Of resisting the lawfull Magistrate upon colour of Religion.

IN this proposall of the point for debate, there are onely two words will need an account to be given of them: 1. What is meant by Re∣sisting. 2. Why the word Colour is put in. For the first, Resisting, here signifies violent, forcible, offensive resistance, fighting against, as Hesychius the best Scripture-glossary explaines it, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all one, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉*〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and the Apostle in like manner, Rom. 13. 2. using 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, promiscuously for the same, and so in other places, although it is true, it is used sometimes in a wider sense; but that will not here be materiall, when we here set down before-hand what we meane by it. For the second, the word [Colour] is in the Title ad∣ded, onely for this reason, (not to prejudge the Religion, which is fought for, to be onely a colour, but) because it is possible for a man to fight for Religion, and yet not upon colour of Religion; to wit, in case the Religion for which hee fights be establisht by the Law of the Land, for then his colour for fighting may be the preservation of Law, which the Magistrate is bound by oath to main∣taine, and though hee fight for Religion, yet it is under that other colour: where∣as hee that fights upon colour of Religion, making that his onely pretence of fighting, is ipso facto supposed to fight for a Religion distant or contrary to that which is established by Law, and so all pretence or colour of Law excluded, yea, and all supposition of falling in the Magistrate; he standing for the Law present, not against it; which I desire may be the setting of the case, to exclude the fal∣lacy, plurium interrogationum, and to distinguish the quarrell of Religion from that other of Law, and so to meddle at this time onely with that which is fully within the Divines Spheare, and leave the other to some body else.

Those two termes being thus explained, and so the state of the question set, the lawfull Magistrate, and the establisht Law of the Kingdome on one side; and some person or persons inferiour to him, upon colour of Religion, i. e. for some Religion not yet established by Law, on t'other side, that it should be law∣full to them to take up Armes against him, would seem not very reasonable, if he were but a private man, abstracted from Regall power, (which sure doth not make it more lawfull to resist him then any body else) having broken no esta∣blished Law, (as is supposed in the case) for what legall accusation can lie against him in a point wherein hee hath not broken the Law? But then this will be more unreasonable, it moreover it be considered, that colour of Religion is so wide and unlimited a thing, that no man, that is never so much in the wrong in Page  2 any opinion, but thinks himselfe in the right, (for otherwise he would not con∣tinue in that errour) and so that colour will be plea equally good to all sorts of errours, as well as truths: and besides, he that hath not so much Religion as to be in an errour, may yet have so much wit as to make use of that Apology for his sedition, (to wit, colour of Religion) and plead it as legally as the most zea∣lous professour; and consequently, if that will serve turne, who ever shall but pretend to beleeve contrary to the Religion established in any Kingdome, shall be ipso facto absolved from all bond of Allegiance in foro humano, and if hee will adventure the hazard of the judgement to come, shall have no restraint laid on him by any earthly Tribunall; and so by this meanes already, the grounds of the dissolution of any government are laid by this one unpolitick principle, and the world given up to be ruled onely by the Religion (which is in effect, the will) of every man; whereas before, there was a State as well as a Church, Policy as well as Religion, a power in the Magistrates hand, besides that in eve∣ry mans owne brest or conscience; and yet more particularly, a restraint for hypocrites, as well as any else, i. e. for pretenders of Religion, who, if this ground would hold, were left unlimited. Where, if it be interposed, that such an one that fallaciously pretends Religion, though by this disguise hee escape here, yet shall surely pay for it hereafter; and that that is sufficient, because there is no other Court, but of that searcher of hearts, to which the hypocrite can be bound over: I answer, that although that be true, yet it is not sufficient; because, although there be a judgement to come for all crimes, yet it is not∣withstanding thought necessary to have present judicatures also, not to leave all offenders to terrours at such a distance: and indeed, for the continuance of the peace of Communities, to provide some violent restraint at the present for those, whom those greater but future deterrements cannot sufficiently work on. This every man knowes is the originall of humane Lawes, yea, and of Dominion it selfe, a praevision that all men will not doe their duties for love or feare of God, (it is apparent, the Jewes would not under their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and therefore for good mens sakes, and for peace sake, and for the maintaining of Communities, those superadditions have been thought necessary, as some thornes in the hedge of Gods Law, that may pierce the hands and sides of him that shall attempt to break over or thorough it. From whence the conclusion will be evident, that the Rules for the preserving of government must be such as shall have force to restraine the Atheist or the Hypocrite, as well as the good Christian (which sure will lesse need those restraints) or else they are utterly unsufficient to the attaining of their end, i. e. to the preserving of government, peace, community, or protecting any that lives under it: Which being supposed, it will also fol∣low, that nothing must be indulged upon any colour of Religion, (be his Reli∣gion never so true, and himselfe never so sincere in it;) which will open this gap or out-let to others, that may make the ill use of it: For this will be utter∣ly destructive of the end of government (which is, that wee may lead a peace∣able quiet life, 1 Tim. 2. 2.) yea, and of government it selfe.

Page  3 This argument being thus prosecuted and cleared, might be sufficient to de∣termine this whole businesse, were it not for one rejoynder which is ordinari∣ly made, the force of which is taken from that supreme care that every man ought to have of his owne soule, and consequently of the maintaining of his Re∣ligion, on which (to abstract from all possible disputes concerning the particular truth of it, he being perhaps not acute or artist enough to uphold it against all objecters) he is fully convinc't, the health and salvation of that wholly depends. For the maintaining of which against all the humane power in the World, if he may not take up Armes, or doe any thing, he cannot see what can be fit for him to fight for, (nothing sure being more precious then that;) or consequently, why he may not take up that opinion of the Beyond-Sea-Anabaptists, That it is not lawfull to fight at all: which if it should be yeelded to, although for the present it would produce peace, yet it would be little for the advantage of Ma∣gistrates in the issue. To this I shall answer, by concession of these foure things: 1. That Religion is to be every mans supreme care, the prime Jewel in his Ca∣binet. 2. That it cannot, at least in humane consideration, be expected that any man should be lesse carefull of his false Religion (if hee be really perswaded of the truth of it) then any other is of the true. Nay, 3. that if he doe not use any lawfull meanes to defend that false (whilest he is convinc't it is the true) Religion, this is a sin of lukewarmnesse in him; though indeed through prepos∣session not to open his eyes to greater light and revelation of the truth offered to him, and perhaps through sluggishnesse not to seek that light, be yet a farre greater sin in him. For though no man ought to defend the contrary to what he takes to be truth, yet ought he to be most ready to deposite his errour, not one∣ly when it doth, but also when it may appeare to him to be so, and to seek to those helps that may be instrumentall to that end. 4. That in some cases the use of Armes is not unlawfull. But then all this being thus granted, and so in effect, that all lawfull meanes may be used for the maintaining of Religion, we must yet secondly deny the inference of the Objection, upon this onely ground, because though Armes may lawfully be used in some cases, and Religion be maintained by all lawfull meanes; yet Armes are not a lawfull meanes for this end, and so may not be used in this case; that is, by Subjects against the lawfull Magistrate in case of Religion, at least when some other Religion is by Law established in that Kingdome. Which Assertion I shall confirme onely by foure Arguments: 1. Taken from the nature of Religion. 2. From examples of Christ and Christians. 3. From the very making of Christianity, and parti∣cularly of the Protestant Doctrine. 4. From the Constitution of this Kingdom, which being subordinate to the other three, may deserve consideration, as farre as it agrees with them.

1. From the nature of Religion, which is an act of the soule, which cannot be forced or constrained by outward violence; and therefore, 'tis apparent, needs no outward defence for the maintaining of it, much lesse invasion of others. A man may be as truly religious under all the tyranny and slavery in the world, Page  4 as in the most triumphant prosperous estate? They that have power to kill the body, are not able to commit them least rape upon the soule; they may rob me of my life, they cannot of my Religion; the weakest creeple in the Hospitall may defie the whole Army of the Philistines in this matter. But you will ask, Is not the outward profession and publike exercise of Religion some part of it, and that to be thus maintained, where any attempt to hinder it? To which I answer, That the first of these, the outward Profession, can no more be hindred then the former act of the soule, but rather may be most illustrious in the time of depression. I may confesse Christ in the den of lyons, in the furnace, on the rack, on the gridiron, and when my tongue is cut out, by patient, constant suffering in that cause. Religion is not so truly professed by endeavouring to kill others, as by being killed patiently our selves rather then we will renounce it. When I fight, it may be malice, revenge, some hope of gaine (or impunity at least) by the present service, any one of a hundred worldly interests, that may help to whet my sword for me; or most clearly, a hope I may kill and not be killed: and so all this while here is no act of confession of Christ in thus venturing my life, although I doe affirme I doe this for my Religion; because, though I so affirme, men are not bound to beleeve me, there being so much oddes against me, that I doe it for some-what else. But when I say down my life patiently, the sacrifice of my God, resigne up all possible worldly interests for the retain∣ing of my one spirituall trust, this is to the eye of man a profession capable of no reasonable suspition of infincerity; and indeed none so, but this.

As for the second, the publike exercise of the true Religion, it were by all men heartily to be wisht that it might be enjoyed at all times, for the advancing of Gods glory, increase of charity, conversion of others, &c. But if it may not be had by the use of lawfull meanes, it will not be required of us by God, with∣out whose speciall providence it is not, that hee permitteth us to be forbidden that exercise. Till the same providence be pleased to remove such hinderance, and open to us a lawfull way of obtaining it, the primitive Christians secret meetings will first be imitable to us; and if those be obstructed also, their foli∣tudes next. And however, that designe of obtaining free exercise of our Religi∣on, will never make any practice lawfull to be used in order to that, that be∣fore was utterly unlawfull.

But are we not to take care of our children and posterity, as well as of our selves? If our Religion be now supprest, our poore children and progeny to the end of the world may in all probability be kept in blindnesse and ignorance, and so left to the place of darknesse irrecoverably. This objection sounds some∣what pathetically, and is apt to affect our bowels, more then our reason; moves our compassion first, and thorow those spectacles is then represented with im∣provement to our judgement. But for answer to it, though the Doctrine of E∣lection of particular men, as well and as absolutely to the meanes as to the end, might be to him that acknowledges it a sufficient amulet against this feare, and so no need of that their jealous care for their posterity, any farther then it is in Page  5 their power to contribute toward them (which sure is no more then to doe what is lawfull for them to doe;) yet the answer will be more satisfactory to all that acknowledge Gods providence, however opinionated concerning de∣crees, that whosoever considers himselfe as a man, much more as a father of a posterity, must have many things to trust God with, and onely God; and a∣mong those nothing more, then the future estate of those which are come from him. Yet, if he be importunate and still unsatisfied, unlesse he himselfe contri∣bute somewhat to the securing of his posterity in this matter, let me tell him, There is nothing (after his prayers to God, and paternall blessing on them) so likely to entaile his Religion upon them, as his sealing it by his sufferings. This sure will be a more probable way to recommend his Religion to them, (when they shall heare, and be assured by that testimony, that their fathers thus hoped in God) then that other so distant, that they died in a rebellion against the King; or, that this Religion had been in their time turned out of the Land, had not they done something so unlawfull to protect it. Besides, the greatest pre∣judice which but posterity (of which wee pretend such care) can suffer by my non-resistance, is onely to be brought up in a contrary Religion, to heare that way first, but sure not to have their eares deafed against all others when they shall be represented, nor to bring the guilt of non-representation upon them if they be not. And if I bring forth reasonable creatures, I hope they will, by the grace of God, make use of the reason and his grace, to find out that truth that their soules are so much concerned in: and if (through no default personall of theirs) they should misse of it, I hope the invinciblenesse of their ignorance, and their sincere repentance for all their sinnes and errours knowne and unknowne, and their readinesse to receive the truth, if it were or might be represented to them, would be antidote sufficient, by Gods mercy in Christ, to preserve them from that poyson, so they were carefull according to their means of knowledge to escape all other dangers. And all this upon supposition, but not concession, that the Religion of him that would fight for it, were the truth and only truth; whereas indeed, there is not a more suspitious mark of a false Religion, then that it is faine to propagate it selfe by violence: The Turks and Papists being the onely notable examples hitherto of that practice; till some others, directly upon Popish principles a little varied in the application, have falne upon the same conclusion.

Now secondly for the examples of Christ and Christians, but first of Christ: His example (as to this purpose) is evident in three passages (besides that grand transcendent copy, proposed from the aggregate of all his life and death, Mat. 11. 29. Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly.) The first is, Luk. 9. 54. The inha∣bitants of a Samaritan village would not receive Christ, vers. 53. upon that, James and John remembring what Elias had done in the like kind, 1 King. 18. and 2 King. 1. ask't his judgement of it, whether he, would be pleased that they should command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, as Elias did, that is, in effect, whether they should not doe well to use whatever power Page  6 they had (and be confident that God would assist them in it) to the destroying of those who-ever they were (and yet that they were not their Magistrates it is cleare) which affronted them in the exercise of their Religion, or indeed, which would not receive Christ. To this Christ answers sternly, the words are emphaticall, he turned (as to Peter when he gave him that check, Mat. 16. 23.) and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit you are of: that is, Elias was a Zelot, 1 Mac. 2. 58. (the full importance of which will be∣long * to another disquisition) & jure zelotarum, might doe somewhat against Baals Prophets, which will not agree with that distant calling or profession of a Disciple of Christ, or Christian; they are mistaken if they think they may doe as Elias did. From whence, by the way, is a prohibition fully legall put in a∣gainst all examples of the Old Testament, (if any such there were) from being pleadable amongst Christians, upon this ground of Josephus his observing, that the Jewes were governed by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God being as it were their King on earth for a long time, presiding immediately, and interposing by his Oracle, and other particular directions, as well as standing Law, as in that case of Phinees and Elias, &c. By which those acts of theirs, though authorized by no setled or ordinary Law, were yet as legall as what-ever in any other Common-wealth were done by authority legally descending from the supreme Magistrate. Which whosoever shall now apply to Christians, besides that he professes himselfe an asserter of Enthusiasmes, will meet with Christs check to the Boanerges, You know not what spirit you are of: I have not authorized you to pretend to the Spirit of Elias, or to doe what a Zelot among the Jewes might doe.

The second exemplary passage to this purpose in the story of Christ is, Mat. 26. 51. when Christ was apprehended by those tumultuous persons, at the best but servants of the chiefe Priests and Elders (not againe by any power of law∣full Magistrate) Peter drew the sword, and smote off one of those servants ears; upon that, Christs Answer is the thing to be observed, vers. 52. Then said Je∣sus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword: The speech particular to Peter, a prime Disciple or Christian, that he having drawn the sword in defence of Christ, and in him of Christianity it selfe, (a more justifiable course then ever any man since undertook under the colour of Religion) must put it up again; but the reason added, of an unlimited universall obligingnesse to all Christians; For all they that take the sword (as Peter did, in defence of Christ, &c. or else the citation had not been pertinent to him) shall perish by the sword. And the two parallel places which are noted in the margent of our English Bibles, are somewhat considerable; the first, Gen. 9. 6. where that Law was given to the sons of Noah,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 concerning the effusion of bloud, which sure was not any prohibition to legall, though capitall punishments of Malefactors, (but rather the investing the Magistrate with that power of the sword) and yet is by Christ urged as a prohibition to Saint Peter; signifying, that effusion of bloud by him in that case to be utterly illegall, and against the intention of that old Law, not Page  7 abrogated (it seemeth) by Christ. The other parallel place is Revel. 13. 10. where immediately upon the repeating of those words, He that killeth with the sword, shall be killed with the sword, is subjoyned, Here is the patience and faith of the Saints. i. e. Christian Martyrs, vers. 7. whose faith it seems and patience must goe together; which sure is most irreconcileable with forcible resistance. *

The third exemplary passage of Christ was in his suffering, wherein many particular circumstances might be observed, especially his answer to Pilate, John 19. 11. in acknowledgement of his legall power given him from above. But all that I shall observe is onely in the generall, That hee that had so many legions of Angels, certainly sufficient to defend him and invade his enemies, (whatsoever will be thought of the Christians strength in Tertullians time to have done so too, of which more anon) did yet without the least resistance give himselfe up to suffer death. And if it should be objected, that this was to ac∣complish what God hath decreed (ought not Christ to suffer these things, and thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer) and in obedience to that decree, not as matter of example to us, or of intimation, that it had not been lawfull for him to have done otherwise. To this I answer, That as Christ was decreed to that death, and non-resistance, so are Christians (if Saint Paul may be beleeved) predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, Rom. 8. that is, to that pattern of his in suffering, not fighting for Religion: and that re∣velation of Gods will in that decree being supposed, it will follow, That though Christ might have lawfully done otherwise, yet wee Christians now may not, especially being commanded to learne of him particularly his meeknesse; i. e. e∣specially that Lamb-like quality of the Lamb of God in his sufferings, Isai. 53. 7. So much for the examples of Christ.

Now for the like of Christians; it will be needlesse to mention any other then those of whom Tertullian and Saint Cyprian spake, being so perfectly home to that purpose, Tertul. in Apol c. 37. and his book, Ad Scapulam, wholly to this purpose: and Saint Cyprian in his book against Demetrianus, &c. The summe of which is this, That the Christians of that age had strength sufficient, either to have resisted, or avenged themselves upon their heathen persecuting Gover∣nours; but in obedience to the Lawes of Christ, chose rather to die, then doe so. The severall testimonies (of which this is the Abstract) being so fully produced by many, and known by all, it will be more to purpose to vindicate them from all exceptions, and intercept all evasions, which the wit of this last yeare (be∣yond all that any former age pretended to) hath invented to evacuate those testi∣monies; witnesse Goodwins Anticavalierisme, p. 23. &c. And this I shall take leave to doe at large, because it is said, many have been satisfied in the lawful∣nesse of their present course, by those Answers and Objections which that book hath helpt them to.

1. It is objected, The father (Tertullian) might easily be mistaken, in making the estimate of the strength of Christians, in comparison of the strength of them that were to oppose them. This is in civill termes, to say, Tertullian wrote hee Page  8 knew not what; or at the softest, Hee might be ignorant of what he affirmeth he knew; and I am confident, was more likely to know, living then, then the Objecter now, seeing or conjecturing at the distance of so many hundred years; who hath not the least authority (which must be the Judge in matter of fact) on his side, against so distinct and cleare affirmation, not onely of Tertullian in severall places (and that in an Apologie against the Gentiles, who could and would certainly have tript him in so manifest a falshood, if it had been such; and though the negative Argument be not fully convincing, that they did not thus trip him, because we doe not heare or read they did, yet will this be of as much force as any he hath to the contrary: This certainly, the writing it to the Gentiles, will be able to conclude, that Tertullian had been very imprudent and treacherous to his owne cause, to have affirmed a thing in defence of it, which his adversaries could so manifestly have proved a falsity, if it were not so as hee affirmed) but of Cyprian also, who lived about the same time; and no Writer of that age or since produced (I doubt not but I may say, producible) to the contrary.

Of the proofes that are offered to make it appeare possible and probable, that Tertullian should be so mistaken, the first is, Because this was no point of faith, &c. and therefore a devout father might fall under a misprision herein. I grant he might, but that doth not prove he did; no nor that it is probable he should be a more incompetent judge in such a matter, then hee that now under∣takes to controll him: Nay sure, lesse reason is there to deny the authority of the Ancients in matters of fact (which if they were not evident to them, must needs be much lesse evident to us, who have no means to know any thing of them but their relations, nor cause to suspect such relations, but either by some impossi∣bility in the things themselves, which is not here pretended, or by some other as authentick relation contradicting it, which is as little pretended) then of faith, the ground of which being onely the written word of God, is common with them to us; and therefore may enable us to judge, whether that which they af∣firme to be matter of faith, be so indeed, to be found really in that sacred Writ, from whence they pretend to fetch it.

And whereas it is farther added, That no rule of charity or reason binds us to beleeve another, in any thing which belongs to the art or profession of ano∣ther, and wherein himselfe is little versed or exercised: I answer, that this say∣ing, thus applied, will take away, the authority of a very great part of those Hi∣stories which no body yet hath questioned. If it were spoken of Doctrines, it might hold, and sure to that belongs the axiome quoted, Unicuique in arte suâ credendum est; but in narrations it is the unreasonablest thing in the world, to require the Narrator to be of that profession of which hee relates the fact; for then no man must adventure to write a Kings life but a King: and if Mr. M. Mr. A. or Mr. S. being Ministers of the word, shall write their letters concer∣ning the Parliaments victory at Keinton, and relate the number of the slaine on that side, so farre inferiour to those on the Kings, we must now upon this ad∣monition Page  9 retract that beliefe we then allowed them, and begin now (though too late) to question whether it were indeed a victory or no, which caused such so∣lemne thanksgiving in this City. But then secondly, why this Relation should so wholly belong to the profession of another, i. e. not to Tertullians, I cannot yet discerne: For the maine of Tertullian's testimony was, That the Christians chose rather to suffer then to resist, though they were able; because Christian Religion taught the one, and forbad the other: And this sure was not without the sphere of the Divine. But for their strength to resist, depending on the num∣ber of Christians, not as even ballancing the Heathens in the Empire, but as very considerable, and able to raise an Army, if they would make head, I doubt not but Tertullian, a Presbyter, that now laboured in converting and confirming Christians, and was not alwayes in his study, nay, who had lately been a Lawyer, and so not unacquainted with the Publike, might know and relate with farre better authority, then any who hath dared now to contradict him. For, for the art of ballancing the power of parties in a Kingdome, and grounds of precise de∣termination of such differences, (which as the Objecter denies Tertullian, so he is unwilling to yeeld to the States-man himselfe) you shall see anon that we have no need to make Tertullian Master of it, his relation will stand unmoved without it.

The second proofe to blast Tertullians Relation, is the ordinary one in fashion now-a-dayes; if any man differs in opinion from us, presently to examine his whole life, and if ever hee did or spake any thing unjustifiable, lay that vehe∣mently to his charge, and by that defame him, and then we may spare the pains of answering his reasons, disproving his assertion; he once lyed or sinned, and therefore it is ridiculous to expect any truth from him. The Argument is this, He might mistake and miscarry in this, for not long after he miscarried so grie∣vously, as to turne Montanist, who called himselfe the Holy Ghost, &c. Just as if I should resolve to beleeve no relation of any Minister (present in either of the Armies) of the strength of that Army, untill I had examined, and were assured that hee were not a Chiliast, an Arrian, nor guilty of any others Here∣sie condemned by the Church: Yea and more, till I had some degree of assurance that hee would never be such. Or, as if I should resolve this man knew no Lo∣gick, because in this period he offends so much against Grammar in these words, [to turn Montanist, who called himselfe the Holy Ghost;] where the Relative [who] hath certainly no Antecedent; Tertullian cannot, for hee called not himselfe the Holy Ghost, but onely used that stile so ordinary now-a-dayes [nos spirituales,] and all others [animales psychici;] and Montanist cannot, unlesse as once Areopagi signified the Areopagites, so now by way of compen∣sation, Montanist must passe for Montanas; for he it was that called himselfe the Holy Ghost, not all or any of his followers. This way of concluding, from a slip in Grammar, an ignorance in Logick, (especially being backt with the suffrage of so many unconcluding Arguments) will be as faire Logicall procee∣ding, as to inferre, because Tertullian afterward turned Montanist, therefore Page  10 then he spake hee knew not what. But then Saint Cyprian was no Montanist, and yet he affirmed the same that Tertullian doth, contra Demetrian: As for the approving of dreames and furious phantasies for true prophesies, (which is added to be revenged on Tertullian, for contradicting this Objecter) I con∣fesse I excuse not him, but wish we might learne any thing of him, rather then that. But I hope the narration we have now in hand, was neither Maximilla's nor Prisca's dreames: If it was a phantasie, it was quite contrary to a furious one. And for the close of this Argument, wherein the warning is given as it were from heaven, how unsafe and dangerous it is to build on the authority of men, as I desire the Reader may take it home with him, and from thence resolve to beleeve no longer any thing upon this Objecters authority, so denudate of all reason; so I doe not yet see, why hee that once erred, must never be allowed to speak truth; the making of true narrations being compatible with the greatest heresie in the world.

The third Argument against Tertullian's testimony, is an observation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that there is a pronenesse of inclination in much devotion, in persons devout∣ly given, to over-value the workes and piety of other men. To which my onely Answer shall be, That yet I hope it is not observed, that devout men are so strongly inclined to tell plaine lies, to this end, that they may make themselves over-valued by others. This must be Tertullian's infirmity, (if the Objecter guesse aright) being a Christian himselfe, and in his Apologie labouring to raise an high opinion of Christians in the Gentiles, to whom hee writes; to which purpose, if he should forge falsities, I must confesse it were a shrewd weaknesse, very ill becoming devotion, whatever the practice of later times may say in excuse of it.

The fourth proofe is from a second observation, That in the pious and ortho∣dox Fathers themselves, there are some touches and streins, some fibrae of the root of bitternesse, which afterwards grew rank in the times of Popery, &c. The Answ. All that I can collect from hence toward the conclusion designed, is, that this Objectors sense is, that for Tertullian to say there were Christians enough in the Roman Empire to work revenge on their oppressors, was a spice of Popery; and so there is one new piece of Popery more added, to the many which this Age hath concluded under that title, above the inventory of the Trent Cate∣chisme. And so now to debate this any further, or professe my selfe to opine as Tertullian did, is to acknowledge my selfe Popish, and that is as bad as Pre∣laticall; and so from henceforth all my Arguments will but passe for tempta∣tions, which none but carnall men must submit to, be they never so demon∣strative. Yet must I have leave to wonder, how in the close of this Section these words [the sounder and more considerate knowledge of these latter times] can have any reference to the point in hand: For certainly, for the strength of the then Christian party, our knowledge in these latter times cannot be sounder or more considerate, then theirs that then lived amongst them: or if it be, the words [latter times] will be improper, for sure it will be affirmed onely of that time Page  11 wherein Mr. J. G. wrote this part of this book; for I am confident he was the first that ever revealed this act of more considerate knowledge to the world.

The fifth and last proof is, That what ever their number was, yet it is no wayes likely they should be fuffered to have any Armes, &c. To which, and to all the prudentiall state motives whereon it is grounded, (and so to all that Section) I shall return no answer but the very words of Tertullian, which if all put toge∣ther, they doe not defend their Author from all their assaults, neither will I be∣leeve the Christians strength was sufficient to buckle with their adversaries. His words are plain: first, if we would hostes exertos agere, deale like profest ene∣mies, desiisset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum? should we have wanted force of numbers (i. e. men) or armed souldiers? (for so sure copiae signifies.) Second∣ly, he saith as plainly, Castella vestra, castra implevimus, we have filled your Ca∣stles and Camps, (there, sure they were armed; and so the Thebaean Legion, which yeelded themselves to the Emperours butchery, wanted neither number nor armes to have resisted.) Thirdly, he saith, cui bello non idonei? what war had we not been fit for? etiam impares copiis, though we had not had so many ar∣med men as they, qui tam libentèr trucidamur. Their despising of death, (nay, gladnesse to dye) might have put them upon any hazard unarmed; and hee pro∣fesses the onely thing that kept them from resisting, was the Doctrine which they had learnt, That it was more lawfull to be kil'd, then to kill. Fourthly, hee saith, They had a way of revenge without Arms, to wit, by departing from them, by that secession to have brought envie upon them; (as for example, upon dislike of the present state, to have gone to New-England, &c. to raise an odium upon the Old) but this they would not be so malicious as to doe neither: nay, besides, a∣missio tot civium ipsâ destitutione puniisset, the losse of so many Citizens would have been a punishment, by making them lesse able to resist other enemies; plu∣res hostes, quàm cives usque remansissent, there would have been a greater num∣ber of enemies, then there would have been Citizens remaining. Fifthly, to put all beyond exception, he puts them in mind how one night with a few fire-brands they might have wrought their revenge, if it were lawfull for them to repay evill with evill. This one last particular being considered, is so full a demonstration of the truth now in debate, that supposing there were but one Christian at liberty to use that one fire-brand, there can be no longer doubt but that there was suffi∣cient strength to work their revenge, if their Religion would have permitted them to doe so. And if their Religion (as was said out of him) were the onely restraint, then certainly their weaknesse was not. Nay, though they should after all this (by a morally impossible supposition) be supposed weak, yet if their Re∣ligion did truly restraine them, as he professes it did, this were abundantly suffi∣cient to decide the controversie betwixt us and the Objecter.

Having proceeded thus farre in answer to the severall exceptions against the truth of Tertullian's assertion, concerning the strength of those Christians, I am invited farther by a second proffer of the Objecter to make appeare, that al∣though Tertullian's assertion should be supposed true, yet it were unsufficient, Page  12 it would not reach the question, or case in hand. This certainly is strange at first sight, the case in hand being, Whether the reason of their non-resistance were their want of strength. Which in all reason must be determined negatively, when once these two things are supposed; first, that they had strength; secondly, that the command of Christ, or making of Christianity was the cause of their non∣resistance, and not want of strength. But there is no truth so evident, but the cunning of such a crafts-master will be able to transforme, both from evidence and truth; and therefore (though in all justice a man might vow never to have commerce with such a man more, that should undertake thus to master his un∣derstanding; that he should beleeve and not beleeve the same thing; yeeld the want of strength to be the cause, at the very time when hee acknowledges or supposes, first, no want of strength; secondly, somewhat else, to wit, the com∣mand of Christ, to be the cause;) yet I shall (to exercise that Christian meek∣nesse which I desire to assert by my actions, as well as words) wait on this great Artificer to the second part of his Answer. The summe of which, as hee first sets it, is this, That supposing the father spake truth concerning their strength, yet on some considerations he mentions, It had been in those that were called to suffer, both want of wisdome in respect of themselves, and of charity in respect of others, if they should have made the least resistance. To which my onely an∣swer shall be, to beseech him to consider, that this is part of Tertullian's testi∣mony, that the thing that restrained them was (not this wisdome, but) the doctrine of their Christ; concluding it more lawfull to be kil'd, then to kill; and utterly unlawfull to repay evill for evill. And as for charity to others, I humbly wish that were, or may yet be considered, how much burden, &c. this resistance (of which he is the profest a better) hath brought on others, who are no parties on either side; nor, I hope, ill Christians, if their onely punishable crime be, making conscience of non-resistance.

To the next Section, in answer to a supposed Reply, where he saith, That it is not probable they had any sufficiency of strength. I answer, that I cannot be so tame as thus to be caught, or so wild as to imagine that improbable, at a time when Tertullian's testimony is supposed to be true, (as now it is supposed) the speciall part of which testimony is yeelded to be, that they had sufficient strength. And where he adds 2. that 'twas not necessary they should be of one mind and judgement touching this sufficiency, &c. I answer, that wee doe not assert any such necessity, nor doth our cause any way incline us to it, or want that refuge: For sure we affirme not, that they did actually resist (to which on∣ly, that concurrence would have been necessary) but onely that they would not, though they were able; and to the evidencing of that, the concurrence of judge∣ment you speak of, is not materiall; for if they that did so think of their strength, were upon grounds of Christian patience and obedience, as farre from doing or attempting it as any other, these men would certainly have continued in the same obedience, though all the world had concurred with them in the opinion of their sufficiency. For, to professe Christian meeknesse first, and then upon any Page  13 supervenient occurrence to be ready for resistance, though it might be a chara∣cter of the temporary (that I say not hypocriticall) subjection of our dayes, yet must not wee be so groundlesly uncharitable, as to affix it on those Christians: and though the Objecter should renounce his present supposition, and again con∣tend, that Tertullian lied, and so divest him of all authority as a father, of com∣mon honesty as a relater; yet sure he will not be so severe to deny him so much of an ordinary Rhetor, as to make that an ingredient in his Apologie for Chri∣stians, which were the highest piece of an accusation. Grant but Tertullian to have any skill in any of his professions, suppose him but an Oratour, if not a Di∣vine, a tolerable pleader, if not a tolerable man; allow him but skill at the Deske, (his first trade, before he was a Christian) the reputation of a little elo∣quence, though no sincerity, and his very pleadings will be argumentative, though his words may not.

But 'tis added in the third place, That having no invitation, countenance, or command from any authority, &c. their case was differing from ours. To which I answer againe, 1. That it was not still the want of such command or invita∣tion, that restrained them, but the contrary command of Christ; as hath been cleare. But then secondly, I pray let me ask a question, as of one which I will in reason suppose not to be unacquainted with the sense of Junius, Brutus, and Buchanan, and it is only this, Whether, if all temporall Magistrates neglect the worke of Reformation, the Ministers may not and ought not to attempt it, if they can hope to prevaile? If so, then though the case be not just the same now and then, yet the difference is not materiall or pertinent; for then sure Ministers there would have been to invite, if that had been the Christian way.

But when it is added within three lines, that we are invited, &c. by as great and as lawfull an authority as this State hath any: I must confesse, I had thought that the King and both Houses had been a greater authority, unlesse the meaning be not simply, but ad hoc, as great and as lawfull an authority as this State hath any, to doe what is now done; and then sure it shall be granted by me, who professe my selfe to suppose it impossible, that any command given to this purpose should be lawfull, or able to secure any from that sentence of Saint Paul's, They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Yet once more, It is possible that the Authour, by this State may mean a Republique, which though it be a word of some signification in some other Countries, yet that our Lawes acknowledge any such here, I have not yet been taught; nor sure can any part of this Kingdome without the King be capable of this Title, till we have moulded a new forme of Government, and new Lawes, as the Modell of that; for undoubtedly the old ones are not acquainted with any such. But that I will hope is not the meaning, because it is added, that inferiour Magistrates, &c. which seemeth to acknowledge, that the Parliament without the King are but inferiour Magistrates. Of the agreeablenesse of that Title of Magistrates and Rulers, to that body without the head, I purpose not to speake; onely to that which is added, That they should be obeyed, as well as Kings. I answer, (with∣out Page  14 canvasing of the place in Saint Peter, which others have done) That if they are to be obeyed; but as well as Kings, then 1. The King that commands not to doe it, is to be obeyed, as well as they. 2. Not they against the King, for that the inferiority implies. An inferiour Magistrate, in that that is lawfull, and within his Commission, and not thwarted by a superiour, is to be obeyed as well as if he were superiour in that, or as well as the superiour in any thing else; but sure not to the despising of the superiours lawfull commands, when they doe interpose; for that were more then as well. When the King commands that which God and the Law doth not forbid, it may be said, that his commands are to be obey∣ed as well as Gods; which the Apostle intimates, when he saith, You must be subject for conscience sake; and the ground of this truth is, because indeed God the supreme, commands that subjection to the King in such matters. But sure for all this the King is not to be obeyed against God, or where any countermand of his hath intervened; for this were, in Saint Peter's phrase, to obey men (not as well, but) rather then God. Thus is it in that other case, the inferiour is to be obeyed, as well as the superiour, (in things lawfull, and not contradictory to the Superiours commands) upon that ground of necessity of obedience to the Superiour, from whom he hath his Commission, and as Saint Peter saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is sent of him; i. e. of, or by that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, supereminent person, the King; but sure this holds not against the superiour, as in the other case it did not. 3. Not they, when they command to take up Armes against him whom Saint Paul bids me not resist, upon pain of damnation; and by my oath of Allegiance (if it were otherwise lawfull) I have bound my selfe that I will not. Where∣upon it is observable, that the Assertors of this warre are now brought to under∣take, that damnation, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 13. shall not signifie damnation, (poor men, what a weak threed doth the sword hang in, that is just over their soules? and what a sad condition would it be, if to one that dyes a confident Martyr in this warre, damnation at the day of doome should prove to signifie damnation?) but some temporary mulct; and yet withall, that this warre is not against the King; (when yet that other against the Earle of Essex his Army, is not doubted to be against the Parliament;) which two so strange, and yet distant holds, (for if it be not against the King, what need of that other evasion from the damnation that belongs to resisters? or if resisters shall carry it away so easily, why may not Warre be avowed against the King, by any that will adventure his wrath?) doe sure signifie mens consciences to be strangely grounded, and themselves very groundlesly confident, which are satisfied upon no better principles, and whose practices are capable of no better security.

Upon these grounds thus laid, of obedience due to inferiour as well as supe∣riour (supreme it should be, for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must here signifie, and I hope that our King amongst us is such) Magistrates, the Objecter puts a case, that the inferiour Governour requires that which is onely honest, &c. as to doe our best to defend our selves against those that contrary to law and conscience assault us, the superiour that which is contrary to both, viz. to sit still, &c. In this case hee Page  15 resolves it is most cleare on his side, for (whether the lawfulnesse or necessity he intimates not of) resistance against the superiour. To this I answer, that it is hard to beleeve that the Objecter did not purposely intend to deceive his Rea∣der by that phrase [onely honest, &c.] for that is a very doubtfull sense; it may signifie, that nothing else were honest, and then it is in that sense apparently false; for if it were honest to take up Armes against a King, yet sure may not-taking-up Arms be honest too; for (whatever that crime of neutrality signifie in these dayes) it may be lawfull for a man to suffer injury, to suffer himselfe to be defrauded (and that by a King, as well as by an equall) 1 Cor. 6. 7. I hope resistance, though it have lately commenced, and taken upon it the degree of vertue, yet hath not turned Projector, got the monopoly of vertue and honesty into its hand, that it should engrosse and enclose that title, and there be no other vertue or honesty besides this: yet would the affirmations of some, out of no meaner place then the Pulpit, [that all that are for the King at this time are A∣theists or Papists] conclude and perswade thus much. But I would fain beleeve, that the meaning of the phrase [onely honest, &c.] is, [no more then honest] i. e. not necessary. But if that be it, then sure the superiour Governour may de∣serve to be obeyed in forbidding it, as well as the inferiour in commanding: For it will not follow in that case, that the King commands somewhat contrary to the Law of God, and nature; but onely somewhat contrary to something which was agreeable, i. e. not against the Law of God and nature; i. e. prohibits a thing lawfull, not necessary; as the other is supposed to command a thing law∣full, not necessary: which sure were as free for him to doe, as for the inferiour; supposing, as the Objector supposes, that the command of God indifferently ex∣tends it for obedience to either, in things that are lawfull. Hence it appears, that in the case here put, the command of the superiour is falsly affirmed, to be an un∣lawfull command; (for then the matter of the inferiours command must be sup∣posed, not onely honest, but necessary) and if it be a lawfull one, it may and will then make void that obligation for that particular, which is supposed by the Law of God to lie on us, to obey the inferiour in that which is lawfull. The short is, if that which is here spoken of, be in it selfe necessary, we must doe it, as in spight of all countermands of the superiour, so without all commands or invitations of the inferiour Magistrate; but if it be not necessary in it selfe, neither will the commands of an inferiour make it necessary to any who stands prohibited by a superiour.

In the fourth Section the Objecter offers at a reason, why those ancient Chri∣stians (supposing strength in them) should rather patiently suffer, because be∣fore their conversion they had consented to the Emperour's power, whereby those Edicts were made for the murthering of Christians, &c. To which I answer, that it is ridiculous to seek out, or impose upon the Reader probable or possible reasons for their non-resistance, when Tertullian in their name specifies the true only reason, the Gospel Doctrine of Christian patience and obedience. But for the particular of their consent, much might be added, to shew the vanity of Page  16 that plea, if that were tanti, or pertinent. I shall only say, that if the Emperour legally murthered Christians, then their consent to that Law (or to the power of the Emperour who made it) would not bind or dispense with them to omit any thing necessary, or otherwise commanded by any greater power; for if I swear to doe so, I must break my oath, non obstante what is concluded from Psal. 15. 4. And if it were not otherwise necessary, or commanded by greater power then, neither is resistance now. And then, the Kings prohibition will as much restrain me in any thing not necessary, as their heathenish consent could be supposed to restrain them then. Nay, he that makes that consent a nullity. (as this Objecter in fine doth) what reason can hee render, why he that gave that consent, might not plead that nullity, for such (though carnall) advantages as life is, if he could make good his pleading, and no other restraint lie on him, but onely that null∣consent?

For the fifth Section: How that may be lawfull [for an entire body to doe, which may not be lawfull for a part,] and so for us now, though not for them. I answer, That if the phrase [entire body] signifie the head and members too, then the period is true; if not, then the whole Section is fallacious: for it fol∣lowes not, that though the representative body without the head is more then a party in the Empire, without the representation of the rest, therefore the first may resist forcibly, though the second should not; for he that from Saint Paul denies resistance of Subjects indefinitely to Kings, will not be moved from that hold, by discerning some other flight differences between Subjects, unlesse they may appeare such that on one side they may authorize resistance. But then se∣condly, If the Doctrine of Christian patience, &c. were the cause of Non∣resistance, then sure was not this other consideration wherein they differ from us, the cause of it.

Well, having gone thus farre, in attendance on this Objecter, and to exercise that patience, which we so much desire to perswade; there is yet the greatest Fort, behind unvanquished, erected in the sixth Section, and rescued from all supposed assailants in six particulars following, set up like so many fortresses a∣bout it: The summe of it is (for I would not be bound to recite what every one may read in a printed Book) that if those Primitive Christians had strength, and might lawfully have resisted, (by the way, Tertullian onely affirmes the first, and is so farre from supposing, that hee absolutely denies the second) yet might God hide this liberty from them; and so his after dispensations did require that he should hide it from them, and yet manifest it to us: and these dispensa∣tions he specifies to be Gods counsell of Antichrists coming into the world than, and of his being destroyed and cast out now. The hiding of this truth, of Sub∣jects power and right to resist their Superiours, being necessary to help Anti-Christ up to his throne. And the commonalty of Christians doing contrary to the will of their Superiours, being the men that must have the principall hand in executing Gods judgements upon the Whore, Revel. 18. 4, 5, 6, & 9. that is, in the pulling him down.

Page  17 To this whole discourse (the first I am confident that ever was written on this Subject) I must answer by degrees, (that I may not omit any thing that is added for proofe or explication by the Authour) and first, I must desire the word may or might [may hide] may be changed into plaine intelligible sense. Say, did God hide the liberty of resistance from those Primitive Christians, or no? If he did not, then away with this whole Section, and particularly that af∣firmation, Pag. 30. that Gods dispensations did require that it should be hid from them. But if God did indeed hide it, then first, this is more then a supposition; it is a plaine concession, that those Christians Tertullian speaks of, might not lawfully have resisted, though they had had strength (which was so long de∣nyed); for the light being hidden, they must have done it without faith, or against conscience; yea, and against Gods determinate counsell; who, (the Ob∣jecter saith) had great causes to hide it; of which one sure must be, that it should not be used. 2. Here is a great secret of new Divinity, that God hides truths (not as Christ spake in parables, because they seeing see not, Mat. 13. 13. but) on purpose to help Antichrist to his throne; (of which more anon.) As for that instance of those that eat herbs, I pray consider, whether that be pertinent to prove that God purposely hides truths from us, or particularly this truth in hand: For sure that liberty God hid from none in the Apostles time; for the preaching of the Gospel manifested the lawfulnesse of meats, as well as herbs; onely some saw not, or considered not that that was manifested; and thinking some old legall obligation (as others did circumcision) to lie still on them, sub∣mitted to it out of piety. Now apply this to the point in hand. Certainly, the liberty of forcible resistance against Superiours (though it should be granted) would never be found of this kind, a liberty brought into the world by Christ, which before had not been there. If hee shall affirme it was, (as hee must, if that instance of eating be pertinent) though by the concession of the latter part, hee must disclaime all his former Old-Testament pleas for resistance, from the people about Jonathan, from David, and from Elisha; yet will hee never give any probable appearance for the affirmation in the first part, that Christ gave any such new before-unrevealed liberty: but rather, if any such liberty before there were, it was undoubtedly taken away by Christ, from whose example and precepts it was that those Primitive Christians, and we also, dare not make use of that supposed liberty. The onely thing I can imagine possible to be replied, is, That though the comparison hold not exactly, yet it may hold in this, that as that liberty of eating was hid to some, (it matters not by whom, or how) so this of resisting to others. To which I returne, that then it is con∣fest, that this instance doth onely illustrate the Objecter's meaning; but not so much as probably confirme his assertion: and then I am sorry I have con∣sidered it so long. And therefore to bring the point to an issue, I must third∣ly aske, Where this liberty, or the authority for this liberty was, when it was thus hid? Was it in the Old Testament? Though it should be there, as it is not, yet it might be taken away in the New, (as those things which in the Old Page  18 Testament, or the law of nature, are nearest to giving of that liberty, are abso∣lutely reformed by Christs doctrine and practice) and then that were good for nothing. Was it in the New? Then deale plainly, shew the place in the New Testament which gives that liberty, and is now found out by posterity, though hidden to them. Sure we have found out no new Scripture, to them unknown, (the Nazarites Gospel, though it rehearse some speeches of Christ not in our Ca∣non, yet is not produced for any of this nature: that famous one which it fa∣thers on our Saviour, Nunquam laeti sitis nisi cùm sratrem in charitate videri∣tis, is of another stamp; I would to God this Apocryphall Precept might be Canonicall among us) and for any place of the known Canon mis-understood by them, and now clearly unclouded and revealed to us in a right understanding, which inforces this, I must be so charitable to the Objecter, as to think that if hee had discerned any such, hee would not have failed to have shewed it us, (as well as his interpretations of Rom. 13. and Revel. 17. 17.) if it were but to leave us unexcusable for not being his Proselytes. Beyond these severall wayes of revelation, if posterity have had any other, (or indeed any but that, of under∣standing of Scripture by Scripture light, or assistance of Gods Spirit, which was not before understood) from whence to fetch a liberty which is not in the Old Bible, or is denyed in the New, this is it which wee desire so to warne men of, under the name of Enthusiasme, which is hardly ever distinguishable from a demure frenzie, and I must call it now, the dreame of the dreamers, Jud. 8. that despise dominion, speak evill of dignities, but farre from divine revelation. And yet that this is the thing that this Objecter hath an eye to, (and not the understanding of Scripture more clearly then before) may appeare, in that hee affirmes this truth hid from their teachers, (though not from all without excep∣tion) who yet if it were hid in the Scripture, were of all others most unlikely not to find it. As for that offer of proofe, that this truth might lie hid, because there was no occasion of studying it: I answer, that in Tertullian's dayes, when there was occasion to study it, (as great as ever can arise any, because the perse∣cutions then were as heavie persecutions) we may by that argument think they would have searcht into it, at least the light then would not in ordinary ac∣count have proved more dim, as hee saith it did, if the Scripture were the candlestick where this light was held out. That which he adds in the next place, of the spirit of courage, patience, and constancy, which was by God poured out on the Church in those dayes, and so made martyrdome seeme a desirable thing to them, is more like a reason indeed of their not-inquiring into this liberty: and herein, I must acknowledge the ingenuity of the Objecter, or the power of truth which extorted this reason from him, so little to the advantage of his cause, and so much of ours: For this is certainly the bottom of the businesse, the want of Christian courage, patience, &c. (for that kind of courage is not in fighting, but suffering) hath helpt us of this last age to that [dreame, not] revelation of liberty, which was never heard of among the ancients. But by the way, it seemes by the Objecter, that now martyrdome is no desirable Page  19 thing, nor taking up Christs crosse, nor following of him. Wee are resolved to have no more to doe with martyrdome, think that the thousand yeares for the Saints to reigne on earth are now at hand, and so suffering, or conformity to the image of Christ, no longer the thing wee are predestin'd to; wee must set up a new trade of fighting, destroying, resisting, rebelling, leave enduring to those Christians which were furnished with extraordinary strength from heaven. Which are the Objecters words of the Primitive Christians; which, saith hee, kept them from studying cases and questions about lawfulnesse of e∣scaping (which word meere shame hath put in, utterly impertinently, instead of resisting) I confesse, I had thought our Queen Mary Martyrs had had this strength from heaven too; and that it was not like miracles, an extraordina∣ry gift onely for the infancy of the Church: but now it seemes wee must ex∣pect to see no more Martyrs, till wee can remove mountaines againe: This Objecter, it is cleare, is resolved against it at this time, and that his actions, as well as writings, will be ready to testifie. For my owne part, I trust I shall be as ready to oppose the one, as I am to confute the other, and to think nothing more Christian still, then to be crucified with my Christ; and if I might chuse the Article of Christian Doctrine which I should most desire to seale with my bloud, I thinke it would be that of meeknesse, patience, non-resistance, peaceablenesse, charity, which I conceive Christ hath been so passionately ear∣nest to recommend unto me, as most diametrically opposite to the most un∣christian damning sinnes of pride, ambition, malice, rebellion, unquietnesse, un∣contentednesse, &c.

Fourthly, for the whole discourse about Antichrist, there must many things be returned: 1. That it is not tolerable in a Christian to affirme, that God purposely hid truths, that Antichrist might come into the world: This so harsh sense the Objecter first disguises in another phrase, that God by speciall dispen∣sation suffered him to make many truths his footstoole; but indeed that reaches not home to the businesse undertaken to be proved, for it followes not thence, that this of resisting superiours was one of those truths: if it were, then God suffered him to make use of it, which hee could not but by its being made known, whereas hee supposes it was then hid. If hee meane Antichrist hid it, and so made the holding it, his footstoole; Then 1. It was not God that hid it, as before hee said, but Antichrist. 2. It had then been manifest be∣fore, and then began to be hid, when there was most occasion to use it; which before hee made improbable. If I were put upon the rack, I could not give a rationall account of those words of the Objecter last recited, or such as may but be consonant to his present undertakings. That which followes is more cleare, that God caused a dead sleep to fall upon those truths: If hee did, I wonder who first raised them out of that dead sleep, Jun. Brutus, or Buchan. or Mr. Goodwin? But still it seemes God did on purpose hide truths, in favour and assistance to Antichrist, to help him into the world; and this, not like the spi∣rit of slumber sent on men for their punishment, but on divine truths, which sure Page  20 had not deserved it. Yet more particularly, that the doctrine of liberty to resist superiours should be so opposite in a speciall manner to Antichrist, that it was fain to be laid asleep to give him passage into his throne, seemeth very strange to me. 1. Because one piece of Antichrists pride is, to exalt himselfe above all that is called God, which is mostly interpreted Kings; and if rightly, then they that doe so enhaunce the power of the people, as to make the King universis minorem, and loose the reins of obedience so farre as to permit resistance, will I feare discerne some part of the mark of the Beast upon their own brests. 2. Be∣cause the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Thes. 26. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vers. 7. that hindred, or let An∣tichrist, and was like to doe so still, till he were taken out of the way, was by the Fathers commonly resolved to be the Roman Empire, or Imperiall Soveraignty of Rome: See Tert. de resurr. c. 24. Ambr. com. in 2 Thes. Hier. qu. 11. ad Al∣gas. Chrys. in 2 Thes. Cyr. Hier. catech. 1•. Aug. de civ. Dei, l. 20. c. 19. Lact. l. 7. c. 25. Oecum. in loc. & ib. Sever. & Gen. and therefore on the sacking of Rome by Alaricus the Goth, S. Jerome presently expected that Antichrist should come; and in his book ad Ageruchiam de monogam. wonders that any one would think of marrying at that time. Hence, have learned men observed, was that custome in the most ancient times to pray in their Lyturgies for the lasting of the Roman Empire, that so Antichrist might be long a coming, Tert. Apol. c. 33. ad Scap. c. 2. From whence, though nothing else can be demonstratively inferred, yet this certainly may, That in those many Fathers opinion, the power of Kings continuing intite, was not like to help Antichrist in; nor consequent∣ly, the bringing down that power, by the revelation of the doctrine of resistance, like to cause an abortion in Antichrists birth, or now tend to the casting him out of the world.

As for the evidence of that Revelation-rule, that the communalty, in oppo∣sition to their Kings, must have the great stroke in executing Gods judgement on Antichrist, proved, Revel. 18. 4, 6, 9. I must answer, 5. That I shall never wonder enough at the power of Prejudice evidenced in this Objecter, by what hee hath put together to this purpose, pag. 32. To prove that the people con∣trary to their Kings shall destroy Antichrist, this is thought by him sufficient evidence, that the people are commanded to goe out of her, vers. 4. when vers. 9. it followes, that the Kings of the earth shall bewaile her, and lament for her: The unconcludingnesse of the Argument I shall not insist on, but onely looke forward to another place which hee cites immediatly, Revel. 17. 17. Where the ten Kings are said to hate the Whore, and make her desolate. Now the word Kings in this last place signifies, saith the Objecter, not the persons of Kings, but their States and Kingdomes; and to this purpose proofes are produced: But, first, I beseech him to deale ingenuously, Doth the word King ever signifie the Kingdome opposed to the King; 1. Any part of the Kingdome excluding the King? But then, 2. See the mystery of prejudice which I mentioned, where it is for the Objecter's turne, Revel. 18. the Kings of the earth, must signifie their persons, in opposition to their people; but where it is not for Page  21 his turne, Revel. 17. there the word Kings, must signifie the people, or any but the King. Would not the spirit of meeknesse have easily compounded this businesse, and have given the word [Kings] leave in both places to signifie both their Persons and their Realmes; and so have reconciled the places, that some Kings with their Kingdomes should bewaile her, and some againe hate her; they bewaile her, that continued with her till her destruction, when they see the smoak of her burning, 18. 9. and others hate her, who had once tasted of her filthinesse, and repented and left her before: This were very agreeable to those Texts, if wee had not peremptorily resolved to fetch some other sense out of them. 3. That first place alone by it selfe concludes onely thus much, that good men come (or are exhorted to come) out from Antichrist, and a∣venge the Whore; and earthly men that have love to her, bewaile her; but not that either the first are all common people, (for sure Kings may be called Gods people, or be in that number) or the second none but Kings. As for the proofe that those people, vers. 4. are the Subjects of those Kings, vers. 9. because they are such as come out of Babylon, sure that is very weak; for Ba∣bylon being the Province of the Whore, there may be Kings as well as Subjects there, and those Kings come out too, as well as those Subjects. For, suppose King and People of England all Popish, why might they not all reform toge∣ther? It seems Antichrist must never be cast out of a Kingdome, till the people doe it in spight of the King; and therefore it is concluded, that it was not done here in the dayes of King Edward, nor Queen Elizabeth, nor King James: and now since the new Revelations have assured men, that Antichrist must now be cast out utterly from among us, it is become necessary that our Soveraigne should be a Papist; and as much zeale, and as solid arguments used to perswade our friends that indeed he is so, (though his constant word and actions now e∣vidence the contrary) as are produced to maintain any other article of our new Saints beliefe: One of the most suspected and hated heresies of these dayes is, to doubt of the Popish affections of our Superiours, especially the King. Well, by this doctrine, if the King should chance not to be a Papist, hee must turne to be one, or else Popery cannot be cast out in his time. If so hee should doe, turne Papist on purpose to prepare, or dispose his Kingdome to turne Anti∣christ out, this might be but answerable to Gods hiding of truths, to that end to help Antichrist in. But should his Majesty be so malicious as to prove Protestant in earnest, then what would become of that sure word of Prophecy, that so ma∣ny have been perswaded to depend on, That Antichrist must now be cast out of this Kingdome; which, saith the Objector, cannot be, unlesse the people do it while the King bewailes. I hope I have said enough of this.

As for the connexion of this observation, with the conclusion in hand, (though it matter little now, the observation is proved so false, yet) I shall adde, that if the people were to doe that great feat of casting out Antichrist, yet it appeares not how liberty of forcible resisting their Kings should be a ne∣cessary requisite to the work, unlesse the lawfull King be the Antichrist in every Page  22 Countrey; for otherwise it is very possible, that though they obey their Kings, they may resist Antichrist; though they love and revere their lawfull Superiour, they may hate and abjure their unlawfull. Once more, whereas it is againe re∣peated, that the knowledge of the supposed Subjects liberty would have kept An∣tichrist from his throne; I repeat again, that if it would, God sure would have revealed it to them of all others; unlesse it appeare, that God was more angry with the sinnes of Christians in Tertullian's age, and so more fought against them, then hee doth in ours against us; for though God may of mercy unde∣served throw down Antichrist, yet that hee should so immediately and illustri∣ously labour to set him up, unlesse out of deserved indignation to a people, is not easily resolved; yet if this may appeare de facto to be so, I shall yeeld; till then, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The last blot laid on Tertullian, to obliterate all whatsoever can be fetcht from him, is, That the authority of Tertullian, and the submission of the Chri∣stians, being both Apocryphall, is too light to weigh against the practice of the great Prophet Elisha, &c. To which I answer, That that being supposed, yet the grounds on which Tertullian saith the Christians of his time did so patiently suffer, viz. the doctrine of Christian patience and meeknesse, are not Apocry∣phall, nor inferiour to that of Elisha, though it were supposed to be argumen∣tative, or concluding for resistance. For any thing else added by the Objecter in this businesse, as the disproving of Tertullian's relations on grounds of Chri∣stian doctrine, from the contrary practice of David and Elisha, though I might answer in one word, That Christians are restrained from some things, which were practised without fault in the Old Testament; yet because those Old Te∣stament-examples have been fully cleared by many others of our Writers, and indeed are not pertinent to the discourse I was upon, when this Objecter first met me in the way, and led me this chace after him, I shall not be so imperti∣nent as to adde any thing, but conceive my selfe to have vindicated the testimo∣nies of those Fathers from all possible objections, and so to have joyned the pra∣ctice of Christians, (those ancient Primitive ones) and proved them correspon∣dent to the example of Christ, and so to have made good my second Argument, proposed from the example of Christ and Christians.

My third is, from the very making of Christianity, and particularly of the Protestant Doctrine. And 1. Of Christianity, which as it differs from the Lawes both of Moses and Nature, so it constantly reformes and perfects those (dis∣solves not any thing that was morall in them, nor promises impunity for non∣performance, but upon repentance and reformation) elevates and raises them up to an higher pitch, at least then Jewes or naturall men had conceived or un∣derstood themselves obliged to, which the ancient Fathers generally resolve to be the meaning of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 5. 17. to fill up all vacuities in those former Lawes, and adde unto them that perfection which should be propor∣tionable to that greater measure of grace now afforded under the Gospell. Thus in that Sermon upon the mount, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that top of Page  23 practicall Divinity, (set down by way of particular instance of Christs purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) besides the third proaemiall beatitude, Bles∣sed are the meeke, which certainly though it may containe more, yet excludes not, but principally notes the meeke, obedient subjects under government, the non-resisters, and therefore hath the same promise annext which the Law had given in the fifth Commandement; ('twas there, That thy daies may be long in the Land; 'tis here, They shall possesse the earth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Psal. 37. 11. whence it is cited, refers clearely to the land of Canaan, though im∣proved into an higher sense now in the Gospell.) And againe, besides the se∣venth beatitude of the peace-makers, or peaceable, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being equivalent in the Scripture stile, vid. Jam. 3. 18.) and the eighth, of those that are persecuted for righteousnesse sake, (whence sure is not excluded the cause of Religion and Christianity it selfe) as also of taking up the Crosse (of which I designe another discourse to speake more largely) which sure are oppo∣site enough to forcible resisting of lawfull Magistrates, especially for Religion: besides all these, I say, in the introduction to that Sermon, there is in the body of the Sermon it selfe, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which sure pro∣hibits all forcible resisting or violence even to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the injurious or (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) troublesome person, which if it should chance to be our King, would not certainly be more lawfully or Christianly resisted, then any body else; especially, when it is our religion which is invaded, which of all other things a whole Army of plunderers cannot rob us of, (as they may of the cloake, vers. 40.) and therefore needs not our violence to retaine it; nor is ever injured, but more illustrated by our suffering. To this may be added the consideration of the depositum left by Christ with his Disciples, pacem, peace, John 14. 27. (which it seemes onely the beloved disciple had recorded) Peace I leave with you, externall peace, for the pacem meam, my peace, followes after as a gift perhaps peculiar to them that prised and kept this legacy: and if it be objected that Christ came not to send peace, but a sword, Mat. 10. 34. that sure refers not to Christs prime counsell or purpose, but to the event; what he foresaw it would be, or what he had determined it ought (which manner of speech is very ordinary in all Authors) for the precept is punctuall to Peter against the use of the sword, and to all the disciples for preserving of peace, Mar. 9. 50. and to that it is thought the mention of falt belongs in that place, which among other qualities is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; unitive, have falt in your selves, and have peace one with another. On these texts, many effectuall emphaticall des∣cants are added by the Apostles, Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, live peaceably with all men, and Heb. 12. 14. follow peace with all men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an agonisticall word to run for it as for a prize, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 1 Thess. 4. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we render it, study (it is, be emulous, contend, strive, make it your ambition) to be quiet, to which I shall onely adde two places more, Jam. 3. 17, 18. The wisdome which cometh from above is first pure, then peaceable, &c. Which before, ver. 13. he had called meeknesse Page  24 of wisdome, then 1 Pet. 3. 3. where after direction for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 obe∣dience of wives to husbands (and we know the Kingdomes relation to the King is besides others, that of a wife to an husband who is therefore espoused to it with the ring at his Coronation) it is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that her bravery consists in the sincerity (I think it should be rendred) of a meeke and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. If it be objected, that these many places of peace are but generall wide illations against resistance, or however, no more pertinent to the case about resisting of Magistrates, then of any other private man: I answer, that though I might thus argue, á minori, (and also assume that no other resistance is neare so destructive of peace, as that resisting of the Supreme power, that being indeed the shaking of government it selfe, which is the band of peace, and the dissol∣ving of which returnes us to the state of common hostility, leaves us a wilder∣nesse of Beares or Tygers, not a society of men) yet I shall confesse, that I in∣tended not to lay any more weight on this part of the Argument, then any man will acknowledge it able to beare, and that therefore before I inferre my con∣clusion of non-resistance from the making of Christianity, I must adde to these places so passionate for peace, another sort of places concerning obedience, of which (without naming the places being so knowne already) I shall venture this observation, that in the new Testament especially the Epistles of the A∣postles (which were all written in time of the reigne of wicked Heathen bloody adversaries of Christianity, and can referre to none but those) there is no one Christian vertue, or Article of Faith more cleerly delivered, more effectually in∣forced upon our understandings and affections to be acknowledged by the one (against all pretence of Christian liberty to the contrary) and submitted to by the other, then that of obedience to Kings, &c. It were most easie to vindicate those places from all the glosses and scholia's that the writers of this yeare, M^r. Goodwin in anticav. M^r Bur. M^r. Bridges, &c. have invented to free themselves and others from the obedience most strictly required there, but I would not againe trouble any ingenuous man with such extravagant discourses as even now I learnt by experience would be necessary to answere such exceptions, which mens wit or somewhat worse hath produced; besides, those places have beene by others vindicated already. I shall onely say, whosoever can without coloured spectacles find ground for the present resistance in those places of Scripture, Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 18, &c. so farre as to settle and quiet a con∣science, I shall not conceive my understanding fit to duell with his, any more then I would wrestle with a fiend, or combate with the fire, which Pythagoras tels me would availe little; he that can be sure that damnation (Rom. 13. 2.) signifies not damnation, but some temporary mulct onely (if the King should proveable to inflict it) when, vers. 5. it is added we must needs be subject, not onely for wrath, (i. e. feare of temporary punishment) but also for conscience sake, (which when it accuses, bindes over to eternall wrath, or damnation) I professe I know not what camell he may not swallow; I shall onely in the Page  25 bowels of Christ desire him to consider, what a sad condition it would prove, if being on this confidence engaged, and by Gods hand taken away in this warre he should at Gods tribunall heare Saint Paul avouch, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or damnation in that place, he did meane no lesse then eternall damnation without repentance: O how would his countenance change, his thoughts trouble him, the joynts of his loynes be loosed, and his knees smite one against another, one generall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 possesse all his faculties, and M^r. Bridg: &c. be unable to settle him or give him confidence any longer, when the Tekel shall come out of the wall over against that interpretation of his, that it is weighed in the ballance (of truth and judgement) and found wanting; Of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I designe another disquisition: onely I could not deferre to forewarne the Reader of his danger in this place, and now I shall not doubt from the making of Christianity to inferre my conclusion of non-resistance, not doubting but the premises will beare it.

For the other part of this third Argument from the making of the Protestant Doctrine, I would faine be very briefe by way of compensation for my former importunity, and therefore shall engage my selfe not to trouble the Reader with citations or names, which yet might be brought by hundreds of reformed Writers for every Junius Brutus, and Buchanan that hath appeared for the contrary since the Reformation. Though the truth is, suchas these if they must be called Protestants, are yet in this somewhat more then that title ever im∣ported, I may say perfect Jesuits in their principles, and resolutions concern∣ing Kings (no Papists of any Order hath gone so farre) although they differ somewhat in the seat of that power of making such resistance. That which I designed to say on this point is onely this; That the doctrine of Allegiance to Kings, and of their supremacy in all causes, hath alwayes beene counted a prin∣cipall head of difference betweene the Protestants and the worst of Papists, and a speciall evidence, which most men have used, to conclude the Papacy to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Antichrist, is this that the Pope exalteth himselfe above all that is called God: 1. The Kings of the earth, that he in case the King be not a Ca∣tholicke, absolves Subjects from their Allegiance to him, that he pretends power over them in spirituall things, and in temporall in ordine ad spiritualia. It is not unknowne to any that the Oath of Supremacy if not of Allegiance a∣mong us is principally designed to discerne and discover Papists, of whom, one of the prayers appointed for the fifth of November affirmes, that their Religion is Rebellion, that sure is, that one maine difference betwixt Romish and English, Popish, and Protestant doctrine, is that of liberty to Rebell in some cases, particularly in that of Religion: In opposition to all which doctrines or insinuations of theirs, there is no Church that ever-exprest their sense in any Article more fully and largely, then ours hath in this particular, witnesse the severall parts of the Homily of Disobedience and Rebellion, printed in Queene Elizabeths time. And if herein all other parts of the Reformed Church have not gone as farre as we, yet shall I not retract my asserting this doctrine purely Page  26 Protestant, 1. Because this Kingdome hath alwayes beene esteemed a prime part of the Reformation, wherein the Papacy was legally cast out, not by violence or tumults of the people, and so nothing rejected but what in sobriety was necessary to be rejected, and therefore our Church hath generally beene the Norma, or rule, by which others have desired to compose themselves, and ne∣ver yet any other so preferred before us, as that our ancestours could thinke sit to conforme to them. 2. Because in many other countries the government is not Regall, or Monarchicall, as here it is, Bodin. l. 2. c. 5. de rep. can finde none of this nature in Europe, but France and Spaine, and England and Scot∣land (I conceive Ireland he contained under the word Angliam) in which, saith he, Reges sine controversiâ jura omnia majestatis habent per se: Singules civibus nec universis fas est (it seemes Master Dale our Embassadour, from whom he had received his advertisements of the state of this Kingdome had not then heard that our King, though Singulis major, is universis minor, which certainly had divested him of all Soveraignty, it being impossible that the Soveraigne or Supreme of all should be Minor then any) Summi principis vitam, famam aut fortunas in discrimen vocare, seuvi, seu judicio constituto id fiat, &c. As for the Emperour of Germany, Charles the fifth by name, he saith plainly, Tyrannide cives ad rempublicam oppressit, cùm jura majestatis non haberet, which if it be true, will be some excuse to the Germane Princes in what they did at that time in taking up Armes for Religion, though it is most certaine what he affirmes, that when those Princes consulted M. Luther about it, num id jure divino liceret, whether it were lawfull in the sight of God, Ille negavit, he resolved it utterly unlawfull: this answer, saith Bodin, Luther gave Perinde atque si Carolus summam imperii solus haberet, and therefore much more must it be given when the case is of a Monarch indeed, as he concludes; and though he acknowledge that distinction, which it seemes Luther did not, betwixt that Emperour and true Monarchs, yet is he faine to passe a sad observation upon the fact of those Princes, in taking up Armes for Religion, against Luther's advice, Ita funestum bellum reique publicae calami∣tosum susceptum est, cum ingenti principum ac civium strage, quia justa causa nulla videri potest adversus patriam arma sumendi. I would to God those words were Englisht in every of our hearts: a direfull and calamitous warre with the slaughter of all sorts, because (though it were for Religion) yet no cause can be counted just of taking up Arms against one's country. The truth is, what was done there though, 1. very unhappily, and 2. against no Monarch, hath been thought imitable by Knox and Buchanan in Scotland, and from thence infused into some few into England, as Penry, &c. But by Gods pro∣vidence hath formerly beene timously restrained, and not broken out to the defaming of our Protestant profession. It seemes now our sinnes are ripe for such a judgement, the land divided into two extreame sinfull parts; one by their sinnes fitted to suffer under this doctrine, others sinfull enough to be permitted to broach and prosecute it. I meekly thanke God, that though my Page  27 sins are strangely great, yet he hath not given me up to that latter judgement. I conceive I have also given some hints at least of proving my position from the making of the Protestant Doctrine.

Now for the last Topicke, taken from the constitution of this Kingdome. Though that be the Lawyers taske, very prosperously undertaken by others, yet one generall notion there is of our Laws, which from my childhood I have imbibed, and therefore conceive common to all others with me; and it is this, That the Lawes of this Kingdome put no man (no Papists I am sure) to death for Religion. When Jesuits and Seminary-Priests have suffered, every man is so perfect in the Law, as to know that it is for Treason, by a Statute that makes it such for them to come into this Kingdome. The truth of this, and the constant pleading of it against all Objecters, hath made me swallow it as a principle of our Law, that even Popery strictly taken (and not onely as now this last yeare it hath learnt to enlarge its importance) is no capitall crime. From whence, I professe, I know no impediment to forbid me to conclude, that in the constitution of our State no warre for Religion is accounted a lawfull warre; for that it should be lawfull to kill whole multitudes without any enditement, yea, and by attempting it, to endanger, at least, our owne, 1. Many good Protestants lives, for that, which if it were proved against any single man, would not touch his life in the least degree, is, I must acknowledge, one of the Arcana belli which I cannot see into. And therefore Sleidan tels us of M. Lu∣ther, that he would not allow a warre, though but defensive, with the Turke himselfe, com. lib. 13. pag. 403. and though after he had mitigated his opini∣on upon a new state of the question, and perswaded the Emperour to it, yet it was with this limitation, Modò nec vindictae, nec gloriae, nec emolumenti causâ subeatur, (three things that are very rarely kept out of warre) sed tantùm ut sparcissimum latronem, non ex religionis, sed furti & injuriarum actione aggrediantur. It seemes the cause of religion, although it were of Christianity against Mahometisme, was not to him a sufficient warrant for a defensive war. But then 2. For this warre to be waged against the Prince, (or by any one but the Prince, in a Monarchie, as this is) who whatsoever he hath not, hath cer∣tainly the power of the sword immediatly from God (or else must be acknow∣ledged not to have it at all, for this power cannot be in any people originally, or any where but in God, and therefore it may be most truly said, that though the regall power were confest to be first given by the people, yet the power of the sword, wherewith regality is endowed, would be a superaddition of Gods, never belonging to regall or whatever other power, till God annext it: in Gen. 9. 6. which also seemes to be out of all dispute in this Kingdome, even at this time, where the universall body of the commonalty, even by those that would have the regall power originally in them, is not yet affirmed to have any aggregate power, any farther then every man single out of government was presumed to have over himselfe, which sure was not power of his owne life; for even in nature there is Felonia de se, and therefore the representative Page  28 body of the Commons, is so farre from being a Judicature in capitall matters, that it cannot administer an oath) and therefore is not justly invasible by any subject, or community of subjects, who certainly have not that power, nor pretend to have it, and when they take it, thinke it necessary to excuse that fact by pretence of necessity, which every body knowes, is the colour for those things which have no ordinary meanes of justifying them (like that which Divines say of saving of children and ideots, &c. by some extraordinary way.) Nay, 3. For this warre to be waged, not against Popery, truly so called, but against the onely true Protestant Religion, as it stands (and by attempting to make new Lawes is acknowledged as yet to stand) establisht by the old Lawes of the Land, and therefore is faine to be called Popish (and our Martyr-refor∣mers not able, by those fiery chariots of theirs, to get out of the confines of Babylon) that it may be fit to be destroyed; just as the Primitive Christians were by the persecuters put in wilde beasts skins, that in those shapes they might be devoured: this I confesse is to me a complication of riddles, (and therefore put by some Artist under that deep-dark-phrase, and title of Fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome) to which certainly no liberty or right of the subject in Magna Carta, no nor legislative power, will enable any man to give any intelligible, much lesse legall name: At which I professe I am not ill pleased, because this I hope will keepe it from being recorded to posterity.

I have done with my fourth Argument, and am heartily sorry I have kept my Reader so long from his prayers, which must set an end to this controversie, for sure Arguments are too blunt to doe it; I beseech God to direct all our hearts to a constant use of those meanes (together with fasting and abstinence, at least from farther provoking sins) to exorcize that evill spirit that hath divi∣ded his titles (of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and now at length, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) among us, and by those meanes infused his mortiferous poyson into the very veines of this whole Kingdome. [I create the fruit of the lips, peace, peace to him that is farre off, &c. and I will heale him. Thou hast moved the land, and divided it, heale the sores thereof, for it shaketh.]

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to its origination signifies Censure, Judgement, * and in its making hath no intimation, either of the quality of the offence to which that judgement belongs, or of the Judge who inflicts it: that it belongs to humane judgements, or sentences of temporall punishments sometimes, is apparent by Luke 23. 40. where one thiefe saith to the other, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, meaning it seemes, the same sentence of death, or capitall punishment, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, c. 24. 20. judgement of death, temporall; and that at o∣ther times it signifies also divine judgement, is as apparent, Act. 2•. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, judgement to come, that is, certainly at the end of this world, at the day of doome. So Rom. 2. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the judgement of God, and so againe, vers. 3. which vers. 5. is explained to be wrath or pu∣nishment against the day of wrath, &c. so Heb. 6. 2. resurrection of the dead, Page  29 and eternall judgement. The truth is in this sense it is most-what taken in this Booke, see Matth. 23. 14. Mar. 12. 40. Luke 20. 47. Rom. 3. 8. and there∣fore Hesychius, the best Glossary for the new-Testament, renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods retribution or payment, or rendering according to works. It will not be worth while to survey and consider every place where the word is used, he that shall doe so, will perhaps resolve with me to accept of that glossary, and understand it constantly of Gods judgment; unlesse, when the circumstances of the place shall inforce the contrary, as they doe in the pla∣ces first mentioned, and 1 Cor. 6. 7. But then when the context rather leades to the second sense, there will be great danger for any man to apply it to humane judgements, for by so doing, hee may slatter himselfe or others in some sin, and run into that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it signifies eternall judgement, when by that mis-understanding he doth not conceive himselfe in any danger of it. Of places which without all controversie thus interpret themselves; I will mention two, 2 Pet. 2. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wee render it, whose judge∣ment of a long time lingereth not: which that it belongs to eternall vengence, appeares by the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wee render it, Their damnation, it is literally, Their destruction sleepeth not. The second place is, 1 Tim, 3. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fall into the condemnation of the De∣vill; that is, sure into that sentence that fell upon Lucifer for his pride (being cast out of Heaven, and reserved to chaines of eternall darknesse) for the person spoken of here, is the Novice, or new Convert, lifted up with pride, just pa∣rallel to the Angells newly created, lifted up with pride also, the crimes and the persons parallel, and so sure the punishment also. Now three places more there are which appeare to me by the same meanes of evidence, or rule of inter∣preting, to belong to the same sense, though I cannot say of them as I did before, [without controversie] For I see it is not onely doubted by some, whether they doe belong to this sense or no, but that it is resolved they doe not: which resolution sure must be obnoxious to some danger, that I say no worse of it. The first of these places is, Rom. 13. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: we render it, They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation: But say others, it must be rendred judgement, as that signifies some temporary punish∣ment which the higher powers may inflict, and nothing else: and this they la∣bour to make appeare by the words following: For Rulers are a terrour to evill works, and he beareth not the sword in vaine, &c. To which I answer, That there is no doubt made by me or any, but that Rulers are to punish men for evill works, particularly that of resistance against them, and not onely that, but also crimes against our brethren, and God; and in that respect it is added, vers. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Minister or of∣ficer of God he is, and executioner for wrath, that is, punishment temporall to him (indefinitely) that doth evill. But doth it follow from hence, that either he that makes forcible resistance against the Superiour or Supreme power, or that commits any other sinne (which the Supreme power is set to avenge or Page  30 punish temporally) shall incurre no eternall punishment? If this new Divinity should be entertained, it must be priviledge and protection to other sins, as well as resistance and rebellion, even to all that any judiciall lawes have power to punish, for in these also he is the Minister of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an a∣venger, or executioner for punishment, and there is no avoiding it; but this must be extended indefinitely, or vniversally, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to any malefactour punishable by that power, or that comes under this cognisance; and so by this Logicke, he that is hanged, may not be damned, what ever his crime be; an execution on earth shall be as good as a Purgatory to excuse him from any other punishment. But then secondly, suppose a Rebell escape the hand of justice here below, by slight, &c. nay, that he prosper in his rebellion, and get the better of it, that the King be not able to punish him; nay, yet far∣ther, that he proceed higher, Despose the King, and get into his place, What 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is he like to receive, if that signifie onely the Kings wrath or temporall punishment? Sure this prosperousnesse of the crime must make it cease to be a crime, make it commence vertue, as the Turkes on their principles are wont to resolve it, saith Busbequius, Ep. 4.—Ex opinione quae Turcis insedit ut res quocunque consilio institutas, si bene cadunt, ad Deum Authorem referant, &c. Or else give it, (though it be a sinne never so great, and unrepented of) perfect impunity both in this world, and in another: And certainly this is no jest, for he that observes the behaviours of many men, (the no manner of re∣grets or reluctancies in their course of forcible resistance, (save onely when they conceive it goes not on so prosperously as it was wont) and the great weekly industry that is used to perswade all men of the continued prosperity of the side, as being conceived farre more usefull and instrumentall to their ends, then the demonstration of the justice of it, mens consciences being re∣solved more by the Diurnall, then the Bible, by the Intelligencer then the Di∣vine, unlesse he turne Intelligencer also, I would we had not so many of those Pluralists.) Will have reason to resolve that this Divinity is the principle by which they move; which if it be not yet brought to absurdities enough, then looke a little forward to the conclusion, deduced and inferr'd vers. 5. Wherefore ye must be subject, not onely for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Words by Prophetick Spirit added by the Apostle, as it were on purpose to contra∣dict in terminis, that new interpretation. Wrath signifies that temporall pu∣nishment, vers. 4. which if it were the all that is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then how can it be true, that we must be subject not onely for wrath? Certainely he that re∣sists is not subject (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and both directly contrary to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word used both in the third and fifth verse) and therefore if we must be subject not onely for wrath, as that signifies temporall punishment, then he that resists, shall receive more then wrath, as that signifies temporall punishment, viz.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in our rendering, condemnation, if he doe not prevent it timously by repentance: which sure is the importance of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but also for conscience sake; that if he doe it not, it will Page  31 be sin to him, wound his conscience, bind him over to that punishment which belongs to an accusing conscience, (which sure is more then a temporall mulct) which is farther cleare from the first verse of that Chapter, the command of subjection. For sure, every Divine or Apostolicall command entred into the Canon of Scripture, doth bind conscience; and the breach of it, knowne and deliberate, is no lesse then a damning sinne, even under the Gospel, mortiferous and destructive without repentance; which is just equivalent to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he shall receive damnation, in our way of interpreting it. So much for that first place.

The second is, 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or as our margent, judgement) to himselfe, &c. This place I find avouched for the confirming of the former interpretation, Rom. 13. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies onely temporall punishment; and thus it is known the So∣cinians commonly interpret this place, per〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉non sempiternam damnatio∣nem nominatim, sed supplicium in genere intelligendum esse. Volkelius l. 9. de ver. rel. l. 4. c. 22. That which is used to perswade this to be probable, is that which followes vers. 30. for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep; which belonging onely to temporall punishments, is concei∣ved to be a periphrasis of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, judgement, which should seem consequent∣ly to be so also: And, indeed, Volkelius hath added other proofes, 1. Because the Apostle speaks of any one single act of this sin of unworthy receiving, (not of any habit, or custome) which hee conceives not actually damning now un∣der the second Covenant. 2. Because it is vers. 32. and when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned, &c. To these three (and I know not that there are produced any more) probabilities, I conceive cleare satisfaction may be given by those who affirme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to contain in it eter∣nall punishment: Though if it were onely temporall punishment, yet being sicknesse, &c. which are not inflicted by the Magistrate, but by the hand of God, it will not come home to that which was by Master Br. affirmed of the word in Rom. 13. For this must be premised, that wee doe not conceive it to signifie eternall punishments, exclusivè, or so as to exclude temporall, but eternall and sometimes temporall too; (for so sure hee that for his rebellion receives dam∣nation, hereafter, is not secured from being hang'd, drawn, and quarter'd here) or else eternall if hee repent not, and perhaps temporall though hee doe: by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I said, I understand with Hesychius,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods vengeance, whether here, or in another world; but, I say, in this place both of them, (and so ordinarily in the former also.) This being premised, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may still containe in it eternall punishments, vers. 29. though many for this cause of un∣worthy receiving did fall sick and die, vers. 30. for 1. they might both die and be damned too; or if, as Volkelius saith, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, obdormiscunt, sleep, be never used in the New-Testament, of those that are destined to eternall de∣struction, then still may this be very reconcileable with our interpretation, that many for this cause are weak and sickly, and many others sleep, God chastising Page  32 some by diseases to reforme them, and punishing others, who, as Volkelius ac∣knowledges, were guilty onely of some single act of the sinne onely, with death temporall, or shortning their dayes; which certainly hinders not but that God might punish others that did customarily commit this sinne (and perhaps with greater aggravations) with no lesse then eternall death, however that it were just for him to doe so, whatever hee did, it is plaine by vers. 27. which is paral∣lel to the 29. Whosoever shall eat and drink unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord; that is, in Volkelius his own words, Ipusm Chri∣sti corpus ac sanguinem contemnere & ignominiâ afficere, ac quantam in ipsis est profanare proculcareque censendi sunt, shall be thought to contemne and dis∣grace, and as much as in them lies to profane, and tread under feet the body and bloud of Christ; which, what is it but to count the bloud of the Covenant an unholy thing, Heb. 10. 29? Which yet there is used as a maine aggravation of that sinne, for which, saith the Apostle, there remaines no more sacrifice, vers. 26. It is apparent that the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, guilty of the body, &c. is pa∣rallel to the Latine, Reus Majestatis, used for a Traitour, and sure signifies no lesse then a guilt of a great injury to Christ; which how any man can affirme to be a sinne to which no damnation belongs, (supposing no antidote of invinci∣ble ignorance or weaknesse, nor recovery by repentance, nor gracious pardon of God in not imputing some single act of it) I professe my selfe not to discern, though I think I have weighed impartially all that is said of it. This sure will keep the first proofe from being any longer probable; and for the second, (or first of Volkelius) it is already in effect answered too; for though hee that is guilty onely of some one act of this sinne found mercy, yet sure they that are guilty of the customary sinne, may speed worse: and indeed of all indefinitely the Apostle speaks according to the sinne; as when hee saith, The drunkard and adulterer shall not inherite the kingdome of God: Where yet perhaps he that is guilty onely of one such act, may find mercy. For the last proofe, I conceive it so farre from being a probable one against me, that I shall resolve it a con∣vincing one on my side; for if those that were sick, &c. were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned, then sure if they had not been so chastened, nor reformed by that chastening, they should have been condemned with the world; and so their temporall judgements may be a meanes, through the mercy of God in Christ, to free them from their eternall, but not an argu∣ment that eternall was not due to them, but a perfect intimation that it was.

The third place (which is not indeed of much importance in it selfe, but only is used to give countenance to the interpretation in the two former places) is 1 Pet. 4. 17. The time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God. Here, say they, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 judgement, is that that befalls the house of God, the godly; therefore but temporall judgements.

To which I answer in a word, that here is a mistake in applying judgement in its latitude to the house of God, when onely it is affirmed by Saint Peter〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the beginning or first part of judgement: Page  33 for of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or judgement, in this verse, there are specified two parts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first part, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the end (or as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to sound in our English, the taile) of it; as Psal. 75. 8. the cup of Gods displeasure, or punitive justice, is supposed to consist of two parts, 1. red wine, (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and 2. mixture of myrrhe and other poysonous bitter spices, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A∣pocal. 4. 10. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 24. 17. and both together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, myr∣rhate wine, Mar. 15. 25. Now, this cup is poured out, and tasted of indefinite∣ly, by the godly some part of it; but the dregs thereof, i. e. the myrrhe-bitter part, that goes to the bottome, is left for the wicked to wring out and drink: so that onely the tolerable, supportable, easie part of the judgement belongs un∣to the godly; but the end, the dregs, the unsupportable part, to those that o∣bey not the Gospel of God. Or yet a little further, the beginning or first part, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the judgement, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the godly, (and so it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) intimating, that the judgement doth not stay upon them, but onely take rise from them: but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the second, sadder part of it, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of them, (or belongs to them) that obey not, &c. So that still in this place also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Gods judgement of this life and ano∣ther both; not of this life onely, to the excluding of the other, but one part in this life, another in that other: And though the godly had their part in it, yet there was somewhat in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the godly never tasted of, but on∣ly the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they that disobeyed the Gospel of God: and this is apparent by vers. 18. For if the righteous 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wee read it, scarcely be saved; it signifies (by comparing that place with Pro. 11. 31. where instead of recom∣pensed on the earth, the Greek translation reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) be rendred un∣to, or recompensed, i. e. punished in the earth, then where shall the ungodly and sinners appeare? There are againe the two parts of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods retribution to sinne here, wherein the godly have their part; and the other, his rendring to the wicked hereafter; and so neither of them the punishment of the Magistrate in this life, as M^r. Bridg. out of Piscator, con∣tends to have it, Rom. 13. and as it must be here also, if others speake per∣tinently, who use it to avoid that interpretation, which I confesse M^r. Bridg. doth not.