Origines sacræ, or, A rational account of the grounds of Christian faith, as to the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by Edward Stillingfleet ...

CHAP. III. Moses his fidelity and integrity proved.

Moses considered as an Historian, and as a Lawgiver; his fidelity in both proved: clear evidences that he had no in∣tent to deceive in his History, freedom from private interest, impartiality in his relations, plainness and perspicuity of stile. As a Lawgiver, he came armed with Divine au∣thority, which being the main thing, is fixed on to be fully proved from his actions and writings. The power of mi∣racles the great evidence of Divine revelation. Two grand questions propounded. In what cases miracles may be ex∣pected, and how known to be true. No necessity of a constant power of miracles in a Church: Two Cases alone wherein they may be expected. When any thing comes as a Law from God, and when a Divine Law is to be repealed The necessity of miracles in those cases as an evidence of Divine revelation asserted. Objections answered. No use of mira∣cles when the doctrine is setled and owned by miracles in the first revelation. No need of miracles in reformation of a Church.

THE second proposition contains the proof of Moses his fidelity, that he was as far from having any intent to * 1.1 deceive others, as he was being deceived himself. Two wayes Moses must be considered, as an Historian, and as a Law∣giver; the only inducement for him to deceive as an Histo∣rian, must be some particular interest which must draw him aside from an impartial delivery of the truth; as a Law∣giver he might deceive, if he pretended Divine revelation for those Laws which were only the issues of his own brain, that they might be received with a greater veneration among the people, as Numa Pompilius and others did. Now if we prove that Moses had no interest to deceive in his History, and had all rational evidence of Divine revela∣tion in his Laws, we shall abundantly evince the undoubted

fidelity of Moses in every thing recorded by him. We begin then with his fidelity as an Historian; and it being contrary to the common interest of the world to deceive and be deceiv∣ed, we have no reason to entertain any suspitions of the veracity of any person where we cannot discern some pec••∣liar interest that might have a stronger biass upon him then the common interest of the world. For it is otherwise in mo∣rals then in naturals; for in naturals, we see that every thing will leave its proper interest to preserve the common interest of nature; but in morals, there is nothing more common then deserting the common interest of mankind, to set up a pecu∣liar interest against it: It being the truest description of a Politician, that he is one who makes himself the centre, and the whole world his circumference; that he regards not how much the whole world is abused, if any advantage doth accrue to himself by it. Where we see it then the design of any person to advance himself or his posterity, or to set up the credit of the Nation whose History he writes, we may have just cause to suspect his partiality, because we then finde a sufficient inducement for such a one to leave the common road of truth, and to fall into the paths of deceit. But we have not the least ground to suspect any such par∣tiality in the History of Moses; for nothing is more clear then that he was free from the ambitious design of advancing himself and his posterity. who notwithstanding the great honour he enjoyed himself, was content to leave his posterity in the meanest sort of attendance upon the Tabernacle. And as little have we ground to think he intended to flatter that Nation, which he so lively describes, that one would think he had rather an interest to set forth the frowardness, unbe∣lief, unthankfulness, and disobedience of a Nation towards a Gracious God, then any wayes to inhance their reputation in the world, or to ingratiate himself with them by writing this History of them. Nay, and he sets forth so exactly the lesser failings and grosser enormities of all the Ancestours of this Nation whose acts he records, that any impartial reader will soon acquit him of a design of flattery, when after he hath recorded those faults, he seeks not to extenuate them, or bring any excuse or pretence to palliate them. So that

any observing reader may easily take notice, that he was carried on by a higher design then the common people of Historians are, and that his drift and scope was to exalt the goodness and favour of God, towards a rebellious and obstinate people. Of which there can be no greater nor more lively demonstration, then the History of all the transactions of the Iewish Nation, from their coming forth of Aegypt to their utter ruine and desolation. And Moses tells them as from God himself, it was neither for their number, nor their good∣ness, that God set his Love upon them, but he loved them, be∣cause he loved them; i. e. no other account was to be given * 1.2 of his gracious dealing with them, but the freeness of his own bonnty, and the exuberancy of his goodness towards them. Nay, have we not cause to admire the ingenuity as well as veracity of this excellent personage, who not only layes so notorious a blot upon the stock of his own family Levi, recording so punctually the inhumanity and cruelty of him and Simeon in their dealings with the Shechemites; * 1.3 but likewise inserts that curse which was left upon their memory for it by their own Father at his decease. And that he might not leave the least suspition of partiality behind him, he hath not done as the statuary did, (who engraved his own name so artificially in the statue of Iupiter, that one should continue as long as the other,) but what the other intended for the praise of his skill, Moses hath done for his ingenuity, that he hath so interwoven the History of his own failings and disobedience with those of the Nation, that his spots are like to continue as long as the whole web of his History is like to do. Had it been the least part of his design to have his memory preserved with a superstitious veneration among the Iews, how easie had it been for him to have left out any thing that might in the least entrench upon his repu∣tation? but we finde him very secure and careless in that particular; nay, on the other side, very studious and indu∣strious in depressing the honour and deserts of men, and advancing the power and goodness of God. And all this he doth, not in an affected strain of Rhetorick, whose proper work is impetrare fidem mendacio, and as Tully somewhere confesseth, to make things seem otherwise then they are, but

with that innate simplicity and plainness, and yet withall with that Imperatoria brevit as, that Majesty and authority, that it is thereby evident he sought not to court acceptance, but to demand belief: Nor had any such pittiful design of pleasing his Readers with some affected phrases, but thought that Truth it self had presence enough with it, to command the submission of our understandings to it.

Especially when all these were delivered by such a one * 1.4 who came sufficiently armed with all motives of credibility and inducements to assent, by that evidence which he gave, that he was no pretender to divine revelation, but was really imployed as a peculiar instrument of State under the God and Ruler of the whole world. Which if it be made clear, then all our further doubts must presently cease, and all im∣pertinent disputes be silenced, when the supream Majesty appears impowring any person to dictate to the world the Laws they must be governed by. For if any thing be repug∣nant to our rational faculties, that is, that God should dictate any thing but what is most certainly true, or that the Gover∣nor of the world should prescribe any Laws, but such as were most just and reasonable. If we suppose a God, we cannot question veracity to be one of his chiefest Attributes, and that it is impossible the God of truth should imploy any, to reveal any thing as from him, but what was undoubtedly true. So that it were an argument of the most gross and un∣reasonable incredulity, to distrust the certainty of any thing which comes to us with sufficient evidence of divine revela∣tion; because thereby we shew our distrust of the veracity of God himself. All that we can desire then, is only reason∣able satisfactisn concerning the evidence of Divine revela∣tion in the person whose words we are to credit, and this our Gracious God hath been so far from denying men, that he hath given all rational evidence of the truth of it. For it implying no incongruity at all, to any notions of God or our selves, that God should, when it pleases him, single out some instrument to manifest his will to the world; our enquiry then leads us to those things which may be proper notes and cha∣racters of such a person who is imployed on so high an Embassy. And those are chiefly these two, if his actions be

such as could not flow from the power of meer natural causes, and if the things he reveals be such as could not proceed from any created understanding. First then, for his actions, these striking most upon our outward senses when they are any thing extraordinary, do transmit along with the impressions of them to the understanding, an high opinion of the person that does them: Whereas the meer height of knowledge, or profoundness of things discovered, can have no such pre∣sent power and influence upon any, but such as are of more raised and inquisitive minds. And the world is generally more apt to suspect its self deceived with words, then it can be with actions; and hence Miracles, or the doing of things above the reach of nature, hath been alwayes embraced as the greatest testimony of Divine authority and revelation. For which there is this evident reason, that the course of nature being setled by divine power, and every thing acting there by the force of that power it received at first, it seems impossible that any thing should really alter the series of things, without the same power which at first produced them. This then we take for granted, that where ever such a power appears, there is a certain evidence of a Divine presence going along with such a person who enjoyes it. And this is that which is most evident in the actions of Moses, both as to the Miracles he wrought, both in Aegypt and the Wilderness, and his miraculous deliverance of the Israelites out of Aegypt, this latter being as much above the reach of any meerly civil power, as the other above natural.

We therefore come to the rational evidence of that divine authority whereby Moses acted, which may be gathered * 1.5 from that divine power which appeared in his actions; which being a matter of so great weight and importance (it being one of the main bases whereon the evidence of divine reve∣lation, as to us, doth stand) and withall of so great diffi∣culty and obscurity, (caused through the preferring some parties in Religion, above the common interest of it) it will require more care and diligence to search what influence the power of miracles hath upon the proving the Divine Commis∣sion of those who do them. Whether they are such undoubted credentials, that where ever they are produced, we are pre∣sently

to receive the persons who bring them, as extraordina∣ry Embassadors from heaven, imployed on some peculiar message to the sons of men? For the full stating of this im∣portant question, two things must be cleared: First, In what cases miracles may be expected as credentials to confirm an immediate commission from heaven? Secondly, What ratio∣nal evidence do attend those miracles, to assure us they are such as they pretend to be?

First, For the cases wherein these miracles are to be expected as inducements to, or confirmations of our faith, concerning the * 1.6 Divine imployment of any persons in the world. And here I lay down this as a certain foundation, that a power of mi∣racles is not constantly and perpetually necessary in all those who mannage the affairs of Heaven here on earth, or that act in the name of God in the world. When the doctrine of faith is once setled in sacred records, and the divine revelation of that doctrine sufficiently attested, by a power of miracles in the revealers of it, What imaginable necessity or pretext can there be for a contrived power of miracles, especially among such as already own the Divine revelation of the Scriptures? To make then a power of working miracles to be constantly resident in the Church of God, as one of the necessary notes and characters of it, is to put God upon that necessity which common nature is freed from, viz. of mul∣tiplying things without sufficient cause to be given for them; and to leave mens faith at a stand, when God hath given sufficient testimony for it to rely upon. It is a thing too common and easie to be observed, that some persons out of their eagerness to uphold the interest of their own party, have been fain to establish it upon such grounds, which when they are sufficiently searched to the bottom, do apparently undermine the common and sure foundations whereon the belief of our common Christianity doth mainly stand. It were easie to make a large discourse on this subject, where∣by we may rip open the wounds that Christianity hath re∣ceived, through the contentions of the several parties of it; but this imputation cannot with so much reason be fastened on any party, as that which is nailed to a pretended infal∣lible chair; for which we need no other instance, then this

before us. For while the leaders of that party make a power of miracles to be a necessary note of the true Church, they unavoidably run men upon this dangerous precipice, not to believe any thing as a matter of faith, where they find not sufficient miracles to convince them that is the true Church which propounds it to them. Which necessarily follows from their acknowledged principles, for it being impossible ac∣cording to them, to believe any thing with a divine faith, but what is propounded by the Church as an infallible guide, and it being impossible to know which is this infallible guide, but by the notes and characters of it, and one of those notes being a power of miracles, I cannot find out my guide but by this power; and this power must be present in the Church, (for nothing of former ages concerning faith, as the Mi∣racles of Christ, his resurrection, &c. is to be believed, but on the Churches account) and therefore where men do not find sufficient conviction from present miracles, to believe the Church to be an infallible guide, they must throw off all faith concerning the Gospel; for as good never a whit, as never the better. And therefore it is no wonder At••eism should be so thriving a plant in Italy, nay under, if not within the walls of Rome it self, where inquisitive persons do daily see the juglings and impostures of Priests in their pretended miracles, and from thence are brought to look upon Religion its self as a meer imposture, and to think no Pope so infallible as he that said, Quantum nobis profuit haec de Christo fabula? Such horrid consequences do men drive others, if not bring themselves to, when they imploy their parts and industry rather to uphold a corrupt interest, then to promote the belief of the acknowledged principles of Chri∣stian faith. But as long as we assert no necessity of such a power of miracles to be the note of any true Church, nor any such necessity of an infallible guide, but that the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles, were sufficient eviden∣ces of a divine spirit in them; and that the Scriptures were recorded by them to be an infallible rule of faith, here we have more clear reason as to the primary motives and grounds of faith, and withall the infallible veracity of God in the Scriptures, as the last resolution of faith. And while we

assert such an infallible rule of faith, delivered to us by such an unanimous consent from the first delivery of it, and then so fully attested by such uncontroulable miracles, we cannot in the least understand to what end a power of miracles should now serve in the Church, especially among those who all believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. Indeed be∣fore the great harvest of Converts in the primitive times were brought in, both of Iews and Gentiles, and the Church sully setled in receiving the Canon of the Scriptures uni∣versally, we find God did continue this power among them; but after the books of the New Testament were generally imbraced as the rule of faith among Christians, we find them so far from pretending to any such power, that they reject the pretenders to it, such as the Donatists were, and plead upon the same accounts as we do now against the necessity of it. We see then no reason in the world for miracles to be continued where the doctrine of faith is setled, as being confirmed by miracles in the first preachers of it.

There are only these two cases then, wherein miracles may justly and with reason be expected. First, when any person * 1.7 comes as by an extraordinary commission from God to the world, either to deliver some peculiar message, or to do some more then ordinary service. Secondly, When something that hath been before established by Divine Law, is to be repealed, and some other way of worship established in stead of it. First, When any comes upon an extraordinary message to the world, in the name of, and by commission from God, then it is but reason to require some more then ordinary evidence of such authority. Because of the main importance of the du∣ty of giving credit to such a person, and the great sin of be∣ing guilty of rejecting that divine authority which appears in him. And in this case we cannot think that God would re∣quire it as a duty to believe, where he doth not give suffici∣ent arguments for faith, nor that he will punish persons for such a fault, which an invincible ignorance was the cause of. Indeed God doth not use to necessitate faith, as to the act of it, but he doth so clearly propound the object of it, with all arguments inducing to it, as may sufficiently justifie a Belie∣vers choice in point of reason and prudence, and may leave all

unbelievers without excuse. I cannot see what account a man can give to himself of his faith, much less what Apology he can make to others for it, unless he be sufficiently con∣vinced, in point of the highest reason, that it was his duty to believe; and in order to that conviction, there must be some clear evidence given, that what is spoken hath the impress of Divine authority upon it. Now what convictions there can be to any sober mind concerning Divine authority in any person without such a power of miracles going along with him, when he is to deliver some new doctrine to the world to be believed, I confess I cannot understand. For although I doubt not but where ever God doth reveal any thing to any person immediately, he gives demonstrable evidence to the inward senses of the soul, that it comes from himself, yet this inward sense can be no ground to another person to be∣lieve his doctrine divine, because no man can be a competent judge of the actings of anothers senses; and it is impossible to another person to distinguish the actings of the divine Spirit from strong impressions of fancy by the force and energy of them. If it be said, that we are bound to believe those, who say they are fully satisfied of their Divine Commis∣sion. * 1.8 I answer, First, this will expose us to all delusions imagi∣nable; * 1.9 for if we are bound to believe them because they say so, * 1.10 we are bound to believe all which say so; and none are more confident pretenders to this then the greatest deceivers, as the experience of our age will sufficiently witness. Secondly, Men must necessarly be bound to believe contradictions; for nothing more ordinary, then for such confident pretend∣ers * 1.11 to a Divine Spirit, to contradict one another, and it may be, the same person in a little time contradict himself: and must we still be bound to believe all they say? If so, no Philosophers would be so much in request, as those Aristotle disputes against in his Metaphysicks, who thought a thing might be, and not be, at the same time. Thirdly, The ground of faith at last will be but a meer humane testimony, as far as * 1.12 the person who is to believe is capable of judging of it. For the Question being, Whether the person I am to believe hath divine authority for what he saith, What ground can I have to believe that he hath so? Must I take his bare affirmation

for it? If so, then a meer humane testimony must be the ground of divine faith, and that which it is last resolved into; if it be said that I am to believe the divine authority by which he speaks, when he speaks in the name of God: I an∣swer, the question will again return, how I shall know he speaks this from divine authority? and so there must be a progress in infinitum, or founding divine faith on a meer humane testimony, if I am to believe divine revelation meer∣ly on the account of the persons affirmation who pretends unto it. For in this case it holds good, non apparentis & non existentis eadem est ratio, if he be divinely inspired, and there be no ground inducing me to believe that he is so, I shall be excused, if I believe him not, if my wilfulness and laziness be not the cause of my unbelief.

If it be said that God will satisfie the minds of good men * 1.13 concerning the truth of divine revelation. I grant it to be wonderfully true, but all the question is de modo, how God will satisfie them? whether meerly by inspiration of his own spirit in them, assuring them that it is God that speaks in such persons; or by giving them rational evidence, convincing them of sufficient grounds to believe it. If we assert the former way, we run into these inconveniences; First we make as immediate a revelation in all those who believe, as in * 1.14 those who are to reveal divine truths to us, for there is a new revelation of an object immediately to the mind; viz. that such a person is inspired of God; and so is not after the com∣mon way of the Spirits illumination in Believers, which is by inlightning the faculty, without the proposition of any new object, as it is in the work of Grace: So that according to this opinion, there must be immediate inspiration as to that act of faith, whereby we believe any one to have been di∣vinely inspired, and consequently to that whereby we be∣lieve the Scriptures to be the Word of God. Secondly, Doth * 1.15 not this make the fairest plea for mens unbelief? For I de∣mand, Is it the duty of those who want that immediate il∣lumination to believe or no? If it be not their duty, unbelief can be no sin to them; if it be a duty, it must be made known to be a duty; and how can that be made known to them to be a duty, when they want the only and necessary means of

instruction in order to it? Will God condemn them for that, which it was impossible they should have, unless God gave it them? And how can they be left inexcuseable, who want so much as rational inducements to faith? for of these I now speak, and not of efficacious perswasions of the mind, when there are rational arguments for faith propounded. But last∣ly, * 1.16 I suppose the case will be cleared, when we take notice what course God hath alwayes taken to give all rational satis∣faction to the minds of men, concerning the persons whom he hath imployed in either of the fore-mentioned cases. First, for those who have been imployed upon some special mes∣sage and service for God, he hath sent them forth sufficiently provided with manifestations of the Divine power whereby they acted: As is most clear and evident in the present case of Moses, Exodus 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. where Moses puts the case to God which we are now debating of. Supposing, saith he, that I should go to the Israelites and tell them, God had appeared to me, and sent me to deliver them, and they should say God had not appeared unto me, how should I satisfie them? God doth not reject this objection of Moses as favouring of unbelief, but presently shews him how he should satisfie them, by causing a miracle before his face, turning his rod into a Serpent; and God gives this as the rea∣son of it, vers. 5. That they may believe that the Lord God of their Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. It seems God himself thought this would be the most pregnant evidence of Gods appearing to him, if he wrought miracles before their faces. Nay, lest they should think one single miracle was not suffi∣cient, God in the immediate following verses adjoyns two more, which he should do in order to their satisfaction; and further, verse 21. God gave him a charge to do all those wonders before Pharoah, which he had put into his hand. And accordingly we find Pharoah presently demanding a miracle of Moses, Exodus 7. 9. which accordingly Moses did in his presence, though he might suppose Pharoahs de∣mand not to proceed from desire of satisfaction, but from some hopes that for want of it, he might have rendred his credit suspected among the Israelites.

Indeed after God had delivered his people, and had setled them in a way of serving him according to the Laws deli∣vered * 1.17 by Moses, which he had confirmed by unquestionable miracles among them, we find a caution laid in by Moses himself, against those which should pretend signs and won∣ders to draw them off from the Religion established by the Law of Moses. And so likewise under the Gospel, after * 1.18 that was established by the unparallel'd miracles of our Saviour and his Apostles, we find frequent cautions against being deceived by those who came with pretences of doing great miracles. But this is so far from infringing the credi∣bility of such a Testimony which is confirmed by miracles, that it yields a strong confirmation to the truth of what I now assert. For the doctrine is supposed to be already esta∣blished by miracles, according to which we are to judge of the spirits of such pretenders. Now it stands to the greatest reason, that when a Religion is once established by uncon∣trouled miracles, we should not hearken to every whiffling Conjurer that will pretend to do great feats, to draw us off from the truth established. In which case, the surest way to discover the imposture, is to compare his pretended miracles with those true and real ones which were done by Moses and Christ; and the ground of it is, because every person is no competent judge of the truth of a miracle; for the Devil by his power and subtilty, may easily deceive all such as will be led by the nose by him, in expectation of some wonders to be done by him. And therefore as long as we have no ground to question the oertainty of those mi∣racles which were wrought by Christ or Moses, I am bound to adhere to the doctrine established by those miracles, and to make them my rule of judging all persons who shall pre∣tend to work miracles: Because, 1. I do not know how far God may give men over to be deceived by lying wonders, * 1.19 who will not receive the truth in the love of it; i. e. those that think not the Christian Religion sufficiently confirmed by the miracles wrought at the first promulgation of it. God in justice may permit the Devil to go further then other∣wise he could, and leave such persons to their own credulity, to believe every imposture and illusion of their senses for

true miracles. 2. That doctrine which was confirmed by undoubted miracles, hath assured us of the coming of lying * 1.20 wonders, whereby many should be deceived. Now this part of the doctrine of the Gospel is as certainly true as any of the rest; for it was confirmed by the same miracles that the other was; and besides that, the very coming of such mi∣racles is an evidence of the truth of it, it falling out so ex∣actly according to what was foretold so many hundred years since. Now if this doctrine be true, then am I certain the intent of these miracles is to deceive, and that those are deceived who hearken to them; and what reason then have I to believe them? 3. To what end do these miracles serve? Are they to confirm the truths contained in Scripture? * 1.21 But what need they any confirmation now, when we are assured by the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles, that the doctrine by them preached came from God? and so hath been received upon the credit of those miracles ever since. Were these truths sufficiently proved to be from God before or no? If not, then all former ages have believed without sufficient ground for faith; if they were, then what ground can there be to confirm us in them now? cer∣tainly God, who never doth anything but for very great purposes, will never alter the course of nature, meerly for satisfaction of mens vain curiosities.

But it may be it will be said, It was something not fully re∣vealed in Scripture which is thus confirmed by miracles: but * 1.22 where hath the Scripture told us, that anything not fully revealed therein, should be afterwards confirmed? Was the Scripture an infallible rule of faith while this was wanting in it? Did Christ and his Apostles discharge their places, when they left something unr••vealed to us? Was this a duty before these miracles, or no? if it was, what need miracles to con∣firm it? if not, Christ hath not told us all nec••ssary condi∣tions of salvation. For whatever is required as a duty, is such as the neglect of it runs men upon damnation. Lastly, mens faith will be left at continual uncertainties; for we know not according to this principle, when we have all that is necessary to be beli••ved, or do all that is necessary to be practised in order to salvation. For if God may still

make new articles of saith, or constitute new duties by fresh miracles, I must go and enquire what miracles are wrought in every place, to see that I miss nothing that may be necessary for me, in order to my happiness in another world.

If men pretend to deliver any doctrine contrary to the Scripture; then it is not only necessary that they confirm it by miracles, but they must manifest the falsity of those miracles on which that doctrine is believed, or else they must use another miracle to prove that God will set his seal to confirm both parts of a contradiction to be true. Which being the hardest task of all, had need be proved by very sufficient and undoubted miracles, such as may be able to make us be∣lieve those are miracles, and are not, at the same time, and so the strength of the argument is utterly destroyed by the m••∣dium produced to prove it by.

By this discour••e these two things are clear; First, that no pretences of miracles are to be hearkened to, when the doctrine we are to believe is already established by them, if those miracles tend in the least to the derogation of the truth of what was established by those former miracles. Secondly, that when the full doctrine we are to believe is established by miracles, there is no necessity at all of new miracles, for confirmation of any of the truths therein delivered. And therefore it is a most unrea∣sonable thing to demand miracles of those to prove the truth of the doctrine they deliver, who do first solemnly profess to deliver nothing but what was confirmed by miracles in the first delivery of it, and is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and secondly do not pretend to any immediate Commission from heaven, but do nothing but what in their consciences they think every true Christian is bound to do; much more all Magistrates and Ministers who believe the truth of what they profess, which is in their places to reform all errours and abuses which are crept into the doctrine or practice of Christianity, through the corrupti∣on of men or times. And therefore it is a most unjust and un∣reasonable demand of the Papists, when they require mira∣cles from our first reformers, to prove the truth of their do∣ctrine with. Had they pretended to have come with an

immediate commission from heaven to have added to the Do∣ctrine of the Gospel, there had been some plea for such a de∣mand; but it was quite otherwise with them: Their only design was to whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, to purge the Church from its abuses: And although that by Ierome was thought to be one of our Saviours greatest mi∣racles, yet this by us is conceived to be no other then the duty of all Magistrates, Ministers, and private Christians; these by their prayers, Ministers, by their doctrine, and Ma∣gistrates by their just authority.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sect. 1.
• * 1.2

  Deut. 7. 7, 8.
• * 1.3

  Gen. 34. 25.

  Gen. 49. 5, 6, 7.
• * 1.4

  Sect. 2.
• * 1.5

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.6

  1.
• * 1.7

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.8

  Object.
• * 1.9

  Answ.
• * 1.10

  1.
• * 1.11

  2.
• * 1.12

  3
• * 1.13

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.14

  1.
• * 1.15

  2.
• * 1.16

  3.
• * 1.17

  Sect. 6.
• * 1.18

  Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.19

  1.
• * 1.20

  2.
• * 1.21

  3.
• * 1.22

  Sect. 7.