſpoken of in Scripture, did de facto make uſe of their power and authority over others to ſuppreſſe falſe Doctrine, falſe Worſhip, falſe Prophets, Seducers, and to bring thoſe under them to the true feare and Worſhip of God; they thought it their duty not only in their owne perſons to keep to the Word of God and to ſerve him, and to bring their children to it, but to command all under their Government to the true worſhip of God, forbidding and ſuppreſſing all other. It would fill a Book to relate and open all the particulars concerning Religion, in commanding the true, deſtroying the falſe, and puniſhing falſe Prophets, Idolaters, Apoſtates, recorded in the Scriptures of Abraham, Jacob, Moſes, Joſhua, Gedeon, Jehoſaphat, Aſa, Hezekiah, Joſiah, Manaſſeh after his converſion, Nehemiah, with many others. I ſhall ſet downe ſome particulars of ſome of them.

Abraham the Patriarch was a Magiſtrate, a great Prince, that had three hundred and eighteene ſervants armed trained men borne in his houſe, he had not only the Covenant in his owne fleſh, but he made all that were borne in his houſe, and all that were bought with his money to be circumciſed Geneſ. 17. he caſt alſo out of his Familie, Hagar the bond-woman, and ſcoffing perſecuting Iſmael, born after the fleſh, Geneſ. 21. compared with Galath. 4. 29, 30. and Geneſ. 18. God ſaith of him, I know that he will command his children and his houſhold after him, and they ſhall keep the way of the Lord; upon which place MaſterA Sermon before the houſe of Commons cald A Plot for the good of Poſterity. Cheynel a learned Divine of the Aſſembly writes thus: Abraham did not leave his children and ſervauts to their owne genius, their owne Councels, their owne luſts, though 'tis certaine that divers of them would have thancked him for ſuch a Liberty; for they had been nurſed up in Superſtition and Idolatry as Abraham was, and might have pretended that they were not ſatisfied in point of Conſcience; but Abraham knew how to diſtinguiſh between Liberty of Conſcience and liberty of luſt, and therefore would not allow them ſuch a Liberty as would have enticed them into the worſt kind of bondage. * Pareus alſo, Pareus in Gen. 18. 19. God uſes the word command, that Parents and Superiours may underſtand that they are not overly and ſlightly, but diligently, and with authority to do their duty to bring their inferiours to the feare and obedience of God. Jacob the Patriarch, Geneſ. 35. 2, 3, 4. ſaid to his houſhold, and to all that were with him (all under his power protection) put away the ſtrange Gods that are among you, and be cleane, and change your garments. And they gave unto Jacob all the ſtrange gods which were in their Land, and all their ear-rings which were in their eares, and Jacob hid them under the Oake which was by Shechem. Pareus upon the place ſhowes that they that were with Jacob made diſtinct from his houſhold, were thoſe Sichemits that were taken captive by the ſonnes and ſervants of Jacob who had brought their Idols with them, and obſerves that as 'tis the office of a good Maſter of a family in his houſe, ſo of a Magiſtrate in the Common-wealth to take away Idols and inſtruments of Idolatry, and other lets of true converſion to God.

Jehoſaphat, Aſa, Hezekiah, Joſiah, thoſe excellent Princes made uſe of their power and the authority of their places in their Kingdomes and Territories, to put down and ſuppreſſe falſe worſhips and wayes, to puniſh falſe Prophets, Idolatrous Prieſts, and the people who went after them, to eſtabliſh the true faith and worſhip of God, and to command and cauſe all their people by Lawes and their Authority to ſtand to their Reformations; yea Manaſſeh who had been ſo wicked, preſently upon his converſion, 2 Chron. 33. 15, 16. reſted not in his own repentance that he knew that the Lord was God, but he took away the ſtrange Gods, all the Altars, and caſt them out of the City, and repaired the Altar of the Lord, and commanded Judah to ſerve the Lord God of Iſrael: as before he had made them to erre by his place, and power, verſe 9. ſo now he made them to ſerve the Lord God of Iſrael. Aſa that good King, 2 Chron. 14. and 15. chap. by his kingly power took away all Idolatry and falſe worſhip, and that not only out of the Land of Judah and Benjamin, but out of the Cities which he had taken from Mount Ephraim, the ſtrangers of Ephraim, Manaſſeh, and out of Simeon, all under his power and juriſdiction, though of the ten Tribe , and accounted ſtrangers after the revoult; yea, hee deſtroyed the Idoll of his Queene Mother. Secondly, hee ſetled and renewed the true worſhip of God renewing the Altar of the Lord, and entring into a Covenant to ſeek the Lord God. Thirdly, he commanded Judah to ſeek the Lord God, and to do the Law and the commandment, and to enter into a Covenant to bind themſelves more to the right ſeeking of God. Fourthly, he puniſhed thoſe under his government who went contrary, viz. they ſhould be put to death who would not enter into this Covenant, or having entred into it, ſhould fall from it, and his Queen Mother he removed from being Queen, becauſe ſhe had made an Idol in a Grove, that is, he deprived his mother of all dignity and authority which ſhe had by cuſtome. Jehoſophat uſed his Authority when he came to be King to take away the high places and Groves out of Judah, and from Vide Junium in 2 Chron. 19 4. and the late Annotations of the Engliſh Divines on that place. Beerſheba to Mount Ephraim from South to North, from one end of his Kingdome to another he brought his people unto God from whom they had fallen, (for the Kingdome of Judah from the dayes of Aſa was extended to Mount Ephraim.) Hezekiah when he came to the Kingdome remoued the high places and Images, cut down the Groves, broke in pieces the brazen Serpent; he and his Princes gave out a commandment, and eſtabliſhed a Decree for the keeping of the Paſſeover, and for the turning of the people unto God, and he reſtored the true worſhip of God, and commanded the Prieſts and the people to do their duties in their ſeverall places. Joſiah that godly Prince, Firſt, he removed and deſtroyed the high places, Groves, carved Images, molten Images, the Altars of Baalim and all the Idols out of all the Land, he took away the horſes given to the Sun, he defiled Topheth, brake down the houſes of the Sodomites, and purged the Land of all the abominations. Secondly, he put down all the idolatrous Prieſts, and all other Prieſts that had burnt Incenſe upon the high places, and ſlew all the Prieſts of the high places upon the Altars. Thirdly, he reſtored the true worſhip of God, made a Covenant with God to that end, and commanded the people to keep the Paſſeover, and to performe the Covenant. Fourthly, he cauſed all that were preſent in Jeruſalem and Benjamin to ſtand to the Covenant, and made all that were preſent in Iſrael to ſerve, even to ſerve the Lord their God, 2 Chron. 34. 32, 33.Vide late Annot. on 2 Cron. 34. 32, 33. Regia ſua auctoritate obſtrinxit & quā vis propenſos Judaeorū animos compeſcuit ne ipſo vivo ab externo Dei cultu deficerent; tantam adhibuit ſeveritatem diſciplinae. Tremellius & Junius in locum. that is all that were under his juriſdiction he kept them in ſuch awe by his regall authority and penall lawes, as they durſt not but ſtand to the Covenant.

10. THESIS.

As de facto 'tis evident in the examples related (beſides divers others recorded in Scripture) that good Magiſtrates did alwayes meddle for God and his truth, againſt falſe worſhip and ſeducers, ſo that they did it de jure, and ought to do ſo is as clear from the approbations, ſpeciall teſtimonies, promiſes, rewards and bleſſings given by God of them, made to them, and beſtowed by God on them for ſo doing. There's hardly any place mentioning what the Patriarchs, Judges, Kings, Magiſtrates did in this kind, but there's ſome commendation, ſome bleſſing, ſome ſpeciall teſtimony from God for ſo doing recorded in thoſe places, 2 Chron. 14. 2, 3, 4. Aſa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God, For he took away the Altars of the ſtrange gods and the high places, &c. So 'tis ſaid of Jehoſophat, Hezekiah, Joſiah, they did that which was right in the fight of the Lord, are highly commended, have many bleſſings upon themſelves and their Kingdoms, and all for commanding by their Princely power their ſubjects to good, and removing all falſe worſhip and the means of it. God will not hide from Abraham the thing that he was doing concerning Sodom, and the reaſon is given, becauſe he will command his children and his houſhold after him to keep the way of the Lord. Iacob took away the ſtrange Gods from his houſhold and all that were with him, and God manifeſts his approbation of it, the terror of God was upon the Cities round about Iacob, and they did not purſue after the ſonnes of Iacob; yea God gives ſuch teſtimony to Princes and Magiſtrates ſuppreſſing falſe Prophets and falſe worſhips, that he hath rewarded with temporall bleſſings wicked Kings for ſo doing, as is evident in Iehu, who for deſtroying Baal out of Iſrael, though he departed not from the finnes of Ieroboam, yet his children of the fourth generation ſhould ſit on the throne of Iſrael, 2 Kings 10. 28, 29, 30.

11. THESIS.

Thoſe Magiſtrates, Judges and Princes, even the dear ſervants of God, who being in place of authority and power, that out of carnall reſpects to wives, children and other intereſts, have ſuffered and tolerated Idolatry and other evils (though they in their owne perſons never practiſed, much leſſe commanded any ſuch things, nay diſſwaded from them) and not uſed their power to reſtraine and hinder them, have been both ſharply reproved and ſeverely puniſhed by God for it: King Solomon having power to hinder his wives from Idolatry, and not doing it, but ſuffering them, God is provoked to bring wrath upon him and his family, 1 King. 11. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11, 12. to rend the Kingdome from him, to ſtirr up an adverſary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. Tis the opinion of many goodMeiſnerus Sect. 2. Contro. quaeſt. Politic. de Magiſt. pag. 841. Vituperatur autem Solomon idololatrica ſacra permittens. Ameſ. Animad. in Remonſtrat Synod Script. ſuper 5. Artic. de Perſeverant. cap. 7. de Solomone. Certum eſt Solomonem non introduxiſſe aut admiſſiſſe idola in domum Dei, neque adegiſſe populum ut vel Dei verum cultum deſererent vel colerent Idola; neque probari poteſt eum in ſua propria perſona coluiſſe idola. Hoc tantum certum eſt de ejus idololatria quod infatuatus a mulieribus idololatricis permiſerit eas construere, aut ipſemet juſſit conſ rui fana & erigi altaria. Divines, and that upon the firſt of Kings, ch. 11. and in anſwer to the Arminians upon that Article of falling from Grace, that Solomon did not bring or admit Idols into the houſe of God, neither did he command the people, that either they ſhould forſake the true worſhip of God, or worſhip Idols, neither can it be proved that he did in his owne perſon worſhip Idols. This is only certaine that being bewitched by his Idolatrous wives, he ſuffered them to build Altars and high places, or at moſt commanded them to be built, and this the word in the Hebrew verſ. 11. with thee, not of thee, implies as much, for as much as this is done with thee, implying done in his Kingdom, and neer Ieruſalem, though not by Solomon himſelfe. Eli being a Judge, becauſe when his ſonnes made themſelves vile, ht reſtrained them not, redreſſed not their corruptions and abuſes about the Sacrifices, though he reproved and diſſwaded them from their wayes by many ſtrong arguments, therefore God brought fearfull ruine upon him and his houſe, cutting off his arme, and the arme of his fathers houſe, &c. as in 1 Sam. 2, 3, 4. chap. 'tis laid down at large.

12. THESIS.

Whereas the Patrons of Toleration except againſt the inſtances of the Judges, Magiſtrates and Kings of Iudah and Iſrael as no ſufficient proof for Magiſtrates power in ſuppreſſing falſhood, and commanding men to receive the truth, becauſe they were typicall Kings, types of Chriſt as King of his Church, and the Land of Canaan a typicall Land, which no other Magiſtrates or Land beſide ever were or are; I deſire that it may be remembred that other Magiſtrates, Judges, and Princes who were before the common wealth of Iſrael was erected and the judiciall lawes given, and of other Common-wealths and Kingdoms did take away and puniſh Idolatry, Blaſphemy, and command men under their power to worſhip God, and ſome ſuch examples are not only barely related in the Scripture, but approved of. Abraham, Jacob and Job were before the time of Moſes and Aaron, before the judiciall Lawes or the Leviticall Prieſthood for the Government and worſhip of the Jewiſh Church and Common-wealth were given. For Abraham and Jacob thats evident by the Book of Geneſis, and for Job, that he lived in the time between Abraham and Moſes is the judgement of many good Divines and Interpreters upon Job, and that upon ſeverall reaſons given by them, of which the Reader may read more in Bucolcerus, Pineda, Junius and Tremellius, Mercer Praefat. in Job: ſane diligentius omnia conſideranti mihi, videtur Job antiquiſſimus fuiſſe ac ſub Patriarcharum tempus vixiſſe. Mercerus, Maſter Carylls Expoſitions on Job, and divers others. Now of Abraham and Iacobs commanding their children, ſervants, and all that were with them to keep the way of the Lord, I have ſpoken of in the tenth Theſis. And that in Iobs time, and that out of the Land of Canam in the Land of Vz (no typicall Land) Idolatry and falſe worſhip were to be puniſhed by the Magiſtrates, is apparent by Iob 31 26, 27, 28. where Iob ſpeaks of himſelfe, If I beheld the Sun when it ſhined, or the Moon walking in brightneſſe, And my heart hath been ſecretly intiſed or my mouth hath kiſſed my band: This alſo were an iniquity to be puniſhed by the Iudge: for I ſhould have denied the God that is above, the meaning of which place according to the judgement of the beſt Interpreters, Mercer, Merlinus, Iunius, Pineda and others is that Idolatry and worſhiping the creatures, as Sun, Moon, and the Heavens (a worſhip much in uſe in the Eaſt where Iob lived) was an iniquity worthy to be taken notice of and puniſhed by the Judges: ſo Mercer reads it, digna eſt, it deſerves and ought to be puniſhed by the Judges; and then obſerve the reaſon, for I ſhould have denied the Lord that is above: So that all falſe worſhip and falſe doctrine that denies God that is above, is worthy to be puniſhed by the Judges; and this is further proved and illuſtrated that Idolatry is to be puniſhed by Judges corporally, by the 9, 10, 11. verſes of this chapter, where he ſpeaks the ſame of adultery, that 'tis an iniquity to be puniſhed by the Iudges, ſo that the ſpirit of God here in Iob makes Adultery and Idolatry of the ſame cognizance, and as Adultery is to be puniſhed by the Civill Magiſtrate, ſo Idolatry and all falſe wayes whereby men deny the God that is above, are by this Scripture to be puniſhed alſo. And that it may further appear the Kings of Iudah and Iſrael did not qua Kings of Iudah and qua dwelling in ſuch a Land, as Kings over ſuch a typicall people, bearing viſibly, and executing typically the kingly office of Chriſt in his Church, meddle in matters of Religion, but as Kings in places of authority and power, I ſhall ſhow that other Kings, not of the Tribe of Iudah, ruling over other Kingdomes and Countries, when by any of the great works of God done before them, or upon any inſtinct of the Spirit of God upon them by any meſſage from God by his Prophets and ſervants, they came to be touched in heart and ſenſible of themſelves, they uſed their power in making Lawes and Edicts for the worſhip of God againſt Blaſphemy and Idolatry, and for puniſhing of thoſe who were Idolaters and Blaſphemers. Thus Artaxerxes the King of Perſia, Ezra 7. makes a Decree that whoſoever will not do the Law of God, judgement ſhoule be executed ſpeedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or unto baniſhment, or to confiſcation of goods, or to impriſonment; and Ezra bleſſeth God for it, which ſhowes it was well done of Art xerxes. Now whereasHagio maſtix. pag. 55. ſect. 43. Maſter Goodwin would evade this by ſaying Ezra bleſſes God for Artaxerzes beautifying the houſe of God only, not for the Decree of puniſhing thoſe that would not do the Law of God, I anſwer, that's a part indeed of that he bleſſes God for, but not all, as is evident by the 28. verſe, his bleſſing God having relation to that alſo as may appeare by that copulative and hath extended mercy unto me before the King, and I was ſtrengthned as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me: and I gathered together out of Iſrael chief men to go up with me; now let the 23. verſe that ſpeaks of Artaxerxes Decree to Ezra to ſet Magiſtrates and Judges to judge all the people, and thereupon who will not do the Law of God to have judgement executed upon them whether it be unto death, &c. be laid to the 28. verſe, wherein hee bleſſes God for his hand upon him to gather chief men out of Iſrael to goe up with him (which was to make Magiſtrates and Judges) and 'tis evident the Decree for puniſhing is included; beſides, if this Decree of Artaxerx s had beene according to Maſter Goodwine, the Bloudy Tenet, and other Libertines opinion ſuch a wicked and bloudy doctrine, Ezra the Prieſt the Scribe of the Law of the God of hea en had beene bound to have inſtructed Artaxerxes better, and humbly entreated him to have reverſed that part of the Decree in the 26. verſe, and certainly would never have built up Artaxerxes in ſuch a great ſin by bleſſing God for his Decree, and by taking care to ſet up Magiſtrates and Iudges to execute it, but would have dealt clearly with the King, bleſſing God for the Decree of the building of the Temple, and ſhowing him his miſtake in the other part about puniſhing; and to put it paſt queſtion, Ezra 10. verſe 7, 8. relates, this Decree of the King was accordingly put in execution by Ezra and the Princes and Elders, Proclamations being made throughout Iudah and Ieruſalem, unto all the Children of the captivity that they ſhould gather themſelves together unto Ieruſalem; And that whoſoever would not come within three dayes according to the Councel of the Princes and the Elders, all his ſubſtance ſhould be forfeited, which was one of the penalties of Artaxerxes Decree, viz. confiſcation of goods. Nebuchadnezar, Dan. 3. 28, 29, 30. as ſoone as he knew God upon that great work of Gods power in delivering the three children out of the fiery furnace, made a Decree that whoſoever ſhould ſpeak any thing amiſſe againſt him, ſhould be cut in pieces and their houſes made a dunghill. Darius, Dan. 6. 25, 26. upon Gods great work in delivering Daniel out of the Lions den, made a Decree that in every Dominion of his Kingdome men tremble and feare before the God of Daniel. Laſtly, the King of Niniveh upon Ienabs preaching, yet forty dayes and Niniveh ſhall be deſtroyed, did not only in his owne perſon ariſe from his Throne and cover himſelfe with ſackcloth, and ſit in aſhes, but cauſed it to be proclaimed and publiſhed by his Decree that all his ſubjects ſhould do the like, cry mightily unto God, and turne from their evill wayes; and this turning of Niniveh upon the command and edict of the King is bleſſed by Gods repenting of the evill that he ſaid he would do unto them, and ſo Gods owne ſeale of approbation ſet to the King of Ninivebs Edict for commanding in matters of Religion. Auguſ ine in his Aug. 50. Epiſt. ad Bonifac. Sicut ſervivit Rex Ninivitarum vniverſam civitatem ad placandum Dominum compellendo; ſicut ſervivit Nabuchadonazar omnes in Regno ſuo poſitos, a blasphemando Deo lege terribili revocande. 50. Epiſtle ad Bonifacium, makes uſe of the examples of the King of Niniveh, Darius and Nebuchadonezar to ſhow how a King muſt ſerve God as a King by commanding good things, and forbidding the contrary, as the King of Niniveh ſerved God by compelling the whole City to pleaſe God, as Nebuchadnezar ſerved him by recalling all in his Kingdome from blaſpheming God by a ſevere Law.

13. THESIS.

As for that which is commonly ſaid by the Patrons of Tol ration, that what the Iudges, Magiſtrates, Kings of Iſrael and Iudah, did in a coer ive way in matters of Religion in Iſrael and Iudah, they did it not by vertue of their office as ordinary Kings and Magiſtrates towards their ſubjects, but as Kings in a peculiar and extraordinary notion, as typicall Kings, types of Chriſt the King of the Church, executing typically his kingly office, the people alſo and the very Land over which they ruled, being typicall, which no Kings not people under heaven at this day are, and that therefore their practiſes cannot be drawn into example by any Chriſtian Magiſtrates now. I deſire the Reader well to obſerve theſe following anſwers, and the rather becauſe the maine ſtrength of the Sectaries diſcourſe upon this ſubject hangs by this ſtring, and this thred runs all along throughout their works. M. S. the Bloudy Tenet, The Antient bounds or Liberty of Conſcience ſtated, The Storming of Antichriſt with many others place all their confidence here, and this is their Sheild and buckler, making much uſe of this typicalneſſe under the Old Teſtament to evade all the inſtances of Kings and Magiſtrates brought from thence.

Firſt, to make this good, there are ſome things ſuppoſed or aſſerted for proof very uncertain, doubtfull, other things abſurd and untrue; As firſt, that to be a Type of Chriſt is a ſufficient ground of a Politicall Civill power over the Church, and that typicalneſſe, qua, typicalneſſe gives thoſe perſo s a power, who otherwiſe have none;Secondly, becauſe it ha •• no influence upon civill authority; of which ſee a or there. the contrary unto which is in ſeverall Reaſons proved by DoctorFirſt then the Prieſts & ſome Prophets as Ionah ſhould have had this power: yea Adam, Iſaac, &c. for they were all types of Chriſt. Stewart in the ſecond part of his Duply to M. S. page 22. and never yet anſwered by M. S. or any other, though M. S. and many of his Brethren have written upon that argument ſince.

Secondly,The 〈◊〉 b unds or Liberty of conſti •• ſtated. p. •• that he who was Head of the State was Head alſo of the Church in a typicall way, whereas many great Divines are of another judgement, and ſhow that the Kings of Judah and the civill judicatures were formally diſtinct from the Eccleſiaſticall, and that he who was cheif in the State over civill matters, was not cheif Iudge and Officer in the Church in an Eccleſiaſticall and Spirituall notion, of which point Maſter R •• herford and Maſter Gil eſpie having written ſo fully lately, I ſhall ſpare to ſpeak any thing, and referre the Reader to their learned Books enti uledThere e e ••• o Suprea •• , two Higheſt powers, both ſuprea e in their owne kind & ſphere, one Civill, another Eccleſiaſtical : Moſes above Aaron as the ſup e m Judge in the power of the ſword, 〈◊〉 above Moſes In ſacrificing, in burning 〈◊〉 , in judging betwen the clean and unclean. Mr. Rutherf cap 34. 〈◊〉 quaeſt. 〈◊〉 . 38 387, 388, 389, 390 cap. 15 quaeſt. 11. cap. 16. quaeſt. 12. p. 418. Mr. Gilleſpies: Book cap. 3. that the Jews had an Eccleſiaſticall Government diſtinct from the Civill. The Divine Right of Church Government, Aarons Rod Bloſſoming.

Thirdly, that the people of the Iewes were interchangably a Church and a Nation, ſo that whoever was a member of the Church was a member of the Common-wealth, and vice verſa, of which ſee the Book entituled The Antient Bounds or Liberty of Conſcience ſeated, page 60. Now Maſter Gilleſpie in his Aarons Rod bloſſoming, Book 1. chap. 2. proves ſtrongly that the Iewiſh Church was formally diſtinct from the Iewiſh State, and that in ſeven particulars, as in reſpect of diſtinct Lawes, diſtinct Acts, diſtinct Officers, ſo in reſpect of diſtinct Members, there being Members of the Church among them, who had the name of Proſelyti Iuſtitiae, and were initiated into the Iewiſh Religion by Circumciſion, Sacrifice, &c. that nevertheleſſe were reſtrained and ſecluded from Dignities, Government and Preferment in the Iewiſh Common-wealth, and from divers matriages which were free to the Iſraelites. Maſter SELDEN alſo in that learned. Book of his, De Jure Natur. & Gentium, lib. 2. cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 20. ſpeaks as much of thoſe Proſelytes. Proſelytus juſtitiae utcunque novato patriae nomine Iudaeu diceretur, non tam quidem, ci is Iudaicus ſimpliciter cenſendus eſſet quam peregrinus ſempe , cui jura quamplurima inter cives. Secondly, how do they prove that Iehu, Ioaſh, Manaſſeh, Aſa, Hezekiah, Ieboſophat, Ioſiah, were Types of Chriſt, and did execu e typically the kingly office of Chriſt in his Church, were Kings in an Eccleſiaſticall notion an, extraordinary way, not ruling only for the Church, but in the Church, and over it, asThe Antient Bounds or Liberty of Conſcience ſtated. pag. 59, 60. they ſay. Moſes, Ioſhua, David, Solomon, were in their perſons, places and actions, expreſſe types of Ieſus Chriſt (as 'tis evident in the New Teſtament) Pen-men alſo of Scripture, beſides Prophets as well as Magiſtrates, and ſo were extraordinary men, that every thing they did in Religion is not a binding example to Magiſtrates now as many Trigland. de poteſt. Civil. & Eccleſ. pag. 233, 234. Walaei T actat. de manere Ministr. Eccleſ. & Inspectione Ma iſtratus circa illud. from p. 21. to p. 35. Apollon. Ius Majeſtat. circa ſacra part. pri. 67, 68. Reformed Divines have ſhowen againſt the Arminians and Eraſtians, but that Aſa, Ioſiah, Hezekiah, Iehoſaphat were, is gratis dictum, not yet proved, neither were theſe Pen-men of holy Scripture, or Prophets extraordinarily inſpired, but theſe foure great Reformers as Kings were ſtirred up, enquiring after, and directed by Prophets, as the Reader may finde clearly in the ſtories of them in the Chronicles and Kings. Beſides I finde not amongSee Dr. Taylors Treatiſſe of the Types and ſhadowes of Chriſt contained in the Scriptures. Divines who have written of the Types of Chriſt, orTriglandus de poteſtat. Civil. & Eccleſiaſtica Jehoſaphat, Hiskia, Joſiah, & ſimiles nil niſi reges fuere non Proph tae. p. 237. A great difference is made by learned Divines for Types and Prophets between Moſes, David, Solomon Joſhua, and Joſiah, Hezekiah, &c. who grant Moſes, David, Solomon to be expreſſe Types that they make Aſa, Ioſiah, &c. to be Types. Again of Types of Chriſt (as Divines diſtinguiſh) there are particular perſons types of him as Adam, Noah, Iſaac, Joſeph, Moſes, Joſhua, Samſon, David, Solomon, Jonah, and there are ſuch rancks and orders of men, as the Firſt-born, Kings, Prophets, &c. Now though all of the firſt ſort are ſpeciall particular Types of him, ſo that the ſpeciall things done by them do typifie and ſet forth Chriſt in many particulars of his perſon, actions and ſufferings: yet the rancks and orders of men as the Firſt-born, Kings, Prophets, may not be typicall in all the particular perſons of thoſe ranks and orders, at leaſt to the particular acts they do in thoſe ranks and orders: but 'tis enough for many in thoſe orders to agree in common, as in being Kings and Prophets, as Chriſt was, there being ſome in all thoſe orders and ranks appointed of God eſpecially and peculiarly to be the Types, which others are not, and for whoſe ſakes in thoſe orders and ranks, ſuch orders of men were inſtituted by God to be Types, of which many inſtances might be given with the Reaſons thereof in ſome of the Firſt-born, Kings, &c. but I ſhall reſerve the further handling of that to a ſecond part upon this Subject. Laſtly, ſuppoſing Aſa, Joſiah, and thoſe godly Kings to be Types of Chriſt, may it not be doubted whether Jehu, Ieboaſh, Ammon, Ieroboam, &c. were Types of Chriſt, and did execute his kingly office, who yet were commended, viz. the two fir t, for deſtroying falſe worſhip, and reproved for not doing it conſtantly; beſides could thoſe Kings of Iſrael and Iudah (who yet were lawfull Kings) that apoſtatiſed from all the whole worſhip of God, the Ceremoniall Law that ordained the Types, that deſtroyed Gods ſervice and the Prieſthood, made Prieſts of the loweſt of the people, be Types of Chriſt? and I deſire to be reſolved or M. S. the Author of the Antient bounds of Liberty of Conſcience ſtated, whether any wicked men were ſpeciall Types of Chriſt, and whether all perſons who were Types of Chriſt were not ſaved. Thirdly ſuppoſe theſe Kings of Iudah were Types of Chriſt in ſetting on the Thron of David, and ruling over Iudah, in Chriſt the King of his Church coming out of their loines, yet they were temporall Kings, had Civill authority: Now how does it appear that what they did in puniſhing idolatrous Prieſts, comm nding their ſubjects to the true worſhip of God, they did only as. Types by vertue of that Notion, and not as they were temporall Kings, which muſt be proved before their examples can be made null; and I am ſure the Scripture no where faith that the Kings of Iudah and Iſrael in what they commanded in matters of Religion, they did as Types of Chriſt, and not as Civill Magiſtrates: 'Tis one thing to be a Type, and another thing to doe ſuch things meerly qua Types; and what if Chriſtian Magiſtrates leaning upon this broken ſtaffe, ſuffering all Herefies, Blaſphemies and Idolatries in their Kingdomes, Chriſt at the laſt day when they ſtand before the judgement feat, they objecting for themſelves the Kings of Iſrael and Iudah were Types of Chriſt and all they did was by vertue of their typicall notion, ſhal tell them no, but as Magiſtrates entruſted by God with a power and authority, how will they be then confounded? will this diſtinction and notion found out by Libertines deliver from the wrath to come? had not Princes need be on better grounds then Apocryphall notions, ſuch diſtinctions of which God in his. Word never gave any foundation? but beſides the Apocryphalneſſe of this notion, that theſe Kings reformed Religion not meerly quae Types, but as Kings and Princes over ſubjects, may be proved thus.

Firſt, becauſe Magiſtrates before them, and Magiſtrates of other Common-wealths did ſo, as is largely ſhown in the twelfth Th ſis.

Secondly, Types were not ordained by the Politicall or Morall Law, as Magiſtrates and their authority, but by the Ceremoniall Law.

Thirdly, for that which they ſay the Kings of Iſrael, the Iews and their Land were Types of, and that which by their Kings puniſhing Idolaters and Seducers was typified,The Blo dy Tenet. page 179 namely ſpiritual cenſures under the Goſpel of Excomm nication and caſting out of the wicked from the Churches of the Goſpel, 'tis denied they were Types of the Chriſtian Church in reſpect of the Civill State, but of the Spirituall and Eccleſiaſticall Government by Church Officers; ſo the Land of Canaan was a Type of heaven, not as it contained the Civill State, but the Church; it being a Type of Heaven before they had poſſeſſion of it, or their Civill State and Government ſet up, and yet no Type of Heaven till the people of God had a promiſe of it, 〈◊〉 is evident by laying the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament together. And as for thoſe puniſhments inflicted by Kings typifying the cenſures under the Goſpel, we muſt know that all the Spiritual Cenſures of Admonition, Suſpenſion, Excommunication, were under the Old Teſtament in the time of the Kings of Iudah, and that not only for Ceremoniall uncleanneſſes, but for morall and ſcandalous fin , all which is fully proved by Maſter Gillaſpie at large in his A rous Rod bloſſoming, 2 Book 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 12. chapters.

Fourthly, granting what theſe Libertines ſay that the Kings of Judah were Types of Chriſt, and in what they did they aypified Chriſts kingly Office, yet this cannot enervate the examples of theſe Kings, unleſſe doing things as a Type, and as a Morall example, could not ſtand in one and the ſame perſon, which is not ſo: Some particular perſons may be intended by God Types of Chriſt (the higheſt kind of Type) and their action intended to typifie ſpeciall works of Chriſt, and yet thoſe very action may be Morall and binding all in ſuch relations whoſe perſons nor actions can in no kind be judged typicall, and the reaſon of it is, becauſe God may ſerve himſelf of a perſon or office doing things commanded in the Moral law to make a type of, nd though God intends ſuch a man by ſuch and ſuch actions to make him a Type, yet the man may not know ſo much, nor intend any ſuch thing in ſuch actions, but do all by vertue of a Morall command; and for the better underſtanding of this, let the Reader conſider that in ſome perſons the ſame actions may be both Typicall and Morall, extraordinary in regard of the ma •• er and ſome circumſtances, and ordinary in regard of the matter and ſubſtance, typicall as typifying Chriſt and what he ſhould do, and yet Mo all duties which he ought to do, and all others alſo in ſuch relations: ſo that though ſome perſons be Types, and the things they do typicall, yet they may be Morall too, and ſo binding, which though as they were typicall they may be taken away, yet as they were Morall may be in full force; As for example, Chriſt was figured in Joſeph, Ioſeph was an eminent Type of ChriſtSee Dr. Taylors Treatiſe of Types, c. 6. p. 33 34, 35, 36. in the firſt ank of Types as a ſingular perſon typifying him, not as a rank or order of men by office only as thoſe kings of Iudah ſpoken of, and among other things he was a Type in feeding his Father and his Brethren, that when advanced in the kingdome he provided for, and nouriſhed his Fathers houſe, which typified Ieſus Chriſt feeding the Family of God, and preſerving the Church alive. Now though Ioſeph in this action was a Type of Chriſt, and did it typically, yet not only typically, but did this morally and naturally too by vertue of the fifth Commandement, and ſixth Commandement, of childrens duty to their Parents, and of preſerving life; and by vertue of this example of Ioſeph every man in high place and rich, is bound to ſend for and provide for Father and Brethren in a neceſſitous condition; and ſuppoſe now a man in Ioſephs condition ſhould have Father and Brethren in want, whom he ſhould neglect, and being preſſed by Ioſephs example to provide for them, he ſhould anſwer Ioſephs practiſe was nothing to him, for he was a Type of Chriſt, and typified Chriſts feeding of his Church not with temporall food only, but with the Manna from Heaven, the word and Sacraments, I aske of thoſe who plead this Argument of typicalneſſe, whether this were a good Anſwer? and if not, neither is theirs againſt the practiſe of the kings of Iudah from being Types of Chriſt; and I wiſh the Pleaders for Toleration would ſerious conſider of, and reſolve this Queſtion, though Ioſeph was a ſpeciall Type of Chriſt, and in this action of preſerving his Father and Brethren a Type of Chriſts preſerving his Church, yet whether this action of his to his Father, Brethren and their children, do not bind now in the dayes of the Goſpel children to their Fathers &c. or whether the typicalneſſe of it hath cauſed it to ceaſe? and in the reſolution of this caſe, the ingenuous Reader may ſee what to judge of the typicalneſſe of the kings of Iudah, and that typicalneſſe of perſons and actions does not preſently make all ſuch perſons and actions that they cannot be examples or rules to others who are not typicall. The Prophets and Propheticall office were Types of Chriſt as well as the kings of Iudah; and yet actions they did that were ſome way typicall and extraordinary, bind Chriſtians under the Goſpel for the ſubſtance and matter, and are ſet before them for example, as Eli •• a Type, and in his Prayer a Type, yea ſomewhat in it extraordinary, is by Iames propounded in prayer as a patterne and a proof of effectuall ſervent prayer to righteous men under the Goſpel, Iames 5. 16, 17, 18. In Hebrews 11. many are named who in their perſons were undoubted Types of Chriſt, as Noah, Iſaac, Joſeph, Moſes, Samſon, David, and others, who if not Types in their perſons, yet were in an extraordinary way, as Abraham, Iacob, Gideon, Iephtah, &c. Now in the point of faith and patience (though Types or extraordinary perſons) are ſet down for examples and patterns to Chriſtians under the New Teſtament, Hebrews 12. verſe 1, 2. I could give many more inſtances of Types and extraordinary perſons, whom in Morall practicall things, matters of faith, holineſſe, righteouſnes (though they did ſuch things extraordinarily, and as Types of Chriſt either perſonally or officially) Chriſtians in an ordinary way are commanded to follow, and therefore in the preſent caſe the vindicating of and promoting of the glory of God, the puniſhing of evill doers (which Blaſphemers, Hereticks, and Sciſmaticks are) the commanding good, being Morall-practicall things of perpetuall reaſon and equity bind all thoſe in authority and government according to their places, though they be no Types nor extraordinary perſons.

Fifthly, if this evaſion of the kings of Iſrael and Iudah about Typicalneſſe be good, by the ſame reaſon it may hold againſt. Magiſtrates puniſhing under the Goſpel for matters of the ſecond Table, murther, adultery, &c. for may not the Socinians and Anabaptiſts, who deny Chriſtian Magiſtrates may puniſh capitally for murther, treaſon, &c. ſay the ſame thing againſt all the examples of Magiſtrates and kings under the old Law puniſhing with death for ſuch offences, that they were Types, and that people and Land typicall, which no Magiſtrate nor people are now, and what ever can be ſaid upon this ground againſt Princes meddling in matters of Religion, may as well be ſaid againſt their puniſhing in Civill matters, and Anabaptiſts, and Socinians may as well ſay thoſe Kings were Types of Chriſt in reſpect of their power over the State as over the Church; and if they ſhould affirm it, how would it be diſproved? And the Bloudy Tene pag. 209. grants that in the Land of Iſrael all things, their civils, morals and naturals, were carried on in Types as well as their Spirituals and Eccleſiaſticals; yea by this ground what ever ſhall be brought out of the Old Teſtament to ſhow the duty of Magiſtrates, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 or the qualifications of them, as that they that rule over men muſt be juſt, fearing God, hating covetouſneſſe, courageous, &c. it may be anſwered, that was required of thoſe who were typicall, and their people typicall, but it concerns not Magiſtrates now; and yet higher, by this evaſion men may reaſon againſt all inſtances out of the Old Teſtament brought from Fathers, Maſters, to bring up their children in the feare of God, &c. becauſe the firſt-borne, ſuch Fathers and Maſters of families were typicall, and their children typicall, which Fathers are not under the Goſpel.

Sixthly, if this anſwer of typicalneſſe may hold, all thoſe Kings and Princes actions and practiſes in other things of Morall particular duties, as prayer, mourning for ſinne, giving God thanks for deliverances, &c. are taken away from binding now, as well as their acts of power and authority; and when Miniſters bring theſe examples of David, Ioſiah, Hezekiah, &c. in ſuch things, it may be ſaid they were Types of Chriſt, and did them as Types of ſomething to come: the Antinomian may upon this ground anſwer the example of Davids praying ſo often and conſtantly, and of mourning for his ſinnes, by ſaying David was a Type of Chriſt.

Seventhly, by this Anſwer all the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament, Moſes, Pſalms, Prophets, with whatever of any duty cōmanded, or ſin ſpoken againſt in any of theſe, are at once made void: for it may be ſaid the Pen-men were Types, and given to a typicall people, written in a typicall Land: It may be ſaid of the whole Morall Law, that as Moſes in his perſon was a Type of Chriſt in many particulars, ſo in delivering the Law he ſhadowed Chriſt the Mediatour, Moſes being a mediator betweene God and his people in giving the Law, Galat. 3. 19. the Law was delivered in the hand of a Mediator, that is Moſes, Acts 7. 38. and therefore not binding to Chriſtians. And ſo it may be pretended of all things written in the Pſalms, Prophets, and the other Books that they were (viz. the Oracles of God) committed to the Jewes and the Circumciſion, Rom. 3. 2. Rom. 9. 4. which people and Nation of Iſrael were typicall of the true Iſrael, the Iſrael of God, Galat. 6. 16. So the Land of Canaan was typicall of reſt from 〈◊〉 , and of true reſt, and the heavenly inheritance, Hebr. 4. 1, 2, 3, 8 9, 10, 11. verſ. And indeed what was not typicall ſome way or other in the Jewiſh Church and State, as the firſt-borne, the Prieſts, Kings, Prophets, the Land, the people, their worſhips, with many more particulars, ſo that if this Anſwer ſtand good, all the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament are overthrown, and all Hereticks whatſoever, Socinians, Antinomians, Familiſts, &c. may evade any Scripture brought from thence, as well as the pleaders for Toleration the examples of the Kings of Iſrael and Judah.

8ly. All the actions and practiſes done by perſons and things typicall are ſo farre from nothing concerning them who live under the Goſpel, that the Scriptures of the New Teſtament tell us, that many things under the Old Teſtament were made Figures and Type for the admonitions and example of thoſe in like caſes under the New, and did teach to the uttermoſt, as the 1 Cor. 10. from the ſixth verſe to the twelfth, and that clauſe of promiſe in the fifth Commandement, That thy dayes may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, is meant of the Land of Canaan a typicall Land, which yet did teach Chriſtians under the New Teſtament, that obedience to their Parents would bring a being well with them, and living long upon the earth (though they had not the Land of Canaan) as Epheſ. 6. 1, 2. 3. fully ſhowes. Saint Paul alſo tells us, Rom. 15. 4. that whatſoever things were written 〈◊〉 , were written for our learning, and ſo thoſe Magiſtrates and Princes of Iſrael and Judah (how ever they might typifie Chriſts Kingdome) they were ſuch Types ſpoken of in 1 Cor. 10. viz. examples to Chriſtian Magiſtrates to teach them to do ſo likewiſe, as Fathers then were to teach Fathers now to inſtruct their children, and therefore though ſuch an order of men as Kings in Iſrael might be intended to typifie Chriſts Kingdom, yet that no way hinders, but what they did as Kings in ruling and ordering of their ſubjects, they performed as the proper works of their places common to them with other Princes, without any reference to their being Types, or doing them as Types, God in Scripture recording all along what they did, as going upon common morall grounds, and ſpeaking nothing of them in their Reformations as in a figurative typicall notion. And in the cloſe of my Anſwer to this evaſion of the inſtances of the Kings of Judah, I ſhall hint to the Reader to conſider ſome notes of diſtinction between actions meerly typicall and fulfilled in the Antitype, done only to repreſent and ſhadow forth what Chriſt was to do, and mixt actions, morall and typicall too, or at leaſt the actions of one who by perſon or order is a Type; and upon ſearch it will be found that all the notes of actions morall, not meerly typicall, will be found in the practiſes of thoſe Ks of Judah and Iſrael before named, As firſt, when their practiſes and wayes are not barely related, but commended and praiſed by God, wheras actions meerly typical are only related and ſet down, as in Samſon, and divers others Secondly, when done upon morall grounds and reaſons, motives drawn from mercies, bleſſings, evils, and judgements, commands and meſſages from God experiences of God, upon Gods convincing and converting men. Thirdly, when they of ſuch an Order and office are reproved and puniſhed for not doing ſuch things, or for not thoroughly doing them, whereas I ſuppoſe perſons typicall, and whoſe actions are intended to be meerly typicall, will and ſhall do ſuch things though they may not know the meaning of them, of which many inſtances might be given in ſome actions of Samſon, Jonas and others. Fourthly, when as their actions are ſutable to thoſe qualifications, titles and deſcriptions given in Scripture of Magiſtrates and that office in generall. Fifthly, when what they do is agreeable and ſutable to the commands and directions given by God to all of that order and rank, and they do in the matter of Religion in commanding to good and ſuppreſſing evil, what all other Magiſtrates have done in all times and ages, who have cared for any Religion at all, as Heathen Princes before they knew the true God, and others after they have known him, however through ignorance or ſuperſtition they might miſtake about the true way and worſhip: Now let the Reader but conſider of all theſe notes of diſtinction, and others of the like nature that might be given, and he will find them agree to thoſe Kings Jo ia , Hezekiah, Manaſſeh, Aſa, &c. for the ſubſtance of all they did in commanding their people to the right way and ſuppreſſing the falſe, and ſo much for anſwering of this evaſion of the practiſe of the Kings of Iſrael and Judah, which I have been the larger in, becauſe ſo great a weight of this controverſie on all the Sectaries part lies on this typicalneſſe both of the Jewiſh Magiſtrates and people.

14. THESIS.

As for that which is ſaid by M. S. pag. 51. that Idolatry and Idolaters were the adaequate object of the coercive power of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion, and that Idolatry meant not of thoſe who worſhiped the true God though in a falſe manner with the violation of the ſecond Commandement, but of ſuch who Apoſtatized from the God of Iſrael to ſerve ſtrange gods, the gods of other Nations & thoſe neither ſimply as ſuch, but as drawing others away unto the ſame Idolatries with them, but we never read of any coercive power or puniſhment inflicted upon Hereticks or Siſmaticks which abounded in great variety and numbers amongſt them, as the Phariſees, Herodians, &c. I anſwer, Firſt, Idolatry and Idolaters were not the adaequate object of the Kings and Magiſtrates coercive power under the Old Teſtament, but generally the matter of the Covenant, the whole worſhip and truth of God, as is apparent by the examples of Joſiah, Hezekiah, Aſa, and Jehoſaphat, in putting downe and ſuppreſſing other evils beſides Idolatry, as will-worſhip, things abuſed to Idolatry, prophanation of the Sabbaths, marrying of ſtrange wives, abuſes in Diſcipline and Church Government, prophaning chambers in the Courts of the houſe of God, in commanding to keep the Paſſeover, which though their ſubjects had not kept, they might not have been Idolaters, in puniſhing thoſe who were guilty only of wilworſhip, not of Idolatry, as alſo thoſe who married ſtrange wives, who did common works on the Sabbath day, who dealt with familiar ſpirits and Wizards, of al which the Reader may find proofs at large in theſe following Script 2 Cro. 34. 31, 32, 33. There's a Covenant made to keep al the Teſtimonies and Statutes of God, and the people are made to ſtand to it, From 2 Kings 23. verſe 8, 9. compared with 2 Chron. 14. 3. 5. 2 Chron. 15. 17. 2 Chron. 33. 17. 'tis evident there were in Judah two ſorts of high places ſome on which was God worſhipped; others on which Idols were worſhipped, the one ſort was the high places of Idolatry, the other the high places of will-worſhip; yet the Prieſts of the latter as well as of the former were puniſhed by Joſiah, though not with the puniſhment of death as they were for he cauſed them to go out of all the Cities of Judah, and to ceaſe from the Prieſts office, ſo that they durſt not come up to the Altar of the Lord at Jeruſalem. So Nehem. 13. 7, 8. 15, 16, 17. 25. 28. 30. Ezra 10. 3. 5. 2 Kings 23, 24, 25.

Secondly, the Idolatry removed and puniſhed by the Jewiſh Kings and Magiſtrates, was as well of worſhipping the true God in a falſe manner, as of thoſe who worſhipped falſe gods, the gods of the Nations, and were Apoſtates from the true God to other gods, as is evident by the inſtances of worſhipping the golden Calfe made by Aaron, and worſhipping of the golden Calves at Dan and Bet el ſet up by J ro oam, (called Idolatry, as in ſeverall places of Scripture) by Moſes and ſome of the good Kings as Joſiah removed, and the Worſhippers puniſhed, and yet the people of Iſrael in worſhipping theſe did not go ſerve the gods of the Nations, but ſerved the God of Iſrael as appears by thoſe ſpeeches of theirs, Exod. 32. 4, 5, 6. To morrow is a Feaſt to the Lord, not to the golden Calfe. 1 Kings 12. 27, 28. It is too much for you to go p to Ieruſalem, behold thy gods O Iſrael which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt; and our moſt learned Proteſtants in their writings againſt the Papiſts, do prove the Papiſts to be formall Idolaters from their adoration of God and Chriſt in Images (though they do not worſhip falſe gods, the gods of the Heathen) by theſe two examples of Aarons golden calfe, and Ier •• oams golden Calves, ſhowing the people of the Jewes were not ſo mad as to beleeve thoſe Calves to be their God, or that brought them out of the and of Egypt, being brought up hundreds of yeeres before, but only outward repreſentations and remembrancers of God to them, in which they worſhipped the true God, their worſhip being terminative related to God, and not to the Image. Ioſhua 22. 11, 12. All the children of Iſrael gathered themſelves together to go up to warre againſt the children of Ruben, the children of Gad and the halfe Tribe of Manaſſe upon ſuppoſition of their building an Altar, not to ſtrange Gods, but for burnt offerings, or for ſacrifices beſides the Altar of the Lord God that was before his Tacernacle, verſe 21. 26. 28, 29. which they were diverted from upon being ſatisfied it was not an Altar for burnt Offerings, &c. but for a witneſſe betweene them and the reſt of the Tribes that the Lord is God, verſe 17. 34.

Thirdly, the Scripture is contrary alſo to that, that the groſeſt Idolaters were not to be puniſhed if not Sed cers drawing others away from the true God to ſtrange gods, for we read that Moſes was ſo angry with the people that were ſeduced unto a lower kind of Idolatry, viz. worſhipping the true God by a Calfe, that beſides the three thouſand men that were put to the ſword the Seducers and the Ringleaders, he burned the Calfe, ground it to pouder, ſtrowed it upon the water, and made the children of Iſrael drink of it, cauſing the Idol to paſſe from them among their excrements. So 2 Chron. 15. 13. They that would not ſeek the Lord God of Iſrael whether ſmall or great, the little ones (who could not be in i ers of Idolatry) were to be puniſhed. Deut. 13. When one of the Cities of Iſrael was withdrawn to ſerve other gods, then the inhabitants of the City, the children as well as the grown men (who could not withdraw from God) were to be ſmitten. And we ſhall finde it all along in the Book of the Kings and Chronicles among the Idolaters and falſe worſhippers, that there's no ſuch diſtinction made, but ſome of whom no ſuch thing expreſſed, are removed and puniſhed, as thoſe who may be ſuppoſed were inticers to Idolatry.

Fourthly, As for that the Kings of Judah Aſa, Ioſia, &c. never puniſhed Phariſees, Herodians, or any other Sect in the profeſſion of the Jewiſh Religion, the reaſon is manifeſt, becauſe there was none ſuch till many hundred of yeeres after theſe Kings, for theſe Sects of Phariſees &c. began very late, not long before the coming of Chriſt, and as for Herodian they ſprung up after Herod was King (which ſhowes the great ignorance of M. S. ſpeaking as if there had beene Herodians in the dayes of Aſa, H z kiah, &c.) but by the way if M. S. lias Cretinſis can prove there were ſuch in the dayes of thoſe good Kings I will undertake to prove that they uſed their co rcive power towards them as well as towards Idola ers, and ndeed 'tis evident by many paſſages that all kind of corruption and declination from the way of God was the object of Joſiah and other Magiſtrates Reformation, and had there beene Sadduces, Herodians, &c. viz. men that had held thoſe Errors and wayes in thoſe Kings times, they could not have eſcaped their hands, and this is thus proved, becauſe the high places not of Idolatry, but of will-worſhip, where they ſacrificed to the Lord only, as tis 2 Chron 33. 17. were put down and the worſhippers and Prieſts ſuppreſſed, and thoſe good Kings who did not, are upon record blamed (which kind of worſhipping was not ſo bad as the Herodians and Sadduces, who held Herod for the Meſſias, and denied Angels and Spirits) and that I may come up yet more cloſe to M. S. objection, who ſaith nothing was done againſt Sectaries or Sciſmaticks, I conceive they were to the Church of the Jewes, as Sectaries and Sciſmaticks are now, and their worſhip a Sciſme, worſhipping the true God in a ſeparated way apart from the publike place and Aſſemblies of Gods people, as our Sectaries do now.

Fifthly, the true reaſons why, when the Herodians, Sadduces, &c. ſprung up among the Jewes, they were not ſuppreſſed not puniſhed. Firſt in regard Religion was then mightily corrupted, all things were out of order, the Church of the Jewes did then haſten to their deſtruction, and ſo no wonder if Hereſies and falſe Doctrines were ſuffered in ſuch a State as well as other things. Secondly, the Jewes were not then a free people, neither had they the Civill power abſolutely in their hands, they had no truly Bellarm. De laicis lib. 3. cap. 19. Iewiſh King who cared for thoſe things, but Herod the Idumean, and the High Prieſt then could do nothing. Thirdly, Gabriel Powell Refutat. of an Apologet. Epiſtle e Toleration page 40. God permitted Iury to abound with diverſity of Sects in the dayes of Herod, as the Sadduces, Eſſenes, the Phariſees, the Herodians, becauſe he had a purpoſe to deſtroy the Iewiſh Common-wealth, and to bring all into ſubjection to Chriſt, and the Toleration of divers Religions among them was the forerunner, and preparer of the way for the ruine of the Iewiſh State, as it hath beene of many States.

6ly. ſuppoſing the Kings of Iuda and Iſrael de facto, had never exerciſed any coercive power on any other objects but Idolaters and Idolatry, and that all the commands in the Old Teſtament given to the Iewiſh Magiſtrates had beene in the letter of the text onely againſt Idolaters and Idolatry, (which is not true) yet by vertue of thoſe very commands and examples Magiſtrates might exerciſe a coercive power againſt evills of the like kind, though not in the letter ſpecified; and the reaſon is this, becauſe the commands of God and the examples of good men accordingly recorded in Scripture might in the letter (at leaſt for the generality) be expreſſed only againſt thoſe evills, and that kind and ſort of them which were moſt in uſe in that age and time when they were given, and yet other kinds of thoſe ſins, or other ſinnes as bad, or worſe which ſhould ariſe afterwards were by juſt Analogie, common equity, by a Synecdoche uſuall in ſuch commands forbidden alſo. As for example the ſecond Commandement forbids only in the letter and by name graven Image, and the likeneſſe of any thing, and yet in that command all mediums of worſhips invented by men (though not graven Images nor likeneſſe) are forbidden under the title of graven Images and likeneſſe, and that by a Synecdoche common in the Decalogue, which becauſe in thoſe times of Moſes they were the chiefe inventions of m n corrupting the worſhip of God, they are fitly put in the place of all humane inventions brought into the worſhip of God, of which the Reader may finde more in Doctor Ames Medul. Theolog. 2. Booke 13. chap. De Cultu Inſtituto. So becauſe Idolatry, and Idolatry with Apoſtafie to ſerve ſtrange Gods, the Gods of thoſe Nations, whom God had caſt out of the Land of Canaan (there being many Cananites, &c. among them) were the corruptions the Iſraelites were moſt in danger of, the Idolatries moſt in uſe in thoſe times, and by the Nations round about them when they ſhould come to Canaan (as is evident by many places of Deutr.) and the falſe Prophets and Seducers then went moſt about to ſeduce men in that way, therefore God in the letter (as it was moſt needfull) ſpoke by name againſt ſuch Prophets and ſuch Idolatry as were moſt ſtirring in thoſe times, under which commands are forbidden by a Synecdoche and by Analogie other depravations of Gods worſhip and name that might ariſe in after ages, for by the rules of Interpretation of Scripture given by Divines, where a thing is forbid, there all of that nature and ſort are forbidden alſo; as for example, greater ſinnes of that kinde, then thoſe expreſſed in the letter muſt needs be forbidden, and ſo leſſer alſo. Now certainly where God hath given a command to Magiſtrates in the letter to puniſh ſuch offences, if his ſubjects commit greater and higher againſt God and his worſhip by the equity of this command he is to puniſh them (if none in the letter for thoſe) as if there had been no command but againſt Idolatry of ſuch Nations, yet worſhipping the Devill, offering up children to Moloch, blaſpheming God and his worſhip, with other ſuch, ought to be reſtrained, and if they commit Idolatry or other corruptions, not ſo great or ſo groſſe, yet by way of proportion and equity ſuch ought to be, though in a lower kind and way. And 'tis evident by many inſtances that the Iewiſh Magiſtrates Kings and others, as Ioſiah Nehemiah, &c. did puniſh in a proportion (though not with death) thoſe who violated the worſhip of God, and the firſt Table, though they were not guilty of Idolatry and Apoſtafie to worſhip other gods, nor of worſhipping the true God by Idols, as by the golden Calves of Jeroboam. And if that be good Divinity which M. S. the Father of that Evafion of Idolatry and Idolaters being the adaequate object of the coercive power of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion, hath pag. 89. of the ſame Book, That God prohibiting all manner of violence, oppreſſion and hard meaſure among his people one towards another, though ſuch Lawes as thoſe in the letter of them reſpected only Civil transfactions and dealings betweene men, yet the equity and ſpirit of them extends to ſpirituals alſo, men being every whit as liable to violence, oppreſſion and hard meaſure from men for their conſcience ſake as in any other reſpects, or upon any other grounds whatſoever, then from that command, Deut. 13. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and from thoſe examples of Aſa, Ioſiah, to inferre an equity of puniſhing other offences in the ſame kinde, though not named in the letter, muſt needs be better Divinity, becauſe every one cannot but conceive that the equity and ſpirit of a Law may upon better grounds extend to things in the ſame kinde and of the ſame nature, from one ſpirituall thing to another, from Idolatry to Wil-worſhip or Hereſie, then from civill things to religious, which differ tot genere. But ſetting aſide M. S. Conceſſion, is there not all the equity and reaſon in the world from thoſe commands forementioned (though granting according to the letter of thoſe Lawes no man ſhould be put to death for any thing leſſe then that kind of Idolatry with Apoſtaſie, worſhipping falſe gods) that thoſe who worſhip the true God by graven Images by making likeneſſes of him, and that corrupt the doctrine of Faith and Religion, ſhould alſo by the Magiſtrates bee puniſhed as well by ſuppreſſing their Conventicles, putting them out of places of power, &c. though not ſo much as the others. Or is there any equity and proportion in this, that God ſhould command puniſhing with death (the higheſt kinde the Magiſtrate can inflict) for Idolatrie in worſhipping ſtrange gods, and ſhould forbid any puniſhment or reſtraint at all of Idolatry, and corruption of his worſhip in the next degree to that? According to degrees of faults to have degrees of puniſhments is of the light of nature and right reaſon; but to have a higher degree of an offence to bee puniſhed with death, and all others not to bee puniſhed at all, is againſt the light of nature and all reaſon: Lets but look into the Scriptures for the violation of other commands of God, as in the 6, 7 and 8th. Commandements: and wee ſhall finde that where the higher degrees and violations had greater puniſhments, the others went not ſcorfree. For example, when adultery was puniſhed with death, fornication was puniſhed with fifty ſhekels of ſilver, and wit •• paying of money according to the dowry of virgins, Exod. 22. 16. 17. compared with Deut. 22. 22. 28, 29. So, when ſtealing of men was death, ſtealing of oxen and ſheep was reſtoring five and foure-fold, Exod. 21. 16. Exod. 22. 1.

Seventhly, there is a great agreement between the falſe Prophets under the old Teſtament, and the falſe teachers under the New, between Idolatry under the old Teſtament, and Hereſies now (many Hereſies being groſſe Idolatries) as is evident by many Scriptures of the New Teſtament, which lively parallels and reſembles theſe to each other, ſo that it cannot bee upon any good ground conceived that the firſt ſort ſhould bee puniſhed with death, and the latter not puniſhed at all; but I referre the fuller clearing of this to the 17. Theſis, where upon occaſion of opening that 13. of Deutero omi I ſhall ſpeak more.

15. THESIS.

Beſides the full concurrent teſtimony and judgement of the moſt learned Proteſtant Divines, Calvin, Philip Melancton, Beza, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Bullinger, Muſculus, Chemnitius, Gerardus, Bucanus, Bilſon, Cartwright, Profeſſores Leydenſes, Voetius, Triglandus, that the care of Religion and Gods worſhip belongs to the Magiſtrate, that God hath given him a power and authority objective and externall in Eccleſiaſticall cauſes to look to Religion as to Civil Juſtice, ſo as he is bound to ſee the true Religion and ſervice of God ſet up and maintained in his Dominions, being therupon generally by all Divines cal'd Cuſtos & Curator utriuſque Tabulae. God himſelf in the Scriptures ſhowes at much, annexing the care of Religion and keeping the Law, the firſt Table as well as the ſecond to the Magiſtrate, Deut. 17. 18, 19. God there appoints that the King over his people when he comes to the Throne of his kingdome, ſhould have a Copie of the Law written out of that which was before, the Prieſts the Levites to be alwayes with him. Now the Law there ſpoken of is meant the whole Law of God, the firſt Table as well as the ſecond, that which concerned God as well as man, becauſe it was a Copie of that Originall which was kept in the Tabernacle for the Prieſts and Levites, whoſe office was principally about matters of the firſt Table; and then the end expreſſed in the 19. verſe, that the King might learne to feare the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this Law, ſhowes as much that by the name of the Law muſt be underſtood the whole Syſteme of the Divine Law, ſo that by this place of Scripture 'tis evident that not only the ſecond Table of the Morall Law that contains juſtice and righteouſneſſe is committed to the Magiſtrate, but the firſt alſo concerning the worſhip of God is given to his cuſtody. And as tis underſtood of the whole Law, ſo the cuſtody of the Law of God is not here a Cuſtodia legum perſonalis & privata, meant only of a perſonall private keeping, as the Pleaders for Toleration evade, ſaying, that the King in his perſon as well as others was to keep the Law, but alſo and cheifly of a Meiſnerus Sect. 2. Controverſ. quaeſt. Politic. De Magiſtr. pag. Cuſtodia Officialis & publica quod Rex curare debeat ut Lex Domini pure doceatur, ut cultus inſtituatur, a publike keeping out of office, it being the Kings office to care that the Law of God ſhould be purely taught, and his worſhip ſet up; and that it muſt be ſo underſtood, conſider theſe following Reaſons.

Firſt, this King, verſe 15. was to be one from among themſelves, a Brother, not a ſtranger, who was to know the Law of God, and to keep it perſonally as well before he was a King, as after, the Law of God being committed to private perſons equally as to Kings for their particular perſonall obſervation, and therefore ſure in this ſolemne injunction there's ſomething new and more required of Kings then was of them before, or is of perſons meerly private.

Bilſons difference between Chriſtian ſubjection and unchriſtian Rebellion. part 2. pag. 178. Secondly, this was not done till juſt hee was placed in the throne, ſo ſaith the text, verſe 18. The Law was committed to the King as a King at his Coronation, which ſhowes it had not reference to the Kings private converſation as a meer man, but to his Princely function as a Magiſtrate, which ſtood in commanding others, not in guiding himſelfe. For no man is a King in reſpect of himſelfe, but in ruling his Subjects. SoAuguſt. Epiſt. 50. Auguſtin ſaith of Kings, As a man hee ſerveth God one way, as a King another way; As a man by faithfull living, as a King in ſetting forth Lawes to command that which is good, and remove the contrary. So that Kings as Kings ſerve God in doing that for his ſervice which none but Kings can doe. This is alſo proved from 2 Kings 11. 12. compared with 2 Chron. 23. 11. where to King Jehoaſh in his ſolemne inauguration as ſoon as the Crown is put upon him, the Book of the Teſtimony was given him from the high Prieſt, that hee might know the care and publick cuſtody of the Law was committed to him in his being made a King; and in that the command of God with the practiſe accordingly, together with putting the Crown on the head was to give the Law in the Kings hand, it ſhowes it was to command it to others, and make others keep it. And that this was the meaning of it in Jehoaſh, and ſo in other Princes, it may further appeare in that the people at that time being much corrupted in Religion, and Jehoaida the high prieſt deſiring much their Reformation, and the Reſtauration of Religion, as a meanes to effect it made a covenant between the Lord and the people: and as the medium and meanes that that people ſhould bee the Lords people, hee brings in the King between them that hee ſhould interpoſe with his authority to make them the Lords people, verſe 17. And Iehoiada made a Covenant between the Lord and the King, and the people, that they ſhould bee the Lords people, Vide Late Annotations of Engliſh Divines on the place. that hee ſhould ſet up and maintain the true worſhip of God, and bee for God to bring in the people.

Thirdly,Vide Pet. Mart. in locum. the ends expreſſed in Deut. 17. Of the Kings prolonging his dayes in his Kingdome, hee and his children in the midſt of Iſrael, of his not turning aſide from the commandement to the right or to the left, of his learning to fear the Lord God, and keeping all the words of the Law, ſhow, 'tis underſtood of a publike officiall keeping the Law; for the Kings of Iſrael and Judah could not prolong their dayes in their Kingdomes, nor their children enjoy good dayes after them if they ſuffered Idolatry, Apoſtaſie, &c. in their land, though themſelves practiſed it not, as may bee ſeen in Solomon, and the ſtories of the Kings of Iſrael and Judah, neither could they keep all the commands of God, there being many commands given to the Iewiſh Magiſtrates (as is confeſſed, but pleaded to bee Iudiciall and peculiar to them) to ſee their people ſerve God only, and to puniſh Idolaters and falſe Prophets.

Fourthly, the practiſe of the good Kings among the Iewes not only keeping the Law themſelves, but cauſing others alſo, as Joſiah, Hezekiah, Aſae, &c. and that from this Text, and ſuch like, ſhowes it was meant of a publick keeping the Law; the diligent execution of their office ſerves for an evident expoſition what God required at their hands.

And as I have proved that of Deut. 17. ſpeaks of a keeping the Law ex officio as a publick cuſtos, ſo for the taking of another evaſion brought by Mr. Goodwin in his Hagiomaſtix, page 132. I deſire the Reader to obſerve that God having given power and authority to the Magiſtrate to ſee the firſt Table kept, the duties commanded to bee performed by all under his juriſdiction, and to bee guarded againſt all diſobedience and contempt from men, it muſt bee underſtood in the uſe of ſuch meanes and wayes God hath allowed the Magiſtrate as diſtinct from private perſons or miniſters, viz. ſuch as are proper to him, and which God hath given him by virtue of his place to uſe. Now thoſe meanes qua Magiſtrate are in the exerciſe of his coercive power by Lawes and Edicts, and by the uſe of the temporall ſword given him of God to reſtrain and hinder ſuch evills, and to promote and further ſuch good. Phil. Mela c. de Magistrat. Civilibus & dignitate Rerum Politic. So Melancton when as the Magiſtrate is the keeper of the Lawes hee himſelfe obeys them, and compells others to obey them, and defends ſtrongly their authority: Therefore he is armed of God with the ſword. The Miniſter hee reſtraines and puniſhes only with the word of God, with preaching and excommunication without bodily force. But the Magiſtrate being armed with the ſword, puniſhes thoſe who are con umaicous with puniſhments of the body. Triglandu de potest. Civili. & Eccleſ. c. 13. p. 258. 259 Triglandus ſhowes how Miniſters, Fathers of families, Magiſtrates and all people are commanded to keep the Law, and are keepers of the Law, and then layes down the difference between all theſe in keeping the Law. The Miniſter hee teaches whole Aſſemblies the true rule of holineſſe, admoniſhes, and exhorts al to ſubject to the command of Chriſt, and by the power of the keyes caſts out from the communion of the faithfull impenitent and refractorie perſons. The father of a family teaches in his family the exerciſe of true piety, goes before them in example, and by his authority reſtrains his that they ſhall not turne out of the good way. Now he who is Magiſtrate, doth not teach but as a beleever out of the Law of love as other beleevers doe, and as a Father of a Family his owne houſehold: But as a Magiſtrate with his coercive power he commands and forces all within his Territories that they ſhall not outwardly offend againſt the true Religion and worſhip of God. Ameſius Medul. lib. 2. cap. 17. pag. 551. Magiſtratuum eſt politicis medi •• , & poteſtate coerciva procurare bonum commun , tam ſpirituale quam corporale omnium corum, quo habent ſuae juriſdictioni commiſſos. And ſo all our Divines who have written of the differences between Civill and Eccleſiaſticall power, as 〈◊〉 , Z •• chiu , Ameſi •• , Apollo ••• , 〈◊〉 , do ſhow the lawfulneſſe of the Magiſtrates uſing outward force by p nall Lawes and bodily puniſhments towards thoſe perſons and things whereof God hath given them power. I will quote one paſſage out of Ameſi •• . Between the Magiſtrates and the Miniſters of the Church, there is this difference. Tis the duty of Magiſtrates by Civil means, and coercive power to procure the common good as well ſpirituall as bodily of all thoſe committed to their juriſdiction, 1. Tim. 2. 2. but of Miniſtere by Eccleſiaſticall means to procure the ſpirituall good of thoſe committed to them. Bilſons difference between Chriſtian ſubjection and unchriſtian Rebellion, part 3. page 308. And another out of Bilſon, Miniſters may teach but not command, perſwaſion is their part, compulſion is the Princes. By all which it appeares the Magiſtrate having power in matters of Religion, as the Scriptures quoted, with that received maxime Magiſtratus eſt Cuſtos utriuſque Tabulae prove, the exerciſing of it by coercive means is no unrighteous way, but moſt ſutable to the nature of that Ordinance of Magiſtracie appointed by God to be the keeper of the firſt Table quoad externam Diſciplinam, the due conſideration whereof fully anſwers Hagiomaſtixs rich ſence of the Magiſtrates being Cuſtos utriuſque Tabulae, laid down by him, page 131, 132. and ſhowes both his Senſes to be but meere Evaſions. The fourth Commandement contains the ſumme of all Religion and the publike worſhip of God; the Commandement is Synechdochicall as the others are, containing more things then are experſſed in words: In this Commandement not only the time to be allowed for publike worſhip, but what ever belongs to this worſhip are breifely comprehended under the ſanctification of the Sabbath. 'Tis commanded that the Church ſetting aſide all other buſineſſes of this life ſhould meet to worſhip God to hear his word, pray, &c. For as theſe things cannot be done without time, ſo not without place, Miniſters, &c. Therefore in this Synecdoche are contained the commands of the publike Eccleſiaſticall meetings to worſhip God, of places choſen fit for meeting, of the Miniſters and their office. In a word, this command of the ſanctification of the Sabbath contains all thoſe things which belong to the worſhip of God, and are judged to be neceſſary. Zanchi upon the fourth Commandement, page 652. ſhowes this at large. Chemnitius alſo in his Common Places De lege Dei on the forth Commandement, with Rivetus in his Explication of the Decalogue, page 111. are of the ſame minde that the worſhip of God is required under keeping the Sabbath day holy, the publick worſhip, and the private ſerving in reference to the publike being there commanded. And 'tis the obſervation of Zanchie on the fourth Commandement, page 651. that there is in the manner of delivering the fourth Commandement, and the other three before it, a three-fold difference. 1. All the other are plainly negative, Thou ſhalt not, but this of the Sabbath is expreſſely affirmative and negative too. 2. In the others he ſets not his owne example, but in this he does. 3. In them he ſpeaks ſimply, Thou ſhalt not, but here not contended with a ſimple Commanding, hee adds a word Remember, by all which God would reach that 'tis much in his heart that this Commandement ſhould be kept and that 'tis a command of great moment. Now this Morall Commandement containing the ſumme of Religion and Gods publike worſhip, is given in the firſt place to the Father of the Family, directed immediatly to him, Thou and thy ſonne and thy daughter, &c. therefore given to the Governours of the Familie, that they ſhould ſee it be obſerved of their whole Family, God having ſo expreſſed it as Zanchius * ſpeaks to decla e he would Zanch. in qua . praecept. 659. have Governours of the Family to be the Authors and leaders to the whole Family to bring them to the publike Aſſemblies to ſanctifie the Sabbath. Now this Pronowne thou being a Synecdoche comprehending more then is expreſſed by name, viz as all Governours of Families, Maſters, &c. beſides naturall Fathers, ſo Magiſtrates the Fathers and Governours of their people, (as many learned Divines upon the place expound it) teaches us that this command comprehending the ſumme of all Religion and publike worſhip, is given to the Magiſtrates in the firſt place for their ſubjects, and by this command we are inſtructed not only what lies upon the Maſter of the Family, but what is the Magiſtrates duty in Religion, viz. that he ſhould doe the will of God himſelfe, and care that it be done alſo of others, and ſee Gods Sabbaths be ſanctified. So that here we have in this fourth command the duty of Magiſtrates in Religion, and how that the care of Gods publike worſhip and Religion is committed to them, that they ſhould look to it. Zanchius in quart. praecept. 659, 660 Quia vero Synecdoche eſt ſub Patreſamilias, complectens & Magiſtratum, ideo tacite etiam docet, non ſolum quid inc •• bat cuique Patrifamilias, ſed etia quodnam ſit Magistratus officium in religione: nempe ut primo intelligat ex lege Dei quae ſit ejus voluntas; deinde eam faciet ipſe, & curet ab aliis etiam fieri, Sabbatumque ex ejus voluntat ſanctific •• i, vide ibi plura. Zanchie upon this fourth command ſpeaks much how under the Father by a Synecdoche is meant alſo the Magiſtrate, and that here the holy Ghoſt teaches what the office of a Magiſtrate is in matters of Religion, how that he is to command his ſubjects to the outward worſhip, and to uſe his endeavour that his ſubjects may come to the publike aſſemblies, and together with others ſanctifie the Sabbath. Chemnitius loc. com. de lege Dei in quart. praecept. p. 144. Manifeſtum eſt a Parentibus, Patribus familias & Magiſtra tibus exigi non tantum ut ipſi Sabbatum ſanctificent, ſed ipſorum officii eſſe ut curent a reliquis etiam ſanctificari, prohibeant & puniant prophanationem. Et oftendit Deus Magiſtratum debere curare ut peregrini habitantes in portis conforment ſe religioni verae, ne inde oriantur ſcandala. Chemnitius upon the ſame command writes thus, 'Tis manifeſt, in this Commandement 'tis required of Parents, Maſters of families, and Magiſtrates, not only that themſelves ſanctifie the Sabbath, but that it is their place and duty that they care it be ſanctified of others, and prohibite and puniſh its prophanation. And God doth ſhew that the Magiſtrates ought to care, that ſtrangers inhabiting within their gates ſhould conform to the true Religion, leſt otherwiſe ſcandals ſhould ariſe. And that by [thou] the Magiſtrate is underſtood, and ſo by this command, the care of the publike worſhip and Sabbath to ſee it ſanctified, is given to the Magiſtrate, is further proved from thoſe words, nor the ſtranger that is within thy gates. By gates, in that place, are underſtood not only a particular family or city, but the whole country of any people, as Gen. 22. v. 27. He ſhall poſſeſſe the gates of his enemies, and Gen. 24. 60. Deut. 24. 24. So learned Rivet upon the 4. Commandement, by ſtrangers within thy gates are meant, Firſt ſtrangers who commonly inhabited and lived in the common wealth of Iſrael, Secondly ſtrangers who came from other countries for a time, not to remain, but either to ſee the country, or to traffick, &c. both which are to keep the Sabbath, the latter ſort ſo far, as not to violate it with any externall ſervile work, as is evident by Nehem. 13. v. 19, 20, 21. Now the meaning of gates & ſtrangers fully ſheweth the Magiſtrate is meant in the command; for many ſtrangers in the firſt ſenſe dwelt in houſes of their own, & in the 2d ſenſe the Father of a family had nothing to do out of his houſe, or with travellers & merchants who were of no family, but the reſtraining of them belonged properly to the Magiſtrate. Upon which interpretation Rivetus in Decal. pag. 112. Zanch. in quar. pr cept. p. 600. Rivet and Zanchius do ſhew how 'tis the part of a Magiſtrate to provide that ſtrangers may not give ſcandals in a common-wealth, but that at leaſt they be made to keep outward diſcipline with others. The ſtrangers among the Jews were compelled not only to ſtand to their Political laws, but to ſome of the outward precepts of Religion, and that partly leſt the good manners of the Jewes ſhould be corrupted and diſturbed with the Gentiles evil manners, and that the ſtrangers among them might be in ſome ſort inſtructed in the knowledge of the Divine law.

And whoſoever would be fully ſatisfied in this point that the publike exerciſe of piety and Religion is commanded in the fourth Commandement, and that this Commandement belongs and is given to the Magiſtrates, not only as particular perſons, but as they are Magiſtrates, ſo that 'tis their part to care by their authority that the Sabbath be ſanctified, that is, that Religion bee preſerved, and the exerciſes of piety take place in their Countries and Territories; and further know what the office of a Magiſtrate is in matters of Religion both in reſpect of perſons and things, and that in the ſeverall particulars, let him read learned Zanchius on the fourth Commandement, particularly in theſe pages 651, 652. 659, 660. and eſpecia ly 788, 789, &c. the fifth Common Place De Offici Principum in Religione, of the office of Princes in Religion. And therefore ſeeing Magiſtrates have the care of Religion and Gods worſhip committed to them, being by God appointed to be keepers of the firſt Table as well as the ſecond, among other particulars laid down in the word, and branched out by Divines, wherein the Magiſtrates power in matters of Religion ſtands, this muſt needs be one, a power of ſuppreſſing falſe Religions and Hereſies, and puniſhing thoſe who by all wayes and meanes go about to deſtroy the true. If the Magiſtrate be Cuſtos prim Tabula, he is alſo Vindex primae Tabulae. If the Magiſtrate have a power of commanding the true, and uſing co rcive meanes to bring his people to it, then ſure he hath of hindring the falſe, as he that by Law hath the power of keeping the peace, hath a power alſo of ſuppreſſing tumults, riots, r u s, and the reaſon is manifeſt, becauſe the one cannot be kept without the other: the Phyſitian who hath a power given him over bodies for their health, hath a power over ſickneſſes, corrupt meats, poyſon, and all that would deſtroy the health and life. He who hath the power of keeping a Garden and the precious flowers and fruits in it, hath a power of plucking up weeds, taking Mouls, Snails and ſuch like that would ſpoile all. He who may juſtly command, may juſtly puniſh; and he that may lawfully puniſh, may certainly command. All learning will tell us that contraries be conſequent to contraries. If Magiſtrates may lawfully command and eſtabliſh that which is good, then they may forbid and aboliſh the contrary evill, of which ſee more in Bilſons Difference between Chriſtian ſubjection and unchriſtian Rebellion, part. 2. p. 278, 279. And therefore we ſee Joſiah and other Princes who eſtabliſhed the true Religion, & by their kingly authority cauſed the people to ſtand to it, removed and puniſhed alſo all perſons and wayes contrary thereunto: Hence I conceive tis, that maxime is generally received among Divines, Magiſtratus eſt Cuſtos ac vindex utriuſque Tabulae, the Magiſtrate is the Revenger of both Tables as well as the Keeper.

16. THESIS.

Magiſtrates qua Magiſtrates, by vertue of their office, as Magiſtrates ſimply, every of them, though Turks, Heathen and wicked, as well as Chriſtian and Orthodox, have an authority, right, power from God Jure divino in matters of Religion to command for God, and his Honor, and to forbid and ſuppreſſe the contrary. The Magiſtrate in generall being by his proper place the Miniſter of God, Rom. 13. Gods vicegerent governing men in the roome of God, even ſo far as his power and juriſdiction extends, is bound to care in matters of Religion. As now Parents qua Parents have by the morall law of God a power and a duty lying upon them to command their children to good, and to forbid evill, and have a rod given into their hands to thoſe ends, although being Heathens or wicked, for the preſent they know not, or will not exerciſe it in teaching and bringing them up in the Chriſtian Religion and fear of God: So is with Magiſtrates, the Authority and right every of them hath by being a Magiſtrate, who by his place is for the puniſhment of evill doers and the praiſe of them that doe well, however to the due and right exerciſe of this, a good will and true knowledge out of the word of God may be required.Magiſtratus omnis ta . Chriſtianus quam non Chriſtianus poteſt & debet. Vide plura. Zanehius in his M ſcellaniet de Magiſtratu 167. 169. and De Eccleſi militantis Gubernatione, cap. 26. pag. 553, 554. ſhowes that every Magiſtrate as well; wicked as godly, not Chriſtian as Chriſtian, hath this power and ſo doth Spalatenſis in his ſixth Book, fifth chapter De Republica Eccleſiaſtica, but for the better underſtanding of it I ſhall lay downe this twofold diſtinction.

Firſt, that Heathen Princes ſo farre as the light of nature teaches them and right Reaſon, are to make Lawes in matters of Religion and whereas the * light of nature leads on ſtraight to the knowledge of one God and Supreme Deity,Rom. 1. 19, 20, 21. and dictates this God to be juſt, holy, good, perfect, &c. and to bee worſhipped with reverence, they ſhould command ſo farre, remove Idolatry, the worſhip of birds, four-footed beaſts, and creeping things, promote the worſhip of the true God, puniſh blaſphemies and wicked opinions contrary to the nature of God, and that out of their proper office of being Princes, as the immediate Miniſters and Vicegerents of God on earth: Hence we read in many Writers, as Vit. Num. Pompil. De Reverent. Dei hoe age. Numa alſo forbad the Romans to beleeve that God hath either forme or likeneſſe of beaſt or man, ſo that in Rome there was no Image of God neither painted nor graven. Vide ibi plura. Plutarch, Ariſtotle, Plato and others, that Heathen Princes have made Lawes for God and his worſhip, and have puniſhed Atheiſts, Epicures Blaſphemers, and Sacrilegious perſons; and as any of them have come to more knowledge of God and Religion by any extraordinary work of Gods providence, or by living among them of the true Religion as the Jews before Chriſts time, and Chriſtians ſince, though not fully converted, yet ſtill according to their knowledge and means, they were bound, and many of them have gone on in promoting the true Religion, and forbidding the contrary, as the King of Niniveh, Darius, Nebuchadonezor, and Aurelianus at the requeſt of the Church puniſhing Paulus Samoſetenus the Heretick. But now if beſide the light of nature and dictamen of naturall reaſon, Princes have the light of faith, the knowledge of Chriſt and the Scriptures, of Heathens come to be Chriſtians, or being borne in Chriſtian Common-wealths, have from their child hood beene brought up in the faith of Chriſt, then alſo out of their kingly office they ſhould throw downe all things contrary to faith and the true worſhip of Chriſt, and poſitively by outward acts promote and command the outward worſhip of God, have a care of the Eccleſiaſticall Diſcipline, and of all the parts of Religion that they may be preſerved: Of which the Reader may be further ſatisfied in the writings of that learned manDe Republ. Eccleſ. cap. . 579, 580. Quod ſi praeter nudum lumen naturae, & naeturalis ſolius rationis dictamen, adſit in Rege terreno, ex Dei beneficio etiam lumen fidei, adeoque dictamen hoc rationis ſupernaturalibus etiam virtutibus infuſis dirigatur, tunc ſimiliter ex odem regis officio religionis que que Cuſtes ita ſuam debet ordinare Politiam, primum negative ut illa cum fide moribuſque fideli homini digni no s pugnet; deinde poſitive per actus externos (qui ſoli ad ipſius ſpectant poteſtatem) externam divinum cultum foveat, promoveat, &c. Vide ibi plura. Zanch. de Magiſtr. 553, 554. Marcus Antonius de Dominis Archbiſh. of Spalato.

Secondly, though the care of Religion belongs to al Princes, yet in a ſpeciall manner upon ſpeciall obligations the Chriſtian aith belongs to Chriſtian Magiſtrates and Princes, whom God hath given to be nurſing Fathers and nurſing Mothers: theſe have not only a remote power, but the next power which they may bring into act by reaſon of the knowledge of Chriſt, and many helps; and this many Reformed Divines affert of the Chriſtian Magiſtrate in the handling of this queſtion of the Magiſtrates power, as Zanchius and others. But if the Magiſtrate be alſo Chriſtian, we doe beleeve it ſpecially belongs to him to take a peculiar care of the Chriſtian Religion. And I have ſet downe this Theſis thus diſtinctl by it ſelfe, becauſe divers of the Patrons of Toler tion, eſpecially Cretenſis in his M. S. pag. 48, 49. and in his Hagiom ſtix. 99, 100. 125. doe on purpoſe ſnarle and make intricate the queſtion about the Magiſtrates power in matters of Religion, trouble the waters, by falling upon that phraſe often expreſſed by Divines in this Controverſie the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, which how tis to be taken I have ſhowed, and ſhould have here more fully opened it, and taken off ſome cavils I foreſee likely to be made againſt it, but that I have ſpoken of it in the Prolegomen , and intend in the ſecond or third part of Toleration to treat more fully of it.

17. THESIS.

Beſides all the proofes in the Old Teſtament of Magiſtrates power de facto in matters of Religion, with commands given to them to look to ſee the true Religion ſettled in their Countries (which I have given in former Theſes) there are many expreſſe commands given by God to the Magiſtrates to puniſh perſons in their Territories for matters againſt the firſt Table viz. Idolaters, Blaſphemers, falſe Prophets, Seducers, Witches and Wizards, Prophaners of the Sabbath, as in Exodus 22. verſe 20. He that ſacrificeth unto any God ſave unto the Lord only, he ſhall be utterly deſtroyed. Deut. 13. verſe 1, 2, 5, If there ariſe among you a Prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, ſaying, let us go after other Gods, which thou haſt not known, and let us ſerve them: Thou ſhalt not harken unto the words of that Prophet, &c. And that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams ſhall be put to death, becauſe he hath ſpoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the houſe of bondage, to thruſt thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in: So ſhalt thou put away the evill from the midſt of thee. Deut. 17. 2, 3, 4, 5. If there be found among you within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedneſſe in the ſight of the Lord thy God, in tranſgreſſing, his Covenant, and hath gone and ſerved other gods and worſhipped them, either the Sun or Moon, or any of the hoſt of Heaven, which I have not commanded; and it be told thee and thou haſt beard of it, and inquired diligently, and behold it be true, and the thing certaine that ſuch abomination is wrought in Iſrael: then ſhalt thou bring forth that man or that moman (which have committed that wicked thing) unto the gates, even that man or that woman and ſhalt ſtone them with ſtones untill they die. verſe 12, 13. And the man that will doe preſumptuouſly, and will not hearken unto the Prieſt (that ſtandeth to miniſter there before the Lord thy God) or unto the Judge, even that man ſhall die, and thou ſhalt put away evill from Iſrael. And all the people ſhall heare and feare, and doe no more preſumptuouſly. Levit. 24. 16. And he that blaſphemeth the name of the Lord, he ſhall ſurely he put to death, and all the Congregation ſhall certainly ſtone him: As well the ſtranger, as he that is borne in the Land, when he blaſphemeth the name of the Lord, ſhall be put to death. verſe 23. And Moſes ſpake to the children of Iſrael, that they ſhould bring forth him that had curſed out of the Camp, and ſtone him with ſtones: and the children of Iſrael did as the Lord commanded Moſes. Levit. 20. 2, 3, 4. And the Lord ſpake unto Moſes ſaying, Againe thou ſhalt ſay to the children of Iſrael, whoſoever he be of the children of Iſrael, or of the ſtrangers that ſojourne in Iſrael that giveth any of his ſeed to Molech, he ſhall ſurely be put to death. Exod. 22. 18. Levit. 20. 27. Thou ſhalt not ſuffer a Witch to live. A man alſo or woman that hath a familiar ſpirit, or that is a Wizard, ſhall ſurely be put to death; they ſhall ſtone them with ſtones: their bloud ſhall be upon them. Yee ſhall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it, ſhall ſurely be put to death: for whoſoever doth any work therein, that ſaule ſhall he cut off from among his people.

Deut. 18. 20. 22. But the Prophet which ſhall preſume to ſpeak word in my name, which I have not commanded him to ſpeak, or that ſhall ſpeak in the name of other gods, even that Prophet ſhall die. When a Prophet ſpeaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to paſſe, that is the thing which the Lord hath not ſpoken, but the Prophet hath ſpoken it preſumptuouſly: thou ſhalt not be afraid of him, that is, afraid to put him to death, either for his threatning words, or for his ſignes, or for his ſhowes of holineſſe, or becauſe he hath the name of a Prophet of the Lord, and ſpeaks in the name of the Lord, or is indeed a Prophet, as that old Prophet was 1 Kings 13. 11, 18, 20, 21, 30. Ainſw. upon this place, ſaith, the Hebrewes, explain it, ſaying Whoſoever withdraweth himſelfe from killing a falſe Prophet, becauſe of his dignity, for that he walketh in the ways of Prophecy, behold he tranſgreſſeth againſt this prohibition, thou ſhalt not be afraid of him. And ſo he that with draweth himſelf from teaching concerning him what he is guilty of; or that dreadeth and feareth for his words, &c. Now in all theſe commands, as their ſubject matter conſiſts of things forbidden in the ten Commandements, as Blaſphemie, Apoſtaſie, Witchcraft, Prophanation of the Sabbath, &c. So that the commands for puniſhing ſuch (for the ſubſtance of them) are moral too of common reaſon and equity given to all Nations, and for all ages, as to the Jewes and their times, I ſhall prove by theſe following Reaſons; and for the moſt materiall things brought of old or of late by the grand Patrons of Toleration Minus Celſus Senenſis, Acontius, Bloudy Tenet, M. S. Hagiomaſtix to make void theſe places of Scripture, (as that theſe commands either are abrogated by Chriſt, the things commanded in thoſe lawes belonging to the Jewes only, but not the Gentiles nor Chriſtians, or if they be any way morall, yet they extend not to Hereticks and falſe-teachers, but concern only Apoſtates, Blaſphemers, ſuch falſe Prophets who endeavoured to perſwade men to the worſhip of a falſe God; and that by affirming that they ſpake by the inſpiration of ſome deity) to them alſo I ſhall returne aſatiſfying Anſwer.

For the firſt, let the Reader lay together theſe particulars. 1. that tis evident ſome of theſe commands, as againſt offering their children to Molech, as againſt dealing and contracting with a familiar Spirit deſerve puniſhing among Chriſtians and under the Goſpell now, as well as under the Law, and if theſe, why not the other of Blaſphemy, Idolatry, falſe-prophecie, &c? theſe latter are of moral things as well as the other; the firſt and theſe are delivered both by Moſes in the ſamebooks, time, propounded after the ſame tenor and way, upon the ſame grounds and reaſons. No difference at all, unleſſe that theſe latter concerning Apoſtaſie, Idolatry, falſe prophecie, be more ſtrictly commanded and further inlarged, which the Reader by comparing the texts ſhall obſerve. But if it be ſaid thoſe commands againſt offering their ſeed to Molech and of witches, are therefore puniſhed by the Magiſtrate, becauſe they offend againſt lives and eſtates of mankind, in killing the children, in cattell being killed, and mens bodies being hurt by Witches and Wiſards, which is not in the other of Apoſtaſie, Blaſphemy, &c. I reply, tis to be obſerved that in all thoſe places where the commands are given by God to the Magiſtrate about theſe, there's not one jota or tittle expreſſed about offending againſt the ſecond Table in life or goods, but all the reaſon formally declared, is, becauſe againſt God immediately, and the commands of the firſt Table: For giving the ſeed to Molech, Levit. 18. 21. this is the reaſon alledged by God againſt it, Thou ſhalt not let any of thy ſeed paſſe through the fire to Molech, neither ſhalt thou prophane the name of thy God: I am the Lord, Levit. 20. 3. the reaſon given againſt it, is the defiling of Gods Sanctuary, and prophaning his holy name, both which ſpake in reference to the worſhip of God only and matters of Religion, as Ainſworth in his Notes upon both theſe Texts, fully and excellently ſhows, as alſo the late Annotations of our Engliſh Divines. It is further proved by thoſe two Texts Jerem. 7. 31. Jerem. 19. 5, 6. where God ſpeaking againſt the Jewes offering up their children to Molech, layes open their ſinnes in theſe expreſſions, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart, which I commanded not, nor ſpake it, neither came it into my minde, in which words God anſwers to what was in their hart, viz. that they did it as a worſhip to God, a thing commanded by him, and ſo out of conſcience, but God tels them, and that in theſe reiterated expreſſions it was never commanded by him among all the duties of his worſhip he never ſpake a word of any ſuch matter. and among all the places in Moſes Books, Prophets, the Books of Kings, Chronicles, where 'tis ſpoken of, we ſhall never find this condemned as murther, but ſtill ſpoken againſt as Idolatry, a corruption of Gods worſhip, and ſo recorded among ſuch tranſgreſſions: beſides according to Gods owne rule and way of acquitting ſome men of murther, by providing Cities of refuge, Deut. 19. in ſome caſes for men that had ſlaine their brethren, upon that ground, becauſe they hated them not in time paſt, twice expreſſed verſe 4. 6. the givers of their children to Molech will be found to be adjudged to death for their Idolatry rather then the killing their children: for it cannot be ſuppoſed that the worſhippers of Molech hated their children in time paſt, or at preſent, and out of that hatred offered them up in ſacrifice, but out of their blinde zeale and ſtrong deluſion, thinking therein they ſhould doe a high and extraordinary ſervice; Rabbi Bechai ſaith, that the Parents were perſwaded that by this ſacrifice the reſt of their children ſhould be delivered from death, and that they themſelves ſhould proſper for it all the dayes of their life. For ther's no queſtion but theſe Idolaters loved their children and had affections to them as might be proved by ſeverall reaſons, among others by the great noiſe made by beating upon Drums in the time of ſacrificing to drowne the cries of the children, left their cries working on their Fathers naturall affections ſhould make the Fathers ſpare them; whereupon the place of ſacrificing was called Tophet of Toph, which is a Taber or Drum. For the commands given to Magiſtrates againſt Witches, they are ſet down either without any reaſons at all of them, or elſe in thoſe places where any reaſons are aſſigned they relate wholly to God as a breach of the firſt Table, nothing at all as to men, as theſe Scriptures ſhow, Levit. 20. 6, 7. 26, 27. Deut. 18. 10, 11, 12, 13. and our Engliſh Divines in their late Annotations upon Exod. 22. 1 . write thus, Witchcraft in forbidden, and that upon paine of death. Some have thought Witches ſhould not die unleſſe they had taken away the life of mankind; but they are miſtaken, (the proof of which the Reader may finde ſet downe there) But why then muſt the Witch be put to death? Anſwer, Becauſe of the league and confederacie with the Devill, which is high treaſon againſt God, becauſe he is Gods chiefeſt enemie, and therefore though no 〈◊〉 enſue this contract at all, the Witch deſerver preſent and certaine death for the contract it ſelfe. Secondly, theſe commands to the Magiſtrate concerning Idolaters, Blaſphemers, &c. were not for the puniſhing of Iſraelites, the Jewiſh people only, but of all ſtrangers in their Land, both of Proſelytes that dwelt among them, and of others that only travelled thorough, or were there a while upon trading or ſuch like occaſions, as theſe Scriptures ſhow Levit. 20. verſe 2. Whoſoever he be of the children of Iſrael, or of the ſtranger that ſojourne in Iſrael, that giveth any of his ſeed to Molech, he ſhall ſurely be put to death, Levit. 24. verſe 16. Hee that blaſphemeth the name of the Lord ſhall ſurely be put to death, as well the ſtranger, as he that is borne in the Land. Upon which places of Scripture and others, as the fourth Commandement, &c. beſides many reaſons that might be given why ſtranger is to be taken in the largeſt ſenſe, even for al ſtrangers coming among them though not Pro elytes, it is the judgement of many learned men as Rabbins who were beſt skilled in the Cuſtomes of the Jewes, Maimonides with others, as moderne write s Zanchius, Rivetus, our Engliſh Divines in their late Annotations on Levit, 20. verſe 1. and above all Maſter Selden in that learned Book De Jure Naturali & Gentium lib. 2. cap. 3. clearly ſhowes, 'tis underſtood of all Gentiles coming among them by accident, as thoſe workmen of other Countries, Tyrians, Phaenitians, &c. ſent by Kings to King Solomon for the building of the Temple, or thoſe who paſſed from place to place for traffique ſake, or any who paſſed through the Countrey. MaſterLib. 2. cap. 3. 154. 155, 156. De Jure Natur. & Gent. Lib. 1. cap. 10. Gentilis quilibet qui non in ſe receperat ſeptem praecepta Noachidis imperata ultimo ſupplicio aſſiciendus erat ſi inditione noſtra commoraretur. Selden in that Book of his alſo ſhowes, that when the Iſraelites were Sui Juris in their owne Countrey, had power over the Nations, and were in a flouriſhing eſtate under David, Solomon and other ſuch Kings, they denied all dwelling and habitation to the Idolatrous Heathen, or ſo much as to lodge them by way of Travellers or Gueſts, till they had given their names to the ſeven Precepts Juris Noachidarum ſeu Naturalis (as they are called) among which Idolatry and Blaſphemy De Cultu extraneo, De maledictione Nominis ſanctiſſimi ſeu Numinis, were the firſt. Nay further he proveth that every Gentile which had not received thoſe ſeven Precepts was to be puniſhed with death if he ſtayed in the Jewes Territories, and particularly in divers places of that Book ſhowes that Idolatry and Blaſphemy were puniſhed by death upon all that lived in the Iewiſh Common-wealth, though they were not Proſelyti Juſticiae; and on thoſe words Levit 24. And he that blaſphemeth the name of the Lord, he ſhall ſurely be put to death, writes thus, Id eſt ſive fuerit Proſelytus ſen peregrinus, ſive indigena aut civis, ex eo quod blaſphemaverit nomen Domini morte plectendus eſt, yeaMr. Selden De Jure Naturali & Gentium. l. 2. c. 3. 156 lib. 2. c. 12. 162. lib. 3. cap. 1. 274. 275. De jure Gentium lib. 2. cap. 12 263. Ceterùm quoniam hac in re gravioribus coerceri volebant panis Gentiles ſeu Proſelytas Domicilii quam cives Ebraicos, ideo ex Iure Gentium interv niente ſeu Proſelytis ejuſmodi ipſiſque ſuperinducto, tam cogneminis alicujus Blaſphemiam aut maledictionem quam nominis propri , in Proſelyto domicilii ſeu Noachide ultimo plectebant ſupplicia. Maimonides, Noachides qui maledixerit Nomini, five id fecerit Nomine Proprio ſeu tetragrammato, ſive cognomine aliquo quocunque modo, reus eſt mortis, quod non ita obtinet in Iſraelita. he ſaith that the Gentiles or Proſelytes Domicilii, were puniſhed more ſeverely then the Iewes in this caſe of Blaſphemy, not only for blaſpheming the proper name of God, but the Cognomen. All which ſhowes clearly theſe puniſhments were not inflicted upon the Iewes qua Iewes, and qua a typicall people in a typicall Land, &c. but upon them as the nature of ſuch crimes calling for ſuch puniſhments, and that 'tis the Magiſtrates duty to reſtraine in Iews or Gentiles in all under their juriſdiction, Idolatry, blaſphemie, &c.

Thirdly, the reaſons and grounds of theſe Lawes and commands with the uſe and end of them upon which they are inforced, are of common reaſon and equity that concern us under the New Teſtament as well as the Iewes. I doe not finde one Ceremoniall or properly Iudiciall reaſon given of any one, but all of them are laid downe either abſolutely and ſimply without any reaſons at all, or elſe upon ſuch reaſons as are morall and perpetuall; and I judge that in all commands which are not typicall and ceremoniall, and ſo ſome other thing apppointed to come in upon the aboliſhment to make good their perpetuall end and uſe aſſigned, that rule of Divines holds univerſally true, Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile, which by the way may ſerve to anſwer the Evaſions of Minus Gelſus Senenſis, and of Hagiomaſtix bringing inſtances in Circumciſion and ſuch like, which the Scriptures declare expreſſely to be aboliſhed, having ſubſtituted Baptiſme and other ordinances in their roome, but have not ſaid one word in the like kind of the commands in queſtion; beſides that Chriſt the ſubſtance of thoſe ſhadows is come, and ſo they are of no further uſe at all. And indeed Acontius though a great Libertine doth confeſſe that Law in the 13th of Deuterenomy of the ſtoning of the falſe Prophet and Seducer is not confined only to the time before Chriſt having no place at all under the Goſpel, and to the ground and conjecture (as Acontius calls it) of that opinion, he ſaith that the reaſon ſet downe in the ſame is againſt it, viz. All Iſrael ſhall beare and feare, and ſhall do no more any ſuch wickedneſſe as this is among you, Acontius De ſtratagem. Satanae pag. 150. 151. Eſt enim in lege ut omnis Iſrael audiens timeat &c: Quae certe ratio perpetuo viget, ut quanquam lex ipſa exſpiraverit, tam ſit tamen jus magistratui ſimilem aliam condendi quam 〈◊〉 jus eſt in homicidas, adulteros alioſquae facinoroſos homines leges condere. which reaſon certainly abides alwayes, ſo that although this Law had exſpired, yet notwithſtanding by vertue of it the Magiſtrate hath a right and power of making another like it, as he hath of making Lawes againſt Murtherers, Adulterers and other flagitious perſons.

Fourthly, Before theſe Lawes in Deut. 13. and Deut, 17. for puniſhing Idolaters were given by Moſes, yea before Moſes time, or any Common-wealth among the Iewes was erected, in other Countries remote from the Land of Canaan, Idolatry in worſhipping creatures deſerved puniſhing by the Magiſtrate as I have ſhowed already fully in page 13, 14. of this Book; yea the particular kind of Idolatry inſtanced in Deut. 17. 3. of worſhipping the Sunne, or Moone, which among the Iſraelites was to be puniſhed by death, if it had been found in Job in the Land of Ʋz he had beene worthy of puniſhment from the Iudges for it Job 31. 26, 27. 28. And other Princes not Iewes, as Artaxerxes, Nebuchadonezar, &c. made Lawes and Edicts for puniſhing thoſe that blaſphemed the God of heaven, and tranſgreſſed his Lawes as the Scriptures teſtifie. Now the Lawes properly judiciall that were the Iewes civill Lawes ſimply belonging to them as ſuch a people in ſuch a Countrey, were in uſe only among themſelves, and not practiſed by other Nations and Countries; but ſuch Lawes and Cuſtomes uſed among them that were obſerved univerſally among all Nations, or by divers Nations (though not of all) ſtrictly ſpeaking were not Iudiciall Lawes, but the Lawes of Nature and Nations though according to the Diſcipline of the Iewes, that is, what was received in the Church and Common-wealth of the Iewes, and accordingly accounted by them as the Law of the world of all men and ages, or the Law of many Nations common to them with thoſe Nations, of all which the Reader may be further ſatisfied in that learned Peece of Mr. SELDEN'S, De jure Naturali, & Gentium juxta diſciplinam Ebraeorum; and particularly in the Preface of that Book, (where he ſheweth the reaſon of that Title, and gives the ſumme of his work and undertaking) and in his firſt Book. And among the Iawes of Naturall right, as diſtinguiſhed from the civil lawes of the Jews, or ſimply Iſraeliticall, thoſe commands of puniſhing for ſtrange worſhip, and Blaſphemie, are reckoned by the Jewes themſelves, as the Reader may find in theNam ubicun que ultimo ſupplicio punitur in foro Iſraelitico ultus extraneus, ibi Noachides ob ſimilem cultum plectendus erat. Et ubicun que in foro Iſraelitico morte non punitur ejuſmodi cultus, ne que ob ſimilem gladio plectitur Noachides. pag. 132. Praeter Idololatriam at maledictionem Numinis, nihil omnino ex jure naturali ſeu hominum omnium communi pro crimine ſeu delicto circa ſacra, quatenus ſcilicet Noachidas ſolùm ea reſpitiebant, in foro, quoties ſistebatur Proſelytus Domicilii, ſeu Gentilis ejuſmodi ipſis eſt habitum Pag 275. firſt book de Jure Naturali & Gentium, cap. 10. 2 book, cap. 1. 12. 3 book, cap. 1.

Fifthly, The Spirit of God under the New Teſtament, Hebr. 10. 28, 29. ſpeaking according to the common equity and juſtice of the matter, and not according to a Politicall law peculiar to one Nation, ſaith of the deſpiſers of Moſes law that died without mercy under two or three witneſſes, that they were worthy of it; as appears by the comparative, Of how much ſorer puniſhment ſuppoſe ye, ſhall he be thought warthy? Every comparative implying a poſitive: The ſorer puniſhment that he is worthy of, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, ſuppoſes the other worthy of the ſore puniſhment inflicted upon them by Moſes law for deſpiſing it. Now by Moſes law in this place, the breach whereof deſerved capitall puniſhment, muſt needs be meant ſins againſt the firſt Table rather then againſt the ſecond; and that becauſe the ſcope of the Apoſtle is to warne the Hebrews againſt Apoſtaſie and falling off from the Chriſtian religion, for which end he brings theſe words among others; and therefore would ſpeak ad idem. Beza upon 〈◊〉 place, ſaith, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of the tranſgreſſion of any one command, but of the apoſtaſie and totall defection from the true Religion, of which Moſes in Deut. 17. 2. had ſpoken. So Calvin upon this text. The law under Moſes did not puniſh with death all ſins or tranſgreſſions committed, but Apoſtaſie. The Apoſtle had an eye to that of Deut. 17. 2. of ſtoning him that ſerved ſtrange gods. And Pareus upon Heb. 10. 28, 29. ſhewes, that temporall death from the Magiſtrate, (for of that he ſpeaks, not of Gods judgements) was juſtly inflicted by Moſes law upon capitall tranſgreſſions, as Blaſphemie, Apoſtaſie; and therupon infers from the leſſe, that much greater puniſhment muſt abide Apoſtates who deſpiſe the Goſpel. Infert à minori, tanto gravius ſupplicium manere defectores illos. Si legis contemptoribus ſupplicium mortis, quo nihil eſt in hoc mundo acerhius, juſtè irrogabitur, uti que ſupplicium quovis morte atrocius Apoſtatae Evangelii contemptores incurrent? And 2 Heb. 2. in thoſe words For if the word ſpoken by Angels was firm, and every tranſgreſſion and diſobedience received a juſt recompence of reward the Apoſtle ſhews that the law of Moſes given by Angels, Gal. 3. 19. Act. 7. 30. had the breach and tranſgreſſion of it juſtly puniſhed mediately by the Vide Pareu •• in locum. Magiſtrates, to whom the execution of the laws was cōmitted by God, which juſt puniſhment is there cheifly underſtood of tranſgreſſions againſt the firſt Table.

Sixthly, Granting that 13. of Deut. with the other Texts of Scripture named, to be judiciall politicall lawes of the Jews, yet they may binde the Chriſtian Magiſtrate under the Goſpel. Indeed the Ceremoniall law being given for certain uſes, and for a certain time, till the comming of Chriſt, upon the ariſing of this Sun, all theſe ſhadowes vaniſhed away, as being but of one time. But now the Judicial lawes, however delivered to one Nation, yet were not of one time, never tied to one time only: ſo that had the commonwealth of the Jewes continued untill this day, excepting a few things belonging to the vindication of the ceremonies (which would have ceaſed with the ceremonies) they would have uſed their Political lawes ſtill, in regard the Goſpel neither changed nor took away any of them, as Beza obſerves in his Tractate de Haereticis à Magiſtratu puniendis, p. 154. And for the better underſtanding and proving that the Judicial lawes under the Old Teſtament are ſtill in force, I ſhall lay down two or three diſtinctions. 1. The judicial law may be conſidered, ſo far as concerns the diſtinction of the Iewes from the Gentiles, and the typical ſignification of the kingdome of Chriſt; or only ſo much as belongs to the forme of Civil government. Now the judicial law, according to the firſt acception, is abſolutely and ſimply abrogated; but, ſecundum quid, in part and ſome kinde only, in the latter: that is, Whatever was in the judicial law of particular proper right peculiarly concerning the Jewes, as of inheritances not to be transferred from one Tribe to another; of the Tribe of Levi having no inheritance among the other Tribes, Numb. 18. 20, 24. of the emancipation of an Hebrew ſervant or handmaid in the ſeventh yeer; a mans marrying his brothers wife, and raiſing up ſeed to his brother; the forgiving of debts at the Jubile; marrying with one of the ſame tribe, with other ſuch like, all of this kind is ceaſed: But what was of common right, common to other Nations with them, according to the common law of nature; of which ſort are lawes concerning the puniſhment of Moral tranſgreſſions, and other ſuch; that all remains, and is in force. Of which diſtinction the Reader may find more in Piſcator's Appendix to his Obſervations upon the 21, 22, 23, chap. of Exodus; Bulling. lib. 4. adu. Anabapt. cap. 4. Aliae praeterea pars legis eſt politica quae verſatur in judiciis, haeredetatibus, contractibus poenis & ſuppliciis & in adminiſtratione Rei publicae Quoniam vero non habitamus Cha anaeam regionem, ad quā multae leges accomodatae ſunt abrogata quo que eſt lex quoad hanc partem: interim pax & judicia & alia bonae non to luntur. Bullinger; and in Altingius his common places, par. 1. loc. 7. de lege Dei, p. 112. Lex judicialis ſimpliciter abrogata est quoad diſtinctionem Judaeorum à Gentibus, & typicam regni Chriſti ſignificationem; ſecundum quid verò, quantum attinet formae gubernationis civilis. Nam quod juris in ea fuit particularis, Judaeos peculiariter concernans, qualis fuit lex de officio Levitarum, item alia de haereditatibus de tribu in tribum non tranſferendis, id omne ceſſavit. Quod autem juris ſuit communis, ſecundum legem naturae omnibus communem ſancitum, cujuſmodi ſunt leges de paenis ſcelerum, aliae que id totum manet. 2. The Iudicial lawes may be conſidered according to their ſubſtance and equity, or according to many acceſſories, circumſtances, forms, & manner of them. Now though the Magiſtrate under the Goſpel is not bound unto theſe lawes ſimply, that is, to every circumſtance and particular of them for form, manner, time and place; as for example, not to the ſame kinds and formality of puniſhments ſet down in thoſe lawes; for thoſe forms are acceſſions of the law; and therfore out of the nature of perſons, times, places, and conſtitution of common-wealths, mutable: Yet he is bound to the ſubſtance & equity of them, ſo as not to derogate from the right of thoſe lawes. Of this diſtinction the Reader may find much ſaid by Cartwright, in his 2. Reply to Dr. Whitgift, p. 98, 99. Beza de Haereticis â Magiſtratu puniendis, p. 154, 155. Tremellius and Junius, in their Preface before the five Books of Moſes. Thirdly, theſe Lawes may be lookt upon as containing doctrine from God of puniſhment, i. e. that thoſe who ſeduce, blaſpheme God, &c. be reſtrained, yea and by death in ſeverall caſes, or elſe as in their latter according to the great rigor and ſeverity expreſſed in them, as in Deut. 13. &c. by ſmiting the inhabitants of the City with the ſword, deſtroying it utterly and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof with the edge of the ſword, and by gathering all the ſpoyle of it into the midſt of the ſtreet thereof, and burning with fire the City, and all the ſpoyle of it every whit; in not ſparing them though they ſhould have truly repented, in enjoyning the ſonne, the wife of a mans boſome, to bring forth the father, husband, and to ſtone them with ſtones. Now though to the degrees and meaſures of puniſhment, the ſeverity and utmoſt rigor the Magiſtrate is not now tied, yet to the thing in caſes of Idolatry, ſeduction, falſe propheſying, ſpeaking lies in the name of the Lord he is bound, and in ſome caſes of groſſe and high Idolatry and Blaſphemy committed preſumptuouſly, to inflict capitall puniſhment: of this diſtinction alſo let the Reader conſult theſeSynopſ. Puri. Theolog. cap. 50 Ameſ. Caſ. Conſcient. l. 4. c. 4. lib. 51 cap. 26. quaeſt. tertia. Authors. And of this queſtion that the Iudiciall Lawes of Moſes in the ſenſe now given, doe yet laſt and are in force, beſides the Reſolution of many great Divines in the caſe, Beza, Calvin, Cartwright, Tremellius and Junius, Bullinger, Zinchius, Peter Martyr, Henricus Altingius, and more eſpeciallyAppendix ad, Exodum, Piſcator, who by eight Arguments proves the Queſtion in controverſie, beſides anſwering two and twenty Arguments brought againſt it; I ſhall deſire the Reader to obſerve theſe few Reaſons. 1. The Iudiciall Law differs from the Decalogue, the Law of the ten Commandements, in this, that whereas the Beza de Haereticis à Magistratu puniendis paſia 54. Decalogue comprehends in a few words all righteouſneſſe and equity, in all kind of duties to God and man, the Iudiciall explains only that part of righteouſneſſe and equity which ſtands in thoſe things of which judgements are appointed; and therefore ſeeing the judicialls preſcribe the equity of judgements which is a part of the Decalogue we muſt be bound to that as we are to the reſt of the Decalogue, viz. ſo farre as they containe a generall equity though we are not tied to the formes of the Moſaicall politie; Now Chriſt ſaith, Matth. 5. 17. he came not to deſtroy the Law, but to fulfill it; which words are comprehenſive of the Judiciall Law as for the ſubſtance a part of the Moral Law, (the Iudicial being indeed an Appendix and a more particular explication of that part of the Morall Law concerning matters of Iuſtice and judgement) and therefore muſt be underſtood by Chriſt to be eſtabliſhed. 2. Though there be many pregnant proofs in the New Teſtament for aboliſhing the Ceremoniall Law, yet we nowhere read in the New Teſtament of making void the Iudiciall Law concerning the puniſhing of ſinnes againſt the Morall Law, in the number of which are Idolatry, Hereſie, Blaſphemy. Now theſeSee Cartwr-ſecond Reply to Dr. Whitgift pag. 98. 99. Iudiciall Lawes being the Lawes of God and by his revealed will once ſettled, they muſt needs ſo farre forth remaine as they appeare not by his will to be repealed. They who hold the Magiſtrate under the Goſpel is not bound to puniſh for ſuch ſinnes, muſt prove from the Scripture thoſe Lawes of God revoked and cancel'd, which none of the Patrons of Toleration have ever yet done. 3. The ſubſtance and equity of the Iudiciall Law remains in that Chriſt and his Apoſtles make uſe of, tranſfer and prove by ſome Iudicial laws divers things under the New Teſtament. Chriſt makes uſe of a Iudiciall Law concerning puniſhment, Matth. 5. 38, 39. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, viz. that of poena talionis, Exod. 21. 24. and frees it from the falſe gloſſe and interpretation of the Phariſees, in which he teaches the Iudiciall Lawes of Moſes underſtood in their right ſenſe are to be obſerved in the New Teſtament: For if Chriſt in that Sermon, of which this is a part would teach the Decalogue belonged to Chriſtians, by his vindicating it from the falſe interpretations of the Scribes and Phariſees; then it followes hee meant to teach the Iudiciall Lawes of Moſes concerning the puniſhment of Morall tranſgreſſions belonged to them alſo, becauſe he vindicated alſo one of them, of which particular with the proof of the conſequence the Reader may finde more in Piſcators Appendix to Exodus. The Apoſtle Paul 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 18. among other proofs brought by him from fimilitudes fetched from the common uſe of men, that the Miniſter of the Goſpel ought to be maintained of the Churches charge, whereas they might object thoſe were but humane reaſons, he alleadgeth as the eternall Law of God one of the Iudiciall Lawes of Moſes, which was, that a man ſhould not muzle the mouth of the Oxe which treadeth out the corne: where 'tis manifeſt he doubteth not to bind the conſcience of the Churches unto the equity of that Law which was judiciall, likewiſe from the 13. verſe, of thoſe that miniſter about holy things, and wait at the Altar, living of the things of the Temple, and being partakers of the Altar hee concludes that they which preach the Goſpell ſhould live of it: Now this maintainance of the Prieſts albeit in the manner of proviſion it be held by many ceremoniall, yet as it was a reward of their ſervice due by men (as the puniſhments alſo if they failed in their duties) was meerly judiciall. So the equity of that judiciall Law, Exod. 22. 2. Ameſ. Caſ. lib 5 cap. 52. quaeſt. 6. Of the ſmiting of a theife in the night that he dye,) is approved by Chriſt, Matth. 24. 43. So Chriſt and Paul both transferre that judiciall Law of having two or three witneſſes in judgement, Deut. 19. verſe 15. to bind Chriſtians in their Eccleſiaſticall cenſures and judgements, Matthew 18. verſe 16. 2 Cor. 13. verſe 1. 1 Tim. 5. verſe 19. By which inſtances and ſome other particulars that might bee given 'tis evident that in thoſe judicialls to all the circumſtances whereof we are not bound, wee are notwithſtanding bound to the equity, of which the Reader may read more in Cartwrights ſecond Reply to Doctor Whitgifts ſecond Anſwer, pag. 98, 99, 100. 4. That God appointed under the Law, Blaſphemie, Apoſtaſie, Idolatry, Prophecying lies in thename of the Lord to bee puniſhed by the Magiſtrate, proceeded from Gods holineſſe, juſtice, infinite hatred of ſuch ſinnes, and from their nature, being ſo contrary to his nature, ſo derogatory to his honour and glory, high treaſon againſt the Supreme Majeſty, ſo deſtructive to the precious ſoules of men, ſo dangerous to Common-wealths and Kingdomes, as the Scriptures in divers places where theſe Lawes of puniſhing are ſet down, aſſignes theſe cauſes and reaſons: Now I would know of the Patrons of Toleration whether under the Goſpel theſe finnes of Blaſphemy, Apoſtaſie, &c. be not as much againſt Gods holineſſe, juſtice, glory, as pernicious and damnable as they were under the Law? yea and in ſome reſpects 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 more, as being againſt the Declarations of the Sonne of God Hebr. 2. 2, 3. and a treading under foot the Sonne of God, and counting the bloud of the Covenant an unboly thing, which being granted, puniſhment by the Magiſtrate muſt needs continue. The rule of juſt and unjuſt in God and in his Law is alwayes the ſame and immutable: It is as equally juſt to puniſh evill things as to forbid evill things, and therefore the right and Law of puniſhments is alſo immutable: Where and of what things the cauſes are perpetuall, there alſo the right is eternall and immutable, but the grounds and cauſes why ſuch offences were puniſhed, as Gods juſtice, holineſſe, glory, &c. are perpetuall and eternal: God is alwayes like to himſelfe, the morall tranſgreſſions of men doe alike at all times diſpleaſe him, no good reaſon can be given why the Majeſty of God ſhould be of leſſe account with us then heretofore among the Iewes, and therefore by the like reaſon to be puniſhed now as well as then: But the further proof of this the Reader may finde in ſome learned Divines, Beza de Haereticis à Magiſtratu punie ••• 155. and in Tremellius and Juni •• Preface before the Books of Moſes. 5. The Iudiciall Law concerning the puniſhments of i kedneſſe, for the ſubſtance, viz. that it ſhould be puniſhed remains under the Goſpel, becauſe it comes within the nature of the Morall Law, and was preſcribed to the Iewes, not quae Iewes or a people peculiarly taken into Covenant, but qua men ſubject to the Law of nature as other Nations were: For the proof of which beſides the judgement of divers learned Divines, Philip Melancto , Peter Martyr, Zanchius, A tingius, the reaſon of common right, from the proper peculiar right of the Iewes is known and diſtinguiſhed by theſe following particulars. 1. Henr. Alting. loc. commun. per 1. loc. 7. de leges Dei. Cognoſ itur autem Juris communis ratio, ſi idem ab aliis: quoque legiflatoribus ex luce naturae c nr ſu m, ac ſanatum fuiſſe; vel ad tuendā Preceptorum Decalogi obedientiam facere corriperiatur. If the ſame things have beene alſo found to be concluded, and by civill ſanction eſtabliſhed by other Law-givers from the light of nature. 2. If found to make for the defence and preſervation of the obedience of the Decalogue. 3. If appear as uſefull and neceſſary now for the glory of God, the ſalvation of mens ſoules, the peace & ſafety of the Church and State as then. Now all theſe do moſt clearly appear in puniſhments of ſins immediately againſt God, as Apoſtaſie, Idolatry, Blaſphemy, &c. For firſt, theſe commands are of the light of nature, tha he who is in place and power ſhould forbid and puniſh the ſpeaking evill of God. This ſentence (as Phil. Mela. De Magiſtr. Civil. & Dign. Rerum Politic. Haec ſententia omnibus hominibus, imo omnibus creaturis intelligentibus concionatur. Suo quiſqu loco prohibere manifeſtas Dei comumelias debet. Quare & Magiſtratus prohibere & puni e debent Epicureos ſermones, Idolorum honores, faedera Daemonum, profeſſionem impior •• dogmatum. Vt omnes politiae ſanxerunt paenas adverſus perjuros, mult •• etiā apud Ethnicos ſanxerunt paenas adverſus perj ros multae etiam apud Ethnicos ſanxerunt paenas adverſus Epicuraeos ſeu Atheos qui palam dixerunt nihil eſſe Deum, aut nullam eſſe providentiam Dei. Melancton writes) is preacht to all men, yea to all reaſonable creatures, every one in his place ought to forbid and hinder the manifeſt reproaches and diſhonours of God. And therefore Magiſtrates ought to forbid and puniſh Epicurean ſpeeches, worſhips of Idols, profeſſion of wicked doctrines. Many Common-wealths among the Heathens have made Lawes againſt Epicures and Atheiſt , who have openly held there was no God, or that there was no providence of God. Peter Martyr loc. commun. Claſſ. 4. cap. 13. Peter Martyr in his Common Place , that Heathen Princes uſed to care for Religion, and have puniſhed men even to death for the matters of Religion. Thus Socrates was condemned at Athens for no other cauſe but for teaching of new gods, I and for with drawing the youth from their old worſhip of the gods. Zanchius in quarr. praecept. loc. 5. De officio principium in Religione, pag. 790. Hoc liquet primum à lege naturae: omnes enim principe inter Gentes judicarunt ad ſe pertinere curam Religionis. Zanchius on the fourth Commandement writes, that by the Law of nature all Princes among the Heathen judged that the care of Religion belonged to them. The Athenians judged ſo, the Romans alſo, and thereupon made Lawes and puniſhed for violation of religion. Beza de Hereticis à Magiſtrat. puniendis. Beza gives three inſtances of puniſhments inflicted by heathen Magiſtrates upon three cheif Philoſophers for matters of Religion, Socrates, Theodorus, Protagoras, the laſt of which was by the Athenians baniſhed out of their Territories, and his books burnt for writing contemptuouſly of the gods in theſe words, De diis neque ut ſint, neque ut non ſint habeo dicere Muſculus De Magiſtrat. 627. Agnoverunt hoc Ethnicorum quoque ſapientes qui primum locum in Republicae Inſtitutione Religioni dederunt. Fuerunt quidem illi homines Ethnici, viam Dei ignorantes, & ab Eccleſia illius alieni: in eo tamen haud quaquam errarunt, quod ſine pietatis ac Religionis obſervantia, nullam cujuſcunque Reipublicae politiam feliciter inſtitui regique poſſe ſenſerunt: cum ergo ſententiae hujus veritas tam ſit manifeſta ut ne Ethnicos quidem latere potuerit: an non magis agnoſcenda nobis & amplectenda qui cognitione Dei non gentes modo ſed & populum legis longe ant cellimus. Muſculus in his Common Places ſpeaking of Magiſtrates having the care of Religion, ſaith, the wiſe men among the Heathen acknowledged it, and that the truth of this opinion was ſo manifeſt as that it could not lie hid from the Heathen, it was jus gentium, dictated by the light of nature, and therefore ought to be much more acknowledged and embraced by us, who in the knowledge of God go farre beyond, not only the Gentiles, but the Iewes. Mr. Selden De Jure Naturali & Gentium, lib. 1. cap. 8. cap. 10. lib. 2. cap. 1. cap. 2. cap. 3. cap. 12. cap. 13. l. 3. c. 1. Praeter Idololatriam ac maledictionē numinis, Nihil omnino ex Jure Naturali, ſeu hominum omnium communi p o Criminc ſeu Dilecto circa ſacra, qua enus ſcilicet Noachidas ſolùm ea reſpiciebant, in foro, quoties ſiſtebatur Proſelytus domicilii, ſeu Gentilis ejuſmodi ipſis eſt habitum. Caeterum ex alia lege ſacra obtinuit apud aliquos opinio (quae hic non praetermittenda) Gentilium nemini licuiſſe, Numini patrio, ſeu quod ipſe velut patrium coluerit, maledixiſſe. Hac locutioris formula, Levit. 24. 15. volunt nonnulli non ſolum cunctis mortalium Numinis ſanctiſſimi, ac Vnici maledictionem interdici; verum etiam Gentilibus apud Ebraeos, maledictionem Deorum quos ſibi adſciverant. Maſter Selden in divers places of that learned Book De Jure Naturali & Gentium proves that thoſe commands De Cultu Extraneo and De Maledictione Nominis ſanctiſſimi ſeu Numinis, were Jus Naturalis, common to all men, were indeed the cheif and firſt Heads of the Law of Nature, and that in thoſe precepts, viz. for the negative part, all the Gentiles who lived or but paſſed through the Land of Judea were puniſhed by the Magiſtrate for Idolatry and blaſphemy as well as the Iewes, and that from Lawes common to the Iewes with the Gentiles, though the kinds of the puniſhments, viz. this or that, as whether ſtoning, &c. were not of the ſame nature, but more proper to the Iewes; yea, he ſhowes it was an opinion held by ſome learned men, that it was not lawfull for any Gentile to ſpeak evill of and blaſpheme his God which hee worſhipped as the God of his Countrey; and ſaith it was founded upon thoſe words. Levit. 24. 15. Whoſoever curſeth his god ſhall heare his ſinne, (the blaſpheming the name of the Lord being ſpoken of after in the 16. verſe, as if it were diſtinct from that in the 15. verſe) In which forme of ſpeech divers learned men both Rabbins, Fathers and others would have forbidden to all the ſonnes of men not only ſpeaking evill evill of the moſt holy and only God, but alſo the ſpeaking of thoſe gods which they had choſen to themſelves: So as none of the Gentiles might blaſpheme their falſe God, which yet they had not renounced, without the violation of that Law, Whoſoever curſeth his god ſhall beare his ſinne.

Maſter Burroughs in his Irenicum, though he be for a Toleration in a great meaſure, as in things controverſall and doubtfull amongſt godly and peaceable men, and that with a liberty of declaration of difference of judgement, and ſome different practiſe, page 55. yea brings ſuch Arguments for that Toleration, that if they prove any thing, they prove a generall Toleration, yet confeſſes page 23. of that Book, Tis the dictate of nature, that Magiſtrates ſhould have ſome power in matters of Religion. The generality of all people have ever thought it equall. It hath ever been challenged of all Nations and Common-wealths. The Heathens would never ſuffer their gods to be blaſphemed, but puniſhed ſuch as were guilty thereof by the power of the Magiſtrate. Socrates was put to death for blaſpheming their multiplicity of gods. And Maſter Burroughs in page 19. of the ſame book affirmes, that Principle, That Magiſtrates have nothing to doe with matters of Religion is abhorring to nature. Is it not an abhorring thing to any mans heart in the world, that men ſuffer that God to be blaſphemed whom they honour? and that nothing ſhould be done for the reſtraining any, but to aske them why they doe ſo, and perſwade them to doe otherwiſe? There hath ever been as great a conteſtation amongſt people about Religion, as about any thing. Exod. 8. 25, 26. Pharaoh hade Moſes ſacrifice in the Land: But Moſes ſaid it is not meete ſo to doe, for we ſhall ſacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians: Lo, ſhall we ſacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not ſtone us? Though they had leave of the King, yet the people would not endure it. By which place of Scripture 'tis evident that the Egyptians who were heathens, by the light of nature would not endure the diſhonour of their gods to ſee thoſe creatures they worſhipped forVide Ainſworrh. late Annotat. of our Engliſh. Divines. Piſcat. in Exod. 8. 26. Quod abominationi est Egyptiis. Hoc eſt animalia à quorum caede abhorrent Egyptis, quippe quae ipſi adorant: ut bones ant vitulos gods to be killed, as Oxen and Sheep the principall ſacrifices of the Hebrewes, but they would kill the Iſraelites for ſo doing. And laſtly, Maſter Prynne in that late Book of his, The ſword of Chriſtian Magiſtrates ſupported, doth largely and excellently ſhow that by the light of nature in all ages Heathen Magiſtrates have made Lawes againſt, and puniſhed ſuch whom they eſteemed Atheiſts, Hereticks, Blaſphemers of their Gods, or oppugners of their eſtabliſhed Religion, and that with no leſſe then Capitall puniſhments, unto which Book from page 14. to 19. I referre the Reader, where he ſhall finde many examples of Heathen Kings and Nations recited, and ſhall conclude this with that ſaying of Seneca, De Benefic. lib. 3. cap. 6. Violatarum Religionum aliubi atque aliubi diverſa p na eſt; Sed vbique Aliqua; as well as of homicide, paricide, poyſoning Secondly, the Magiſtrates ſword in matters of Religion in puniſhing Blaſphemies, Idolatries, Hereſies, hath been found by good experience in all ages to make greatly for the defence and preſervation of the firſt Table, to ſtirre men up to obedience and deterre them from the contempt and violation thereof, whereas on the contrary, for the want of this, all Blaſphemies, Hereſies and Errors have abounded, of which I could give many inſtances, but ſhall referre them to the more proper place of handling, viz. to the Reaſons for Magiſtrates puniſhing men for Idolatries, Blaſphemies, Hereſies, Schiſmes; only for the preſent ſhall hint, that God himſelfe ſaith twice, once in Deut. 13. 11. the other Deut. 17. 13. the Magiſtrates puniſhing in ſuch a caſe ſhall cauſe all the people to heare, feare, and to do no more preſumptuouſly: the Lord gives this bleſſing unto the puniſhment of ſuch offendors, that others not only which ſee, but heare of them, have the bridle of feare put upon them whereby kept from the like. Thirdly and laſtly, this coercive power of the Magiſtrate will be found every whit as uſefull and neceſſary now for the glory of God, ſalvation of mens ſoules, peace of Church and State as it was then, yea and in ſome reſpect more neceſſary, there being in our dayes not only the ſame reaſons and cauſes for that power of the Magiſtrate, but others alſo: Were there under the Law many incorrigible preſumptuous offendors againſt God and his worſhip, that could not be otherwiſe reclaimed, and are there not ſuch now? were there then many groſſe ways of falſe worſhip and Religion deſtroying foundations, broacht among the people? were they then infectious drawing away and ſeducing many ſoules? were they then provoking the wrath of God cauſing it to waxe hot againſt his people? Ought the glory and Name of God to bee then dear to Magiſtrates? Why, behold under the Goſpel there are as incorrigible deſperate perſons broaching all kind of damnable Hereſies, making it their work to lay waſt all Religion, whom no Admonitions, Church Cenſures can do any good upon: Hereſies and Errors now are as infectious, ſpreading, ſubverting whole houſes, eating as a Ga grene, and ſo in the reſt. Maſter Burroughs in his Irenicum page 23. confeſſes there is a neceſſity of the Magiſtrates power in matters of Religion 〈◊〉 truth now, as there was then, and ſhowes though we cannot argue the being of ſpirituall Ordinances from our need of them, but from their inſtitution, yet in naturall and civill things this way of arguing is ſtrong enough; there is need of ſuch a help, and therefore we ſhould ſeeke to have it. And the neceſſity of the Magiſtrates coercive power under the Goſpel he ſets down as follows. Now ſure the need we have of ſuch a power is exceeding great, we were in a moſt miſerable condition if we had no externall civill power to reſtraine from any kind of Blaſphemies and Seducements. The condition of the Jewes, O how happy was it in compariſon of ours, if this were denied us! for if any of theirs did blaſpheme God, or ſeeke to ſeduce any from him, they knew what to doe with him beſides perſwading of him to the contrary; but if any ſhould ſeeke to ſeduce the wives of our boſomes, children of our bodies, friends as deare to us as our owne lives into thoſe wayes that wee thinke in our conſciences will und e their ſoules to all eternity, yet we muſt only deſire them they would not doe ſo, we muſt only admoniſh or ſeeke to convince them or remove them, but reſtraine them we cannet: If the deliverance of us from the Pedagogy of the Law hath brought us into this condition, our burden is greater in this thing then any that the Law laid upon our forefathers; Hath Chriſt delivered us from one burden to lay a greater upon us? Muſt we now ſee thoſe who are deareſt to us drawne into the way of eternall deſtruction, and ſtand and looks on, but no way left to help them or our ſelves, unleſſe we can perſwade to the contrary? Surely our condition is very ſad: Have we not cauſe to ſay, Lord let any burden of the Ceremoniall Law be laid upon our necks, rather then this; If there were a company of mad men running up and downe the ſtreets with knives and ſwords in their hands, endeavouring to miſcheif and kill all they meet with, and we muſt doe nothing to reſtraine them; if we could perſwade them to doe otherwiſe well and good: but that is all we can doe for helpe; what a dangerous thing were this? The caſe is the ſame, when thoſe who are mad with damnable Hereſies, run from place, to place, ſeeking to draw all they can from the truth: If we have no meanes of helpe but 〈◊〉 , it is ill with us; Surely God hath not put his people •• to ſuch a ſad condition or this is, be hath provided better for his people then thus. And I appeale to the conſciences and experience of men, whether this power of the Magiſtrate of puniſhing Blaſphemies and Hereſies be not found to be uſefull and neceſſary both for the honour of God, the ſafety of other mens ſoules, the peace of Church and State? and whether all other mens without this (when this might have beene had) have made good theſe ends? or whether this coming upon other means, as Admonitions, Inſtructions, Synods, Church Cenſures, hath not ſuppreſſed Hereſies, Schiſms, vindicated the honor and truth of God, recovered many ſouls, ſetled the peace of Churches and States, as among the Donatiſts of old, and the Arminians in Holland of late. Any mans reaſon, yea ſenſe may tell him, that in this ſinfull corrupted condition of man there is in coercive power a naturalneſſe and ſutableneſſe to work upon the outward man for the furtherance of ſpirituall good, and that when no other means can, this power removes outward things that hindered, keeps from outward evils, applies outward means. And yet further, beſides the ſame reaſons and grounds now of the neceſſity of the Magiſtrates coercive power, as well as under the Old Teſtament, there ſeemes to be new reaſons under the Goſpel over and above that plead for the neceſſity of this power. As that under the Goſpel ſo many outward viſible judgement are not inflicted by God upon offenders as were under the Law, whereupon Maſter Cartwrights ſecond Reply to Dr. Whitgifts ſecond Anſw. pag 98, 99. Cartwright ſpeaks, Certainly if ever there had beene any time wherein the Magiſtrates ſword might have reſted in the ſheath, the time of the Law had of all beene fitteſt when the Lord did ſo viſibly ſit in his judgement ſeat, and himſelfe in proper perſon held the Aſſiſe and Gaile delivery. For as the Lord doth not now by outward bleſſings give ſo plentifull teſtimony to the obedience of the Goſpel as the Law, ſo doth he not with ſo many and ſo ſevere puniſhments revenge the breach of it as in the time of the Law, for in theſe outward puniſhments the diſpenſation of God under the Law is divers from that under the Goſpel, in that be did more terribly revenge diſobedience, and therefore God not ſtriking now ſo often immediately Blaſphemers, Seducers, falſe Prophets, Schiſmaticks as under the Law, the Magiſtrates have the more need not to beare the ſword in vaine, leſt Hereticks and falſe Teachers go on the more deſperately, corrupting and deſtroying all, but of theſe Reaſons I intend to ſpeak more in the next Theſis.

Seventhly, ſuppoſing all theſe commands ſimply Judiciall, given to the Jewes only (which yet I have proved not to be ſo) there are other commands and examples recorded in the Old Teſtament diſtinct from the Judiciall, which cannor be counted Judiciall, but are Morall and perpetuall, as the fourth Commandement (one of the ten Commandements) given to the Magiſtrate, that by his authority true Religion be preſerved, take place, and all falſe Religion ſuppreſſed (the proof of which is laid downe in the 15. Theſis) as that command Pſal. 2. 10, 11. given to Kings and Judges, which cannot be Judiciall nor Ceremoniall for ſeverall reaſons, neither have the Patrons of Toleration ever ſaid ſo of it (of which place I ſhall ſpeak fully in the 19. Theſis) as thoſe examples of Abraham and Jacob, not ſuffering thoſe under their power & command to commit Idolatry, which were long before thoſe commands in the 13. & 17. chap. of Dut. ſaid to be judiciall, and that theſe examples were not judiciall, beſides what the Reader ſhall finde in the ninth and 12. Theſes, Muſculus in his Common Places De Abrogatione Moſaicae Legis, even in that Common Place where his Authority is moſt urged by theMinus Ceſſus Senenſis Sect. tert. p. 183. Patrons of Toleration for the abrogation of all Moſaicall Lawes, Abraham utique non fuit ſub Paedagogi Moſis. Muſcul. loc. Commun. De Abrogat. Moſaic. leg. p. 142. affirms that as a Chriſtian is not under the Maſterſhip of Moſes; ſo likewiſe Abraham was not under the Pedagogie of Moſes. And ſo much for the firſt particular, that the commands for puniſhing Idolaters, Blaſphemers, falſe Prophets, &c. were of common reaſon and equity given for the times of the Goſpel.

Secondly, as to the grounds brought by the Patrons of Toleration, Minus Celſus Senenſis, Hagiomaſtix, &c. that theſe commands doe not binde now becauſe they wereSee Hagiomaſtix from Sect 34. to Sect 41. and Minus Celſus Senenſis from p. 183. to 192. and compare them together. Moſes Lawes, Iewiſh and abrogated by Chriſt, that we may by theſe commands as well prove the man Moſes is now alive, becauſe hee was alive under the Old Teſtament, that if the commands be in force for inflicting of death, they be in force in all other particulars commanded by the ſame Authority with this, as that the offenders muſt be put to death with ſtones onely, as that the whole City muſt be put to death, as the cattle muſt be ſlain as well as the inhabitants, as that the City muſt be a heap for ever and never built again, that there's clear particular reaſons why the Old Teſtament Law for putting falſe Prophets, Blaſphemer and Seducers to Idolatry to death ſhould not now be in force becauſe the Iewes to whom this Law was given in all difficult caſes about matters of Religion had the opportunity of immediate conſultation with God himſelf, who could & did from time to time infallibly declare what his own mind and pleaſure was in them, becauſe that corporall puniſhment was a Type and pre ſignificative of ſpiritual puniſhments, cutting off then, of caſting out now, as alſo of eternal damnation: to theſe with divers ſuch like I give theſe following anſwers, which I deſire the Reader to obſerve. Firſt, beſides the Reaſons already given that Moſ Lawes (in the ſenſe expreſſed) for the puniſhment of Apoſtates, Blaſphemers, &c. are not abrogated by Chriſt, lets con ider that Chriſt by his coming hath not aboliſhed that Law which containes the love of God, his glory and honour, and the love of our neighbour, and therefore neither thoſe things which do neceſſarily belong unto and make for the love of God and our neighbour; nor ſecondly thoſe Lawes in the Old Teſtament, which the New Teſtament for the times of it approves of; not laſtly, thoſe commands which are of the light of nature and the Law of nature dictates, all which becauſe they are ſo cleare and generally confeſſed, I ſhall forbear adding the proofs, and refer the Reader for further ſatisfaction to Zanchius De Magiſtra •• Queſt. ſecunda. An Magiſtratui Chriſtian liceat capitales 〈◊〉 de haereticis ſumere, page 170. Bullingers Hiſtor. adverſ. Anabaptiſt. liv. 5. cap. 5. pag. 176. Muſculus Common Places de Magiſtratibus, pag. 627. Mr. Burrough Irenicum page 23. But now the Magiſtrates reſtraining and puniſhing falſe Prophets, Apoſtate , Blaſphemers, &c. is an act of the love of God and his glory, of love to their brethrens ſoules, of ſafety and good to Commonwealths, is very uſefull and neceſſary for vindicating the glory of God, and good of the Church (the glory of God, and the ſalvation of our neighbour being by that meanes preſerved) is •• proved of alſo in the New Teſtament for the times of the Goſpel, and is the dictate of nature. For the proof of this Aſſumption I ſhall make it evident in all the three parts of it. For the firſt that tis an act of the love of God and his glory and of love to our neighbour, beſides the aſſertion of many great Divines, asZanchius 〈◊〉 magiſtrat p. 170. Zanchius, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, A eſ u , &c. 'tis apparent thus, Becauſe in the commands given by God, Deu . 13. Deut. 17. for the Magiſtrates puniſhing falſe Prophets, Idolaters, and thoſe who would not hearken unto the Preiſt, the reaſons of his ſo doing and the ends of thoſe puniſhments imply as much, and have reference all along to the honour of God, the vindicating his name, and keeping others from doing the like, as theſe phraſes ſhow, That Prophet, or that dreamer of dreames ſhall be put to death, becauſe he hath ſpoken to turne you away from the Lord your God to thruſt thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded the to walke in. And thou ſhalt ſtone him with ſtones that he di : becauſe he hath ſought to thruſt thee away from the Lord thy God, And all Iſrael ſhall heare and feare, and ſhall do n more any ſuch wickedneſſe as this is among you. If there be found among you man or woman that hath wrought wickedneſſe in the ſight of the Lord thy God, in tranſgreſſing his Covenant, and hath gone and ſerved other gods, then ſhall thou bring that man or that woman (which have comm tted that wicked thing) unto thy gate , and ſhalt ſtone them with ſtones till they die: So thou ſhalt put away the evill from among you. And the man that will d e preſumptuouſly, and will not hearken unto the Preiſt, &c. even that man ſhall die, and thou ſhalt put away evill from Iſrael. And all the people ſhall heare and feare and do no more preſumptuouſly, which paſſages fully hold out the Magiſtrates puniſhing Blaſphemers, Idolaters, &c. to be an act of love to God: and the people, yea of zeale to his glory and the ſalvation of the people: that ſentence, ſo thou ſhalt put the evill away from among you, ſaithIn lege Moſes punitionū ſons illa vox au fer s malum de media 〈◊〉 Pet. Martyr loc. common. p 647. Peter Martyr, is in the Law of Moſes the fountain of all puniſhments of wickedneſſes againſt the ſecond Table, as of tranſgreſſions againſt the firſt; And therefore if the Magiſtrates puniſhing of Murther, Theft, Adultry, &c. for the taking away of the evill from amongſt the people, be an act of love to God and man, a vindication of the glory of God, then the puniſhing of Blaſphemie, Idolatry, and ſuch like for the taking away of the evill is an act of love to God and our neighbour: The puniſhing of menbers of the Church under the Goſpel by excommunication is held an act of zeale to the glory of God, and love to the Church: the Reaſons why ſuch a cenſure ought to bee in the Church, are refer'd to, thoſe heads byZanchius Dediſciplina. Synopſ. purior. Theolog De Diſcipl. Eccleſ. Divines, yea by the Separatiſts and Independents themſelves, as Robins Justifi. cat. of Separat. Catechiſme. Mr. Robinſon and others, and thoſe very reaſons and ends ſpoken of in Deut. of putting away the evill from among you, as the people ſhall heare and feare and doe no more preſumptuouſly, are in the new Teſtament by Paul given as the reaſons of Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 2. 13. 1 Tim. 5. 20. 1 Tim. 1. 20. (Thoſe very phraſes there uſed by Paul being alluded unto, and taken from thoſe in Deut ronomie) and therefore if love to God and men ſtands in theſe ſentences under the Goſpel borrowed from the Law, of putting away the evil, of others fearing and doing no more ſo, then certainly love to God and men is contained in thoſe reaſons and ends under the Law, the originall and fountaine from whence the Goſpell took them; nay, yet further, excommunication (which I have ſhewed is founded on the reaſons expreſſed in Deut. 13. 17.) is made by Chriſt an act of brotherly love Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. compared with Levit. 19. 17. Secondly, becauſe thoſe Kings Magiſtrates and Perſons recorded in Scripture above others for loving God and the people, for being moſt zealous of Gods honour and glory uſed moſt this coercive power againſt Idolaters, Seducers, Blaſphemers, &c. of all others, and more eſpecially at ſuch times when they were at beſt for grace and goodneſſe and commended by the ſpirit of God for their zeale and forwardneſſe, as Moſes in the buſineſſe of the golden Calf, as the children of Iſrael in the caſe of the two Tribes and a halfe building an Altar, as Aſa, Jehoſhaphat, Hezekiah, Joſiah, then ſpoken of eſpecially for zeale, courage, perfect hearts, when they moſt exerciſed the power of the ſword againſt Idolatry, Apoſtaſie and all Wil-worſhip: When Jehu and Jehoaſh were at beſt, had moſt zeale, they deſtroyed Baal and his worſhippers; Manaſſes upon his converſion in his firſt love and zeale commanded Judah to ſerve the Lord God of Iſrael, and took away the ſtrange gods and all the Altars, and caſt them out of the City: Nebuchadnezar, Darius, upon their hearts affected by the ſight of the great works of God make Lawes for Gods honour againſt Blaſphemy, &c. Chriſt out of his zeale of his Fathers. Houſe and love to his glory, uſed coercive power upon thoſe who made his Fathers Houſe a houſe of Merchandiſe (though he never uſed it in matters of the ſecond Table but declined it) John 2. 15, 16, 17. compared with Pſal. 69. 9. of which I ſhall ſpeak more in the 20. Theſis. Paul out of love and zeale to the glory of God, and the ſalvation of the Galathians prayes for corporall capitall puniſhment upon falſe Teachers, Gal. 5. 12. which place that tis ſo o be underſtood, I ſhall prove it in the 20. Theſis. And I deſire the Patrons of Teleration to anſwer this queſtion, whether in their conſciences they think not thoſe godly Magiſtrates under the Old Teſtament, as Moſes, Joſiah, &c. puniſhed Idolaters, &c. out of love to God and their Brethren, whether love and zeale ſet them not awork? which if they did, certainly they were to continue under the Goſpel: For I would willingly knowBaz de Haeret. a Magiſtr. puniendis. Nullae idone ratio afferri poteſt cur Dei majeſtas minoris apud nos ponderis eſſe debeat quam olim apud Judaeos fuerit; imo vero Chriſtiani ſi veram religionem minore ſtudio tueant r quam olim Judaei, imo minus excuſari poſſint quo clari s ſeſe Dominus per filiu •• ſuum quā per prophetas patefecit. what good reaſon can be given that Magiſtrates under the Goſpel ſhould not have as much zeale and love to God and the publike, as they had under the Law, and if under the Law it made them reſtraine Blaſphemers, Idolaters, &c. if their zeale and love workt ſo, why not now alſo when the glory of God and the ſafety of the Church requires it, the Magiſtrate after other remedies uſed in vaine, ſhould draw the ſword againſt Hereticks, Apoſtates and Blaſphemers. Ameſ. Caſus Conſc. lib. 4. cap. 4. do Haereſi.

Thirdly, the Magiſtrates puniſhing with the ſword Traytors, murtherers, theeves, adulterers, that ſo God may not be diſhonoured by thoſe ſinnes, nor the Common-wealth and our neighbours hurt, is an act of love to God and men as is evident by the Office, Rom. 13. verſe 3, 4. compared with 8, 9, 10. verſes and by other reaſons that might be given if it were needfull. Bullinger in his fifth Book, chapter 6. page 177. againſt the Anabaptiſts, ſhowes that the puniſhing of offenders is according to Chriſtian love, that the Magiſtrates puniſhing is not only profitable for one man, but for the whole Common-wealth, the puniſhment of one guilty perſon preſerving many alive, and that juſt puniſhment is not againſt love, neither doth true love abrogate puniſhments. Zanchi in his. Tractate De Magiſtrat Quaeſt. ſecunda, writes to this effect, that to puniſh offenders who are injurious to God and our neighbour, is a work of charity, which requires that we ſhould defend the glory of God and the ſafety of our neighbour by all meanes that may be; As when theeves, robbers, murtherers, are by the Magiſtrate taken away, leſt the City and our neighbour ſhould be hurt, this certainly is a work of charity: So doubtleſſe thoſe obſtinate Hereticks who go on to blaſpheme the name of God, who overthrow religion and piety, who corrupt the true and ſound Doctrine, who diſturbe the peace of the Churches, who ſteak from their neighbours the members of the Church not their eſtates neither kill their bodies, but endeavour to deſtroy their ſoules, doe moſt of all wrong God and their neighbour, therefore to puniſh them is the greateſt work of love to God and their neighbour. Now if the reſtraining of thoſe who ſpoyle men of their goods, temporall lives, outward dignities, that corrupt and embaſe coyne bee a work of love to God and man, then to hinder Blaſphemies, Treaſons immediately againſt the Supreame Majeſty of God and his Kingdome, the ruining of immortall ſoules and the eternall lives of men, the adulterating the truth of God and the Faith once delivered to the Saints is an act of higher love to Gods glory and our Brethren, in as much as ſuch offences immediately againſt God tranſcend any Treaſon againſt earthly Kings, and the killing of ſoules is a greater evill then the killing of bodies, and the corrupting the truth more dangerous then counterfeiting or mixing baſer mettals with Gold or Silver. Wolphius in Deut. 13. Si quis human at Tabulas depravatet magnum eſt: quid de Divinis. In a City if any one ſeeke to draw away perſons from the Prince and government, and to draw men to their ſide, they are puniſhed, and ſhould they eſcape unpuniſhed for drawing men away from the King of Kings? As alſo becauſe thoſe reaſons and ends appointed for puniſhments of the ſecond Table, as to take away the evill, as that others ſhall bears and feare, &c. (which ſhowes puniſhments are acts of love) are given for a ground of puniſhing Idolatry, falſe Propheſying, &c. yea ſet downe more expreſſely in thoſe commands then in the others, with other reaſons too, as of turning th t away from the Lord thy God, which implies alſo love to God and our Brethren. What followes hence then? Therefore thoſe preceps which God hath given Magiſtrates of puniſhing Offenders, Hereticks, ſubverters of Religion are not abrogated by the coming of Chriſt, becauſe by that meanes the glory of God and the ſafety of our neighbour are preſerved. Commands to Magiſtrates for puniſhing in matters of Religion, being no more againſt Chriſtian charity then puniſhment of Traytors, ſeditious perſons, theeves, &c. and therefore as they are not abrogated by the coming of Chriſt, ſo neither are theſe. The old Anabaptiſts (asBulling. ad verſes Anabapt. lib. 5. cap. 5. 175. 176. cap. 6. 177. 178. cap. 8. 184. Bullinger ſhows at large in that excellent book of his) who were againſt Magiſtrates puniſhing in matters of Religion, and that al thoſe commands in Deut. 13. &c. were meerly Moſaical and abrogated, held as wel thoſe commands for puniſhing murtherers, theeves, &c. to be abrogated, and that among Chriſtians no offences ſhould be puniſhed with priſons, mulcts, death, but only Excommunication, and among other reaſons they gave this, becauſe it was againſt brotherly love, which they urged equally againſt bodily puniſhments for tranſgreſſions againſt the ſecond Table as they did for puniſhments againſt the firſt; and indeedOſiand. Enchi id De Magiſtratu Polit. quaeſt. 4. Lucas Oſiander with others who write againſt Anabaptiſts for denying that Chriſtians may be puniſhed with outward puniſhments for any offences, ſhow they bring the ſame Arguments, as that in Matthew 13. of the Tares, &c. which the Patrons of Tolaration doe now againſt the Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of Religion, but Bullinger ſhowes very well at large, that thoſe commands given in Exod. Deuter. Levit. of puniſhing capitally in ſome tranſgreſſions againſt the firſt and ſecond Table, were according to the Law of love, and that by the ſame reaſon by which the puniſhing by the Magiſtrate in matters of Religion, is againſt Chriſtian charity, the puniſhing of theeves, ſeditious and flagitious perſons will bee ſo to. And Bullinger askes the queſtion whether it had not beene more agreeable to love, if in the beginning of the tumult of Mu ſter in Weſt-phalia, a few ſeditious kn ves had beene put into priſon, and according to their demerit puniſhed, then that whilſt no man is puniſhed for his conſcience, ſuch a horrible ſlaughter of many ſhould follow, and the Anabaptiſts ſhould farre and 〈◊〉 deſtroy all with fire and ſword. Secondly, that the Magiſtrates puniſhing of Apoſtates and falſe Prophets is approved of for the times of the Goſpel, I ſhall ſpeak to it fully in the 19. and 20. Thees, and therefore will not anticipate my ſelfe, onely ſay this, that in Zac. 13. v. 2, 3. a Prophecie of the times of the Goſpel we finde the ſame thing, almoſt the ſame words which are in Deut. 13. 6.

Thirdly, tis the dictate of nature, tis of the law of nature and of all Nations to puniſh men for violations in Religion as well as for matters of life and goods: I will not here enter into a large diſcuſſion of that queſtion what's requiſite, and how many ingredients go to make a thing of the Law of nature, and how Jus Naturale and Jus poſitivum differ. I ſhall referre the Reader in this queſtion to many learned Tractates and Diſcourſes of it by the Alexander Alenſis paar 3. quaeſt. 26. Thomas Aqinas 1, 2. quaeſt. 94 Eſtius in lib. S ntent. lib. 3. Diſtinct. 36. Suarez. de legib. lib. 1. cap. 3. lib. 2 c. 6. Molina Tractat. 1. De Jure & Juſtitia, Alphonſus a Caſtro de lege paenali lib. 2. cap. 14. Azor. Inſtitut. Moral. Muſcul. loc. commun. de lege naturae. Schoolmen and Caſuiſts, to Popiſh and Proteſtant Divines, particularly to Amiſius Caſes of Conſcience, Book 5. firſt Chapter De Jure, Voetius Theſes De vecat. Gentium part. ſecund. De Jure & Juſtitia Dei. Maſter SELDENS De Jure Naturali & Gentium firſt book throughout, eſpecially the third and eight chapters. Maſter Burges Vindiciae Legis 6. 7. and 8. Lectures. Maſter Cawd. Maſter Palm. Sabbatum Redivivum cap. 1. pag. 11, 12, &c. I will build only upon that which all learned men who have written of the Law of nature grant, viz. that to hold there is a God, and that that God is to be adored and worſhipped is of the Law of nature, yea it is principium juris naturalis. Muſculus in his Common Places, de lege nature, p. 36. and de legib. pag. 139. ſhowes tis of the Law of nature to have a ſenſe of a Deity, and that this Deity is to be worſhipped and feared: So that from the beginning among all men ſome Religion hath alwayes beene received. So Purchas Pilhrimage chap. 6. p. 26, 27. Among all the leſſons which nature hath taught, this is deeplieſt indented Religion: The falſhoods and variety of Religions are evidences of this truth, ſeeing men will rather worſhip a Beaſt, ſtock or baſeſt creature, then profeſſe no Religion at all. It is manifeſt then that the Image of God was by the fall depraved, but not uttrerly extinct; among other ſparks this alſo being raked up in the ruines of our decaied nature, ſome ſcience of the God-head, ſome conſcience of Religion.

Now all thoſe Nations whom the Law of nature inſtructed to beleeve and worſhip a Deity, it inſtructed alſo not to ſuffer their God and the Religion they embraced to be openly blaſphemed and ſpoken againſt; and I doe not beleeve any inſtance can be given of any Nation or body of people among the Heathen formed into a Common-wealth who puniſhed not A theiſts and Blaſphemers of their Gods. The beſt Writers and Hiſtorians among Heathens, and of Heathens, as Cicero, Seneca, Plato, Ariſtotle, Plutarch, Livie, Juſtin, Diogenes Laertius, Caelius Rhodiginus, Diodorus Siculus, Herodotus, Xenophon, aſſure us of Lawes and puniſhments enacted by Princes and States in matters of Religion; And other Hiſtorians who write Hiſtories of the World, of all ages and times, as Sir Walter Rawleigh, Purchas, &c. give us many inſtances in this kind among all ſorts of Religions and people. Whence 'tis that ſo many learned men, Zanchius, Muſculus, Peter Martyr, Beza, with divers others finding lawes and puniſhments of this nature ſo common and generall among Commonwealths and Kingdomes, and that in ſo many examples recorded in the old and new Teſtament and in other Authors, make puniſhments by Magiſtrates for violation of religion to bee of the light of nature as they doe the knowledge of a God, and that hee is to bee feared and worſhipped. Bullinger in his fifth book againſt the Anabaptiſts fifth chapter, in anſwer to the Anabaptiſts affirming the commands of puniſhing in matters of religion belong to Moſes ſword, are moſaicall from which Chriſtians are now freed, ſaith that this coercive power was not by Moſes then inſtituted as being never before, and as a ceremoniall law which ſhould ceaſe in the time of Chriſt, but from the beginning this law as natural and neceſſary was appointed by God. For all the old Magiſtrates before Moſes, from this command of God uſed this ſword. And this law therefore God inſerted in the Iſraelitical laws, which is not now taken away by Chriſts coming as a moſaicall coaction, becauſe Chriſt abrogated not the policie and law of nature. Muſculu in his common places De Magiſtratibus ſhewing the Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of religion to be ſo manifeſt a truth as that the heathen could nor be ignorāt of it, concluds tis to be much more acknowledged by Chriſtians,Nec eſt ut dicat quiſquam non est nobis Chriſtianis ttendendum in religione quid dictitet lumen naturae, ſed quid nobis ſanctae Scripturae praeſcribant quae ad hoc ſunt datae, ut ad omne bonum opus inſtructi red daemur. licet 〈◊〉 in iis quae fidei noſtra myſteria concernu •• non ſit c aſulendu lex naturae, ſed magis ſacrae Scriptura: ſimul tamen conte •• i 〈◊〉 debent, quae divi oconſilio 〈◊〉 eſtric naturaliter ſure inſcripta qualis eſt lex illa, quam naturae vocamus; cuj •• nobis directionem & Prophetae, & Chriſtus & Apoſtoli commendant. neither is it that any man ſhould ſay its not for us Chriſtians to harken in points of religion what the light of our nature dictates unto us, but what the Scripture ſpeaks to us of which are given for that end, that we may be inſtructed to every good work. For although in thoſe things which concerne the myſteries of our Faith, the Law of nature is not to bee conſulted with, but rather the Scriptures, yet alſo-thoſe things ought not to be contemned which by God are written in our earts by nature, as is that law of nature whoſe direction both the Prophets, Chriſt and his Apoſtles, commend to us. Is not that power which fathers have over their children of the law of nature which the Scripture alſo confirms. And who wi l deny that it ſpecially belongs to Parents to bring up their children in true religion and the feare of God? In Abraham this was praiſed Gen. 18. Now if wee conſider the Magiſtrate, what is hee otherwiſe to be accounted of, then the ſupreme Father of all his ſubjects, whoſe power is much greater, then of a Father over children, and therefore it belongs more to him then to a Father, that be ſhould take upon him the care of Religion and among is ſubjects ſet it up. As for Muſculus Authority which is ſo much urged by Minus Celſus Senenfis Sect tertia page 183. that all the judiciall lawes are by the Goſpell wholly antiquated, and therefore thoſe of Deut. 13. Deut. 17. &c. concerning the killing of falſe Prophet , Blaſphemers: I anſwer, tis evident that is not Muſculus meaning that under the Goſpell Magiſtrates may not make lawes or puniſh for points of Religion: for in many of his writings he pleads for this coercive power, as in the ſecond Pſal. verſe 11. Serve the Lord with feare. Let them note this place who deny kingly and ſaecular power that the Magiſtrate b th to doe in the cauſe of religion. The ſpirit of God admoniſhes Kings and Judges of the earth to ſerve the Lord. But hee underſtands it of that ſervice which is due to the Sonne of God. Let them anſwer here in what thing, Princes ought to ſerve Chriſt if in religion there be nothing at all which ought to be done by them. When therefore Princes by their power doe care that the Doctrine of Gods word be kept in the Church, Idolatry and falſe worſhips taken away, Miniſters conveniently provided for, and adverſaries ſuppreſſed, forbidding alſo that the name of God be blaſphemed, and aring that thoſe who live godly may be ſafe, but the wicked and turbulent may be puniſhed, do they not ſerve Chriſt then?

So in his commentaries on theO Ʋtinam & bodie amputentur omnes illi falſi Doctores ac Paſtores qui ••• pus Eccleſiarum Chriſti ſic occupant, ut inde avelli non poſſe videantur niſi quemadmod m ves es ferro exciduntur & abjiciuntur, i a ipſi quoque forti anu p r Chriſtianos, Magiſtratus mputentur, qu ſalus fidelium quae peri litatur recuper tur. fifth of the Gal. 12. verſe he is for cutting off falſe Teachers by the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, which Mr. Goodwi •• page 74. of his H giomaſtix confeſſes of him. So in his Common Places De Magiſtratibus and De Haereſi hee pleads for at large the coercive power of the Magiſtrates in matters of Religion, andDe Haereſi. p. 611, 612. De illis here icis loquer, qui et ſi graviter errent haud tame blaſphemi ſunt adverſus Deum. Blaſphemum lex Dei vivere non patitur. particularly of reſtraining and impriſoning Hereticks, yea, in caſe they be blaſphemous againſt God of cutting them off by death. For ſaith hee, the law of God doth not ſuffer a Blaſphemer to live. By which teſtimonies of Muſoulus and divers others that might be taken out of his writings tis apparent whatever his meaning was of the Abrogation of the whole judiciall law, it could not bee that all the commands concerning the Magiſtrates coercive power againſt Hereticks, falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, were by the comming of Chriſt wholly taken away: For whereas Muſoulus his expreſſe judgement is (though againſt the Magiſtrates cutting off by death a ſimple Heretick) for putting to death blaſphemous Hereticks, his proof is, the law of God doth not ſuffer a blaſphemer to live, which law was given by Moſes as well as thoſe in the 13. and 17. chapter of Deut. and I find no law ſpoken of, or example recorded in the new Teſtament for putting Blaſphemers to death, but what hath immediate reference to that law in L vit. 24. 16. or was founded on the law of nature common to all Nations. Now for that abrogation of the moſaicall law in Muſ ulus common places de legibus ſpoken of by Minus Celſus Senenſis, tis not of the abrogation of the judiciall law only but of the morall alſo, which is equally pleaded by Muſculus in that chapter; and yet tis well known that Muſculus was no Antinomian, So that however, he differed in the way of his expreſſions from other great Divines about the manner how the morall law in the ten commandements binds us Chriſtians, viz. not as delivered by Moſes legally to the Iſraelites, but as agreeing with the law of nature, juſtice and equity, commanding good juſt, and holy things, ſo far tying all men to obſervance. Muſculus in qu tum praecept. pag. 81, 82. non dico ſimpliciter ad ſolos Iſraelitas pertinere Decalogi hujus obſervantiam, ſed quate us pertinet ad legem Moſaicam & tabulas abet foederis à Deo cum Iſraele initi Hacte us utique neque Gentes neque Chriſtian s conſtringit ſed ſolos Iſraelitas, quos legis hujus diſpenſatio peculiariter & nominatim concernit. Interea tamen ſciendu est, quae in hoc Decalogo 〈◊〉 nentur, quatenus in ſeſunt bona, juſta aequa & pia, & ad legem naturae pertinent, hactenus illorum obſervantiam pertinere ad omnes. Quatenus Iſraelitis per Moſem legaliter est traditus, ſolos Iſraelitas legaliter conſtringit: quatenus vero cum lege naturae juſtitia & equitate conſentit, non ſolos Iſraelitas, ſed omnes homines ad ſui obſervantiam habet obnoxios. Muſcul. de legibus 141, 142. Muſculus explains his own meaning, that the obſervation of the Decalogue did not belong ſimply to the Iſraelites alone, but ſecundum quid in ſome reſpects as given by Moſes upon Mount Sinai, and as it contained the Tables of a Covenant made by God with Iſrael. So farre it binds not Heathens nor Chriſtiens but only Iſraelites. But the things containe in the Decalogue, the matter of it concernes all. The Decalogue ſo farr as to be under Moſes, and his Paedagogie doth not binde Chriſtians, but as it contains things agreeable, or contrary to righteouſneſſe and the law of Chriſt tis in force to, and therfore cōmands the one and forbids the other. Muſculus ſaith he is ſo farre from condemning the uſe of the ten Commandements in the Church of God, that he greatly praiſes their ſtudy and diligence, who firſt brought that in for a part of the Catechiſme of the Church. So that notwithſtanding any thing Muſculus hath of the abrogation of the moſaical law, Moſes Laws for puniſhing Idolaters, falſe Prophets Blaſphemers, are in force now for the generall equity and reaſon of them as containing matter agreeable to the rules of reaſon and juſtice as well as the Decalogue; and indeed confidering what Muſculus in his Tractate de legibus writes of the judiciall lawes that they are Appendixes of the morall commands, inſerted here and there in Moſes writings and added for expoſition of the Decalogue, as alſo what he ſaith De Magiſtratibus that the Magiſtrates power in matters of Religion is of the light of nature, nature dictates it, and that the law is ſtill in force againſt Blaſphemers, then wee cannot underſtand the abrogation of theſe lawes of Moſes of puniſhing in matters of the firſt Table, to be any otherwiſe meant by Muſculus then in his ſenſe of the abrogation of the Decalogue formerly expreſſed.

2. The reaſons of thoſe commands expreſſed in the 13. and 17. chapters of Deut. concerning putting to death falſe Prophets, Apoſtates, &c. whether taken from the nature of the things themſelves to which drawn, or the nature of the perſons guilty, Seducers, or the common condition of the ſons of men, ſhall feare and do no more ſo, &c. or the end of puniſhments, putting away evill, to which of them ſoever we look, they have been, were, and are ſtil the ſame, always of a like nature and force both before the commands were given by Moſes, in Moſes time, and now under the Goſpell, and therefore the reaſons of thoſe lawes being perpetuall and univerſall not abrogated by Chriſt, neither are the lawes themſelves (of which though I gave a touch of it in pag. 50.) yet I ſhall here further cleare it. Tis a rule given by many Divines in ſuch ſentences as theſe, Tale praceptum qualis ratio praecepti. Ratio immutabilis facit praceptum immutabile. Epiſcop. Winton. opuſc. pag. 145. Ameſ. lib. 5. caſ. conſc. cap. 1. Mepul. lib. 2. cap. 13. Ʋbi ratio legis redditur moralis, ibi ex ipſa eſt moralis. Officia illa omnia ſunt moralia et immutabilia, quae rationes morales & immutabiles habent ſibi annexas. Now though this rule is liable to Exceptions and holds not univerſally as in Levit. 11. 44. Some ſpeciall determination may be confirmed by a generall reaſon; and the immutable nature of the law-giver hath its place and vertue in appointing mutable commands. Yet where the reaſons of a law ex natura rei & not meerly ex inſtituto are perpetual and univerſal, and the duties following from thoſe reaſons founded thereon, the ſpecial inward and proper reaſon of ſuch a command being morall and perpetual; there alwayes it followes that law is morall and perpetual, of which the Reader may bee further ſatisfied in Ames Caſes Conſc. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quaeſt. 9. and his Medulla l. 2. c. 12.

Now the ſpeciall inward and proper reaſon of that command Deut. 13. ſo ſhalt thou put the evill away from the midſt of thee, is juris moralis & naturalis, and therefore ſo is the command itſelfe. For a concluſion of this that theſe lawes of puniſhing Idolaters, falſe Prophets, &c. were not properly judiciall lawes, nor abrogated by Chriſts comming, lets take notice that that diſtinction of the judiciall law from the morall, viz. the morall law was given of God publikly declared by his voice twice writ in tables of ſtone, but the judiciall was afterwards delivered to Moſes, and by Moſes to the people without any ſuch ſolemnity, is no exact nor perfect one. For many of the laws not expreſſed in the Decalogue, but delivered afterwards among the judiciall, as about reſtoring the pledge, of weights and juſt meaſures, of giving the hire to the laborour, and many other ſuch like, are no more judiciall or leſſe morall then thou ſhalt not ſteal, Yea ſuch commands are transferred to the times of the Goſpell, as that of Levit, 19. 17. to Matth. 18. 15. and Luke 17. 3. and therefore though theſe commands of puniſhing Blaſphemers, Apoſtates, falſe Prophets, &c. bee not expreſſed in the Decalogue, but added after, yet they may bee no more judiciall then the third and fourth Commandement. And therefore the moſt accurate diſtinction that is given by Divines between judiciall lawes properly ſo called, and thoſe lawes numbred among the judiciall, is this, thoſe were properly judiciall lawes which had a ſingular reſpect to the people of the Jewes, ſo as the reaſon cauſe and foundation of them was placed in ſome peculiar condition of that people: But thoſe lawes which were wont to be reckoned among the judicials, and yet in their reaſon had no ſingular reſpect or relation to the condition of the Jewes more then to other people, all thoſe are of morall naturall right common to all people, of which diſtinction with ſome other particulars about the nature of the judiciall law, and how farr it binds Chriſtians under the Goſpell I referre the Reader toJudi iales le es proprie illae fuerunt quae cum non fuerunt, caremoniales, ſingularem populum Judaicum reſpectum habuere, ita ut ratio cauſa & fundamentum earū poſitū fuerit in illius populi peculiari aliqua çonditione. Leges igitur illae quae judicialibus annumerari ſolent & tamen in ratione ſua nullu ſingularem reſpectum habuerunt ad conditionem Judaeo um, magis quā aliorum populorum, illae omnes ſunt juris moralis ac naturalis, omnium populorum communes. Ameſ. Caſes of conſcience the fifth Book, chapt. 1. De Jure and to Zepperus explanation of the moſaicall lawes, chap. 5. who ſhewes two extreams of men in that point, one in the exceſſe holding all the judiciall lawes promiſcuouſly in force, others in the defect holding them all and wholly aboliſhed, but holds the middle way between both, viz. what ever in the moſaicall lawes hath an immutable and perpetuall reaſon and nature by common right, immu ably and alwayes as by an adamantine chaine binds all men in all times and places: But whatſoever hath an implied reaſon and condition of change, does no longer bind the conſciences of Chriſtians. Zepperus alſo in his firſt Book chapt. 12. of the moſaicall lawes, anſwers at large the places brought by Minus Celſus Senenſ. and others, out of Muſculus, Luther, Calvin. Zanchius and others, for the abrogation of theſe lawes, ſhowing they are underſtood only of thoſe things that peculiarly belonged to the commonwealth of the Jewes, and as given by Moſes to the Iſraelites, and not of ſuch judicialls which either in the law of nature or Decalogue have their reaſon founded. Now of this latter ſort, are all thoſe commands for the ſubſtance of them, for puniſhing the falſe Prophe , Apoſtate, &c. as appears in the nature of thoſe laws and the reaſons of them: for what ſingular reſpect or relation to the condition of the Jews, hath taking the evill away, fearing and doing no more ſo, turning away from the Lord their God, more, then to the condition of Chriſtians.

Thirdly, As to Hagiomaſtixs affirmation page 43 that to prove by the law of God in the old Teſtament, Deut. 13. &c. that falſe Prophets Blaſphemers, &c. may be bodily puniſhed under the New Teſtament is all one as if a man ſhould go about to prove that the man Moſes is now alive, by this argument viz. becauſe hee was alive under the old Teſtament, I anſwer, 1. Moſes is alive under the new Teſtament, as God ſaid in the buſh to Moſes, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob, ſo God is the God of Moſes as well as of Abraham, &c. Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Matth. 22. 32. compared with Mark 12. 26, 27. 2. Though Moſes body be dead and buried by God in a Sepulcher that no man knowes of, yet his Doctrine may be alive, tis a groſſe non ſequitur, that their Doctrine muſt be dead and buried whoſe bodyes are dead, for then Davids Doctrine in the Pſalmes, the Prophets Doctrine, yea the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles Doctrine ſhould be dead, they being now all dead as well as Moſes, and ſo all proofes brought for any Doctrine, from Davids Pſalmes, the Prophets, the new Teſtament may be thus evaded, by ſaying, we may go about to prove David, the Prophets, Evangeliſts and Apoſtles are now alive by this arguments, becauſe they were alive ſome of them thouſands, and others of them many hundred yeares agoe. Thirdly beſides this falſe conſequence, tis evident upon many grounds that Doctrines are alive, doe bind when the Publiſhers and writers of them are dead, yea they are written for that end, that they may teach and bee a rule when the men who writ them are dead, that being dead, by theſe they may yet ſpeak as the Apoſtle om. 15. 4. tells us; yea many things are ſpoken and written to be a rule of direction to the Church, intended to take place rather after their death then in their life time, as the Prophecies of the Prophets, and ſome Prophecies alſo of the Apoſtles, ſo that it may be ſaid as Z ch. chapter 1. verſe 6. Your Fathers, where are they, and the Prophets, do they live for ever? But my words and my Statu •• which I commanded my ſervants the Prophets; did they no take hold of your Fathers? though Pen-men and writers of Scripture die, yet their words and Doctrine take hold and place when they are dead. Fourthly by this reaſon of holding Moſes is now alive, if the law of God in the old Teſtament binds, it will follow that all Moſes Doctrine, the ten commandements and all he writ in the Pentatench, Geneſis, &c. are void as well as theſe commands about puniſhing falſe Prophets, &c. for they were made known and written by Moſes when hee was alive, and to bee found in his Books together with theſe lawes termed judiciall: So that the Antinomian may as well ſay the ſame againſt the morall law under the Goſpell, when the ten Commandements are preſſed, and the Socinian and Anabaptiſt againſt thoſe commands to put to death murtherers, which now Maſter John Goodwin doth againſt theſe lawes in Deut. 13. &c. that men may as well prove the man Moſes is now alive, by theſe commands, becauſe he was alive under the old Teſtament, as bring thoſe places of Scripture written by Moſes to prove the morall law in force, and thoſe commands who ſo ſheddeth mans bloud, by man ſhall his bloud bee ſhed. Fifthly whatever Hagiomaſtix by way of ſcoffe hath ſpoken thus of proving as well Moſes may be now alive, tis evident, beſides the new Teſtaments Confirmation in many places of the Evangeliſts and Epiſtles, of the old Teſtament being in force in the dayes of the Goſpell (of which I ſhall ſpeak in the 18. THESIS and ſo will pare the Reader here) it by name particularly ratifies the Doctrine and Authority of Moſes writings, and proves and urges ſeverall things upon men under the Goſpell from texts taken out of the five Books of Moſes, as theſe places in the new Teſtament unanſwerably ſhow, Matth. 23. 2, 3. Matth. 28, 29, 31, 32. Mark 12. 26. Luke 16. 29, 30, 31. Luke 24. 27. John 1. 45. Acts 3. 22. Act. 26. 22. Acts 28. 23. Rom. 9. 7, 9, 15, 16, 17. Rom. 10. 6, 8. Rom. 13. 8. 9. Epheſ. 6. 2. 3. yea ſeverall particulars of the judiciall lawes, are brought to prove duties required in the new Teſtament as page 56, 57, 60. of this Book ſhowes; and laſtly Moſes Authority and writings are of ſuch ſacred account under the new Teſtament, that in the P •• lation the Book that concludes and ſhuts up the Canon of the new Teſtament, the Book that ſpeaks of things that ſhall be in the Church of the new Teſtament till the end of the world, Moſes his name and writing are joyned with the Lamb, and that to be made uſe of by the moſt eminent and faithfull ſervants of God, that have gotten the victory ever the beaſt, and over his Image, and over his marke, and over the number of his name, theſe ſtanding on the ſea of glaſſe having the harp of God, ſing the ſong of Moſes the ſervant of God, and the ſong of the Lamb, ſaying, great and marvellous are thy works Lord God almighty, &c. So that all theſe things being laid together, I ſuppoſe by this time every ingenuous Reader muſt needs ſee, that by this Anſwer to Deut. 13. &c. Hagiomaſtix intended rather to ſpread a table of mirth for himſelfe and his Church to feaſt on, then to give any ſatisfaction to the Reverend Author of the Vindication of the printed Paper entituled an Ordinance for the preventing of Hereſies, &c. and the reſt of the Presbyterians.

Fourthly, as to that anſwer of Hagiomaſtix p. 48. 49. they that will have the ancient law for putting Blaſphemers & Idolaters to death to be now in force, muſt conſequently hold tis in force not ſimply only as to the inflicting of death upon the offenders, but in all other particulars commanded by the ſame Authority, as not be killed after any māner, nor with any kind of death, but with ſtones, not only the ſeducer but the ſeduced themſelves, though whole cites, not only the inhabitants, but the cattel alſo, with divers other particulars named in that of Deut. 13. For if men will urge this law as being ſtill in force, they make themſelves debters to urge the execution of the whole in all the particularities and circumſtances thereunto belonging. For who hath any power to make an Election or Reprobation amongſt the Commandements of God, where God himſelf hath made none. I reply, it followes not: tis no good conſequence that all circumſtances, acceſſories, particularities muſt bind becauſe the ſubſtance of a command binds; or that the ſubſtance and ſumme of a command muſt be taken away, becauſe ſome circumſtances, formes and particularities are not in force.

To argue a thing it ſelfe aboliſhed, becauſe the modus of it binds not alwayes, or that the ſubſtance and eſſentials muſt ceaſe, becauſe divers acceſſories, circumſtantials and formes wherewith it was clothed moſt ſuitable to ſuch a time, Countrey condition of ſuch a people, are ceaſed, is a fallacie a dicto ſec ndum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter, which all Logitians know is no good reaſoning: If I, or any other Presbyterian had argued thus, ſuch a mans bond binds not now, or this is not ſuch a man, hee is dead, becauſe his apparell, haire, place of abode, with ſome other ſuch acceſſories are changed antiquite altered, we ſhould certainly have ſpread a table of mirth for the Independents, and therfore I judge, for Hagiomaſtix thus to reaſon ſhows no great ſtrength, and I doe deſire Mr. John Goodwin, but to rub up his oldKekerman lib. 1. cap. 7. D praedicam. Substantiae & lib. 1. cap. 21. Burgerdiſ. Inſtitut. Logic. l. 1. c. 13. c. 4. Seton. Log. De Subſtantia. Subſtantia quà ſubſtantia non variatur gradibus ſeu non recipit magis & minus. Subſtantia eadem numero permanens, poteſt contraria accidentia in ſe ſuſcipere. Accid. communia recipiunt gradus. Accidens eſt quod adeſt & abeſt ſine ſubjecti interitu. Accidentia ſunt ſeperabilia à ſubjecto. Logick of the nature and difference of Subſtance, and Accidents, and then I know he will confeſſe (though for him to confeſſe any thing as manifeſt as the light wherein he is miſtaken in writing, is as rare as a black Swan) that Accidents may be varied and taken away ſalva ſubſtantia. And that I may ſhow the weaknes of this reaſoning, that this 13. of Deut. is therfore not in force becauſe then the manner of puniſhing with ſtones, and the perſon tempted to Idolatry, though never ſo deare, ſtoning him, with divers other particulars muſt ſtil bind, I ſhal give inſtances in the old and new Teſtament of morall and Evangelicall commands, and examples, that the things themſelves are in force, and yet many acceſſories, acccidentals, circumſtantials accompanying them at ſuch a time in ſuch places, and ſuch a condition of the Church, not binding; And certainly if commands and rules confeſſed to bee morall and Evangelicall had ſuch acceſſories, accidentals, circumſtantials, formes and manner of expreſſions accompanying them, to which wee are not now tied though wee are to the commands and duties themſelves, then the commands cald judiciall in Deut. 13. 17. becauſe conſiſting in judgements and matters of puniſhing offences, may eaſily bee conceived upon ſeverall reaſons, to have for the manner and forme of proceeding with the kinds and extent of puniſhments, many acceſſories & accidentals to which the Church of the new Teſtam. is no ways bound although not free from the ſubſtance of the commands, or thoſe Iawes as containing ſuch a Doctrine that in their generall nature and proportion of equity give us the beſt determination naturalis juris, asCaſ. Conſ. lib. 5. cap. 1. De Jure. Ameſius ſpeakes. The Decalogue is in force and binding for the matter and ſubſtance of the commands of all Chriſtians under the N. Teſtament as is confeſſed even by them that hold the judicial lawes totally abrogated, and yet many of them plead that in divers reſpects, and in ſeverall particular things, viz. acceſſories & appendixes attending that time and that people, the Jewes, as under ſuch conſiderations, that law binds not us: Now though the judgement of the generality of Orthodox Divines goes not along with them all their expreſſions about the māner of the abrogation, yet al confeſſe that even in the Decalogue there are ſome things, acceſſories accommodated to that time & condition of that people the Jews, which have the nature of ceremonials & judicials, as that clauſe in the preface which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the houſe of Bondage, upon which the ten commandements are inforced to the Jewes, as that clauſe in theZepperi Moſaic. Leg. Forenſ. explanat. l. 1. c. 6 de varia legum moſaicarū compoſit. pag. 36. 37. Decalogus ſane ut nt mere moralis, immutabilis, & perpetuus videri queat, aliquid tamen & cereminiale & forenſe admixtū habet. Quintum praeceptū morale est quatenus parentibus a liberis honorem exhiberi vult; judiciale & politicum quatenus terrae Chanaan & benedictionis in illa promiſſionem continet. Ceremoniale in ſuper aliquid, quatenus Chananaea terra typus erat caeleſtis illius patriae. vid. ibi plura. Rivet. explicat. Decal. p. 12. promiſſio enim addi a praecepto quinto expreſſe loquitur de terra-quam Deus erat daturus populo quae hoc tempore nos non reſpieit. fifth command that thy dayes may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, was ſpecially meant and had particular relation to the Land of Canaan, though in the generall equity it was meant of a good and long life upon earth, as is evident by Epheſ. 6. 3. where the Apoſtle changes it from dayes being long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth, to this, that it may be well with thee and thou maieſt live long on the earth, as ſomething in the fourth commandement, which that Coloſ, 2. 16, 17. ſhowes, and ſo ſome other phraſes might be inſtanced in, which bind not; and yet from hence to reaſon againſt the Decalogues binding Chriſtians under the new Teſtament, as Hagiomaſtix in page 48, 49. againſt that command in Deut. 13. and to ſay as he does were frivilous and abſurd: Now if it be ſo in the matter of the Decalogue, then the ſame reaſon holds more in Deut. 13.

The Government, Diſcipline, and order of the viſible Church laid downe in the new Teſtament for the eſſentials and ſubſtantials binds all Churches to the end of the world, as the Reformed Churches hold, and divers Miniſters of that way as Gerſom Bucerus, Parker, Danaeus, Cartwright, &c have written, and yet they doe not hold all acceſſories, circumſtantials, occaſionals, &c of Diſcipline ſpoken of in the new Teſtament to bind, but diſtinguiſh of things, ſhowing what's immutable and perpetuall, and what not, of which the Reader may conſult Parker, De Politia Eccleſiaſtica, Danaus in Tim. 2. Epiſtol. Dedicat. in cap. 3. v. 15. cap. 5. v. 14. Danaeus on the firſt of Timothie, who ſhowes in divers places of that Book that the fundamentals, eſſentials and ſubſtantials of Eccleſiaſticall Diſcipline cannot bee increaſed nor diminiſhed by any new conſtitutions of men: but for acceſſories and accidentals they may be diminiſhed, increaſed and moderated according to the various circumſtances of places, things, perſons and times. For Diſcipline being as a comely garment fitted to things, perſons and times, as theſe may be changed viz times, &c ſo Diſcipline alſo in acceſſories and lighter things may be altered, and if out of a foliſh zeal of obſerving all things practiſed in the Apoſtles times men will imitate all things then done without conſidering a difference of times, places and ſtate of things, they muſt needs doe that which will bee to the great evill of the Church and detriment of conſciences. Apologet Narration. Meere circumſtances we except, or what rules the Law of nature doth in common dictate. Independents themſelves though they hold the ſubſtantials of Church Government and order ought to bee the ſame in our times, that they were in the Apoſtles, yet they doe not in all circumſtantials nor accidentals judge Diſcipline now binds; and I ſuppoſe if Hagiomaſtix had thus reaſoned againſt their Independent Government and order, that if that tied us in theſe dayes, then wee are bound to all circumſtances and acceſſories, as to the number of ſeven Deacons, &c as to widowes juſt of ſuch an age, &c or elſe the office of Deacons and widowes are ceaſed in the Church, they would have laughed at him for his folly, and yet this is the way of the mans reaſoning againſt the command of God, Deut. 13. 17. the command it ſelfe muſt be wholly abrogated, or elſe all acceſſories and formalities accompanying it Chriſtians are tied unto. Baptiſm, the Lords Supper, Preaching of the word to ſpeak properly are not points of Government and order, but the worſhip of God: Love, Humility, Hoſpitality, are graces and morall duties commanded under the Goſpell, and yet all theſe with many others of the like kind that I could inſtance in, had in the Apoſtles dayes thoſe Primitive times, ſome acceſſories and appendixes, wayes of manifeſtations of them which are now ceaſed, as the feaſts of Love, the Kiſſe of love, waſhing the Saints feet, &c. in which humility, brotherly love, kindnes to ſtrangers were expreſſed, as proper & peculiar to that condition the Church was then in, & the cuſtomes of thoſe Countries, &c. Now if any Seeker ſhould reaſon with Hagiomaſtix that theſe Ordinances were all antiquated, or any Antinomian that theſe graces were not to be exerciſed by us now, becauſe theſe acceſſories and appendixes were laid aſide, or would inforce from the Practiſe of them a neceſſity of waſhing feet, the Kiſſe of love, and all other things proper and peculiar to the ſtate of the Apoſtles, I ſuppoſe he would laugh at them, and in his anſwer jear them to purpoſe. Now therfore if in Evangelicall Ordinances and Commands, in points of worſhip and graces under the time of the new Teſtament, where there is ſtill one and the ſame manner of adminiſtration of the Coveenant of grace, there may be ſuch a non obligation in reſpect of acceſſories and accidentals, though yet the Ordinances and graces themſelves remain in full force and vigor, we may then eaſily conceive in commands concerning puniſhments of ſin againſt the firſt Table, how under the new Teſtament being a divers manner of adminiſtratiō from the old (though the ſame in ſubſtance) there may well be a great change of acceſſories, accidentals, formes, and manner of proceeding, which nevertheleſſe give no ground for the taking away things and commands themſelves, but only clearly ſhow there may bee a ceſſation of all ſuch forms, acceſſories, manner of proceeding, which were peculiar to that time and people. And if wee do but obſerve and conſider the compoſition of moſt of the moſaicall lawes, how they are mixt of morall, judiciall, and ceremoniall, how lawes judiciall have ſomething morall, and ſomething ceremoniall in them, and ceremonials have ſomething judiciall and morall in them, and how that thoſe things which in their nature are moral and perpetuall, have yet ſomewhat judiciall and ceremoniall annexed to them, of all which we may be further ſatisfied in Zepperus his explanation of the moſaicall lawes, we may eaſily conceive how in theſe moſaicall lawes, a command the thing it ſelfe may be binding for the ſubſtance, and yet ſeverall particulars accompanying as being properly judiciall and ceremoniall may ceaſe, among which now the form and kinds of puniſhments, the extent with rigor and ſeverity of puniſhing to the cattell, the making the city a heap for ever, &c may be reckoned; And that theſe are but acceſſories and appendixes of theſe lawes for puniſhing Idolaters, falſe Prophets, which therefore may not bind, though the commands for the ſubſtance be ſtill in force, may appeare thus, becauſe inflicting death ſimply upon Apoſtates, falſe Prophets, &c is commanded without any of theſe acceſſories of deſtroying the cattel, and making the city an heap, &c as theſe places Exod. 23. 20. Deut. 17. 2, 5, 6. and Deut. 18. 20. ſnow, which is worthy to be taken notice of; beſides in the commands to puniſh thoſe who offer up their children to Molech, and that Blaſpheme God, Levit. 20. 2. Leuit. 24. 16. the inflicting of death upon them is required, but none of thoſe particulars mentioned Deut. 13, 15, 16, 17. In the new Teſtament alſo, though the puniſhing by death according to Moſes law of Apoſtates be approved of, as in page 52, 53. of this Book I have ſhowen, and ſeverall judiciall Lawes for the ſubſtance ratified page 56, 57. yet the formalities, acceſſories, with all particularities of ſuch Lawes never are ſpoken of; and laſtly, though ſevere puniſhment by the Magiſtrate the ſubſtance of that command in Deut. 13. be both before Moſes Lawes as in Jobs time, and after Moſes times by Artaxerxes, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius in caſes of Apoſtaſie, Idolatry, Blaſphemie, approved of; yet there is not a word ſpoken of deſtroying Cattell, the whole Cities, &c. And to ſtop Hagiomaſt. mouth for ever, I wiſh him to conſider this, that by vertue of commands under the old Teſtament, Apoſtates, falſe Prophets, Idolaters, may be now put to death, and yet the Magiſtrates under the Goſpel not bound to deſtroy whole Cities, cattell, nor fulfill the reſt of his inferences: For it will appeare by many inſtances in the old Teſtament, even in that time of Adminiſtration of the Covenant, wherein the 13. of Deut. was written, that the Magiſtrates held not themſelves bound to àll thoſe particulars of deſtroying all the inhabitants, cattell, &c. though they inflicted puniſhments, yea death upon ſome Idolaters, and Apoſtates, as theſe inſtances fully ſhow, viz. in Moſes Exod. 32. commanding in the worſhip of the Golden Calfe three thouſand to be ſlaine, not all the people, nor the cattell, Numb. 25. 2, 3, 4, 5. commanding for the bowing downe to the gods of Moab, the heads of the people to be hanged up, not all the people, neither the cattell to be killed, in Eliah killing the Prophets of Baal only, 1 Kings c. 18. not the people; in Aſa, entring into Covenant that whoſoever would not ſerve the Lord the God of Iſrael ſhould be put to death, and in depoſing Machah, his Mother for making an Idoll in a Grove 2 Chron. c. 15. but not entring into Covenant to deſtroy all the Cattell and the Cities where ſuch perſons lived; in Joſiah ſacrificing all the Prieſt of the high places in Samaria that were there upon the Altars 2 Kings. chapt. 23. but not ſacrificing the people nor the cattell; and ſo in others which might be given. And therfore if Magiſtrates under the old Teſtament, though all thought it their duty to puniſh Idolaters and Apoſtates, were not tied to all the particulars in Deut. 13. then certainly the Magiſtrates under the new are leſſe tied to thoſe acceſſories and formalities of that Law, by all which tis apparent thoſe things laid down inThe ſtoning to death with ſtones Idolaters, falſe Prophets, was not eſſentiall as Zach. 13. 3. ſhowes who there prophecies they ſhall be thruſt through, not ſtoned. Deut. 13. 15, 16, 17. are only acceſſories & accidentals of that cōmand of puniſhing with death thoſe that goe after other Gods, and not of the nature and eſſence of it; yea holding only in ſome particular caſes, time, but not generall to the Iewes themſelves, which in what caſes and how, I ſhall forbeareſpeaking of now for feare of inlarging this part beyond its proportion intended.

And for a concluſion of this; the conſideration of this mixture and compoſition of the Lawes of God under the old Teſtament is exceeding uſefull for this purpoſe, viz. that thereby wee may judge more eaſily of the mutabilitie or immutabilitie of them, whether they be temporary or perpetuall, and ſo whether they bind all men, or only ſome. In commands alledged out of the old Teſtament, this is to bee carefully lookt into whether they be meerly and purely morall or ceremoniall or judiciall; or whether mixt and compounded, and how, of what lawes mixt. If the command bee pure and ſimple the thing is evident, where morall is binds, where ceremoniall or judiciall it binds not. But if it bee mixt of judiciall, ceremoniall and morall, or of ceremoniall and morall, the morall remains and is in force: by all which wee may ſee the weaknes of Hagiomaſtixs inference, that if that command in Deut. 13. does at all bind Chriſtians, it muſt binde in every particular there ſpoken of: for whats morall in Deut. 13. abides, and yet whats properly judiciall and ceremoniall is taken away: look as that were no good argument againſt the fifth commandement being in force under the new Teſtament, becauſe then what was judiciall and ceremoniall in it as containing the promiſe of the Land of Canaan, and a bleſſing in it &c. muſt remaine under the Goſpel, ſo neither is this of Hagiomaſt. For as a command morall may have ſomewhat judiciall mixed with it, ſo may a command judiciall have much of morall in it; but now what judiciall lawes and how mixed are temporary and changeable, and upon what rules and grounds, and what judiciall lawes are immutable and perpetuall, and how to bee known, I referre the Reader for ſatisfaction to Zepperus explanation of the Moſaicall Lawes, 1. Book chapt. 7, 8, 9, 12. And as for thoſe commands in queſtion of Magiſtrates puniſhing in caſes of Apoſtaſie, Idolatry, Blaſphemie, they are upon all occaſions reckoned by learned Divines among the immutable and perpetuall, as by Zanchius De Magiſtratu Quaeſt. Secunda p. 170, 171. Beza De Haereti is a Magiſtratu puniendi , p. 152. 154, 155. and by Zepperus in his explanation of the moſaicall judiciall laws, firſt Book c. 10. page 72. and 4. Book chapt. 2. p. 243. where hee makes the lawes againſt the falſe Prophet teaching publikely, the private Seducer, the publike defection of the whole City, &c to bee appendixes of the firſt command and of common right, and particularly in the third chapter of that fourth Book proves by ſeverall Reaſons the puniſhing of falſe Teachers, Hereticks, Blaſphemers, ought to bee perpetuall, which learned Authors notwithſtanding, grant the kinds of puniſhments, the particular forms of thoſe lawes, and as they were given of Moſes to bee conſtitutive of the Jewes pollicy, to be changeable and not binding: The kinds of puniſhments are taken away, Chriſt would not have the Gentile Magiſtrate to be bound to thoſe lawes for the kind of puniſhments which were given to the Jewiſh Magiſtrates, but notwithſtanding puniſhments in generall are not taken away, but commanded. In the conſtituting the kind of puniſhment, there ſeems a peculiar reaſon to have been had of that Nation. There were certaine peculiar things in thoſe lawes that doe not now belong to us which particulars being taken away, there are two things by vertue of thoſe lawes remaine. Firſt, that defection from the true Religion, and ſeducing to tha defection ſhould be puniſhed by the Magiſtrate no . Secondly, that Capitall puniſhment ſhould be inflicted according to the greatnes of the Blaſphemy and wickedneſſe upon factious and ſeditions Apoſtates. For of ſuch account ought the Majeſty of God to be among all men in all ages of the world, that whoſoever ſhall deſpiſe and mock at that, be who ſpeakes evill of the Author of life, is moſt worthy to have his life taken away. So Zanchius De Magiſtratu Quaeſt, ſecunda page. 170. 171, 172, and Beza De Haereticis a Magiſtrat p niendis page 154, 155. ſpeake and therfore according to that three-fold diſtinction laid down page 53, 54, 55. of this Treatiſe, this law in Deut. 13. may be in force, 1. according to the ſubſtance and equity of it, according as there is a common right in it,Beza De Haeret. a Magistr. Page 154. Judicialis autem L xeam duntaxat juſtitiae & aequitatis partē ſigillatim explicat, quae in iis rebus verſatur de quibus judicia constituta ſunt. common to other Nations with the Jew , and ſecondly, as it contains a Doctrine made known by God for puniſhing ſuch offences (though wee Chriſtians are not tied to the particular formes of that command according to the Moſaicall law or politie, nor as it was given by Moſes to one people, nor to the utmoſt vigor and ſeverity of it expreſſed in every particular) which being in force under the Goſpel but in this ſenſe & thus far, fully makes good that which tis brought for the Magiſtrates coercive power under the new Teſtament to puniſh falſe Prophets, Apoſtates, &c: neither does the abating ſomewhat of the rigor of the Law ſutable to the Moſaical Paedagogie, or the releſiang of the particular forms of that Law the kind and manner of puniſhing, abrogate all puniſhment and reſtraint: For we may eaſily conceive and wee often ſee it in experience, the rigor and utmoſt ſeverity of a Law in regard of ſome circumſtances abated, and yet not all puniſhment, neither the ſubſtance of it taken away; and indeed if wee conſider what the judiciall Law concerning puniſhing in criminall matters is, as tis laid downe by divers learned men,Ameſ. lib. 5. Caſ. Conſc. cap. 1. de jure iſta Lex judicialis quae per Moſen traditae fuit Iſraelitis ut eorum propria, fuit ipſis accuratiſſima determinatio & accommodatio juris naturalis ſecundum illius populi ſingula em determinationem. Iſta Lex ad Chriſtianos pertinet tantum ſub ratione doctrinae quatenus vel generali ſua natura, vel proportionis aquitate, exhibet ſemper nobis optimam naturalis juris determinationem. Beza. Zepperus, Ameſius, viz. that law which doth peculiarly explicate that part of righteouſneſſe and equitie concerning executing juſtice and judgement, or the moſt accurate determination and fit application of the naturall right according to the ſpeciall and ſingular condition of that people, it muſt needs follow that though thoſe circumſtances which were proper to that ſpeciall eſtate of the Jewes are ceaſed, as of neceſſity they muſt, the State of the Jewes being changed, yet the things themſelves as abſtracted from their relation to the Jewiſh Church and ſtate, cannot be aboliſhed, as being naturalis juris, which ſtill doe hold forth to us the beſt determination of naturall right as Ameſius ſpeaks, as the changing of the faſhion forme and proportion of a mans clothing and apparell cannot alter a mans ſubſtance and perſon, ſo neither can the forms and manner of the judiciall Law by which it was fitted for the Jewes condition as a garment is to a mans body, take away the Law it ſelfe; ſo that judicias being othing elſe but naturals and morals clothed for a time after ſuch a manner to fit the nature and manners of ſuch a people, that time and people being paſſed away, the ſubſtance, viz. whats naturall and morall muſt needs remaine.

Fifthly, as to thoſe other inferences added by Hagiomaſtix page 50. 51, 52. to the former, that if the obligation of the Moſaicall Law for putting Blaſphemers, Idolaters, &c to death, was intended by God to continue under the new Teſtament, why was the Apoſtle Paul ſo farre from enjoyning a beleeving brother to detect, or to put to death his Idolatrous wife, that hee doth not permit him ſo much as to put her away from him? if the Law in queſtion was to continue in force under the Goſpel, then was every perſon in an Idolatrous ſtate and kingdome whilſt it remained Idolatrous, bound to ſeeke the death one of another, yea to deſtroy one another with their own hands. Yea the civil Magiſtrate was bound to ſentence all his ſubjects that practiſed Idolatry to death without exception, and to make a bloudy deſolation throughout all his dominions: then were beleevers in Idolatrous ſtates and kingdomes upon their reſpective Converſions to the Chriſtian faith, bound to accuſe their neighbours, being Idolaters and Blaſphemers, round about them before the Magiſtrate, eſpecially if hee were a Chriſtian, and to require the execution of this Law of God upon them to have them put to death. I anſwer M. Goodwins If & Thens proceed either out of the groſſe ignorance of the ſtate of the queſtion of Toleration, and ſcope of Deut. 13. or elſefrom a deſigne to delude and abuſe the people with a ſhow of ſome reaſon, which though hee knowes in his conſcience very well hath no waight at all, yet he thinks will ſerve to miſlead his followers who takes ſhadowes for men. For whereas the queſtion about puniſhing men with death, or other ſevere puniſhments in caſes of Idolatry and falſe Doctrine is underſtood by all Divines who write of the Controverſie, in caſe of Apoſtaſie and defection, meant of thoſe who have once known and received the Chriſtian faith, and not of Jewes, Turks, and Pagans; of Magiſtrates alſo in their owne juriſdiction and Territories, not others; and when it may bee with the ſafety, and for the good of a Nation and Kingdome, & not to the manifeſt deſtruction and ruine of a Kingdome, as he may find in the writings of many learned men who have writ upon the Queſtion Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Bullinger, Danaeus, Muſculus, Gerardus, Baldwins caſes of conſcience, Zepperus, Videlius, Voetius, Maſter Rutherfurd, &c and is evident by the ſtate of the queſtion laid down in the Prolegomena, as alſo Deut. 13. is underſtood of Apoſtates who having profeſſed the Law are fallen from it, and of perſons in the territories and power of the Jews, not that they ſhould doe ſo to all neighbouring Nations round about them, as theſe phraſes imply, If there ariſe among you a Prophet, If thy brother, or thy Son, or thy Daughter, entice thee ſecretly, ſaying, lets go ſerve other Gods. If thou ſhalt hear ſay in one of thy Cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, ſaying, certaine men, the children of Belial are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city. Deu . 17. 2. If there bee found among you within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedneſſe in the fight of the Lord thy God, in tranſgreſſing his Covenant; If it be true that ſuch abomination is wrought in Iſrael, then ſhalt thou bring forth that man or that woman unto thy gates, and ſtone them with ſtones till they die: On which place * Calvin obſerves in his handling that queſtion whether it be lawfull for Chriſtian Judges to puniſh Hereticks,Calvin. Refut t errorum Serveti, in Quaeſt. an Chriſtianis Judicibus H reticos punire liceat. p. 59 that the puniſhment of ſtoning in Deut. 13. was not commanded to be inflicted upon forraine Nations, but upon Apoſtates from the Jewiſh Religion who had perfidiouſly fallen from it: by which ſaith hee is anſwered that objection made by ſome, who aske whether Jewes, Turkes, and the like are by the ſword to be forced to the Faith of Chriſt? Neither doth God command the ſword to be drawn promiſcuouſly againſt all, but Apoſtates who have wickedly with drawn themſelves from the true worſhip and have endeavoured to draw others to the like defection, he hath ſubjected to juſt puniſhment: Yet for all this Hagiomaſtix makes Ifs and Ands, brings inſtances of Suppoſitions in Heathens, and of States wholly Idolatrous, nothing at all to the queſtion in hand; for the Apoſtle ſpeaks in 1 Corinthians and the ſeventh chapter, of a Heathen and infidell that never received the faith of Chriſt, but being borne and brought up in Heatheniſme continues ſo, however one of the married perſons, husband or wife was converted to the Chriſtian faith, beſides that queſtion put by Hagiomaſtix, why was the Apoſtle Paul ſo farre from enjoyning a beleeving brother to detect, or to put to death his infidell or Idolatrous wife that he doth not permit him ſo much as to put her away from him, is abſurd and ridiculous, and a man would wonder that ſuch a great champion as Cretenſis p. 11. Cretenſis would be taken for, that dares challenge all Presbyterians in England, Scotland, and France, aſſembled and not aſſembled, and ſo cryed up and deified by the Sectaries in diversA letter by way of Anſwer to a letter of Mr. Vicars. A candle to ſee the Sunne. Apolog. for ſome paſſages in Hagiomaſtix by divers Independents. Pamphlets, ſhould bring ſuch weak poore ſtuffe; for the Corinthian State and Magiſtracie being then heatheniſh, and infidels, (as the Apoſtle in the chapter going before 1 Cor. 6. 2. ſhows, only many particular private perſons living in Corinth being converted who were not the civill Government) it had been to no end for Paul to direct the beleeving husband to complaine to the Magiſtrate of his Idolatrous wife, that had been the way for himſelfe to have been puniſhed, that had been all one as to have complained to the civill Magiſtrates of themſelves; and certainly the Apoſtle that blamed the beleeving Corinthians for going to law one with another before their Magiſtrates who were unbeleevers, though he would not, if they had been Chriſtian Magiſtrates, had no reaſon to ſtirre up Chriſtians to complaine unto unbeleevers in matters of Religion and Chriſtianity. Maſter Goodwin might with as much reaſon have ask why the Apoſtle Paul did not enjoine the unbeleeving wife or husband to complaine of the beleeving wife and husband, as why hee did not enjoine the beleeving wife to detect her Idolatrous husband; and might as well, nay better reaſon it unlawfull for Chriſtians to goe to law now under Chriſtian Iudges, becauſe they might not under Heathens, as to argue againſt Chriſtians complaining and detecting of Chriſtians that turne Apoſtates, Hereticks, Idolaters, &c becauſe Chriſtians did not complaine in Pauls time to Heathen Magiſtrates of Heathens; yea this is ſo unreaſonable a queſtion to build an argument upon againſt an expreſſeViz. that of Deut. 13. 5. 9 command of God, and that with a triumph in the cloſe of it, ſaying Certainly this Doctrine of the Apoſtle olds no tolerable correſpondency with the opinion of our ſevere Inquiſitors, about the non a brogation of the Law for putting Idolaters to death, that though I read in Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories of Chriſtians complaining to ſome Heathen Emperors favorers of Chriſtian Religion, of Chriſtians when they turned Herrticks, as to Euſebii Eccleſ. Hiſtor. lib. 7. cap. 29. Aurelianus of Paulus Samoſetenus the Heretick, and of Rivet explicat Decal. p. 209. Heathens ſeeking to Heathen Princes, againſt Prieſts that were very wicked under the ſhow of Religion, being guilty of ſacriledge and corrupting the chaſtity of Matrons; Yet I never read of any complaining of and deſiring Princes to puniſh Heathens of the ſame Religion with themſelves; ſo that by all this the Reader may eaſily perceive beſides the diſſimilitude in the inſtance of 1 Cor. 7. from that of Deut. 13. the one ſpeaking of an Heathen Idolater, the other of a Jewiſh Apoſtate, there was very great reaſon why the Apoſtle enjoyned not the beleeving wife to ſeek to take away the life of her unbeleeving husband; for in ſo doing ſhe might have hazarded her owne, but could have done no good to the hindring of his Idoll worſhip: But however Paul enjoyns nothing to the beleeving husband and wife about detecting their unbeleeving Yoke-fellowes upon the grounds already given, yet I make no queſtion had Paul lived in a time wherein the Corinthian Magiſtrates had received the faith, he would have given both them and beleeving husbands in their places, injunctions to have demoliſhed Idoll Temples and their worſhips, not to ſuffer Blaſphemies againſt Chriſt, but on the contrary to have ſent preachers among them, and to countenance and honor thoſe who received the faith; of which in the practiſes of Conſtantine, Theodoſius and other Emperors, I might give many inſtances De inhibitis pagan rum ſacrificiis, and of the ſhutting up, yeaTheod. Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 5. cap. 20. pulling down the Temples of the Heathen Gods, of their removing from Offices and Places thoſe who were not Chriſtians. There is no queſtion but Paul who dehorted ſo earneſtly the beleeving Corinthians from going to the Idols Feaſts in the Idols temples, and from eating of the ſacrifices in their Temples, 1 Cor. 10. 2 Cor. 6. would if the State of Corinth had been Chriſtian have exhorted them to put down the Idoll Temples, to forbid thoſe Idolatrous ſacrifices, to ſuppreſſe their Prieſts; as alſo Chriſtian husbands in caſe their wifes would have gone after Idolatrous Prieſts, worſhipped Images brought to them, they would have deſired their Magiſtrates helpe againſt ſuch Seducers and Corrupters. And for concluſion of my anſwer to this fifth Head, if I would give liberty to my pen to writefully againſt every particular paſſage in the 39. and 40. Section of Hagiomaſtix, as I have done of ſome of them, I ſhould make his folly and weakneſſe manifeſt to all, but having hinted already his miſtakes, and the utter diſſimilitude betweene that command in Deut. 13. and all his inſtances of an Idolatrous ſtate, and a Magiſtrate bound to make a bloudy deſolation throughout al his Dominions, &c. I ſay no more but here is a great cry and a little wool, and ſo come to the fixt head to give Anſwer to ſomething that ſeems more materiall.

Sixthly, to that Hagiomaſtix ſaith page 46. There is this cleer reaſon why that old Teſtament law for putting of falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers and Seducers to Idolatry to death, ſhould not now bee in force upon any ſuch terms as it was when and where it was given; becauſe in all difficult caſes that happened about maters of Religion, the Iewes to whom this Law was given, had the opportunity of immediate conſultation with the mouth of God himſelfe, who could and did from time to time, infallibly declare what his own mind and pleaſure was in them. So that except thoſe that were to give ſentence in caſes of Religion had been deſperately wicked, and ſet upon bloud and deſpiſed that glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God amongſt them, they could not doe injuſtice, God being alwayes at hand to declare unto them, what kind of Blaſphemer and what kind of Idolater it was that hee by this Law intended ſhould be put to death. Whereas now the beſt Oracles that Magiſtrates and Iudges have to direct them in doubtfull caſes about matters of Religion are men of very fallible judgemēts, and every way obnoxious to error and miſtake. Yea confident I am, that the wiſeſt & moſt learned of them are not able cleerly or demonſtratively to informe the Magiſtrate what Blaſphemie or what Idolatry it was which was by God ſentenced to death under the Law: Therefore the going about to prove that the Law for putting Blaſphemers and Seducers to Idolatry to death, is now, or amongſt us in force, becauſe it was once given to the Jewes, is as I ſhould prove that a man may ſafely without danger walk among bogs praecipices & ditches, at midnight becauſe he may well do it at noon day. I anſwer in the generall, this Section is full of many unſound and dangerous paſſages, very prejudicial to the perſpicuity, perfection and certainty of the Scriptures, very derogatorie to the ſtate of the Church under the new Teſtament, preferring the old before it for cleerneſſe and light as much as noon day before midnight (which is contrary to many Prophecies in Scripture of the times under the Goſpell and to divers texts in the new Teſtament 2 Cor. 3. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18. 2 Cor. 4. 4, 6.) and tending to bring in with a high hand, Scepticiſme and Pyrronian uncertainty in all poynts of Religion into the Church of God, paſſages becomming a Ieſuite and an Atheiſt, but altogether unbeſeeming a Proteſtant Miniſter andAppendix to Hagiomaſtix Apolog. of ſome of Mr. Goodwins Church, for Hagiomastix A Candle to light the Sun. one who would bee accounted to have laboured more abundantly in vindicating the Authority of the Scriptures and building men on a rock then all other men: Whoever does but compare the Ieſuits & Papiſts writings, Stapleton, Bellar. Turnebull, Fiſher, &c with learned Whittaker, Chamier, Rivet, Cameron, Doctor White, Whitak. diſput. de ſacra Script. contra Bellarm. & Staplet. De Scripturae authoritate, perſpicuitate, interpretatione, & perfectione. John Whites way to the true Church. Rob. Baron. Apodixis Catholica ſive Apologia pro Disput. d Firmali objecto Fidei. Rivet. Cathol. Orth dox. Tractat. Prim. de Scriptura. Baron, Willet and other Proteſtant Divines who have written of the Authority, perſpicuity perfection, &c of the Scriptures againſt the Papiſts, and then look but upon this Section, hee muſt needs ſay Higiomaſtix writes as one brought up in the Schools of the Ieſuits, and had ſucked their breaſts; as alſo he that reads but Minus Celſus Senenſes, and the Socinians with the Netherland Arminians will confeſſe theſe lines are the very breathings and actings of that Spirit which dwels in that generation of men: I could out of the writings of our Orthodox Divines written againſt Papiſts, Socinians, Arminians, upon thoſe heads of the authority, perfection, perſpiculty, certainty of the Scriptures and points of Chriſtian faith at large confute him, but theſe belong not properly to this Controverſie about Toleration, and therefore I ſhall not inſiſt on them: and further I deſire the Reader to obſerve what followes, that this cleere reaſon (as Hag omaſtix termes it) may be reſolved in that common evaſion of Socinians and Arm nians and all our Sectaries of Infallibility and Fallibility: Whoever well weigh that 36. Section of Hagiomaſtix with that part of the 107. Section page 130. fifth Anſwer, will find the Summe and ſubſtance of all that diſcourſe to be nothing elſe but the uſuall Plea of the Patrons of Toleration, in their late Libertine Pamphlets, as Bloudy Tenet, Storming of Antichriſt, Compaſſionate Samaritane, Juſtification of Toleration, With divers Pamphlets of Saltmarſh and walwyn for liberty of Conſcience. Quaeres upon the Ordinance for preventing of Hereſies, &c. that there is no infallible Iudge now, all men are fallible, ſubject to error or miſtake, and therefore the proper place of ſpeaking to this, will be in anſwering their Grounds for Toleration and pretended liberty of conſcience, where I hope by the grace of God to ſpeak ſo fully to that particular of Infallibility and Fallibility, that I doubt not to promiſe the Reader ſuch ample ſatisfaction to that grand Argument, as by the bleſſing of God all men who have not ſold themſelves to Libertiniſme will never againe after that object it: yet however for the preſent I ſhall hint theſe things by way of Reply.

1. This very point of Infallibilitie and Fallibilitie was the main riſe and cauſe of ſetting the Pope in his chair, of making one that muſt be an infallible judge in the Church, and ſo is the ground work of the Popes Authoritie and Tyrannie over the Church, which all who underſtand the Controverſies between the Papiſts and the Reformed Churches De Papa doe well know: And on the other hand tis made the foundation of bringing in all Anarchie and Libertiniſme into the Church to overthrow all power of Magiſtrates, and of Synods and Councels in matters of Religion: ſo that at on the one hand it hath exalted the Pope and given him an unjuſt Domination and uſurpation, ſo on the other it caſts down the uſe of all civil and Eccleſiaſticall power for the good of the Church, ſo that the ſame thing that ſet up the Pope and made Antichriſt, ſets up a Toleration and univerſall libertie of conſcience, which is a new and worſe Pop . But as the want of infallibility was no good ground for etting up the Pope (as I ſuppoſe Hagiomaſt. and all the Sectaries will grant) ſo will it be found no good argument for a generall Toleration of all Religions, a farre greater evill then a Pope.

Secondly, I deny that which Hagiomaſtix takes for granted, the reaſon it ſelf upon which he founds why the old Teſtament law for the putting of falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, and Seducers to Idolatry to death, ſhould not now be in force; I deſire him to prove the Vrim and Thummim of the Lords holy One, the glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God among the Jewes by which they inquired and conſulted immediately and received Sentences and Anſwers immediately and infallibly from the mouth of God, to be appointed of God, or ever made uſe of by the Prieſt upon the deſire of the Magiſtrates and Elders in caſes of reſolving doubts whether this or that was Blaſphemie, Idolatry, falſe prophecying, and thereupon putting to death Blaſphemers, falſe Prophets, Seducers to Idolatry: Hagiomaſtix gives no place of Scripture at all for proof, and upon ſerious peruſall of all places of this kind both of commands and examples for puniſhing falſe Prophets, Idolaters, &c I doe never find the Magiſtrates were commanded in thoſe caſes to enquire by Vrim or ever practiſed it. Let Deut. 13. Deut. 17. Levit. 20. 2. 3, 4, 5. Deut. 18. 20, 21, 22. Levit. 24. 16. with the examples of Aſa, Joſiah and others bee lookt into, and wee ſhall not finde a word ſpoken of concering the deciding who were or who were not or killing falſe Prophets, and Idolaters upon receiving an Anſwer from God by Vrim and Thummim, but ſtil the grounds expreſſed of proceeding againſt them are upon the Law of God, the nature of the ſins, and other reaſons of a common nature, and among the ſignes and marks by which falſe Prophets are to be known, this diſcovery by the glorious Oracle is none of them, but the thing following not, nor comming to paſſe which was ſpoken in the name of the Lord, their prophecying in Baal and cauſing the people to erre, their ſtrengthening the hands of evill doers that none returns from wickedneſſe, their ſaying unto them that deſpiſe God, Ye ſhall have peace, and unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his owne heart, no evill ſhall come upon you, with divers ſuch like as is evident by Deut. 18. 22. Jerem. 23. 13. 14, 17. and many places out of Moſes and the Prophets. In Joſhua 22. when the children of Iſrael heard of the two tribes and a halfe building an Altar, they did not before they gathered themſelves to goe up to warre, enquire by Vrim and Thummim whether it was Idolatry or not; and when an Anſwer was given to Phinebas and the ten Princes that they had not built an Altar to turne from following the Lord, but only for a witneſſe between them and the reſt of the Tribes, that it might not beſaid to their children in time to come, ye have no part in the Lord, Phinehas the Prieſt, and the Princes of the congregation did not conſult the Oracle ſpoken of to be reſolved in this Controverſie: Thus Aſas and the Peoples entring into Covenant to put to death men or women for matters of religion, was not founded on an Anſwer by Vrim and Thummim, but upon whoſoever would not ſeek the Lord God of Iſrael, and for Aſa's putting down Maachah his Mother from being Queen, becauſe ſhe made an Idol in a grove, there is not the leaſt hint expreſſed of his conſultation beforehand with that glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God, whether ſhe was ſuch a kind of Idolater and her Idolatry of ſuch a nature, as ſhe was to be puniſhed with that puniſhment of being removed from being Queen. Joſiah in all the exerciſe of his coercive Power upon the Violators of the firſt Table, 2 King. chapt, 23. in ſacrificing ſome of them upon Altars and burning their bones, in putting down others, &c never enquired by Vrim whether thoſe he killed were ſuch kind of Idolaters as God by the Law intended ſhould be put to death, and whether the others were not ſuch. So the Prieſts, Prophets, and People in taking Jeremiah and ſaying he ſhall ſurely die, and that he is worthy to die, they pretend not to paſſe ſentence upon enquiring by Vri , but upon his prophecying in the name of the Lord, This houſe ſhall be like Shiloh, and this city ſhall be deſolate without an inhabitant, Jerem. 26. 8, 9, 11. which they judged a Prophecying falſly upon miſ-underſt anding ſome Scriptures, as appears plainly by thoſe words, why haſt thou prophecied in the name of the Lord, ſaying, This Houſe ſhall bee like Shiloh, and this City ſhall be deſolate without an inhabitant. For becauſe of Gods promiſe concerning the Temple, that he would abide ever there Pſal. 132. 14, They preſumed that it could never periſh, and accounted all preaching that looked that way, blaſphemous, Matth. 26. 61. Acts 6. 13. of which ſee more in the late Annotations of our Engliſh Divines upon the 9. verſe. And Jeremiah in his Juuius in locū Narratio de litis conteſtatione, qua accuſatur Jeremia v. 11. & ſeipſum defendit, Defenſio Jeremiae juridicialis abſoluta (ut vocant Rhetores) incipiens & concludens a vocatione dei & jure ab ipſo factū afferens. judicial defence to the See in Mr. Gilleſp. Aarons rod bloſſoming, p. 18, 19, 20. Court and Councell (for ſo it appears it was a Court, by verſe 10. 16, 17. ſpeaking of certaine Elders of the Land riſing up and ſpeaking to the Aſſembly of the People) pleading his immediate call from God to prophecie againſt the Citie as his Anſwer againſt their accuſation and in all the conteſtation and Controverſie that was between the Princes and certaine of the Elders and the Prieſts, Prophets, and People concerning Jeremiah's being worthy to die, neither Jeremiah, nor the Prieſts, Elders, and People that were for his being put to death, or againſt it, once offer for deciding this difficult caſe and doubtfull matter to propound the enquiring by Vrim and Thummim, but both ſides plead the caſe upon Scripture Grounds and examples, as hee who reads the chapter may eaſily ſee; and certainly if enquiring by Vrim and Thummim had been appointed of God, and practiſed by the Church as the Oracle to which in all difficult caſes about matters of religion the Iewes were to repaire, by which to judge whether ſuch things were Blaſphemie, Idolatrie, Prophecying falſly, yea or no, and whether the perſons were ſuch kind of Blaſphemers, falſe Prophets, Idolaters, as the Law intended ſhould be put to death, it is ſtrange that in all this ſharpe conteſt and great Controverſie about accuſing Jeremi h for prophecying falſly and arraigning him upon his life, neither himſelfe, nor his enemies, none of the Prieſts, Princes, Elders, People, nor Jeremiah ſhould once move to enquire immediately from the mouth of God by Vrim and Thummim the infallible Reſolution of this queſtion whether Jeremiah prophecied falſly in the name of the Lord, and deſerved to dy. And therfore from this and all the Premiſes, yea upon ſerious ſearching into all places of Scripture that ſpeak of Vrim and Thummim and of thoſe who enquired of the Lord in that way, and comparing them together with the helpe of many judicious and learned Interpreters, beſides conſulting Divines who have written of Vrim and Thummim, I cannot find the leaſt Ground that the Iews either were commanded, or ever made uſe of enquiring by Vrim to bee ſatisfied in judiciall Proceedings, whether this or that was Idolatry, or Blaſphemie, or this man an Idolater, or falſe Prophet, or no, but they proceeded in thoſe things by the Law of God given to them, and in difficult caſes too hard they were enjoyned to goe to the Prieſts by way of conſultation to be informed of the true ſenſe and meaning of Gods law; and the Prieſts, as the great Lawyers among the People, practiſed in the meaning of Gods Law according to which judgement was to be given, gave them Reſolutions out of the Law, and never in thoſe caſes upon conſulting by Vrim, as many Scriptures-ſhow. The reſolution of the Prieſts upon enquiring of them in hard matters was to eaccording to the ſentence of the Law Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11. Ier. 18. 18. the Law ſhall not periſh from the Prieſt, the meaning is (though falſly applied againſt Jeremiah) that the Prieſts keeping to the Law are the Oracles of truth, and therefore Jeremiah is a falſe Prophet, ſeing they who have Authoritie in the Church, and underſtanding of the Law contradict him. Mal. 2. 7. For the Prieſts Lip. ſhould keep knowledge, and they ſhould ſeeke the Law at his mouth; he Prieſts lips keeping knowledge, and ſeeking the Law at hi mouth, not new immediate Revelations from the mouth of God, are here ſet downe to be looked after. In queſtions about morall things, ſins and duties, the Prieſts are to give anſwer from the Law. As for that ju gement of Ʋrim ſpoken of in Numb. 27. 21. which was by way of Oracle, the high Prieſt having Vrim and Thumim about him giving anſwers in Gods name, which were of infallible truth, and made a ſupreame determination, that was for the reſolution of doubtfull and difficult buſineſſes and enterpriſes in matters of events and ſucceſſes of things, for direction and counſell from God what courſe to take in diſtreſſes and ſuch and ſuch caſes as about going to warre, &c. for diſcovery and revelation of hidden and ſecret cauſes of judgements; but never was upon occaſion of queſtions of things forbidden in the Morall Law, and for determination of who or what was an Idolater or Idolatry, a falſe Prophet, or propheſying falſely, a Blaſphemer, or Blaſphemy; and if we conſult the Scriptures where the judgement of Vrim is ſpoken of, w ſhall finde as much, which I deſire the Reader well to obſerve. All the places I have taken notice of that ſpeak of enquiring of God by Vrim are th ſe following, Exod. 28. 15. 30. Numb. 27. 21. Joſh. 9. 14. Judg. 1. 1. and 20, 18, and 20. 1 Sam 23. 9, 10, 11, 12. 28. 6. 30. 7, 8. 2 Sam. 21. 1. all which ſpeak only of enquiring of God in the caſes forementioned, and not in the leaſt of controverſies ariſing upon Morall tranſgreſſions againſt the firſt Table, and of what puniſhments ſhall be inflicted upon men for them: unto which conſidering the judgement of divers learned men in their Aainſworth Annot. on Exod. 28. 30. Numb. 27. 21. Eleazar ſhal aske councell of God for Joſhua in all doubtfull caſes in all their warre, &c. Diodates Annot. on Numb. 27. 21. 2 Sam. 21. 1. Annor. of our Engliſh Divines on Exod. 28. 30. Iuni Annot. in Num. 27. 21. 1 Sam. 28. 6. Commentaries upon moſt of theſe places of Scripture concerning the enquiring by Vrim, andPetr. Mart. loc. commun. Claſſ. 1. cap. 7. Weems Chriſtian Synagogue. chap. 4. Theodoret. Quaest. in Exod quaest. 60. Suara pectus erat: Indumenti genus quod Rationale vecabatur, tegens cor partem ration alem. Quo quidem veſtimento cognoſcebatur, victoria ne an clades bello immuneret: ut perſpicuum eſt ex Hiſtoriam Regnorum. others in their writings going this way, of enquiring in caſes of of warre, diſtreſſes and for publick perſons enquiring not hereby for a common man, but either for the King, or for him on whom the affaires of the Congregation lay, but not giving any one inſtance in matters of Idolatrie, Blaſphemy, Prophecying falſly, or any other corruption in Religion, I confeſſe I am much confirmed that the judgement of Vrim was not appointed for that uſe to reſolve what violations of Religion were, and what were not puniſhable by death. Now that the judgement of Vrim was of any ſuch uſe to enquire of God by the Prieſt in points of Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, &c I ſee not the leaſtcolor for it, unleſſe in theſe places of Scripture Deut. 17. 8, 9, 12. (which place is urged by Hagiom. p. 130. the ſentence of the Prieſt againſt which hee that ſhould doe preſumptuouſly in not hearkening to it was to be put to death, was only ſuch a ſentence, with the Prieſt did upon inquirie by Vrim and Thummim receive immediately from the mouth of God himſelfe) Deut. 21. 5. Deut. 19. 16, 17, 18. and in thoſe examples of him that blaſphemed the name of the Lord, being put in ward that the mind of the Lord might be ſhowed h m Levit. 24. 11. 12. and of him that gathered ſticks, put i ward till the Lord ſhould declare what ſhall be done to him. But for Anſwer, in none of theſe places or examples is there any thing ſpoken, of conſulting by Vrim; For the firſt place, only urged by Maſter Goodwin, to ſay nothing that theſe verſes are quite another thing from that command in the beginning of the chapter about putting to death for ſerving other gods, and worſhipping the Sun and Moon, there being in that caſe not a word tending that way (which yet is the point in queſtion) of going to the Prieſt and enquiring of him, and upon this judgement putting to death, beſides this command being of things of another nature as erſe 8 ſhowes, here is no direction in this place to enquire by Vrim, but the matters here ſpokenof being difficult, councell is given to goe to the Prieſts skilled in the meaning of the Law, and in anſwering of doubts ariſing, to be informed by them of the meaning of the Law, many paſſages in thoſe verſes ſhow as much (and whereas in the caſe of enquiring by Vrim in all places) expreſſions are uſed of enquiring of the Lord, the Lords anſwering and ſuch like, here ſtill all is put upon the Prieſt or Iudge, and upon the ſentence and judgement that they ſhall ſhow, and they ſhall tell; and that this place cannot be meant of the judgement of Vrim tis evident thus, becauſe that Vrim and Thummim belonged only to the Prieſthood Deut, 33. 8. and particularly to the high Prieſt Numb. 27. 21. Exod. 28. 30. Now he who would have God to bee inquired of concerning ſome great buſineſſe, did come to the Prieſt and the Prieſt putting on the Ephod to which the breaſt Plate of Vrim and Thummim was faſtned verſe 28. ſtood before the Arke of God, and ſo God gave anſwers which were of infallible truth, (of which, with a more particular relation of the manner of inquiry, and the way of Anſwer by Vrim and Thummim, the Reader may ſee more in Ainſworth Annotat. on Exod. 28. 30. and Numb. 27. 21. Diodate Annotat. on Exod. 28. 15, 30. Numb. 27. 21. 1 Sam 23. 6, 28, 6. the Annotations of our Engliſh Divines on Exod. 28. 15. 30. 1 Sam. 23. 6. Petr Mart loc. commun Claſſ. 1. cap. 7. Hic ut inquit Chambi mos erat interrogandi Deum. Qui volebat de publico, vel alioqui de gravi negotio percontari, veniebat ad ſacerdotem: Is indutus Ephod, ſtabat coram arca Domini. In Ephoa ſine in pectorali, erant incluſi duo decim lapides pretioſi, in quib us nomina duodecim tribuum erant inſcripta. Interrogantem oportuit faciem ob vertere ad ſacerdotem & interrogare non quidem tam aperte ut vox audiretur, nec ita etiam obſcure, ut tantum in anima cogitaret, quae petebat. Deinde ſacerdoti hoc pacto reddebatur oraculum. Spiritus ſanctivi literae quaedam in pectorali eminebant idque vel loco vel fulgore, in quibus ſacerdos oraculum & voluntatem Dei legebat. Haec Chimb Cui quantum fidei fit tribuendum neſcio. Potuit enim fieri ut ſpiritus Dei abſque literis oracula ediderit per vocem ſummi ſacerdotis, cujus animum vaticinio afflaſſe . Weems Chriſtian Synagogue Prolegomena cap. 4. The Revelation by Vrim and Thummim is not expreſſely ſet down: Ioſephus thinks when they were to go to battell, the Prieſt putting his Ephod upon him, if they were to march, then the ſtones did ſhine, but if the ſtones did not ſhine, then they were to ſtay: but this ſeems not to have been a ſufficient way to have directed them in other caſes. Wherefore tis moſt probable that the Prieſt having theſe ſtones upon his breaſt, that the Lord inſpired him by his Spirit what anſwer to make to every queſtion asked him. Peter Martyrs common places and Weems Chriſtian Synagogue) but never was the judgement of Vrim by a Iudge and Magiſtrate who was a Perſon diſtinct from the Prieſt: Now tis evident Deut. 17. 9. 12. that the Prieſt and the Iudge areJunius in Deut. 17 9, 12. Conjunctionem disjuctivam eſſe apparet ex verſ 12. ut reipſa munera eſſe disparata constat ad quae haec officiorum nomina reſpiciunt. Mr. Gilleſpies Aarons rod bloſſoming c. 3. 11. Here are two Judicatories diſtinguiſhed by the disjunctive Or v. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and in our Engliſh tranſlation. diſtinct and divers perſons there, and the man that will not hearken unto the Iudge, even that man ſhall die, as well as hee that will not hearken unto the Prieſt, which fully ſhowes that what Hagiomaſtix writes page 46. 47. and 130. of death inflicted only upon ſuch who would not hearken to the Prieſt enquiring by Vrim, to be an untruth. Secondly the ſenſe and meaning of this place from verſ.Vide Mr. Gil leſp. Aaronsrod bloſſoming, Book 3. c. 11, 12. ſhowing fully in this Scripture a tranſmitting difficult caſes from inferior courts to thoſe at Ieruſalem, and to the ſupreme court there. Vid Luther & Piſcat. in locu . In judiciis conveniens ordo obſervandus eſt, ut ſc. judices inferiores quū iis oblata eſt cauſa difficil c ex qua expedire ſe non poſſunt cauſam illam deſerant ad judices ſuperiorestanquā juris peritiores. 3. to the 13. is that inferior Courts and Aſſemblies in caſes too hard and difficult for them, are commanded to goe higher to ſome ſuperior Court and Aſſembly, as thoſe words cleerly ſhow, thou ſhalt ariſe, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God ſhall chuſe. This place afterwards was Jeruſalem as tis ſaid Pſal. 122. 5. there were ſet thrones of judgement, and in Ieruſalem did Iehoſhaphat ſet of the Levites and of the Prieſts, and the chiefe of the Fathers of Iſrael, for the judgement of the Lord and for Controverſies, 2 Chron. 19. 8. 9. 10. Ainſworth upon the place writes, that by the Iudge that ſhall be in thoſe dayes, is underſtood the high Councell and Senate of Iudges which were of the cheif of the Fathers of Iſrael, as they who are called Prieſts verſe 9. are called verſe 12. Prieſt, ſo many Iudges are called Iudge; only as among the Prieſts one was cheife, ſo among the Iudges one was Prince. 2 Chron. 19. 11. The Hebrew records ſay, when any doubt a oſe in any caſe to any one of Iſrael, hee asked of the judgement H ll that was in his Citie; if they knew they told it him: if not, then hee that enquired, together with the Synedrion or with the meſſengers thereof went up to Jeruſalem, and inquired of the Synedrion that was in the Mountaine of the Temple; if they knew they told it them; if not, then they all come to the Synedrion that was at the door of the Court yard of the Temple: if the knew they told it them; and if not, they all came to the chamber of hewen ſtone to the great Synedrion and enquired; Nicol. lyra in Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10. Surge & aſcende i. e. in his caſibus & conſimilibus recurrendum est ad ſuperiores judices ſ . ad ſummum ſacerdetem & Judicem populi. and Interpreters generally underſtand theſe verſes of Iudicatures and Courts in Iſrael, and of the lower Courts going to the higheſt the great and high Synedrion: Now I find no command no example recorded in Scripture of any of the Iewiſh Courts Eccleſiaſt. or Civil enquiring by Vrim of morall tranſgreſſions of what ſort they were, and what puniſhments the Committers of ſuch ſins ſhould have, but ſtill they determined according to the Law and Iudgements. Ezek. 44. 24. I never read of the high Synedrion either in Scripture or any other writers of it, that they were wont to give their Anſwer by Vrim and Thummim. If we obſerve thoſe inſtances in Scripture of enquiring by Vrim, wee ſhall ſee they are inquiries made of particular perſons, by the Prieſt, not by a Court, and of the high Prieſt not as ſitting in Court, nor as alwayes at Ieruſalem, nor of Criminall caſes, but of going in and out to warre and ſuch like, and whoever doth but conſult with the Annotations of Ainſworth, Diodate, and Luther Engliſh Divines, the Commentaries of Lyra, Piſcator, and others on this place, will confeſſe tis quite another thing is here ſpoken of then the judgement of Vrim. 3. Ameſius in his Caſes of Conſcience in his Anſwer to that queſtion, whether that Law, Deut. 17. 12. of putting him to death who would not hearken to the Iudge and the Prieſt was juſt, reſolves it was, and faith the equity of that Law will eaſily appeare; and among other reaſons gives this becauſe that Caſ. Conſc. lib. 4. cap. 4. pag. 122. Si igitur haeretici ſint manieſti, & publice noxii, debent a Magiſtrrtu publica poteſtate coerceri. Si vero tiam manifeſtè blaſphemi ſunt & in illis blaſphemiis pertinaces praefracti, poſſint etiam affici ſupplicio capitali. place ſpeaks of diſobedience in thoſe things which out of the Law of God are cleerly and manifeſtly determined. verſe 11. ſo that wee ſee Ames judgement in the reſolution of that caſe, is, that the Anſwer of the Iudge, or Prieſt was made out of the Law of God, and not by Vrim, and it ſeems that learned men never dreamt of any ſuch thing in this Deut. 17. for among all his reaſons he mentions no ſuch thing; and certainly if that were the meaning of the place which Hagiomaſtix puts upon it, that had been ſuch a ſtrong reaſon for the equity of putting thoſe to death who would not hearken to the Prieſt, giving them councell immediately and infallibly from God as that Dr. Ames could not have omitted it: For if Mr. Goodwin who is ſo kind and charitable to all Atheiſts, Antiſcripturiſts, Blaſphemers, Idolaters, &c in his Queries upon the printed Paper entituled an Ordinance againſt Hereſies, and his Hagiomaſtix, as that he would have no coercive power made uſe of againſt them, doth yet grant there was an equity in that Law, that ſentence of death ſhould paſſe on ſuch that would not hearken to the Prieſt ſpeaking immediately and infallibly from God, andDe in obedientia in illis rebus quae ex lege Dei manifeſto & clare determinantur. ſaith that for his part if the Inquiſitors now can give any ſatisfying account of any ſentence awarded againſt Blaſphemers, Hereticks that comes by infallible Revelation from God, hee ſhall thinke it equall and meet that hee that ſhall doe preſumptuouſly and not hearken unto it ſhould be put to death, then Hagiomaſtix page 130. Dr. Ames who was fully for the Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of Religion, and for putting Blaſphemous Hereticks to death, could not have forgotten this reaſon. Fourthly, on Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. is founded by the judgement of many great Divines, that which is called the Councell, the great Sanhedrin at Jeruſalem, the Seventy: Spanhemius in his third part Ad hoc tribunal referebantur quaecunque non poterant definiri ab aliis vel ambigua erant, & varia judicia inferiorum judicum experiebantur ex praeſcripto legis Deut. 17. 8, 9. Dubiorum Evangelicorum page 800. 801. ſhowes, that by the command of the Law this very place Deut. 17. 8, 9. to this ſupreame Tribunall of the Synedrion were referred all things whatſoever that could not be determined of the inferior Courts, or were doubtfull, and had tried the ſeverall judgements of the inferior judges. Gerſom Bucerus in his Diſſertat. de Gubernat. Eccleſiae page 62. quotes this Deut. 17. 8. 9. for the generall Convention at Ieruſalem to which the hardeſt things were brought, which could not be determined in the lower judicatories. Walaeus in his Tractate de Diſcrimine muneris politici & Eccleſiaſtici brings this place to prove the Synedrion or Colledge at Ieruſalem, that if among the Iudges or Prieſts in the leſſer Cities and Townes there fell out ſome things of greater moment; or if any one would not reſt in their ſentence, the cauſe was devolved to higher Iudges, who after Davids time had their Synedrion at Ieruſalem as the cheife Metrapolis of Iud •• . Mr: Gilleſpie in his Aarons rod bloſſoming 1. Book 3. chapt. write thus. Tis agreed upon both by Iewiſh and Chriſtian Expoſitors, that this place holds forth a ſupream civill Court of Iudges, and the Authority of the civill Sanhedrim is mainly grounded on this very text. And as the high civil Synedria is founded here, ſo many Divines ſhow a ſupream Eccleſiaſt. Sanhedrim, diſtinct from the Civill, is held forth in this very place, to which the People of God weere bound as to the ſupream Eccleſiaſticall Court to bring all the difficult Eccleſiaſticall cauſes, which could not be determined in the lower Aſſemblies, in which Court they were determined without any other appeale, of which the Reader may find more in Walaeus, Gerſon Bucerus, Apollonii, jus Magiſtratus circa ſacra, firſt part, page 374. and ſecond part ſecond chapter, page 48. and aboue all others in Mr. Gilleſpie his Aarons Rod bloſſoming Book 1. chapt. 3. who at large handles this point, that the Iewes had an Eccleſiaſticall Sanhedrin diſtinct from the Civill, and among other grounds from this of Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. But none of theſe learned men not any (but Papiſts) that ever I met with, give the leaſt hint of any judgement by Vrim to bee meant in this place, neither do I find in all the Authors that I have read concerning the way of paſſing ſentence in the higheſt Synedrion at Jeruſalem, and determining the difficulties about the Law brought to them, whether the Eccleſiaſticall of which the high Prieſt was preſident, or the Civill, that ever for the ſatisfaction of the parties, and giving the true ſenſe of the Law thus controverted, and ſo putting an end to all controverſies, they were wont in that Court to enquire by Vrim; nay there are ſeverall things written in the Scriptures, and by learned men who write of the cuſtomes of the Iewes and proceedings in that Court, which ſhow the contrary, as thoſe words imply as much Deut. 17. the Prieſt and the Iudge that ſhall be in thoſe dayes: from whence the Hebrews gather, that if the high Synedrion had judged and determined of a matter, as ſeemed right in their eyes, and after them another Synedrion roſe up, which upon reaſons ſeeming good unto them, diſannulled the former ſentence, then it was diſanulled, and judgement paſſed according as it ſeemed good unto theſe latter; thou art not bound to walke ſave after the Synedrion, Ainſworth Annot. on the place. that are in thy generation. Now if it were a ſentence by Vrim immediate and infallible from God, no following Synedrion might have diſannull'd it. So thoſe words according to the ſentence which they ſhall teach thee, ſhowes the ſentence was to be according to the Law, the word written, and not by a voice from heaven; as alſo that inſtance of Ierem. being condemned to die by the ſupreme Court at Ieruſal. the Court of the Prieſts doing their part judging him a falſe Prophet and worthy to die, the Court of the Princes acquitting him as a true Prophe , of which ſee more in Aarons Rod bloſſom. p. 18. 19. both of them going upon Scripture Grounds, as I have ſhown, p. 99. but in this great Controverſie, never appealing to the judgement of Vrim; and ſo in their way of trying falſe Prophets, they went not by the Prieſts putting on the Ephod to enquire of the Lord, but therein, all (ſay the Iewes) was this If he had threatned a judgement to come, although it came not, yet hee was not a falſe Prophet for that: God (ſay they) is gracious, as hee was to the Ninivites, and to Hezekiah. But if hee promiſed a good thing, and it came not to paſſe, Weems Chriſtian Synagogue pag. 171. then hee was a lyar. For every good thing which God promiſeth, he performeth, ſo Ieremiah tried Ananias to be a falſe Prophet, becauſe hee promiſed a good thing to Zedekiah, and it came not to paſſe.

Fifthly, the current of the Scripture both in the Law and Prophets ſtill ſpeaks of going to the Law and according to that, making that the laſt reſolution of Practiſe and Controverſies in all morall things, both of duties and ſins, and that for private and publick perſons, Eſaiah 8. 20. To the Law, and to the Teſtimony: if they ſpeake not according to this word, it is becauſe there is no light in them, Deut. 30. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. the Iewes muſt hearken to the commandement written in the Book of the Law, tis not hidden neither is it farre of, tis not darke that it cannot be attained to, It is not in heaven, that it ſhould be ſaid, who ſhall goe up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that wee may heare it and doe it? But the worde is very nigh, &c Deut. 17. 18. v. the Law of God is to bee for the direction of the King and of the Prieſts, and Levites. The Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moſes 2 Cron. 34. 15, 19, 30, 31. compared with 2 Kings chapter 22. 8, 11. v. chapter 23. 2, 3. was that by which Joſiah made his Reformation both in the removing of perſons and things, not once enquiring by Vrim whether he ſhould ſlay Idolatrous Prieſts, put downe others, keep ſuch a ſolemne paſſeover, &c and tis obſervable that the King commanded Hilkiah the high Prieſt and Shaphan the Scribe, &c to goe and enquire of the Lord for him and for the People concerning the words of this Book, what Vide Diodate & Engliſh Diviues Annotations on the place. judgement hanged over their heads and when it was like to fall, and whether there were any means, or whether it was not too late to appeaſe his wrath, and accordingly they went unto Huldah the Propheteſſe, yet he commanded not Hilkiah to enquire by Vrim, neither did Hilkiah the high Prieſt put on the Ephod, but went to the Propheteſſe; which is to me a great argument, that the judgement of Vrim was only in ſome particular ſet caſes, as going in and out to war, and ſuch like, but not for inquiry in caſes of the Law, what Reformation to be made, or what tranſgreſſions of the Law to bee puniſhed by death. As for thoſe other two places Deut. 19. 17, 18. 21, and 5. I ſhall not ſpend many lines in clearing them, as being not brought to prove the glorious Ordinance of the Oracle, leaſt I ſhould be charged by Hagiomaſtix to ſhow my valour in fighting with men of clouts of my owne ſetting up; For the firſt, tis underſtood of a ſingle witneſſe accuſing one for ſeducing to Apoſtaſie and revolt, ſo Junius reads it ad teſtificandum in um Apoſtaſiam, and Ainſworth to teſtifie revolt againſt him, not civill wrong, as the Engliſh tranſlation ſeems to carry it, and the meaning is thisJunius in locum. Et ſi in omnibus aliis cauſis ad minimum duo teſtes ex lege requiruntur: tamen in religionis negotio unus teſtis ad Queſtionem habendam ſufficit. adeo vult Deus Magiſtratibus conſervationem doctrinae commendatam eſſe. Eſt autem appendix legis quae habetur ſupr. 17. although in all other cauſes two witneſſes atleaſt are required by the Law, yet in the buſineſſe of religion one witneſſe is ſufficient to make a queſtiō of the partie; by which God ſhows be would have the preſervation of Doctrine commended to the Magiſtrate, for this is an appendix of that Law which is ſpoken of Deut. 17. 2. So Iunius, Diodate alſo on the place writes thus, in caſe of a ſecret Seducement from Gods true ſervice; he that had been ſollicited, though hee were alone, ought to detect the Seducer. Deut. 13. 6. 8. and the Judges ought to proceed therein, as upon an advice and denunciation; not as upon a formall accuſation which had required two witneſſes. And if the calumny was made to appeare unto them they were to obſerve this Law, if it were truth, that of Deut. 13. 9. So then this place holds forth no more then what Deut. 17. 8, 9. does, which hath nothing to doe with the judgement of V im, as I have already ſhowen at large; and yet if this place had any thing in it more for enquiring by Vrim then the former, it could doe Hagiomaſtix no good, nor is to the point at all brought by him, becauſe this enquiring by Vrim is not to know from the Lord what kind of Idolatrie and Idolater this is, whether that for which death is to bee inflicted, but whether this be a falſe or a true witneſſe, as the words cleerly ſhow; the queſtion is not about matter of Law, whether ſuch a thing be Idolatrie, or not, what kind of Idolatry, but of matter of fact, whether the partie did commit ſuch a thing or no, of which he is accuſed. And the Iudges ſhall make diligent inquiſition: and behold if the witneſſe be a falſe witneſſe and teſtifieth falſly againſt his brother: then ſhall ye doe unto him, as he had thought to have done to his brother: ſo ſhalt thou put the evill away from amongſt you. As for that place Deut. 21. 5. the coherence and ſcope of the place ſhowes it cannot be meant of the judgement by Vrim, but thoſe verſes from the ſecond to the tenth, containe a direction from God, of what courſe is to bee taken for the expiation of an unknowne murther, and among other things that are to bee done for the putting away the guilt of innocent bloud from the Land, as the Elders and Judges muſt doe according to the verſe 2. 3, 4. ſo the * fifth verſe ſhowes what the Prieſts are to do for the freeing the people of Iſrael from innocent bloud being laid to their charge, namely in the audience of the people to pray for atonement and expiation, that prayer in verſe 8. The Elders were to waſh their hands and ſay; Our hands have not ſhed this bloud, and the Prieſts ſaid, Be mercifull O Lord, and lay not innocent bloud unto thy People Iſraels charge, and if any thing elſe were to be decided about that buſineſſe, by the words of the Prieſts, as expounders of Gods Law, it ſhould be determined; not that they had any abſolute or arbitrary power of themſelves, but by their word, meaning the word of God which they ſhould ſhow, as Deut. 17. 11. The ſubject matter of this Scripture, is not to enquire of the Preiſts whether this were a caſuall or a wilfull Murther, and for them to tell who were the murtherers that had ſlaine this man (the reſolution of which queſtions by the Prieſts might indeed imply ſome colour for the Prieſts by enquiring by Vrim) theſe things are not once named, but all the matter is, whats to be done to expiate the bloud of a man ſlain in the Land, it being not knowne who hath ſlaine him; thats ſuppoſed, and is the caſe upon which all the direction both for Elders, Prieſts and People is built. Laſtly as to thoſe examples in Levit, 24. 11, 12, 13. and that of Numb. 15. 33, 34, 35, of the Blaſphemer and Sabbath-breaker put into ward that Moſes might receive an Anſwer immediately from God what to doe with them, & accordingly the Lord ſpake unto Moſes that they ſhould be ſtoned, I anſwer, Firſt, theTheodoret Quaeſt. in Levit. Quaeſt. 33. Deprthenſus eſt quidam qui Deum omnium blaſphemauerat. nondum autem Lex erat ſcripta De Blaſpemia propterea legiſlator hanc legem ſervari juſſit. Law concerning blaſphemie was not yet given publickly to the Jews, the mind of God declared what ſhould be done to them that blaſphemed the name of the Lord, & therfore no wonder the Blaſphemer was put in ward, that the Lord might be conſulted with, what kind of puniſhment ſhould bee inflicted upon him; by the light of nature and the Law of the Decalogue, the people of the Jewes knew hee was to bee puniſhed for it, though the particular kinde and forme was not yet made known by God; and therefore bring him to the ſupreame Magiſtrate Moſes, and make him faſt, till the mind of God for the particular kind of puniſhment ſhould be made known, upon whichVide Nicol. Lyram, Babingt. in locum, Lev. 24. 15, 16. occaſion God doth not only declare what ſhall be done to that particular man, but gives them a Law concerning all Blaſphemers in the 16. verſe, taking an occaſion from this as hee did from other tranſgreſſions committed, and his peoples ill manners, to publiſh judiciall lawes, the appendixes of the morall Law in matters of juſtice and judgement: But though God was immediately conſulted with before there was a law (for that is the caſe here) of which there was all the reaſon in the world, how doth it follow that after an expreſſe Law is given, and ordinary means and wayes appoynted by God, for the full knowing and executing of that Law, now Perſons muſt immediately upon all occaſions have immediate Anſwers from God whether and how they may puniſh upon that Law? and indeed to what end were expreſſe laws written & made known, and knowing able men in thoſe laws deputed by God to judge according to them, if immediate and infallible Anſwers were to be ſought from God upon all occaſions, and perſons not to be judged by thoſe Lawes? And for the Sabbath Breaker in Numb. 15, however the Vid. Lyram in Num. 15. Neſciebant tamen qua morte dehebat mori, quoniam modus mortis non fuit determinatus Exod. 13. 14. Ergo recluſerunt eum quo uſque ſcirent hoc per revelationem Domini. Law had ſaid the Breaker of the Sabbath ſhould die Exod. 31. 14. yet it was not declared by what kind of death hee ſhould die, as Ainſworth, Diodate, and our Engliſh Divines in their Annotations upon the place obſerve, ſaying, though there were a Law to put to death a Sabbath breaker, yet it was not declared what manner of death hee ſhould die; and of that the queſtion being propoſed, the Anſwer is made by declaring the kind of death he muſt ſuffer which is ſet down in the next ver. Solo. Jarchi ſaith it was not declared what manner of death the Sabbath Breaker ſhould die; but they knew he that prophaned the Sabbath was to die: Now the Iſraelites were to receive directions from God, as well for the manner and kind of their Lawes and puniſhments as for the puniſhments themſelves, and ſome of them being not declared, no wonder that Moſes ſtayed till hee enquired of God; but whats all this to make good Hagiomaſtix aſſertion that becauſe Moſes who was to receive Lawes from God both for matter and forme for that people, did wait upon God by ſpeciall immediate inquiring in caſes of ſome tranſgreſſions that accordingly all things might bee done, therefore after God had given all Lawes both for matter and forme in caſes of Idolatry, Blaſphemie, prophecying falſly, as in Deut. 13. Deut. 17. 2. Levit. 24. 16. the Judges and Magiſtrates following muſt doe ſo too.

Secondly, in both theſe inſtances alleadged, the men were put into ward, not to enquire of God, concerning their ſins committed whether they were Blaſphemie, and Sabbath-breaking, there was no queſtion in that kind, both the people and Moſes were ſatisfied in that, as appeares by the ſtories and by putting them in ward, but only in what manner they ſhould be proceeded againſt, God not having before declared his mind particularly in thoſe caſes, ſo that theſe inſtances helpe Hagiomaſtix nothing at all, as not ſpeaking to the matter in hand: For whereas Hagiomaſtix makes this ground of the Iews putting to death Blaſphemers, Idolaters, their enquiring and Gods declaring by Vrim what kind of Blaſphemer, and ſo what kind of Idolater particularly it was, that be by his Law intended ſhould be put to death, Moſes and the people neither inquired any ſuch thing, what kind of Blaſphemie it was, nor did God ſpeake to Moſes in that kind; but, bring forth him that hath curſed in the campe, and let all that heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the Congregation ſtone him.

Thirdly, the declaration of the mind of the Lord in theſe two examples, was no Anſwer by Vrim; for beſides that there is no mention in the text of the high Prieſt being ſpoken to put on the Ephod to enquire by Vrim, neither doe any Interpreters, underſtand it ſo, both the texts are againſt it in thoſe words, And the Lord ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying, bring forth him that hath curſed; And the Lord ſaid unto Moſes, The man ſhall ſurely bee put to death, the declaration of Gods mind being to Moſes immediately; whereas in the judgement of Vrim, it was to the Prieſt immediately, ſo that theſe Anſwers of God were the Anſwers of a Law-giver, giving Lawes and Penalties by the hand of Moſes, but not any new Interpretations and declarations of the meaning of the Law upon controverſies and doubts ariſing; and beſides Gods way of anſwering Moſes, and anſwering by Vrim were different things, as the Rabbins and other learned men who write of thoſe things ſhow, Gods anſwering Moſes and giving him Lawes and Commandements being by voice, but anſwering by Vrim being in an other way by beholding the Breaſt-Plate, and ſeeing therein by the Viſion or Inſpiration, as theſe Scriptures Exod. 25. 22. Numb. 7. 89. Exod. 28. 30. with Ainſworths Annotations expreſſe. As for the immediateneſſe of theſe Anſwers from God to Moſes, though not by the judgement of Vrim, there were ſpeciall reaſons thereof, God in an immediate way, communicating to Moſes all his Laws morall and judiciall Exod. 25. 22. and Moſes being ſuch a Prophet whom the Lord knew face to face, and ſuch an extraordinary man in ſeverall reſpects as there was none like unto him. Numb. 12. 6, 7, 8. Exod. 33. 11. Deut. 34. 10, 11. But for the Magiſtrates and Iudges that came after Moſes, to whom the morall Law and the Appendix of it the judiciall Law was given and delivered, they were to proceed according to the written Law, and there were in hard matters higher Courts, conſiſting of a greater number & more able to go to to determine what the lower could not; & then the higheſt of all the Synedrion at Jeruſalem who were in all their judgements aboue morall tranſgreſſions, to goe according to the Law of Moſes, as many Scriptures teſtifie Deut. 17. 11. &c But no ſuch Grounds after the whole Law, morall, ceremoniall and judiciall, was publiſhed, of immediateneſſe of Anſwers from God to any of their Courts, no not to the high Synedrion as to Moſes who was to receive all for the firſt conſtituting of their policie, according unto which all Courts and Iudicatures higher and lower were bound to goe.

Fourthly, In theſe great and weighty caſes of the Blaſphemer and Sabbath-Breaker, Moſes did not preſently paſſe ſentence, but made delayes, put them in Priſon, till he knew the mind of the Lord, and as for other reaſons before alledged, ſo for theſe following, 1 to teach Iudges in matters of great weight of life and death not to be too ſudden and haſtie, 2 in cauſes that are very hard to aske councell and to uſe all means to be well ſatisfied before they doe any thing. In Ainſworths Annotations upon Numb. 15. 34. the Reader may find the Chaldee paraphrazing thus; This judgement was one of the foure judgements that came before Moſes the Prophet, which he judged according to the word of God: Some of them were judgements of leſſer moment and ſome of them judgements of life and death. In the judgements of leſſer moment (of pecuniary matters) Moſes was readie; but in judgements of life and death bee made delayes. And both in the one and in the other, Moſes ſaid, I have not heard, [viz what God would have done] For to teach the Heads (or cheife) of the Syn drions (or Aſſiſes) that ſhould riſe up after him, that they ſhould bee ready to diſpatch inferior cauſes (or money matters) but not haſty in matters of life and death. And that they ſhould not be aſhamed to inquire, in cauſes that are too hard for them; ſeeing Moſes who was the Maſter of Iſrael, had need to ſay I have not heard, Therefore hee impriſoned him, becauſe as yet it was not declared what ſentence ſhould paſſe upon him. Babington in his comfort: Notes on Levit. 24. writes, Moſes although ſuch a man, yet will doe nothing haſtily in judgement, and eſpecially touching life, but he will be adviſed by God, who then ſpake from betwixt the Cherubims Exod. 25. and Numb. 7. But it followes not becauſe Iudges and Courts of Iuſtice were to learne to be cautious and carefull in matters of religion for what they puniſh eſpecially with death, that therefore they may puniſh no violations in religion, though expreſly and directly againſt the word of God, unleſſe God doe immediately from heaven declare them Blaſphemies, &c, and ſuch kind of Blaſphemies, which the Law intends death to: And for a concluſion of my Anſwer to this Evaſion of Maſter Goodwin of the judgement by Vrim in the caſes of Blaſphemie, Idolatry, Prophecying falſly, the cleare reaſon why then they were puniſhed with death but may not be ſo now that being ceaſed under the new Teſtament: I ſhall ſay no more but this, I challeng him among al the examples recorded in Scripture of puniſhing men with death, impriſonment or baniſhment, &c for Blaſphemie, Idolatrie, Prophecying falſly, prophaning of the Sabbath, marrying Idolatrous wives and other tranſgreſſions of Gods worſhip, to produce any one Inſtance that by the Iudges, or by the high Sanhedrin God was enquired by Vrim, whether ſuch and ſuch facts were Blaſphemie, Idolatrie, &c, and of that kind and nature intended by the Law as puniſhable with death, or among all Claſſicall Authors, Rabbins and others who have written of the cuſtomes of the Iewes, of Vrim and Thummim, of the Sanhedrin at Ieruſalem, to cite me out of them any paſſages that affirme the Iudges, or the high Councel of Seventie at Ieruſalem, or the high Prieſt for them were wont in caſes of Apoſtaſie, Blaſphemie, &c. to enquire by Vrim, and to paſſe ſentence upon perſons according to that Anſwer, and not according to the law; which if he cannot doe as I am confident upon ſerious ſearch, he cannot, then the Reader may eaſily ſee what poor ſhifts this great Champion of the Sectaries is put unto, to uphold his damned curſed cauſe of Toleration of all Religions, and to elude the commands of God fore-named for puniſhing Blaſphemers, Apoſtates, Idolaters and falſe Prophets.

Now among all who have written of the high Prieſt, and of Deut. 17. 11, 12. I find only ſome Papiſts going Hagiomaſtixs way, as Toſtatus, Lorinus, who from all places of Scripture of the high Prieſt drawing matter to the Pope for eſtabliſhing his Authoritie, doe from this place alſo that they may eſtabliſh his Authoritie above the Scriptures, and appeals to him in caſes of Controverſie as the ſole infallible Judge, ſpeake of the high Prieſt in matters of morall tranſgreſſions giving Anſwers by Vrim, and not by the ſentence of the Law. So Lorinus upon the 11. verſe according to the ſentence of the Law which they ſhall teach thee, ſaith, that by the name of the Law in this place is neither neceſſarily underſtood the Moſaicall Law, nor the holy Scripture, but the ſentence it ſelfe of the Judge as the pronoun infinuates: the Hereticks would have it to bee a conditionall command of hear •• ning to the Prieſts according to the Law, that they might take away the Authoritie of Traditions, and appeale to the Scripture alone. Lutherus in Deu. 17. 8, 9, 10 11. Et h nc locum miro conatu Papiſtae ad ſuum Idolū raxerunt, ut Papatum ſtatu rent. Luther long ſince writing upon this place obſerved as much of the Papiſts, And the Papiſts with a great deale of endeavour have drawn this place to their Idol, that they might ſet up the Papacie: So that by this it ſeems the Papiſts and Sectaries are agreed upon the ſame Mediums to ſet up the Pope, and his Infallibilitie, and a Toleration and Diſpenſation to beleeve and profeſſe whatſoever men pleaſe.

Thirdly, this cleere reaſon of Maſter Goodwin in his 36. Section of Hagiomaſtix againſt the old Teſtament Law being now in force for putting of falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers and Seducers to Idolatris to death, upon which hee vapours and triumphs ſo exceedingly over theOne of the Members of the Aſſembly was the ſole Author of the Vindication of the printed paper, entituled An Ordinance for the preventing of the growth of Hereſies, and not 3. or 4. which worthy Member could hee get any time from his often preaching and conſtant attendance on the Aſſembly, wold (I doubt not) make Hagiomaſtix not only a ſtripling, but a very child. Anti Quaeriſts, certaine ſtriplings of the Aſſembly (as hee by way of ſcorne terms them) is ſo farre from fighting againſt the Magiſtrates puniſhing (even by virtue of that old law) for matters of Religion, where hee is ſure and certaine the things hee puniſhes for, are Apoſtaſies, Idolatries, Hereſies, Blaſphemies and that hee is not miſtaken, as that in all ſuch caſes of certaintie and infallibility, it eſtabliſhes the Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of the firſt Table, and is indeed a ſtrong reaſon for it: For if that were the formall cauſe and reaſon why Magiſtrates might then puniſh Idolatrie, falſe Prophecying, &c. becauſe they might infallibly know, ſuch a thing was Idolatrie, &c. and ſo bee out of danger of fighting againſt God, then what things may bee as certainly known under the Goſpel to bee Idolatrie, falſe Prophecying, Apoſtaſie, &c, the Magiſtrate may as well reſtraine: I ſhall not need to prove the conſequence, becauſe, beſides its own evidence that it neceſſarily follows, Maſter Goodwin in expreſſe terms grant and confeſſes page 130. that for his part hee ſhall thinke it equall nd meet, hee that ſhall doe preſumptuouſly, and not hearken unto what is by infallible Revelation from God ſhould be put to death, and the only ground brought by him in this 36. Section of denying this power to Magiſtrates now, is their uncertaintie in matters of Religion, the beſt Oracles that Magiſtrates and Iudges have to direct them in doubtfull caſes about matters of Religion being men of very fallible judgements, and every way obnoxious unto error and miſtake, and therefore to goe about to prove that the old Law is now in force, becauſe it was once given to the Iewes, is as if one ſhould prove that a man may ſafely and without danger walke among bogges and praecipices at midnight, becauſe he may well do it at noone day. So that by Hagiomaſtixs owne confeſſion, whats certainly and infallibly known to be Error, Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, Hereſie, may and ought to be puniſhed by the Magiſtrate under the new Teſtament, which is indeed a yeelding the queſtion that Magiſtrates may puniſh under the Goſpell in matters of Religion, for thats not the queſtion what is truth and what is Error, what is Hereſie, and what is Idolatrie, and whether any thing can bee known certainly under the Goſpell to be truth or no? and how the Magiſtrates come to know it, and who ſhall tell them which is truth, that is quite another queſtion, but the queſtion in hand about Toleration and the Magiſtrates coercive Power in points of Religion, is, ſuppoſing and granting there are many things certaine in Religion, which he certainly knows and beleeves, whether then the Magiſtrate may puniſh? which upon this very queſtion, whether Princes have full Power to command for truth, was well obſerved Bilſons true difference between Chriſtian ſubjection and unchriſtian Rebellion part 2. p. 277. by Biſhop Bilſon long ſince in his anſwer to a Jeſuite, making this objection, Yea, But who ſhall tell Magiſtrates which is truth? That is not this queſtion: When wee reaſon whether Princes may command for truth, and puniſh error, you muſt not cavill about the meanes to know truth from error, but ſuppoſe that truth were confeſſed and agreed on, and in that caſe what may Princes doe for truth. If I ſhould aske you whether Princes may revenge Murthers and puniſh thefts, were this an Anſwer to ſay, but how ſhall they know what Murther is, and who be theeves? No more when we demand what duty Princes owe to God and his truth, ſhould you ſtand quarrelling what truth is or how truth may be known? The Princes dutie to God is one queſtion which wee now handle; the way to diſcerne truth from error is another, which anon ſhall enſue when once this is ended; But firſt let us have your direct Anſwer whether Princes may command for truth or no? And then the Ieſuite anſwering, for truth they may: but if they take quid pro quo they both hazard themſelves and their whole realms, Bilſon replies, you ſlide to the ſecond queſtion again before the firſt be finiſhed, ſtay for that till this be tried. Now then to bring this point to ahead and iſſue, Hagiomaſtixs clear reaſon grants that in caſes about matters of Religion ſure and certaine, the Magiſtrate may puniſh in the times of the Goſpel, which directly overthrowes that univerſall Toleration ſo much pleaded for in divers of his Books: ſo that Maſter Goodwin by his own cleer reaſon is forced upon this Dilemma, either to hold no points in matters of Religion and Doctrine of faith can be certainly and infallibly known under the Goſpel, or if they can, then the violations of ſuch may by the Magiſtrate be lawfully cenſured. And here in this matter I doe appeale from Maſter Goodwins wanton wit, great applauſe among his Seduced Members, and from all others his ingagements to the Sectarian partie, to his conſcience (if ſo bee in this point of pretended libertie of conſcience, he hath any conſcience at all left) to reſolve me this queſtion, whether Chriſtian Magiſtrates under the Goſpell may not by the Scriptures and other meanes that God hath given and appointed in his Church infallibly and certainly know that there is a God, that this God is but one, that the Scriptures are the word and mind of this God, that this God is holy, juſt, good, wiſe, eternall, omniſcient, omnipotent, mercifull, perfect, that this one God though but one in eſſence, is three in perſons the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghoſt, that the Son was manifeſted in the fleſh became man, that he died for our ſinnes according to the Scriptures, that hee roſe again from the dead, aſcended into heaven, ſitteth at the right hand of God, ſhall come to judge the world, that there is a Hell and eternall Death for all wicked impen tent perſons, and a Heaven, and eternall life for the Elect and true beleevers, that for a Chriſtian to worſhip and ſerve the Sun, Moon, and ſtarres, or foure-footed Beaſts and creeping things is Apoſtaſie and Idolatrie, that to revile, ſcoffe at and ſpeak reproachfully of God is to blaſpheme God, that for a man to ſay God revealed to him the day of judgement ſhould bee on ſuch a day, or ſuch and ſuch things ſhould come to paſſe at ſuch a time, when the contrary is manifeſted to all, be not to prophecy falſly, and ſo I might inſtance in many more: Unto which queſtion, if Maſter Goodwin anſwers affirmatively that Magiſtrates may in theſe and ſome other points of Religion infalliblity and certainly know the truth, then the univerſall Toleration pleaded for by him in M. S. Some modeſt and humble Quaeries concerning a printed Paper entituled an ordinance for the preventing of the growing and, ſpreading of Hereſies, &c Hagiomaſtix, Appendix 〈◊〉 Hagiomaſtix and other his Pamphlets falls to the ground, and the Ordinance preſented to the Honorable Houſe of Commons for preventing Hereſies and Blaſphemies, may take place, and the Inflicters of heavy cenſures upon ſuch who broach Doctrines contrary to theſe, viz. that there is a God, that he is perfectly holy, ternal, that hee is one in three perſons, &c may infallibly know ſuch Opinions are not the ſacred Truths of God and the c eer reaſon of Hagiomaſtix in this 36. Section againſt the old Teſtament Law for putting falſe Prophets, &c to death now, is of no force at all; for in theſe Principles of religion named, and divers others, as the reſurrection of the dead, that Chriſt is God, that Chriſt according to his humane nature was borne without ſin, &c Chriſtian Magiſtrates walke no more at midnight, but at noon day, then the Iewiſh Magiſtrates in caſes of Blaſphemie, Apoſtaſie, Idolatrie, Prophecying falſly, &c. are as certaine and ſure as they who received Anſwers under the old Law in matters of Religion of Idolatrie, Blaſphemie (ſuppoſing there had been any ſuch) from the Prieſts by the judgement of Vrim; But now if Maſter Goodwin dare anſwer negatively, that there is no infallible certaine knowledge in any point of Religion under the new Teſtament, no man infallibly and certainly knowes that there is a God, or that this God is holy, perfect, eternall, that there is a Ieſus Chriſt who died for our ſins and roſe againe from the dead, that there is a reſurrection of mens bodies, and a day of judgement, &c, tis all opinion and probabilitie, theMaſter Goodwins Modeſt & humble Queres about the Ordinance, Quere 2. contrary may be the Sacred Truths of God, and therefore there may be no puniſhing by death or other bodily puniſhment for holding any Doctrines or Opinions in Religion, ſuppoſe contrary to admonition, which for ought the ſaid inflicters know, except they make themſelves infallible, may be the ſacred Truths of God, I ſay, and am ready to prove it againſt him, that he overthrowes the Scriptures, all Chriſtian Religion, all Faith, yea all the comfort and ſalvation of Chriſtians, hee is a Sceptick, an Antiſcripturiſt, a Newtrall in Religion and an Atheiſt: Hee juſtifies the worſt of the Papiſts in all they have written againſt the Scriptures, calling it a noſe of wax, a dumb judge, inkie Divinity, &c. for to hold nothing can bee known certainly and infallibly by the Scriptures, is to make them a noſe of wax, an imperfect weak rule, a doubtfull Oracle, like that of Apollo's; For if the Trumpet give an uncertaine Sound, who ſhall prepare himſelfe to the battell? ſo likewiſe, except the Spirit of God have by the holy pen-men uttered words that may bee underſtood, how ſhall it be known what is written? for this would make the Scriptures be as a ſpeaking into the aire; but as concerning that point of the Church under the new Teſtament knowing infallibly and certainly the Chriſtian Religion, and matters neceſſary to ſalvation both in faith and worſhip, as the Church under the old by Vrim, I ſhal ſpeak fully to it in the ſeventh anſwer to this Reaſon; only for a concluſion of this third Anſwer, I adde, I much wonder ſeeing under the new Teſtament according to Hagiomaſtix Doctrine, no Magiſtrates nor Synods can be certaine in doubtfull caſes about matters of Religion, but the beſt Oracles Magiſtrates have to conſult with, are every way obnoxious unto error and miſtake, and that the wiſeſt and moſt learned of them are not able cleerly or demonſtratively to informe the Magiſtrate what blaſphemy, or what idolatry it was which was by God ſentenced to death under the Law (though by the way I muſt check Maſter Goodwins confidence, for I who am the leaſt of all the Miniſters of Chriſt and not to be named with the wiſeſt and moſt learned of them, am able cleerly and demonſtratively out of Deut. 17. 2. 3. 4. 5. to informe the Magiſtrate and Maſter Goodwin too, if he will bee informed, what Idolatrie it was which was by God ſentenced to death under the Law, viz for a Iew to goe ſerve and worſhip the Sun or Moon) how Maſter Goodwin and divers Members of his Church come to be in many controverted points, doubtfull caſes about matters of Religion, ſo confident and certaine as they make themſelves, certain that Presbyteriall Government is not Jure Divino, certaine that Chriſtian Magiſtrates may not exerciſe their coercive Power in any matters of Religion, no, not to the reſtraining of Blaſphemie, Idolatrie, Hereſie, Sciſme, moſt certaine that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere faith in a proper ſenſe is imputed to juſtification, and not Chriſts Righteouſneſſe, certaine that the way of the Congregation is the truth, and ſo I might inſtance in divers other points: To be confident, as confidence it ſelfe can make a man, to bee as ſure as twice two makes four, to have abundant ſatisfaction from God for what a man holds in pregnant, ſtrong, cleer and rational demonſtrations on the one hand, and diſtinct clear and home Anſwers to all objections to the contrarie on the other hand, that if light be light, reaſon reaſon, ſenſe ſence, Scriptures Scriptures, then ſuch a Doctrine is truth, that though the whole world ſhould riſe up as one man to oppoſe, yet that ſhould not ſhake nor unſettle a man in it, is to attaine to a high meaſure of certaintie and infallib litie; Now whoever hath but read with due conſideration Mr. Goodwins writings cannot but take notice in them of many high ſtrains and profeſſed ſolemne

Anapologeſiates Antapologias, The Preface to the Reader. But for thoſe opinions wherein I diſſent from Mr. Edwards, and the generality of thoſe whom he calls his godly Orthodox Preſbyterian Miniſters, I have beſtowed ſo much labour and travell of ſoul ſeverall wayes to ſatisfie my ſelfe in the truth of them, and withal have received ſuch abundant ſatisfaction from God for what I hold in them, in pregnant, ſtrong, cleare and rationall demonſtrations on the one hand, in diſtinct, cleare and home Anſwer to all objections to the contrary that ever I met withall on the other hand, that if light be light, reaſon reaſon, ſenſe ſenſe, Scriptures Scriptures, I ſuppoſe I ſhall never be unſetled or ſhaken in them, though the whole world ſhould riſe up as one man to oppoſe me. And therefore being fully perſwaded, reſolved, and poſſeſt in my judgement ſoule and conſcience that the way of the Congregation is the Truth.

A Quere concerning the Church Covenant, pag. 1. Firſt, confident we are (as confidence it ſelfe (an make us) that there is no commandement given to the Churches for exact ng any ſuch Covenant to thoſe that are to be admitted into Church Fellowſhip with them. A Letter of Maſter John Goodwins ſent to Maſter Thomas Goodwin, pag. 12, 13. Confident I am that there is a light beyond your light in theſe matters, and which you are very capable of if your eyes by your long ſlumber be not over heavy to open. I profeſſe in the ſight of God, and in as great ſingleneſſe and ſimplicity of heart as ever n an in this world ſpake word unto you, that I doe as clearly apprehend Error and miſtake throughout the greateſt part of your way, as I doe in this concluſion that twice two makes foure. The neceſſity of your Covenant, Prolix confeſſion of faith, putting men to deliver their judgements in points of doubtfull diſputations upon and before their admiſſion into your Churches, the power of the Keyes and of Ordination of Paſtors to be the right and inheritance of the whole body of the Congregation, and of every member indifferently, and promiſcuouſly the divine inſtitution or peremptory neceſſity of your Ruling Elders, the neceſſity of Widowes as Officers in the Church, the abſolute neceſſity of one and the ſame governmant or Diſcipline in all particulars whatſoever for all Churchès in all times and places, a full and peremptory determination of all things whatſoever appertaining to the worſhip of God, with divers ſuch like poſitions (which are the very life, ſoule, and ſubſtance of your way) I am at perfect peace in my thoughts, that you will never be able to demonſtrate or prove from the Scriptures to any ſober minded or confidering man. Maſter Goodwins Appendix in his Preface to the Reader, If the ſoules and conſciences of men have any cauſe at all to bleſſe me, it is becauſe I have clothed them with ſtrength and confidence of the royall parentage and deſcent of the Scriptures, and ſubdued their fears and jealouſies of any ſubornation (in that kind) under their feet. (Nay did I not verily beleeve the Scriptures to be the word of God, I would not for their ſakes expoſe my ſelfe as now I doe: But that beleif I ſpeak of, which hath reigned in me, and over me hitherto, and hath bleſſed me with ſuch an abundance of peace of comfort in ſufferings for it will not, &c. An Apologeticall Account of ſome Brethren of the Church whereof Maſter Goodwin is Paſtour, pag. 5. 6. The Doctrines of the Father and of the Sonne, the involving whereof in the clouds of uncertainty, the ſaid Vindication moſt falſely and mal tiouſly charges upon him, hath he brought into ſo cleare and open view, that we have ſeen the peace and everlaſting ſalvation of our ſoules in them. Every one of thoſe fundan entail Principe of Chriſtian Religion, which this gangren'd pen would perſwade the world he denies or doubts of, hath he not only aſſerted in our hearing againe and againe, but proved them with ſuch evidence and demonſtration of the ſpirit, that our conſciences were forced to fall flat before them, and to confeſſe that of a truth God was in them.

Declarations of his abſolute certaintie, and full demonſtrative knowledge of many Points of Religion, yea of ſome more doubtfull controverted, as of Church-Governement and the way of the Congregation, and yet I ſuppoſe hee hath no better Oracles to conſult with, then Chriſtian Magiſtrates have; There is no Prieſt with Vrim for him to enquire by, unleſſe the Sectaries have ſet him up as their Oracle to conſult with in ſtead of the Scriptures; and I think he will not yet plead Revelations and viſions for feare of his fate, who ſaid it was revealed to him the day of judgement ſhould be on ſuch a day in Aprill laſt, now long ſince paſt.

Fourthly, upon the ſame cleer reaſon and ground why the old Teſtament Law for puniſhing falſe Prophets &c, ſhould not now be in force, becauſe the Iewes in all difficult caſes about Religion might have immediate and infallible Anſwers from God, it followes neceſſarily that all Scriptures brought out of the new Teſtament for Magiſtrates puniſhing in caſes of Hereſie, Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, or for Church-Officers cenſuring by Depoſition, Excommunication in points of Error, ſhould not bind now, and ſo whatever is brought out of the Scriptures for puniſhing Errors, and Hereſies, whether by Civill Puniſhments or Eccle iaſticall cenſures ſhall be all evaded, for the ſame thing may be ſaid, and is ſaid againſt the places of the new Teſtament, that in the time when the Goſpels, Acts of the Apoſtles, and Epiſtles were written, the Churches had Apoſtles and Prophets who were immediately inſpired and infallible, and could in all difficult caſes that happened about matters of Religion declare infallibly from God, what was Hereſie and Sciſme, and what was not; and therefore a Heretick after the firſt and ſecond admonition might be rejected, and Hymeneus and Alexander delivered unto Satan, and Iezabel for ſeducing cenſured, becauſe Chriſt was alwayes at hand by Apoſtles or Prophets to declare unto them infallibly who were Hereticks and ſeducers, whereas now ſince the Apoſtles and Prophets are ceaſed, and all extraordinary wayes, the beſt Oracles Miniſters and People have to direct them in doubtfull caſes about matters of Religion, are men of very fallible judgements, and every way obnoxious unto error and miſtake, the beſt Synods and Councels being not infallible. And ſo whatſoever Hagiomaſtix ſpeakes of the old Law, another may ſay the ſame of the new, as to this effect; I am confident that the wiſeſt and moſt learned of the Miniſters are not able cleerly or demonſtratively to informe the Magiſtrate what Hereſie or what Sciſme it was, or what kind of holding the reſurrection paſt already it was for which the Apoſtles cenſured Hymeneus, and commanded to reject & avoid Hereticks and Sciſmaticks; and therefore to goe about to prove thoſe commands in the new Teſtament againſt falſe Prophets, Hereticks, Sciſmaticks, Troublers of the Church, to be in our dayes in force, becauſe they were given in the Apoſtles dayes and practiſed by them, is as if one ſhould prove that a man may ſafely and without danger walke among bogs, Precipices and ditches at midnight, becauſe he may well doe it at noon day. The Socinians upon this very ground plead againſt Excommunication, and al Church cenſures in matters of Doctrine, now however in uſe in the Primitive Churches, and anſwer to the commands and examples alledged out of the new Teſtament after this manner, Anonymi Diſſertatio De pace & Concordia Eccleſi e. pag. 91, 92. Apologia pro Socinianis. Fallunt & falluntur qui ad florentis iſtius aetatis exemplum noſtra tempora exiguut. Non iiſdem remediis nunc afflicta Eccleſiae valetudo reſtitui poteſt, quibus olim poter •• aegritudo ſubmoveri. Cum ſanam eſſet ac robuſta Eccleſia in primo illo aetatis ſtore & Apoſtolorū choro ſuperſtite etiam violentis utiremediis ob vigorem ſuum par erat. Nunc morbis ac ſenio confecta & debilis ſuperanti jam aegritudini pene ſuccumbit ec magis unquam periclitatur quam cum in crudeles medicos incidit. Vide ibi plura. For ther's much difference between Hereticks now, and thoſe Hereticks in the Apoſtles dayes. For grant them who now erre in matters of faith, were ſet before that venerable companie of Apoſtles and their equals; ſuppoſe them to be admoniſhed and convinced; and yet nevertheleſſe to perſiſt obſtinately though but in a light error, who would not deteſt their malice? In this caſe a light error is turned into the nature of a great wickedneſſe; wherefore you will ſay? becauſe they dare to reſiſt the Spirit ſpeaking by the Apoſtles, and when they have no cauſe of doubting of the Doctrine and faith of that Councell, yet they would not beleeve nor obey. But now although wee are ve emently perſwaded of the certainty of our faith, who can in ſuch aname aſſure us, or certifie that wee cannot erre? What Councell can wee now perſwade our ſelves ſo uncorrupt, as that of the Apoſtles or Primitive Church? Thoſe who deny Excommunication of Hereticks, ſay, bring not arguments and reaſons out of the new Teſtament, but that power of the Spirit with which the Apoſtles being endowed, delivered up to Satan and kild Hypocrites with a word: If you want this Powerfull efficacie of the Spirit, acknowledge your raſhnes and iniquitie in condemning thoſe, to whom you cannot demonſtrate your Interpretation of Scripture: Neither is the Spirit now ſo weak, but that bee is able to give Teſtimonies of the divine Authoritie, and his preſence in his Miniſters now againſt his enemies. It followes not becauſe many things were not tolerated in the infancie of the Church in the Primitive times, therefore they ought not to bee tolerated now in the old age of the Church: They deceive and are deceived who would bring our times to the example of that flouriſhing age. When the Church was healthfull and ſtrong in that firſt flower of its age, and whilſt the company of the Apoſtles were living, the uſing of violent remedies in reſpect of the Churches vigor was meet and agreeable. Now the Church with diſeaſes and old age being weakned and ſpent, it now almoſt falls downe under its prevailing ſickneſſe: neither is it any time more in danger, then when it fals into the bands of cruell Phyſitians. In time paſt its firſt vigor admitted of opening of veines and loſſe of bloud; now if after ſtrength exhauſted by ſo many evils there remaine any vitall Iuyce and moisture, it cannot but by letting bloud be poured out with the life and Spirit, and therefore this remedie of the puniſhment of Hereticks for the Preſervation of the Church ought to bee omitted now, when it will bring more hurt and danger, then profit to the Church. So ſome of our Sectaries in a late Pamphlet, put forth upon occaſion of their Indig ation at the late ſolemne Faſt of the tenth of March againſt Hereſies, plead that the Sciſme ſpoken againſt in the new Teſtament is only of ſeparating from thoſe Primitive Apoſtolicall Churches, planted immediately by the Apoſtles and by infallible direction, but hath no reference at all to the Churches of theſe times; Nay further upon this cleere reaſon why that old Teſtament Law about falſe Prophets, &c ſhould not now bind, all the Lawes and commands written in the old Teſtament, yea and in the new concerning the whole will of God may bee as well not in force; and men may ſay for any thing preſſed upon them out of the Scriptures of the old or new Teſtament, that they concern them not, becauſe in all difficult caſes that happened about matters of Religion, in Doctrine, Worſhip, Government, &c, the Iewes to whom thoſe commands were given, and the Churches in the Apoſtles dayes to whom the Epiſtles were written had the opportunity of immediate and infallible direction from God himſelfe by the high Prieſt, Prophets and Apoſtles, who could and did in all doubts from time to time infallibly declare and reſolve what was Gods mind and Pleaſure, what was Sciſme, what was Hereſie, what uſe the Law was of, how often Chriſtians ſhould pray, heare Gods word &c, whereas now the beſt Oracles Chriſtians have to direct them about matters of Religion, are men of very fallible judgements, and every way obnoxious unto error and miſtake; Yea the wiſeſt and moſt learned of them are not able cleerly or demonſtratively to informe now what the Government of the Church was in the Apoſtles dayes, what the duties of a Miniſter are to the People, as how oft he muſt preach, ſo that upon Hagiomaſtixs cleere reaſon in his 36. Section againſt the old Teſtament Law for Magiſtrates puniſhing Blaſphemers, Idolaters, &c whatſoever can be brought out of the old or new Teſtament in matters of dutie, may be evaded, and it may be ſaid this or that was commanded or forbidden, becauſe then they had the high Preiſts, Prophets, and Apoſtles, who were infallible and could determine all difficulties.

In a word if ſome diſſimilitude that may be ſhown either under the old Teſtament or the new, in the times, or ſtate of things there, when thoſe Commands and Rules were given, from the times and ſtate of things now, may be a ſufficient reaſon of the Rules and Commands themſelves being now not in force, then it will follow that all morall duties laid down both in the Law and the Goſpel bind not us, becauſe the ſame diſſimilitude, or as great may be ſhown in whatſoever dutie upon any Ordinance of Chriſt or relation among men is propounded. Upon this ground the Sacrament of Baptiſme ſhall not be perpetuall not univerſall in the Church, becauſe of ſome differences between that time when Chriſt inſtituted it, and the times now, asGerard. Joh. Voſſii Theſes Theolog. De neceſſi. Baptiſmi Theſ. 4. contra F uſt ̄ Socinū. Praeterea etſi concederetur Chriſtum de Baptiſmo de. diſſe praeceptū, cenſet illud tantùm pertinuiſſe ad initia, quibus exrudi populo, & ceremoniis aſſueto, Eccleſia Chriſto colligebatur: Denique eo etiam conceſſo, ut perpetuo debeat in Eccleſia obtinere, negat tamen univerſale eſſe: nam cum aquae Baptiſmus nihil aliud ſit quam publica & ſolennis quaedam profeſſio nominis Chriſti, minime hunc iis neceſſarium eſſe ait qui ex Chriſtianis, id eſt Chriſtum profitentibus, naſcuntur: aut qui in Christiana fide ſunt educati. Socinus thereupon held Baptiſme an indifferent thing belonging only to the infancie of the Church, in which out of a rude people and accuſtomed to ceremonies, a Church was gathered to Chriſt: So neither an outward calling and Ordination of Miniſters ſhall be perpetuall, becauſe then there were Apoſtles and other extraordinary men, who in ordaining them could conferr the gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, and had the gift of diſcerning of ſpirits: So all the commands given by Paul and Peter of ſervants obeying their Maſters, and being ſubject to their Maſters with all feare, may be evaded, and they may ſay they concerne not us, becauſe the ſervants in thoſe times were their ſlaves, bought with their money, at their diſpoſe, but wee are borne free as well as our Maſters; and then thoſe ſervants in any commands doubtfull had Apoſtles or other infallible men, to go to to be reſolved, which wee have not, they being long ſince ceaſed, and ſo I might goe over all examples and commands both in the old or new Teſtament.But ſome commands that in regard of their manner, ſome degrees and adjuncts may not bind, yet in reſpect of their ſubſtance and the things themſelves are perpetuall, of which I have ſpoken before p. 81, 82, 83, 84. & whoever does but conſider the difference between the eſſence of a thing and the adjunct of a thing, how the eſſence is one thing and the adjunct another, and how ſome change may be in an adjunct, when not in the eſſence at all, will be ſatisfied.

Fifthly, This cleere reaſon of Hagiomaſtix in his 36. Section and 130. page why Magiſtrates under the old Law might exerciſe coercive Power, upon falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, &c becauſe in all difficult caſes of Religion the Iewes to whom this Law was given, had the opportunitie of enquiring by Vrim and Thummim, of immediate conſultation with the mouth of God himſelfe by the high Prieſt, ſeems not to be any reaſon upon theſe grounds. Firſt, that reaſon is never expreſſed in thoſe commands or examples for putting to death falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, Idolaters, &c. but other reaſons are alledged, viz. from the nature of the ſinnes, drawing away from God, the putting away of the evill, and that others may feare and do no more ſo, with other ſuch like, all, reaſons of a common nature to the times now as well as then. Secondly, before there was a high Prieſt, and holy garments made for him, particularly the breſt plate of judgement, the Vrim and Thummim, Exod. 28. 15. 30. the Law was given for putting to death Idolaters, Exod. 22. 20. and in Jobs time long before the high Prieſt, and in a Land where the high Prieſt was not enquired by, Idolatry was an iniquity worthy to be puniſhed by the Iudges. 3. Thoſe who were Heathens ſtrangers in the Land of Judea, that beleeved not in the God of Iſrael, nor underſtood not what the judgement of Vrim was, and the ſentence thereof, yet the Iewiſh Magiſtrates would not ſuffer ſuch whilſt ſtaid among them, to blaſpheme God, to worſhip ſtrange Gods, or to offer their children to Molech, as appears in Levit, 20. 2. and in page 49. 50. of this Treatiſe. Fourthly, the Magiſtrates exerciſed their coercive Power in matters of Religion, as freely after Vrim and Thummim were loſt, and that judgement ceaſed, as they did before, which cleerly ſhowes the enquiring by Vrim under the old Law, was not the cauſe of thoſe Lawes concerning puniſhing Idolaters, and falſe Prophets, being in force: It is the judgement of moſt of the learned writers both Robbins and others, that the oraculous conſultation with the Breaſtplate continued no longer then to the captivitie of Babylon, Vrim and Thummim being loſt at the captivitie of Babylon, and wanting at the Peoples returne, as theſe Scriptures ſhow Ezra. 2 63. Nehem. 7. 65, neither do we find that ever God gave Anſwer by them any more divers learned men who write of the Iewiſh Church and State, and of the firſt and ſecond Temple, of Hag gai 1. 8. Haggai 2. 9. The glory of this latter Houſe ſhall be greater then of the former, ſhow the want of five things in the ſecond Temple which had been in the firſt 1. The A ke with the mercy ſeat and Cherubims. Secondly, the fire from Heaven. Thirdly, the Majeſty, or divine preſence. Fourthly, the holy Ghoſt, Fifthly And the Vrim and Thummim, of which the Reader may ſee fully in Ainſworths Annot. on Exod. 28. 30. Now that after the Captivitie of Babylon, Princes and Magiſtrates uſed a coercive Power for offences againſt the firſt Table, is plaine by thoſe inſtances Ezra. 10. 7, 8. of making Proclamation that all who had taken ſtrange wives of the People of the Land, ſhould come unto Jeruſalem for the putting them away, and ſuch as were borne of them, and that whoſoever would not come within three dayes according to the Councell of the Princes and the Elders, all his ſubſtance ſhould be forfeited, &c Nehem. 9. 38. Nehem. 10. and 13. chapters, Nehemiab and other Rulers entring into Covenant for Reformation in the matter of the Sabbath, ſtrange wives, maintenance for the ſervice of the Houſe of God, and Nehemiah commanding and contending to have matters reformed in the worſhip and houſe of God, yea reſtraining and hindring the Prophanation of the Sabba h, and ſmiting ſome for marrying wives of Aſhdod, of Ammon, and of Moah; Yea the want of a Prieſt ſtanding up with Vrim and Thummim, by whom the Magiſtrates might enquire, was ſo far from hindring Magiſtrates in puniſhing about matters of Religion, that the quite contrary is expreſſed both in Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra 2. 63. Nehem. 7. 65. ſome Prieſts being put from the Prieſthood and forbidden by the Governor to eat of the moſt holy things till their ſtood up a Prieſt with Vrim and with Thummim, that is for want of Vid. Jun. Annot. in Ezr. 1. 65. and Eng. Annet. Vrim and Thummim by which God might be conſulted with and his mind known herein; Zerubbabel (the Tirſhatha is commonly ſaid to be Zerubbabel) would not let the Prieſts that knew not their genealogies eat of the moſt holy things, ſo that ſome Priviledges are denied for want of Vrim and Thummim, in a caſe of Geneologie, and birth after a confuſion and mixture of marriages for the ſpace of about 70. yeares, being a matter of fact, of what genealogie verſe 62. not a matter of Law, but no reſtraints of puniſhments upon Prophaners of the Sabbath, & thoſe who married ſtrange wives &c for want of Vrim and Thummim. And long after the loſſe of Vrim and Thummim we find Artaxerxes, Darius, the King of Niniveh and Nebuchadnezzar making Lawes for puniſhing men in caſes of Blaſphemie, and other matters of the firſt Table, and the places of Scripture relating ſuch Edicts and Lawes, ſpeak of them by way of approbation, as I have ſhown before in the 15. and 16. pages of this Treatiſe, whereunto I refer the Reader, and ſhall only adde one paſſage out of Calvin Refut. E •• orum Serveti p. 598. Hujus rei illustre nobis exemplum ſpiritus Dei proponit in Nebuchad. Nam ejus edictum celebrat Daniel, quo capitalem paenam denunciat ſiquis in Deum Iſrael blasphemus fuerit. Honor profecto non vulgaris crudeli tyranno habetur, quum Prophetam ſuum Dominus ad publicandas quaet tulit leges qua ſi praeconem aſſignat, & leges ipſas in acta ſua refert, ſacriſque ſuis oraculis annumerat. Quid? an ſpiritus ſa cti & Prophetae elogio laudatur Nebuchadnezer, qui veri Dei gloriam pro imperio tutandam ſuſcepit, ut ad impiam ejus prophanationem conniv ant ſancti Magiſtratus? an non potius his dominus ſub profani regis perſona quid agere ipſos deceat praeſcribit? Et c rte quid magis praepoſterum quam in Eccleſiae ſinu impune foveri fceleſtas in Deum c nt elias, quae in Babylone paena capitali ſanitae fuerunt? Calvin upon that Edict of Nebuchadnezzar Dan. 3. 29. For this Edict Daniel celebrates and ſets forth, in which, capitall puniſhment is denounced againſt any man that ſhall ſpeake amiſſe of the God of Iſrael. Truely tis no common honor that is given to a cruell Tyrant when God aſſignes his Prophet as the Preacher to publiſh the Lawes he made, and puts thoſe Lawes among his acts, and numbers them among his holy Oracles. What? whether is Nebuchadnezzar praiſed by the Teſtimoniall of the Holy Spirit, and of the Prophet for taking upon him according to his Power and Authoritie the defence of the glory of the true God, that holy Magiſtrates ſhould beare with the wicked prophanation of his glory, and does not the Lord rather under the Perſon of a Prophane King ſhowe what becomes them to doe? And certainly what is more prepoſterous then in the boſome of the Church to foſter unpuniſhed wicked contumelies againſt God, which was in Babylon enacted to be puniſhed with capital puniſhment? Fifthly, this cleere Reaſon of Gods immediate and infallible declaring his own mind and pleaſure under the old Teſtament, even according to Hagiomaſtix Principles, is ſo far from being any reaſon why Magiſtrates might then puniſh Blaſphemers, Idolaters, falſe Prophets, &c but not now, as that the contrary ſeems more reaſonable: for in caſes of immediate and infallible Anſwers from Heaven, God declaring who was an Idolater, and what was Idolatrie, &c convincing men ſo powerfully as leaving them without all ſubterfugies, one would think there ſhould need the Magiſtrates Power a great deale leſſe, then in a time when there are no ſuch immediate Anſwers from God, nor diſcoveries of men from heaven; For it cannot be thought but that very bad men, when they certainly knew, that if they prophecied falſly, entiſed perſons to Idolatrie, &c could not upon any Pretences whatſoever eſcape from being convicted, but ſhould by God himſelf from heaven be judged Idolaters, falſe Prophets, and thereupon bee but to death, they would either wholly forbeare the outward acts, or if committed any ſuch, they would confeſſe them, repent, and do no more ſo; whereas when men know there is no ſuch way of finding them out, of God from heaven naming perſons and things, this is the man, and this is Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, &c they would be incouraged both to doe ſuch things and to maintaine them when they have done, to bring Scripture againſt Scripture, and Reaſon againſt Reaſon, as knowing all immediate Anſwers and Diſcoveries to be ceaſed: Unto which if that be added, that under the old Teſtament God himſelfe inflicted more outward bodily puniſhments upon perſons for Idolatrie, wil-worſhip, Sciſme, &c, then hee does now under the new (the judgements under the Goſpel being more ſpirituall as many examples in the old Teſtament ſhow, being a more Immediate Iudge, and Inflicted of bodily puniſhments on the Jewes, as he was to them a more Immediate Legiſlator of which I have ſpoken before in page 64. of this Booke) there appears leſſe reaſon for thoſe coercive commands being in force under the old Teſtament, then now, there being in both theſe reſpects now named without the Magiſtrates coercive Power, greater means for awing and reſtraining Violators of the firſt Table, viz. Gods immediate diſcovering, and inflicting of puniſhment, then in our times; And for illuſtrating this wee may obſerve that in the Primitive times when there were extraordinary gifts in the Church, of Miracles, &c, and immediate Anſwers and Revelations by Apoſtles and Prophets, then the Church needed not ſo much the helpe of the Magiſtrates and the civill ſword, God giving no Chriſtian Magiſtrate all that time, but the Magiſtrates that were in thoſe dayes were Perſecutors and enemies of the Chriſtians, but after the Planting of the Goſpel and watering it, and the extraordinary Gifts and Offices in the Church ceaſing, then God gave Kings and Princes to be nurſing Fathers, to defend the Church and the truth by their Laws and Power, and hath continued ſuch ever ſince, as a great helpe to the Church, as a wall to the weak Vine: So when under the old Teſtament there was according to this Reaſon of Maſter Goodwin, ſuch immediate and infallible Anſwers from the Mouth of God himſelfe in all difficult caſes of Religion, and ſuch immediate viſible judgements by the immediate hand of God upon Idolaters, falſe Prophets, eſpecially upon Deſpiſers of the glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God amongſt them, except men had been deſperately and outragiouſly wicked, and had with a high hand deſpiſed God himſelfe ſpeaking and preſently ſtriking dead in caſe of diſobedience, they could not have been obſtinate Seducers to Idolatrie, falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, ſhould neither ſo much have needed Magiſtrates armed with commiſſion from God to execute thoſe commands of the 13. and 17. chapters of Deut. &c, as in theſe dayes we doe, wherein both theſe are wanting according to Hagiomaſtixs own confeſſion, and ſo much for the fifth Anſwer. Sixthly, If this bee a cleer Reaſon why that old Teſtament Law for the putting of falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, &c to death ſhould not be now in force, becauſe in all difficult caſes that happened about matters of Religion, the Jewes to whom this Law was given, had the opportunitie of immediate conſultation with the mouth of God himſelfe, who could and did from time to time infallibly declare what his owne mind and pleaſure was in them. So that except thoſe that were to give ſentence in caſes of Religion, had been deſparately wicked and ſet upon bloud, and had deſpiſed that glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God among them, they could not do injuſtice, becauſe God himſelfe was alwayes at hand to declare unto them what was meet to be done; whereas now the beſt Oracles that Magiſtrates and Iudges have to direct them in doubtfull caſes about matters of Religion, are men of very fallible judgements, and every way obnoxious unto error and miſtake: then tis as cleer a Reaſon why the old Teſtament Law, for puniſhing Murtherers and other Malefactors for offences againſt the ſecond Table, ſhould not bee in force now; and whatever is ſaid by Hagiomaſtix in this reaſon againſt all bodily and civill puniſhment for tranſgreſſions of the firſt Table, holds in all reſpects as ſtrongly againſt the Magiſtrates puniſhing for killing, ſtealing, &c, and the Anabaptiſts, Socinians and other Hereticks, who wholly deny the Chriſtian Magiſtrates ſword, or at leaſt the uſe of it in point of death under the N. Teſtament againſt any tranſgreſſion, viz. Treaſon, Murder, adulterie, &c, as well as Blaſphemie, Idolatrie, may ſay the ſame for themſelves, and among all otherBulling, adverſus Anabaptiſtas l. 4. c. 5. c. 6. Oſiandri Enchiridion c. 2. Quſt. 41. De Magiſtratu. Politico. Arguments brought by them againſt the Chriſtian Magiſtrates killing, or puniſhing Murder, Theft, Adulterie, &c they may adde this new one of Maſter Goodwins, There is this cleere Reaſon why the old Teſtament Law for puniſhing of Murtherers, Theeves, Adulterers, &c ſhould not now be in force upon any ſuch terms as it was, when, and where it was given; becauſe in all difficult caſes that happened about matters of the Second Table, the Jewes to whom this Law was given, had the opportunitie of immediate conſultation with the mouth of God himſelfe, who could and did from time to time infallibly declare what his owne mind and pleaſure was in them: So that except thoſe that were to give ſentence in caſes of bloud, theft, &c had been deſperately wicked, and ſet upon bloud, and had deſpiſed that glorious Ordinance of the Oracle amongſt them, they could not do injuſtice, becauſe God himſelfe was alwayes at hand, to declare unto them what was meet to be done; and what kind of man-ſlayer was to be put to death, and whether the perſon killed the man caſually or wilfully, &c, whereas now, the beſt Oracles that Magiſtrates and Iudges have to direct them in doubtfull caſes about matters of life, eſtate, &c, are men of very fallible judgements, and the Lawes they are to proceede by, of doubtfull Interpretation in many caſes; and therefore to goe about to prove that the Law for puniſhing Murtherers, Theeves, &c is now, or amongſt us in force, becauſe it was once given unto the Jewes, is, as if men ſhould prove that a man may ſafely and without danger walk among ogs, Praecipices, and ditches at midnight, becauſe he may well doe it at noon day. I will undertake to make it good againſt Maſter Goodwin, that whatſover he ſaith in this his cleere Reaſon for the Magiſtrates puniſhing in matters of Religion under the old Teſtament, but againſt it now, to ſhow it was the ſame in matters of Iuſtice and Right among men, then, and is as ſtrong againſt Magiſtrates coercive Power now in thoſe things, as in matters of Religion; yea upon that head of difficult and doubtfull caſes, and danger of Magiſtrates erring and miſtaking in judgement thereupon, to give ſeverall Reaſons of the danger of Magiſtrates miſtaking rather in difficult caſes of the ſecond, then of the firſt Table: Whoever hath but read and obſerved the Scriptures, yea but the five Books of Moſes, muſt acknowledge there were many difficult and doubtfull caſes under the old Law, upon the commandements of the ſecond Table as well as of the firſt, and therefore ſuperior and higher Courts, divers one above another were appointed by God under the Law to which in hard matters concerning the ſecond Table, as of the firſt, they might reſort for advice and reſolution: Whoever doth but conſider the many Queſtions and caſes handled, and written upon, by the School-men, Caſui ls, Canoniſts, Civilians upon matters of the ſecond Table, as well as of the firſt, together with the errrors The Errors and Controverſies in matters of the ſecond Table upon the 5, 6, 7 8 and 9. Commandements are the moſt exactly ſummed up by Danaeus in his Book De Haereſibus, of any Author in that kind that ever I met with. Index Tertius de Decalog. Legis. De quinto Praecepto, Magiſtratum damnant & tollunt Manichai, Anabaptiſtae. Magiſtratus utoritatem in negotiis religionis negant D n tiſtae. Judicia capitalia à Chriſtian homine exer •• i poſſe negant Tertullianiſſ . De ſexto precepto, ſeipſos occiacre putant licere hominibus Patriciani, Circumcelliones. De ſeptimo Praecepto, Vxores communes & promiſcuas eſſ debere d cent Simoniani, Nicolaitae, Carpocratiani. Inceſtus admittunt & probant Catap •• yges. De octavo praecepto, Propria quaedam à Chriſtianis poſſ deri poſſe negant Apostolici, Jeſuitae, Anabaptiſtae, De nono praecepto, mentiri homini Chriſtiano licere putant Meſſaliani, Priſcillianiſtae. and diverſitie of Opinions that have been in the Church from the Apoſtles dayes down to this time upon every one of the commandements of the ſecond Table, as about Magiſtracie, Polygam e, Communitie of Wives, and Communitie of Goods, about Chriſtians being Magiſtrates, the Lawfulneſſe of Chriſtians going to war, about the Lawfulneſſe of Lying, diſſimulation, and aequivocation in divers caſes &c, muſt confeſſe there are many Controverſies and doubts about the Contents of the ſecond Table.

That place in Deuteronomy 17. from the eigth verſe to the twelfth, brought by Maſter Goodwin for the judgement of Vrim in difficult caſes about matters of Religion, and ſo made the ground of Magiſtrates puniſhing for Religion then, but not now, ſpeaks, as well of hard matters in civill things betweene man and man, as in the things of God: There are ſome Divines who underſtand the Place wholly or Principally of hard matters and Controverſies about the ſecond Table, ſo Luther upon the place laboring to free it from the corrupt Interpretation and ſenſe put upon it by the Papiſts, ſaith, Moſes doth here deale not concerning the word or Doctrine, or, as they ſpeake, of the queſtions of faith which they would have referd to the Pope, but of the ſentence of Publick and Prophane Crimes, So A •• ſworth and our Engliſh Divines on the Place, by blood and blood underſtand Murder, of which the Iudges may be doubtfull and unable to find out whether it were wilfull which deſerved death, or unwilling for which exile into the Cities of Refuge was appointede by Plea and Plea, pleading for, and againſt in the ſame cauſe, ſome accuſing, ſome denying, as in 1 Kings 3. 16. 17. 18. by ſtroake and ſtroake, may be alſo meant ſtroaks and Wounds that one man gave unto another whether of Malignitie or Caſualtie; and Hagiomaſtix in Section 107. in Anſwer to the Vindication of the Ordinance againſt Hereſies, which brought Deut. 17. 12. for a proofe of God making controverted points in Religion a matter of death or impriſonment, carries his firſt and ſecond Anſwers ſo, as if that place were underſtood wholly or Principally of Controverſies about the ſecond Table, between blood and blood, between ſtroake and ſtroake, Plea and Plea; and if he meant not ſo, thoſe Anſwers are nothing to the Poſition of the Vindicator, affirming that God in the old Teſtament gave Authority to make a controverted point in Religion, (for of Religion he ſpeaks) a matter of death or impriſonment. But all Divines generally who write upon the place by way of expoſition, or who have written of the Judicatories among the Jewes, and of Appeales from lower Courts to higher, and of the diſtinction between Civill and Eccleſiaſticall Courts, do underſtand the hard matters in judgment, and the matters of Controverſie within the gates, to bee meant of criminall matters in Civill things, belonging to the ſecond Table as ſixth and eight Commandement, as well as of Eccleſiaſticall things: the matter too hard between blood and blood, between Plea and Plea, is interpreted by learned J nius in his Analyſis upon Deuterononie, of ſhughter and killing, and of contention in Civill cauſes about ſuch things as belong to the accommodations of life, as between ſtroak and ſtroak is of diſeaſes as of the plague of Leprofie, which was in an Eccleſiaſticall and ceremoniall way according to the Law to be diſtinguiſhed, and therefore in this place the argument that is handled is Politicall or Eccleſiaſticall: The Politicall is Criminall or Civill, but the Eccleſiaſticall is Ceremoniall: So Lyra underſtands between blood and blood, when one part of the Judges ſay that this ſhedding of blood is to be puniſhed with death as being voluntary murder, the other part ſayes no, it is but caſuall. Maſter Gilleſpie in his Aarous rod bloſſoming Book. 1. chapt. 3. ſhowes tis agreed upon both by Jewiſh and Chriſtian Expoſitors that this place holds forth a ſupreme Civill Court of Judges, and that this text holds forth two ſorts of cauſes, ſome foren icall, betweene blood and blood; ſome ceremoniall between ſtroak and ſtroake. Now this Scripture ſpeaking how that man ſhall die that will do preſumptuouſly and will not hearken unto the Judge, as well as he that will not hearken unto the Prieſt, and ſpeaking of matters of the ſecond Table as well as of the firſt, and the ſentence of death here ſpoken of, if immediate and infallible by Vrim, extending equally to difficult caſes in Civill matters as in matters of Religion, or rather more, there being divers particular inſtances in Scripture of Anſwers in Civill matters, as of war and foretelling of ſome events in Civill affairs, but none in matters of Religion; if then the Magiſtrate becauſe of his immediateneſſe of conſultation with God, might puniſh in matters of Religion, but not now, that immediateneſſe being ceaſed, it will alſo follow he might then puniſh for bloud, &c, becauſe by Vrim hee might certainly know whether it was wilfull or voluntary, but now he may not, becauſe tis poſſible and probable in doubtfull and difficult caſes about mans life, meum and tuum, he may run into errors and miſtake.

Sixthly, this cleer Reaſon of Hagiomaſtixs making infallibility the ground of coercive Power, and Fallibility a being ſubject to error and miſtake, the ground of the deniall of ſuch a power, is a fundamentall falſity, and a grand miſtake, overthrowing equally all ſpirituall cenſures and puniſhments in caſes of falſe Doctrines and Hereticks, and all bodily outward puniſhments in Criminall Civill matters, and ſo at once making void all the Civill Power of the Magiſtrate, and all the Eccleſiaſticall power of the Church: For the Magiſtrate is not infallible, abſolutely free from all poſſibility of error and miſtake in his judgement in matters of the ſecond Table: many Magiſtrates in thoſe matters have and doe daily groſly miſtake, many innocent perſons have ſuffered, and doe daily, and many guilty perſons have and doe eſcape; who does not ſee in Civill matters what miſtakes there are, and may bee both in point of law and matter of fact, how Lawyers and Iudges are divided in their Opinions, what controverſies and difficulties ariſe upon caſes, what doubts and Scruples grow upon witneſſes teſtifying quite contrary, and other circumſtances, ſo that what Iudge can ſay hee is infallible and certaine that hee is not miſtaken, that hee ſaw ſuch a fact committed, that the accuſers and witneſſes have depoſed nothing but truth. I could Inſtance in a hundred particulars both in regard of the Law-Makers, the Lawes, the Jewry, Witneſſes, the accuſed partie, the Iudges themſelves, &c wherein Magiſtrates are as fallible and as obnoxious unto error in matters of the ſecond Table as in the firſt, yea, and in divers reſpects more but I muſt refer this to the ſecond part of this ſubject, where the Grounds for Toleration, particularly that of no man being infallible in our dayes, is to be anſwered, Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. ſhowes us there are difficultcaſes and Controverſies in matters of the ſecond Table, between blood and blood, &c and that among the Iudges themſelves, ſo that higher Courts are appointed to go unto, and the higheſt of all the Councell of Seventie at Jeruſalem. Who ſees not in Kingdomes about their Lawes and Civill Rights as high and great Controverſies and Conteſtations as in matters of Religion, each partie having great Lawyers and able men on their ſide. So the Church with the beſt Councels and Synods are not infallible, but may miſtake and erre and in in ſome things have miſtaken, as Whites way to the Church pag. 81. 83, 84, 85. Neither can the Jeſuite aſſigne any Company or State of men, whereby the Church may be ſuppoſed to manifeſt her teaching but the ſame may be ſubject to error, and in experience hath erred; as wee ſee in Councels, Doctors and all other meanes which ſhe hath uſed in teaching us, except that of the Scriptures only. Willets ſecond Generall Controverſie concerning the Church, ſecond queſtion whether the Church may erre. pag. 69 70, 71. Ameſii. Bellarm. Enervat. Tom. ſec nd. cap. 2. De Eccleſ. viſibilit. quaeſt. 4. An Eccleſia poſſit errare. Rivet. Catholic. Orthodox. Tractat. 2. Quaeſt. 3. An Eccleſia poſſit errare. Cameron. Praelect. de Eccleſ. De Eccleſ. Infallibilit. 281, 282, &c. many learned Proteſtants have ſhown againſt the Papiſts upon that queſtion whether the Church may erre. And therefore by this cleer reaſon of Maſter Goodwin it ſhould not be only unlawfull for the Magiſtrates to puniſh for Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, Hereſie, Sciſme, but for Murder, Theft, Polygamie, Adulterie, &c yea as unlawfull for the Church to admoniſh and excommunicate for Idolatrie, Hereſie, Blaſphemie, &c as for the Magiſtrates to puniſh corporally: But now M. S. Hagiomaſtix, Ancient Bounds or Liberty of Conſcieuce ſtated, with divers of our Sectaries who write of this queſtion yeeld the Magiſtrates power in matters of the ſecond Table, anſwering that of Rom. 13. 4. to be underſtood in things concerning the ſecond Table, and the Churches power in cenſuring for Hereſies, evading that of Revel. 2. 20. to be meant of Miniſters, not Magiſtrates, and of ſpirituall cenſures not Civill, who yet are alike fallible and ſubject to error and miſtake, the Magiſtrates in Civill judgements, and Miniſters in ſpirituall, as they are in puniſhing corporally in matters of Idolatrie, Hereſie, and indeed conſidering the ſtate of the queſtion of Magiſtrates coercive Power in matters of Religion, as I have laid it downe in the Prolegomena, and ſo is to be underſtood viz. that the Magiſtrate is to doe it upon advice and after advice in all difficult doubtfull caſes with the ableſt Godlieſt Miniſters in the Church, by the advice of Synods, with Solemne Prayers, after meant of inſtruction and conviction uſed to the parties, which means and helps being not in Civill cauſes nor in the cenſures of particular Churches, are more liable to error and miſtake then Magiſtrates: So that if Magiſtrates and Churches may puniſh, the one corporally in matters of the ſecond Table, the other ſpiritually in caſes of both (as is confeſſed by our grand Patrons of Toleration) notwithſtanding their fallibilitie and poſſibilitie of miſtake, then in difficult doubtfull caſes Magiſtrates may puniſh in matters of the firſt Table, notwithſtanding they are men of very fallible judgements; or in caſe the want of the Magiſtrates infallibilitie puts a ſuperſedeas to his coercive Power in matters of Religion, the ſame want deprives him of Power in Civill things, and Miniſters in Eccleſiaſtical, becauſe of their Poſſibilitie of erring in both: By all which the Reader may ſee tis a very rotten foundation both to build upon, or to take away the Power of cenſuring evill and erroneous perſons upon the infallibilitie or fallibilitie of thoſe who have Authoritie from God; no, certainly, this Power and dutie of thoſe who are in place both in Church and State, are founded on the Ordinance and Inſtitution of God, in appointing ſuch Offices, and in the nature of the Crimes and offences, and on the ends of vindicating Gods Glory and Name, and preſerving others from being ruined, &c, but never on that, that the perſons who ſhould exerciſe it were infallible and not ſubject to error, which that tis ſo, may be demonſtrated by theſe following reaſons. Firſt, In the Churches of the new Teſtament in the Apoſtles dayes when they had men amongſt them immediately inſpired, who could dictate the mind of Chriſt infallibly, and tell them the certaine meaning of any Scripture, notwithſtanding all that Infallibilitie and Immediateneſſe of Inſpiration, ſuch Perſons Tenets and Practiſes (though erroneous and miſtakes) as by the rules of faith and love could and might be tolerated and ſuffered, were tolerated, and the Apoſtles in thoſe things ſo far from giving any directions to the Churches for withdrawing or excommunicating, that they give commands to the contrary, namely to receive, bear with, pleaſe ſuch, and not our ſelves, follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie another, and whereto we have already attained to walk by the ſame Rule, as theſe Scriptures Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 19. Rom. 15, 1, 2, 3. Phil. 3. 15, 16. with divers of the like kind ſhow: The holding the day of Chriſt to be at hand, was an error, and Paul writes pathetically to diſſwade the Theſſalonians from it 2 Theſ. 2. 1, 2, 3. yet for all that hee accounts them brethren, and ſo I might inſtance in other ſuch particulars; whereas on the contrary in damnable Hereſies, Sciſmes, and ſuch like, as denying the reſurrection of the dead, holding Circumciſion neceſſary to Iuſtification, in denying Jeſus Chriſt to be come in the fleſh, in teaching the Doctrines of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, in ſeparating themſelves and going out from the Church, the Apoſtles are againſt all ſuffering, bearing with, receiving of, and for rejecting, delivering up to Satan and cutting of all ſuch, as theſe Scriptures teſtifie 1 Tim. 1. 20. Tit. 3. 10. Gal. 1. 8, 9. Gal. 5. 12. the ſecond Epiſtle of Iohn. 7. 9, 10. Jude 19, 23 v. Revel. 2. 14, 15, 20. with many more. Now in the Tenets, Opinions and Practiſes of the firſt ſort, the Apoſtles could have reſolved the Romans, Philippians as infallibly, who held the truth, and who in the error in thoſe particulars, as in the latter of Hereſies: This is acknowledged by Maſter Burroughs himſelfe in page 59 60, 61. of his Heart diviſions, even where he pleads for a Toleration in all points doubtfull and controverted among godly men, who writes thus, all theſe people ſpoken of in Rom. 14 were not in the right, for a man not to eat fleſh out of conſcience when the thing was not forbidden, certainly was a ſin, or to make conſcience of a Holy Day which God required not, was a ſin: Now the Apoſtle did not come with his Authoritie, and ſay, I will make you leave of keeping ſuch dayes, or you ſhall eate, or to abſtaine thus as you doe is evill, and it muſt not be ſuffered in you. No, the Apoſtle layes no Apoſtlicall Authoritie upon them, but tels them, That every man muſt bee ful y perſwaded in his owne mind in what he doth; and who art thou that judgeſt another mans ſervant? the Lord hath received him. And yet the Governours of the Church in the Primitive times might upon much ſtronger grounds have ſtood upon ſuch a Principle, then any Governours of the Church now can; there was leſſe Reaſon why they ſhould ſuffer any difference in Opinion or Practiſe amongſt them, then why wee ſhould ſuffer differences amongſt us; for they had men amongſt them immediately inſpired, who could dictate the mind of Chriſt infallibly, they could tell them the certaine meaning of any Scripture; And yet we ſee plainly, the Apoſtle applies himſelfe both in the Romans and Philippians rather to preſſe mutuall forbearance, and keeping the Vnitie of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace, uſing all arguments of that kind, as God hath received him, be that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord; and hee that regardeth not the day to the Lord, he doth not regard it, he that cateth eateth to the Lord, &c. Nevertheleſſe whereunto wee have attained let us walk by the ſame Rule; and if in any thing you be otherwiſe minded, God ſhall reveale even this unto you, then from God immediately and infallibly to declare who were in the right and truth in thoſe particulars wherein they differed, and thereupon to command the others to be of their mind and Practiſe in all the particulars, or elſe upon ſuch an infallible reſolution to declare they ought to be caſt out of the Church, and no communion hold with them: By all which tis evident, that Infallibility and opportunitie of immediateneſſe of conſultation with God is not the formall Ground of cenſure, but the nature of the things themſelves, being deſtructive to faith, Godlineſſe, and edifying: for if the power of puniſhing had beene founded on infallibilitie, ſeeing the Apoſtles were as able and infallible to give certaine reſolutions in the matter of dayes, meate, and drinks and ſuch like, as in matters of faith, they would have given other manner of Rules then they did in Rom. 14. Phil. 3. And indeed if Hagiomaſtize infallibilitie were good, what reaſon can be given why the Apoſtles did not proceed with all errors and all perſons, as with Hymene s, Alexander, and the woman Ieſable, which cleerly ſhowes the lawfulneſſe of cenſures lay not in the infallible knowledge of the Governours of the Church but the Apoſtles in perſons and things themſelves, the one ſort weak peaceable Chriſtians holding the head, and communion with the body, the other turbulent, wilful, holding Doctrins ſubverting in the foundation, the precious ſoules of men and godlines: And certainly if infallibility were not the juſt ground and formall reaſon of cenſuring, but ſome other thing, then fallibility a poſſibility of miſtaking in ſome things cannot be a juſt cauſe of taking away all power of puniſhing from Governors, and that in all points though never ſo deſtructive to Gods glory and the ſoules of men. Secondly in the new Teſtament there are many commands given, and many ••• les laid down both for thoſe times wherein they were written, and for all times till the comming of Chriſt, unto perſons, who were not infallible nor immediately inſpired, concerning Hereſies and Hereticks, Sciſmes and Sciſmaticks, to beware of folk Prophets, and falſe Teachers, to avoid, reject, and turne away from them, not to beleeve every Spirit, but to try the Spirits whether they are of God, not to receive into houſe, neither to bid God ſpeed thoſe that traſgreſſe and abide not in the Doctrine of Chriſt, not to ſuffer thoſe who teach falſe Doctrine, and ſed ce the ſervants to God, to countend arneſtly the faith, to hold faſt the truth and ſound Doctrine ſhow was theſe Scriptures to whole Churches and particular Perſons, both private Chriſtians, and Paſtors, and Teachers, not Apoſtles and Prophets, the extraordinary Officers Rom. 1. 16, 17, 18. Phil. 3. 2. 1. Tim. 6. 5. 2 Pet. 3. 17. 1 John 4. 3. 2. Epiſt. John 9. 10. Jud 3. Revel. 2. 14, 20. Revel. 3. Now however the Apoſtles and Prophets in thoſe Primitive times were infallible and immediately inſpired (of whoſe immediate infallibilitie how farre, and in what way, whether only in penning the holy Scriptures, or how elſe, whether Chamier Panſtrat. Cathol. De Canon. & ſumma Regula Fidei. Apoſtoli fuerunt infallibiles ex particulari aſſistentia spiritus, habuerunt particularem non habitualem aſſiſtentiam ſpiritus Lutherus, ſpirtus Sanctus non ſemper tangit corda Propheta um. ex hubituali aſſe •• entia Spiritus or only de particulere aſſiſtantia Spiritus I ſhall ſpeake at large in the ſecond part of my Anti-Toleration, in anſwering that Objection, we have now no externall infallible Iudge) yet all thoſe they w •• t unto in their Epiſtles, every particular beleever, man and woman were not, neither are infallible, not the Elect Lady and her children, not all the beleeving Romans, nor all thoſe Chriſtians to whom the Epiſtle generall of Iohn and Iude were written, nor thoſe Angels of the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira, nor Chriſtians in our times to whom thoſe commands and Rules are written and given by the Apoſtles, as well as thoſe who then lived, (for the Epiſtles did not concerne the times and the particular Churches and perſons only to whom they were written as ſome wickedly affirme) and yet theſe are commanded to ſtand faſt in the Faith, to avoid thoſe who cauſe diviſions contrary to the Doctrine which they have learned, to prove al things, are reproved & found fault with by the Spirit of God for not cenſuring of Hereſie, falſe Doctrine, &c. which fully proves true Doctrine may be known from falſe, falſe Teachers may be diſcovered and cenſured by perſons not infallible, and ſo the judging of what is Hereſie, Sciſm, and who is a Heretick or a Sciſmatick, and the puniſhing, or not puniſhing of them depends not upon infallibilitie or fallibilitie of Spirit, infallibilitie is not the ground of cenſure, nor fallibilitie of non cenſure. Thirdly, The Apoſtles who were infallibly and immediately inſpired, yet in caſes of Controverſie ariſing in the Church, and in cenſures and determinations thereupon, did not act from infallibility and immediatenes of Anſwers from God, but from Scripture grounds by way of reaſoning and diſputation deduced, and in a Synodical way by the joint common reſolution of Elders as well as themſelves, as is evident by Acts 15. Acts 21. 18, 19, 20, 21. In that diſſention that Paul and Barnabas had with certainemen that came downe from Judea about circumciſion, Paul and Barnabas were able to have determined it without their and others going up to Jeruſalem to the Apoſtles and Elders: Paul by his Apoſtolicall infallible Spirit, could have determined as in Gal. 5. 2. Behold, I Paul ſay unto you that if you be circumciſed, Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing; but the whole buſineſſe is debated, decreed, and the decrees ſent forth by Synodicall Authoritie determined according to the word of God, and not by extraordinary immediate infallible inſpiration of the Spirit, the proofe of which ſeing the Reader may find ſo fully and largely in many learned Whitak. Controv. 3. quaeſt. 6 An Aſſertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, Second part cap. 8. Maſter Rutherfurds Due right of Preſbyteries, Acts. 15. A pattern of a juridicall Synod. Diodat. Annot. in Acts 15. The Divine Right of Church government, firſt edit. page 223, 224, 125. Becauſe the manner of proceeding in this Synod convened was not extraordinary and Apoſtolicall, as when they acted by an immediate infallible inſpiration of the ſpirit, in penning the holy Scripture (without all diſputing, examining, or judging of the matter that they writ, ſo farre as we can read) 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. 2 Pet. 1. 20. 21. but ordinary Presbyteriall and Synodall by ordinary helpes and meanes (as after ſhall appeare more fully) ſtating the Queſtion proof and evidence from Scripture what was the good and acceptable will of God, concerning the preſent Controverſie, and upon evidence of Scripture, concluding, It ſeemed good to the holy Ghoſt, and to us Act. 15. 28. which words any Aſſembly, having like cleare evidence of Scripture for their determination, may without preſumption uſe as well as this Synod did. They proceeded deliberatively by diſcourſes and diſputes, deliberating about the true ſtate of the Queſtion, and the remedy of the Scandall: They proceeded after all their deliberative inquiries and diſputes deciſively to conclude and determine the matter. Maſter Cotton in his Tractate of the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven (though of the Independent way) page 48, 49 writes thus, of Act 25. Neither did the Apoſtles determine the matter (as hath been ſaid) by the Apoſtolicall authority from immediate revelation, but they aſſembled together with the Elders to conſider of the matter, verſe 6. and a multitude of brethren together with them, verſe 12, 22, 23. and after ſearching out the cauſe by an ordinary means of diſputation, verſe 7. Peter cleared it by the witneſſe of the ſpirit to his Miniſtery in Cornelius his family, Paul and Barnabas by the like effect of their Miniſtery among the Gentiles: James confirmed the ſ meby the Teſtimony of the Prophets, wherewith the whole Synod being ſatisfied, they determined of a judiciall ſentence, and of a way to publiſh it by letters and Meſſengers, in which they cenſure the falſe Teachers as troublers of their Church, and ſubverters of their ſoules, they reject the Impoſition of Circumciſion, a Yoake which neither they nor their Fathers were able to beare, they impoſe upon the Churches none but ſome neceſſary obſervations, and them by way of that Authoritie which the Lord had given them, verſe 28. Authors I ſhall ſpare to write anything of it. So upon Pauls comming to Hieruſalem Acts 21. and the offence that many thouſands of the Iewes which beleeved and were zealous of the Law took at him, Paul went not upon his own infallibilitie of Spirit or immediate Revelation, but upon the joint councell and direction of Iames and all the Elders verſe 18. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26. Now if the Apoſtles in judging of falſe Doctrine and Sciſme, cenſuring the Authors of theſe and impoſing upon the Churches their Decrees to be kept (all which are ſpoken of in A ts 15.) proceeded not in the way of infallible immediate Revelation from God, laid it aſide as it were, but in an ordinary way, by Scripture, reaſon, experience upon and after much debate, as is apparent from verſe 6. to verſe 30. then tis evident that immediatneſſe of Revelation, with infallibilitie of Spirit is not the ſole judge of Hereſies and Errors, and the only juſt reaſon of inflicting puniſhments upon Hereticks and Sciſmaticks.

Seventhly, beſides the other falſe Suppoſitions laid down by Hagiomaſtix in his 36. Sect. as the enquiring by Vrim and Thummim in caſes of Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, as that Inallibilitie is the ground of coercive power, &c, this alſo is falſe that he ſuppoſeth under the new Teſtament, there is no Infallibilitie nor certaintie to be had in difficult, doubtfull matters of Religion, but that in thoſe things we walk at midnight, in compariſon of thoſe under the old Law who walked at noon day, which aſſertion of the uncertaintie and darkeneſſe of the Church in points of Religion under the new Teſtament compared with the old, is contrary to theſe grounds. Firſt, to many prophecies of the ſtate of the Church after Chriſts comming, which ſpeak that then the earth ſhall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the Sea, and the light of the Moon ſhall bee as the light of the Sunne, and the light of the Sun ſhall be ſeven ſold as the light of ſeven dayes, and unto the manner of the Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Grace under the new Teſtament, which however for ſubſtance was but one and the ſame under the Law, and the Goſpel, yet for manner of Diſpenſation and Application differed and is various, as many Ameſ. medul. Theolog. lib 1. cap. 38. cap. 39 Adminiſtrati . novi Teſtam. differt ab adminiſtratione priori, qualitate & quantitate. Qualitas differens qua pollet, eſt vel claritas, vel libertas. Divines ſhow, and one of the main differences between them in manner of Adminiſtration ſtands in this, that the Covenant of Grace under the new differs from the old in Cleerneſſe and Evidence, in that the Doctrine of grace and ſalvation by Chriſt, and of faith in him together with the Appendixes is more diſtinct and expreſſe then before it was, not being now under a vaile, but beheld with open face 2 Cor. 3. 12, 13, 17, 18. Secondly, then the Church of Chriſt under the new Teſtament ſhould be in a far worſe condition then the Iewes were under the old; for whereas they were ſure and certaine in their Religion, and had an infallible way of being reſolved in all doubts, Chriſtians now ſhould be in continuall doubts and uncertainties in matters of faith, not knowing what to doe, or whether to turne themſelves, which muſt needs be a moſt miſerable condition, and the Iewes caſe in the time, before Chriſts comming in the fleſh, was to be much preferred before ours; for the burden of being under the Pedagogy of the Law, with a certaintie and infallibilitie of knowing what to hold and beleeve, is a light burden in compariſon of being freed from the Ceremoniall Law, and in the meane time to be without all certaintie and aſſurance in points of faith and worſhip: Who would not chuſe rather to undergoe ſome burden with an infallibilitie and certaintie of Religion, then to enjoy a Libertie from a Yoake with an uncertaintie and continuall feares Is not the bondage of feare worſe; then a bondage of ceremonies and many outward Legal obſervations? If the deliverance of us from the Pedagogie of the Law hath brought us into this condition, out burden is greater in this thing then any that the Law laid upon the Iewes. Hath Chriſt delivered us from one burden to lay a greater upon us? Have wee not cauſe to ſay, Lord let any burthen of the Ceremoniall Law be laid upon our necks rather then this? Thirdly unto the end of Chriſtian Religion, and the knowledge of it as it is written in the Scriptures, particularly of the new Teſtament, which is thatVrſini Catechiſ. Quaeſt. 1. de Conſolat. Quae eſt vnica tua conſolatio in vita & in morte. Chriſtians may have conſolation and hope in life and death Rom. 15. 4. 1 Epiſt. John 1. 4. Now there can be no ſolid comfort, without certaintie and aſſurance of the truth of the thing, in it felſe at leaſt, which wee profeſſe; but in doubts, fears, uncertainties, the ſoule muſt needs be in perplexities, anxieties, as upon the rack, Feare hath torment 1 Iohn. 4. 18. But Secondly the infallibilitie and certaintie under the old Teſtament by Vrim and Thummim of the Prieſt, ſo much ſpoken of and magnified by Hagiomaſtix, above that under the new, was as much liable to queſtioning and doubts by cavilling, and contentious Spirits as the way under the new, and many exceptions might be made and Controverſies to ariſe, whether thoſe who were to give ſentence in caſes of Religion, upon the Anſwer by Vrim did according as they received it from God, or according to their own corrupt affection and intereſt, which conſidering what many of the Prieſts were under the old Teſtament, corrupt and partiall and the ſilent manner of Gods Anſwer by Vrim, might give occaſion of queſtioning, yea Hagiomaſtix himſelfe ſuppoſes and implies in ſome caſes a poſſibilitie of a wrong Anſwer and doing injuſtice after conſultation with the glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God, as theſe words ſhow, So that except thoſe that were to give ſentence in caſes of Religion had been deſperately wicked, end ſet upon bloud, and had deſpiſed the glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God amongſt them, they could not doe injuſtice: Now tis evident there were high Prieſts among them and ſuch who had power of ſentence in caſes of Religion that were deſperately wicked, who either might paſſe ſentence without enquiring by Vrim, or elſe not goe according to Gods Anſwer by Vrim, but according to the luſts of their owne hearts: Whoſoever does but conſider theſe examples following recorded in Scripture both of the Prieſts and other men, going flat contrary to the mind of God, and immediate Anſwers from him, will not wonder but be ſatisfied. The Prieſts in Ieremiahs time were deſperately wicked and ſet upon bloud, even upon having Ieremiahs bloud, pronouncing ſentence upon him, This man is worthy to die, and Thou ſhalt ſurely die, Jerem. 26. 8, 11. and there were many complaints by Ieremiah, Ezekiel, and other Prophets, of the Prieſts, and cheife Prieſts being out of the way through ſtrong drink, erring in viſion, and ſtumbling in judgement, ſaying to a ſtock, Thou art my Father, and to a ſtone, Thou haſt brought me forth, &c offering violence to the Law and Prophaning of holy things, putting no difference between the holy and prophane, hiding there eyes from the Sabbaths: the chiefe of the Prieſts, tranſgreſſing very much and polluting the houſe of the Lord, which he had hallowed in Ieruſalem Eſay 28. 7. Ierem. 2. 27. Ezek. 22. 26. 2 Chron. 36. 14. Now if the Prieſts would doe all this when they degenerated, offer violence to the Law, ſay to a ſtock thou art my Father, pollute the houſe of the Lord, and much more that is recorded in the Scripture of them, then there is no queſtion to be made, but they might pervert the ſentence by Vrim and give an Anſwer quite contrary to what they received immediately and infallibly from God, therby condemning the innocent and clearing the guiltie, making that prophecying falſly as in Ieremiahs caſe which was Prophecying truly, making that Blaſphemie which was none: Yea, they are particularly taxed for erring in viſion, and ſtumbling in judgement, which words probably may be meant of their judgement by Vrim, the Prieſts Anſwers in that way being cald the judgement of Vrim and judgement in divers places of Scripture as Numb. 27. 21. Exod. 28. 15, 29, 30. So that for all Hagiomaſtixs cleer reaſon, if the Vriah the Prieſt made an idolatrous Altar 2 King. 16. 11, 16. Willets Synopſ. Contro. of the Scriptures 2. part 6 quaeſt. &c. Prieſts were corrupt and partiall under the Law, as ſome good Prieſts in ſome particular caſes might be, and were, as Aaron in the golden calſe, Eli in the matter of his ſonnes Hophni & Phinehas, and wicked ones would certainly be, the Iews might be in danger in matters of Religion to be puniſhed unjuſtly then in thoſe dayes, notwithſtanding their Prieſts had immediate and infallible Anſwers from God, as well as Chriſtians now under the new Teſtament; beſides, if we conſider what the way of Anſwering by Vrim was and that as diſtinguiſhed byVnto all I have ſaid in page 102. and page 112. of the way of anſwering by Vrim, I ſhall add as followes, Dr. Maines Sermon of falſe Prophets Page 30. 31. The Prieſt wore two precious ſtones in his Breaſt-Plate, cald the Vrim and Thummim, through which according as they did at times caſt a bright, or di •• er luſtre, God revealed his pleaſure or diſpleaſure to the People, and ſpoke to them by the ſparcle of a Iewell, as he did at other times by the mouth of a Prophet. Suppoſe the Prieſt who wore the Breaſt-Plate ſhould have belied his Jewels, and when the People came to enquire of him ſhould have interpreted a Pale for a bright Ray to the People; or ſuppoſe he ſhould have taken out the true and have placed two counterfeit Iewe in his Breaſt Plate, and ſhould have taught them not to ſparcle by the certainty and holineſſe of their owne impartiall fires, but according to the deſires and Plots of the Conſulters. Ainſworth on Exod. 28. 15, 30. Breaſt-Plate in Hebrew Choſhen, it hath affinitie with Chaſhah, that ſignifieth ſilence, as implying a ſilent Oracle to be ſeen on the Breaſt of the high Prieſt, rather then heard. The manner of asking councell is recorded by the Hebrewes to be thus. When they inquired, the Prieſt ſtood with his face before the A k; and he that enquired ſtood behind him with his face to the back of the Prieſt; and the Inquirer ſaid, ſhall I go up? or ſhall I not; And forthwith the Holy Ghoſt came upon the Prieſt, and he beheld the Breaſt Pla e, and ſaw therein by the viſion of Prophecie, Goe up, or not goe up in the letters that ſhowed themſelves upon the Breaſt-Plate before his face. Rabbins and other Divines from ſome other wayes of Gods Anſwers, not by a loud voice that all who came to enquire might heare the Anſwer as well as the Prieſt, but in a ſilent way and manner, revealed only to the Prieſt either by inſpiration, or by looking into his breaſt-Plate upon the darkneſſe or brightneſſe of his Iewels by which he knew, or by ſome letters in the breaſt-Plate in which he read the will of God, and ſo by the Prieſt communicated to the Iudges, and ſtanders by, but if the Prieſts would pretend other Anſwers from God then he gave, how ſhould the Iewes diſprove them, and what more certaintie had thoſe who in difficult doubtfull caſes came to the high Prieſt to enquire by Vrim (ſeing they received the Anſwers not from God immediately but from the high Prieſt, and the Prieſt might poſſibly deceive them in caſes falling out about their own children or neer bloud ſhowing partialitie and affection) then may be had by us now in theſe times; nay going according to Maſter Goodwins Principles, that the ſentence of the high Prieſt was by Vrim and not by the Law, the judgement of Vrim from the Prieſt was the ſupreme and laſt Iudge, in caſe the Prieſts would be falſe, as in ſome particular caſes they might, the Iewes were in a more uncertaine and worſe condition, then if to be judged by the Law, or wee in theſe dayes, who if our Magiſtrates and Iudges ſhould degenerate might appeale to the Scriptures and urge them to them whereby to convince them, but ſo could not the Iewes according to Hagiomaſtixs Doctrine, the Prieſt by Vrim being appealed to in caſes where they ſuppoſe the Law could not helpe; and laſtly, if wee conſider how Prophets under the old Teſtament, who were as immediately and infallibly inſpired, as the high Prieſt by Vrim, yet in all their Anſwers and Dictates were not without all poſſibilitie of miſtake, as is evident by Nathans Anſwer to David 2 Sam. 7. 4, 5. &c, nor without all danger of deceiving thoſe they ſpake to, as is to be ſeen in that example of the old Prophet in Bethel 1 Kings 13. 11, 17, 18, 21. and divers other places of Scripture ſpeaking of Prophets, wee may eaſily conceive how Magiſtrates and Iudges then might be liable to error as well as now, eſpecially if they tooke all the Prieſts and Prophets ſaid without comparing and examining thoſe things by the Law: So that by all this and a great deal more that might be ſpoken to this effect, as the Magiſtrates and Prieſts combining together, &c. the Iewes to whom the Law was given for putting falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, to death for all the opportunitie of immediate conſultation with the mouth of God himſelfe by Vrim, and by Prophets might in many caſes have been deceived, miſtaken, and in as great uncertaintie every way as Hagiomaſtix ſuppoſes the Church to be in under the new Teſtament. Thirdly, ſuppoſing and granting there had been ſuch a certaintie and infallibilitie in the matters of Religion under the old Law as is contended for by Hagiomaſtix, and that free of all the exceptions now ſpoken of, yet I affirme there is an infallibilitie and certaintie under the new alſo in the Doctrines of faith and worſhip, and Chriſtian Magiſtrates may infallibly and certainly know ſuch and ſuch Doctrines to be falſe, and ſuch true, ſuch Practiſes and ſpeeches to be Idolatrous, blaſphemous as well as the Iewiſh Magiſtrates did, and ſuppoſing that true which Hagiomaſtix ſaith, that the Iewiſh Magiſtrates had a certaintie of knowledge in all difficult caſes of Relgion by the judgement of Vrim which Chriſtian Magiſtrates have not, yet in another way and by other means they may have a certaintie and infallibilitie that theſe and theſe Doctrines are of God, and other Doctrines are not of God: when there are three or foure wayes to come to the certaine knowledge of a thing, a man may be ſure and certaine in one or two, though he have not all the wayes, A Iudge who hath three or foure honeſt witneſſes and many circumſtances, with the parties own confeſſion may be certaine though he might not ſee the fact committed, nor have all wayes of knowledge that poſſible may be, and ſo may Magiſtrates now in this caſe of Religion though they ſhould want ſome one way the Magiſtrates under the new Teſtament had; And for the certaintie and infallibilitie in matters of Religion under the new Teſtament, it may apeeare thus, 1. Hagiomaſtix muſt confeſſe upon his own Principles, that during the Apoſtles times (which was under the new Teſtament) in all difficult caſes that happened about matters of Religion, Chriſtian Magiſtrates might have had the ſame opportunities of immediate and infallible Anſwers as under the old, Apoſtles, Prophets then having as infallible immediate Revelations from God as the high Prieſts, and therefore in caſe there had been Chriſtian Magiſtrates in the Apoſtles days they might by this reaſon have exerciſed coercive power on Apoſtates, Hereticks, and Blaſphemers, as well as the Iewiſh Magiſtrates, by which tis apparent thoſe Lawes about falſe Prophets and Blaſphemers were not only old Teſtament Lawes proper for Moſes Paedagogie, but new Teſtament Lawes, and that for the prime flouriſhing ſtate of the new Teſtament, the Apoſtles times. Secondly, the Independents and Sectaries in many of their Books, Sermon and Diſcourſes tell us of a time at hand wherein there will be a new and marveilous light, when wee ſhall cleerly and certainly know the truth of theſe things now ſo much doubted of and controverted, of the nature of a viſible Church, of the Government of the Church, and ſuch like. Now then upon Maſter Goodwins cleare reaſon, the old Teſtament Law for the putting of falſe Prophets, &c to death, ſhould be in force under the new Teſtament as well as under the old, becauſe then in all difficult caſes in worſhip, Doctrine, &c, the Chriſtians that live in thoſe times may infallibly and certainly know the mind and pleaſure of God in them. Maſter Goodwin in his Poſtſcript or Appendix to H giomaſtix (the ſcope of which Diſcourſe is to make inval'd that Zach. 13. 3. from being any ground for Civill coercive Power againſt falſe Prophets) among other evaſions interprets theA Poſtſcript or Appendix to a Treat. intituled Hagiomaſtix page 21. 22, 24, 25. place to relate to thoſe times of refreſhing to the Iewiſh Church and Nation, the time when God intends to build up the Iewes again into a Church of far more inward grace and holines; into a Nation of far more outward beauty ſtrength and glory, then ever was their portion ſince they firſt became a Church or Nation unto this day, either in the one kind or in the other. Now of that particular time and day of the new Teſtament tis eſpecially Prophecied, that outward coercive Power ſhall be exerciſed upon falſe Prophets, And it ſhall come to paſſe that when any ſhall yet Propheſit, then his Father and his Mother that begat him ſhall ſay unto him, Thou ſhalt not live: for thou ſpeakeſt lyes in the name of the Lord, and his Father and his Mother that begat him, ſhall thruſt him through when he Prophecieth. As for Hagiomaſt. figurative ſenſe put upon theſe words againſt the literall and proper, and other his gloſſes to corrupt the text, I ſhall ſpeak to them in the 19. Theſis, where I ſhall prove that Zach. 13. 3. to be a good proofe of the Magiſtrates coercive Power under the Goſpel. Thirdly, for that time and thoſe dayes under the new Teſtament, between the Primitive Apoſtolicall Churches, and the calling of the Iewes, into which we fall and among which our times are to be numbred, there is an infallibilitie and certaintie to be had in Doctrines of faith and Chriſtian Religion, and the beſt Oracles Magiſtrates have to direct them in matters of Religion now, are not fallible and every way obnoxious unto error and miſtake. The Scriptures are an infallible and certaine rule, the voice and word of God himſelfe, God ſpeaking by them as by Vrim and Thummim: LearnedSi de judici divino loquantur, affirmamus extare in Eccleſia firmum & perpetuum judicium de omnibus fidei dogmatibus nimirum judicium Dei loquentis in Scripturis; non enim argumentis refellendùs, ſed interal 〈◊〉 reputandu eſt, qui neg t in Scripturis de rebus fidei eſſe ab ipſo 〈◊〉 ſententiam, eamque intelligibilem, firmam & i fallibilam pag. 104. Biſhop Davenant in his Diſputation De judice ac norma fidei & Cultus Chriſtiani, in anſwering that objection of the Papiſts, if generall Councels could erre, their ſhould be no firme Iudgement in the Church to compoſe Controverſies, anſwers, If the Papiſts ſpeak of a humane judgement we acknowledge non ſo firme and infallible to which all men may ſafely and ſecurely commit their faith without triall. But if they ſpeak of a divine judgement, we affirme there is a firme and perpetuall judgement in the Church of all the Doctrines of faith, namely the judgement of God ſpeaking in the Scriptures: for he is not to be confuted with arguments, but to be reckoned among Atheiſts who denies in the Scriptures in the things of faith that there is a ſentence pronounced by God himſelfe, and that intelligible, firme and infallible. Were thoſe Anſwers by Divine inſpiration and immediate Revelation? So are the Scriptures of divine inſpiration and immediate revelation alſo 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by inſpiration of God, 2 Pet. 1. 20, 21. No Propheſie of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation, for the Prophecie came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God ſpake as they were moved by the holy Ghoſt, were thoſe Anſwers ſure and certaine the Oracles of God among them? ſo are the Scriptures ſure and certain, Pſal. 19. 7. The Teſtimony of the Lord is ſure, Luke 1. 3. 4. that Goſpel was written that Theophilus might know the certaintie of thoſe things wherein he had been inſtructed, Coloſ. 2. 2. there is a full aſſurance of underſtanding to know the miſterie of God, and of the Father, and of Chriſt, the Scriptures are cald the Oracles of God Acts 7. 38. Rom. 3. 2. 1 Pet. 4. 11, as well as the judgement by Vrim, to ſhow they are infallible and certaine, Maſter Goodwin in his Anapologeſiates page 103. ſaith of ſome Doctrines that he holds, For my part I have the grounds of God, I mean the Scripture: I would fain know of Hagiomaſtix what made the Anſwer by Vrim to be infallible, and to be beleeved and reſted in by thoſe who came to enquire, but that God who was true and infallible ſaid ſo, and revealed it, and is there not the ſame in the Doctrines contained in the Scriptures? hath not God who is truth, and infallible revealed and declared them in Scriptures and thereupon propounded them to be beleeved: The Doctrines of faith muſt be laid downe certainly and infallibly in Scriptures, both from the Gerſon in compend. Theolo. Fidei nec falſum, nec dubium ſubeſſe poteſt. Davenant. de judice ac norma fidei pag. 6. Omnia fidei dogmata ex parte materiae credendae debent habere certam, infallibilem & indubitabilem veritatem. nature of faith which in reſpect of the matter to be beleeved muſt have certaine, infallible, and undoubted truth, and not that which is falſe or doubtfull, and from thePrincipium & norma fidei eſt veritas & revelatio divina, Voet. Select. Diſput. de Petribus. Davenant. de Judice ac norma fidei, pag. 7. tolle authoritatem Dei revelantis, cuicunque dogmati, poterit fortaſſe opinioni ſive ſcientiae ſubeſſe, fidei autem Christianae non poterit. Baron. Apol. pro Diſput. de formali objecto fidei Tractat. 3. de Revel. divina c 3. & 4. formall reaſon and ground of beleeving which is the Authoritie of God who is true and infallible revealing his mind, & not the Teſtimonie of the Church; as alſo from the end and uſe of the Scriptures to be the Canon and Rule of faith: Now the Canon of a thing, eſpecially the ſupreme & cheif by which all other are to be tried and judged of, had need be certain and known, and not doubtful, and unknown. Learned Rivet and other Proteſtant Divines writing of that queſtion againſt the Papiſts, of the Scriptures being the Canon and Rule of faith, ſpeak thus, the Canon and Rule of faith muſt be certaine and known. The Cloppen. Disputat. de Cano. Th olog. Theſis pri. Certitudinem & infallibilitatem Canoni flagitat ipſa metaphora qua nomen tranſlatum eſt a Menſura non privata quavis ſed publica & authentica illa ad quam lege & Edicto Magiſtratus commenſuratae eſſe debent. Rivet. Catholi Orthodox. Tract. Prim. Quaeſt. 17. Bellar. de Verbo Dei l. x. c. 2. Regula catholicae fidei certa notaque eſſe debet: nam ſi nota non ſit regula nobis non erit: ſi certa non ſit nec regula quidem erit. Daven. De Jud. ac nor. fidei c. 11. Regula fidei firma ac conſtans eſſe debet. beſt Proteſtant Divines writing againſt the Papiſts of the Canon of the Srcipture ſhow that is one principall requiſite to make a Canon and Rule that it ſhould be certaine and infallible; the Metaphor it ſelfe from whence the name is borrowed viz. not from any private meaſure, but the publick and allowed according to which by the Law all other are to be meaſured, demonſtrates the certaintie and infallibilitie of a Canon and Rule: that which in it ſelfe is uncertaine and variable cannot be the Canon or rule of any Doctrine much leſſe of faith: Yea * Bellarmine himſelfe diſputing for the Scriptures againſt Enthuſiaſts proves the Rule of the Catholick faith muſt be certaine and known, for if it be not knowne it cannot bee a rule, and if it be not certaine neither ſhall it be a rule. Whoever is but verſed in the writings of Proteſtant Divines upon that head of the Scriptures againſt Papiſts on the one hand, and Anabaptiſts on the other, or who ſo will conſult them as Whitak. Contro. 1. de Scripturae Authoritate, Interpretatione Perfectione. Whitaker, Chamier. Panſtrat. Cathol. De Cano. 6 & Summa Regul. Fidei. Chamier, Rivet. Cathol. Orthod. Tract. Prim. De Scripiurae Perſpicu. de judice Controverſ. de Regul Infallib. controverſ de Canone Scripturae. Rivet, Ameſ. Bellar. encrvat. De confeſſione Bellar. circa Scripturam ſacram De Scripturae perſpicuitate ſufficientia de Judice controverſiarum Ameſius, Davenant. De Judice ac norma Fidei & Cultus Chriſtiani. Biſhop Davenant, Whites way to the Church from pag. 31. to 63. Whites way to the true Church, Gerard. Tom. 1. de Scriptura. Gerardus, Baron. Apodix. Cathol. Tract. prim. Caput. 1, 2. Tract. 7. cap. 3. Robertus Baronius, Macc. loc. commun. de Script. Author. Perſpicuit. Interpret. Maccovius, Will. Synopſ. The firſt generall controv. concerning the Scriptures. Willets Synopſis, Spanhem. Theſ. de Script. contra Anabaptiſt. Spanhemius, Cloppenburg. Diſput. de can. Theolog. Cloppen. Gangraen. Anabapt. de Scriptura ſacra, & Verbo Deo interuo. Cloppenburgius, ſhall find the infallibilitie and certaintie of the Scriptures and of the Doctrines of faith contained in them under the new Teſtament abundantly cleared and made good, and the cavils about the interpretations of Scripture, the need of a viſible infallible Iudge, of every mans private Spirit being Iudge, &c fully anſwered, and therefore I ſhall not enlarge further on it; only I ſhall briefly adde, that God in theſe times of the new Teſtament hath left this threefold way, and means of infallible certainty in Doctrines of Faith and Worſhip. Firſt, the Scriptures, and more eſpecially ſince the Canon hath been ſealed and compleated, contains and holds forth all things neceſſary to ſalvation, and out of them they may be certainly and infallibly known: the word of God written is an inflexible golden rule (not leaden nor be bent) for all matters of faith and manners, and there is ſuch a certaintie of the Doctrines of faith laid down in the Scriptures, that 1. all poins of faith neceſſary to ſalvation are plainly therein ſet forth, ſo that all men who have ſpirituall eares and eyes may underſtand their meaning, which poſition beſides that tis held generally by our moſt learned Whitak. Contro. prim. De Scripturae perſpicuit. quaeſt. 4. Omniae quae ſunt ad ſalutem neceſſaria apertis verbis in Scripturis proponi. Daven. De Judice ac norma pag. 9. In omni controverſia de doctrina fidei, aut praeceptis morum ad ſalutis neceſſariis, ſpiritum ſanctum tam perſpicue judicaſſe per ſcripturas, ut omnes intelligant ejus ſententiam, quibus aures & oculi ſpirituales non deſunt. Verbi cauſa, de vera Chriſti incarnatione ſententiam de finitivameamque planam & evidentem tulit ſpiritus ſanctus verbum caro factum John 1. 14. Willets firſt generall controverſie, quaeſt. 5. Whites way to the true Church, pag. 31. The Jeſuite can name no one neceſſary Article of our Faith, but the Word teacheth it as plaine as himſelf can: as that there is one God, three perſons, a generall refurrection and judgement, that Jeſus is the Saviour of mankind, &c. Rivet. Cathol. Orthod. Tract. Prim. quaeſt. 6. Cloppenburg. Diſput de Scriptura, Macco. Diſput. 7. de Perſpicuitate Scripturae, Ameſ. Bellar. Enervat. Tom. 1. De verbo Dei, cap. 4. de Scripturae perſpicuitate, omnia illa quae ſunt intellectu neceſſaria ad ſalutem, apertiſſimè in Scripturis proponi. Divines againſt the Papiſts, may be demonſtrated by theſe places of Scripture and reaſons, as Pſal. 19. 7. 8. enlightning the eyes, making wiſe the ſemple, Pſal. 119, 105. 2 Pet. 1. 20. compared to a candle, and a light to our feet and paths, to a light ſhining in a darke place, Deut. 30. 11. the commandement is not hidden, all which ſhow the clearenes and plainneſſe of the Scriptures: the Scripture in evident places calleth us to ſearch it and ſeeke to it as John. 5. 39. Eſay 8. 20, &c, which had been to no purpoſe if they could not bee underſtood: againe, the end of the Scripture is for our learning Rom. 15. 4. but now obſcuritie and things not to be underſtood ex diametro oppoſe learning: laſtly, I might produce a multitude of pregnant quotations out of the Fathers, Juſtin Martyr, Chryſoſtome, Auſtin, Clemens Alexandrinus, Iſidorus Peluſiota, Gregorius, &c ſpeaking of Gods fitting the Scriptures even to the capacity of Babes and Sucklins, of the Scriptures being a River wherein the Lamb may walke and the Elephant may ſwim, of being a common light that ſhineth to all men, of being eaſie to be underſtood by the Plowman, the Artificer, the widow woman, and him that is moſt unlearned, but I remember I am handling the queſtion of Toleration, and not that of the Perſpicuitie of the Scriptures, and doe therefore conclude, affirming things neceſſary to ſalvation, to be ſo cleerly laid down in the Scriptures, that no man who can underſtand the words need doubt of the ſenſe. 2. There is not only a certaintie and aſſurance to be had from the Scriptures of things more plainly laid downe therein, the matters of faith abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, but from the Scriptures, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, conſidering of circumſtances, by juſt conſequences, and ſuch like, many hard doubtfull points in Religion which to one man alone, or to weak unlearned men are very uucertaine and doubtfull, yet by the helpe of many learned men in Synods and Councels going Gods way may from the Scriptures be made cleare and certaine: That place of Scripture Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. ſhowes us that hard matters and matters of Controverſie, too hard for a few Prieſts the lower Courts, may by the help of the higher Courts be ſo certainly and clearely reſolved from the ſentence of the Law, the written word in that time, that they who will not hearken in that caſe deſerve to die; and ſo in the new Teſtament ſome things in Pauls Epiſtles hard to be underſtood, which they that are unlearned and unſtable wreſt to their own deſtruction, learned men well ſetled in the faith may underſtand and beleeve certainly, and not be led away with their error to fall from their ſtedfaſtneſſe as that place in 2 Pet. 3. 16, 17. implies. That Controverſie in Acts 15. about keeping the Law of Moſes and circumciſion was hard and difficult conſidering that time and ſtate of the Church, as appeares by many paſſages in that chapter; and yet from the Scriptures by the means of a Synod after much diſputation and debate the truth was certainly reſolved on, and ſo received by the Churches, who when they heard it rejoyced in it Asts 15. 21.

Secondly, The Spirit of God in and by the Scriptures doth infallibly and certainly aſſure and perſwade the heart of the truth of the Doctrines of faith; tis a good ſaying ofSpiritus ſanctus non eſt Scepticus, nec dubia aut opiniones in cordibus noſtris ſcripſit, ſed aſſertiones ipſa vita & omni experientia certiores ac firmiores. Lutherus. Luther The holy Spirit is no Sceptick, neither doth it write doubts or opinions in our hearts, but aſſertions more certaine and firme then life it ſelfe and all experience. The illumination, inward Teaching, and Perſwaſion of the Spirit certainly aſſures us of the truth of the Doctrines of faith, John 16. 13. 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. 1 Ioh. 2. 20, 27. 1 John 5. 6. The Spirit of truth guides into all truth, It is the Spirit that beareth witneſſe becauſe the Spirit is truth, which Spirit as it ſeals and confirmes in our conſciences the truth of all the Doctrines of faith and ſalvation, ſo alſo it certainly perſwades us thoſe Books to be Canonicall, from whence all thoſe Doctrines of faith are drawn: But concerning theſe points of the Scriptures being the infallible inflexible Rule, and the Spirit of God ſpeaking in and by the Scripture being the ſupreme infallible Iudge in Controverſies of Religion, and of the Plerophorie wrought in the minds of the faithfull concerning the Scriptures and the Doctrines of faith therein contained by the illumination and inward perſwaſion of the Spirit, and that every mans private Spirit is not thereby made the Iudge of Controverſies, I referre the Reader for full ſatisfaction to the learned writings of Whitaker againſt the Papiſts upon that Controverſie of the Scriptures, De Scripturae Authoritate, perſpicuitate, & Interpretatione, of Rivet in his Catholicus, Orthodoxus, firſt Tract. Queſtion 8. 17. and his Iſagoge ad ſacram Scripturam cap. 19. 20, 21. of Davenant, De Judice ac norma Fidei, cap. 13. 30, 32, 33. and Cameron de eccleſiae conſtantia in retinenda veritate, 291. 292. 3. Beſides the certaintie and Infallibilitie by the Scriptures and the Spirit of God, there is a certaintie in points of Religion, even points controverted, for Chriſtian Magiſtrates to attaine unto, by means of the Miniſterie of the word in the preaching of Paſtors, and the Advice and reſolutions of Synods and Councels; for next after the abſolute ſupreme judgement of the Scriptures and the Spirit in queſtions of faith, God hath appointed a publick Davenant De Judice ac norma fidei cap. 3. cap. 14. Miniſteriall judgement of Paſtors and Synods who have a delegated power from the ſupreme Iudge, that what the Law hath defined in general, they ſhould according to the rule of the Law apply to particular caſes, Controverſies and Perſons: Now however, theſe Miniſteriall Iudges are ſubject to error and miſtake, Synods and Councels may erre, as the moſt earned Proteſtants hold againſt the Papiſts, yet for all that they may certainly and infallibly judge in matters of faith, yea and have: A man may certainly know ſome things, and yet not be infallible in all things: A Phyſition is not infallible in judging of the nature of all drugs, herbes, &c yet he may certainly know the nature of ſome drugs, and that ſuch a thing is ranck poiſon, of which the Reader may find more in thepage 4. 5. Vindication of the Ordinance againſt Hereſie, Blaſphemie &c, to which Hagiomaſtix anſwers never a word in his pretended Anſwer: Tis one thing to be ſubject to error, poſſe errare, and another thing actually to erre, de facto errare: it followes not becauſe Miniſters and Synods may erre, that therefore in all particular Articles of faith propounded by them they do erre: Tis a knowne Axiome in the Schooles, Apoſſe ad eſſe non valet conſequentia. And therefore Miniſters and Synods in their Interpretations and Deciſions going according to the word of God, which is infallible, judge infallibly, and may be ſaid to be infallible in their determinations in thoſe points: Hee that is directed by an infallible truth in his determinations, he determines infallibly, although he be a man of a fallible judgement. Thus many OrthodoxThe generall Councell of Nice condemned the Opinion of Arrius, the generall Councell of Conſtantinople condemned the Hereſie of Macedonius, the generall Councell of Chalcedon the Hereſie of Eutyches; a Synod at Ancyra, and others in Aſia condemned the Heretick Montanus. Councels and Synods in great Controverſies and maine points of faith have determined the truth certainly and infallibly, and ſo propounded them to the Churches to be certainly beleeved, not that they thought their judgement to be infallible, but that they knew the word of God according to which they judged to be infallible. Doctor Cap. 18. Aliud eſt poſſe errare, aliud de facto errare. Poſſunt errare privati quilibet Paſtores, particularia etiam quaelibet concilia: non tamen idcirco intolerabilem errorem admittunt, qu •• ies popul ſibi ſubdito aliquid ex verb divino deductum tanquam articulum fidei credendam proponunt. Davenant in his learned Tractate de judice ac norma Fidei, in anſwering the Arguments of the Papiſts that General Councels cannot err, and among others this, that if all Generall Councels can err, then it certainly followes that all Councels have admitted intolerable error, anſwers, Tis one thing poſſe errare, another thing de facto errare; every particular Paſtor mayerre, as alſo every particular Councell, yet therefore they doe not admit intolerable error as often as they propound to the People that which is drawn from the word of God, where heQui autem ab infallibili veritate dirigitur in judicando, is judicat infallibiliter, illi etiam conſtat illud eſſe verum quod ex verb did cit, utcunque non gaudeat judicio •• fallibili. further ſhowes how a man may be ſaid to judge infallibly, that yet is fallible: and for concluſion of this I deſire the Reader to obſerve two things: Firſt that Synods and Councels however in themſelves fallible and ſubject to erre, yet being Lawfull quoad id quod requiritur intrinſecus, and going according to the Scripture, their reſults and determinations are from the holy Ghoſt, and ſo infallibly and certainly true, as that of Acts 15. 28. demonſtrates, It ſeemed good to the holy Ghoſt and to us, which words a Synod having like cleare evidence of Scripture, may without preſumption uſe as well as that Councell at Jeruſalem did; for proofe of which kind of infallibilitie, beſides what I have already ſaid p. 140, 141, of this Booke, I ſhal adde the judgement of learnedPoſſe alia legitima Conci •• ſemiliter aſſer re decreta ſua eſſe d •• rata Spiritus ſancti, ſi huic Concilio ſimilia fuerint, & ſi eandem re ulam ſervaverint, quam in hoc Concilio ſervarunt & ſecuti ſunt Apoſtoli. Si enim nihil niſi ex Scriptur is ſtatuerint & definierint quod in hoc Concilio factum eſt, & ſi omnes Quaeſtiones ad Scripturas examinaverint, & Scripturae vocom la omnibus fuis decretis ſecuti fuerint, tum poſſunt aſſerere, Spiritum ſanctum ſit decreviſſe. Contro. 3 Quaest. 6. Whittaker upon the words: Other Lawful Councels may in like manner laſſert their Decrees to be the Decrees of the holy Ghoſt, if they ſhall be like to this Councel, and ſhall keep the ſame rule, which in this Councell the Apoſtles did keep and follow: For if they ſhall decree and determine nothing but from Scripture (which was done in this Councell) and if they ſhall examine all Queſtions by the Scriptures, and ſhall follow the voice of the Scriptures in all their Decrees, then they may aſſert that the holy Ghoſt ſo decreed; of learnedNos vero facile concedimus Concilia legitima quoad id quod requiritur intrinſecus, id eſt concilia vere fine fuco & fallacia congregata in nomine Chriſti, non poſſe errare in iis quae ſunt alicujus momenti. Nam nos quidem fatemur ultro multa concilia non erraſſe imo fatemur concilia legitima (quomodo illud a nobis ſupra explicatum est) hoc eſt vere congregata in Deinomine non errarei rebus neceſſarii . Cam Praelect. De Eccleſ. p. 289 293 Cameron in his Tractate De Infallibilitate Eccleſiae, We doe eaſily grant Lawfull Councels, Lawfull, in reſpect of what is inwardly required in them, that is Councels truely gathered together without all fallacie and deceit in the name of Chriſt cannot erre in thoſe things which are of any great moment: For we truly willingly confeſſe many Councels not to have erred, yea wee confeſſe Lawfull Churches (as in the ſenſe above is explained by us) that are truely gathered in the name of Chriſt, not to erre in neceſſary things; and of Baron. Apodix. Cathol. Tractat. 5. De Authoritat. Eccleſ. cap. 17. Non 〈◊〉 ſimpliciter & abſolute id quod Pariſienſes de Conciliorum infallibilitate docent. Pie enim. & probabiliter credi poteſt Concilia vera generalia & legitima, hoc eſt legitime convocata & procedentia, ita gubernari & dirigi à Spiritu S. ut non errent in dogmatibus fundamentalib •• . Dico hoc credi poſſe, quia certo conſtat talia concilia nunquam hactenus erraſſe in dogmatibus fundamentalibus. Vide ibi plura. Baron, in that acute and learned Reply of his to Turnebull the Ieſuite, wee doe not ſimply and abſolutely condemne that which the Doctors of Paris doe teach of the infallibilitie of Councels. For it may be piouſly and probably beleeved that Councels truely generall and Lawfull, that is Lawfully gathered, and proceeding, to be ſo governed and directed by the holy Spirit, that they may not erre in fundament all points. I ſay this may be beleeved, becauſe tis certaine ſuch Councels have never hitherto erred in Doctrines fundamentall. Secondly, although the Authoritie and Power of Synods and Councels is not of it ſelfe infallible, neither appointed of God that it ſhould be the ſupreme and principall Rule of our Faith; and therefore cannot by it ſelfe and of its owne Authoritie bind the faithfull to beleeve whatever is determined in a Synod or Councell, yet there is in them the ſupream Eccleſiaſtical Power of judging and determining Controverſies of Faith; and that appointed by God to avoid confuſion and rents in the Church: Hence the Authoritie of Lawfull Councels hath a ſpeciall force and ſingular efficacie before many other motives of faith, to beget a peſwaſion in the minds of men of the truth of the Doctrine, agreed on in the Councell. And becauſe in our times the beſt Synods and Councels are rejected and flighted, and every private perſon takes upon them a boundleſſe Libertie of contradicting all Synodicall Decrees, I ſhall therefore lay downe briefly out of divers learned Authors, what preeminencie there is in Synods and Co ncels towards the compounding of Controverſies and doubts in Religion, above what is in private Chriſtians or ſingle particular Miniſters. 1 There is an Authorite given them by God, they are an Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt to judge of, and determine Controverſies of faith, which no man of a ſound mind affirmes of private Chriſtians or particular Miniſters. Secondly, they have a power of ſubjecting thoſe to excommunication and other Eccleſiaſticall cenſures, who openly contradict their Decrees. Thirdly, they have a more peculiar aſſiſtance of the Spirit, & ſo greater then that which particular Miniſters judgeing apart have. Fourthly, They have ſurer means of finding out the truth, viz. The Prayers, Faſtings, Diſputations, &c. of the cheifeſt Paſtors of the whole Church: For asPraelect. de Eccleſia pag. 292, 293. Deinde in concilio ſi adſint viri pii & docti, aperiunt quae fuerunt clauſa mutua 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . id quod non aeque facile poſſit prae ſtari à ſingulia ſeorſim. Id expectamus ut. i Concilo, in Conventu doctorum & piorum virorum proferantur argumenta veritatis quae antea ignota fuere. Praelect de Eccleſ. Tract. de Infa ••• b. Eccl. Quoties aliquid decretum eſt a caetu quodam hominum, qui in aliqua authoritateconſtituti ſunt in Eccleſia, facit hoc ut ne temere, & non adhibita accuratat & gravi obſervatione in rejiciatur. Cameron ſpeaks, In a Councell, if there be preſent piou and learned men, they open things, which before were ſhut, by their mutual diſquiſition, which cannot be ſo eaſily done of particular men apart. Fifthly, A better ground of knowing what is the judgement of the whole Church, concerning any Queſtion in Controverſie, and what the Churches have obſerved in ſuch caſes. Sixthly, A more eaſie way of reducing the Decrees and Determinations of the Church to practice. Seventhly, greater Reverence, Reſpect and Obedience is owing to the Determinations and Decrees of Synods and Councels, then of particular Perſons or Churches: the Authoritie of Synods in their place and degree is ſo to be looked upon, that particular Miniſters or private Chriſtians ſhould not lightly or eaſily for every probable Reaſon, or conjecture reject their determinations: Hence Cameron ſpeaking of Councels well obſerves, So oft as any thing is decreed by an Aſſembly of men, who are put into Anthoritie in the Church, that ſhould be a ground that ſuch a thing ſhould not raſhly nor without a great deale of accurate and ſerious obſervation be rejected. For firſt of all, we owe Reverence to a Synod, even then, when we judge it decrees falſe things. APius Eccleſiae filius non perperam ei inſilit, ſed ab ea reverentiali quodam pudore percuſſus abſcedit. Walenſis Tom. 5. lib. 2. cap. 27. pious ſonne of the Church doth not vainely inſult over her, but with a kind of Reverentiall ſhamefaſtneſſe departs from her. Secondly, wee owe outward obedience unleſſe wee doe evidently perceive the Synod to preſcribe and determine falſe and wicked things; for tis not Lawfull upon light and probable Reaſons to oppoſe the judgement of the Paſtors of the Church; the certaine manifeſt Authoritie of God commands us to obey the decrees of the Church; and when wee have only uncertaine conjectures and probable Reaſons, then that common rule is to be followed,Tene certum relinque incertum. Hold that which is certaine, leave the uncertaine. And therefore they who doubt of the truth of the Decrees of a Synod, or upon light and probable Reaſons think their Opinion falſe, but doe not cert inly know it to be ſuch, are bound by the Synodicall decrees to performe ſuch an obedience as is agreeable to order, comelineſſe and peace, which obedience is nothing elſe but the obſervance of Chriſtian humilitie and modeſtie, by which the faithfull in ſuch caſes abſtaine both from a publike open profeſſion of their Opinion, and a condemning and confuting of the Synods Opinion, and in the meane time by diligent ſearching of the Scripture do enquire out the truth and pray to God to manifeſt his truth to men, and to diſcover the errors of the Synod, that ſo they being knowne, contrary Doctrine may be eſtabliſhed in another Councel: Of which ſeven particulars, and divers others of Synods, whoever would ſee more, let them read Baron againſt Turnebull, Tract. 5. De Authorit. Eccleſiae cap. 17. Camerons Praelect. De Eccleſ. Infallibilitate 292. 293. Apollon. Jus Magiſt. circ. ſacra firſt part cap. 4. 247. 248, 249. Fourthly, there is a greater degree of infallibilitie and certaintie in matters of faith and religion to be attained by means of the Scriptures, then was by the high Prieſts anſwers by Vrim, or then is to be had by miracles, by one ariſing from the dead and comming to us, then by an Apoſtle or an Angel from heaven, yea or from a voice comming from heaven, of each of which I will ſpeake ſomething briefly. 1. There was more certaintie even under the old Teſtament in the word written in the Law, then in the high Prieſts Anſwer, which appeares thus, becauſe the Law was made by God himſelfe the cheife rule and meaſure of the high Prieſts Anſwer, and in difficult caſes wherein the Iewes were commanded to come to the high Prieſt for reſolution, the laſt reference is made to the Law: That very place Deut. 17. 9. 10, 11, 12. brought by Hagiomaſtix page 130. to prove the ſentence there ſpoken of, only ſuch a ſentence which the Prieſt did upon enquiry by Vrim and Thummim receive immediately, or however infallibly from the mouth of God himſelfe, and by the Ieſuits Bellarmine, Lorinus, Bailius, &c brought to prove the Pope the ſupreame infallible Iudge of Controverſies, and not the Scriptures, ſhowes cleerly whatever anſwers the high Prieſt gave in matters of judgement, they are limited expreſly to the word of God, and that is made the ſupreme Iudge: The Iewes were not ſimply to reſt in the judgement of the high Prieſts whatever they pronounced, but as it was according to the Law: There is an expreſſe limitation in the text, in verſes 10. 11. thou ſhalt doe according to the ſentence of the Law which they ſhall teach thee; In the Hebrew text tis twice written juxta os legis, according to the mouth of the Law, and the ordinary Gloſſe upon that place, notes, that tis not ſaid unto them thou ſhalt obey, unleſſe they teach according to the Law; theſe words according to the ſentence of the Law doe ſignifie a condition, not a promiſe, as if God did promiſe the Prieſts they ſhould never depart from the Law, which our Willets Synopſ. Firſt General Contro. of the Script. Queſt. 6. 2. part of the queſtion. Rivet. Cathol. Orthod. Tract. 1. quaeſt. 8. Divines obſerve againſt Bellarmine and other Papiſts; yea Maſter Goodwin himſelfe Sect. 107. of his Hagiomaſtix ſpeaking of this place to be meant only of ſuch a ſentence which the Prieſt did upon enquiry by Vrim receive immediately or however infallibly, from the mouth of God himſelfe, grants it and puts in the ſame Section this ſentence of the high Prieſt under the Law, and ſaith the command in that Scripture is with that Caution and limitation of going according to the ſentence of the Law; for proofe of which I ſhall quote his own words verbatim, Thirdly, nor doth God in this paſſage of Scripture (ſpeaking of Deut. 17. 12.) expreſly command without caution and limitation that even in this Controverſie it ſelfe, he that would not ſtand to the ſentence of the Iudge, or high Prieſt, ſhould be put to death; but only then, when the Prieſts, the Levites, and the Iudge, ſhould give ſentence or informe them according to the ſentence of the Law. And for the Readers further Satisfaction of the Scope and meaning of Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. to free it from Maſter Goodwins ſenſe of only ſuch a ſentence which the Prieſt did upon enquiry by Vrim receive immediately, by which he would evade all puniſhment from the Magiſtrate in matters of Religion (though I have ſaid much upon the place already) I refer him to the firſt Tractate, eight Queſtion page 127. 128, 129. of Rivets Catholious Orthodoxus, 2. Then by miracles, tis a ſaying ofHom. 3. de Laz Maldonate in Mat. 7. 22, 23. Chryſoſtome, God hath left us the Scriptures, more firme then any miracle: where the word of God is for ſuch a thing, that thing is moſt true and certain, the word of God ſtandeth and ahideth for ever; It is eaſier for heaven and earth to paſſe, then one title of the Law to faile: tis impoſſible for God to lie: miracles accompanying Doctrines are not alwayes infallible proofes of the truth of them; for falſe Prophets, teaching falſe Doctrines may doe miracles, and come with ſigns and wonders: Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. ſhowes that falſe Prophets who ſay, let us goe after other Gods, may give ſigns and wonders, and the ſigne or wonder may come to paſſe, Matth. 7. 22, 23. Chriſt tels us that many who prophecied in his Name, plead they have caſt out Devils, and done many wonderfull workes; were workers of iniquity, upon which place * Maldonate (though a Ieſuite) confeſſes thoſe falſe Prophets of which Chriſt ſpeakes wrought true miracles, truely Prophecied, truely Prophecied, truely caſt out Devils; neither doth Chriſt anſwer them that they lied, but that he knew them not although they had done ſuch miracles; and thereupon he grants there can be no neceſſary argument taken from true miracles to prove the truth of Doctrine. So Matth. 24. 24. 2 Theſ. 2. 9. Revel. 13. 13, 14. fully ſet forth how falſe Prophets and Anti-Chriſt ſhall doe great miracles, by means of which they ſhall deceive many. In Auguſtines time the Donatiſts would alledge miracles done by them to prove the truth of their Church and Doctrine, and ſo doe the Papiſts now againſt the Proteſtants, making the glory of miracles a note of their Church; but Auguſtine againſt the Donatiſts of his time, and learned Proteſtants againſt the Papiſts upon that Queſtion of the notes of the Church, doe prove the word of God a ſurer note and Argument of the true Church and Faith, then miracles, as whoever conſults the writings of * Auguſt. de Ʋnitat. Eccleſ. cap. 16. Tract. 3. in John Evang. ſay not theſe things are ſo, becauſe ſuch a one did ſuch and ſuch miracles, but let thē prove their Church by the Canonicall books of the Scripture, and by nothing els theſe are the demonſtration of our cauſe, theſe are our foundation, theſe are our grounds upon which we build Auguſtine, Whitak. Contro. 2. quaeſt. 5. c. 12. Whitaker, Camer. praelect. de Eccl. p. 255, 256. Cameron, Rivet. Cath. Orthod. Tract. 2. quaeſt. 7. p. 372, 373. Rivet, Ameſ. Bellar. enervat. De notis Eccleſiae. Ames, Willets Synopſ. 2. Gener. Controv. concerning the Church. quaeſt 〈◊〉 . Of the power of working miracles. Willet, Whites way to the 〈◊〉 Church pag. 62, 63. Whites way to the Church, and eſpecially of learnedG rad de Eccleſ. Sect. 11. from p. 448 to 467. Gerard ſhall find. 3. The proofe of Doctrine by the Scripture, is more infallible then the teſtimonie of one coming from the dead Luk. 16. 29, 30, 31. Maſes and the Prophets for perſwading to beleeve are preferred before one ariſing from the dead: They who elude and wreſt the Scriptures, interpreting them according to their own iuſt, if one ſhould ariſe from the dead, they would not believe him in what he ſaid againſt their Opinions, but would put off all one way or other: Experience hath taught that asMaldon. comment in luc. 16. v. 30. Maldon ie obſerves: Chriſt raiſed up Lazarus from the grave, who (as tis to be thought) told the Scribes and Prieſts many things agreeable to thoſe which Chriſt taught them, and yet they were ſo farre from beleeving him that they would have killed him, John 12. 9, 10, So the Scribes and Phariſees after Chriſts reſurrection from the dead beleeved him never a whit more then before. 4. Then an Apoſtle, for the Apoſtles notwithſtanding the prerogative of infallibilitie, their certaine and infallible knowledge of the Goſpel by the immediate inſpiration of the holy Ghoſt, being infallible in their writings to the Churches, and in thoſe Doctrines of faith they preached to thoſe to whom they were ſent, were in ſome things at ſome times ſubject to miſtakes or errors. Peter that great Apoſtle of the circumciſion, after the holy Ghoſt was given Acts 2. erred and miſtooke in accounting the Gentiles at that time common and unclean, as Acts 10. 13. 14, 15, 18, 24, compared together fully ſhowes, and in the Doctrine of Chriſtian Libertie, compelling the Gentiles to live at the Jewes, and not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Goſpel, for which Paul withſtood him to the face, becauſe he was to be blamed, Gal. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. But the Scriptures erre not at all are all fine gold without any droſſe, cannot deceive, be perfect and glorious: the Apoſtles themſelves in their preachings and writings appealed to the Scriptures, made them the chiefe rules of their Doctrines, Acts 3. 21. Acts 4. 25, 26. Acts 17, 2, 3. Acts 26. 22, 23. Acts 28. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 3. 4. with many other places to the ſame purpoſe: The 〈◊〉 are commended for that when Paul the Apoſtle preached to them, they ſearched the Scriptures whether thoſe things were ſo; John the Baptiſt was ſent from God 1 John. 6. immediately inſpired by the holy Ghoſt as well as the Apoſtles, and yet Chriſt prefers the witneſſe of the Scriptures before the Teſtimonie of John, John 5. 34, 36. 39. The Teſtimonie of the Scriptures is greater then the record of John, of which ſee Willets Synopſ. firſt general Controverſ. concerning the Scriptures, queſt. fourth 5. Then an Angel, Gal. 1. 8. But though wee or an Angel from heaven, &c. Paul prefers the Scriptures before Apoſtles, yea Angels, and anathematizes them, if they bring any other Goſpel then what the Apoſtles had preached, which in many places he declares was according to the Scriptures. Chryſoſtome ſaith that the Scripture is to be preferd before the Angels in the matters of faith: The word of God is the cheife and higheſt rule of faith, for as learned Chamier writes, The word of God is God ſpeaking, therefore look what is the authoritie of God ſpeaking, the ſame is of the word of God, and therefore above Angels: And by the way I deſire the Reader to obſerve againſt Hagiomaſtix who makes ſuch a do of infallibilitie, that not whatſoever is infallible is the ſupreme rule of faith, for that is a grand miſtake to make every thing that is infallible the ground of beleeving, or the cheife rule of it; but this is the ground of being the ſupreme Rule of faith, that it be ſummae ſuaeque authoritatis of ſupreme authoritie, of it ſelfe, and not from another, which is apparent, becauſe Angels are infallible, the Apoſtles alſo were ex particulari aſſiſtutia Spiritus, and yet neither of them are, nor have been the ſupreme Rule of the Church. This Paul hath taught us in Gal. 1. 8. how Apoſtles and Angels are to be anathematized if they bring any other Goſpel: But theſe things are unworthy to be affirmed of the Rule of faith, and eſpecially of the ſupreme Rule, which ought not to be ſo reſembled to any thing that by that it ſhould be corrected and ordered, for then it ceaſes to be a Rule, but rather that by the Rule, eſpecially the higheſt, all things elſe are to be judged: wherefore, beſides infallibilitie there is ſomething elſe neceſſary to a thing that it ſhould become a Rule; namely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, that it be of cheife, and of its owne Authoritie, not of a ſubordinate and borrowed Authoritie from another; but whoever would be further ſatisfied in this point, let him read learned Pa ſtrat. Cathel. de Canon. & ſumma Regul. Fid. Neque enim quicquid eſt infallibile, estregula ſumma fidei, quiae Angeli ſunt infallibiles, Apoſtoli etiam fuerunt infallibiles ex particulari aſſiſtentiae Spiritus. & tamen neutri ſunt, aut fuerunt Eccleſiae ſumma regula: Hoc nor Paulus docuit. Gal. 1. 8. A haec indignae ſunt quae dicantur de regula fidei & praeſertim ſumma regula; quae nulli rei itae comparari debet, ut ind coerceatur, alias deſinit eſſe regula: Sed potius ut inde ſint omniae judicanda. Quare praeter infallibilitatem aliud quid dam neceſſarium eſt ut fiat regula, nimirum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hoc autem eſt ut ſummae ſit ſuaeque authoritatis; non autem ſubalternae aliundeque emendicate. Summo quid praeferri poteſt? At Chryſoſtomus Angelis ipſis in negotio fidei preferandam dixit Scriptur m: Si non ſummi, ergo nec fumma regula, & tamen infallibiles, non igitur quicquid eſt infallibile, ſumma eſt regula fidei. Chamier. 6. Then Gods owne voice from heaven, the Apoſtle Peter tels us 2 Pet. 1. 17, 18, 19. of that voice of God from heaven which came to Jeſus Chriſt; This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed, which Peter, Iames, Iob , heard when they were with Chriſt in the holy mount Matth. 17. 5, 6. and yet Peter ſpeaking of the Scriptures and comparing them with this voice from the excellent glory writes thus, We have alſo a more ſure word of prophecie, whereunto you doe well that you take heed, as unto a light that ſhineth in a darke place, until the day dawne, and the day ſtarre ariſe in your hearts, upon which wordsOecumenius in locum. Quoniam autem rebus ipſis & experientiae cognovimus quae fuerunt à Prophetis pronunciata, firmiorem, inquit, per haec judicamus Prophetiam ipſorum: nam resipſae conſequntae ſunt ſermones ac oracula. Aquinas in locum, vel dicit firmiorem quia viſioni contraadicere poterant, quae facta fuit in ſecreto, ſed Prophetiae nullus contradicere audebat. vid. Annot. of our Engl. Divines on the Place. Interpreters on the Place, and otherVid. Whitak. Contro. 1. De Script, Author. queſt. 3. Illud verbum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad rem ſpectat, ſignificat enim Scripturam firmiſſima maxima que authoritate eſſe praeditam. learned men ſhow however that voice from heaven being from God as the written Prophecies were, was in it ſelfe as ſure, yet the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken either for a moſt lure, or very ſure word, a comparative for a ſuperlative, ſo uſed in other places of Scripture, & ſo ſetting forth to us the Scriptures being founded on the firmeſt and greaeſt authoritie; or more ſure, or more firme. (So the word in the Greek properly ſignifies) to the Chriſtian Jewes to whom the Epiſtle was written, which by long uſe and experience were more ſetled in their hearts, and ſo ſooner beleeved, then the voice from heaven, although that were ſure alſo. Chriſt in Joh. 5. from verſe 31. to the 40. ſpeaking of the many Teſtimonies concerning him, as his own, Johus teſtimony, the Teſtimony of his works, inſtances in the voice from heaven, witneſſing to him Matth. 3. 17. 17. Matth. 5. and then Chriſt goes to the Scriptures as the higheſt and cheifeſt, Search the Scriptures, for in them you thinke you have eternal life, and they are they which teſtifie of me: wee may obſerve the gradation of the witneſſes, Chriſts works greater then the Teſtimony of John, the Fathers witneſſing from heaven above that of his workes, and the Scriptures teſtifying of him the laſt and greateſt of all; and for a concluſion of this, Gods ſpeaking to his Church under the new Teſtament, eſpecially ſince the Canon was ſealed and confirmed, (as Divines ſpeake) that is by his Sonne making known the whole Evangelical Doctrine and Will of God concerning mans ſalvation, is by the holy Ghoſt preferred far before the divers manners and wayes of Gods making known his will before, as that of dreams, viſions, Vrim and Thummim, voice from heaven, Angels, &c, as is evident by Heb. 1. 1, 2, 3. compared with the ſecond of Heb. 1. 2, 3, 4. In a word they who are ſo wicked to wreſt and pervert manifeſt plaine places of Scripture, would not (if they had lived in thoſe dayes,) have reſted ſatisfied in the Sentences of the high Prieſt by Vrim, in one comming from the dead, in the Doctrine of an Apoſtle or Angel, or in a voice from heaven, but would have made cavils, and ſound pretences to have eluded and evaded all, or any of thoſe as well as the Scriptures, in all which I might give particular inſtances, but for preſent I ſhall inſtance only in the voice from heaven, of which voice from heaven John 12. 28, 29, 30. though it was ſo plain and diſtinct, teſtifying Chriſt to be ſent of God and the Meſſiah, yet tis perverted and miſinterpreted as much as the Scriptures, of which voice from heaven how perverted, I referre the Reader to learned Rollock in 12 Joh. 28. 29, 30. Varie ſentit tubra de audita voce illa alii pejus alii melius ſentiunt, utrique tamen a vero aberrant. Data fuit haec vox Coelo ut ait Dominus poſtea illorum cauſa, ut hoc quaſi mi raculo & pertento admoniti, crederent eum eſſe miſſum à Deo & Meſſiam ſed adeo excaecati ſunt & indurati ut tamen de Meſſia nihil cogitaverant. Vid. Calvin. & Maldon. in locum. Rollock. Calvin, and other Interpreters on that place of Scripture, and ſo much for this ſeventh Anſwer.

Eightly, Suppoſing all Hagiomaſtix ſaith in page. 46. 47. and 130, to be true that that ſentence of the Prieſt or Iudge againſt which hee that would doe preſumptuouſly was to be put to death, was only a ſentence upon enquiry by Vrim and Thummim, and that the Iewes opportunitie of immediateneſſe of conſultation with the mouth of God himſelfe, was a cleer reaſon why that old Teſtament Law for putting of falſe Prophets, &c to death was given to them, yet it followes not theſe Laws cannot be in force now, unleſſe that can be made apparence to have been the only reaſon and ground of the Magiſtrates puniſhing, for if there were other reaſons as well under the old Teſtament of thoſe Lawes, and that by God formally and particularly declared and expreſſed (as tis evident there were, and I have proved page 70. 76. and divers other pages of this Treatiſe) then they being in force ſtill, the Lawes bind though one particular reaſon, or more proper to that time bee ceaſed: I might inſtance in many morall things commanded under the old Teſtament that unqueſtionably (I ſuppoſe in Maſter Goodwins judgement) are in force under the new, of which among other reaſons given, there was ſome one particular reaſon proper to the Iewes, that holds not now, but for this I refer the Reader to page 83. of this Book: and to put an end to theſe eight Anſwers to the ſixth evaſion of Hagiomaſtix page 46. 47, 130, I ſhall only mind him of that knowne axiome A particulari ad univerſale non valet conſequentia, and therefore though that particular reaſon be ceaſed (although I haue fully ſhown that never was any reaſon of thoſe Laws under the old Teſtament for puniſhing of falſe Prophets, but a meer device, and a fancie) tis no good conſequence, all the other reaſons, yea, and the commands themſelves ſhould ceaſe alſo.

Seventhly to thatpage 45. 46. Hagiomaſtix ſaith, that the puniſhments enjoyned by God then under the Law to be inflicted in his Church upon delinquents, were more bodily and afflictive to the outward man, then the puniſhments enjoyned under the Goſpel, and conſequently were not only carnall or bodily, but typicall alſo, and prefignificative of thoſe greater and more ſpirituall under the Goſpel, cutting off from his people then, as of caſting out from his people now, cutting off under the Goſpel being no where found to be uſed but in a metaphorical and alluſive ſenſe, alſo to whatMin. Cel. Senenſ. Sect. Tert. pag. 189. Minus Celſus Senenſis writes that that corporall puniſhment in Deut. 13. was a Type of eternall damnation, and therefore that Law with all the reſt given for the future ſignification of things by the comming of Chriſt ceaſed, I anſwer as followes. Firſt, I deny the puniſhments enjoyned by God under the Law to be inflicted in his Church upon delinquents to be bodily or afflictive at all to the outward man, as by donfiſcation of goods, or by death, but they were ſpirituall and inflicted upon the ſoules by ſuſpenſion, excommunication, and ſuch like ſpirituall cenſures, as well as now under the Goſpel: Tis true, there were bodily outward puniſhments in the Civill Iudicatories inflicted then on the bodies of falſe Prophets, Idolaters, &c, but by the Magiſtrates, the Civil Governors, and not by the Prieſts, the Eccleſiaſtical Governors in the Church of the Iewes: For under the Law the Jewiſh Church and Common-wealth, the Civil Government and Eccleſiaſtical, the cenſures and puniſhments of Church and State were formally diſtinct, as Maſter Gilleſpie hath fully and excellently proved in his Aarons rod bloſſoming in many places, particularly 1. Book cap. 2. 3, 4, 5, and the Church of the Iewes proceeded then againſt falſe Prophets, only with the ſword of the Spirit, and ſpirituall weapons, and the State with the materiall Sword, and bodily puniſhments: Which truth is fully acknowledged alſo by Maſter Cotton (however differing from Presbyterians about a National Church) in his Anſwer to Maſter Williams Bloudy Tenet, ſaying, I ſhould think mine eye not only obſcured, but the fight of it utterly put out, if I ſhould conceave as he doth, that the National Church State of the Jewes did neceſſarily call for ſuch weapons (a ſpeaking of a Sword of Iron or Steel) to puniſh Hereticks more then the Congregetional State of particular Churches doth call for the ſame now in the dayes of the new Teſtament. For was not the National Church of the Iewes as compleatly furniſhed with ſpirituall Armor to defend it ſelfe, and to offend men and Divels as the particular Churches of the new Teſtament be? Had they not power to convince falſe Prophets as Eliah did the Prophets of Baal? Had they not power to ſeperate all evil doers from the fellowſhip of the Congregation? what power have our particular Churches now, which their National Church wanted? or what efficacie is there found in the exerciſe of our power which was wanting to them. It is therefore a Sophiſtical imagination of mans Braine to make a mans ſelfe, or the world believe that the National Church State of the Iewes required a Civil Sword, whereas the particular State of the Goſpel needs no ſuch helpe. And was not the National Church of Iſrael as powerfully able by the ſame ſpirit to doe the ſame? ſurely it was both ſpoken and meant of the National Church of the Jewes, not by might nor by Power, but my Spirit ſaith the Lord of Hoſts Zach. 4. 6. So that by what I have already ſaid Hagiomaſtix muſt either (I ſuppoſe) recall what he hath written of carnal bodily puniſhments enjoyned by God then to be inflicted, in his Church upon delinquents, or elſe muſt joyne with the Eraſtians in holding the Iewiſh Church and Common-wealth, their Governement and Cenſures all one and the ſame. Secondly, The foundation upon which Hagiomaſtix rears this building of outward puniſhments under the old Teſtament being typical of ſpiritual under the new, (viz the Land of Canaan with the external happineſſe and peace there being typical, and therefore reaſons a compara is and from the Analogie) is ſandie and unſound: for the Land of Canaan with the external happineſſe and long life in it, whatſoever it was typical of, was from what God had put into the Land, being a Land healthful, pleaſant, flowing with milke and honey, abounding in excellent precious fruits, the immediate bleſſings of God upon it, and not from what came to it by the Magiſtrates Laws and their good Government, for further ſatisfaction of which I wiſh Maſter Goodwin to reſolve me this queſtion, whether the Land of Canaan were not typical as well in times of wars and troubles and under bad Princes, as in dayes of peace, and under good Princes and ſo to reaſon a comparatis (to uſe his owne Phraſe and adidem,) if temporall threatnings and bodily puniſhments inflicted upon delinquents under the old Teſtament, were typicall and Praeſignificative of greater under the Goſpel, they muſt be threatnings and bodily puniſhments inflicted from God upon falſe Prophets, &c, not thoe executed by the Magiſtrates on them. Thirdly, Granting both Hagiomaſtixs foundation and the building reared upon it to be good, yet they no whit prove bodily and outward puniſhments to be wholly taken away under the new Teſtament; for ſuppoſe the temporal happineſſe and the temporal puniſhments had typified more ſpiritual happineſſe, and leſſe of the earth, more ſpiritual judgements, and leſſe of outward or bodily ſufferings under the Goſpel, yet it followes not, they take away all outward happineſſe and bleſſings, and all outward bodily puniſhments: there may be greater or leſſer degrees of things under the old and new Teſtament ſuitable to ſome difference in the manner of Adminiſtration betweene the old and the new, and yet not the ſubſtance of the things taken away: Theſe are knowne axioms, Gradus non tollunt ſubſtantiam, Magis & Minus non variant ſpeciem: Tis apparent by ſenſe and experience that how much ſoever ſpirituall bleſſings, and ſpiritual judgements in the dayes of the Goſpel abound above the times under the Law, yet they take not away all temporal outward bleſſings, nor all temporal outward judgements, but God for all that gives many outward bleſſings, and ſends many temporal judgements on the earth, So ſuppoſing God ſhould inflict more ſpiritual judgements on the ſoules of men under the new Teſtament, and the Church greater ſpiritual cenſures then under the old, it no way followes the Magiſtrates may inflict none at all, eſpecially when all ſpiritual judgements on the ſoule are ſlited, and with a high hand contemned. Fourthly, Whereas puniſhment by the Magiſtrate and cutting off by death under the old Teſtament, in caſes of Apoſtaſie, Blaſphemie, &c, is made a Ceremonie and type of excommunication under the new Teſtament, cutting off of caſting out, and of eternal damnation, I may truly Anſwer this is gratis dictum, ſaid, but not proved, and therefore might deny it without giving any reaſon, and bid the Patrons of Toleration prove it, but that the Civill Magiſtrates puniſhing delinquents under the old Teſtament, was no Ceremonie nor Type, I ſhall give theſe reaſons. 1. Ceremonies, ſhadowesZepper, Moſai. Leg. Explanas. lib. 1. cap. 7. ceremonialia Typica rerum fuerunt aut praeteritarum recordationes ent futurarum praefignificationes, Rerum praeteritarum ut anima Paſchatis celebratio, manna in arca foederis aſſervata, aneus Scrpens. Futurarum ut Sacrificia, &c. Typical things under the old Law, were either of things paſt, or things to come, the remembrances of things already done, or the Praeſignifications of future things, but Ceremonies and Types were not the ſignification of things preſent and exiſtent: Now excommunication and eternal damnation were at that time under the old Law when thoſe commands of puniſhing with death the Apoſtate, faiſe Prophet, &c, were given and in uſe. That excommunication and cutting off from the Church were in the Church of the Iewe in the times of the good Kings and Magiſtrates puniſhing Idolaters, &c with the Civil ſword, let the Reader Conſult Aarons Rod bloſſoming 1 Book 4. 5, 6, 7. chapt. That there was Hell and eternall damnation under the old Law, as well as the new, both before thoſe commands in Deut. 13. 17. were given, and all along after, many places of Scripture ſhow, as Iſaiah. 30. 33. 2 Pet. 4. Jude 5. 6, 7, that mention Hell for the evil Angels, Sodomites, the unbeleeving Iſraelites that came out of Egypt, and the wicked Kings of Iſrael and Judah; and therefore that which Hagiomaſtix ſaith, that cutting off from his People under the Law, it exchanged for caſting out from his people under the Goſpel, is very falſe, for there was caſting out from the Church as well then as now, yea cutting off ſpoken of in the old Teſtament in many places, means nothing elſe but caſting out of the Church by excommunication, for full proofe of which I referre the Reader to Aarens rod bloſſoming 1. Book cap. 5. pag. 55. 56, 57, 58, 59; As alſo that paſſage is not true, that the expreſſion of cutting off, where ever tis found in the Goſpel, is m tephorical and alluſive only, for cutting off is uſed in the new Teſtament for cutting of by bodily death, as in Gal. 5. 12. and elſe where: the proof of which I referre to the 20. Theſis where I ſhall handle it fully. Secondly, The ſame things may be ſaid with as much reaſon againſt bodily outward puniſhments for breaches of the ſecond Table, Adultery, Murder Theft, as againſt outward puniſhing for Apoſtaſie, &c, and if they hold not good againſt the ſecond Table, neither do they againſt the firſt. Thirdly, The Civil Magiſtrates puniſhing for moral tranſgreſſions is no Ceremonie nor Type, acts of morall juſtice, though they may ſometimes be extraordinary, yet they never were accounted Typical or Figurative, but by ſuch as would transforme all the Scriptures into an Allegory, and MaſterBloudy Tenet waſhed and made white in the bloud of the Lambe, p. 177. 179. Cotton anſwering ſuch a like evaſion in the Bloudy Tenet, ſaith, Did ever any Apoſtle or Evangeliſt make the judicial Laws of Moſes concerning life and death, ceremonial and Typical Time was when humane inventions in Gods worſhip were accounted ſuperſtition; But now humane inventions in Doctrine may paſſe for currant Evangelical Divinity. And in another A Reply to Mr. Williams his Examin •• . 〈◊〉 43. place, To make a judicial Law a figure without ſome light from ſome Scripture, is to make a mans ſelfe wiſe above that which is written. Fifthly, the making theſe expreſſe commands of God concerning puniſhing Idolaters, falſe Prophets, Blaſphemers, types and figures of ſpiritual and eternal puniſhments, of excommunication, damnation, &c is, by turning the Scriptures into an Allegory, and forſaking their literal ſenſe againſt the rules of interpretation given by the moſt OrthodoxWalaeus De ſacr. Script. Per ſpie. pag. 145. Synopſ. purior. Theol. pag. 62. Weems Chriſtian Synagogue, p 225. It is a dangerous thing when the words are properly to be taken, for to take them figuratively. Divines as Auguſtine and others, a making them utterly void, and as opening a wide doore to all errors and fooliſh conceits, that as often as men know not how to anſwer the Scriptures that croſſe their Opinions and luſts, and yet have a mind to keepe their Opinions, they may ſtill fly to this, and ſay, This Scripture is not to be taken litterally, but myſtically and Allegorically: Beza in that judicious Tractate of his De Haereticis a Magiſtratu puniendis, in Anſwer to Montfortius a grand Patron of Toleration in thoſe times, who in many places of his writings, made uſe of this Invention, that corporall puniſhment under the old Law, as ſtoning, was no figure of any bodily puniſhment to be now inflicted, but of eternal, to which we ought to leave Hereticks, or elſe of that puniſhment which is inflicted not by a corporal ſword, but a ſpiritual, the lively word of God, writes thus, Fuit enim haec elim Satanae infignis verſutia, quam tamen nemo prorſus ex veteribus, quod eorum pace dix erim, ſatis animadvertit, ut, quumnon poſſet Scripturam ex Eccleſia prorſus ••• cere, vanis tamen allegoriis totam redderet inutilem & mythologicam, adeo ut ne unus quidem ſit in Scripturia apex qui non ſit iſtis allegor •• contaminatus: quod etiamnum iter bodie Libertin: & Anabaptiſtae ingrediuntur. Sed hoc velim iſti nobis often dant, ex quo tandem Scripturae loco commentum iſtud de Iudicialium legum umbris & figuris didicerint. Nam in ceremoniis, at que adeo in quibuſdam etiam biſtoriis. ex Scripturae auctoritate hac agn ſco. For this was the ſpeciall ſubtiltie of Sathan of old, which yet not one almoſt of the ancient Fathers obſerved, that when he could not caſt the Scripture out of the Church wholly, yet by vaine Allegories, he made the whole Scripture unprofitable and fabuloùs, ſo as truely there was not one peice of Scripture left free of being contaminated with theſe Allegories, which very courſe alſo the Anabaptiſts, and Libertines take at this day. But this I would that they ſhould at length ſhow us, out of what place of Scripture they have learned that invention and device of the ſhadowes and figures of the judiciall Lawes. Per in Ceremonies and ſo in ſome Hiſtories from the Authoritie of Scripture I acknowledge theſe things: But of judicial Lawes, or corporall Idolatrie, which might ſhadow out ſpirituall, I remember not that I have ever read any thing: But for further ſatisfaction in this particular, I refer the Reader to the Tractate of Beza page 156. 167. Sixthly, ſuppoſing all Hagiomaſtix ſaith were true, that thoſe bodily puniſhments commanded by God under the old Law to be inflicted upon falſe Prophets, Idolaters, Seducers, Blaſphemers, had been in ſome ſenſe typical and Praeſignificative of thoſe greater and more ſpiritual under the Goſpel, yet it followes not that they are ceaſed now, and may not be lawfully practiſed, for they may remaine and be made uſe of, though the other ſenſe intended be fulfilled too: there is a compound ſenſe of ſome Places of Scripture litteral and hiſtorical, figurative and ſpirituall, as Weems in his Chriſtian Synagogue ſecond Book page 223. 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 ſhowes, in which caſes when the ſpiritual is fulfilled eminently, the literal is not aboliſhed, of which I might give many inſtances, but ſhall onely name one, viz. that of Deut. 25. 4. Thou ſhalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe which treadeth out the Corne. Now though the ſpiritual ſenſe of that place, be the not muzling the mouth of the Miniſters who labour in the Goſpel 1 Cor. 9. 9. yet the litteral ſenſe holds ſtil that a man ſhould forbeare to muzzle the mouth of the Oxe which treadeth out the Cor •• , or at leaſt tis not unlawfull to forbeare; beſides by the ſame reaſon, the Decalogue the whole ten commandements are overthrown too, for both in Moſes his giving the moral Law, and in the commands themſelves with the preface from the ſecond verſe of the 20. of Exod. to verſe 18. there are divers particulars typical and figurative of things under the Goſpel, temporall corporall things of ſpiritual and heavenly, of which I having ſpoken before in this Book pag. 24. 25, 83, 85. and many learned Divines giving inſtances in this kind * asZepper. Moſaic. leg. Forenſ. explaxat. lib. 1. cap. 6. Zepperus Rivet. Explic. Decalog pag 10. 11, 12. Rivitus Burgeſſe vindic. legis pag. 158, 164, 165. Maſter Burgeſſe, I ſhall inlarge no further, but referre the Reader to thoſe Books.

Having laid downe divers reaſons to prove the commands under the old Law for Magiſtrates puniſhing falſe Prophets, Apoſtates, Blaſphemers, to be of common reaſon and equity given to all Nations, and for all Ages, and having anſwered the moſt materiall grounds brought by the Patrons of Toleration to make void thoſe commands, as not binding under the new Teſtament, I come in the third place to anſwer thoſe evaſions and ſhifts brought byStratagem. Satan lib. 3. pag. 158, 159. 160. Iacobus Acontius, Minus Celſus Senenſis, and Hagiomaſtix, `that if it ſhould be granted that all and every the Lawes conteſted about,Min. Celſ. Diſput. De Haeretic. coercend. Sect. 3. 171, 172, 173, 174. Hagiom pag. 52, 53. as well that for putting to death the falſe Prophet, as thoſe for inflicting puniſhment upon the Idolater and Blaſphemer were moral, and ſtill in force under the Goſpel, yet theſe could not reach unto Hereticks, and falſe Teachers among us, at not being thoſe falſe Prophets, Idolaters, Blaſphemers, ſpoken of in the old Law. If it can be proved that Hereticks are thoſe Blaſphemers, falſe Prophets, Apoſtates, which Moſes commands to be killed, then it ſhall be acknowledged Hereticks are to be killed; but there is a large difference between a Heretick and ſuch a falſe Prophet or Apoſtate, as the Presbyterians in their owne definition of Hereticks make. A Heretick does not deny God the Creator of heaven and earth, neither doth he teach that other gods are to be worſhipped; a Heretick does not deny the name of Chriſt; a Heretick does not deny the word of God which an Apoſtate does: So that the word of God may be uſed as a weapon againſt Hereticks, which againſt an Apoſtate, cannot. A Heretick therefore is not mentioned nor touched in any one word of theſe Lawes: But if any will go about to draw theſe Lawes unto an Heretick, that cannot be done by the proper force of the words, but (as the Lawyers ſpeake) per extenſionem latamque interpretationem, by ſtretching of them and far fetched interpreation. And it would firſt be well conſidered of, whether every Law does admit of ſuch extenſions, and if not every one, which of them then does admit, and wherfore? and whether in this Law there are thoſe things for which an extenſion is to be made. By the falſe Prophet who was commanded to be put to death Deut. 13. 5. was not meant every Heretick or erroneous perſon, nor yet thoſe who taught or publiſhed any falſe Doctrine though of dangerous conſequence; but only thoſe who endeavoured to perſwade men to the worſhip of a falſe god; & that by affirming that they ſpake by the inſpiration of ſome deitie, and that their ſayings were to be eſteemed Oracles. What Doctrine it was which made the Prophet or Teacher of it guilty of death, is expreſly determined in the Law it ſelfe, and aſſerted to be this; Let us goe after other gods, which thou haſt not known, and let us ſerve them. And that the Law of God made againſt falſe Prophets and worſhippers of falſe Gods, was not intended againſt thoſe who otherwiſe held that the Law of God was to be kept, but were infected with ſome other error, is ſufficiently evident from hence, becauſe in former times among the Iewes, who were affected with a vehement love and zeale towards their law, Hereticks notwithſtanding were tolerated, and particularly the Sadduces. Theſe although the greateſt part of the people, and the Rulers beleeved them to erre exceedingly, nevertheleſſe they were not expelled the Citie, neither exempted from being Magiſtrates, or bearing any other Civill office: yea they were not hindred from coming to the Temple or the Synagogues. The Scribes and Phariſees alſo both held and taught many moſt dangerous and erroneous Doctrines; yet were they alſo in great honor and eſteeme in this Church and ſtate. And though our Saviour upon occaſion reaſoned againſt; yea and reproved them all for holding and teaching theſe errors, and gave warning to take heed of them; yet did he never charge this Church or State, or thoſe that bare office in either, with ſin, or unfaithfulneſſe in their places for not proceeding againſt them in regard of their errors, either by impriſonment or death. And yet we know that the Zeale of his Fathers Houſe, did eat him up, and that he attempted a reformation amongſt them; yea Chriſt did teach and preſſe upon men, all, and all manner of duties from judgement, mercy, and faith, even to the paying tithe of Mint, Anniſe, and Cummin.

Now unto theſe and other ſuch like, beſides ſome hints I have already given upon the 14. Theſis, which may ſerve in part for ſatisfaction to ſome of theſe evaſions, I deſire the Reader to mind theſe following Anſwers.

Firſt, there are other places of Scripture both of commands, or elſe examples approved by God, concerning the puniſhing with death or reſtraining by Civil power, (the laſt of which makes good the point in hand againſt Hagiomaſtix and other Libertines, as well as that of death) for other faults in matters of Religion, beſides Blaſphemie, Apoſtaſie, and falſe Prophecying in the ſenſe now alledged by Hagiomaſtix and his Compeers, which theſe following inſtances prove Firſt in Deut. 13. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, that very chapter verſe 5. brought by Hagiomaſtix to prove only thoſe were to be put to death, who endeavoured to perſwade men to the worſhip of a falſe God; and that by affirming, that they ſpake by the inſpiration of ſome deitie, and that their ſayings were to be eſteemed by Oracles, the Holy Ghoſt layes downe the contrary, giving a diſtinct Precept and command from that of the falſe Prophet, or dreamer of dreams, who publickly and openly ſollicites to Apoſtaſie, concerning the killing of ſuch who in a hidden and clancular way ſeduce: Tis obſerved by learned Junius in his Analytical explication on Deut. 13. that there are two ſorts of Seducers to Apoſtaſie commanded to be put to death, the one of ſuch who publickly and boldly ſollicite, who are ſpoken of in the 5 firſt verſes, the other of ſuch who ſecretly intice in verſe 6. and the five following: Now however the falſe Prophet or dreamer of dreames might pretend to ſpeak by the inſpiration of ſome deitie, for which the 5 verſe of the 13. is quoted by Hagiomaſtix, yet the private enticers to Apoſtaſie, as the daughter, the wife of the boſome, the Son, beſides that they are made a different ſort from the Prophet and dreamer of dreams, and thoſe ſix verſes from the ſixt to the twelfth containe a diſtinct command from the five firſt verſes about falſe Prophets, neither doe they give out ſigns or wonders to confirme their calling, the parties inſtanced in the text, being of daughters to Fathers, Wifes to Husbands, &c, were not likely ſo much as to pretend to them the name of Prophets ſpeaking by inſpiration of ſome deitie, but rather drawing by their neerneſſe of relation, intimateneſſe of affection, opportunities of private and conſtant converſe (which many phraſes in thoſe verſes, the wife of the boſome, thy friend which is as thy owne ſoule, entiſe thee ſecretly, thou ſhalt not cenſent unto him, neither ſhall thine eye pity, and ſuch like imply) and yet theſe are commanded to be put to death, as well as thoſe Prophets who openly and bodily gave out ſigns and wonders to confirme their being Prophets, of which the Reader may be further ſatisfied, by reading Junius his Analytical explication on Deut. 13. And as Moſes in that former part of the chapter ſhowes plainly, contrary to the affirmation of Hagiomaſtix and other Libertines, that others who perſwade men to the worſhip of a falſe god beſides thoſe who pretend themſelves Prophets, are to be killed, ſo in the latter part of this chapter from v. 13. he layes downe how they are to be put to death alſo that are guilty of Apoſtaſie, that have ſuffered themſelves to be drawn away from the true worſhip of God to other gods, who are ſo far from comming under the notion of falſe Prophets, endeavouring to perſwade men to the worſhip of a falſe God, and that by affirming they ſpake by the inſpiration of ſome deitie, as that they fal not under the Title of Seducers at all, but the ſeduced; and thereforeFranciſ. Jun. Analyſ. cap. 13. Duo argumenta ad Apoſtaſiam pertinentia in hoc capite exponuntur. Prius eſt de auctoribus ſollicitantibus ad Apoſtaſiam v. 11. Poſterius eſt de reis Apoſtaſiae, qui ſe abducia vero Dei cultu perpeſſi fuerint reliquo capite. Iunius writing upon this Deut. 13. analyzes the whole chap. concerning Apoſtaſies into two, Firſt, the Authors entiſing to Apoſtaſie in the firſt 11. verſes. Secondly thoſe who are guilty of Apoſtaſie, who ſuffer themſelves to be withdrawn from the worſhip of God, in the latter part of the chapter, and he ſhowes this is another part of the chap. in which Moſes ſpeaks not of thoſe ſeducing falſe Prophets, nor the clandeſtine Seducers, but of thoſe who yielded to their Seducements, particularly of thoſe who publickly to the view of all are Seduced, and being in publick Order as a City, reſt in that Apoſtaſie, by the publick authoritie of men falling from God, and openly defending that impietie. So Deut. 17. from verſe 2. to verſe 8. ſets downe a Law for putting to death thoſe who are Idolaters and Apoſtates ſimply, though they never went about to entice others: Jun. Analyt. Expl. in Deut. 17. Differt. autem haec lex ab ea quam ſupra cap. 13. expoſuimus, quod illic agitur de Apoſtatis (ut vulgo loquuntur) dogmatizantibus, & ad Apoſtaſiam ſollicitantibus; hic vero de Idololatris ſimpliciter. Iunius upon this 17. c. obſerves that this Law differs from that in the 13 chapt. the eleven firſt verſes, becauſe there Moſes ſpeaks of Apoſtates who are Dogmatiſts and enticers to Apoſtaſie; but here of Idolaters ſimply. In Deut. 17. from verſe 8. to verſe 13. there is a Law that in eccleſiaſtical caſes in matters of Religion, as well as Civil, upon going from the lower Iudicatories to the ſupreme to the high Prieſt with the Colledge of Prieſts, the man that would doe preſumptuouſly and would not hearken unto the Prieſt, even that man ſhould die, which was in other caſes then Blaſphemie, Apoſtaſie, Prophecying falſly: for it appears by the ſcope of that place and the ſtream of all interpreters, that in too hard matters for inferior Courts, they ſhould goe to the High Eccleſiaſtical Synedrion, and whoever preſumptuouſly diſobeyed their ſentence according to the Law, though in other things then the forenamed Blaſphemie, &c as appears by this place verſe 11. 12. ſpeaking of the Law indefinitely with that Walaei Oper. fol. de Script. Interpret. pag. 164. 2 Chr. 19. 8, 9, 10, 11. compared together, mentioning what cauſe ſoever ſhal come to you of your brethren that dwell in their Cities between Law and commandement, ſtatutes and judgements, ſhould be put to death, the ground of which putting to death here commanded, was not only from the nature of theſe ſins againſt the firſt Table of the higheſt forme as Apoſtaſie Blaſphemie and ſuch like, but for other ſinnes in points of Religion, though leſſer, when the ſentence and reſolution of the high Prieſt with his Colledges was preſumptuouſly diſobeyed, ſo that the puniſhing of wilful ſcorneful contempt of ſupreme Eccleſiaſticall Government, determining doubts and Controverſies according to the word of God, though in other caſes, then Apoſtaſie, Blaſphemie, Prophecying falſly, is here commanded: But having ſpoken ſo much of this Deut. 17. already in p. 101. 102, 103, 104, 105, 135, 159, 160. I ſhal not enlarge further, only I ſhal take my leave of this Scripture by adding a paſſage out of Maſter Cottons late Book againſt Mr. Williams in way of anſwer to an evaſion of his, that the capital puniſhment preſcribed againſt the preſumptuous rejection of the ſentence of the higheſt Court in Iſrael, was a figure of excommunication in the Church of Chriſt: Unto which MaſterReply to Mr. Williams Examination. p. 43. Cotton replyes, That Law is of moral equity in all Nations and in all Ages: Hee that ſhall preſumptuouſly appeale from, or riſe up againſt the cheifeſt or higheſt Court in a free ſtate, is guilty, laeſae Majeſtatis publicae, and therefore as a capital offender to be cenſured in any free common-wealth; And certainly if that part of the Law in Deut. 17. of preſumptuouſly appealing from, or riſing againſt the ſentence of the cheifeſt and higheſt Court in a free State being puniſhed with death, be of univerſal and perpetual equitie, then puniſhing ſo far at leaſt, as to reſtraine thoſe who preſumptuouſly riſe up and contemn the ſentence of the higheſt Eccleſiaſtical Iudicature in a Church going according to the word of God, is of univerſall and perpetual equitie too, and the command of God in that text for puniſhing, is againſt the man that will not hearken unto the Prieſt, as well as he that will not hearken unto the Judge. Deut. 18. 20. ſets downe a Law, that the * Prophet which ſhal preſume to ſpeake a word in Gods name, which he commanded him not to ſpeak, ſhal die, as well as hee that ſhall ſpeake in the name of other gods: which place of Scripture proves expreſly againſt Hagiomaſtix that other Prophets, beſides thoſe that came in the name of falſe gods, and with other falſe Doctrine then that, let us goe after other gods which thou haſt not known and let us ſerve them, were to be put to death. The command is indefinite concerning ſpeaking any word in Gods name which he commanded not to ſpeak, which muſt needs extend further then a Prophet prophecying only of turning to another God: for there were many falſe Doctrines and falſe worſhips againſt the Jewiſh Religion, beſides that of Apoſtaſie to other gods: Again the ſcope of the words and ſeveral phraſes, as if the thing follow not nor come to paſſe, thou ſhalt not be afraid of him, ſhow tis meant of other Doctrine then ſaying, let us goe after other gods, namely of Doctrine foretelling of ſome things to come; whereas enticing to goe and ſerve other gods is de praeſenti. Learned * Iunius writing on this place, ſhowes that the Prophecies here ſpoken of are different from thoſe in Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. they being of faith, but theſe of facts and events, which are not foretold particularly from the Canon of the Scripture, but only from the ſpeciall revelation of God. Ainſworth in his Annotations upon the Place ſhowes v. 22. the Prophet there ſpeaking of things, is meant of praedictions foretelling things to come, as alſo he reckons up ſeverall ſorts of falſe Prophets, others then the falſe Prophet ſpoken of Deut. 13. 1, 5. The falſe Prophet is to be ſtrangled to death, although he Prophecie in the name of the Lord, and neither addeth nor diminiſheth, whether he Prophecieth that which he hath not heard by propheticall viſion, or who ſo hath heard the words of his fellow Prophet and ſaith that his word was ſaid unto him, and he prophecieth thereby; hee is a falſe Prophet, and is to be ſtrangled to death. And tis evident by Jerem. 26. 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16. in the Prieſts and Prophets proceeding againſt Jeremiah pretending him to be a falſe Prophet, and therefore to be put to death, for ſaying this houſe ſhall bee like Shiloh, and this City ſhall be deſolate without an inhabitant; Whereas Jeremiah ſtill makes his defence, The Lord ſent me to prophecie againſt this houſe, and againſt this City all the words that yee have heard, that other falſe Prophets were to be put to death, then thoſe who taught men to worſhip other gods, upon which law they would have put Jeremiah to death, againſt whom they never ſo much as ſuggeſted that he caught revolt from the Lord, and worſhipping ſtrange Gods. Deut. 19. 16, 17, 18, 19. gives a ground in caſe of private ſeducing to revolt, upon proofe, to puniſh with death, or in caſe of perjurie, teſtifying falſly upon oath againſt one for ſeducing, a ſinne againſt the firſt Table too, to doe the like, both which ſhowes other perſons for matters of Religion may be puniſhed, then the falſe Prophet ſpoken of in Deut. 13. 1 5. viz. private Seducers to Apoſtaſie and perjured perſons, of which place of Scripture, let the Reader ſee what I have ſaid before in this Tractate, page 108. and further conſult Junius in his Analytical explication of Deut. 19. where we ſhall find that both wayes the matter here ſpoken of, is belonging to the firſt Table and Religion: If the accuſation be true, tis enticing ſecretly to Apoſtaſie; if falſe tis matter of Religion becauſe the oath of God is ſet to it, eſpecially in the cauſe of Apoſtaſie, and therefore the Prieſts in that an oath is a point of Religion, are commanded to be preſent, and to take cognizance of it. And by the way leaſt this place may be thought to favor the Prieſts enquiring by Vrim, for the reſolving of the controverſie, becauſe tis ſaid, Then both the men between whom the controverſie is, ſhall ſtand before the Lord, before the Prieſts and the Iudges, I ſhall to what I have already anſwered to this place pag. 108. adde a paſſage out of Jun. Analyt. expl. Deut. 19. 17. Conſiſtent due illi viri quibus eſt controverſia, coram Jehova, id eſt, non coram templo. Domini, ſed coram Judicibus à Domino datis, coram quibus quum homines comparent dicuntur ſiſtere ſeſe coram Domino, & quos c nſulentes dicuntur Dominum conſulere, Exod. 18. Deut. 1. Junius to ſhow the contrary, The parties between whom the controverſie is, are commanded in theſe words to ſtand befor Jehovah, that is not before the Temple of the Lord, but before Iudges given of the Lord, before whom when men appeare they are ſaid to ſtand before the Lord, and whom conſulting with they are ſaid to conſult the Lord, Exod. 18. Dent. 1. The verſe alſo next following ſhowes it cannot be meant of the judgement of Vrim, for the reſolution of it depends upon the Iudges making diligent inquiſion verſe 18. that is their queſtioning and ſearching into the parties and all circumſtances, whereas if it had been by Vrim, it would have been attributed to the Prieſts, rather then the Judges, and it would have come from God, without that diligent inquiſition and exact enquiring of men, as the words imply. So Junius on the place ſaith. But the knowledge and judgement of this thing properly belongs to the Judges, and therefore to the Judges only the diligent enquiring, and thorough ſearching, out is principally commanded. Laſtly, Zach. 13. 2, 3. God by the Prophet ſhowes that in the dayes of the Goſpel prophecying falſly as diſtinct from Idolatrie (for ſo tis made and alſo I wil cauſe the Prophets) is to be puniſhed bodily (which text that tis both meant of the time under the Goſpel, and to be underſtood litterally of civil outward puniſhment by thoſe in Power and Authoritie, and not figuratively and ſpiritually, that I may not anticipate my ſelfe, nor create trouble to the Reader to read the ſame thing twice, I ſhall by the grace of God prove in the 19. Theſis, where I ſhall at large ſpeak of that Scripture and take of Hagiomaſtix's evaſions, and whither I refer the Reader) Now by Prophets there and thoſe who prophecie and ſpeak lies in the name of the Lord are not meant only Prophets whoſe doctrine is to go & worſhip falſe gods, but al ſorts of falſe phets. 1. Illiterate mechanick men, who run but are not ſent and that whether they preach true or falſe, which that they are included the fift verſe ſhowes, becauſe when the falſe Prophets ſpoken of ſhall repent and be aſhamed, among the reſt one is brought in, ſaying, I am no Prophet: I am an Husbandman, for man taught me to keep cattell from my youth. 2. Prophets who take upon them in the name of the Lord, as by revelation from God to foretell things to come, ſuch Prophets as are ſpoken of in Deut. 18. 20. Ezek. 13. 6, 7. Jerem. 14. 14. 15. 3. Such who preach falſe Doctrines and Hereſies wreſting the Scriptures to maintaine them, though they doe not formally teach another God and Chriſt, neither pretend to ſpeak by the inſpiration of ſome deitie, but only by perverting the Scriptures, which is a ſpeaking lyes in the name of the Lord: Now that Heretieks and falſe Teachers are underſtood in this place of Scripture as well as Apoſtates, beſides the judgement of many learned and Orthodox Interpreters, as Calv. in Zach. 13. 3. Jam ſatis clare oſtendit Propheta de falſis doctoribus hoc locum debere intelligi, quia mendacium locu tus es in nomine Jehovae. Galvin Arias Mont in Zach. 13. Nomen Nebiim non vates modo, ſed ſtulte loguaces garruloſ que ſignificat; eos nimirū quid vanae orationis cui nulla virtutis ratio reipſa ſubeſt, artifices ſunt, atque ſermonis & verborum praeſtigiis populū capiunt. Ari s Montanus, Gualt. in locum At de falſis Doctoribus locum debere in telligi ex ſequen tibus patebit. Gualther Fabrit. in Zach. 13. 2, 3. Fabritius, Diod. The Prophets, namely the falſe Prophets, by which are meant all Seducers and teachers of lies Diodate, Engliſh Annot. The Prophets, namely the falſe Prophets, by which are meant all Seduces and teachers of lies Annotations of Engliſh Divines, there are theſe Reaſons. 1. all ſuch are meant who ſpeak lyes in the name of the Lord, and that is made formalis ratio why not live, and to be thruſt thorow, for thou ſpeakeſt lies in the name of the Lord. Now falſe Doctrines and Hereſies are ſpeaking lyes, cald lyes in many places of Scriptures 1 Tim. 4. 2. 2 Theſ. 2. 11. Revel. 2. 2. and fables 2 Tim. 4. 4. and when men pretend God hath revealed them unto them by inſpiration, or urge the Scriptures to make them good, this is to ſpeake lyes in the name of the Lord: hence Calvin upon this place gives this reaſon that tis cleere the Prophet Zacharie ſpeaks altogether of falſe Teachers, becauſe of thoſe words, for thou ſpeakeſt lyes in the name of the Lord. 2. The word in this text uſed viz. Nebüm, and tranſlated Prophets, does not only ſignifie Prophets as Arias Montanus obſerves upon that place, but fooliſh ſpeakers and vaine talkers; ſuch namely who are the cunning deviſers of vaine diſcourſes, and by the ſubtil illuſious of words doe catch the people; ſuch as Peter ſpeaks of, 2 Pet. 2. falſe Teachers among the people who with fained words deceive, & among others ſuch eſpecially who when they are confuted by learned men by plain places of Scripture being deſtitute of all abilitie and means by which to defend them errors, that they may delude weak people, inſolently hoaſt they have the Spirit, all their diſcourſes being full of the boaſting of the Spirit, their prayers, diſputations, ſpeeches to the People all full of that, for which they thinke they ſhould be more beleeved then for all reaſon, teſtimonies, imitating therein Mahomet that Prince of Hereticks, who when be could not prove the things he taught, then he fled to the authoritie of the Spirit, ſaying the Spirit revealed thoſe things to him. Now all ſorts of Hereticks and falſe Teachers beſides thoſe Prophets who ſay let us goe after other Gods, are vain talkers and deceivers as they of the circumciſion and others Tit. 1. 10. 3, In this place is underſtood Hereticks and falſe Teachers, as well as falſe Prophets who teach the following after other Gods, from the effects that follow upon the thruſting thorow in the 4. 5. 6. verſes: ſo Gualther upon the place ſaith, that it ought to be underſtood of falſe Teachers, out of what followes it ſhall be manifeſt, as from ſaying, I am no Prophet, I am an but bandman, for man taught me to keep cattell from my youth, &c. That is they ſhall ingenuouſly confeſſé their ignorance that they ought to be ſent to the Plaw-taile, and to keep cattel rather then to continue any longer in the Miniſtrie of the Church: And this is fulfilled in our age in many Papiſts, who have left many fat Livings, and preferments to embrace the pure Doctrine of the Goſpel, and •• bet in the Church of Chriſt by the labor of their hands to get their living, then in the tents of Anti-Chriſt to enjoy the greateſt means. Now Papiſts and ſuch others however they are falſe Teachers & ven corrupt unſound Doctrine, yet they are not of thoſe who deny the true God and Chriſt, and perſwade to ſerve ſtrange Gods: So that by all theſe places of Scripture opened, wee may ſee fully proved, againſt Hagiomaſtixs aſſertion, by warrant of Scripture, many corruptions in matters of Religion, beſides falſe Prophets publickly teaching Apoſtaſie to falſe Gods, outwardly and bodily puniſhed, as private Seducers (though they pretend not to be Prophets) as perſons ſeduced not ſeducing, as thoſe who would not hearken to, but contemne the ſentence of the ſupreme Eccleſiaſticall Aſſembly, as Hereticks and falſe Teachers; and whoever would ſee more of theſe inſtances of Magiſtrates puniſhing for corruptions of religion in points of wil-worſhip, Sabboth breaking, &c, let them look back to page 27. 28, 29 of this preſent Tractate.

Secondly, Suppoſing there had been no other commands nor examples for Magiſtrates under the old Teſtament putting to death for matters of Religion, then thoſe named by Hagiomaſt. of falſe Prophets, Apoſtates, Blaſphemers, which is not true (as I have now ſhown in this firſt Anſwer and page 28. of this preſent Book) yet theſe were ſufficient grounds to juſtifie the Magiſtrates puniſhing in like caſes, and that upon theſe Reaſons. 1. In all Laws and commands for the better knowing their nature what they require and would have, tis good looking into the cauſes and reaſons of them, why ſuch Lawes were given by God: from the cauſe of making the Law, the mind of the Law-giver is to be underſtood: Tis a knowne maxime Ratio legis eſt mens legis, the reaſon of the Law, is the mind of the Law; Now the reaſons and cauſes of both thoſe commands, both againſt falſe Prophets as alſo private Seducers in Jun. Analyt. Explic. in Deut. 13. p. 541. Cauſae hujus legis & 〈…〉 graviſſimae expenunter di •• : quarū prior atque poten ior eſt reſpe •• 〈…〉 of reſpect •• 〈◊〉 . Deut. 13. from 1. to the 12 are. 1. the ſeeking to turne men away from the Lord their God, and thruſting them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walke in 2. The putting away the evill from the midſt of them, that others may hear and fear and do no more any ſuch wickednes among them; theſe are the Spirit and ſubſtance of theſe commands, that thoſe are to bee puniſhed who when they fal from God themſelves, tempt others to the like defection, and therefore are to bee made examples, that others may not doe the like; And therefore whoever ſeeks to turne men away from the Lord God, and thruſt them out of the way which the Lord hath commanded them to walke in, they come within the compaſſe of theſe commandements although they doe not tempt to goe after the falſe Gods of that time, and thoſe Countries, which the falſe Prophets then enticed them to; for the reaſon of the Law is expreſſed in a univerſall forme againſt thoſe who ſeek to turne men away from the Lord their God, and to thruſt them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walke in, as Bez. de Haeret. à magiſt. puniend. p. 156. Beza obſerves, and therefore to be in force againſt thoſe in generall who doe fal from the true Religion, and enticers alſo, which is done other wayes then by falling to the ſtrange Gods in thoſe times that Moſes writ in; yea the command it ſelfe verſe 5. in the letter, mentions as ſpeaking to turne men away from the Lord their God, ſo to thruſt out of the way, which the Lord their God commanded them to walke in, which certainly in the Scripture ſenſe and acception includes other Apoſtafie and Idolatrie, then of other Gods; and I aske whether Iſraels worſhipping the golden calfe, and the ten Tribes worſhipping the golden calfe at Dan and Bethel, though they worſhipped Iehovah in and by them, were not a going out of their way which the Lord their God commanded them to walke in. Secondly, It is common and uſual, that in the commands concerning the worſhip of God and in other places of Scripture where the worſhip of God is ſpoken of, there are Synecdochicall ſpeeches, intending and containing many other things of like kind and nature although not formally and literally expreſſed. Eliah whe he complained of the whole Covenant of God violated by the Iſraelites, expreſſes it by a part,1 King. 19 10 thrown down thine Altars and ſlaine thy Prophets. The Prophet Iſaiah prophecying of Egypts embracing the true religion, ſaith, Egypt ſhall ſweare to the Lord of hoſts, under that expreſſing the whole worſhip of God. The commands of God are exceeding large and broad, comprehending many things under one: River. in Decal. p. 6. In omnibus, praeceptis decalogi Synecdocben eſſe agnoſcendam; qua ſpecie una propoſita intelliguntur omnes ſub eodem genere. Vide plur. Rivet in his explication of the Decalogue among other Rules hee gives for underſtanding of the commandements, hath this, that in all the Precepts of the Decalogue we muſt acknowledge a Synecdec e, in which one kind being propounded, all under the ſame genus are underſtood. But that that Synecdoche may be rightly explained, before all things the Scope of the Law-giver in every Precept is to be enquired after: namely, what he ſignifies pleaſes and diſpleaſes him: for then we ſhall aime rightly and refer all things to their true end; Now in theſe commands Deut. 13. from v. 1. to the 12. if we doe but wel obſerve the ſcope and end of the Law-giver, viz how teaching defection from the Lord God highly diſpleaſes him we ſhall plainly ſee the Synecdoche in theſe commands, under that turning away by thoſe falſe Gods, other turning away by falſe Gods of another ſort, and falſe worſhips of the true God by Images and Idols, highly provoking him. Of Bez. de Haeret. à magiſtr. puniend. 156. Sunt autem hujus defectionis varia teſtimonia publica, que rum etſi praecipua tantum, & quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accidunt in legihus commemorantur, ipſa tamen legis ratio unverſali formula concepta eſt: itaque in genere valere debet adverſus eos qui à vera religione deficiunt, & alies ad defectionem ſolicitant. defection from God there are many dangerous and damnable wayes, divers publick teſtimonies of it, of which though one or two Principall of the times and places then may be only particularly named in the Laws, yet ſuch that are worſe, and other as bad muſt needs be meant too, eſpecially when the reaſon of the Law ſpeaking of defection is delivered in a general way, as tis in this inſtance of Deut. 13. But of this the Reader may ſee more in page 31. 32. of this Treatiſe.

Thirdly, under the old Teſtament Lawes, commanding Magiſtretes to puniſh falſe Prophets, Idolaters Blaſphemers, are contained falſe Teachers and Hereticks, who preach Doctrines deſtroying the foundation, and blaſphemers againſt the glory of Chriſt, although they be not ſuch falſe Prophets and Apoſtates as wholly deny God and Chriſt, and fall to the gods of the Heathens, which beſides the judgement of many learned Divines, as Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Philip Melancton, Iunius, Zepperus, with divers others upon that queſtion, ſtil quotiug thoſe texts to prove that Hereticks and falſe Teachers ought to be puniſhed by the Civil Magiſtrate, appears further thus. 1. Among theHaebreis, Pſeudo-propheta quemvis falſum doctorem ſignificare ſolet, Bergii Diſſert. Octae de Haereſ. eſuſque Jud. Iewes a falſe Prophet uſed to ſignifie every falſe Teacher asFabrit. in Zach. 13. 2, 3. Bergius ſhows, and I have already ſhown out of Calvin, Arias Monianus and others that by the falſe Prophets in Zacharie are meant falſe Teachers, and that the word in the Hebrew Nebiim ſignifies fooliſh and vaine talkers, that with fained words make merchandize of People, as well as Prophets; and ſome Divines ſhow that the name of Prophet in the generall ſignification was taken not only for them that foreſold things to come, but for ſuch who profeſſed themſelves Interpreters of the Law and word of God, though falſly. 2. There is a great agreement and analogie made by the Holy-Ghoſt, between the falſe Prophets under the old Teſtament, and the falſe Teachers and Hereticks under the new; between the Heatheniſh Apoſtaſie and Idoaltrie of ſtrange Gods under the old, and Chriſtian Idolatrie, the worſhipping of the true God, by Images, Saints, and the beleeving of falſe Doctrines deſtructive to the faith, as theſe places of Scripture ſhow 2 Pet. 1. 1. But there were falſe Prophets alſo among the people, even 〈◊〉 there ſhall be falſe Teachers among you, where Peter reſembles them together, making the falſe Teachers under the new ſuch men as the falſe Prophets under the old; hence in many places of the new Teſtament,ride igitur qui haeretici, etiam Pſeudo-Prophetae ſaepe appellantur, de quibus Math. 7. 15. Math. 24. 24. Bergii Diſſertat. Octa. de Haereſ. 1060. Hereticks and falſe Teachers who broached ſtrange Doctrines in Chriſtian religion, ſtill profeſſing to hold Chriſt, are cald by the name of falſe Prophets, and Popiſh Teachers who hold Chriſt, the Scriptures, &c, cald falſe Prophets, as Matth. 7. 15. the falſe Prophets there, muſt needs be meant falſe Teachers, who doe not deny God and Chriſt, and not Maſter Goodwins falſe Prophets, as their ſheeps clothing ſpoken of in the text ſhowes. So Matth. 24. 11. 24. the falſe Prophets were ſuch men in pretences, in ſo much that if it were poſſible they would deceive the very elect. So 1 John 4. 1. Chriſtians are called upon to try Doctrines, becauſe many falſe Prophets are gone out into the world, that is, falſe Teachers broaching ſtrange Doctrines, and thus the Anti-Chriſtian faction is cald the falſe Prophets in divers places of the Revelation of Saint Iohn, hence cald dreamers Iude 8. as thoſe in Deut. 13. 1. compared to Janues and Iambres, to Balaam that falſe Prophet and ſuch like, 2 Tim. 3. 8. 2 Pet. 2. 15. Iude 11. and thus Rome after turned Chriſtian, but worſhipping the true God after a falſe manner, being corrupt in the faith of Chriſt, is called by the ſame name and the ſame things affirmed of it for worſhipping Divils and for Plagues, as of Heatheniſh Babylon that worſhipped falſe gods, as many places in the Revelation of Saint Iohn ſhow. 3. Hereticks and falſe Teachers who yet profeſſe to beleeve in God Creator of heaven and earth, and in Ieſus Chriſt, to hold alſo the Scriptures the word of God, may yet each ſuch Doctrins that they may be juſtly ſtiled falſe Prophets, Apoſtates, Idolaters, Blaſphemers, as divers of the ancient Hereticks, Mevandrians, Gnoſticks, Manichees, with others, and ſundry of the later ſort, Papiſts, the Libertines againſt whom Calvin writes, Socinians, Familiſts. The Apoſtles in many places of their writings ſpeaking of Hereticks and falſe Teachers in their times, and Prophecying of thoſe in after times, both the Popiſh faction and the Sectarian, ſpeak of them as Apoſtates, Anti-Chriſts, falſe Prophets, Seducers, Deceivers, Idolaters, Blaſphemers, and their Doctrines and wayes as Apoſtafie, Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, worſhipping of Devils, Seducing and ſuch like, as theſe and many other ſuch like places of Scripture ſhow, 2 Theſ. 2. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 17. 18. 1 Tim. 1. 19. 20. 2 Pet. 2. 1. 1 Iohn. 2. 18, 19, 22, 23, 26. 1 Iohn. 4. 1, 2, 3. 2 Epiſt. of Iohn 7. 9, 10. Iude verſe 4. Revel. 2. 20. Revel. 9. 20. Revel. 13. 5, 6. Revel. 16. 13, 14. Revel. 13. 3, 5. Revel. 18. 4, 9. Revel. 19. 20. It were eaſie for me to ſhow how many of the Hereticks in the three firſt Centuries that profeſſed the name of Chriſt, and therefore not cald infidels, might juſtly be termed Apoſtates, falſe Prophets, Idolaters, Blaſphemers: Junius obſerves upon Deuteronomy 13. that Hereticks are diſtinguiſhed divers wayes, Hereſie is either totall as that of the Menandrians, Gnoſticks, &c, or partial departing only in part from the Doctrine of faith: Now I ſuppoſe totall Hereſie, will eaſily be acknowledged Apoſtafie; but I will only inſtance in ſome Hereticks and falſe Teachers of the latter times, Papiſts, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Anabaptiſtis. Are not Papiſts groſſe Idolaters in ſeverall particulars, as our Divines have unanſwerably ſhowen in their writings againſt them? Are not Socinians alſo Apoſtates, groſſe Idolaters, who make the Chriſtian faith in the object of faith and worſhip not to bee diſtinguiſhed from the faith and worſhip of Heathens, Iewes, and Mahumetans, and beſides one God Maker of all things, worſhip Chriſt with divine worſhip whom yet they hold to be but a meere man: out of the Apoſtaſie, Impietie, and baſe Idolatrie of the Sociaians, in what reſpects Apoſtates overthrowing all fundamentals of faith, and agreeing with Iewes, Turks, and the old Hereticks Pault ni and others, by Epiphanius called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; worſe then Papiſts and their Idolatrie more evid nt and gr ſſe then the Papiſts, I referre the Reader to the Theſes of learned Voer. pars prim. alte a, De neceſſit Tranitat. Sequeretur fidem Christia nā objecto fidei & caltus ſai non distingui, à Gentili, Judaica, Mahumediſtica. Sienim neceſſario non credat in Vnitate Trinitatem, in Trinitate Vnitatem, jam redigitur ad Theologiam naturalem, & Symbolizat cum pſeude-religionibus modo memoratis. Addimus nunc tantū de Mahumedica, eam ex vagis & incertis Neo-ſcepticorum ypotheſibus vix poſſe convinci apoſtaſiae abſolute exitialis; ca enim praeter pietatem & probitatem, ſtatuit fidem unius Dei & Chriſti tanquam magni Prophetae & legati Dei ex virgine nati, immo tanquam Meſſiae: ita ut in his fundamentalibus non admodum diſſentire videantur ab Anti-Trinitariis Franciſci Davidis ſectatoribus. Et Socinianos eſſe Idololatras, & quidem turpiſſimos, quippe qui ex formula religionis ſuae praeter unum illum ſolum natura Deum conditorem omnium, divine cultu adorant Chriſtum natura 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contra Gal. 4. 2. coll. cum Jer. 10. 11. Libertas exercitii ſeu caetuum eccleſiaſticorum celebratio publica aut privato publica non eſt concedenda Socinianis, quia eſt idololatria multo evidentior, & magis theoret ca ac craſſa quam ex grataeſt invocatio Mariae & Sanctorum in Papatu. Voet. Diſputat, de Gentiliſmo. Videlii Tractat. de Deo Synagog. Voetius De neceſſitate & utilitate Dogmatis de ſa st Trinitate, who fully and excellently proves all theſe particulars. In the ancient Conſtitutions of Gratian, Valentinian, Theodoſius, Martian, Iuſtinian, Antitrinitarians, are ſaid Iewiſhly and Apoſtatically to contradict the Trinitie and the name of Chriſtians is denied them; Are not Antitrinitatians as Paul Beſt that hath belched out ſo many reproachfull ſpeeches againſt Chriſt and the Holy-Ghoſt, Blaſphemers in a high meaſure? Are not they who doe not only ſpeak evill of the Trinitie, but teach others ſo to doe greater Blaſphemers then thoſe ſpoken of in Levit. 24. 16? Are not divers Anabaptiſts who have broached falſe Doctrines, and foretold divers things to come as the day of judgement to be on ſuch a day, ſuch a City or Country to be deſtroyed on ſuch a day, ſuch a Citie or Kingdome to be given them of God, and that by affirming they ſpake by Revelation and immediate inſpiration of God, falſe Prophets as well as thoſe in Deut. 13. 2. Deut. 18. 20, 22? In a word I ſhall conclude this with a paſſage out of * Beza De Haereticis a Magiſtratu puniendis, brought by way of Anſwer to a like objection againſt Deut. 13. &c, Thoſe Lawes are not now in force, becauſe there is no man now a falſe Prophet, according to Moſes definition, that is, who foretels any thing to come and teaches to worſhip other gods: I anſwer that the mind of the Law-giver is to be underſtood from the cauſe of making the Law, Becauſe he hath ſpoken to turne away from the Lord your God: Now there are divers publick Declarations of this defection, of which although the Principall only, and thoſe which moſt commonly fall out be named in the Laws, yet the very reaſon of the Law is expreſſed in a univerſall forme, and therefore in the general oúght to be in force againſt thoſe who doe fall from the true religion and ſollicite others to defection, whom in a generall word we call now Hereticks, not falſe Prophets or dreamers of dreams, or Sacrificers to other gods: becauſe that thoſe out ward ceremonies and thoſe gifts of Prophecie are ceaſed. But though they be ceaſed, notwithſtanding neither defection, nor the puniſhment of it is ceaſed. Moreover I ſay, thoſe who interpret the holy Scripture wrongfully, withdraw men from the true worſhip of God, and ſo perſwade them to the worſhip of other gods. For tis neceſſary that all Doctrine which ſpeaks of the worſhip of God, if it be not of God it proceeds from the Devil; Therefore he that receives it intertains the Devil, and he that perſwades the receiving it drawes away from God; For Paul cals the Doctrines of forbidding meats and marriage the Doctrines of Devils.

Fourthly, In the commands given by God either againſt ſuch and ſuch ſins, or for puniſhing in ſuch and ſuch ſins, without any ſtretching of the commands at all, or interpretations at large, many things not named muſt neceſſarily be contained, as under generals the particulars, as under one kind other kinds of a higher nature, or of the like nature, as under the male, the female alſo, and other ſuch, or elſe many common received Rules given by Divines for interpretation of the Decalogue and Scripture are to be rejected; Yea many things that are evill and abominable are not forbidden in the Law of God: There are many things may be inſtan ed in out of the new Teſtament of which God ſhowes his diſlike, which yet in the letter and particularly by name are not forbidden in any of the commands of the old Teſtament, as Rom. 1. 26. with divers others that might be named; and there are many abominations that have been, are, and may be committed even of things againſt the light of nature that are neither in the old Teſtament, nor new forbidden particularly; and yet certainly theſe things are forbidden directly and properly in the commandements, and the commandements are not ſtretcht, nor wyre-drawn by thoſe who alledge ſuch commands againſt ſuch Practiſes: If the Scriptures muſt ſet down particularly by name all the kinds and degrees of evils, with the particular manner and way of doing them, which the corrupt nature of man is capable of committing, and al particulars of all kinds and manner of duties, with all particular caſes about puniſhments, and all kinds and degrees of puniſhment belonging to all kind of offences that may fall out, and that both in Civil and Eccleſiaſtical cenſures, with the particular way and manner of proceeding in them all, I ſuppoſe ſome hundreds of great volumes would not containe them all, but that it might be ſaid in this caſe as tis Iohn 21. the laſt verſe of the things which Ieſus did, that if they ſhould be written every one the world it ſelfe could not containe the Books that ſhould be written. And if there muſt not be an extenſion and interpretation of commands, ſo as to hold ſuch commands and places of Scripture, forbid or enjoyne ſome things not particularly named, how will Hagiom. prove many things practiſed by Papiſts and Prelaticall men to be againſt the ſecond command or againſt any command, as the making Croſſes for Religion, Holy-Water, Saints, Reliques, bowing at the name of Jeſus, Holy-Dayes, Surplices, Altar-Clothes, with a hundred other Ceremouies and Inventions of men in the worſhip of God, are theſe literally and by name forbidden in the ſecond command or any other? and may not the Papiſts and Prelates in all the texts of Scripture brought againſt their Wil-worſhip, and Inventions of men, ſay the very ſame to Hagiomaſtix and his fellowes, that Croſſes, Holy-Dayes, bowing at the name of Ieſus, &c, are not mentioned nor touched in any one word of thoſe Laws under the old Teſtament given againſt Idolatrie: But if any one will goe about to draw theſe words unto their Croſſes, &c, that cannot bee done by the proper force of the words, but as Law ers ſpeake per extenſionem latamque interpretationem. And it would be firſt well conſidered of, whether every Law does admit of ſuch extenſions, and if not every one, which of them then does admit, and wherefore, and whether in the ſecond commandement there are thoſe things for which an extenſion is to be made? Again, I deſire Hagiomaſtix and his compeers to reſolve me theſe queſtions, ſeeing there muſt be no extenſion of that command in Deut. 13. 1, 5. nothing elſe commanded but what is in the letter of the Law, Whether a falſe Propheteſſe that ſhould ariſe and endeavour to perſwade to the worſhip of a falſe God; and that by affirming ſhe ſpake by the inſpiration of ſome deitie, and that her ſaying's were to be eſteemed Oracles, were not to be put to death by virtue of this command, as well as the falſe Prophet? and yet a Prophe eſſe is not in the text. Whether that command Exod. 21. 33, 34. of the owner of the pit into which his neighbours Oxe or Aſſe fell, making good the Oxe or Aſſe and giving money to the Owner of them, did not bind as much if a Horſe or a Sheep fell, into it? and yet the words of the Law are only the Oxe or the Aſſe, and not a Horſe or Sheep. Whether that command concerning the putting to death thoſe children that did curſe or ſtrike their Parents, though it expreſſed not in the letter death for killing of them, did not include much more death upon thoſe who killed their Parents? and ſo I might inſtance in many more particulars; But for a concluſion of this fourth Anſwer, I ſhall end with a paſſage out of Macco. Disputt 14. De lege Jud. Theſ. 15 Perfectio legum Judicialum requirit ut ſtatuamus nullum caſum accidere poſſe, qui non poſſet ex illius analogia (nam de ſimilibus idem est judicium) de finiri. Exempli gra ia Exod. 21. 33 34. habetur haec lex: Quum retexerit quis foveam, autquum foderit quis foveam, deinde non operuerit am, itaque ceciderit illuc bos aut aſinus. Dominus ille foveae rependito, pecuniam reſtituito domino illius, quod autem mortuum fuerit ejus eſt . Hactenus verba legis, ſed quid ſi in ſoveam talem indicerit vis aut equas, fecile eſt intelligere ex ipſa analogia & ſimilitudine rerum, idem juris hic obſervandum. Maccovius in a Diſputation of his De Lege judiciali, that the perfection of the judicial Laws require, that we ſhould hold no caſe can fal out, which cannot from the analogie of the Law (for of like there is the ſame judgement) be determined. From the analogie and ſimilitude of things tis eaſie to underſtand, that the ſame Law and Right is to be obſerved, referring the Reader for more ſatisfaction to page 31. 32, 33. of this preſent Tractate.

Fifthly, as to that brought by Hagiomaſtix and the reſt, that the Law of God made againſt falſe Prophets and worſhippers of falſe Gods was not intended againſt thoſe who otherwiſe held the Law of God was to be kept, but were infected with ſome error, becauſe in former times among the Jewes who were affected with a vebement love and zeale towards their Law, Hereticks notwithſtanding were tolerated, and particularly the Sadduces, theſe were not exempted from being Magiſtrates: The Scribes and Phariſees alſo that taught many dangerous errors, yet were in great honor in this Church and State, I anſwer, 1. Hagiomaſtixs foundation upon which he raiſes this argument is unfound, for the Scribes Pheri ees and others in place, in the time of tolerating the Sadduces, Herodians and other Hereticks (which was in Chriſts time) were not zealous of the Law of God, as is evident by many of Chriſts Sermons reproving them for want of love and zeale to the Law, and the true worſhip of God, Matth. 5. from the 19. verſe to the end of the chapter, Matth. 15. from verſe 3. to the 10. Matth. 23. from verſe 3. to the 29. verſe. They were zealous indeed of the traditions of the Elders, and of their owne Superſtitions and Devices, but not of the Law of God, they corrupted and tranſgreſſed the Lawes of God by their traditions and hypocriſies, but had no true love nor zeale to the Law nor the Jewiſh Religion, and therefore no wonder they tolerated Sadduces, Herodians, &c, but of this point how religion was then mightily corrupted and all things out of order, I have ſpoken before in p. 30. of this Treatiſe, and ſo wil not tautologize. 2. Can Hagiomaſtix upon ſecond thoughts think the Practiſe of the Rulers of the Jewes and the people that followed them in a time ſo deſparately corrupt as that was, when Church and State haſtened to deſtruction, and all things were amiſſe, a ſafe Ground for Chriſtian. Magiſtrates to walke by, and not rather judge they did amiſſe in that as well as in other things, and that their Practice is not a probable Rule to be followed: I ſhall mind him of one particular inſtanced in by himſelfe viz, their not hindring the Sadduces and other Hereticks, from coming to the Temple or the Synagogues, which if it were well done tis by this argument as unlawful for the Church to cenſure her members with Eccleſiaſticall cenſures for any Hereticall Tenets, as for the Civil Magiſtrate to puniſh, and ſo all Church Cenſures for Hereſies and falſe Doctrines are overthrown as well as civil; whereas I took it for granted, Church cenſures in matters of Religion had been Lawfull, viz. A ſpiritual weapon ſuitable, by their owne confeſſion, for a ſpirituall evill Hereſie, and M. S. a good Friend of Hagiomaſtixs in anſwer to that Argument againſt Toleration, Revel. 2. 20. yeelds it, ſaying, that's meant of Church cenſures, but not of bodily outward puniſhment by the Magiſtrate; and therefore I think the practiſe of the People and their Rulers ſuffering Sadduces and all other Hereticks to be no better argument for Juſtification of a Toleration, then their practiſe of crucifying Chriſt a Juſtification of that. 3. Beſides that all may ſee what you and your party aime at in ſpeaking of the Phariſees and Saduces being in honour in the Jewiſh State Magiſtrates and bearing civill offices, not a bare Toleration of your conſciences, but that you may be in places of honour, government and profit: This gives us a cleare reaſon of the Toleration of Errors in thoſe times, namely that Scribes, Phariſees and Saduces were in places of power and government, had a great intereſt in Church and State, and therefore no wonder if they would tolerate themſelves and their owne Opinions: can you think it a good argument that Adulterers and theeves ought to be tolerated, becauſe Adulterers and Theeves having power, ſuffer ſuch to goe unpuniſhed: Or can you thinke it reaſon to ſay many Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, being in places of Government ſuffered Papiſts, Anabaptints, therefore tis the duty of the godly Magiſtrate to ſuffer them and all other Hereticks: Pray Maſter Hagiomaſtix reſolve me this queſtion, ſeeing Scribes, Phariſees, and ſuch like were Magiſtrates and in places of power and honour, who ſhould puniſh Phariſees and Saduces for their Errors and dangerous Opinions?

Sixthly, as to that laſt clauſe that Chriſt did never charge this Church or State, or thoſe that bore office in either with in or unfaithfulneſſe for not proceeding againſt the Sadduces, Phariſees, &c. in regard of their Errors, either by impriſonment or death, and yet Chriſt did teach and preſſe upon men all and all manner of duties. I anſwer, Firſt, how is that proved he never did: Can the Patrons of Toleration Minus Celſus Senenſis, Hagiomaſtix, &c make it follow by ſaying tis no where written in the Goſpels, and therefore he never reproved them, can they reaſon from the Scriptures negatively in matters of fact, ſuch things never were, becauſe the are not ſpoken of? what think they of that Axiome, Anon dicto ad non fact •• no valet conſequentia, were not there many things that Chriſt did which were not written, Iohn 21. the laſt verſe? But if they will reply, yes in ſome things, but not in matters of judgement, righteou neſſe ſuch a weighty matter as this is made to be; I rejoyne that in many weighty matters of the Law and juſtice, Chriſt either ſpoke not particularly of them, or if he did, they are not written, neither can be found in the Goſpels more then this of puniſhing Sadduces and other Hereticks in matter of Religion: I might inſtance in many things unqueſtionably forbidden or commanded by God in the Morall Law, that are not particularly ſpoken of in the Goſpels, which yet from hence to reaſon againſt them wery vere bad Divinity. What inſtances can be given of Chriſts giving any commands to thoſe in place to puniſh for Murther, Adulterery, Theft, more then for Idolatrie, Blaſphemie, Here ie? 2. Hagiomaſtix brings in the Church again, as well as the State, ſurely he is for a Toleration of all Hereſies, Blaſphemies, &c, in the Church as well as the State, to have no man puniſhed for his religion with any cenſure of Admonition, Excommunication, or Non-Communion: In his M. S. he was for ſpiritual cenſures, but in theſe 3. yeers laſt paſt the man is well improved (belike) to reaſon againſt any Church cenſure as well as State Puniſhment: And by the way I deſire the Reader to obſerve whatever reaſon in the wiſedome of God there might be, that nothing is ſet down in the Goſpels of Chriſts charging the State with ſin for not proceeding againſt the Sadduces, &c, that cannot be the reaſon to ſhow the unlawfulnes of Magiſtrates puniſhing Hereticks, becauſe Hagiom. confeſſes the ſame of the Church, that Chriſt charged not the Church nor the Officers with ſin, for not proceeding againſt the Sadduces, and yet I ſuppoſe Hagiomaſtix will not openly profeſſe tis a good Argument that no Church cenſures may be uſed againſt any Heretick; however I am ſure many of his Compeers in handling the queſtion diſtinguiſh of a Toleration and cenſures, granting Eccleſiaſtical cenſures though denying Civil, And I am ſure if Chriſts never charging the church nor thoſe that bore office in her with ſin, for not proceeding againſt the Sadduces, be no good argument to take away all Church cenſures, neither is it to lay waſt all Magiſtrates puniſhing in ſuch caſes. 3. Chriſt did to the Scribes, Phariſees & Sadduces ſpeak and reaſon againſt their errors, yea reproved and threatned them for thoſe errors, which alſo is granted by Hagiomaſtix, in doing of which he did equivalently and really preſſe upon them the ſuppreſſing and puniſhing of Hereſies in perſons under their power, whilſt he ſpake to men in Authoritie and denounced the judgements of God becauſe of them: He that preaches to a Prince againſt Idolatrie and ſhowes the evils that will come upon a King and his Kingdome for it, preaches to him to reſtraine Idolatrie, though he doe not particularly in expreſſe words call upon him not to ſuffer any man to practice Idolatrie; and therefore Chriſt ſpeaking to the Scribes and Phariſees, the Rulers and Elders, that knew the Laws of God, how Magiſtrates in Iſrael were to puniſh falſe Teachers, in ſpeaking ſo againſt falſe Prophets, Hereticks and Sectaries, as Sadduces, &c, that was a charging them (ſuch a thing being ſpoken to ſuch men) to doe their duties againſt them, which by the Law was more then if private perſons, and being ſpoken to qua ſuch, as Scribes, &c, was a commanding them according to their places to proceed againſt them: For tis a rule among Divines that in many things recorded in Scriptures, which are delivered only in common and in general, they are to be taken by every one according to their relations and places, by the Magiſtrates according to their relation, the Miniſters according to theirs, and the People according to their Sphere, of which many inſtances may be given in the new Teſtament. 4. Suppoſing it could be proved, Chriſt never reproved the Jewiſh Church and State for ſuffering the Sadduces, &c, yet it followes not Magiſtrates therefore ſhould tolerate Hereticks, and Sectaries, and that both, becauſe Gods declaration of his mind in other parts of Scripture, though not in the Goſpel is a ſufficient, as alſo becauſe there might be ſome particular reaſons proper to the Iewiſh State, as that Chriſt ſaw the Iewiſh State and Magiſtracie it ſelfe that then was to be leavened and corrupted with thoſe errors and opinions, to be either Sadduces, Phariſees, Scribes, Herodians, and ſuch like, ſo that to have ſpoken againſt Toleration, and for puniſhing Sadduces, &c had been to have ſpoken to the State, not to have ſuffered it ſelfe, as if one ſhould preach to the Parliament now, not to tolerate but to puniſh themſelves: So was it for Chriſt to have urged thoſe commands in Deut. 13. &c, and thoſe examples of Ioſiah, Nehemiah, &c upon the Iewiſh State then. 2. That in the times of Chriſts preaching, the Civil Power of the Common-Wealth of the Jewes, was much weakned, if not wholly taken away from them by the Romans, of which I have ſpoken ſomething before page 30. and doe now adde, that the Iewes had no power at all of capitall puniſhments then, and therefore to what end ſhould Chriſt charge them with thoſe Lawes of putting falſe Prophets &c, to death, for full proo e of which I refer the Reader to Maſter Gilleſpies Aarons rod bloſſoming, Book 1. chapt. 3. page 29. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. who learnedly proves that point both from Scripture and the Teſtimonies of many learned writers, who have written of the Iewiſh Antiquities and Cuſtomes, and Anſwers the contrary objections. 3. Chriſt knew that Church and Common-wealth were to be certainly ſhortly diſſolved, the Chriſtian Church to be ſet up, and though he warned the People of thoſe errors and wayes, and denounced the judgements of God againſt them, yet becauſe he knew the purpoſe of God was to deſtroy the Iewiſh Common-wealth, he might not ſpeake for that and the other Reaſons forenamed to the Magiſtrates, as otherwiſe he would, of which the Reader may read more in pag. 30. of this preſent Book.

And now for putting a Period to this 17. Theſis, and to all the Anſwers given by me to thoſe evaſions brought againſt hoſe old Teſtament Lawes, of Deut. 13. Deut. 17. and the reſt, I ſhall briefly adde 3 things. Firſt, To cleare a little further ſome paſſages of Deut. 13. Secondly, ſhow the ſlightneſſe and weakneſſe of Hagiomaſt. exceptions againſt thoſe old Teſtament Laws. Thirdly, Show the exceſſive pride and folly of the man in boaſting and glorying in ſuch poor & weak things as he brings againſt the Vindicator of the Ordinance for preventing the groth and ſpreading of Hereſies, in Sect. 34. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.

Firſt, As I ſhall adde two places more out of Moſes Law before omitted in the beginning of the 17. Theſis, to prove the Magiſtrates power of puniſhing in matters of the firſt Table, viz Deut. 19. 16, 17, 18, 19. and Numb. 15. 30, 31. the former in caſe of Apoſta ie, the latter in caſe ofVid. Jun. A alyt. Expl. Numer in cap. 15. blaſpheming God, ſo to all I have ſaid of Deut. 13. I deſire the Reader to obſerve that God having in the former chapter commanded the worſhipping of the ture God, and forbidden that of Idols, (which unqueſtionably is morall,) this 13. chap. is fitly added to it as an appendix, in which God gives direction for removing the impediments oppoſite to his worſhip commanded, particularly he commands the Authors of Apoſtaſie, not to be hearkned unto nor tolerated, but to be puniſhed with death; and for that end that ſuch who are obſtina e and will not be amended, nor regard their own ſalvation, may be hindred at leaſt from being an impediment to the ſalvation of others, and the common grace of God, which removall of impediments with the end laid down, cannot but be morall alſo. Junius in his Analyſis upon this chapter ſhowes tis an Appendix to the worſhip of God, and Zepperus in his Tractate of the moſaical Lawes, ſaith, that this of defection by falſe Prophets is an Appendix of the firſt commandement. Now as the chapter it ſelfe cleers it, and divers learned Jun. Analy . Expli. Deutero. cap. 13. Nam de docentibus agit Moſes priore parte cap. ſive palam, ſive clam: de is vero qui auctoritate publica tantam impietatem defendunt poſteriore capite. Zepper. Leg. Moſaic. Explan. lib. 4. cap 2. Leges de Apoſtaſia à Deo & vera religione ſu t aut de pſeudo propheta publice d cente; aut de claudeſtino ſeductore vel privata ſolicitations ad apoſtaſiā aut de publica defectione totius Civitatis. Divines writing upon the chapter ſhows this 13. chap. is not all one commandement but there are three diſtinct commands in this chapter, the firſt of the falſe Prophet publickly teaching Apoſtaſie in the five firſt verſes, the ſecond of the Clandeſtine Seducer, in the ſix verſes following, the third of a publick defection of a whole Citie: which being obſerved & wel conſidered, beſides what I have ſaid already to Hagiomaſtixs anſwer that the command in Deut. 13. concerning the putting of falſe Prophets and Seducers to death, cannot bind, becauſe then whole Cities muſt be deſtroyed, Cattel, &c, fully anſwers all he ſpeaks in this kind, becauſe that latter part of the chapter upon which he vapors ſo, is a diſtinct command quite another thing, from that in the firſt verſe to the 5. as alſo from that of the 6. to the 12. So that tis a meere fallacie to confound Lawes which are diſtinct, to ſpeak all along of that 13. chapt. as one Law and command (for ſo he does page 48. 47. make them all one) fallacia compoſitionis is eaſily diſcovered by dividing and diſtinguiſhing the commands which God hath made diſtinct; and therefore the one command may be in force, and wee neither add, nor diminiſh ought from it, although the other which is no part of it may not, but be more proper to the Iewes, and only in ſome particular caſes (of which I ſhall ſpeak more preſently) and among many differences that might be obſerved between the two former commands in the firſt 11. verſes and this about a Citie, this is plainly one, whereas theſe are commands founded expreſly upon generall reaſons common to all becauſe he hath ſpoken to turne you away from the Lord your God, &c, this is not ſpoken of at all in the caſe of the Citie, but tis grounded upon a reaſon peculiar to the Iews, as ſome learned men obſerve from v. 12. If thou ſhalt heare ſay in one of thy Cities which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, the foundation of that command being ceremoniall, becauſe it hath a particular reſpect, to tha Land the Lord gave them to dwell in, God being in a certaine ſingular kind of manner the Lord of that Land: upon which place of Scripture Junius writing, ſhowes the deſtroying of the Citie utterly, with the devoting of all things therein to deſtruction, to be ceremoniall and ſo not to take place now, yea it was not of force among the Iewes themſelves, but only in one particular caſe, when a Citie openly by publick Authoritie defended and maintained Apoſtaſie from God; and therefore though in a Citie there had been hundreds of Apoſtates whether publick or private Seducers, which all were to have ſuffered by vertue of the former Lawes of the firſt 11. verſes of this chapter, yet ſo long as openly by publick Authoritie of that Citie theſe were not defended nor maintained, although theſe particular Apoſtates were commanded to be put to death, all the inhabitants among whom they lived were not commanded to be put to death, muchleſſe the Cattell and all things within it to be burnt with fire; and the Reader for his further ſatisfaction herein, beſides what I have written of this in page 85. 86, 87. may conſult with Junius in his Analyt. explication on Deut. 13. 543. 544. who reſolves the queſtion and caſe thus, That in this chapter there are three things concurr, the morall right, the ceremoniall, and the Political: That which is of morall right that according to the ſubſtance remains, and therefore it followes that who foe is guilty of ſo great wickedneſſe and obſtinacie as Moſes deſcribes in this chapter ought to receive the reward and puniſhment of his 〈◊〉 , and that by the Law of God and nature, whoſe Miniſter and Helper the judicial and political Law is, Jun. Analy . Expl. in Deut. 13. 544. In hoc legis capite tria concurrere, jus moraie, ceremoniale atque politic m. Quod juris moralis eſt illum ſecundū ſubstantiam per manet ac pro inde ſequitur tū, qui reus eſt tantae impietatis & contumaciae ac de ſcribit Moſes impium eſſe & paenas dare impictatis oportere, ex divino & naturali jure: Quod autem ceremoniale eſt, id in postrema ujus capitis parte non habet locu , ubi civitatem deleri & omnia devoveri anathemati p •• e cepit Dominus &c. but that which is ceremonial and is in the laſt part of this chapter, where God commands to deſtroy the Citie, and devote all things in it to a curſe, hath no place now, becauſe the foundation of this command is ceremoniall. For the Political and judicial Law, which hath its foundation partly in the divine and naturall Law and partly in the ceremoniall, it followes from thence whatſoever in the judicial Law, ſimply belongs to the preſervation of the naturall and moral Law ought according to the ſubſtance to be obſerved: but whatſoever things are of ceremonial right, to them the Magiſtrate is not bound, but the publick ſafety and prevention of ſo great evils, laying aſide ceremonies, according to natural and moral right ought to be procured and ſought for by him.

Secondly, I might manifeſt the flightneſſe and weakneſſe of Hagiomaſtixs evaſions of thoſe old Teſtament Lawes, by drawing them briefly into one, and ſhowing the ſeveral fallacies and paralogiſmes one after another, as arguing Falſa Suppoſitione, Adicto ſecundum quid, A particulari ad vniverſale, Fallacia compoſitionis et diviſionis, &c, As alſo had I wanted matter, I could have run out in flouriſhing words, and at the end of every Reply to his evaſions have ſtood triumphing over him, as he does over the Authors of the Vindica ion, ſaying, O Independents and Sectaries, if your Teachers, yea your great Rabbi and Oracle bring ſuch poore and weak Stuffe for their Tenets and way, you had need to take heed and beware of them, leaſt the blind lead the blind, and both ful into the ditch; But I conſider I am handling a great Controverſie in Divinitie a point about Conſcience, and that tis not comely to ſpeak of it in a light and ſcoſſing way, and therefore ſhall not offer to contend with Maſter John Goodwin in that way, contenting my ſelfe to have aimed at hard Arguments and fore words.

Thirdly, I might take occaſion to ſet out the olly and horrible pride of the man in boaſting and glorying in ſuch poore weak Stuffe, and that ſtollen out of Minus C •• ſu S •••• ſis, behaving himſelfe like à glorioſus miles, I might annex and faſten each of his vapouring inſolent inſultations over his three ſuppoſed Adverſaries unto each Anſwer, by which his folly and vanitie would be made manifeſt to all in exceſſive boaſting when he hath performed ſo little, but I will forbear to deal with him in that way, and ſhall conclude this 17. Theſis, and all my Anſwers to his evaſions in ſpeaking ſadly to his Conſcience, (though I much feare in this Argument of Libertie of Conſcience, he hath little Conſcience left, or is capable of any Conviction, this being his Sanctuary and Protection to ſafegard him from the trouble and danger of al his other wicked Opinions) M. Goodwin what Anſwer wil you make to God for theſe pretences brought againſt Scripture, can you think againſt ſuch expreſſe texts, ſuch poor ſhifts wil ſerve? or wil hold water in the day of judgement? what if theſe then prove but Adams fig-leaves, meer ſhifts and tricks of wit to put off the word, and bee not real? what wil you then doe for all the diſhonour of God, ruine of precious ſouls occaſioned by your means? wil not Gods wrath ſweepe away theſe Cobwebs? I ſay no more, thinke upon it Maſter Goodwin and be not deceived, God is not mocked.

18. THESIS

Whereas the Patrons of Toleration commonly plead, that all places of Scripture both of examples and commands for Magiſtrates puniſhing in matters of Religion are only from the old Teſtament; and tis confeſſed by them that under the Law before Chriſts comming good Magiſtrates both did and might exerciſe coercive power on falſe Prophets, Apoſtates, Blaſphemers, but now ſince the new Teſtament tis otherwiſe, Preface of the Bloudy Tenet of Perſecution for cauſe of Conſcience. It being the Will and Command of God that ſince the coming of his Son the Lord Jeſus, a Permiſſion of the moſt Paganiſh, Jewiſh, Turkiſh, or Anti-Chriſtian Conſciences and Worſhips be granted to all men in all Nations and Countries: and they only to be fought againſt with that ſword, which is only (in ſoule matters) able to conquer, to it the ſword of Gods Spirit, the word of God; I lay downe this Theſis, That all things concerning Religion and pietie conſtantly practiſed by the godly, and by God commanded under the old Teſtament, and by him never declared to be repealed, bind as firmely under the new Teſtament, although there be no particular command nor example a new approving them, as they did under the old, and that in ſuch caſes the comming of Chriſt into the world, and his death are ſo far from giving any diſpenſation or Libertie, that quite contrary, ſome things before permitted to the Jewes are by Chriſt now taken away, and all matters in reference to Religion and Holineſſe upon the comming of Chriſt into the world are ſpoken of by the Scriptures as to be kept and done with greater exactneſſe and ſtrictneſſe. For proof of which I lay downe theſe following grounds.

Firſt, That the Scripture of the old Teſtament is the Canon and Rule of faith and Practice, as well as the Scripture of the New, and that it equally belongs to Chriſtians as the Books of the New: which point beſides that it hath been held by the Orthodox in the Church of God, in all times ſince Chriſt, and denied only by Hereticks as theIrene. lib. 2. adverſ. Haereſ. Valent. cap. 20. Simoniani, theEpiphan. Panar. Haer. 66. Maniches, Socin. Tract. de authorit. Script. Oſtorod. Institut. p. 3. cap. 28. Socinians,Schluſſell. Catal. Haereti . De Antinomis. Antinomians,Bulling. adverſ. Anabapt. lib. 4. cap. 4. Spanhem. Diſput. 2. Anti-Anabapt. De uſu Scriptur •• v. Teſtam. in Eccleſ. Chriſt Theſ. 50. Anabaptiſts, I ſhall give theſe reaſons, 1. That Chriſt and the Apoſtles all along in the new Teſtament prove their Doctrine by the Scriptures of the old Teſtament Moſes and the Prophets, ſtill referring the People in all Controverſies of Faith and Practice to the Scriptures of the old Teſtament, as is evident by theſe places, Luk. 16. 29. John 5. 39. Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. 2 Pet. 1. 19. cum multis aliis which are all underſtood of the Scriptures of the old Teſtament, as beſides many things in thoſe texts ſhowing as much, no Scriptures of the new Teſtament, being then extant, when Chriſt gave thoſe exhortations to ſearch the Scriptures, and when Timothy was a child, of which Scripture the Apoſtle ſpeaks, which Timothy learned of a child, as Chryſoſtome well expounds: Now that was the Scripture of the old Teſtament, becauſe the new was not as yet committed to writing, then when Timothie was a child: Nay further all the texts by way of Scripture proo e brought in the new Teſtament to prove any thing in matter of faith and manners are all quoted out of the old Teſtament, and not the new, whereupon wee ſee how frequently Moſes, the Pſalms, and Prophets are cited by Chriſt and his Apoſtles; but to my beſt remembrance, I doe not find in all the new Teſtament any place of Scripture brought to prove any thing from the new Teſtament, but that one paſſage out of Pauls Epiſtles 2 Pet. 3. 15, 16. 2. The Apoſtle Paul 2 Tim. 3. 16. ſaith All Scripture is given by inſpiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproofe, for Correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſſe: Now if all Scripture be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , then the Scripture of the old Teſtament is ſo to, and as given by inſpiration is with all reverence to be acknowledged and received by Chriſtians: Againe if all Scripture be profitable for Doctrine, for reproofe, for Correction, for inſtruction of righteouſneſſe, therefore Doctrines of faith and Practiſes of life may be profitably fetched from thence, and when things are laid downe in the old Teſtament, they are commanded in the Scriptures, (they being the Scriptures too) although not mentioned in the new: But who ſo deſires to be further ſatisfied in this queſtion of the Scripture of the old Teſtament being of the ſame Authoritie with Chriſtians as that of the new, let him conſult Bullingers Books againſt the Anabaptiſts lib. 4. cap. 4. 5, 6 and Spanhemius his Diſputations againſt the Anabaptiſts, De uſu Script. V. Teſtaments in Eccleſia Chriſtiana.

Secondly, every command of God made knowne in the old Teſtament, and never afterwards repealed nor revoked by him; nor expiring in the nature of it, is perpetual and in force: whatever God once commands til he declares either particularly that tis not his will ſuch a Law ſhould any longer bind, or at leaſt generally in equivalencie, obliges: So that tis no good argument, to ſay againſt a Practice, as long as tis commanded in the old, this cannot be proved out of the new Teſtament, and therefore may not be done, but rather on the contrary wee may inferre, that the ſilence of the new Teſtament concerning a Law expreſly and clearly delivered in the old Teſtament, is a confirmation rather then an abrogation of it or an intimation that it is expired. There are many particulars might be inſtanced in, ſome expreſſely commanded, and others forbidden in the old Teſtament, which are not ſpoken of at all in the new Teſtament (unleſſe in general) that yet are held by Orthodox Divines, and I ſuppoſe by Hagi maſtix too, binding under the new, as many degrees of Marriages forbidden, uſury, as Magiſtrates putting to death murderers, and ſome other Malefactors, with divers others that might be named: Upon which occaſion M. Cottons Bloudy Tenet waſhed, p. 177. Maſter Cotton anſwers Maſter Williams, If it be true that Chriſt g ve no expreſſe Ordinance, Praecept, or Preſident of killing men by material Swords for Religion ſake: It is as true that neither did he for any Breach of Civil Juſtice, no not for murder, nor Adultery. And ſo ſuppoſing there were no new Teſtament proofes for the Magiſtrates puniſhing Apoſtates, Blaſphemers, &c. yet the old Teſtament affording ſuch a cloud of witneſſes is teſtimony abundant, eſpecially remembring what I have at large proved in divers pages of the laſt Theſis, concerning the nature of thoſe commands and examples recorded in the old Teſtament, and indeed conſidering how clearly, largely, and importunately the Magiſtrates power and dutie in puniſhing in matters of Religion is ſet down and preſſed by the Holy-Ghoſt in the old Teſtament, it had been no wonder if nothing had been ſaid of the new, the abundant urging in the old ſerving for a reaſon of ſilence in the new. But becauſe this rule is ſo fully and judiciouſly handled in a late Book, caldM. Caudrey, Mr Palmer, chapt. 2. pag. 17 18, 19, 20, 21. 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. Sabbatum Redivi •• um viz. A Law inſtituted in the old Teſtament, not abrogated in the new, is of perpetuall obligation though it have not expreſſe atification in the Goſpel. I ſhall referre the Reader thither where he ſhall find many grounds brought to prove it, extracting only one paſſge out of the Book. Whatſoever Law in once delivered to the Church, and accordingly recorded in the Law Booke the holy Scriptures even of the old Teſtament, whoſoever would claim exemption from it whether particular Perſon or Church, muſt produce ſome what to prove that that Law is now (under the Goſpel) repealed, or at leaſt expired, more then bare ſaying that it is no longer in force. It is ſo in the ſtatute Law of our Kingdome (and of all Kingdomes) if a man can alledge for himſelfe in point of Right or Priviledge (or the Kings Councell for the Kings Rights and P erogatives) any ſtatute that was once made, it ſtands good for all purpoſes, unleſſe they who would gainſay it, can alledge and prove that ſuch a Statute is out of date by expiration or repeale: So that the proofe lies originally upon the refuſer of the Law, and they that would maintaine it and urge it, need plead nothing more then the enacting of it once, till the abrogation of it can be verified; and if it be ſo in the Statutes of men, and the poſitive Lawes of Kingdomes, much more in thoſe of God, whoſe Authority in unqueſtionably more abſolute, and whoſe wiſedome, Holineſſe, Juſtice and Goodneſſe, is infinitely beyond that of all Princes and States in the world.

3. Tis granted Princes and Magiſtrates under the old Law before Chriſts comming, had a coercive power in matters of Religion, and did puniſh Blaſphemers, &c Now 1. ſeeing they long had it, can any proofe be brought how and upon what occaſion it was taken from them? can any man ſhew any text out of the new Teſtament where Chriſt and his Apoſtles took away this power from Princes, or declared that however under the old, Seducers and falſe Prophets were to be dealt with by the Civil powers, yet not under the new, but only with the word of God? Bullinger in his fifth Book againſt the Anabaptiſts chapter 3. page 169. pleading for Magiſtrates power in matters of Religion, ſpeaks thus to them. Are Princes and Magiſtrates of the new Teſtament endorred with leſſe Spirit and power then thoſe of the old? Or in what place have Chriſt and his Apoſtles removed Chriſtians Princes from this power of Magiſtrates? Whatever reaſons or grounds any way or in any kind there were under the old for this power of Magiſtrates, the very ſame remaine now, were errors and Hereſies then deadly and damnable, ſo they are now? were they then ſpreading as a Gangrene and corrupting many ſo they do now? were they then hateful to God? ſo they are ſtill: were falſe Teachers in thoſe times unreaſonable, perverſe obſtinate not to be convinced by words? behold they are as froward and deſparate in theſe; were Princes and Magiſtrates then to be zealous of Gods honor, and to ſerve the Lord not only as private perſons, but as Magiſtrates? ſo they ought to be now, and tis by the Spirit of God foretold they ſhould: Now where there is the ſelfe ſame reaſon, there is ever the ſelfe ſame Law and Equity both under the Law and Goſpel, for the further proofe of which the Reader may conſult Maſter Prynn Sword of Chriſtian Magiſtracy ſupported pag. 21. 22, 23 2. It cannot ſeem reaſonable that all other relations, Parents, Maſters, Husbands, ſhould have the ſame authority over their children, ſervants, wives, under the Goſpel, as they had under the Law, and that in ſpiritual things, and the Chriſtian Magiſtrate ſhould not: nay that the Power of Parents, Maſters, Husbands, ſhould be confirmed, ſtrengthned and more largely ſet forth, Epheſ. 5. 22, 23, 33. Epheſ. 6. from verſe 1. to 10. Col. 3. from verſe 18. to 23. 1 Pet. 2. 18, 19. and the Power of Magiſtrates only taken away,Muſcul. loc. Commun. De Magiſtr. 627. 628. Ergone tantae authoritaeti ac poteſtati non licebit, quod cuique Patrifamilias in do •• ſua licet? Muſculus in his common places De Magiſtratibus ſpeaking of the power that Fathers have over their children in matters of Religion, reaſons from thence that to the Magiſtrate the ſupreme Father of all his ſubjects, (whoſe Power is far greater then that of a Father) the care of religion more belongs then to Fathers. In Magiſtrates there is an Authoritie of ſupereminencie excelling all, then which there cannot be a greater on earth: Therefore ſhall not that be lawfull for ſuch an Authority and Power, which is lawfull for every Father in his owne Houſe? yea by that divine command is it not required that that ſhould belong to the greater which belongs to the leſſe, that to the publick Father of the people which belongs to the private? 3. God under the new Teſtament allowes and approves of the calling of Princes and Magiſtrates, giving many expreſſe commands to Chriſtians of ſubjection and obedience to them, Rom. 13. from verſe 1. to 6. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 17. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. the See M. Pryns Sword of Chriſtian Magiſtracy ſupported. pag. 3. ends and uſes alſo for which Magiſtrates were inſtituted are the ſame under the new Teſtament and old, beſides there is not any one text in the new Teſtament limiting or reſtraining the Power given them by God in the old, and therefore their calling and Power muſt needs be the ſame. Learned Bilſons ſecond part, pag. 178, 179, 180. third part 309. Bilſon in his true Difference between Chriſtian ſubjection and unchriſtian Rebellion, proving the Princes power and charge by Gods Law of Deut. 17. 18, 19. and by the example of the godly Kings of Iſrael and Judah, reaching as well unto matters of Religion as other things, that the ſword is given them to provide that as well true Religion be maintained in their Realms, as civill juſtice miniſtred, that they forbid, prevent, and puniſh in all their ſubjects not only murders, thefts and ſuch like breaches of the ſecond Table; but alſo Schiſmes, Here ies, Idolatries and other offences againſt the firſt Table pertaining only to the ſervice of God and matters of Religion, anſwers thus the Jeſuits objection (the very ſame evaſion the Sectaries have now,)Object. This charge concerned none but the Kings of Iſrael and Iudah:Anſw. That refuge doth rather manifeſt your folly then ſatisfie my reaſon. Did, I pray you Sir the comming of Chriſt aboliſh the Vocation of Princes? I trow not; Then their office remaining as before, per conſequens, both the ſame precept of God to them ſtill dureth, and alſo the like power to force their ſubjects to ſerve God and Chriſt his Sonne ſtandeth in as full ſtrength under the Goſpel, as ever it did under the Law. For Princes in the new Teſtament be Gods Miniſters to revenge Malefactors as they were in the old, and the greater the wickedneſſe, the rather to be puniſhed, ergo the greateſt (as Hereſies, Idolatries, Blaſphemies,) are ſooneſt of all other vices to be repreſſed by Chriſtian Magiſtrates, whoſe zeale for Chriſts glory muſt not decreaſe, Chriſts care for their Scepters being increaſed, and thoſe monuments of former Kings left written for their inſtruction: were not this ſufficient, as in truth tis to refute your evaſion, yet King David foreſeeing in Spirit, that Heathen Kings would and themſelves and aſſemble together againſt the Lord and his Chriſt, extendeth the ſame charge to the Gentiles; which the Kings of Jurie received before, and warned them all at once, Be wiſe ye Kings, underſtand ye Judges of the world: Serve the Lord. And ſo in another place of this Book, the Jeſuits ſaying theſe were Kings of the old Teſtament: and they had the Law of God to guide them, he anſwers, Then ſince Chriſtian Princes have the ſame Scriptures which they had, and alſo the Goſpel of Chriſt and Apoſtolick writings to guide them, which they had not, why ſhould they not in their Kingdomes retaine the ſame power, which yee ſee the Kings of Iudah ad and uſed to their immortall praiſe and joy. Againe Chriſt came not to aboliſh or diminiſh the power of Kings and States, but to ſave their ſouls; they are no way looſers but gainers by Chriſts comming: Chriſts Kingdome is not of this world, it alters not the Power and Preeminence God once gave to them as Kings and Magiſtrates. Laſtly, If Magiſtrates under the new Teſtament, ſhould have this power taken from them, the Church of God ſhould be in a farre worſe condition and more uncomfortable then it was under the old Law, the Church ſhould loſe a great helpe it ſometimes enjoyned: neither can that helpe the matter to ſay that we have now Excommunication and other ſpirituall weapons to ſupply that loſſe: For the Church of the Jewes had excommunication and the word of God, yea, extraordinary Prophets, many miracles, anſwers by Vrim and Thummim in all difficult caſes about religion (as Hagiomaſtix faith) which we have not, and yet they had need of Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of religion for all that: To conclude there can be no reaſon in the world ſhowen or given why Magiſtrates under the new Teſtament ſhould not have power to reſtraine and puniſh Apoſta ies, Blaſphemies, &c as well as under the old, but many might be given why their power rather ſhould be continued and enlarged under the new, and in this wee have Maſter Burroughs himſelfe a witneſſe what a ſad condition the Church of Chriſt would be in, if we had no externall power, to reſtraine from any kind of Blaſphemie and Seducements, which paſſage having quoted before, and having ſpoken ſomething on that occaſion, page 63. of this Treatiſe of Toleration, I referre the Reader thither, and to Maſter Burroughs Irenicum page 23. 24.

Fourthly God is unchangeable, the Covenant of life under the old and new Teſtament is one and the ſame for the eſſence and ſubſtance, as our Divines ſhow againſt the Socinians, Antinomians, Anabaptiſts; and the rule of righteouſneſſe and holineſſe is the ſame under the new, that it was under the old, and therefore God hating corruptions of Religion ſo as to command his Vice-gerents to puniſh them then, and to prevent their ſpreading, he being unchangeable, and the puniſhing of violations of Religion and impieties being acts of holineſſe and righteouſneſſe, muſt needs ſtand firm , and bind Magiſtrates under the new Teſtament. And if the Magiſtrates reſtraining and ſuppreſſing the diſhonors of God, ruine of ſouls by his ſword be altered and changed by God in the times of the Goſpel, then that power of puniſhment was either truely Ceremonial or elſe judicial, belonging properly to the Poli ie and Paedagogie of the Jewes, but it was neither; Firſt, Not Ceremoniall, it was no type of any thing which was to come, as I have ſhowen before page 168. 169. of this Treatiſe. Secondly, Not properly judiciall in the ſenſe laid downe page 53. 54. of this Treatiſe, but morall of common right, uſed by other Nations, and that both before the judicial Law was given, and after, of which having ſpoken ſo much in divers pages and places of this Booke, I ſhall onely adde this viz. that Zepper. De leg. Moſai. lib. 4. cap. 1. cap. 3. De Pſeudo Prophetis & Haereticis. Ratio ido ea & ſufficiens nulla afferri poteſt, cur Dei majeſtas & Eccleſiae authoritas minoris apud Chriſtiaanos momenti & pondeis eſſe debeat, quamapud Judaeos olim fuerit. Imo quo illuſtrius Deus ſe per filium ſuum quam per Prophetas olim patefecit, eo minus frigiditas illa & tepedita excuſari poteſt, ſi minori religionis noſtrae ſtudio teneamur minuſque eam tu am r. Zepp rus in his fourth Booke de Legibus moſaicis excellently ſhowes theſe Lawes to be Appendixes of the Decalogue, and in ſtead of a juſt Commentarie upon them, particularly of the firſt commandement, whereupon he handles that queſtion of puniſhing falſe Prophets and Hereticks, and ſhowes how many Errors and Opinions be Blaſphemies, as Servetus Opinion againſt the Holy Trinitie, and Opinions againſt the Attributes of God, &c, which abominations whoſoever denies ought to be puniſhed capitally, he overthrowes all pietie and ſhowes himſelfe to be a ſtranger to all Religion and faith, where among other reaſons brought by him why falſe Teachers and Hereticks ſhould be puniſhed by the Civil Magiſtrates, as the expreſſe Lawes of God given by Moſes, and not antiquated, he gives this, No ſubſtantial ſufficient reaſon can be brought why the Majeſty of God, and the Authoritie of the Church ought to be of leſſe moment and waight among Chriſtians, then in times paſt it hath been amongſt the Jewes. Yea by how much God hath more clearely manifeſted himſelfe by his Sonne, then in times paſt by his Prophets, by ſo much the leſſe can that coldneſſe and luke-warmeneſſe be excuſed, if wee be carried with a leſſe ſtudy of our Religion, and do leſſe defend it then they.

Fifthly, It cannot upon any reaſonable ground be preſumed, that Idolatries, Hereſies, Blaſphemies, &c commanded by God to be puniſhed by the Civil Magiſtrate under the old Teſtament, ſhould by Chriſts comming be ſet at libertie and abſolutely freed from puniſhment: For 1. Beſides that the old Teſtament prophecying of Chriſts comming ſpeaks of thoſe dayes as times of greater holineſſe and ſtrictneſſe, and that in reference to the commands of the firſt Table, as theſe Scriptures ſhow, Iſaiah. 35. 8, 9. there ſhall be a way and it ſhall be called the way of holineſſe, the uncleane ſhall not paſſe over it: no Lion ſhall be there; nor any ravenous beaſt ſhall go up thereon, that is no enemie of God, hurtfull to the Church, among which falſe Teachers are chief, cald by Chriſt and Paul Ravenous beaſts cald by the Prophet, and ravening Wolves by Chriſt. ravening Wolves and greivous Wolfes not ſparing the flock, Matth. 7. 15. Acts 20. 29. Zach. 13. 2, 3. prophecies that in the day in which the Meſſiah ſhall come into the world, he ſhall overthrow Idolatrie, falſe Doctrine, and whatſoever is contrary to the word of God and true Religion: The Prophet comprehends all under three Heads, 1. I will out off the names of the Idols out of the Land; and they ſhall no more be remembred: Tis a frequent thing in the Prophets, when they prophecie of Chriſts Kingdome, to proclaime War to Idols and Images, as in Micah. 2, I will cauſe the Prophets to paſſe out of the Land, he denounces deſtruction to the Prophets which is to be underſtood of falſe Teachers. 3. I wil cauſe the uncleane Spirit to paſſe out of the Land, that is all the workes of the Devil (the uncleane Spirit often ſo called, by which he withdrawes men from the true worſhip of God.) Upon which wordsPorro ne qui hinc carnalis licentiae & impunitatis ſpem conciperent, ulterius ad hac progreſſurum dicit iſtum gratiae in Christo exhibitae effectum, & per hunc ſimul 〈◊〉 medio auferendum fore quicquid Dei verbo & verae religioni adverſatur. Gualther writes, The Prophet having ſpoken in the 1. v. of a full and abſolute waſhing by Chriſts bloud both from original ſin and the corruption of our nature, under the name of uncleanneſſe, and all actuall ſins, thoughts, words and deeds under the name of ſinne, leaſt any from hence ſhould conceive a hope of carnall liberty and impunity, he ſhoweth this effect of the grace of Chriſt is yet to proceed further, that by him alſo ſhall be taken out of the way, & from the midſt of the Church whatſoever is againſt the true Religion and Word of God. Zach. 14, 20, 21. In that day ſhall there be upon the bridles of the horſes Holineſſe unto the Lord, and the pots in the Lords houſe ſhall be like the bowles before the Altar, &c. On which verſes Gualter writes the ſummary meaning of all to be this. That in thoſe days of the Goſpel all things ſhall be turned to the worſhip of God, even thoſe things which before have beene imployed to prophane uſes, and againſt him; Now then there ſhall not be Holineſſe unto the Lord written only on the forehead of the Prieſts, but it ſhall appear eminently on the bridles of the horſes: And Horſes are particularly inſtanced in, (Horſes being in a ſpecial manner ſerviceable for War, the horſe is prepared for the battel ſaith Solomon) to ſhow that the Warrs under the Goſpell ſhould not be prophane and wicked, ſuch as are made by ambitious and covetous perſons, but ſuch by which the worſhip and Church of God, may be defended againſt wicked enemies, by thoſe whom God hath appointed nurſing Fathers of his Church. And ſuch Warrs in times paſt Conſtantine made againſt Maxentius and Licinius, and Theodoſius againſt Eugenius and Arbogaſtus. And for thoſe words, in that day there ſhall be no more the Canaanite in the Houſe of the Lord of Hoſts, he ſhow sChananaei vocabulum merca torem ſignificat & ita illud in praeſenti, vetus interpres reddit, & bene quidem. Ergo de mercatoribus ſeu Nundinatoribus ſacrorum Propheta loquitur qui vel externum cultumſibi quaeſtū faciunt Vel ex Spiritus Sancti donis nundinationem inſtituunt. Sunt hiprecul ab Eccleſia arcendi, quia & Dei cultum corrumpunt, & fidem ſimpliciu mevertunt, & Chriſti meritū evacuant. vide plura. Canaanite ſignifies Merchant, and that the Prophet ſpeaks of thoſe who ſell and make merchandiſe of holy things, as the falſe Teachers in Peter, who made merchandiſe of the people; Theſe are to be driven away far from the Church, becauſe they both corrupt the worſhip of God, ſubvert the faith of the ſimple, and make void the merit of Chriſt, theſe Chriſt ſets not upon only with words, or with denouncing woes, but with a whip made of ſmall cords, as impudent greedy dogs he c ſts out of the Temple with publick diſgrace: By theVid. Annotat. of Engl. Divines on the place. Canaanite or Merchant in this place, the Prophet ſeems to have a ſpecial relation to the abuſe of merchandizing and ſelling which was uſed in the Temple Matth. 21. 12. 2. John 15. Malach. 3. 2, 3, 4, 5, the Prophet in this chapter prophecying of Chriſts comming into the world, leaſt men in his comming ſhould p •••• iſe to themſelves an earthly Kingdome, and a lawleſſe Libertie of doing any thing without puniſhment, he tels them what a one Chriſt is, and for what end he comes, and what kind of perſons they ought to be who deſire to be be ſaved by him, Who may abide the day of his comming? for he is like a refiners fire, and like fullers ſope, and he ſhall fit as a refiner and purifier of ſilver, and he ſhall purifie the ſons of Levi and purge them as gold and ſilver, &c, that is as thoſe who deal in mettals, doe not ceaſe to melt and purge their mettals til they ſee all the droſſe taken away, nor fullers leave to waſh and rub the garments till all the ſpots and dirt be waſhed out: So Chriſt doth not ceaſe uſing his fire and fullers ſope, till we be ſanctified and cleanſed throughout. The uſe of this Doctrine to us ought to be, leaſt we abuſe our pretence of beleeving in Chriſt to a Libertie of ſinning, but rather we ſhould give our ſelves to him to be purged, that we may be made ſuch, as he would have us to be. But of the ſcope of the Prophet in theſe verſes, and how ſevere Chriſt under the Goſpell will be againſt tranſgreſſors of the firſt Table as Sorcerers, falſe Swearers, under the laſt of which are contained all thoſe who abuſe the name of God, that they may deceive others, not only thoſe who in Civill matters and bargains falſly pretend the name of God, but alſo ſuch who in teaching abuſe it, and vent the fictions of their owne brains for divine Oracle , the Reader may find more in Gualther upon the place. So 2. The new Teſtament ſpeaks of Chriſts comming to deſtroy the workes of the Devil 1 John 38. among which falſe Doctrins, Antichriſtianiſme, and ſeducing are ſpoken of by the Apoſtle in that Epiſtle and the foregoing chapter as cheife, and Chriſt is brought in Revel. 2. 18, 20. deſcribed in a moſt terrible manner ſpeaking againſt Toleration of Hereſies; Th ſe things faith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet like fine braſſe, I have a few things againſt thee, becauſe thou ſuffireſt that woman Ieſabel, which calleth her ſelfe a Propheteſſe, to teach and to ſeduce my ſervants, as alſo Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the new Teſtament in ſeverall reſpects, ſpeak more againſt falſe Doctrines, Herefies, falſe Teachers, Seducer , then againſt corrupt manners: Neither can it be put off by ſaying that under the new Teſtament Chriſt hath brought Libertie, a part whereof is the Toleration of Hereſies, &c for the Apoſtle in Gal. 5. 1. where he exhorts Chriſtians to ſtand faſt in the Libertie wherewith Chriſt hath made them free expreſly declares verſe 13. this Libertie is not to be uſed for an occaſion to the fleſh, which it muſt needs be if this Libertie were a Libertie of Hereſies, hereſies being named in the ſame chapter a worke of the fleſh verſe 19. 20. Maſter Cartwright writing of certaine judiciall Lawes that cannot be changed, as of putting to death a contemptuous Blaſphemer, and ſtubborne Idolater, ſpeaks thus of this pretended Ground of Chriſts comming. As for that they alledge the cauſe of this Libertie now, they are not to be put to death, by reaſon of the comming of our Saviour Chriſt and his paſſion, tis a weak one and injurious unto the comming and death of Chriſt, for he appeared that he might deſtroy the workes of the Devil; this makes our Saviour Chriſt to build againe that Kingdome of ſin which he hath deſtroyed. For when in common reaſon and by the manifeſt word of God the Lord giveth this bleſſing unto the puniſhment of ſuch greivous offenders by death, that others not only which ſee, but which heare of them, have the bridle of fear put upon them, whereby they are kept from the like, that muſt needs follow that whoſoever maketh our Saviour Chriſt Author of this looſeneſſe in puniſhing ſuch offenders, maketh him forthwith to looſe the bridle whereby others are afraid from running into wickedneſſe, and what is this but to make Chriſt a Troubler of Common-wealths: Beſides if Chriſt by his comming looſed theſe civil puniſhments and purchaſed this grace of his Father for Blaſphemers, Idolaters, Hereticks, that they ſhould eſcape civil puniſhments which the Law of God adjudged them to, how comes it to paſſe that the Apoſtles to whom Chriſt committed the publiſhing of all the pardon he obtained for us, did never make mention of the releaſing of theſe puniſhments: If Chriſt had obtained this libertie it was worth the Preaching, and therefore unleſſe they can ſhow out of the writings of the Apoſtles to warrant this Sanctuary, which they would build to the ſupport of Blaſphemers, Hereticks, that followes that the Apoſtles have not anſwered the truſt committed to them, but in that the Apoſtle puts a ſword in the hand of the Magiſtrates, and in the uſe of it makes him a Miniſter of the juſtice of the Lord againſt ſin, he confutes this opinion. 3. And Laſtly we ſee clearly that ſome things that were permitted under the old Teſtament to the Jewes, are not to Chriſtians under the new but expreſly and formally declared againſt by Chriſt, as Polygamie, mens putting away their wives giving bils of divorce and marrying others, Mat. 5. 31, 32. Mat. 19. from v. 3. to the 10. and uſury, Matth. 5. 42. Luke 6. 34, 35. Learned Cameron in his lectures of divorce upon Matth. 19. 3. puts this queſtion why the bill of divorce takes not place in the times of the new Teſtament and why does not God permit the ſame thing in the new, which he ſuffred in the old, unto which he anſwers, That although there is the ſame reaſon of mans nature in the times of the old and new Teſtament, yet there is not the ſame reaſon of grace,Cancer. Praelect. De Repudio pag. 206. which is much more plentifully and clearly laid open and explained in theſe laſt times, then before; Therefore our lives ought to be ordered in theſe times,Chemnit. loc. Com. De Paupert. 433, 434, 435. Deus in veteri Teſtamento fuit & Theologus & Legiſlator. Alibi enim tradit, quomodo ſervi endum eſt Deo in juſtitia & ſanctitate coram ipſo. Alibi vero pro externa ſocietate vitae civilis in Republi Iſraelit. certan quaſdam politicas conſtitutiones praeſcribit iſti popul . much more ſtrictly and holily. Thoſe Elders under the old Teſtment were bound truely to follow the ſame holineſſe of life, but we much more; for by how much any one hath received more then nnother, by ſo much he owes more. Chemnitius in his common places de paupertate cap. 6. de vſura ſhowes though there were two permiſſions cheifly in the old Teſtament, of Divorce and Uſurie, yet Chriſt under the new, oppoſes to either of theſe permiſſions, the perpetual rule of righteouſneſſe in God, Matth. 5. 32. & 42. alſo cap. 19. verſe 8. Luke 6. verſe 34. 35. In which place he diſcourſes of this, how God under the old Teſtament may be conſidered as a Divine, and as a Legiſlator, in ſome places of the old Teſtament laying down how we muſt ſerve him in holineſſe and righteouſneſſe; in others preſcribing certaine political conſtitutions to that people for the externall ſocietie of Civil life in the Jewiſh Common-wealth. Now in thoſe political Laws which God gave the People of Iſrael, Holineſſe and Righteouſneſſe of the conſcience before God was not alwayes preſcribed, but they were fitted to the preſervation of outward and civil ſocietie in that Common-wealth according to the condition and diſpoſitions and manners of that people, to whom God himſelfe gives the Epithite of a ſtiffe neck. So the Bil of Divorce in the Common-wealth of Iſrael, was permitted; but now in the new Teſtament though Moſes ſuffred it for the hardneſſe of their hearts, yet Chriſt declares againſt it tis not lawfull to be permitted, though there were the ſame manners of men, there being now under the Goſpel more powerfull remedies of ſuch an evil, and a fuller declaration and communication of the grace of God: This Diſtinction may not be allowed now under the new Teſtament of Theologus and Legiſlator, of jus fori & jus poli; for all Lawes given by God, in the new Teſtament, preſcribe the puritie of conſcience before God, and doe not look particularly to the outward preſervation of the Civil ſocietie of one Common-wealth of people pe uliarly. And ſo much for the 18. Theſis.

THESIS 19.

Beſides all the old Teſtament proofes both of commands and approved examples before the Law, and under the Law, before the Captivitie of Babylon and after, for the Magiſtrates coercive power in the matters of the firſt Table, laid down in this Treatiſe, together with Anſwers to all the evaſions brought againſt ſuch commands and examples, as alſo to that of proofs out of the old Teſtament, I deſire the Reader to conſider this Theſis, that place of Scripture ſpeaking of the days of the new Teſtament and what ſhould be then done, approves of and commends this power of the Magiſtrate, as among other theſe three places of Scripture Pſal. 2. 10, 11, 12. Eſay 49. 23. Zach. 13. 2, 3. That the ſecond Pſalme is a Prophecie of the dayes of the Goſpel, after Chriſts comming into the world is clearely demonſtrated by Act. 4. 24, 25, 26, 27. where by Peter and John tis applyed to thoſe times, In which Pſalme King David, foreſeeing in Spirit that Heathen Kings would hand themſelves and aſſemble together againſt the Lord and his Chriſt, extendeth the ſame charge to the Gentiles which the Kings of Jurie received before, and warned them all at once, Be wiſe ye Kings, underſtand ye Judges of the world: Serve the Lord; and tis to be obſerved in that ſecond Pſalme that Kings and Judges quatomes tales are to ſerve the Lord and kiſſe the Son, Upon which words Auſtin writes thus, All men ought to ſerve God: in one ſort by common condition as men; in another ſort by ſeverall gifts and offices, by the which ſome doe this ſome doe that; no private perſons could command Idols to be puniſhed cleane from among mert, which was ſo long before prophecied, Therfore Kings (Beſides their dutie to ſerve God common with all other men, have in that they be Kings how to ſerve the Lord in ſuch ſort as none can doe which are not Kings. For in this Kings (in reſpect they be Kings) ſerve the Lord (as God by David warneth them) if in their Kingdomes they command that which is good, and prohibite that which is evill, not in Civil affairs only, but in matters alſo concerning divine Religion. That Eſay 49. 23. is a Prophecie to the Gentiles under the new Teſtament, as is evident by verſe 22. Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and Kings ſhall be thy nurſing Fathers, &c now they could not be cald the nurſes of the Church if they had no care of Religion; but thoſe of whom this prophecie was meant, and in whom fulfilled, did care for Religion did care for the Faith, as Conſtantine, Gratian, Theodoſius, and others, who by publick Edicts did prohibit falſe Doctrines and did command all throughout the whole Empire, to embrace the true Faith; tis confeſſed by Maſter Ʋid. Bulling. aduerſ. Anabapt. 5. Book 3. chapt. Burroughs himſelfe, The protection of their Civil peace is not ſufficient to give them ſuch a denomination of nurſing Fathers and Mothers. Upon which place Barroughs Heart-Diviſions. pag. 25. B lſon writes thus with this endeavour of Chriſtian Princes God comforteth his Church by the mouth of Eſay, Kings ſhall be thy nurſing Fathers, &c what Eſay ſaith Princes ſhal do, that I conclude Princes muſt doe, becauſe God would not promiſe they ſhould uſurpe another mans office but diſcharge their owne. If you take the milke of Princes for temporall honours, Lands, and goods, the ery Children will laugh you to ſcorne. The Church of Chriſt is no wanton Church, She luſteth for no worldly wealth, which is rather harmful poiſon then wholeſome food, Gods proviſion for her is ſpiritual, not carnall, her delights are not outward in fleſh, but inward in grace: The Prophet good man had no leaſure to thinke on yo farms, demeans and Revenues; no remedy, you muſt needs yeeld us that Chriſtian Princes, in reſpect of their office, not of their riches, have received an expreſſe commandement from God to ſhow themſelves Nurſes to his Church. Now Nurſes by nature muſt provide for their infants and defend them from danger, ergo Kings and Queens in the new Teſtament, are bound to tender the Church of Chriſt, and by their princely power and publick Laws to defend the ſame from infection of Hereſies, invaſions of Sciſmes, and all other apparent corruptions of faith and good manners. Zach. 13. 2, 3. is a prophecie of the times and dayes of the Goſpel, as the context is cleare and is confeſſed by ſome Patrons of Toleration, though put off and evaded that tis allegorical and figurative, and meant of ſome one particular time only under the Goſpel, with other ſuch like, as the Poſteript to Hagiomaſtix writes page 21. 22. all which evaſions I had thought at this time to have fully taken of, and to have cleared this text by many paſſages and Phraſes in the context, beſides ſeverall reaſons that it muſt needs be underſtood literally, and of all times under the Goſpel, but the troubles of the times call me of from my intended thoughts and preparations in this kind, and ſhall reſerve them (if God will) for a ſecond part, only I ſhall adde that divers learned Interpreters ancient and moderne as Theodoret, Calvin, and others hold the Prophet here alludes to Deut. 13. where God required ſuch ſtrictneſſe in maintaining pure Doctrine, that the Father ſhould riſe up againſt the Sonne whom he begat. God would have all the godly to burne with ſuch a zeal of defending the true worſhip of God and Pietie, that no affinitie nor conſanguinitie, nor any other carnall reſpect ſhould prevail to hinder the requiring of puniſhment upon their neereſt friends in caſes of violating the worſhip of God and corrupting ſound Doctrine. This was the Preſcript of the Law: But whereas for a time, Religion had beene neglected, yea troden under foot, Zacharie ſaith that when the faithfull ſhould repent, they ſhould bee endowed with ſuch a deſire of true Pietie, as neither Father nor Mother ſhould ſuffer wicked errors in their Sons. And here tis to be obſerved that this zeale is approved of under the Kingdome of Chriſt; for Zacharie does not here reſtraine this Doctrine to the time of the Law, but ſhowes what ſhall be when Chriſt is come, namely that then again that zeale ſhall burne in the hearts of all the godly which was almoſt extinct. It followes therefore this Law was not given only to the Jewes, as many fanatical men imagine, who would have a leave of diſturbing the world, but that this Law extends to us alſo. Muſcul. de legibus Ad claſſem hanc moraralium pra ceptorium pertinentia multa quidem in literis Prophetam quoque leguntur. Fuerunt enim illi in pleniſque Moſaicae legis interpretes Muſculus ſpeaking of things appertaining to the Claſſis of morall commands, ſhows that many things in the Prophets writings belong thereunto, and he gives this reaſon; That in moſt things they were Interpreters of the Moſaicall Law; And therefore Zacharie does here inter •• t that Law in Deut. 13. concerning falſe Prophets and Seducers, to be in force under the Goſpel, The Prophets in their writings doe interpret and explaine Moſes writings, as the Books of Moſes doe the Decalogue, written by God in two Tables of ſtone and delivered unto Moſes, Deut. 5. 22. That in Deut. 13. is to be compared with this Zach. 13. 3. where we find the ſame things, almoſt the ſame words uſed in a Prophecie of the times of the Goſpel, the meaning of which is not that his Father or Mother ſhould preſently run a Knife into him, but that though they begat him, yet they ſhould be the means to bring him unto condigne puniſhment, even the taking away of his life, and ſo Maſter Cartwright ſpeaking of this prophecie writes thus. No power is given to one private man to kill another, nor for the Private man to kill his children, but this manner of ſpeech is grounded on Deut, 17. 7. where tis proved the Witneſſe who accuſed ſhould throw the firſt ſtone againſt the convicted perſons, ergo they aſcribe the killing of the guilty perſon, as belonging to the duty of the Accuſer.

THESIS 20.

In the Scriptures of the new Teſt, there are clear grounds & full proofes, that Hereticks and falſe Teachers, corrupters of Religion, deſerve to be puniſhed corporally, as well as ſpiritualy by excommunication, and that Magiſtrates ought to puniſh in caſes of Idolatry, Hereſie and ſuch like, as well as for tranſgreſſions againſt the ſecond Table; Now among many I ſhall lay down theſe following, 1. That Chriſt and his Apoſtles being accuſed before Magiſtrates about matters of Religion, as blaſphemy, being againſt the Law of Moſes, and ſuch like, they never pleaded for themſelves that it was not lawfull to puniſh any man for matters of Religion, but they defended their cauſes, that they had not taught any thing againſt the word of God and the Law of Moſes, were not guilty of Blaſphemy or Hereſie, ſo that they granted the major propoſition, namely that is was lawful for the Magiſtrate to puniſh Hereticks who taught againſt the Word of God, but they denied the minor that they were Hereticks: For out of the word of God they ſhowed they were not Hereticks, in that they taught nothing againſt the Word of God, yea nothing but what had a proof in the Word of God. But of this the Reader may ſee more in Zanchits Miſcellanies De Magiſtratu, page 173. 2. Chriſt in John 2. 14 15, 16. made a ſcourge, and drove out of the Temple thoſe that made his Fathers houſe a houſe of merchandiſe, which now falſe Teachers are ſaid to doe, 2 Pet. 2. 3. and tis the more obſervable that Chriſt who let the woman taken in adultery go away and did not puniſh her; that would not divide an inheritance becauſe his Kingdome was not of this world; yet in the matter of his Fathers houſe did exerciſe coercive power with a high hand, ſcourging and driving out of the Temple thoſe that ſold Oxen, &c. and this he is ſaid to doe out of zeale, the zeale of thine Houſe hath eaten me up: and though this be not recorded for Miniſters to uſe a materiall whip, yet certainly this was an act of righteouſneſſe that ſhould have been done by the Magiſtrates of that time, & it had been a glorious action if they had done it, and however there might be ſomething heroical in it, yet doubtleſſe tis an act of righteouſneſſe and zeal that ought to be done by ſome in their ordinary calling, viz. by Magiſtrates. 3. Rom. 13. 4. Magiſtrates beare not the ſword in vaiue for them that doe evill, and they are revengers to execute wrath upon them that doe evill: Now Blaſphemers, Hereticks, falſe Teachers doe evill and are evill workers, Phil. 3. 2. 2 Epiſtle of John v. 11. Revel. 2. 2. and non diſtinguendum eſt ubi Scriptura non diſtinguit: upon which place Maſter Bilſon writes thus, Princes in the new Teſtament be Gods Miniſters to revenge malefactors, as they were in the old, and the greater the wickedneſſe, the rather to be puniſhed, ergo, the greateſt (as Hereſies Idolatries and Blaſphemies) are ſooneſt of all other vices to be repreſſed by Chriſtian Magiſtrates, whoſe zeale for Chriſts glory muſt not decreaſe, Chriſts care for their Scepters being increaſed. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 10. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Apoſtle ſhowes us that when Chriſtian Magiſtrates were wanting, beſides miracles, gifts of healing, &c. Chriſt gave a ſpeciall gift to the Church of reſtraining Seducers and obſtinate Hereticks by corporall puniſhment; There were ſome that had a ſpeciall gift of coercing ungodly men; this Paul exerciſed upon Elym n the falſe Prophet and Seducer, Acts 13. 11. upon which place Peter Martyr writes fully, The Church then had not the Sword of the Magiſtrate by which offences might be reſtrained, therefore a power was given of puniſhing them corporally. The beſt Interpreters Ancient and Modern, as Chryſoſtome, Oecumenius, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Pareus, and divers others doe underſtand by Powers, thoſe who had ſuch a Gift, upon which place I intended to have inſiſted largely by comparing other Scriptures with it, and to have demonſtrated from it, the neceſſity and lawfulneſſe of a power of puniſhing corporally obſtinate Hereticks and Seducers, but I muſt take off. 5. Gal. 5. 12. Paul wiſhes that falſe Teachers and troublers of the Church were cut off: which place I intended to have enlarged upon to prove it meant of bodily cutting off, but cannot now. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 2. Paul ſhowes Kings and thoſe that are in Authoritie are to be prayed for, that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all godlineſſe and honeſty, in all godlineſſe, as well as honeſty: This is the end of prayers to be made for Magiſtrates, Now that which is the end of Prayers poured out for Magiſtrates ought to be the end propounded by the Magiſtrate in his duty, but the Apoſtle commands prayers to be made for Magiſtrates for that end, ergo it lyes upon the Magiſtrate to ſee to it, of which the Reader may ſee more in Meiſner. Polit. de Magiſtratu; and tis confeſſed by Maſter Cap. 2. p. 35, 36. The prayers of the Church for 300. yeeres in the Primitive times, that Kings might come to the knowledge of the truth, and they lead peaceable and quiet lives in all godlineſſe and honeſty (which Saint Paul in Nero time exhorted unto 1 Tim. 2. 2) were not anſwered nor accompliſhed til Conſtantines time, when the Church brought forth a manchild. Thomas Goodwin in his Returne of Prayers, this was a command to pray, that God would give Chriſtian Magiſtrates to the Church, the Anſwer of which was in giving Conſtantine a Chriſtian Emperor, who as the EccleſiaſticalSocrat. Schol. lib. 1. cap. 5. Hiſtories ſhow, did by Lawes and Edicts command the Chriſtian Religion, as alſo eſtabliſh the icen Creed touching the Faith of one Subſtance, baniſhing by his Edict Arius and his adherent , 7. Revel. 17 16. John prophecies, and ſpeaks of it as an acceptable work to God, for Chriſtian Kings and States by their Civil temporal power to deſtroy the Romiſh Religion: Now if the Romiſh Seducers and corrupters of Religion (upon that ground cald the Whore) may be puniſhed by Civil Magiſtrates, and dealt with by other weapons then preaching, admonition, excommunication, then ſuch as are certinly worſe then they, as Anti rinitaria s, Soc nians. Libertins, may be alſo by Magiſtrates reſtrained. Maſter Robinſon writing againſt the Anabaptiſts, one Helwiſſe who interprets this place of Spirituall weapons, anſwers him this is a prophecie of Kings and Magiſtrates whoſe weapons and power are other beſides that of prayers which is common to all Chriſtians, tis ſpoken what they ſhal doe as Kings: Beſides tis contrary to the cleare meaning of the Holy-Ghoſt, Robinſ. againſt Helwiſſe of Magiſtracie, p. 129, 130. which is, that Kings ſhould firſt uſe their Civill power for the Beaſt and Whore, and after againſt them to their deſtruction, they ſhall give their power to the Lamb, as they before gave it againſt the Lamb: Now we know they uſed their Civil power under Poperie, as a means by which to ſuppreſſe the true Religion, and therefore Princes and States ſhall eſtabliſh the true by that means and deſtroy the falſe, of which I had thought to have enlarged further, as alſo upon the other New Teſtament quotations, to have anſwered the evaſions brought againſt them, eſpecially of Hagiomaſtix againſt Rom. 13. 4. and to have proved it cannot be reſtrained only againſt evils of the Second Table, but is to be underſtood of evil againſt the Firſt, but I muſt reſerve theſe things, and divers more to another opportunitie, and for a Second Part. If God wil. To God only wiſe, be glory through Jeſus Chriſt. Amen.

FINIS.

GOod Reader, among many other Errata of the Preſſe, upon running over the Book in haſt ſince printed (not having time to read and weigh every page, much leſſe ſentence or line) I finde theſe following,

ERRATA.

PAge 32 line 12, after ought to be r. alſo puniſhed. p. 30. l. 13 for they r. theſe, p. 33 l. 28 r. four and five fold, p. 55 l. 4. for latter r. letter, The figures of the pages which ſhould be 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64. are miſprinted, p. 64. l. 6. for mens r. means, p. 78. l. 23. for others r. other Divines, p. 167. l. 12. after put r. upon and.

Margin. Notes, p. 14. for diga r. digna. p. 61. for Egyptis r. Egyptii, bones r. boves, p. 130. r. c. 9 quae. 4. p. 189. for equas r. equus, p. 214. r. praceptorum, for Prophetam r. Prophetarum, for pl niſqu r. pleriſque, p. 216. r. after peccata r. coercerentur.