Hagiomastix, or The scourge of the saints displayed in his colours of ignorance & blood

HAGIO MASTIX, OR THE SCOURGE OF THE SAINTS.

IT was a sad expression of Luther in his dayes, when he said, wee should finde cause to melt and be dissolved into teares, if wee seriously consider what strange errours we have stum∣bled upon, that there is not so much liber∣ty now allowed to any man, as to speake the Truth a 1.1. Yet if this were the worst of those times he complaines of, he lived in a golden age, in comparison of the dayes which are already in part come, and attempted by some with an high hand to be brought yet in fuller measure, upon the faith∣full servants of God in this Land. It is a small thing for the Spirit which works in many of the sonnes of high Presbyterie, to deny men libertie of speaking the Truth; the very inquiring and asking after Truth, is made wickednesse and blasphemy, impudence, auda∣ciousnesse, yea little lesse then Atheisme, or Devilisme it selfe, by the angrie suggestion and clamorous imputation of this Spirit. That in saying these things I put this spirit to no other rebuke, then what the Truth it selfe, and its owne professed noone-day

actings and workings doe witnesse against it, needs none other* 1.2 proofe or demonstration, but onely the perusall of the fift page, of a late Pamphlet, entituled, A vindication of a printed paper, &c. against the irreligious and presumptuous exceptions (irreligiously and presumptuously so called) called, Some humble and modest Queries. In the said page, that importune spirit wee speake of, foameth out his owne shame in these words (amongst many others of like un∣christian inspiration) VVho are you sir, that have dared in your heart to conceive such A VVICKEDNESSE AND BLASPHE∣MIE, as this Querie contains in the bowells of it? And againe—I summon all Readers in the name of God and Christ, to looke upon them, and to stand amazed at your IMPƲDENCE, that have been so AƲDACIOƲS as to AFFIRME, or insinuate &c.—The man (if yet he be a man) hath not yet the one halfe of his mind in railing and revenge upon a Christian and honest action and de∣signe, but querieth the Querist further, with this modest and hum∣ble Querie: what are you that speake thus? An ATHEIST, or a DE∣VIL? If he be an Atheist, he is one of that Order, who worship the true God in Spirit and Truth: If a Devill, it is in such a sense, wherein his Lord and Master was the Prince of Devills. If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his houshold a 1.3? He that takes pleasure in the Dialect of a railing and reviling pen, without any mixture or allay of sense, Reason or Religion, may satiate himselfe when he pleaseth, with the fragments and remainders of the said page, with the better (or rather, worse) halfe of that which followeth.

Who is the Syllogizer, or Author of this vindication, I am not* 1.4 in the least desirous to know; nor doe I intend ever to bestow two words upon the inquirie: I can pray for him, though unknowne, upon that ground, on which our Saviour prayed for those that crucified him, (if his condition will admit it) Father, forgive them: for they know not what they doe b 1.5. Many conceive that the Licencer, and Author, have but one Name between them; of which appre∣hension though there be more reasons and grounds then one, and more especially the many loose assertions (that I say not falsifica∣tions) in the discourse it self, yet for my part I determine it not; onely this I conceive, that whoever is the Author, is but a perso∣nated, though highly pretended, Friend to the Parliament; but

that what he is in love and friendship indeed, he is to their ene¦mies,* 1.6 and those that labour to lay the honour as well of their persons, as proceedings, in the dust. And whereas in the very fron∣tispiece of his booke, he flourisheth over his designe, as if it were (at least in the principall branch of it) the Assertion and maintai∣ning of the Magistrates Authority both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall matters; yet this outside compared with the inside of the booke, shewes it to be but like the Apothecaries box, which hath Phar∣macum in titulo, in pixide venenum; physick in the title, but poy∣son in the vessell. For first, he that shall not onely teach and incou∣rage, but even necessitate and compell (urging by way of duty, and conscience, being an high compulsion, in the kind,) Caesar, not to be content with the things that are Caesars, but to lay claime unto, and hand upon, the things that are Gods: and secondly, shall (in the same sense) necessitate and compell the Parliament, to such actions, which apparently tend to the deep discontenting, if not to the utter destroying of those persons in the Land (at least the most considerable part of them) of whose fidelity unto them even in the face and presence of death, they have had proofe upon proofe, and proofe upon proofe againe, and that above, and be∣yond all contradiction, (both which are cleerely the materiall, if not the formall designe, of the said vindication) Whosoever I say shall lift up his hand to either of these, is (without controule) no friend to the Civill Magistrate, much lesse to the Parliament; ex∣cept that be friendship to sow discord between friends, or to per∣swade men upon specious pretences, to destroy their Preservers, yea and those, who if the clouds should returne after the raine, are more likely then any other generation of men that I know this day under Heaven, to be their Preservers the second time. It is a shrewd signe, that they that set men on worke to tread downe the hedge, would willingly have the corne troden down also.

Whereas the Syllogizer undertakes to know (for he asserts it* 1.7 without scruple) that the Queries were put forth, as to stop, if it were possible, the Houses proceedings in it, (he meanes the printed paper) so howsoever to blast what they should doe in the pursuance of it, and the Parliament also, (as if the two Houses were one, and his Parliament another,) if they doe, or shall doe, any thing therein &c. doth he not lift up himselfe into the throne of God, and fit and judge the

reines, and secret intentions of the hearts of men? I will nota∣sperse* 1.8 him with the filth of his owne kennell, or aske him, whether he be an Atheist, or a Devill, to write thus: but certaine I am, that the tenour and straine of this accusation is purely Satanicall; be∣ing drawne to the life according to that patterne, Job 1. 9. Doth Job serve God for nought? For as the Devill seeketh here to traduce and imbase that externall course of sanctitie and uprightnesse which Job held, by falsly charging it with sinister ends and mo∣tives; so doth the Syllogizer (be he one, or be he more, or be he Legion) in the words tendered, most unworthily calumniate, and deprave the Christian and candid intentions of him who advanc'd that honest paper of the modest and humble Queries; his ends there∣in being neither to stop, whether possible, or impossible, the Houses proceedings in it, nor yet to blast what they should doe in the pursuance of it (as this angry Dreamer surmiseth;) but onely to minister occasion unto the members of both the Honourable Houses religi∣ously to consider, how they might proceed and walk with a streight foot in the pursuance of it; and keep off at a due distance from the importune and violent counsels and suggestions of Presbyterian Interests; which without all peradventure, are of the most sad and threatning portendence, amongst all our dangers to this State and Kingdome, if they be not reduced by the wisdome and cou∣rage of both Houses of Parliament. Lord, make thy servants in both Houses, wiser then their enemies: Lord, make them wiser then their teachers: Lord, keep them from such Teachers, who are their enemies. But as for the Querist, he in his, both intentions and de∣sires, in order to the Parliament proceedings for the suppressing of errours and Heresies, is so farre from seeking to make a stop of them, or to blast whatsoever they shall doe in this kind, that his soule longeth as for summer fruit, to see the methods of Heaven, the wisdome and will of God for so blessed a purpose, as the suppression of er∣rours and Heresies is, first discovered, and then vigorously prose∣cuted and pursued, by the Parliament, or whoever otherwise shall be found lawfully interessed therein. Yea he is so farre from inten∣ding to blast any thing the Parliament shall doe according to the will of God, for this end, that if any such course as this shall be effectually advanced by them before the terme of his breath be ex∣pired, he professeth, as in the presence of God, that he shall re∣joyce

over it as the characteristicall felicitie of his dayes.* 1.9

Which Christian and cleere Intentions of the Querist, in put∣ting* 1.10 forth the said Queries, considered, it had been no such su∣pererogating act of Charity in the Syllogizers (for being in the way of my Reply, tidings are brought unto me, that they are cer∣tain striplings of the Assembly, that have laid their Logick together to advance that summe of Syllogismes with their Answers, which must as it seemes, serve in stead of a sufficient Answer to the Que∣ries) but be they sonnes of this, or of what other Interest soever, it had been no such supererogating act, or worke of Charity, as to have drawne the suspicion of Popery upon them, in case they had not, for a word, suppose unproper, or lesse considerate, ar∣raign'd the Author at the barre of their Tribunall, as a man guil∣ty of impudence, wickednesse, blasphemy, Atheisme, yea and Devillisme it selfe; yea and besides all this, have so devoutly, solemnly, and Apostle-like, commanded and charged, that he be delivered up unto Satan by his owne Church or Congregation a 1.11. If this be the spirit that rules in the aire of Presbytery, it is like to be an element agreeing onely with the constitution of Iim and Ojim, of Owles and Sa∣tyrs and dolefull creatures, and not for Christian, sober, or peace∣able men. But the Church or Congregation he speakes of, know well (I question not) that the wrath of man neither worketh, nor advi∣seth, the righteousnesse of God; and that the zeale of Presbytery hath so farre eaten up the reasons, Judgements, Consciences of ma∣ny of her children, that they have not so much of any of these left as wherewith to discerne any thing from Blasphemy, or what deser∣veth casting out unto Satan which courteth not the Classique cause. It is no hard matter, either for them, or any other men, to see thus farre into the chambers of high Presbyterian secrets, by the glasse∣window of the Antapologie, (in the light whereof the children of that way can hardly give over rejoycing to this day) the Author hereof requiring of the Churches of Christ, as they would vindicate the glory and honour of Christ to call their Pastors to an account and ad∣monish them, and bring them to publick Repentance for their publick sinne, (the emphasis whereof is their anti-presbyterializing) or else upon impenitencie and obstinacie, to cast them out of their Churches b 1.12; as if the power of Excommunication and delivering up unto Satan, were given by Christ unto his Churches, chiefly to take venge∣ance

upon the enemies of High-Presbyterie, as Blasphemers, and* 1.13 the grand enemies of the honour and glory of Christ himselfe. Though I conceive that my Anti-querie-men ploughed with Mr. Edwards heyfer in drawing that long furrow upon the back of the Querist which hath been complained of, and have learnd of him to charge Churches as they regard the honour of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, with that super▪ christian duty, of delivering up their Pastors unto Satan; yet reflecting upon themselves (it seemes) as men of a more Apostolicall, sublime and sacred investiture then he, whose merits were never as yet crowned with Assemblian glory, they think it not worthy their grandure or Authority, to talke or take notice of the little finger, (I meane, of calling to an account and ad∣monishing, before Excommunication, as the Author of the Anta∣pologie, decently enough to the tenuity of his Interest doth) but the first word they speake, is the weight of the loynes of this Dread∣full sentence it selfe: he that shall aske as question which by the interpretation of their jealousie, may possibly tend to the disser∣vice of High-Presbyterie, deserves ipso facto to be posted away to the Devill, and not to have the favour of so much respit from the shame and torment, as the time of being called to an account, or ad∣monished, doth amount unto. Reader if thou beest not amazed, Heaven and Earth, and whatsoever is capable of the impression in either, will be astonished at the insufferable height, the prodigious insolencies of these men.

But it may be the occasion of this un-manlike impotencie, and* 1.14 extravagancie of passion, will balance it: the provocation or of∣fence given was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so hideous and horrid, that the na∣ture of man was no more able to beare it, then the sight of Medu∣sa's head without being disnatur'd by it. There is no soare but may have a plaister broad enough to cover it. And is there any deport∣ment of men at so deep a defiance with all principles of reason, equity, humanity, Christianity, but what by the mediation of productures may be reconciled? Reader, if the whirlewind of these mens ecstasie hath not ravished even thee also into the gyre or circle of it, prepare thy selfe either for double astonishment, or treble indignation, against the discovery and discourse of that, in the monstrousnesse whereof these men put their trust, not onely for shelter and protection against all those that shall say unto them,

black is their eye, for any miscariage of their pen; but for ap∣plause* 1.15 also, for solemne and sacred acclamations, as well over the light, as the heat of their zeale; over their profound Learning in confuting, as well as over their Religious indignation, in decla∣ming with so much ardencie and raisednesse of soule against it, as they have done. I know no parallel worthy that deportment of the men, in both, unlesse it be that of the High Priest, who upon some words spoken by our Saviour, resented by him as of no good correspondencle with his ends, though otherwise full of sober∣nesse and Truth, (the Text saith) rent his clothes, saying, He hath BLASPHEMED: what have we any more need of witnesse? Behold, now ye have heard his Blasphemie a 1.16. The Blasphemie here charged up∣on Christ by the High Priest, is of that kind of Blasphemy, for which the Querist is arraigned by these high-spirited sons of Levi: the supercilious and importune confidence in the High Priest, that Christ was a Blasphemer, had spoken Blasphemie; (ye have heard his Blasphemy: what need wee any more witnesse? &c.) exactly an∣swers the rage and height of these mens plerophorie, that the Que∣rist is a Blasphemer (at least) all ambiguities and doubtfulnesses discounted, in his second Querie. Thirdly and lastly, the exem∣plary Devotion and high-borne zeale of this High Priest in ren∣ding his cloathes, because of the great dishonour which the Lord Christ had done unto God, by his Blasphemie, portraictureth to the life the stupendious elevation of these men in all ardencie of pi∣ous affections, to render the Querist, the supposed Blasphemer, a man of all ignominy and reproch, the hatred and abhorring of men; a man worthy of no better quarter in the world, then to be delivered up unto Satan, that he may learne not to blaspheme; i. not to querie any further the spirit or proceedings of High-Presbytery, which (it seemes) is a duty much taught and urged in Satans Schoole. These men may well style themselves the sonnes of Levi; for they give a sufficient account that they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b 1.17, of the kindred of the High Priest:

—Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat.

Onely herein the patterne seemes to be more passible, then the portraicture. That which Christ spake, though it was as farre from Blasphemie, as any thing asserted, or affirmed, lightly could

be, yet it was an assertion, or affirmation, as Blasphemeis fre∣quently* 1.18 are: but the Querie arrested for blasphemy by the angrie sonnes of High-Presbytery, is a pure Querie or Question; no∣thing is affirmed, nothing denyed in it. And though I will not de∣ny, but that possibly such questions may be invented, and with studie thought upon, which may (in some sense of the word) be blasphemous; yet doe I not remember that ever I heard, or read of any such; nor can I readily conceive how any such can be framed. But as the Philosophers maxime is: Quicquid recipitur, recipit•••• ad modum recipientis; i. whatsoever is received, is not necessarily received, either according to the disposition or intention of the Agent or giver, or according to the nature or proper tendencie of the thing it selfe received; but alwayes according to the nature and disposition of the Receiver. If the High Priest wee spake of, had not waited for the halting of the Lord Christ, yea had not his soule longed for somewhat against him, wherewith ••oth to com∣fort his Conscience within him under those faint and feeble thoughts it had of his being a dissembler and wicked person, and to render him obnoxious also, and hatefull unto the people; it is no wayes credible that ever he would have found blasphemie in the words now triumphed over, as unquestionably guilty of that de∣merit, there being another interpretation and constructure of them farre more obvious and neerer hand, then that which found Blasphemy in them. Nor doe I, nor can I, impute that constru∣ction of the Querie, which makes blasphemie of it, either to the persons, or to the learning, or to the Judgement, or to the grace of the Anti-querists; but unto the enemies of all these, viz. their deep hatred against the person of the Querist, the impatiencie and impotencie of their desires to represent him to the world as a stig∣maticall infamous and irreligious man, their sworne service and devotion to the cause of High-Presbytery, with a non obstante &c. Had not these evill spirits extremely wrong'd the men, and strip'd them starke naked of the soft cloathing of their ingenuity; the Querie had been as innocent, and as farre from Blasphemy, as the Antapology, yea as the Vindication it selfe.

It was no impertinent or truth-lesse observation in him, who so* 1.19 farre minded the proceedings of the Anti-christian and Papall Clergie in the dayes of their Interests amongst us, and likewise of

the Pontificall and Episcopall Clergie, In theirs, as to be able to* 1.20 see, and say; that as well the one as the other did still so state and represent unto the people all such practises and actions, whether of their owne or other mens, wherein their secular pompe and In∣terests were concern'd, as to make God and Christ a party with them; to intitle them to part and fellowship with themselves, as well in whatsoever they did, as in whatsoever they suffer. The device was to perswade the world, partly that whatsoever they did, in order, either to the support, or inlargement of their owne Greatnesse, they did it out of Conscience, and as persons trusted by God with the affaires of his glory; partly, that whosoever cast honour upon them, or yeilded subjection unto them, did it not so much unto them, as unto God himselfe; and againe, that whosoever opposed, or neglected them, opposed and neglected God himself much more. How neere all things are now carried according to this patterne in the mount, I shall not declare; but leave unto men, who have eyes to see, to consider of a 1.21. Onely this I shall take leave to observe, and say; that these Antiquerie-masters, are their crafts-masters in this Pontificall artifice; for (oh!) how are they troubled! how are they pained, and afflicted in soule, about the Queries; not (good men!) that themselves, or their Interests in the cause of Presbytery are any wayes disturb'd, struck at, or in danger to suffer by them; wee heare ne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quidem, not the least mutter or whisper of this sorrow, or complaint throughout the whole discourse; but the great anguish and vexation, the amaze∣ment b 1.22 of their devout soules is, that the honour of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Authority of the Spirit c 1.23, are blaspheme•• in them; that in stead of bringing the true Doctrine of the Father and the Sonne, the Queries have brought all the Doctrines of God into so absolute an uncertainty. O thou that searchest the reines and the hearts, wilt tho••e not judge the hypocrisie of these men (if yet they be hypocrites) and give to every one of them according to their worke d 1.24? For what? are the men so super-superiatively zealous, for the ho∣nour of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the Authority of the Spirit, and yet all their Faith, all their knowledge, all the Do∣ctrines they have received concerning God, brought into an absolu•••• uncertainty by one poore Querie, or Question? If a question hath so dangerously shaken the Religion of these men, surely even a

weake Argument would turne it upside downe. O Church of Eng∣land,* 1.25 whatsoever thou art, tremble to build thy Faith upon the foundation of these thy Teachers: for they confesse (if they mean as they say) that in all these Doctrines concerning God and Christ, they are brought into an absolute uncertainty; and that by the force of one Question onely. It seemes that their beliefe of all they know, of all they teach concerning God and Christ, is suspended upon the hope they have of the goodnesse of the cause of High Presby∣tery: so that when the goodnesse of this cause is any wayes made doubtfull or questionable unto them, a pang of a proportionable uncertainty in those other things also seizeth on them. They say that they perceive that (which no man perceives besides themselves) viz. that the Querist is in the gall of bitternesse, and bond of iniquity; but the Querist perceives that which is of a farre cleerer vision; viz. that ••f all the Doctrines of God and Christ be with them brought into an absolute uncertainty, they are, if not in, yet very neere to, that gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity whereof they speake.

But what strange accident befell the learning of these men, that* 1.26 intending to goe to Dothan, they should take the way to Sama∣ria? that intending, or (at least) pretending, to Answer Que∣stions, they should gird their Logick to them, and make Syllogis∣mes, and fall upon answering these? Is Soul also among the Pro∣phets? Are the members of the Assembly come to their new lights too? For to this day (doubtlesse) it was never knowne or heard, that men should frame Arguments and Syllogismes of their owne, and call their Answers unto these, Answers to the Questions of an∣other. When they taught the late Catechisme of their present Church, and asked the child, What is your Name? and, who gave you this Name? did they teach the child to answer, first by framing Syllogismes out of, or upon the Questions; and then, by answe∣ring these Syllogismes in stead of the Questions? If they had meant fairely, and nothing but what was upright in the sight of God and men, in addressing themselves to Answer the Queries, these being fairely and directly proposed, why did they fetch a∣bout by the way of the fullers field, by which Rabshekah came against Jerusalem a 1.27; I meane by the way of Syllogismes and Arguments, by which the truth is wont to be opposed by her adversaries, not the Questions of the friends of Truth answered? why did they

not answer to the particulars demanded, immediately and direct∣ly,* 1.28 either by affirmation, negation, or distinction; which is the way and method by which Christ and his Apostles answered all the Questions proposed to them, which they thought meet to an∣swer? Or howsoever, they never made Syllogismes, calling their Answers to these, Answers to the Questions proposed unto them by others. Certainly these men would not have travelled out of the Kings high-way, but to lie in waite to rob and steale from those, who travell honestly and peaceably in it: There was (out of all doubt) some Clergie-Classique fetch, or reach in the pro∣jecture: the men are better husbands of their Syllogismes and Lo∣gicke, then to pursue or hunt after Truth or spirituall things with them: these they still take, and come by with as much ease and expedition, as Jacob came by his Venison, which he fetchd out of the stock. b 1.29 Therefore when they take their Bo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and their quiver, when they come to Syllogismes, and painefull reasonings and de∣bates, it is a great signe they have some secular game or other in chase, which for the most part is not so tame, nor so easily brought to hand, as the other. But is it lawfull for me upon this occasion, to doe as these men frequently doe in their preaching, I meane con∣jecture? Reader, with thy leave, I shall take the boldnesse to pre∣sent thee with my notion, upon the case. These contraquerists pru∣dently considering, that in the Queries, as they came from the Author, there was nothing at all either affirmed or denyed, so that whatsoever the tenour or purport of them was, they could not with any tolerable colour or pretext, fasten any opinion, ei∣ther* 1.30 negative, or affirmative, upon him that framed them, where∣with to blast either the reputation of his person, or his Queries; therefore to blind vulgar eyes, and to set a face upon a backside∣businesse, they judg'd it of best comport with the Classique cause presumptuously to conclude, that whatsoever the Querist que∣stions in the negative, he holds and asserts in the affirmative; as on the contrary, that whatsoever he querieth in the affirmative, he holds in the negative; and so to take of these affirmatives and negatives, and digest them into Syllogismes, as they please; which Syllogismes (forsooth) the simple Presbyterian, for his better edi∣fication in the delusions of his Teachers, must compell his fan•••••• to believe, to be mine; and the Answers given to them, to be

theirs, and these insoluble (at least) and more sacred then to be* 1.31 touch'd with the least finger of an Examination.

But, ô•• all you, that are the Sonnes and daughters of God,* 1.32 whether in the way of Presbytery, or in a better, stand still, and behold your Heavenly Father at this day in the same posture of working wonders, wherein he stood in the yesterday of old. There∣fore behold (saith he) I will proceed to doe a marvellous worke amongst this people, even a marvellous worke and a wonder: for the wisdome of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent me•• shall be hid a 1.33. These politick and prudent sonnes of High Presby∣tery, thought they had spread a table for themselves of their Syl∣logismes; but that God who taketh the wise in their owne craftinesse b 1.34, hath turned this table into a snare unto them; and hid their understan∣ding out of the way when they lift up their hand to the Syllogismes. For in the framing of these, their answers considered, they are like such Conjurers, who being novices in their profession, some∣times raise those spirits, which, their skill failing them, they know not how to lay, or conjure downe. Though I owne not any one of the Syllogismes, as intimated or asserted, either Majors, Mi∣nors, or Conclusions, by me in the Queries; yet to let the King∣dome and whole world see, upon how broken a reed they shall leane, if they trust to the Learning or Judgement of these men in the great things of their peace, I shall be willing to undertake for the Syllogismes (at least for the most of them) against their An∣swers. For doubtlesse the Arguments doe by their Answers, as Aarons rod did by the rods of the Egyptian Sorcerers c 1.35; they swallow and eat them up.

In my Vindication of the Gentlemens Syllogismes against their* 1.36 Answers; to save as much as may be without detriment to the cause, the labour of transcribing, and so to contract the whole dis∣course into as narrow a compasse, as the Subject of it will beare; I shall not repeate the Syllogismes themselves, but onely lay open the weaknesse and insufficiencie of the respective Answers; and this by a manifest disabling and overturning the Principles, rea∣sons, and grounds, on which they are built. I could wish the Rea∣der, who shall have the opportunity, and please to peruse these pa∣pers, had the Vindication it selfe, or those Anti-papers by him, to which these, by way of opposition, relate: it is like he might ap∣prehend

the particularity and appositenesse of what is here insisted* 1.37 upon for the dissolution of those Answers, more fully, and with some ••dvantage to his satisfaction; yet by what he shall he••e finde, he may be able, even without that ayde, competently to conceive and judge, what is the strength, and what is the weaknesse, of the said Answers.

First then, their Answer to their first Argument or Syllogisme,* 1.38 fram'd by occasion of my first Querie, is built upon this distincti∣on: The making of snares of any of the Doctrines of Christ for the de∣struction of the lives of men, may be taken two wayes; first, for a malitious intention, and formall desire to take away mens lives: Se∣condly, for no more but the appointing of the punishment of death for such as shall WICKEDLY oppose any of the Doctrines of Christ. In this latter sense, they conclude it lawfull, yea and necessary, to make snares of the Doctrines of Christ, for the destruction of the lives of men, and denie it in the former. But

First, the Ordinance doth not say, who shall WICKEDLY preach, teach, publish, any opinion contrary, &c. but that, all such who shall VVILLINGLY preach, teach, &c. shall, without abjuring, suffer the paines of death. Therefore the said Distinction is imperti∣nent, and reacheth not the cause in hand. For who with halfe an eye, is not able to see a vast difference, between preaching, or pub∣lishing a point, VVILLINGLY, and VVICKEDLY? when Pres∣byterian Ministers preach false Doctrine, as that tithes, or Presby∣teriall Government are Jure Divino, that it is unlawfull either to sell or buy Bishops Lands, that the Parliament is bound to doe as the Assembly would have them, that legall preparations are sim∣ply and absolutely necessary before Conversion, that men are bound to believe that which they have no reason to believe, that Repentance goeth before Faith, that Christ suffered the torments of Hell, with twenty and ten vaine speculations, and visions of their owne hearts besides, wherewith they corrupt and poyson the Judgements of their simple and credulous Auditories, I presume they doe all this VVILLINGLY; but whether they doe it VVICK∣EDLY, or no, let themselves judge and say. But

Secondly, suppose the Ordinance had said, VVICKEDLY, as the Syllogisme••s speake; I demand of them what they meane by the word, VVICKEDLY, and who shall judge and determine of

this modification or aggravation of the offence? Suppose a man* 1.39 should preach very zealously, and with fervency of Spirit against any of those Tenets which these men call the Doctrines of Christ, as against the Jus Divinum, or lawfulnesse of tithes, or of Presby∣tery, or the like; will they call this a preaching VVICKEDLY? If so, then themselves preach VVICKEDLY, as oft as zealously. If by VVICKEDLY, they meane, obstinately, or with obstinacie (an expression which the paper called, The Ordinance, useth) this is to give light by darknesse: and I demand, as before, what they meane, by obstinately? For neither doth the Ordinance, nor the As∣serters of it, (who yet undertake too to be the Interpreters of it, when, and as they please a 1.40) declare, or determine any thing at all herein. If by preaching, or publishing a Doctrine obstinately, they meane, a preaching it after admonition, or after meanes us'd, yea or after sufficient meanes us'd (I meane, sufficient, in the Judge∣ment of those that use them; yea or of those who are interressed in the same judgement with those that use them) then themselves, as oft as they preach the point of Infant-Baptisme, preach obstinately, and consequently, VVICKEDLY? For they have been admonished again and again by the Anti-poedo-baptists, both by writing and otherwise; who also have used meanes upon meanes, and those by themselves and all of their party, judged to be abundantly suffici∣ent to convince them, of the errour of this Doctrine (for so they judge it to be.) So againe, (according to this interpretation of the word) when they preach against the lawfulnesse of selling and buying the Bishops Lands, they preach obstinately, and so VVICK∣EDLY, for by the late Ordinance of Parliament published in that behalfe, they are admonished, yea, and in the Judgement of the Parliament, sufficiently informed, of the lawfulnesse of both. In∣stance might be given in twenty points more of like consideration. If they have any other sense or meaning in the word, Obstinately, which is more crypticall, or mysterious, it is but reasonable and equall, that it be declared and made knowne; before the lifes or liberties of the Saints, or other men be endangered by it. It is most un-christian and repugnant to the law and light of nature it selfe, that any such Lawes or Statutes should be made, wherein either the lifes or Liberties of men are touch'd; and yet the sense and mea∣ning of them, by the ambiguity of the words, wherein they are

conceived, be of doubtfull interpretation unto those, who are so* 1.41 deeply concern'd in them. Lawes and Statutes, wherein the pre∣cious lives and Liberties of men are concern'd, ought not to be like Aristotles acroamatiques; concerning which he said, when he had published them, edidi, & non edidi. i. I have published them, and I have not published them; meaning, that as he had set them forth, few were able to understand them: but to be plaine and transparent in their sense and meaning; that even persons of mea∣nest capacity may without an Interpreter, see to the bottome of them. Or Thirdly, (and lastly,) if by VVICKEDLY, in their distinction, they meane, maliciously, (which the word seemes most properly to import) I desire to know of them, whom they will constitute or make Judges of this inward and soule-misdemea∣nour; or what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what Symptomes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or signes they will Authorize, as infallibly demonstrative of this maligni∣tie? For it is no wayes Christian or equall, that the Saints (or indeed any other sort of men) should be deprived of their lives, or precious Liberties, upon what Interpretation of the Law, ei∣ther the Jurie, or the Judge shall please to make. But the case and condition of the Saints would be most deplorable upon such terms as these; in as much as there are very few either Juries, or Judges, but being strangers to the worke of Grace, inwardly hate this gene∣ration of men; according to that (with many the like) saying of the Scriptures: Marvell not my Brethren, if the world hate you a 1.42: where∣unto that of our Saviour himselfe also agreeth; Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you of the world, therefore the world ha∣teth you b 1.43. Now it being the genius or property of this affection of hatred, to desire and seek the destruction of that which is hated, (Quem quisque odit, periisse expetit) it were most sad with the Saints, if they that hate them, should have the Liberty of interpreting not onely their actions and practises, as they please; but also of the Lawes themselves too, by which these are to be judged.

Thus then it fully appeares, that the Distinction, upon which the Syllogizers build their Answer to their first Syllogisme, is, by reason of the ambiguity and doubtfulnesse in one of the most sig∣nall and important terms in it, altogether insufficient and null; and in exactnesse of truth, no distinction at all; no more, then a dish, with an hole in the bottome of it, is a dish, or a man without

a soule, a man. Miserable is the condition of those, whose Faith* 1.44 must be pinn'd upon such sleeves as these.

There are severall other importune, reasonlesse, and false asser∣tions* 1.45 and suppositions made to support the said Answer and Di∣stinction. As

1. That he that shall but insinuate a reproach upon the Ordinance in such a phrase as this, of making a snare for the destruction of the lives of men, doth with the same hand or tongue cast a reproach upon ALL the punitive Justice that ever was, or will be in the world a 1.46. Certainly these Gentlemens Logick stood at their left hand in stead of their right, when they advanc'd such a consequence, or saying, as this? Doth he that insinuates it as a thing unlawfull, to put an Heathen to death for asserting the principles of his false Religion, cast a re∣proch upon the Justice, which shall punish him with death for mur∣ther, rebellion, or insurrection? Or doth he that insinuates it as a thing unworthy a Christian Magistrate or Judge, to put a man to death for professing, or affirming that for truth, which he verily beleeveth to be so, though indeed it be false; cast a reproch upon such Magistrates or their punitive Justice, who shall punish mur∣ther, perjury, incest, or any the like sinnes committed against the light of nature, and the knowledge of the perpetrator, with pu∣nishments suitable to the respective natures and demerits of them? It seemes that to sinne out of ignorance, and with knowledge; with Conscence and against Conscience, are of one and the ••ame consideration and demerit, with these men. Oh England, if thou sufferest thy selfe to be led by such Guides as these, take heed of falling into the ditch, out of which there is no rising againe.

Secondly, the said Answer leanes upon the broken reed of this* 1.47 supposition; that the Spirit of Christ now, should be contrary to Gods Spirit in the Old Testament, if it should not justifie and allow, yea and require the punishment of death under the Gospel, for the vi∣olation of such Doctrines and Lawes, as well of the first, as second Table, for the violation whereof this punishment was expressely appointed by the Authority of God then. If the pens of these men were not intoxi∣cated with the new Wine or Must of Presbyterie, they would ne∣ver utter such Atheologicall stuffe as this. Was the Spirit of Christ in the New Testament, contrary to Gods Spirit in the Old, because he dis∣charg'd a woman taken in adultery, onely with this admonition, Goe,

and sinne no more; permitting none but such to stone her, who were,* 1.48 without sinne a 1.49; whereas the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, appointed that both the adulterer and the adulteresse should SƲRE∣LY be put to death b 1.50? Or because Christ prohibited calling downe fire from Heaven to consume those who refused to receive him c 1.51 was his Spirit contrary to the Spirit of God in the Prophet ELIIAH, by which he called for fire from Heaven to doe that sad execution, and that upon person•• of an inferiour delinquencie in respect of them (at least as the tenour of the Histories compared together seems to import?) Or what reason can these irrefragable Doctors give, why the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, which is but one and the same Spirit with the Spirit of Christ in the New, should not be at as much liberty to alter the punishments or penalties, as the Ordinances of worship appointed in the Old Testament, under the New? Are the former so much more sacred then the latter, that though these be changed, yet those must of necessity abide for ever? Is there nothing in that great dispensation of God, by which he shooke the Earth also, as well as the Heavens d 1.52, I meane the sending of his onely begotten Sonne Jesus Christ in the flesh into the world? was there no occasion hereby ministred unto God, to va∣ry from his ancient oeconomie of governing his Church and peo∣ple, as much as an alteration or change of some externall penalties, amount unto? But wee shall have occasion once and againe to dis∣course Old Testament matters with our new Masters, before they and I part: therefore for the present we leave them under the shame of this supposition also.

Thirdly, the said Answer halts shamefully upon this leg also;* 1.53 it affirmeth, that that speech of Christ Luk. 9. The Sonne of man i•• not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them, hath a peculiar refe∣rence to his being on Earth in the forme of a servant, which implyeth, that when he laid aside the forme of a servant, and ascended up into Heaven, he ascended, not to save mens lives, but to destroy them; or at least, that now, being in Heaven, he is more inclina∣ble to destroy the lives of men, then he was whilst he remained in the forme of a servant: Both which are emphatically false; the Lord Christ, even after his receiving up into glory, being altoge∣ther as tender of the preclous lives of men, as before; yea and gi∣ving out his Divine vertue and power every whit as bountifully,

as well for the comfort and preservation of mens lives whilst they* 1.54 stood by them, as for the restoring or recalling of them, when they were departed a 1.55. Yea the Scripture teacheth us to looke upon the blessed condition of Christ glorified, as a more hopefull ground of obtaining grace and favour from him in every kind, then his being in the forme of a Servant was. For if when wee were enemies (saith the Apostle) we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved BY HIS LIFE b 1.56.

Fourthly, the said Answer blusheth also with the red of this in∣ference, or supposall: viz. that because that negative expression of Christ mentioned, that he came not to destroy mens lives, is not ne∣cessarily an absolute negation, but rather a preferring of one thing be∣fore another; therefore it is necessarily and absolutely a preferring of one thing before another; and the meaning of it necessarily and absolutely this, that Christ came not onely, or so much, to destroy mens lives, but to save them. Doth the possibility, or non-necessi∣ty of the being of a thing either so or so, necessarily and absolutely imply the being of it otherwise? This (it seemes) is one of the Logick pillars, upon which Presbytery hath built her house.

Fiftly (and lastly) the Answer wee speake of, vanisheth away, and dieth in the hand of this most senselesse and importune reaso∣ning.* 1.57 If Peter by his word struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for their sacrilegious dissimulation; and Christ himselfe threaten destruction to Jerusalem for rejecting him their Messiah, then is the destroying of mens lives by the Civill Magistrate for contradicting the most funda∣mentall Doctrines of Christ, agreeable to the Spirit of Christ. Doth the Antecedent and consequent in this hypotheticall proposition agree any whit better then harp and harrow? Is the contradicting of what a man knowes no sufficient ground or reason, why he should judge, or thinke it to be a Truth, nor with his best endea∣vours is able so to judge of it (which according to the common Tenet of these men themselves, is the case of all unregenerate men, in respect of the fundamentall Doctrines of Christ) a sinne of the like nature, or equally punishable, with the sinne of Sacrilegi∣ous dissimulation; which the sinner cannot but know to be an abo∣mination? See before, Sect. 11. Or is the threatning of destruction by Christ himselfe to Jerusalem upon an old score of all manner of provocations and abominations, which had run on for many ge∣nerations

together; which threatning notwithstanding was not* 1.58 put in execution till almost fourty yeares after it was denounced; is such a threatning (I say) as this by Christ himselfe, of a like con∣sideration with the actuall and present inflicting of the punishment of death upon a man by a Civill Magistrate, onely for contradi∣cting in words such or such Tenets in Christian Religion, suppose the most fundamentall, of the Truth, or likelihood whereof the miserable wretch hath no assurance, nor (perhaps) knoweth how to come by any? Whatsoever an Apostle may doe by the imme∣diate and infallible direction of the Holy Ghost; nay, whatsoever Christ himselfe may doe by vertue of his Authority and Interest, having all power of Judicature put into his hand by God, may a Magistrate doe by vertue of that limited Authority and Interest which he hath, and by the suggestion or direction of his owne spi∣rit onely, or of those that are subject unto errour and misprisi∣ons, as well as his? Is it reasonable to say that a child may un∣dertake as much as a man? or a Subject, as much as his Prince? Take a parallel of these mens reasoning: if the Vine may bring forth grapes, why not the thorne? if the fig-tree figs, why not the thistle? Take another: If Presbytery be Jure Divino, why not Episcopacie? why not Independencie? If something be some∣thing, why not nothing? The Faith of these men had need be strong; for their reasonings (I am certaine) are extremely weake. But their salve for this soare is; to injoyne their Proselytes upon paine of death to cast their Reason out of their Religion; and then quid libet will serve to prove quodlibet. But before I discharge them at this point, I must know of them, or at least demand of them, by what light, new, or old, did they discerne this for a truth, that Peter by his word struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for their Sacrilegious dissimulation? Doe these men justifie the Argument of the Romish Disputants, from Ecce duo gladii, Behold, here are two Swords, to prove that Peter was invested, as well with secular, as* 1.59 Ecclesiastick power? Or doe they conceive, that smiting with death is an Ecclesiastick, or Church Censure? Or suppose it be, had Peter power to inflict it by his word? Did God impart his omnipo∣tencie unto him? Concerning Ananias it is indeed related how Pe∣ter according to the duty of his place, admonished him of his sin; and that Ananias upon hearing the Admonition or Reproofe, gave

up the Ghost a 1.60 (or, died) but it is no where said, nor is it any wayes* 1.61 probable, that Peter intended any such severe execution in his ad∣monition; and consequently it cannot be said, that he struck him dead with his word; except onely in such a sense, as a man may be said to kill his Brother, who doth it at unawares: and if a Magi∣strate shall thus slay with death an Heretick, or opposer of the Do∣ctrines of Christ, viz. at unawares, I shall doe my utmost to excuse him; and the rather, if he shall doe it, onely by admonishing, or reproving him for his errours. Concerning the death of Sapphira, it is said indeed that Peter foretold it, before it was inflicted; be∣hold (saith he, unto her) the feet of those which have buried thy hus∣band, are at the dore, and shall carrie thee out. But from these words, it cannot be concluded that Peter struck Sapphira dead with his word, except onely in such a sense, as the faithfull Ministers of this Land, may be said to have struck it with all those heavy Judge∣ments or plagues that have fallen upō it, in as much as they foretold and preadmonished the Nation of them before they came. The greatest difference is, that Peter had his prediction of Sapphira's death, by a more immediate revelation from God; the Ministers have their predictions of the Judgements executed upon this Na∣tion, by the mediation of the Scriptures, which hold forth grounds for such predictions. If Magistrates be able upon sub∣stantiall grounds to foreshew what Judgements will fall upon those that shall oppose the Doctrines of Christ, in case these Judge∣ments shall fall upon them accordingly without the Magistrates interposall for their procurement, I shall freely allow them this imitation of Peteter in striking Ananias and Sapphira dead with his word. For I much doubt, whether it had been lawfull for Peter, having prophecied of Sapphira's death, to have slaine her with a Sword for the vindication of his Prophecie. But surely these men were not aware of their friends, (if of themselves) when they pleaded the example of Peter smiting Ananias and Sapphira with death for dissimulation, to strengthen the hand of the Civill Magi∣strate to punish offenders accordingly. For I verily believe, were it his duty, and he conscientious in the performance of it, to smite hypocrisie and dissimulation with the Sword, that great and numerous party, which the Anti-Querists have for the present in the Land, would soone be reduced to the shaking of an olive tree,

and to the gleaning of grapes after the vontage. In the meane while* 1.62 we cleerely see with what rotten tymber the house of the Lord (so called) is now built by the great Architects of it. Wee have now done with the Answer of our Syllogists, to their first Argument: and have found the Argument laughing the Answer in the face to scorne.

Proceed we in the next place to the examination of their An∣swer* 1.63 given to their second Syllogisme, which by the strength of their imagination and Logick together, they hale and pull out of my second Querie (that unhappy Querie of Classique indignati∣on) at which so many of this way have made shipwrack of their patience and man-like ingenuity; discovering themselves, not to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a 1.64 subject to like passions with other men, which was Eliiah's infirmity; but to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. subject to passions appropriate to themselves, of a worse and more deplorable nature then other mens. But let us heare how they answer this Argument of their owne: this they attempt to doe, first, by Reason; secondly, by Passion.

For the first: this Answer (or rather, this part of their An∣swer) stands upon two legs, (with much adoe) the first is this: That they who after admonition, maintaine damnable Heresies, are no longer to be esteemed Brethren, but enemies to Christ, &c. and therefore are to be accordingly dealth with b 1.65. This ground is true: but as true it is, that it is nothing to the purpose. For first, there is no menti∣on of any such thing, as damnable heresies, in the Argument which they propose to answer; but onely of such opinions, which for ought the inflicters of death know, may be the sacred Truths of Christ. If they will grant, that such opinions, may be damnable Heresies which for ought the men they speak of know, may be sacred Truths of Christ; I grant both the Truth and pertinencie of the supposition or ground: but if they grant it, it undoeth them in all they further have to say, either in way of Reason, or of passion, in this Answer (as will appeare presently.) And

Secondly, whereas they say, that such who after admonition, shall maintaine damnable heresies, &c. are to be dealt with all accordingly, (i. either as God hath commanded, or as otherwise is reasonable, in such cases) I know no man 〈…〉〈…〉 in this gainsayeth them. But what is this to the inflicting of the heavy censure of death upon men▪

these are the termes of the Syllogisme, which they pretend to an∣swer.* 1.66 Are these equipollent expressions in their Logick; to deale with an offender according to his offence; and, to inflict the heavie cen∣sure of death upon him? Surely these men are Stoicks, and hold the Paradox, Omnia peccata esse aequalia, i. that all sins are equall. The question between them and their Syllogisme, is not, whether they who maintaine damnable heresies after Admonition, be to be dealt with accordingly; no, nor yet, whether such are to be punished with death; but whether it be agreeable to the mind of Christ, for men to inflict the censure of death upon men, for holding forth such opinions, which for ••ught they know may be the sacred Truths of Christ. But to this Que∣stion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quidem is to be found in all their Answer; neither in the more lightsome part of it, which should have been reason (had it prov'd), nor yet in the darke of it, which is passion without di∣spute.

The second leg made of reason (such as it is) upon which this an∣swer* 1.67 stands, in the rationall part of it) is this: that the Opinions threatned with death in the Ordinance, the makers of the Ordinance doe CERTAIN••Y know to be damnable heresies. This they prove by this Reason; because they are contrary to the MANIFEST word of God, and overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion. But

(By the way) what if the makers of the Ordinance (which I and many more, suppose to be men of Clergie-orders, rather then persons of any other Interest or capacity) have that certainty of knowledge which is here with so much confidence asserted to them, though this (I confesse) were it granted, would be somewhat to the Syllogisme (though not much neither) yet is it nothing at all to the Querie, from whence the Syllogisme pretends legitimacie of descent. For certaine I am that the Querie denies it not. If it be replyed; yea, but it intimates a deniall of i••. I demand, upon what ground is this supposition built? or what reason is there to charge the Querie, with such an intimation? if it be answered; because it was fram'd upon occasion of the Ordinance, and ownes relation to it. And therefore, except some such supposition as this be ver∣tually contain'd in it, viz. that the makers of the Ordinance doe not certainly know the opinions threatned therein with death, to be dam∣nable heresies, the Querie is altogether eccentricall, and irrelative to the point, to which it pretends. I answer, that this is a most

simple and unclerk-like allegation, and no wayes demonstra∣tive.* 1.68 For

First, what though the Querie was fram'd upon occasion of the* 1.69 Ordinance, yet is it not necessary that it should speake to, or of, any of the particulars contained in the Ordinance. When a man being below, intends to goe up into a chamber, or upper roome, he doth not set his first, nor second, nor third step into the roome it selfe, whereinto his desire is to enter, but steppeth at first upon lower staires, which are at some distance from it. Nothing is more usuall, then in examinations, and inquirings out of matters, whe∣ther by Justices of Peace, Judges, or others, at first to propose Questions or Queries to the persons that are to be examined, that are preparatory onely, and introductive to such further Questi∣ons, which strike at the businesse principally intended to be inqui∣red after, and found out. I presume the intent of the late Cate∣chisme of the present Church of England (so called) was, neither to teach the persons that were to be cathechised, what their Names were, or who gave them their Names, nor yet to informe the Cate∣chist of either of these: but to instruct those that were to be cate∣chised, in the fundamentall points of Christian Religion. Yet we know that the framers of this Catechisme, thought meet to begin with those questions, VVhat is your Name: and, VVho gave you this Name; which doe not concerne immediately or directly any point of Religion, but to serve onely by way of introduction to those questions which follow, and whose tendencie was, the instruction of the persons catechised in things worthy to be knowne. So that to plead or to pretend, that, because the body of my Queries was compiled upon occasion of the Ordinance, therefore the first or second Querie must directly and particularly strike at the Ordi∣nance, or any thing contained in it (much more at the makers of the Ordinance,) or else be altogether irrelative to it, is a kind of arguing, which cannot lightly proceed but from men of one of the worst constitutions that are to be found amongst Christians, namely, such, who are men onely in malice, and children in under∣standing. Therefore all that passionate and un-christian bluster, of wickednesse, blasphemy, impudence, are you an Atheist, or a Devill, with all the rest of the black Regiment of unhallowed expressions, which spread themselves upon the fift and sixt pages of the Vindi∣cation,

is occasioned onely by that kind of ignorance in the An∣tiquerists,* 1.70 which the Philosopher calls ignorantia Juris, the Ig∣norance of the Law, and excludes from all excuse. The men cer∣tainly were sick of their disease, who sought amongst all the do∣ings and sayings of Christ, wherefore to stone him; and at last, for want of a better or a better coloured for their purpose pitch'd upon that, which was as innocent as any of the rest, viz. his ma∣king himselfe the Sonne of God a 1.71. The Counter-Querists, being de∣sirous above measure, to find some, one, or more, amongst my Queries, that would take compassion on them, and ease the bur∣then of their great griefe by furnishing them with an occasion to disgrace both me, and their fellowes; have cast their eye, and se•• their heart upon the second, as best of countenance for their de∣signe; which yet in truth and evidence of interpretation, as little favoureth them in the way of this unrighteousnesse, as any other.

Secondly, let the Querie in hand be sifted to the bran, there* 1.72 will not so much as the smallest dust be beaten out of it, to asperse the MAKERS of the Ordinance, whoever they be, with any such insinuation, as that which the Syllogisme-makers charge upon it; viz. that the opinions therein threatned with death, may, for ought the said MAKERS know, be the sacred Truths of God. The Querie speakes onely of those, who shall inflict the heavie censure of death upon men for holding forth such, or such Doctrines and opinions; no•• at all of the Ordinance-makers. Now a Jurie, who shall passe a verdict against a man, which in ordinary course of Law, toucheth his life; and so a Judge that shall give a sentence of death against him; yea and the executioner of this sentence may every whit a•• properly be said to inflict the censure of death upon him, as they that make the Ordinance, or Law, by occasion whereof he suffereth. So then, though it should be granted, that the Querie intimateth or supposeth this, that the inflicters of death upon men for holding forth such opinions, which by the Ordinance are threatned with death, may very possibly not certainly know, but that they are the Truth•• of God; yet it no wayes followes from hence, that this intimation i•• levelled against those who made the Ordinance, (much lesse against the Parliament, who made it not:) which yet the Anti-querie∣men most in••ulfly and ignobly, but so much the more like unto

themselves, charge the Querie with) because there are diverse o∣thers,* 1.73 to whom, according to the tenour of the Querie, it may relate, yea and to whom men of ingenuity and understanding, might easily have conceived, that, according to the intention of the Querist, it did belong, rather then to the makers of the Ordi∣nance. For whatsoever may either reasonably, or charitably be thought of these; confident I am, that upon due consideration it will be found, that many men who are put upon Juries, yea and some Judges too, & executioners especially, know nothing certainly by those Doctrins in the Ordinance threatned with death, but that they are, or may be the sacred Truths of God. And thus we see how grie∣vously an innocent Querie hath been handled, rack'd, and tortu∣red by the Sonnes of violence, to force an accusation from it against the Authors. Well •••• the comfort is, that what men make crooked in their day, God will make streight againe in his.

And now, having abundantly justified the Querie against the* 1.74 Syllogisme, let us according to our understanding, see whether, or how farre the Syllogisme it selfe notwithstanding, is justifiable against the Answer given in by the Cata-Querists to it. We have vindicated it in part already; and have cleerely shewed, that the first thing they answer to it, is either a meere impertinencie, or else a Sword to slay their owne opinion with. See Sect 15. Wee exhi∣bited the second particular of their Answer, at the beginning of Sect. 16. which amounted to this; that the makers of the Ordinance must needs certainly know that the opinions sentenced with death in the Ordinance, are damnable Heresies, because they are contrary to the ma∣nifest word of God, overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Re∣ligion. To this I answer (earnestly desiring the Reader well to observe, and to carrie in mind the tenour and substance of the alle∣gation.)

First, if all the opinions sentenced with death in the Ordinance are damnable Heresies; contrary to the manifest word of God, overthrow∣ing the very foundations of Christian Religion, &c. How came it to passe that the Honourable House of Commons (as we have been once and againe informed by your weekly Intelligence concerning their proceedings) after a long and serious debate, judged the contrary; not suffering the denying of God to be one in three Per∣sons to passe as a damnable Heresie, or contrary to the manifest word of

God, &c. which yet is one of the opinions threatned with death in* 1.75 the Ordinance? If they had judged this a damnable heresie, contrary to the manifest word of God, overthrowing, &c. What reason can be given, why they should be more favourable to it, refusing to charge it with death, then unto many others, upon which the thought meet to lay this heavie sentence conceiving them to be opinions or Doctrines of that deep demerit, and dangerous import? Will these Anti-Querists charge this Honourable House with injustice or par∣tiality between Doctrine and Doctrine, Opinion and Opinion? Howsoever,

Secondly, It is evident from the tendernesse of this Honourable* 1.76 House in not suffering the said Opinion to passe for a damnable he∣resie, &c. that if the makers of the Ordinance did certainly know, that all the Opinions sentenced therein with death, were damnable heresies, contrary to the manifest word of God, overthrowing, &c. that they knew more then all the said Honourable House besides. Which con∣sidered, I summon all Readers and persons under Heaven to consider and give sentence, whether these sonnes of shame ••nd folly, had not much more reason (if they durst) to have vented that outrage of senselesse choler and most unchristian passion against this Ho∣nourable Hoase it selfe, then against me, which they poure out, pag. 5. of their Vindication (or Revenge rather) in these words. First to the Querist: Who are you sir, that have dared to conceive in your heart such a wickednesse and blasphemy as this Querie containes in the bowells of it? Looke againe upon the Opinions which the Ordinance threatneth with death: or if you will not, I summon all Readers in the Name of God and Christ to looke upon them, and to stand amazed at your impudence, that have been so audacious, as to affirme or insinuate (which yet I have not done in the least, as hath been sufficiently proved, though these sonnes of Levi be so impudent and audacious as to ca∣lumniate me with it) that all those things, OR EVEN ANY OF THEM, may (for all that the Parliament knowes, or any that will not make himselfe infallible) be the sacred Truths of God. And pre∣sently after: What are you that speake thus? an Atheist? or a De∣vill? Behold, oh England, a mapp of thy misery! Thy teachers imagine mischiefe in their heart: they sharpen their tongues like a Ser∣pent: adders poyson is under their lips. a 1.77 Are such lips meet to preserve knowledge? But why doe they charge me, and not the Parliament

rather, with wickednesse, Blasphemie, Impudence; audaciousnesse?* 1.78 Why doe they not aske the respective Members thereof; What are you that speake thus; are you Atheists? or are you Devills? Yea why doe they not charge the Assembly, as they regard the honour of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. to deliver them up unto Satan, that they may learne not to blaspheme? They are the persons against whom the pretended ground of all these brutish vociferations li∣eth, not I. They are they, who (if the fore-mentioned intelli∣gence be authenticke and true) have affirmed, or at least through∣ly insinuated, that all the Doctrines and opinions threatned in the Or∣dinance with death, are not CERTAINLY knowne to them, either to be damnable heresies, or contrary to the manifest word of God, or over∣throwing the foundations of Christian Religion. They have declared their sense to the contrary, and that upon a most weighty and Chri∣stian ground. For in as much as the Scriptures, or manifest word of God doth no where affirme, that God is One in three Persons, they had the greatest Reason in the world, not to sentence the deniall there∣of with death. If once this dore be opened, that the expositions or Interpretations of Scripture, or deductions from Scripture, made by men, shall be made binding upon the Judgements and Consciences of others, under civill mulcts and penalties in any kind, where, or when, or in what cases shall it be shut? Or who shall be found meet to separate the vile from the precious in this kind? I meane, to determine, what expositions, or deductions they are, the deniall whereof shall deserve to be punished; and againe, what, or which of either kind they are, that may be refused without danger?

Reader, give me leave to trie to cut the combe of these mens* 1.79 confidence, by propounding a Question to them. I shall not aske them, what they are? whether they be Atheists, or Devills? they may possibly have learn'd by this how to answer these Questions. But the Querie I shall put to them is this; How, or by what means, or upon what grounds they themselves CERTAINLY know, that this Opinion (which is one of those, which as hath oft been said, the Ordinance threatneth with death) viz. that God is not one in three Persons, is either a damnable heresie, or contrary to the manifest word of God, or overthrowing the foundations of Christian Religion? Cer∣taine I am, that the Scriptures, which wee vulgar and unlearned

ones call the word of God (it may be the Seraphicall Doctors, to* 1.80 whom wee now addresse, have some other word of God, which we know not of) no where affirmes, or holds forth this, that God is one in three Persons; nor doth it any where use the terme, or word, person, in reference unto God. If it be replyed and said; yea, but it plainely affirmeth, God to be One in Three: and it as plainely a∣scribeth to every of these Three, such things, which plainly evince them, to be so many Persons. I answer,

First, that my memory serves me, as ill as the Consciences and reasons of these men served their masters in drawing up their Vin∣dication, that is, quite faileth me, if the Scripture any where plain∣ly affirmeth, that God is One in Three. This certainly is a phrase, or expression, which the Scripture knoweth not. It is indeed said, concerning the Father, the VVord, and the Holy Ghost, that these three are one a 1.81. But to say, that God is one IN these, or any other, Three, is the voyce of men, not of God. Therefore these Gentlemen, can∣not reasonably or with Truth say, that they CERTAINLY know the deniall of this to be a damnable Heresie, &c. by the Scriptures, at least not by the Scriptures alone, without the mediation and interveening of their owne reasons and understandings, to draw it forth by way of inference or deduction. Now then, if the know∣ledge which they have of any conclusion, suppose it be a Truth, de∣pends, though but in part, upon the actings & workings of their own reasons and understandings, which are confessedly fallible, and very obnoxious to mistakes, especially in the things of God; un∣possible it is that this knowledge should be CERTAINE, yea though the grounds or principles, from whence they derive it, be never so CERTAINE or infallible. It is a knowne maxime in Lo∣gick; that Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem. If either of the Pre∣mises be but probable or contingent, the conclusion rais'd from them, will never be a necessary, or CERTAIN Truth. I confesse there is a great difference between deduction and deduction, inference and inference, in point of cleerenesse and satisfactorinesse to the Judgement and Conscience of a man: one may have such a kind of certainty or evidence in it in respect of him, that he is able to lay downe his life in attestation of the Truth of it, whereas (haply) he is not willing to sacrifice the least haire of his head upon the service of another; yet the greatest evidence or certainty to me in

this kind is no sufficient Argument to evince an absolute or uni∣versall* 1.82 CERTAINTY in the thing, I meane a certainty in respect of all other men, considering that (as one saith) the same things* 1.83 may seeme manifestly true to one man, which seeme manifestly false unto an∣other; nor can any man have any such assurance of another mans judgement or understanding, as that they must needs be without errour or mistake in such things, wherein himselfe remaines doubt∣full.

Secondly, how much lesse can these impatient and importune boasters of their CERTAINE knowledge, know certainly that God is One in three Persons (the denyall whereof the Ordinance threatneth with death) by the Scriptures alone, when as these no where assert it? So that (for ought I certainly know) to vindicate the CER∣TAINTIE of their knowledge in this point, they must flee to the Familists, and crave quarter with them in their Sanctuary of ex∣traordinary Revelation.

Thirdly, (and lastly, to this) confident I am, that if these great Confidentiaries of the certainty of their knowledge being three in number (if report mis-counteth not) were but dealt with upon this occasion, as those base and bloody Elders are reported in the Apocryphall story of Susanna, to have been serv'd by Daniel upon another occasion, I meane, were they presently taken and exami∣ned apart each from other, what they meane by the word, PER∣SON, when they say, God is one in three Persons, they would agree no better in their Answers, then those Elders did in theirs; but one would answer, that a Person, was a Myrtle tree; the second, a lentish tree: the third, a tyle tree; my meaning is, that no one of them would agree with either of his fellowes, in his notion or de∣finition of a PERSON. And then with what face, can these ene∣mies both of nature and Grace, require of poore, weake, simple and illiterate people, that they under paine of death, believe, that God is One in three Persons, when as themselves, who conceive they ride upon the wings of all knowledge, Learning, and understan∣ding, cannot agree among themselves what a PERSON is; or if they doe agree, it is ten to one but it is an agreement in errour, and disagreement with the Truth. Poore English soules! Were you ransomed with the precious bloud of Jesus Christ, to sell your selves under the hand and power of such hard and cruell Masters as these? But

Thirdly, I would gladly know of these Classique Authors, why,* 1.84 * 1.85 or how this should be a reason, to demonstrate, that the makers of the Ordinance must needs certainly know, that all the Opinions threatned with death in it, are damnable heresies; viz. because they are contrary to the manifest word of God, and overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion.

For first, if this be a demonstrative reason to the makers of the Ordinance, of the conclusion specified, why is it not so to all o∣thers? and particularly to those, who are supposed either for the present to hold, or at least to be in a possibility of holding, the Opinions threatned with death in the Ordinance? God forbid that I should cast the least prejudice or aspersion upon the makers of the Ordinance, whose Persons are to me altogether unknowne: I am willing to hope the best, and to judge charitably of them, as viz. that they are men truly fearing God: But yet if the strength or stresse of these mens Answer to their Syllogisme, lieth in this sup∣position, I shall crave leave (I hope without offence) to require of them a probate of it. Nor for any doubt I have of the thing; but because I doe not love to gratifie men in loose disputes. But this I confesse is no part of my charity towards them, to judge that to be demonstrative unto them, which unto others of equall capaci∣ty and understanding, if not superior, is not so much as Topi∣call, or probably concluding. Porphyrie, Julian the Apostate, with many other adversaries of Christian Religion, of great abi∣lities and Learning, knew that all, or most of the Opinions threatned with death in the Ordinance, were contrary to the manifest word of God, I meane the Scriptures, and likewise overthrowing the very founda∣tions of Christian Religion; and yet they were so farre from know∣ing CERTAINLY hereby, that they were damnable heresies, that they apprehended them not in the least, to be so much as errours. And in case any roote of this bitternesse shall at any time spring up amongst us, if any such person, one or more, shall arise in this City, or elsewhere in the Kingdome, teaching or publishing any of those perverse things (a possibility at least whereof the Ordinance it selfe supposeth) it cannot well be conc••ied, but that they must needs know them to be contrary to what these men (I suppose) call the manifest word of God, and likewise overthrowing the founda∣tions of Christian Religion; and yet if we shall suppose them to be

CERTAINLY KNOWNE unto them for damnable heresies, wee* 1.86 cannot with any good accord to this supposition, suppose they will ever hold, or publish them. Or

Fourthly, if wee shall suppose that these men, who shall, or may* 1.87 hold or publish any of those Opinions sentenced in the Ordinance, may possibly not know them to be contrary to the manifest word of God, or overthrowing the foundations of Christian Religion: how can this contrariety, or destructive nature to Religion in these Opini∣ons, be any sufficient proofe or demonstration, that the makers of Ordinance must needs CERTAINLY know them to be damnable here∣sies? That which one man living in England, is ignorant of, there is a possibility (at least) that another may be ignorant of it also. Now then if there be but so much as a possibility, that the makers of the Ordinance may not know, that the said Opinions are contrary to the manifest word of God, or destructive to Christian Religion; these ill properties in them can be no sufficient or demonstrative proofe, that they doe CERTAINLY KNOW them to be damnable heresies. For that which a man may possibly b•• ignorant of, can be no suffi∣ent ground to another, upon which to conclude any CERTAIN∣TY OF KNOWLEDGE in any point whatsoever, in such a man. If I suppose (for example) that Peter may be ignorant whether James be in London or no; I cannot conclude that Peter knowes any thing, much lesse knowes any thing CERTAINLY, by meanes of James his being in London, though it be never so true that there he is: yea, and that he hath inform'd Peter of never so many things. It is not the ground, cause, or reason of any thing which necessarily furnisheth a man with the knowledge of the thing; but the apprehension and knowledge of them, and that in their rela∣tion of causality unto the thing. So that the Vindicators are quite out, in assigning the contrariety which is in the Opinions sentenced in the Ordinance to the manifest word of God, together with their destructivenesse to the foundations of Christian Religion, as a reason or ground why the makers of the Ordinance must needs CERTAINLY know them to be damnable heresies.

Fiftly, whereas our Querie▪ opponents talke with so much pe∣remptorinesse* 1.88 and importune confidence of a CERTAINE knew∣ledge, in the Ordinance-makers (and consequently, in themselves) that the Opinions condemn'd in the Ordinance, are damnable here∣sies;

I am halfe jealous, from the aire of their confidence, that* 1.89 they understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirme a 1.90, I meane that they know not, or at least consider not, what belongs to a CERTAINTY OF KNOWLEDGE in matters of Religion, and the things of God. It is a gracious and excellent degree of perswa∣sion concerning the truth of the Gospel, and much more con∣cerning the Truth of particular Doctrines in it, when men being called to it by God, are made able and willing thereby to lay downe their lives for them, or in confirmation of them. If them∣selves have attained such a perswasion or knowledge of the Truth of Gospel-Doctrines, as this, they have cause to be thankfull, and to glorifie God abundantly in this behalfe. He hath no•• dealt so with many of his children: nor have thousands of Professors any such perswasion or knowledge of them. Yet these Gentlemen may please to understand, that such a knowledge of spirituall Truths, which is sufficient to strengthen a mans hand to die for them, may very possibly be farre from a CERTAINE knowledge of them. Wee have read and heard of man〈…〉〈…〉 who have been enabled to die, yea and have died, for some Doctrines or Opinions, out of that strength of perswasion which they had of the Truth of them, which notwithstanding wee generally know were not true. Now most certaine it is, that there can be no CERTAINE knowledge of the truth of any thing, that is false. Therefore such a knowledge or perswasion of any Gospel-Truth, which makes men willing and ready to die for it, is no sufficient proofe of a CERTAINTY in this knowledge. Which considered, that opposition between a necessity of being Scepticks in Religion, and a necessity of knowing some things certainly (which our Answer-men make in the sequell of this part of their Answer) gives no testimony at all either to their learning or understanding. For no man (I presume) will call him a Sceptick in Religion, who is so farre perswaded and con∣fidenced of what he holds in it, that he is willing and ready to die in attestation of the Truth thereof. And yet (as hath been said) such a perswasion or confidence as this, doth no wayes import a CERTAINTY of knowledge.

Sixtly, It is the common Doctrine and Opinion of those Au∣thors,* 1.91 which are generally by Protestants reputed Classique and Orthodox (though mine owne Jugdement I confesse, rather in∣clines

another way, that all other Arguments and proofes, which* 1.92 are usually (yea, or which can be) brought, to prove the Divini∣ty of the Scriptures, and the Truth of this Gospell, are but Dia∣lecticall, and probable, not demonstrative, or conclusive with∣out all feare of Truth on the other side, or however not sufficient to perswade men to a firme assent unto them. They onely allow the supernaturall and immediate worke of the Spirit * 1.93 asserting and sealing up the Truth of both in the Consciences of men, as an Argument of that Interest, I meane as an Argument demonstra∣tively and infallibly conclusive. Is it then such an hideous or enor∣mous supposition, as these men desire to informe the world in thunder and lightning; or is it at any such distance from their owne Principles, to suppose, that men may possibly not know CERTAINLY the great Truths of the Gospel, to be Truths? and consequently, not know CERTAINLY, that the opinions threatned with death in the Ordinance, are damnable heresies? Is there any thing more horrid or strange in such a supposition,

then there is in this; that God hath not by the supernaturall, in∣fallible,* 1.94 immedate worke of his Spirit, revealed and sealed up to the Consciences of many men, the unquestionable Truth of the Gospel? And is it any thing more strange to suppose this, then it is to suppose, that all men are not Kings, nor all Princes, nor all Nobles, nor all wise, nor all rich, with the like? Surely these men through the abundance of their zeale, will shortly vote it, wickednesse, blasphemie, impudence, Atheisme, Devillisme, an impiety calling for an Anathema, a delivering up unto Satan, &c. for a man to suppose or intimate, that light is not darknesse; or that darknesse is not light; that sweet is not bitter, or, that bitter is not sweet; that a mans feet are not his hands, or that his head is not his feet. The most cleere and pregnant truth is, that the in∣timation, wherewith they charge the Querie now in Sanctuarie, (and this undeservedly too) and against which they rise up in the might of their indignation, is of no more demerit, no more wor∣thy censure, then one of these; yea and that the most innocent of them, if any be suspected. Deare English soules, take heed of put∣ting a Scepter into the hands of these men. For they can be angry and become Lyons, and call eares, hornes, when they please.

By the way, before wee leave this point, I desire, by occasion of the ground lately mentioned, as the common, if not the gene∣rall, Tenet of our best and most Orthodoxe Writers, that it be taken into serious consideration; whether, or how farre it is meet to punish or censute poore miserable men, for not holding, or not asserting the Truth of those things; which they cannot come, without much labour and contention of mind, yea not without some good degree of reason and understanding too, to judge so much as probable; nor at al to come to believe or know them CER∣TAINLY, but onely by an immediate and supernaturall work of the Spirit of God? Are men to be punished, because God hath not imparted unto them his Spirit of Grace, and supernaturall il∣lumination?

Seventhly, and lastly; Neither is it true (as hath been prov'd at* 1.95 large) that all the opinions threatned with death in the Ordinance, are either contrary to the manifest word of God, or overthrowing the foun∣dations of Christian Religion. Therefore no such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or proper∣ties in them as these, can be any reason, to prove, that the makers

of the Ordinance must needs CERTAINLY know them to be damna∣ble* 1.96 heresies. For non entis, nulla est efficacia, nulla operati••. That which is not, cannot be a reason or cause, of that which i••. A mans person cannot be protected by a Castle in the aire. By the way, I suppose that by the manifest word of God, the Answerers meane, Texts, or passages, first, of such Scriptures which are ma∣nifestly, i. unquestionably, and without all dispute, the word of God. And secondly, which are capable of no other exposition, sense or meaning, but what as plainly and directly as in the very termes themselves, exhibit and give out the opinion, whether one, or more asserted by them. If they intend or meane any thing lesse then this, by their, manifest word of God, they speake snares and ambiguities: therefore in this sense I understand them, and coun∣ter-argue with them thus. First, that all the Opinions sentenced with death in the Ordinance, are not contrary to the manifest word of God, is evident by what hath been already argued, concerning this (which is one of them) viz. that God is not one in three Per∣sons a 1.97. This, how untrue or erroneous soever, in a sense, it may be, is not contrary to any manifest word of God. Nor have the Syllogis∣mers proved so much as one jot or title of this: and yet I believe they have proved as much of it, as ever they will doe, or can doe. So againe, That Christ is not God coequall with the Father (which is another of these Opinions;) neither is this contrary to any mani∣fest word of God in the sense declared: though I judge it contrary to the Truth. Probatio incumbit affirmanti: Let the assertors of it to be so, prove their assertion; but to say much, and prove little, is one of the principall pillars in their Schoole. So againe, that Christs death is not meritorious in the behalfe of believers, is another of these Opinions: I marvell what manifest word of God they will finde, unto which this is contrary. That the Scriptures are not the word of God, is another: taking the word, Scriptures, for all the bookes of the Old and New Testament, divifim and conjunctim as they are now received and acknowledged amongst us (which is the onely sense the Ordinance can reasonably meane) if they can find me any manifest word of God, whereunto this is contrary, I will in recom∣pence of such a favour, abate them three absurdities and foure, in the sequell of my examination of their Vindication. Againe* 1.98

Secondly, neither are all the said Opinions sentenced in the Ordi∣nance

with death, overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Re∣ligion.* 1.99 Taking the word, Scriptures, in the sense even now decla∣red, viz. for all, and every the bookes of the Old and New Te∣stament, this Opinion, that the Scriptures are not the word of God, doth not overthrow the foundations of Christian Religion. The book of the Revelation is Scripture, or a parcell of the Scriptures; yet was this booke for a long time together denyed to be the word of God, by far the greater part of Christians in the world; who yet remain'd unshaken in the foundations of their Religion. Luther deny∣ed the Epistle of James to be the word of God; and yet was built as strongly upon the foundations of Christian Religion, as these se∣vere Taxe-Masters themselves (no disparagement to their Faith:) Musculus himselfe so farre professeth himselfe to reverence the judgement of some of the Canonicalnesse of the latter Epistle of Peter, the two latter Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, the Epi∣stle to the Herbrewes, and the Apocalyps; yea and of some later wri∣ters also (for he speakes in the plurall number) who discanon the Epistle of Jude, that he judgeth himselfe lesse tyed or bound up in his judgement by these Scriptures, then by other. a 1.100 It were easie to adde more instances of like na∣ture. And though for my selfe, I can, and doe without sc••uple, subscribe to the Truth of this Doctrine, yea and am ready, God assisting, to die for it, that God is one in three Persons; yet I know some who denie it; who not∣withstanding this denyall, I know al∣so in part by my owne experience and acquaintance, but more fully by the testimony of others (worthy credit in as great a matter as this) to be of ex∣emplary life, fruitfull in good workes, holy, heavenly, Christian in all their Conversation; as farre as men are able to judge or discerne. Shall wee say, that such men as these, hold not the foundations of Christian Religion? But it is none of least or lowest of our Classick intrusions to umpire among the Starres (I meane the Doctrines of Christian Religion) and to determine positively and above all possibility of mistake, which

are of the first, which of the second, which of the third magni∣tude;* 1.101 and with all, to call them all by their Names; as if they knew them as exactly, as he that made them.

Besides, when the Ordinance sentenceth a denying of the Scriptures* 1.102 to be the word of God, with death; I desire to know, whether by the SCRIPTƲRES, it meaneth, the English Scriptures, or that book or rather volume of bookes, called the Bible, translated (as is said and as I believe) out of the originall, Hebrew and Greek co∣pies into the English tongue: Or, these Originall or Greek co∣pies themselves: or my third thing really differing from either of these. I suppose, it is no foundation of Christian Religion, to believe that the SCRIPTƲRES, in the first sense, are the word of God: these Rabbies themselves, doe not hold it for an Article of their Faith, that God spake to his Prophets, or Apostles in English; no nor yet that our English Translation doth agree in all things with the true sense and meaning of the Originalls. If they doe be∣lieve either of these, I must thus farre professe my selfe an Anti-si∣dian to them. If by the SCRIPTƲRES, the Ordinance meaneth, the Originall Hebrew and Greek copies, out of which the English Bible is said to be translated; I desire to know, upon what grounds, either of Reason, or Religion, these men, or any others, can re∣quire of men under the paine of death, yea under the paine of e∣ternall death a 1.103, to believe such writings to be the word of God, the matter, or contents wherof they neither know, nor are capable of knowing, upon any better termes of assurance (I meane in an or∣dinary way of providence) then the testimony, Common Report, or Authority of men? For what other or better assurance, can plaine and unlearned men, and such who are altogether ignorant of the originall Languages, and not in any capacity of learning them (which is the case of thousand thousands in the Land) at∣taine or come unto, that such and such things, as the English Translation presenteth unto them, are contained in those Origi∣nall Copies? Yea in case they were expert in the Originall Lan∣guages themselves, according to what is called expertnesse or skil∣fulnesse in them at this day; what other, or what better assurance can they have, then the Testimony and Authority of those men, from or by whom they have gained this knowledge, that this skill or knowledge of theirs is according to the Truth; or that those

respective significations, meanings, importances of words and* 1.104 phrases, which they have learned from men, are the very same with those, which the Pen-men of their Originall Copies inten∣ded respectively in their writings? It is well knowne amongst Scholars, and men but of ordinary reading, that words and phra∣ses in other Languages, by continuance of time and succession of generations, lose their primitive and ancient force and significa∣tions, and contract such, which are very much differing from them. Many instances might be given hereof both in the Latine tongue, and our owne: but I leave this for men, the face of whose studies is set towards such observations. And put the case there were no such mortality as wee speake of in the significations and importances of words, but that they also were yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever; yet the Scholler can have no better assurance then his Masters honesty or word, that he is taught by him accor∣ding to the best of his skill or knowledge; except (haply) it be the concurrent testimony of other Teachers in the same Professi∣on; whose words and testimonies are but of the same line of fal∣libility, with his. So then, the holding the Scriptures to be the word of God, in either of these two senses, or significations of the word, can with no tolerable pretext or colour, be called a foundation of Christian Religion; unlesse their foundations be made of the cre∣dits, Learnings, and Authorities of men. If the Ordinance intend∣eth any third sense, of the word, SCRIPTƲRES, when it threat∣neth the denyall of them to be the word of God, with death; these undertakers for the Innocencie of it, shall doe well to declare and explain this sense, and not to leave it as a Lyon hid in a thicker, to break out upon, and destroy those that passe by at unawares.

Thus have wee prov'd at large, that the two legs, on which* 1.105 the Anti-Querists Answer to their second Argument stands, to be but two sticks covered with rotten or proud flesh, and this skin'd over onely with a superficiall or washie colour of Reason; and consequently, that the said Argument remaineth still in full force, strength, and vertue; and so the Querie, from whence it was drawne, to be impregnable, honest, sober, and harmelesse, as well in the proposall, as consideration of it, no wayes unbecomming the wisdome, gravity, or zeale of a sound Christian. As for that distinction which they subjoyne, concerning a mans being infalli∣ble,

I cannot likely thinke but that they are self-condemned in it.* 1.106 For surely they could not imagine, that the Querie speaks of any absolute or universall infallibility; or that the Querist doth not partake so farre in common sense with the Anti-Querists them∣selves, as to know, that an infallibility in discerning some one thing from another, doth not necessarily require an universall or infi∣nite infallibility? And th••fore to what purpose come they forth with this grave Aphorisme; that •••••• may certainely know some things, and yet not be infallible in all things? Had it not been a say∣ing of as much savour, if they had said; certainly men may be worth an hundred pound in estate, though they be not worth a thousand; a Sparrow may be as big as a Partrich, though it be not as big as a Swan. And yet notwithstanding, though they build their Answers with such hey & stubble as these, they must needs glory o∣ver the work of their hands with this acclamati••n; Thus this second Querie is sufficiently answered, &c. Surely the word, SƲFFICIENT∣LY, in these mens Dialect, imports the manner of all actings and pleadings for the High-Presbyterian cause: so that whatsoever they shall say, or argue in order unto this, it receives this modifica∣tion from betweene the efficient, and the end; it is SƲFFICI∣ENTLY argued and prov'd. May they no•• (in a manner) as well pretend and say, when they have onely cited those first words in Genesis, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, that they have by this Scripture SƲFFICIENTLY proved the Jus Divinum of Presbytery; as make their boast, that they have SƲFFICIENTLY answered my second Querie with those impertinent, weake, reason∣lesse, truth-lesse allegations (as hath been abundantly proved) of which this Answer (so called) is made? But as it was in that old saying amongst the Romans, between their two Captaines, that Ode••••••u•• conquered, but Gallienus triumphed: so is it between the pre∣sent Syllogisme, and the Answer to it: The Syllogisme con∣quers, and the Answer triumpheth. Oh England, my heart is in∣larged towards thee, and I will open my mouth proportionably un∣to thee: Take heed of the grand Imposture, of this word, SƲF∣FICIENTLY, in the writings, and in the teachings of thy Teach∣ers: they have learned, to call their chaffe, wheat: and to say of stones, that they are bread.

But in what degree these men were straightned for want of rea∣son,* 1.107

in answering their owne Argument, they are inlarged in* 1.108 passion against my Querie. But what? were they so super-super∣latively incens'd against it, because they were able to make no better worke of answering it? Or di•• th•• spirit of it touch the apple of their eye, and so through the extream••ty of the paine, their ima∣ginations suffered, yea and their Consciences also, through a con∣sent and sympathie with the part affected? But whatsoever the true cause of the accident is; I verily believe, that never did there such a flood of prophane and senselesse passion, breake out of the spirits of men that were called Christian, from the first day of this Denomination in the world, to this very houre, as these men poure out upon a Querie, whose innocencie, (I say not, weight and worth) hath been vindicated upon such grounds of evidence and Truth, that the light of the Sunne is not more ap∣parent at noone-day, then it. Were not the Fountaines of the great deep of Corruption within them all broken up, when this Deluge of bitter waters issued from them? And as Joshua, that he and the people with him might be avenged of their enemies, spake unto the Sunne and Moone to stand still; Sunne, stand thou still upon Gi∣beon; and thou, Moone, in the valley of Ajalon a 1.109; so did not these men, their hearts being set to take revenge upon the Querist, when they girded themselves to the worke, commanded their reasons and consciensces to stand still, and cease from their motions; each of them respectively directing themselves to their own, and saying, Reason, stand thou still over passion; and thou, Conscience, in the valley of Indignation, untill wee have avenged our selves in fire and brimstone upon our enemies, that Arch-Enemy of our most beloved Designes? But if in the day of their Answer, (I meane, in the Rationall part of it) we found nothing but night and dark∣nesse; can wee hope in the night thereof, I meane the passionate part of it, to find day, or so much as the dawnings of reason, truth, or understanding? I had once thoughts of speaking particularly to every straine and passage herein: but upon more mature debate with my self about the undertaking, I considered, that in case I were an Engineere, I should doe but childishly, to load a Cannon only to batter a mushrome, or a bubble which children raise with soape and spittle out of a nut-shell.

And thus our second Querie, that great abomination of Clas∣sick

soules, hath fully recovered her selfe out of those fogges and* 1.110 mists, which partly by the ignorance, partly by the ill will of her adversaries, were spread round about her, and shines in perfect beau∣tie; being onely troubled and full of sorrow for this; that ever shee should be an occasion to men pretending to Religion, of so much rebuke and shame, as must needs fall upon those who have oppo∣sed her.* 1.111

Their third Argument rejoyceth against their Answer given to it, because this also is built upon sandy foundations. As 1. that to be called Rabbi, is to require men to beleeve that which they teach them, meerly because they teach it without any Authoritie from God in his Word. This is a most strange, and truthlesse saying; and excuseth Scribes and Pharisees, (and who not?) from ever desiring to be called Rabbi. For certainly none of these were ever so simple, as to require men to beleeve that which they taught them, MEERLY because they taught it without any Authoritie from God in his word. There was none of them all, but pretended Authoritie from God in his word, for what they taught; but especially, it is the first-borne of incredibilities, that they should require men to beleeve what they taught them, upon this ground, MEERLY because they taught it without any Authoritie from God in his word. Can it enter into the heart of a man, especial∣ly of any man that professeth the service of the true God, and be∣liefe of the Scriptures, to thinke honorably of his Teacher, MEER∣LY and simply because he teacheth without any Authoritie from God in his word? Certainly if the Scribes and Pharisees had fish'd with this baite, especially amongst the Jewes, for the acclamations of Rabbi, they had caught nothing but contempt and shame in stead thereof. Therefore for men to enjoyne or compell men to call them Rabbi, is (in the sence of the Querie, & in the Scripture import of the phrase) either to enjoyne them (especially under any penaltie, as of their dis-favour, or the dis-favour of God, or otherwise) to receive or beleeve any Doctrine, as the Truth of God, because they teach it for such, viz. either as a true Interpretation of, or deduction from the word of God, whether they give any sufficient account that it is either the one, or the other, unto those, on whom they impose upon such terms, this tribute of beliefe; or else to prohibit them, on the like terms, the holding and maintaining of such or such Do∣ctrines, because they judge them to be contrary to the word of God,

without giving any sufficient account or reason unto the prohibi∣ted,* 1.112 to prove them so. Now I querie the Anti-Querists, whether the makers of the Ordinance doe not in this sence, compell men to call them Rabbi; i. Whether they doe not prohibit men under pe∣nalties, and those most grievous, from holding forth such and such Doctrines, as being contrary to the word of God, without giving any sufficient account (or indeed any at all; that I say not, with∣out being able to give any that is sufficient) unto the persons thus prohibited, that they are indeed contrary to this word.

2. The Answer now under correction, is polluted with this un∣cleane* 1.113 supposition; viz. that the makers of the Ordinance doe no∣thing else therein, that can be interpreted a desire to be called Rabbi, then to charge men that they teach no other Doctrine, then what the word of God holds forth, and the Prophets and Apostles have taught a 1.114. Most unworthy men! First, there is not one jot or tittle of any such charge as this in the Ordinance. 2. There is that in the Ordinance (which was even now mentioned) which in the strictest and most proper sence of the phrase, is to compell men to call them Rabbi; and this of no affinitie at all with the tenour or substance of such a charge. And whereas it further addeth; that if any Church-Censures be to be used for any matter of Doctrine, this will be as much to force men to call them Rabbi, as the Civill Magistrates making this Ordinance, forces any to call them Rabbi: I answer, this assertion or comparison is true, onely with this explication, viz. when any Church-Censure shall be used for any matter of Doctrine, without any sufficient account given by this Church of the erroneousnesse of this Doctrine, unto the person, or persons, against whom the censure shall passe. In this case, Church-Censures for matters of Doctrine, and the Ordinance∣censures, are much of one and the same consideration▪

3. As this Answer saith, that for the proofe of the minor, it is nothing else, but a reiteration in other language of the former blasphemies against the Doctrine of God and Christ, belched out in the former Querie, and needs no other answer then that; so say I of this assertion; it is nothing else but a reiteration in fewer words, of those truth-lesse, reason-lesse, sap-lesse, sence-lesse imputations, belched out against that Querie, and needs no other Answer, then what hath been already at large gi∣ven to it. But

4. (And lastly) This Answer is a most notorious Delinquent* 1.115

against the truth, in asserting, that those that have any sence of Religi∣on,* 1.116 know (whether the Magistrate should recommend them, or not) those Doctrines (viz. which are any wayes sentenced in the Ordinance; for the Querie, on which this Argument pretends to be built, que∣ries concerning all the Doctrines specified in the Ordinance) to be the sacred Truths of God, as being the KNOWNE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITIE, and clearly to be proved out of the word of God. Certainly there have bin and are, thousand thousands in the world, who have had as rich and deep a sence of Religion, as our Anti-Que∣rie-masters themselves, who never esteemed, either the Government of the Church by Presbyterie, or the lawfulnesse of Baptizing Infants, or the being of the Churches of England, true Churches, (with many Doctrines more punishable by the Ordinance) to be any of the known principles of Christianitie. Nay did there any untill now, even among those whose judgements stood for Church-Government by Presbyterie, or that held the Churches of England to be true Churches, ever assert these for the knowne Principles of Christianitie? That N. B. ought to be Parson, or Pastor of the Parish-Church of D; or that M. N. ought to stand in the same relation to the Parish-Church of another D. are not these also the knowne Principles of Christianitie? O Church, or Churches of England, be ye true, or be ye false; as you love the things of your peace, look out better Oracles then such Teachers as these, to consult with about the Principles of your Christianitie.

In their fourth Argument, as likewise in their Answer to it, they* 1.117 take no notice at all, of what the Querie honestly desired to re∣mind them, viz. of any dying themselves for the maintenance and de∣fence of their Religion; but onely of putting others to death for th••se ends. I hope they do not intimate hereby, that their lives are dear∣er to them, then their Religion, though other mens lives be not. Well, but how doe they prove that it is Christian to maintaine Reli∣gion by putting others to death? (though they know not, it seemes, what to say of maintaining it by dying themselves.) Their proof is that staple commoditie in the Classiq••e Trade, viz. the Law of God in the old Testament, which commanded false Prophets, and Blasphemers, and those that seduce to Idolatrie to be put to death. But if I should goe about to prove, that the man Moses is now alive, by this argument, viz. be∣cause he was alive under the old Testament, should I not spread a table of mirth for these men? Or if I should goe about to prove,

that such or such an habit, is of the French fashion, because it is of* 1.118 the Spanish, would they approve my Logique? If they did, I should scarce approve of their approbation. And is there any better sinew in their reasoning, wherein they prove a thing to be Christian, be∣cause it is Jewish? Yea, but they were aware of this exception, and way-layed it thus. This Law of God given under the old Testament, for putting false Prophets, Blasphemers, and seducers to Idolatrie, to death, is still in force, even for the maintenance of Religion. But how doe they prove this? thus: because the reason which God gives of such a Law, is this; that all the people may heare and feare, and doe no more so wickedly. Deut. 13. 11. The ground upon which this reason stands, and must be made Orthodox, (if there be any such thing in it) is this; that whilst the reason of any Commandement or Law takes place, or is in force, the Law or Commandement it selfe, grounded upon that reason, must take place, and be in force also. But of how ill a com∣pliance such a reason or assertion as this, is with the Truth, will suf∣ficiently appeare by these parallels; Abraham received the signe of Cir∣cumcision, a seale of the righteousnesse of Faith a 1.119; i. in the nature of a seale, or, that it might be a seale, unto him, and his posteritie, of the righteousnesse of Faith. But this end of Circumcision, the sealing of the righteousnesse of Faith, still takes place; i. it is still necessary, that the righteousnesse of Faith be sealed unto men. Therefore Circumcision, or the Law commanding Circumcision, is still in force. Take another; God commanded the children of Israel under the old Testament, to make them fringes in the border of their garments, thoroughout their generati∣ons (there is no such clause as this in the Law for putting blasphe∣mers or Idolaters to death, for the perpetuation of it,) and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue; And that it should be unto them for a fringe, that they might look upon it, and remember all the Commandements of the Lord, and doe them, and that they seek not after their own heart, and their own eyes b 1.120. But the end of these fringes, and of the looking of them, viz. the remembring of all the Commandements of the Lord, and the doing of them, and the not seeking after our own heart, or eyes, takes place, and is still in force under the New Testament. Therfore the commandement which enjoyns them for such an end, is still in force: and consequently the Anti-Querists ought to weare fringes with a ribband of blue upon their garments.

If it be here answered and said; it's ••••ue, the Lawes enjoyning* 1.121

Ceremonies, or things typicall, as Circumcision and fringes were,* 1.122 though the end of them still takes place, and remaines under the New Testament, yet the Commandements themselves, and the Ceremonies or typicall things commanded, are abolished by Christ; but the putting of Idolaters, blasphemers, false Prophets to death, are not Ceremonies, or things typicall; Therefore the Lawes injoyn∣ing these may remaine in force, though the other be abolished; and the rather, because their end (as hath been said) remaineth. But for Answer,

1. Be it so; that these latter commands were not abrogated by Christ, (though the Truth will appeare on the other side) yet the Gentlemens reason urged for their non-abrogation, is lame; viz. that their end is still in force. If this were a sufficient reason for the non-abrogation of a Law, those other Lawes enjoyning Ceremo∣nies, would be still in force, and as much un-abrogated, as these; their ends (as hath been proved) remaining in force, as well as the end of these. And these Gentlemen (I make no question) know by this time, that they are in a Logique premunire in this argument, as being guilty of treason against that soveraigne Maxime; A quatenus, ad de omni, efficax est illatio. And yet the truth is, that if the continu∣ance of the ends in force, of those Lawes they speake of under the old Testament, be altogether impertinent and insufficient (as wee have shewed it is) to evince a still-standing, or a non-abrogation of the Lawes themselves; I know not how to relieve them in this case, nor where to finde a reason better colouring with such a sup∣position. But

2. Neither is it such a Sun-shine Truth, to say that the punish∣ments enjoyned by God under the Old Testament, were not typi∣call. Certaine I am, that the Apostle Paul, having spoken particu∣larly of severall punishments executed by God upon his people un∣der the Old Testament, upon the occasion concludes thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. All these [things, or, punishments] befell them as types a 1.123. And as the common opinion (I suppose of these Divines themselves) is, that the promises made unto the Jews, of the Land of Canaan, and externall happinesse and peace there, in the Old Testament, were typicall, as well as literall, carnall, historicall, whereas the promises made unto the Churches of God under the New Testament, are generally more spirituall, having lesse of the

Earth, and more of Heaven in them; So if I shall say, that the* 1.124 threatenings, or punishments also enjoyned by God then, (I meane under the Leviticall Law) to be inflicted in his Church upon de∣linquents, were more bodily, and afflictive to the outer man, then the punishments enjoyned under the Gospel, and consequently, were not onely carnall or bodily, but typicall also, and presignificative of those greater and more spirituall in the Gospel; I say, if I should reason thus à comparatis, I beleeve I should receive no better answer to my Argument from my Classique Antagonists, then I have done to my Queries in their Vindication. For certainly, the Analogie is savourie and Scripture-like: that as God, when he discovered and opened Heaven more then he had done formerly, thought good to put more of it, and of things relating to it, and lesse of the Earth, and of the things thereof, into those promises of his, by which he now intended to gather in the world unto him; in like manner, when he had discovered Hell also, and the dreadfull terror thereof, farre beyond all former discoveries, that he should put more of it, and of things relating to it, and lesse of outward or bodily suffer∣ings, into those threatenings or punishments, by which his purpose was to vindicate the Gospel, with the Grace thereof from disobe∣dience and contempt in his Churches. Cutting off from his people, un∣der the Law, is exchanged, for casting out from his people, under the Gospel. And if the expression of cutting off, be any where found in the Gospel, it is metaphoricall, and allusive onely to the usuall man∣ner of dealing with, or at least of threatening offenders under the Law; being such a figurative expression, as that wherein Beleevers, are called Priests a 1.125; and their distributions, or almes-deeds, Sacri∣fices b 1.126.

3. There is this cleere reason, why that Old Testament Law, for* 1.127 the putting of false Prophets, Blasphemers, and seducers to Idolatrie, to death, should not now be in force upon any such terms as it was, when, and where it was given; because in all difficult cases that hap∣pened about matters of Religion, the Jewes to whom this Law was given, had the opportunitie of immediate consultation with the mouth of God himselfe; who could, and did from time to time, in∣fallibly declare what his own mind and pleasure was in them. So that except those that were to give sentence in cases of Religion, had been desperately wicked, and set upon bloud, and had despised that

glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God amongst them, they could* 1.128 not doe injustice; because God himselfe was alwayes at hand, to declare unto them what was meet to be done; and what kinde of Blasphemer, and so what kinde of Idolater particularly it was, that he by his Law intended should be put to death. Whereas now, the best ••••acles that Magistrates and Judges have to direct them in doubtfull cases abou•• matters of Religion, are men of very fallible judgements, and every wayes obnoxious unto error and mistake. Yea confident I am, that the wisest and most learned of them, are not able cleerly or demonstratively to informe the Magistrate or Judge, what Blasphemy, or what Idolatrie it was, which was by God sentenced to death under the Law. I cannot but think that they will (for acquaintance sake) be mercifull unto that Idolatrie, (and not vote with the old Law against it) which yet the Apostle Paul condemnes, and commands to be mortified, (Col. 3. 5.) And for ma∣ny other things or practises, which are commonly called Idolatrie, and so (I question not) voted by these men; I must (for conscience sake) so farre be mercifull unto them, as not to judge them neither sentenced by God to death in that Law. And for that Blasphemie, which was made punishable with death by this Law; some of the Jewes restraine it onely to the naming or expressing of the Name Jehovah; others of them, extend it no further then to the naming of this, and that other Name of God, Adonai ^c. I presume that our Anti-Querie-masters themselves doe not judge the naming of either the one, or the other, or both of these Names, to be a Blasphemie worthy death: no nor yet to be the Blasphemie sentenced by God to death under the Law. Where our English Translation readeth, Blasphemeth, And whosoever shall blaspheme the Name of the Lord, (Le∣vit. 24. 16.) The Chaldee translateth, expresseth: the Septuagint, nameth; (which they doe also, vers. 11. a 1.129) Junius and Tremellius reade the clause thus: Qui verò execratur nomen Jehovae, i. But who so curseth the Name of Jehovah. So that it seemes the greatest Doctors, both of Jewes and Gentiles, differ, and are at a losse, the light of their great learning notwithstanding, about the nature, qualitie, or kinde of that Blasphemie, which was by God made punishable with death in his Law. But our Anti-Querists (it seemes) are wiser then either Jewes or Gentiles. Therefore to goe about to prove, that the Law for putting Blasphemers, and seducers to Idolatrie to death, is now,

or amongst us in force, because it was once given unto the Jewes;* 1.130 is as if I should prove, that a man may safely and without danger walke among bogges, and precipices, and ditches at midnight, be∣cause he may well doe it at noone-day.

4. They that will have the ancient Law for putting Blasphemers* 1.131 and Idolaters to death, to be now in force, by vertue of that ••••ncti∣on or promulgation which it received from God under the Old Te∣stament, must consequently hold, that it is in force, not simply as to the inflicting of death upon the offenders, but in all other parti∣culars also that were commanded by the same Authoritie with this. As 1. the person tempted to Idolatrie, must not conceale the temp∣ter, be he brother, sonne, daughter, wife, friend, never so d••are, but must kill him himselfe; for so the Law run••; But THOV shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death a 1.132. 2. Though he must kill him himselfe, yet it must be with the joynt concurrence and assistance of all the people; for so it follows in the Law: And afterwards the hand of all the people b 1.133. 3. Nor must he kill him after any manner, nor with any kinde of death; but with stones onely. For so saith the Law: And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die c 1.134. 4. Not onely the seducer unto Idolatrie, but even the seduced themselves, especially if they be a whole Citie, must be put to death. The Law is as expresse in this, as in any of the former. Thou shalt surely smite the Inhabitants of that Citie with the edge of the sword d 1.135. 5. Not onely the inhabitants of this Citie must be slaine, but the cattell also therein. The Law is punctuall in this also. And the cattell therein with the edge of the sword e 1.136. 6. Not the men and beasts onely must be slaine, but the Citie it self must be utterly r••••'d, ruin'd, destroyed: Destroying it utterly (saith the Law) and all that is therein f 1.137. 7. This Citie must be an heap for ever, and never built a∣gaine g 1.138. These are the plaine words of the Law. 8. (And lastly) it was not lawfull to preserve any thing, though never so little, of the stuffe or goods belonging to this Citie; but it was, even every whit of it to be burnt with fire. And thou shalt gather (saith Moses) all the spoyle of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burne with fire the Citie, and all the spoyle thereof, every whit h 1.139. So then, if the men with whom we have to doe, will needs raise the dead unto life, and give present vigor and force to the Commandement of God under the Old Law for putting Blasphemers and Idolaters to death; I must say

unto them, as Paul saith to the Galatians in the case of Circum∣cision;* 1.140 For I testifie againe (saith he) to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to doe the whole Law a 1.141. In like manner if men will urge the Law for putting those oft-named Offenders unto death, as being still in force, they make themselves debtors, to require and urge the execution of this whole Law, in all the particularities and circumstances thereunto belonging, as they have been mentioned. For who hath any power to make an Election and Reprobation a∣mongst the Commandements of God, where God himselfe hath made none? Or to say unto him, in this, or in that wee will obey thee, but in a third, and a fourth, we must be excused? Is this the Divinitie, and conscience of these men? If therefore there be no perswading of them, but that the said Offenders must needs die by vertue of that Law so oft specified, let them first provide and presse it as matter of dutie and conscience upon the Magistrate or Judge, that they die no other death, then by stones: 2. In case them∣selves shall at any time be the accusers of such persons, they must make conscience of it to be the executioners likewise of death upon them themselves, or with their own hands. 3. They must enjoyne all the people to joyne with them in the execution; and so goe a∣long in all the other particulars, teaching for Doctrines, and pres∣sing for duties, all the respective branches of the Law, as they have been presented from the Scriptures. For the Commandement of God is expresse and strict in this behalfe. Yee shall not adde unto the word which I command you, neither shall yo•• diminish ought from it, that yee may keep the commandements of the Lord your God, which I command you b 1.142. Which cleerly implieth, that they doe not keep the commande∣ments of God, who maime and mangle them, who take and leave of them at their pleasures. The men we speake of, making somewhat of the Law contended about, to be in force, and some things of it, not; make this Law of God like unto a man struck with a dead palsie, who hath one half of himselfe alive, and the other half dead; or like those imperfect animals, that were bred of the slime and mud which the Deluge le••t behinde it, as the Poet describeth them.

Altera pars vivit, rudis est par•• altera tellus,

i.

One part's alive; the other, dead lumpish Earth.

Yea, these men by umpiring the commands of God as they doe, make themselves as so many Nebuchadnezzars amongst them;

who acted that power which he had on earth upon such terms, that* 1.143 (as the Prophet Daniel told his Son) whom he would, be slew, and whom he would, be kept alive: and whom he would, he set up, and whom he would, he put downe a 1.144. Oh England, if thy Teachers claime and exercise this arbitrarie power over the Precepts and Commande∣ments of God, take thou heed of their Kingdome. But

5. Those particularities which have been mentioned, a•• an∣nexed* 1.145 unto, and co-injoyned with the commandement for putting Idolaters and Blasphemers to death, (with some others) as, 1. the kind of death, viz. by stoning: 2. the enjoyning the accuser, to be the first in the execution, and that with his own hands. 3. The slay∣ing of the cattell also with the sword. 4. The burning of the stuffe or goods of the offenders with fire, and that every whit, (with the rest;) these (I say) doe sufficiently intimate, that the Law or Com∣mandement it selfe, was appropriate unto the Nation of the Jewes, and not intended for other Churches, States, or Kingdomes, under the Gospel: none of which ever practised, or thought themselves bound in conscience to practise any of them: nor indeed had any sufficient ground, whereon to judge themselves bound in conscience to practise them; no nor yet were any of them ever taught by any of their Teachers, though many of these were resolute enough for that Church-Government, which now acteth with so much impa∣tiency for her exaltation.

6. If the obligation of the Mosaicall Law for putting Blasphe∣mers, Idolaters, &c. to death, was intended by God to continue un∣der the New Testament, why was the Apostle Paul, so farre from enjoyning a beleeving Brother, to detect, or to put to death, his infi∣dell, or Idolatrous wife, that he doth not permit him so much as to put her away from him, in case shee please to dwell with him b 1.146? And why doth ••e not enjoyne the beleeving wife, to seek to take away the life of her Idolatrous or unbeleeving Husband, according to the Law, but on the contrary requires of her not to le••ve him, if he be pleased to dwell with her? Certainly this Doctrine of the Apostle holds no tolerable correspondency with the opinion of our severe Inquisitors, about the non-abrogation of the Law for putting Ido∣laters to death.

7. If the Law in Question, was by the in••e•••• of God, the Law∣giver,* 1.147 to continue in its native vigour and force under the New Te∣stament,

then was every person in an Idolatrous State or King∣dome,* 1.148 whilst it remained wholly Idolatrous, bound thereby, to seek the death one of another, yea and to destroy one another with their own hande. Yea the civill Magistrate was bound to sentence all his Subjects that practised Idolatry, to death, without exception; and consequently to make a bloudy desolation thoroughout all his do∣minions. To pretend, that the said Law takes hold onely of Chri∣stian Magistrates, and binds them to the execution mentioned, not on Magistrates whilst they are yet Heathen; is a ridiculous pretence. For what dutie soever belongs unto a Magistrate, as such, belongs to every Magistrate, of what capacitie or condition soever he be o∣therwise. Or if the pretence were admitted as legitimate, yet would not the absurditie be at all healed by it, but rather heightened. Because even then it would follow, that in case the Supreme Magi∣strate in an Idolatrous State or Kingdome, were first converted to the Christian saith, he were bound by vertue of this his conversion, to destroy the lives of all his subjects without exception, whom the present case are supposed to be all Idolaters. If it be said; yea, but he ought first to instruct and admonish them, and by all good means to endeavour to reclaime them from their Idolatrie: If after suffici∣ent meanes used in this kinde, they shall still persist in their Idola∣tries, then he is to put the said Law in Execution. I answer; there is no such clause of mitigation or respit, as this, in the said Law; but the Idolater, and the Blasphemer, were forthwith, upon the truth of the fact evidenced by witnesses, to be put to death a 1.149. There∣fore if this Law be still in force, it must be put in execution with∣out any such explication, or reserve: the addition of such an inter∣pretation makes a new Law, and doth not establish, but rather dis∣anulleth the old, as if it were weake and unprofitable.

8. If the said Law be in force under the Gospel, then were belee∣vers* 1.150 in Idolatrous States and Kingdoms, upon their respective con∣versions to the Christian Faith, bound to accuse their neighbours being Idolaters, and Blasphemers, round about them, before the Magistrate, especially if he were Christian; and to require the exe∣cution of this Law of God upon them, i. to have them put to death. Whereas the Gospel requires a quite contrary deportment in Chri∣stians towards such, viz. that which was loving and harmlesse, and apt to gaine upon them, and to perswade them into the Christian

Faith. That yee walk honestly towards those that are without a 1.151. And* 1.152 againe: Walk in wisdome towards those that are without b 1.153. As wee have opportunitie, let ƲS DOE GOOD ƲNTO ALL MEN, especially, &c c 1.154. Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speake against you, as evill doers, they may by your good workes which they shall behold, glorifie God in the day of visitation d 1.155. So that it is so farre from being the dutie of Christians to seeke the destruction of the lives, either of Idolaters or Blasphemers under the Gospel, by accu∣sing them unto the Magistrate for either of these crimes, that there is a solemne engagement laid upon them by God to seek the salva∣tion of their soules. Yea that Ecclesiastique or Church-punishment which the Gospel it selfe inflicts upon such offenders, is in speciall manner calculated by God for the saving of their soules e 1.156.

9. (And lastly) If it should be granted, that all and every the* 1.157 Lawes hitherto contested about, as well that for putting to death the false Prophet, as those for inflicting the like punishment upon the Ido∣later and Blasphemer, were still in force under the Gospel, yet what is this to the justification of the Ordinance; at least in farre the grea∣test part of it? Is there any thing in any of these Lawes, which so much as coloureth, much lesse cotteneth, either with the inflicting of death upon those that shall erre any of these errors, though very dangerous in their kinde, as that the bodies of men shall not rise after they be dead, or that there is no judgement after death, or that Christ is not God coequall with the Father, with divers others, which the said Ordinance threateneth with death, if published; or with the in∣flicting of imprisonment upon those, that shall hold and maintaine, either that the Churches of England are not true Churches, or that the Church-Government by Presbyterie is unlawfull, or that a man by nature hath no free will to turne to God, with severall others of like conside∣ration, no whit more favoured by the Ordinance? Evident it is, that the Great Sect or partie among the Jewes, which are called Sadduces, with their Disciples, held and maintained publiquely, those Great Errors or Heresies; 1. That there is neither Angel, nor Spirit; 2. That there is no Resurrection of the dead f 1.158, (which is one of the opinions made death by the Ordinance,) yea and (as some lear∣ned Authors report) rejected all the Prophets besides Moses. And yet these were not onely tolerated amongst them, and not put to death, but they were in equall credit and esteeme with those of

sounder judgement in these points; yea and had great Interest, not* 1.159 in the common sort of men onely, but also in those who were in chiefe places of power and Authoritie a 1.160. The Scribes and Pharisees also both held and taught many most dangerous and erroneous Doctrines, yea such by which (as our Saviour himselfe chargeth them) they made the Commandements of God of none eff••ct b 1.161. Yet were these also in great honour and esteeme in this Church and State. And though our Saviour upon occasion reasoned against, yea and reprov'd them all, for holding and teaching these errors, and gave warning unto the people to take heed of them; yet did he never charge this Church or State, or those that bare office in either, with sin, or unfaithfulnesse in their places, for not proceeding against them, in regard of their errors, either by imprisonment, or death. And yet we know, that the zeale of his Fathers house did eate him up; and that he attempted a Reformation amongst them, especially in matters of Religion, and the worship of God, with an high hand of zeale, wisdome, and Authoritie c 1.162; Yea, as Solomon spake of trees, from the Cedar that is in Lebanon, even unto the hyssope that springeth out of the wall d 1.163; so did Christ teach and presse upon men, all, and all manner of duties, from judgement, mercy, and faith, (the mightie things of the Law) even unto the paying tithe of mint, anise, and cum∣min e 1.164. Therefore by the false Prophet, who was commanded to be put to death, Deut. 13. 5. was not meant every Heretique, or erroneous person, (as men in these dayes count heresie and error; who sen∣tence every opinion, which opposeth, either their ease, or their ho∣nour, or their profit, either as the one, or the other) nor yet those who taught or published any false doctrine, though of dangerous consequence; but onely those, who endeavoured to perswade men to the worship of a false God; and that by affirming, that they spake by the inspiration of some deitie, and that their sayings were to be esteemed Oracles. What doctrine it was, which made the Prophet or Teacher of it guiltie of death, is expresly determined in the Law it self, and asserted to be this; Let us goe after other Gods, which thou hast not knowne, and let us serve them f 1.165. And that the Law of God made against false Prophets, and worshippers of false Gods, was not intended against those, who otherwise held that the Law of God was to be kept, but were infected with some other error, is sufficient∣ly evident from hence; because in former times among the Jews, who

were affected with a vehement love and zeale towards their Law,* 1.166 Heretiques notwithstanding (as hath been already observed) were tolerated; and particularly the Sadduces, (of whose errors and heresies we spake before.) These, although the greatest part both of the People and the Rulers beleeved them to erre exceedingly, ne∣verthelesse they were not expelled the Citie, neither exempted from being Magistrates, or bearing any other civill office: yea they were not hindered from coming to the Temple or the Synagogues.

All these things considered, I referre it to the arbitrement of all men of understanding, whether of the first, second, or third degree, whether our Anti-Querie-men, or their complices, who so passio∣nately rejoyce over the old Law for putting false Prophets, Idolaters, and Blasphemers to death, as if it countenanced their occupation, of traducing, troubling, molesting, persecuting, even the Saints of God themselves, for holding and professing such opinions, which they are pleas'd to call errors or heresies; whether (I say) the said Law hath any more communion with such practises or proceedings, then light hath with darknesse, or Christ with Belial. And yet this Law is the first-borne of their strength, whereby they edifie them∣selves in this Doctrine of violence and bloud. O Church of England, and you that number your selves amongst the members thereof, be∣ware of men, I meane your Teachers, lest they become Jewes unto you, and goe about to perswade you, that they have a Law; and that by their Law Christ himselfe ought to die a 1.167.

They faulter in their Answer to their fift and sixt argument, (as* 1.168 they call it) first, by affirming, or, which is equivalent to it, cleerly supposing, that stratagems, methods, and waies of violence and bloud, (viz. so ordered, and put in execution upon such occasions, as the Ordinance directeth; for except this be their meaning, they answer nothing to the purpose, nor at all to the Querie) are those wayes which God himselfe commanded to be used for the support of the true Re∣ligion. This we have lately proved to be notoriously false. God ne∣ver commanded any violence to be used, nor any bloud to be shed, nor any civill penalty to be inflicted, for any error, or misprision in judgement about matters of Religion; but onely in case of seducti∣on to the worship of false Gods; which notwithstanding the Ordi∣nance doth not at all touch or mention. Whereas they adde, as soone as they had any civill Magistrates, they speake like themselves, that is,

unlike men of much understanding. For 1. who doe they meane by* 1.169 this Pronoune, THEY? wee have no substantive, one or more anteceding, unto which it can relate, but onely Papists, or wicked men. And did God himself command those wayes of violence and bloud, which the Ordinance insisteth upon, to be used by either of these for the support of true Religion, as soone as they had any civill Magistrates? Tight Divinitie! Secondly, if by the pronoune, THEY, they meane the Jewes (which seems to be their meaning) I wonder, and would willingly learne, how long it was, after the pretended Command given unto them for the support of true Religion, before they had Civill Magistrates? because these learned Clerks suppose some Interim. Doubtlesse they had Moses, both before, and when, and some while after, the said Command was given unto them by God: and I have not heard that ever Moses was voted out of his civill Magistracy by any Synod or Assembly. And besides Moses, this people had, even before the giving of the Law specified, as well as after, Civill Ma∣gistrates a 1.170. Againe

2. This Answer shameth the Authors, by Asserting, that Ezra* 1.171 blessed God for putting such a thing (viz. as the supporting the true Re∣ligion, by those stratagems, methods, and waies of violence & bloud, whereby Heathens support their Idolatrous worships) into the heart of King Artaxerxes. Whereas it is evident from the very text of Scrip∣ture, which they cite (viz. Ezra 7. 27.) that the thing, which Ezra blessed God for putting into the heart of this King, was, precisely and particularly this, the beautifying of the house of the Lord which was at Jerusalem. As for that part of this Kings Edict, wherein he makes the transgression of his own Lawes, i. the dictates of his ow•• will, equally punishable with the transgression of the Laws of God, v. 26. certainly this was never of Gods putting into his heart, nor did Ez∣ra ever so judge; nor (consequently) ever blesse God for it.

3. Nor have wee yet the compasse of the folly in this Answer. For it further argueth a confirmation, that waies of violence and bloud for the support of true Religion, are according to the light and Law of nature, from hence, because they have been used by Idolatrous Hea∣thens, to maintaine their Idolatrie, and by Anti-Christian Papists to maintai•••• their abominations. Because the WHOLE world (as John saith) lieth in wickednesse b 1.172, is it an argument, that wickednesse, or to lie in wickednesse, is therefore according to the light or Law of na∣ture?

Did it ever enter in the heart of an understanding or conside∣ring* 1.173 man, to imagine, that those waies, or morall practices, where∣in even the worst or vilest of men (as Heathenish and Antichristian Idolaters are) generally walke, are according to the light and Law of nature? Certainly this saying, was rather spoken according to the light and Law of nature; Recti argumentum est, pessimis displicere. i. That* 1.174 which displeaseth the worst, is like to be good. And if it be accord∣ing to the light and Law of nature, to support Religion by methods and waies of outward violence and bloud, I desire to know, of what Religion this is asserted, whether of that which is true, or that which is Idolatrous and false. If of the former, then is it notorious∣ly contrary to the light and Law of nature, to seek to destroy the true Religion by methods and waies of violence and bloud; and conse∣quently, the heathenish and Antichristian Idolaters, who attempted the destruction of the true Religion for the support of their own by such meanes, walked not according to, but directly against the light and Law of nature in so doing. And then this practise of theirs, is so farre from being any argument, that waies of violence and bloud for supporting Religion, are according to the Law and light of nature, that it argueth the contrary. If it be understood of the latter, viz. of an Idolatrous or false Religion, certainly no support of this by any means whatsoever, is according to the light or Law of nature; in as much as these directly lead to the abhorring and detesting of all such Re∣ligions, not to the supporting of them in any kinde. Deare English soules, take heed of your Teachers; especially when they plead for themselves, and their own Kingdome; very seldome in these cases doe they speake words either of sobernesse or Truth.

Their seventh Argument or Syllogisme is not framed according* 1.175 to the tenor of the Querie to which it pretends, and in this respect we may well wave their Answer given to it. Yet to let the world see how superficiall these men are in their divinit••e, wee shall animad∣vert a few things upon it.

First, they here affirme, that whoredome, adulterie, murther, theft, are the strong holds of Satan, mentioned 2 Cor. 10. 4. as well as heresies and errors. But how doe they prove this? onely by the thread-bare argument of their own Authoritie; which, both reason and Scrip∣ture ever and anon failing them, as being neither of them calculated for the meridian of their affaires, they are necessitated to use so fre∣quently,

that familiarity hath bred contempt. Certain I am,* 1.176 that the best Expositors, and some of their best friends otherwise, leave them to themselves in that notion. Strong holds (saith Cal∣vin) the Apostle calleth Counsells, and height lift up against God, of which he speaks afterward: but thus he calleth them properly and sig∣nificantly. For his intent is to glory (or boast) that there is nothing so fortified in the world, but that he is able to throw down. As if he should say, I know how carnall men pride it with their swelling con∣ceits, how presumptuously and securely they despise me, &c. a 1.177. Mus∣culus is of the same minde, about the same expression. Of what strong holds (saith this Authour) the Apostle speaketh, he presently declares, saying, casting down imaginations. Some translate the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, counsels; but it properly soundeth, reasonings or ratiocinations. He meanes the counsells of humane reasoning, not sincere, but corrupt, in which especially Satan reignes amongst men. And then cites Chrysostomes Exposition, for the confirmation of his own. Chrysostome (saith he) expounds it of the pride of the Greeks, and the strength or power of their Sophismes, and Syllogismes with more to this purpose, b 1.178.

Besides, whereas they most unworthily, and contrary to all reason, and without the least occasion given, insinuate, That he who will maintain from that Text, 2 Cor. 10. that none but properly spirituall weapons are to be used against the strong holds of sin (there is not the least intimation of such a thing in the Querie) he whol∣ly denies all civill punishment, and all the exercise of the Magistrates sword against evill doers; the cleare truth is, that themselves by numbring whoredomes, adulteries, murthers, thefts, &c. amongst the strong holds there spoken of, are the men that dash their foot against this stone. For, if spirituall weapons, be mighty through God, to cast down the strong holds here spoken of, and murthers, thefts, adulteries, &c. be some of these; to what purpose is any civill punishment, or what necessity is there of any exercise of the Ma∣gistrates sword against evill doers? when there is any one meanes

appointed by God, which is MIGHTY through him, to ef∣fect* 1.179 that which is necessary to be done, what necessity is there of any other, of any more meanes to be added hereunto for the ef∣fecting of it? Is it agreeable to any rule of Scripture, or princi∣ple of reason, to multiply meanes for the bringing any thing to passe, when there is one meanes, not onely sufficient, but mighty, or potent also through God to effect it? Certain I am, that it is none of Gods method so to doe. ▪ If there had been a law (saith the Apostle) that could have given life, surely righteousnesse should have been by the Law a 1.180: implying, that if God had sufficiently provided for the justification, and salvation of his creature, one way, or by one meanes, he would never have added another, as a competitor with it. Upon this principle, that reasoning also of his stands, I doe not abrogate the Grace of God: For, if righteousnesse be by the Law, then Christ dyed in vain▪ b 1.181. Clearely implying, that to assert a sufficiency (much more a mightinesse, or poten∣cy) in the Law for justification, plainly abrogates and makes void the grace of God in giving Christ to die for our justification. In like manner, they who grant, that spirituall weapons are mighty, through God, to cast down adulteries, ••••rthers, thefts, &c. abrogate the sword of the Civill Magistrate, in relation to the casting down of these and such like sins. Therefore, certainly the Gentlemen doe but beate the aire, in affirming, that whoredome, adultery, murther, theft, &c. are some of the strong holds mentioned, 2 Cor. 10. 4.

Secondly, the said Answer leaneth in the best of its strength,* 1.182 upon this supposition (or, assertion rather) that the spreaders of er∣rors and Heresies are certainly ranked in the Scriptures amongst those evill doers, against whom the Civill Magistrate is the Minister of God to execute wrath * 1.183. This (I confesse) is the most manlike ar∣gument or plea, which this generation of men, either are wont, or, indeed, able to produce, to colour over their bloody Tenet, for a necessity of civill compulsion, in matters of Conscience and Religion: yet how effeminate and weak it is, will cleerly appeare by these considerations.

First, evident it is, that the Apostle, Rom. 13. sets forth the duty, interest, and power of a Magistrate, simply, as a Magistrate, not as a Magistrate qualified in one kinde or other, least of all as

qualified with the true knowledge of God, or with the know∣ledge* 1.184 of the controversies and questions in Christian Religion. If such a thing as this shall be supposed, then must there be some appointed to examine and judge, who are lawfull Magistrates, (i. e. endued with the true knowledge of God, &c▪) and con∣sequently may lawfully, as Ministers of God, execute wrath against them that do evill. And if so, who shall these examiners and judges be? or according to what rules or directions shall they proceed in this important affaire? But this (I presume) is so apparant, that we shall not need contend further for it.

Secondly, it is altogether inconsistent with the wisedome and goodnesse of God in the Government of the world, so much as to interesse, much more to lay a necessity upon, his Deputies, the civill Magistrates or Rulers hereof, to interpose with their power in such things, whereof, for the generality and farre the greatest part of them, he knew they would be not onely ignorant, but un∣capable; yea, and not onely they (I mean the Magistrates them∣selves) but even farre the greatest part of men also; yea, even those men themselves, who he knew would pretend with as much height and confidence to a knowledge of them, as any o∣thers. And certaine it is, that matters of Errour and Heresie in Christian Religion, are of this nature; at least a very great part of them. For who did ever pretend, challenge, or claime, a deep∣er insight into matters of Errour and Heresie in Christian Reli∣gion, a greater sufficiency or dexterity to judge and determine, what was Errour, what not, what was Heresie, what not, then the Papal Bishops and Clergy, in the day of their power, and especially the Pope himself? And yet we know, and generally confesse, that al these were incompetent and insufficient judges in such matters as these, & that they did from time to time put darkenesse for light, and light for darknesse; bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter; condemned Truth to death, instead of Error; advancing Error instead of Truth.

Thirdly, If Magistrates, as such, be uncapable themselves of* 1.185 discerning between Errour and Truth in Christian Religion, as put the case, between the Congregationall Government, and that of Presbytery, which is agreeable to the word of God, and which not, or whether both, or whether neither: to whom, or to what generation of men can they safely entrust their judgements and

consciences in this case for regulation and direction, so as to run* 1.186 no hazard of incurring the wrath of God, for smiting with the sword without cause? If it be said, they must and may safely trust the godly, orthodox, and faithfull Ministers, amongst whom they live;

I answer first, Put the case there be no such veine of Ministers as these, or however, none whom they can looke upon as such, within their territories; what shift shall they then make for such an addresse?

Secondly, If they themselves be uncapable (which is the sup∣position now argued upon, and it hath been proved, that general∣ly they are uncapable) of discerning between Truth and errour in questions, and matters of doubtfull disputation in Christian Re∣ligion; how shall they be able to know, or satisfy themselves, who are faithfull and orthodox, and who not? He that cannot judge what is erour, and what is truth, cannot determine what men or Ministers are Orthodox, and what not.

Thirdly, In case the Ministers living under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, (th••se I mean who are reputed godly, faithfull, and orthodox) shall be divided in judgement among themselves, and one part of them adjudge that for truth and orthodox do∣ctrine, which the other shall condemne for errour and Heresie; (a case of daily occurrence) under which of these shadows shall the Magistrate repose with peace and safety? To say, that in this case he is bound to cleave unto the major vote or party amongst them, and to smite, where they shall say smite, is (upon the mat∣ter) either to say nothing, or else that which is extremely obnox∣ious. For first, what if they be equally divided? in this case a major vote is but a castle in the aire. Secondly, In case they be not equally divided; what if the judgement or conscience of the Magistrate shall incline to the lesser party, as conceiving their grounds and reasons to be of more pregnancy and weight, then the other, and cannot concurre or go along with these? Thirdly, Take any society, coporation, or company of men of what capa∣city soever, under Heaven; as well reason, as experience evin∣ceth, that the major part of them are ever the weaker in judge∣ment and understanding; and that commonly it is found in grea∣ter meetings and conventions, that the elder serves the younger, I

meane, that matters are carryed and concluded against the sense* 1.187 of men of greatest abilities and worth, when there is any divisi∣on of votes amongst them. Fourthly, and lastly, if the Magistrate be bound, in the case under consideration, to cleave either to the one party or the other, whether the lesser, or the greater, and to smite that with his sword, as errour or Heresie, which either of them adjudgeth for such: he stands bound likewise to punish and smite with the sword, that whole party of Ministers, as errone∣ous and Hereticall, whose judgement he rejecteth in the consul∣tation; though when he called them hereunto, he looked upon them as godly, orthodox, and faithfull. And if cases of this na∣ture should frequently happen, I meane wherein the civill Magi∣strate shall have occasion to advise with his godly Ministers, for his information about errours, and Heresies, and these Ministers be divided in their judgements about them; and the Magistrate be bound to punish errours and Heresies with the sword, which that interpretation of the Scripture in hand now opposed by us, imposeth upon him as a duty; he should still, toties quoties, and from time to time, be bound in conscience to destroy or molest one party of the godly Ministers under him; and so ere long must needs make a sad desolation in his territories of such men; Therefore.

Fourthly, and lastly, when the Apostle saith concerning the Magistrates, that he is the Minister of God, a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill, &c. that indefinit expression, him that doth evill, is not to be taken or understood universally, for whosoever doth evill, after what manner, or in what kinde so∣ever; but with limitation, pro subjecta materia. 1. for the doer of such or of that kinde of evill, which appertaine•• to the cogni∣zance of the Magistrate, and whereof ordinary Magistrates, or Magistrates in generall, as well Heathen, as Christian, are com∣petent judges, as all such evill is, which is manifestly such, and of a Politicall consideration, as that which is contrary to the light and law of nature, as Whoredome, Adultery, Murder, Theft, Injustice, Sedition, Treason, &c. that this is the true interpretation and mea∣ning of this Scripture, is further confirmed.

First, by the like expressions of frequent occurrence in the* 1.188 Scriptures, viz. where indefinit, yea, and sometimes universall,

expressions, are used to signifie, not a simple or absolute, but a re∣lative* 1.189 or restrained universalitie of things, i. e. either a vniversa∣lity of such things, which are particularly treated of in those pla∣ces, where these expressions are found; or of such, whose na∣tures or conditions are reasonably capable of those things, which either are attributed to them, or injoyned concerning them, in such expressions. As for example, God himself saith, Exod. 12. 48. that no uncircumcised person should eat of the passeover; Yet this ge∣nerall or universall expression, is not to be extended unto wo∣men of the daughters of Abraham, as if they were restrained hereby from eating the Passeover, because they are persons uncir∣cumcised; the reason is, because the note or universality, NO, in the prohibition, NO uncircumcised person shall eat, &c. imports, not an absolute, but onely a relative universality, viz. of all that kinde of uncircumcised persons, which the verse speakes of, which are males; who also are the onely persons capable of circumcision. So when the Apostle commanded the Thessalonians, that if any would not worke, he should not eat; * 1.190 his meaning was, not to forbid nou∣rishment or food to be given, either to sicke or lunatique persons, or to young children, or to any person whatsoever uncapable of working; but onely unto those, who changed an ability of wor∣king, into idlenesse, and stubbornly refused to labour in a calling. So in the Scripture in hand, when he saith indefinitly, that Rulers are not a terrour to good workes, but to evill; the word Rulers, doth not signifie ALL Rulers whatsoever, but onely such, who rule according to the will of God: for otherwise, we know there are many Rulers, who act contrary to this rule or assertion of the A∣postle, and are a Terrour, not to evill workes, but to good. In like manner, when the Apostle saith, that the Magistrate is the Mini∣ster of God, to execute wrath upon (or against) him that doth evill; by him that doth evill, it is no way necessary that he should mean eve∣ry man without exception, who doth that which is evill in one kind or other, but onely every man that doth any such evill, which is of a politicall cognizance, and proper for a Magistrate, as a Ma∣gistrate, to punish.

Secondly, if by him that doth evill, in this Scripture were* 1.191 meant, every man without exception that doth any kinde of evill; then should the Magistrate be the Minister of God, and consequent∣ly

be injoyned by him by way of duty, to punish men for con∣ceiving* 1.192 evill thoughts, for committing adultery in the heart, for coveting that which is another mans, without doing any thing outwardly which is evill, or injurious to him, &c. For whoso∣ever doth any of these things, most certainely doth that which is evill: but if we shall suppose, that the Magistrate stands bound by his office to execute wrath, upon such evill doers as these, we had need make them Gods indeed, and give them knowledge of the hearts of men, or else we shall make them little better then devills, by bringing the guilt of sin, and of unfaithfulnesse in their places upon their heads, without end.

Thirdly, If God should require of the Magistrate to execute wrath upon spreaders of errors and heresies as evill doers, he should be an hard Master indeed, and think to gather, where hee hath not strewed, and to reap, where he hath not sown * 1.193. For doubtlesse, he nei∣ther hath given, nor doth give any sufficiency of means to discern between Heresie and sound Doctrine, between Error and Truth, (at least in many points in Christian Religion) to one Magistrate of an hundred; I might (I beleeve) keep within the compasse of Truth, and say, of a thousand. Especially, if wee shall look up∣on those Magistrates which were then in being in the world, when this Scripture was written; and upon occasion of whose power to execute wrath upon him that doth evill, this admonition was given by the Apostle unto the Romans, it will clearely bee found, that they generally were so farre from being able to judge what was Error and Heresie, what Truth and Orthodox, in Chri∣stian Religion, that they judged this Religion it selfe, to be the grand Error and Heresie of the world.

Fourthly, That by him that doth evill (in the clause under de∣bate)* 1.194 the Apostle doth not mean, spreaders of Errors or Heresies in Christian Religion, but onely the actours of such impieties, which were known to be such, by the heathen Magistrates, who then bare rule over them, is evident from the context it self, and the import of the same expression in the former part of the same verse, which is this. For he (the Magistrate) is the Minister of God to thee for thy good. But if thou shalt DOE THAT WHICH IS EVILL, be afraid: for hee beareth not the sword in vain. By doing that which is evill in this passage, cannot

be meant, the spreading of Errors or Heresies; because they had not* 1.195 so much reason of being afraid of the Magistrate here spoken of, for spreading of these, as for publishing or preaching the most Or∣thodox Truths of Christianity. They might without any danger at all from the Magistrate here spoken of, have published and taught, that the Idols which the Romans worshipped, were true Gods; that the worship of Christians, that Jesus Christ was a deceiver, and not the Son of God, with twenty such abominable errors and blasphemies more. They had ten times more cause to bee afraid of the powers that now were, for publishing the most Or∣thodox Truths, as that there is but one God, that the Gods of the Romans were either dumb Idols, or speaking Devils; that Je∣sus Christ is the naturall Son of God, and onely Saviour of the world, &c. Therefore, by that evill, upon the doing of which they had cause to be afraid of the Roman powers or Magistracy, the Apostle onely meanes such wicked acts or practices, which they were apt to punish and take vengeance on, as apprehending them prejudiciall or destructive to the peace, safety, or wellfare of their state; and not any publishing or spreading of errors or he∣resies, of the evill whereof they were wholly uncapable.

Fifthly, That doing of evill, against which the Magistrate here* 1.196 spoken of, is the Minister of God to execute wrath, is opposed un∣to that subjection to the higher powers, (injoyned in the first verse) and of the same consideration with the resisting of these powers, so sharply reproved and threatned, ver. 2. From whence it clearly appeares, that by it is onely meant the doing of such evill, which was prohibited by the Roman Laws and Edicts * 1.197. For no man can be said, either to refuse subjection unto, or to resist the powers, under which he lives, who lives in an orderly subjection and o∣bedience unto all their Laws. Now certain it is, that neither the Roman Emperour or Senate in these dayes, had enacted any law against the publishing of Errors or Heresies, in Christian Religion. Therefore the publishing of these could be no branch or part of that evill, by the doing whereof the Roman powers should have been resisted in their Laws.

Sixtly, and lastly, That doing of evill, against which the Magi∣strate is said to be the Minister of God to execute wrath, ver. 4. is

directly opposed to that doing of good, spoken of v. 3. unto which* 1.198 there is a promise made of receiving praise from the Magistrate.* 1.199 Doe that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the sam••. Now certainly that doing of good, for which the Apostle undertakes that they shall have praise from the Roman Magistrate, was not the preaching or publishing of the great and orthodox truths of Christian Religion, of the goodnesse of which service they were wholy insensible, yea, rather enemies unto it (as hath been said) therefore, by that doing of evill, which is opposite hereunto, can∣not be meant the spreading of Errors and Heresies; but onely the perpetration of such morall impieties, of the evill whereof to their state and well-fare, they were fully sensible. Thus we have sufficiently, and by the clearest evidence of the Scriptures them∣selves, vindicated the Scripture-passage in hand, from that hand of violence, which goeth about to force it upon a bloudy ser∣vice; yea, and to draw the Magistrate by it into a dangerous in∣gagement, (far above his abilities and strength) onely to pro∣mote the secular designes of Ecclesiasticall men. O England, En∣gland, make much of thy Scriptures, but take heed of the glosses of thy Teachers. And when they shall say unto thee, Lo here is our Presbytery, and lo it is there, beleeve them not: for they shall shew great signes and wonders of zeale for Reformation, and buil∣ding (as they call it) the house of God, and shall deceive many. Neither of those two pi••lars, neither the ancient law of God for putting false Prophets, Idolaters, and Blasphemers to death, nor the Magistrates being the Minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doth evill, were ever hewne by God to support that fabricke of Church-Government, which these men labor in the very fire to build upon them. And yet these are their Gods: and these being taken from them, they may lament with Micah, and say, what have we more. * 1.200

In their Answer to their ninth Argument, they sit down qui••••* 1.201 besides the cushion. The major in this syllogisme, is this: They who inflict death upon men for maintaining a doctrine contrary to their interprecation of Scripture, had need be as infallible, at least as touch∣ing the sense of that Scripture, as God himselfe; or else they do what is not lawfull for them to do. Their answer is, This major is fals••, be∣cause it is blasphem••••••. It is blasphemo•••• to assert ••r suppose, that any

man, in any thing which he knowes never so certainly, is as infallible as* 1.202 God himselfe. This Answer of these men, is truly propheticall; and if the people of England were but capable of the spirit that breaths in it, they might cleerly foresee, what they meane to doe with an Ordinance of Parliament to punish Errour, Heresie, and Blasphemy, if they could procure it, together with the mana∣ging and interpretation of it, to be put in their hands, (whereof their hopes are pregnant if ever such an Ordinance shall be esta∣blished) viz. to accuse, molest, crush, whom they please, by making Errour, Heresie, Blasphemy▪ of what saying, or expressi∣ons of theirs they please, though never so innocent and sound (in the genuine and true import of them,) if there be but a word that is capable of wresting, or abuse from their hand. Was such an assertion, especially such a supposition, as this▪ that a man in some∣thing which he knowes, may be a•• infallible a•• God himselfe, ever vo∣ted Blasphemy, untill now? nay, was there ever any supposition, or bare intimation whatsoever, called Blasphemy untill now? at least any such supposition or intimation, which is onely collected from the words of another, and not acknowledged or owned, as a lawfull inference, by the speaker himselfe? But suppose the Syllogisme, had not supposed, but in terminis asserted, that a man may in some particular of his knowledge, ••e a•• infallible as God him∣selfe; by what law either of reason or Religion, will this be evi∣cted of Blasphemy? Certain I am, that there is no communica∣tion of any of the incommunicable attributes of God in it, nor any thing asserted to the creature, which is onely vested in God▪ no, nor any any thing tending in the least to the dishonour or disparagement of the divine nature or being. And yet (by the way) every thing tending to the dishonour of God, is not present∣ly Blasphemy, except these Great masters can prove, that every sin whatsoever, is Blasphemy. But first, infallibilty in God in respect of every respective particularity of his knowledge, is no incom∣municable attribute of his, in any other sense then as all his attri∣butes whatsoever are incommunicable: for many things which are infallibly knowne unto God, are likewise infallibly known un∣to men. Secondly, Though the infallibility which is in God, be in respect of every particular of his knowledge, infinite, as what∣soever is in God, is God himselfe, and so infinite; and in this

sense or consideration, no creature can be truly said to be as infal∣lible* 1.203 as God▪ yet as the Divine infallibility imports a certainty, and that upon unerring-grounds, that things are so and so indeed, as God apprehendeth them to be; men themselves, in respect of some particulars of their knowledge, may truly be said to be as in∣fallible as God himselfe, i. e. to know certainly upon unerring-grounds, or grounds that cannot deceive them, that things are so, as they conceive of them, or apprehend them to be. And if the syllo∣gisme, whose Answer is now under canvasse, be framed to the minde, or sense of the expression in the Querie, then the syllo∣gisme* 1.204 speakes of onyons, and the Answer answereth concerning leekes. But between the onyons and the leeks, the root of this jealousie groweth ranke, that there is like to be old sharking, and straining, wresting, and wringing▪ tentering, and tormenting, of the words and expressions of godly men, to make Errour, Here∣sie, and Blasphemy of them, and so to bring them under the dint of the Magistrates sword, when once rhe Ordinance mentioned, shall be established, and the construction of it entrusted in Ecclesia∣sticke-hands. For (as Christ long since said to the daughters of Je∣rusalem, who wept for him) if they doe these things to a green tree, what shall ••e ••one to the drye? If these men can make the ••ull-rush of Blasphemy to grow without the mire of an obnoxious expres∣sion, what will they doe in case words shall be spoken, whose in∣terpretation will require some charity to make them innocent? As for the rest of this Answer, I must cleerly professe (though it may be to mine own disparagement) that I do not well under∣stand it; that gentle aire of sense which breaths from it in the face of my understanding, rather whispers an inconsistence, then any good agreement between the parts of it. It supposeth, that a man is neither to yeeld himselfe to suffer, or to cast away his owne life without certaine knowledge of Gods truth and will in the thing, (d•• quo tamen totus dubito) nor yet to take away another mans life in a judiciall way (quod potius cred••) and ye•• supposeth withall, that warres may be lawfull on their part, who fighting under any Prince or State, cannot in any degree be said to know infallibly, either the right of the cause they fight for, or the guilt of all those they fight a∣gainst and slay. In which crosse passages, the Authors first s••ppose (without any proofe at all) a plurality of ••••gre••s in an infallibility

of knowledge: and yet suppose also (with a greater defiance unto* 1.205 reason, of the two) that a CERTAINTY of knowledge is none of these degrees. I feare the whole fabrique of their Doctrine concerning Church-government, taken together, is but a suppo∣sition.

In their Answer to their tenth Argument, first, they prove that* 1.206 Luther maintained no errour about free will or election, by the testi∣mony or witnesse of his book De servo arbitrio. But first, they pro∣duce no testimony from this booke of any such import; viz. wher∣in the author affirmeth, that he never maintained any error concerning these points. Secondly, If they had, or yet should produce such a te∣stimony, how incompetent a proof would it be of their assertion? For who is there, though of the greatest integrity and parts with∣all, that judgeth his owne judgement to be erroneous, in what points soever, how erroneous soever it be? Thirdly▪ it is very pos∣sible, that he that writes a book intituled De serve arbitrio, may, e∣ven in this book it selfe, maintain•• an errour about free-will; or▪ if not in this, yet in some other. Fourthly, Augustins booke of Re∣tractions, doth not prove that he never held or maintained those opinions which he there condemnes, but the contrary. So though it should be granted that Luther in his book De serv•• arbitrio, re∣jects every opinion that is erroneously held about free-will, yet it no wayes followes from hence, that ••e never maintained a••y errour about it; least of all doth it follow, that he never maintained any errour about election. But these mens dictates, though never so loose, must passe for demonstrations. Fifthly, Luther himselfe, who saw one edition (if not more) of this book De serv•• arbi∣trio, before he dyed, did not acknowledge it with any great confi∣dence, as intirely his. For in an Epistle written to his friend Ca∣pit••, in the yeare 1537 he professeth, nullum ••e agn••scere justum suum librum, nisi FORTE de serv•• arbitrio, et Catechismum * 1.207. Sixtly▪ It was the judgement and assertion of some, and is at this day the constant asseveration of many of Luthers followers, that he retracted the booke now in question before his death. A•• this day (saith Scultetus) almost all the Ʋbiquitaries are of this opinion, that Luther revoked his booke De servo arbitrio * 1.208. Seventhly, The said Author acknowledgeth, that Philip Melancthon, who was Luthers great friend and companion, in his latter writings wav'd

the opinion maintained in the book De servo Arbitrio, and joyned* 1.209 with Erasmus in his judgment, for the freedom of the will. Ther∣fore the improbability that Luther himselfe also should have now declin'd it, is not so great. Lastly, the generality of our late Pro∣testant writers, who in their judgements generally are more Cal∣vins then Luthers, doe generally▪ upon occasion, charge the Lu∣therans, or followers of Luther, with unsound opinions, about Free-will and Election. So that it is every wayes probable, (at least) that Luther himself was peccant, (as peccancy in this kind is now called) in his judgement about these points. But be it ei∣ther so, or otherwise, the witnesse of his said book De Servo arbi∣trio, is but a slim proofe, that it was not so. But we must (I see) be content with hay and stubble, who have neither silver nor gold to build with.

Secondly, Whereas the Query supposeth, the erroneous opinion* 1.210 of Consubstantiation to be farre more grosse and dangerous then many particulariz••d in the Ordinance; these Gentlemen Answer, That Luther•• error of Consubstantiation, is neither so grosse, nor so dange∣rous, as any of the opinions threatned by the Ordinance with death.

Doe not these men deserve, and that ex abundanti, their places in the Assembly▪ for this Seraphicall strain? The Queree queri∣eth of them, wh••ther Luther d••served either imprisonment, or death, for his opinion about Consubstantiation; To this they Answer, that this error is not so grosse or dangerous, as any by the Ordinance threat∣ned with death.

So then, by the way, they grant, that the Civill Magistrate, under whom Luther lived, was defective in his duty towards God, that he did not put his great Embassadour and most faith∣full servant Luther into prison, and there keep him fast from do∣ing the devill any more harme all his dayes. But with what face of sense, reason, learning or Religion, can these men affirme, that The Error of Consubstantiation is neither so grosse, or so dangerous, as any of the opinions threatned by the Ordinance with death? Certain∣ly, in point of grossenesse, there is scarse any, if any at all, of these opinions from the first to the last of them, to be compared there∣with. The error of Consubstantiation is apparently so grosse, that the gross••st of the outward senses themselves (I meane that of touching) is able to discover and confute it. Is the error of God

his not being one in three persons, or, that the Holy Ghost▪ is not God,* 1.211 with severall others threatned by the Ordinance with death, are these, I say, errors of so terrene a calculation, or so obnoxious unto a redargution by the senses? And for matter of danger, I would gladly learn from these Grandees, what difference there is, be∣tween holding the Error of Consubstantiation, and, that Christ is not ascended into Heaven bodily, (which latter is one of the opini∣ons threatned by the Ordinance with death?) But

Thirdly, and lastly, this Answer goeth out in this snuffe. The* 1.212 opinions which he and others held which were erroneous, were in the be∣ginning of the Reformation, when thre had not been such means of con∣viction, nor such a cleering or setling of Truth, as there is amongst us, aspecially in the fundamentall Doctrines, &c. But

First, why were there not such meanes of conviction in the begin∣ning of the Reformation, as there is now amongst us? Certain, I am, that there was as much learning, and as much labour, and as much conscience and faithfullnesse, in and about the beginning of Refor∣mation, in very many of those persons whom God interessed in this honourable service, as there is amongst us. Luther, Melanct∣hon, Calvin, Zuinglius, P. Martyr, Bucer, Occolampadius (with many more names of like note with these) have not their Supe∣riours in any of these now amongst us. I wish they had their e∣qualls. There is no more comparison, for stature in learning, and in all manner of worth, between young Luther * 1.213, and old, then is between the thistle in Lebanon, and the Cedar in Lebanon. And for countenance from heaven, the Histories of those times make it e∣vident, that the Worthies mentioned, had another manner of a Divine presence and assistance with them, then all the cleerers or setlers of Truth (so called) now amongst us, can with any colour or face of Truth pretend.

Secondly, I shall write my self a debtor of a very high favour unto these Gentlemen, if they will please to informe me, what cleering or setling of Truth there is now amongst us, either in funda∣mentall Doctrines of Religion, or in any other, above what the primitive times of the late Reformation injoyed. If by setling of Truth, they mean suppressing of Truth, by casting the diaboli∣call aspersions of Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Popery, Antinomi∣anisme, &c. * 1.214 upon it, that so it may stand still, and rest where it

is, and propagate no further, well may they glory (or indeed be* 1.215 ashamed) of that setling of Truth now amongst us. But if by set∣ling of Truth, they mean, a building, setling, or holding of it forth, upon substantiall, cleere, and demonstrative grounds, what meanes the continuall enterfe••rings and clashings of our Presby∣terian Pulpits themselves, one against another? yea, how comes it to passe, that so seldome can any one Sermon be heard out of their pulpits, but quarrels with it self? What meane the nume∣rous Anti-Votes in the Assembly it self, and some of these pro∣ceeding from persons of the most eminent worth amongst them, if not against all, or the greater part, yet against some of the main and most materiall Doctrines concluded there? what mean the crosse-lines and contradictions of that frequent occurrence in bookes lately printed; and these not onely in, and about the point of Presbytery, between Presbyterians themselves, and particu∣larly between Mr. Rutherford, and Mr. Edwards, (whereof in∣stance might be given in sundry particulars) but in Doctrines also of a farre more fundamentall consequence, as about the power of man in his unregenerate, yea, and in his regenerate condition too, about the nature of Justifying Faith, yea, about Justification it selfe (then which I know no Doctrine more fundamentall) con∣cerning which notwithstanding, it is a very rate thing to finde any two, either of our late Writers, or our present Preachers, uni∣forme in their judgements; yea, or to finde any one of either of these, intirely consistent with himself?

Severall months since I heard a Parliament man of eminent worth and note, reckon up six or seven severall Sects or subdivi∣sions amongst the Presbyterians themselves; since which time I make little question, but that their Sects have multiplyed. So that whereas my Anti-Querists talke of so much cleering and setling of truth amongst us, above the happinesse of the first times of Re∣formation in this behalfe; the truth is, that that Truth they speak of, even in her maine and most fundamentall branches, was never more disturbed, perplexed, intricated, obscured, made more in∣accessible to the understandings, capacities, and consciences of or∣dinary men, from the beginning of the Reformation they speake of, then it is at this day amongst us. O England, England, if thou de∣pendest upon thy Teachers for truth, even in the greatest points

of that Religion which thou professest, thou must fish for it in* 1.216 their troubled waters.

In their eleventh Answer, having built upon the rubbish of the* 1.217 foundations lately demolished, and told us, First, that the doctrine of the Lords day was not so cleared, as it is now, (I wonder by whom, or by what light of demonstration) Secondly, that even now it is not so cleare in any other Churches, as it is here in England, (I see the morall of the fable verified; if a man be the painter, the Lyon shall be made to couch at his feet) Thirdly, That the truth of it is not setled in other Kingdomes or States, as it is amongst us (it seems they make a difference between cleering, and setling: and so I be∣leeve, that in their sense, there is a very great difference indeed; the former being Gods way, the latter, mens) In the fourth place they adde; it may justly be beleeved, that if he (Calvin) were now alive in this Kingdome, he▪ would not publish or maintaine any thing contrary to the observation of the Lords day, as it is enjoyned by the Lawes and Ordinances of this Realm. But may not the justnesse of these mens beliefe in this case, be justly questioned? Is it a just or righteous thing to beleeve, or to suppose, that a man of worth, of able parts, of eminent learning, of a composed judgement, of a tender conscience, would baulk with God and his own soule, in shunning to declare, what upon mature studie, upon diligent and faithfull inquirie, he judgeth to be the counsell or will of God, thorough feare of an Ordinance or Law in a civill State? I be∣leeve if Calvin were now alive, whether in this Kingdome, or in any other, he would conne these Gentlemen small thankes for such a commendation.

The dregs setled in the bottome of this Answer, are these: can it be lesse then a wilfull slaunder, and malicious purpose of rendring the Ordinance odious, to name death as a punishment for maintaining any thing against the Ordinances and Lawes about the Lords day, &c. But so this Querist deales in other of his Queries, &c. But let cha∣rity, or reason, or common sense, or who yee will, judge, whether it be lesse then a wilfull slaunder, and malicious purpose of rendering the Querist odious, without a cause, to charge him with naming death as a punishment for maintaining any thing against the Ordinan∣ces and Laws, about the Lords day? To Queree, whether Calvin deserved either imprisonment, or death, for teaching and maintain∣ing,

&c. (which is the tenour of the Queree) is this to charge* 1.218 the Ordinance with threatning death as a punishment for maintain∣ing any thing about the Lords day, against the Ordinances and Laws? If not, how can it render the Ordinance odious, except (haply) it be either in the jealous consciences of such men, who are under some regret, and secret counterworkings of conscience through feare, lest the Ordinance, though pleasing to them, that is, to their flesh, should yet be odious indeed in the sight of God, or else in the over-jealous conceit of those, whose chiefe hopes and com∣forts on earth are bound up in the honour and successe of the Or∣dinance; and who lye under the bondage of this feare, that if the Ordinance should prove odious in the eyes of men, themselves should suffer and beare the same burthen with it. To say that Nicholas or Matthew, or any other person, is either homo, or BRƲTƲM; is it any wayes to name or intimate, that brutu••s, is either the genus, or species of either? But when mens mindes are set to doe unworthily, they become uncapable of greater dif∣ferences, then are between conjunctive and dis-junctive particles, though there be no such affinity or likenesse between these, which need incumber any sober mans judgement, in or about their di∣judication. But Gangraena, and her Paramour hath justified all the sons of▪ Presbytery besides, in all their slanders, calumnies, false aspersions, malicious imputations, and reports; they that are malicious, are not malicious, in comparison of him that super-a∣bounds in malice.

Omnis Caesarea cedat labor Amphitheatro: Ʋnu•••• pro cunct is fama loquatur opus.

Let all mens malice give Gangraena place: Let Fame, instead of all, this one piece grace.

In their Answer to their twelfth Argument, if they meane as* 1.219 they say, they make some part of atonement for their delinquen∣cy against the Queries hitherto. For here they grant, that no man is punishable for his meere mistake, whatever his opinion be: but for being so pertinacious in his mistake in matters of great consequence, as that he will not forbeare to publish his mistakes to the infection of others,

and the mischiefe of their soules, and to the ruine, or at least miserable* 1.220 disturbance of the Church of God.

I freely acknowledge that whosoever, out of pertinacy in his mistake, not onely in matters of greater consequence, but even of lesser, will not forbeare to publish his mistakes, to the infection of o∣thers, &c. i. e. with a desire or intention to infect, and mischiefe the soules of others, &c. deserves severely to be punished; nor shall I ever plead mercy for such a man. If the Ordinance had explain∣ed it self after any such manner as this, I (I presume with many others) should have been satisfied in it, without any more adoe; and not have needed to crave satisfaction about it, as now wee have done. But in case any man shall really and conscientiously judge that opinion of his, which others call a mistake, and per∣haps is so indeed, to be a truth of God; and shall withall really judge, that he is bound in conscience to hold forth such an opi∣nion as being in his judgement and conscience the undoubted truth of God; and withall necessary to be published and made known unto men, for their spirituall benefit and good; in case (I say) the publishing of his opinion or mistake, upon such termes as these, shall prove the infection of others, or inconvenience, or (if you will) mischiefe the soules of others, &c. I have no ground either in Reason, or Religion, to judge this man worthy, either death or bands. Nay, if to publish such mistakes, and that even with pertinacy▪ which tend to the infection of others, and mischiefe of soules, &c. were a matter worthy either death, or bands, I have sufficient grounds both in Reason and Religion, to judge and think, that ve∣ry many Ministers of the Anti-Independent interest, yea, many of very eminent repute amongst them, would upon due examina∣tion and triall, be found in the condemnation.

The strength of their Answer to their thirteenth Argument,* 1.221 leanes upon this staffe: That the open and publique profession of er∣rors, is more pernicious, then the practise of sins in a like kinde and de∣gree: they instance, To teach there is no Christ, is more dangerous (they say) then to live as if there were no Christ, and yet make a pro∣fession of him. Well, but my judgement (and the judgements I beleeve of many more) and this Doctrine, are at oddes. But these men attempt a reconciliation by the mediation of this reason, for the proofe of their Doctrine. The one (they mean, the publique pro∣fession

of errours) justifieth what it doth, as lawfull, under pretended* 1.222 grounds of truth: The other practiseth, and yet POSSIBLY not so impudently as to justifie his own practise: But

First, may not a man as possibly, publiquely professe an error, o∣therwise then under pretended grounds of Truth, as practise, or com∣mit sin, without a justification of what he practiseth? Certainely, he that practiseth a sin, hath the same necessity lying upon him to justifie what he doth; which he, who publiquely professeth an error, hath to justifie this practise of his. Nor can I understand, why, or upon what ground, our Anti-Querists should make any such opposition, between a professing of errour, and practising of sinne. Is it their sense, that a publike profession of error, is no practising of sin?

Secondly, when they say, by way of opposition to him that publiquely professeth an errour, that he that practiseth sinne, may yet possibly doe it not so impudently as to justify his owne practise; do they not plainly suppose, first, that he that practiseth sinne, may pra∣ctise it upon such tearms, viz. so, as to justify his practise (which supposition of theirs, I confesse, is attested for truth, by daily examples of Practitioners in this kind) and secondly, that when men doe thus practise, the practise of sinne is every-whit as perni∣cious, as the publique professing of an errour. And if so, doth not the reason which they bring to plead the cause of their assertion, prevaricate with it; and set up that which is contradictory to it, in its stead. But this is no news, amongst those, who think them∣selves too good to subject unto the truth. But

Thirdly, the question is not, which of the two, a publique pro∣fession of errour, or the practice of sin in a like kinde, &c. be more per∣nicious; but which of them is more punishable, which deserves the greater punishment? For in many cases, practices or actions that are more pernicious, i. e. more prejudiciall and hurtfull unto others, may deserve lesse punishment, then some others which are lesse hurtfull. The fact of a mad man, who in the heat of his distemper shall fall foule upon a man, and dangerously wound him, is more hurtfull unto him, then the fact of him that shall fairly take his purse upon the high-way, or cheat him of a parcell of his money. But either of these latter facts is more pu∣nishable then the former. Many instances, more of like considera∣tion might be added. Therefore,

Fourthly and lastly, as to the assertion or conclusion it selfe;* 1.223 that the publique profession of errour, is more pernicious then the pra∣ctice of sinne, &c. (if by pernicious, the assertors mean, punishable; which they must mean, if they speake any thing to the purpose) the truth, or errour of the comparison, will be cleerly tried by this touch-stone. If the open and publique profession of errour, hath first more of the will in it, be more voluntary: Secondly, if it be more against the light, and law of nature; and then, Thirdly, and lastly, if it be more pernicious (as they speake) or mischievous unto men, then the practice of sinne in a like kinde and degree; then have these men judged righteously between them; the publique profession of errour is more punishable, then the practice of sinne, &c. But if all things be found contrary between them, and the pra∣ctice of sin in a like kind or degree, be first more voluntary; & second∣ly more repugnant to the light and law of nature; and Thirdly, of an equally, or a more, pernicious and dangerous consequence, then the publique profession, or holding forth of an errour; then have these men (it is much to be feared) taken a bribe, which hath blinded their eyes, and caused them to stumble in judgement. Now concerning the two former, there is little question to be made, but that they are more ranke in such a practicing of sinne, as they put in the comparison, as (for example) in living as if there were no Christ, then in professing an error, as, viz. that there is no Christ. For first, that which is done contrary to that knowledge which a man hath, of what he ought to doe, cannot reasonably be thought, but to have more of the will in it, then what is done out of igno∣rance, or with a concurrence of the judgement of the doer. Now men may professe that there is no Christ, with a perfect concurrence of their judgement: for they may verily thinke that there is no such person, as many thousands in the world doe: (yea, it can hardly be supposed with any good consistence in reason, that any man ever did, or will professe that there is no Christ, who doth not really and inwardly judge so) but they cannot practice or live in Adultery, Murther, Theft, Oppression, Deceit, &c. (which is to live as if there were no Christ) but they must needs oppose their judgements, and consciences, with the strength of their wills. Secondly, the sinnes mentioned▪ Adultery, Theft, &c. are cleerly▪ and at first sight against the light and law of nature; but the deniall

of the being of such a person as Christ, who is both God and* 1.224 man, is not contrary to any law or principle in nature; at least to none, that is cleerly such. Thirdly and lastly, for the degree of danger, or perniciousnesse in either; (though the punishablenesse of a practice is not, as hath been said, so much to be measured by this) I conceive the practice of the sinns, to be equally pernicious (at least) with the profession of the errour. The degree of pernicious∣nesse in a practice, is to be judged by these two things: first, by the degree of the evill, which it is like to produce, or possibly may produce. Secondly, by the degree of the likelyhood in it to pro∣duce this evill. That which possibly may occasion or produce a greater evill then another, is not necessarily the more pernicious; except there be a proportionable likelyhood that it will produce it. Nor is that necessarily the more pernicious, which is the more likely to occasion or produce evill; unlesse the degree of the e∣vill, which it is likely to occasion, be thereafter. But when the e∣vill or mischiefe which two severall practices possibly may or are likely to produce, is one and the same; then that is cleerly the more pernicious, which is the more likely to produce this evill. First then it is cleer, that to live as if there were no Christ, may ve∣ry possibly occasion men to thinke, that indeed there is no Christ, as well as to professe in words, that there is no Christ. So that in respect of the evill (at least in that particular, which is now in consideration) which both the one and the other may produce; there is no difference between the two practices. If then there be as great a likelyhood, that to live as if there were no Christ, (as viz. in Adultery, Theft, Deceit, &c.) will produce the evill men∣tioned, as to professe in words, that there is no Christ; then is the former every-whit as pernicious, as the latter. The degree of a likelyhood to produce evill (in that kinde we speake of) is to be estimated by some such rule as this; that which is as apt or likely to corrupt the mindes or judgements of men, with the evill of the errour, hath the same likelyhood in it to produce the evill: and that which hath the greater aptnesse in this kinde, hath the greater likel••hood. Now that method or meanes of corrupting the mindes of men with errours, which is more plausible and temp∣ting, and more complying with the flesh, is more apt and likely to produce the evill, then another, which is lesse plausible and

tempting in this kinde. If so, then for men to live as if there were* 1.225 no Christ, is more pernicious, and likely to mischiefe the soules of o∣thers, then to say, or professe in Words that there is no Christ. For first, examples, are more insinuating, and tempting, and apt to gaine upon men, then doctrines, or bare assertions, or argu∣ings of things are, Peter speakes of some husbands, who may be won by the conversation of the wives, when they cannot be gained by the word * 1.226. And if examples on the right hand be more opera∣tive and perswasive in this kinde, then doctrines of the same kinde; certainly examples on the left hand, are not behinde. He spake both reason and experience, who said:

Tardiùs irritant animos demissa per aurem,* 1.227 Quàm quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus—

What by the eare is let into the minde, Ingageth little; but it soon inclines By what the eye presenteth—

Secondly, this great errour, that there is no Christ, being pre∣sented* 1.228 and recommended to the sensuall hearts of men for a truth, with those sensuall accommodations of present pleasures and profites (as it is in the example of Adultery, Drunkennesse, Deceit, &c.) comes upon tearms of more advantage to gaine en∣tertainment with men, then when it comes onely in a sound of words, or in the drie notion of a doctrine. Yea, the truth is, that the great errour we speake of, that there is no Christ, would be of little, or no accommodation to the flesh (and consequently there would be no great danger of its infection) did it not contribute towards that peaceable liberty for the practise of sinne▪ which the flesh or sensuall part of men so ardently wisheth and desi∣reth. Therefore when it commeth unto the soule visibly attended and accompanied with that retinue of carnall gratifications, which it in part as well begetteth, as maintaineth; the very sight and beholding of these, pleads, and procures acceptation for it, in the eyes of the carnall judgements, and fleshly mindes of men, and awakens and invites the foolish heart to intertaine it. Thus we see how in-Orthodox these Anti-Congregationall zea∣lots

are, in the main pillar of that Answer which now we op∣pose,* 1.229 being (as hath been said) this; That the open and publique profession of errors, is more pernicious, then the practise of sins in a like kinde and degr••e. O England, who hath bewitched these, and many others of thy Teachers, that they should so seldome see, or at least, speak the Truth, as they doe! But

Secondly, because in the sequell of this Answer, they strike a∣gaine at that dis-junctive expression in the Queries, either impri∣sonment or death, as very injurious to the Ordinance, when the opinion queried about, is by the Ordinance onely threatned with imprisonment; and Gangrena her self; who is loath to be out at any game of frowardnesse or folly, is partaker with them of this un clerk-like, (yea, unmanlike) exception; * 1.230 besides, what hath been already said for the full justification of it with men, who have no soft places in their heads, nor hard in their hearts; I here adde, that howsoever

—Lucis tam dira cupido* 1.231

(as the Poets expression is) i. e. such an uncouth or dismall de∣sire of life, may possibly inthrall or bewitch Gangrena, and her lovers, that a prison above ground, and a prison under ground, may seem very un-synonomous, and as farre distant one from the other, as the East is from the West; yet to ingenuous and free∣spirited men, there is no such great difference between them. Nay, unto many dispositions, yea, unto all men of solid under∣standing, present imprisonment in the chambers of death is many wayes more desirable, then perpetuall imprisonment, or for term of life, under the hand of our common Jaylors; especially upon those tearmes of misery and extremity, which the farre greater part of those suffer and indure, who are imprisoned by men. So that in case the expression in the Queries so oft quarrelled, had been conjunctive, imprisonment and death, and not dis-junctive (as now it is) imprisonment or death, there had been no such ca∣pitall injury or offence committed against the Ordinance: how much lesse, the dis▪junctive being every wayes, as well in appea∣rance, as in truth and substance, innocent? But eares, must be horns, when Lions will.

Their fourteenth Answer, commeth not ••eere their fourteenth* 1.232 Argument by sixteen foot, at least. Their Major in this Argu∣ment,

is this: None ought to urge a truely faithfull and conscienti∣ous* 1.233 Minister to publish contrary to what he is perswaded of, nor to threaten him with death or imprisonment, if he shall declare himself otherwise. To this they are pleased to Answer, That this Major is not universally true. Their reason: For though no Minister that is truely faithfull and conscientious, may publish any thing, when he •••• perswaded it is an errour; yet if any such Minister hath first publish∣ed any dangerous errour, to the dishonour of God, and the mischiefe of soules, he may be justly urged to make reparation for the evill which he hath caused, by publishing the contrary Truth: and may, if he shall refuse, be threatned with imprisonment, and even of death. They that can reconcile this reason unto the cause, which it undertakes, may doe it, if they please: I confesse I cannot. For is there so much as a face, or the lightest stricture of an appearance of any thing in it, to prove, That a truely faithfull and conscientious Minister, may be urged, or threatned with imprisonment or death, to publish con∣trary to what he is perswaded of, &c. If he be perswaded of Truth, in that which is contrary to what he hath published, he shall not need, being truely faithfull and conscientious, to be urged, much lesse threatned with imprisonment or death, to make reparations by the publishing of it. His faithfulnesse and conscientiousnesse will of their own accord lead him hereunto. If he be not perswaded, both the Quer••e and the Argument are still where they were, both un-answered.

Whereas in the sequell of this Answer, they cite that of the A∣postle,* 1.234 Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off that trouble you, to prove, that he, that shall still persist to publish dangerous errours, may be threatned with death (I suppose they mean, and cut off by death also) I answer, first, that certainly though they let Paul alone with his owne words, yet they exchange meanings with him. For he doth not here speake of cutting off by the sword of the Magistrate, which is by death; but by the sword of the Church▪ which is by excommunication. Chrysostome, with whom Calvin agrees in his notion, conceives that the Apostle in his expression of cutting off, alludes to circumcision, which was made by ab∣s••ission: and wisheth, that as they distracted the Church by preaching and urging the Doctrine of Circumcision, or cutting off, so themselves should be cut off. Now that cutting off, which

was by circumcision, was not to the death, or destruction, but to* 1.235 the benefit of the circumcised. Mr. Perkins calls the passage in hand, an imprecation or curse pronounced by Paul upon the false Apo∣stles, and moveth this question upon it; Whether we may not curse our enemies as Paul did? To which he answers negatively, No: his reason: For we have not the like spirit to discern the persons of men what they are: and our zeale for Gods glory, is mixed with ma∣ny corrupt affections, and therefore to be suspected. So that his judge∣ment is, not onely that no argument can be drawne from this Scripture for the death or imprisonment of any teachers of errors, or troublers of Churches in that kind; but not so much as for any imprecation, or wishing of evill against such. Luthers inter∣pretation of the place differs not much; who expounds the A∣postles malediction or imprecation (as he calls it) against the di∣sturbers of the Church, in the nature of an Anathema, and makes this to be the sense of it, that God would not guide or prosper either their Doctrine, or their doings. * 1.236 Musculus understands the place cleerly of excommunication. I would they were cut off (saith he) But from whence? Even from the body of the Churches of Christ, into which they had infinuated themselves, as if they had been members of them; whereas indeed they were pernicious pests. They who are cut off, are abalienated from all communion and fellowship therewith, &c. It is true he speaks afterwards of cutting off by the Christian Magistrate: but his Text, according to his own interpretation of it, administers no ground at all unto him so to wish. Nor in∣deed doth he wish any such cutting off as this, but upon this ground or supposition, that the Churches of Christ have no other meanes whereby to be rid of those unworthy teachers and Pastors, whom he judgeth meet to be cut off; which yet they ought to have, yea and might have, if they did not willingly suffer themselves to be deprived of it; and then they should stand in no need at all of the strong hand of the Magistrate for such a purpose.

Whereas they adde, that Christians in former ages submitted to* 1.237 suffer, with profession, that if they had been Heretiques or Blasphemers they had deservedly suffered; and for proofe hereof, alledge that of the Apostle Paul (when he was accused to have offended against the law of the Jews and the Temple) If I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to dye, Act. 25. 8. 11.

they here also commit that iniquity, by which they still build* 1.238 their house of High Presbytery; I mean, they misuse the good Word of God. For is there any thing in the passage they cite▪ which so much as colours with that assertion, which they argue from it? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith the Apostle.) i. e. if indeed I did (or doe) injustice, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not, &c. Doe any of the Heretiques, or Sectaries now (as these men are pleased to call all those, who refuse eandem insanire insaniam, with them) refuse to suffer, or die, upon such tearmes as these? Let them produce any one man of that generation which they so avile, and tread under their feet like clay and mire, or stones in the streets, who ever refused to suffer for injustice proportionably to his offence? or to dye, having committed any thing worthy of death? It may possibly be, that some of them have pleaded their innocency, when matters of injustice have been laid to their charge: and others have declared their judgements in opposi∣tion to some, who would make what they please, or what plea∣seth not them, matters worthy of death. But in both these they are so farre from going against, that they follow, the example of the Apostle Paul; who denyed that he had done any injustice, or committed things worthy of death, as his malicious accusers had tra∣duced and falsely charged him to have done. O England, when will thy Teachers cease to pervert the streight wayes and word of the Lord! when shall it yet be?

Their Answer to their fifteenth Argument is somewhat faint* 1.239 and tender. They speake here as if they cared not much whether they spake or no yet they take courage to say, that the publique holding of some opinions may be so prejudiciall to the publique peace, as may deserve imprisonment, and yet not deserve excommunication, &c. But their strength is wholy spent with bringing forth the bare as∣sertion, that they have not left wherewith to cloath or guard it with any proofe. And indeed a thousand such sayings may more easily be asserted, then any one of them substantially proved. I desire to know what opinions those are, the publique holding whereof may be so prejudiciall to the publique peace, as to deserve punishment; and yet not be so prejudiciall, either to the honour of God, or to the proceedings of the Gospell or to the well being of that par∣ticular Church, which ought to take cognizance of them, as to

deserve excommunication. I feare that the publique peace is oftener* 1.240 prejudiciall to the publique holding forth of many truths, then the publique holding forth of any opinion whatsoever prejudiciall unto that.

Whereas they adde, that the Apostle did not call them beloved Brethren, that at Corinth denyed the resurrection, but the rest of the Church that ••••ld the Truth; except either they will say, that they speake it by Revelation, or else give some, either Scripture, or rea∣son to prove it; I trust they will give us leave to judge it Apocry∣phall, and to number it amongst the transgressions of their pen. That which followes, is yet of a more ignoble calculation: for they say, neither were there any such in the Church of Corinth, or Christian Churches then, that held opinions of farre worse consequence, then very many, or even then any of those errours, which the Ordi∣nance threatens with death. But first, why, or in relation whereun∣to, doe they tell us this story? would they have their Reader thinke, that in saying this (though they could prove it, which they neither doe, nor, I beleeve, can) they answer the demand of the Querie? They that are willing to be deceived▪ may so judge. But the Querie doth not aske, whether there were not in the Church▪ who publiquely held some opinions of worse consequence, then many of those which the Ordinance threatens with death; but, then many of those which this Ordinance threatens, either with imprisonment, or death. But when a shadow will doe the deed, what need men take care for the substance? and when halfe answers will serve the turne, such as are compleat and whole are but superfluities. Secondly, for my satisfaction about the truth of the assertion, I desire to consult the learning and judgements, and consciences of these men▪ whether this opinion, that the bodyes of men shall not rise againe after death, which they know was held in the Church of Corinth▪ againe, whether the denying of justification to be by Christ alone, which they know was intertained by many in the Churches of Galatia; yet againe, whether to deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, which it seems from 2 Joh. v. 7. was the opinion and doctrine of many in these times; whether I say every of these opinions, especially the second, be not of worse conse∣quence, and more destructive to the eternall salvation of men, then this, that there is no day of judgement after death; which yet is

one of the errours threatened with death by the Ordinance?* 1.241

Their Sxteenth Argument (so called) is fraudulently made, and drawn up quite besides the tenour and import of the Querie;* 1.242 and therefore though I cannot undertake simply for the justifica∣tion of it, yet is it much more righteous then the Answer made to it: For▪

First, this affirmeth, that those who hold and publiquely maintain any of the opinions, punishable by death in the Ordinance, cannot be so full of grace and goodnesse as those of a contrary judgement. An asser∣tion (doubtlesse) no wayes reconcileable with any sound princi∣ple, either in reason or Religion. Yet our Anti-Querie-men▪ un∣dertake the patronage and defence of it, by this plea: Because (say they) they who h••ld, and publiquely maintain DAMNA∣BLE heresies, have no true Grace, or goodnesse at all. But (for Answer to this) I would know of these men, what they mean, by DAMNABLE Heresies? For I feare they spread a net in the darknesse of this word, DAMNABLE, to deceive their sim∣ple ones▪ If by DAMNABLE, they mean that, which is al∣waies and inevitably accompanied with eternall Damnation, there is truth in their reason, but no pertinency at all to their purpose; unlesse they be stronger then God, and can doe impossibilities: as (particularly) prove, that all the opinions punishable by death in the Ordinance, are DAMNABLE in such a sense, i. e. of an abso∣lute inconsistence with Grace, and forgivenesse of sin by God. I feare their touchstone, whereby they try opinions and heresies whether they be DAMNABLE in this sense, or no▪ is but coun∣terfeit and naught, and doth but abuse them, and many more with them. Yet if they will please to give it a name by which we may know it, we shall be the better able to examine and judge of it. For my part, I verily beleeve, that there are very few o∣pinions or heresies (as some men call Heresie) which are DAM∣NABLE in this sense. My reason is, because the Scripture so expressely saith, That whosoever beleeveth in Jesus Christ, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. And if there be no opinion ab∣solutely inconsistent with such a beleeving▪ but onely that, which is either formally, or vertually, contradictory to it; Certain I am, that there are not many DAMNABLE in the sense now argued upon. Yea, I make much question, whether all opini∣ons,

which are onely vertually and by way of implication, con∣tradictory* 1.243 thereunto, be absolutely inconsistent with this belee∣ving; and consequently DAMNABLE (in the said sense.) But if by DAMNABLE Heresies, they onely meane, such opi∣nions or errors, which are of dangerous consequence (especial∣ly if they who hold them▪ should withall hold all other Errours, which in a consequentiall way depend upon them) and in this respect are justly and deeply condemnable, or censurable by men; their reason vanisheth into nothing, for want of truth in it. For many who hold and publiquely maintain DAMNABLE He∣resies, in this sense, may have, yea and some (as farre as men are able to discerne) defacto, have true Grace and goodnesse, (as hath been formerly asserted in this Discourse) and might be instanced in many more. But,

Secondly, That which follows in this Answer, is of a far weak∣er* 1.244 constitution, then that which went before. For here they af∣firme, that they that hold any of the other opinions punishable by the Ordinance, cannot be so full of grace and goodnesse, as they MAY BE who are of a contrary judgement. But

First, The Querie doth not make any such ridiculous demand▪ whether those that are of a contrary judgement MAY NOT be as full of Grace and goodnesse, as those that hold the opinions made obnoxious by the Ordinance. But the purport of the Querie is this: Whether it be not possible, that these (viz. taken in their pre∣sent condition, with all their infirmities, whether in point of o∣pinion, or practise) may be as full of Grace and goodnesse, as the o∣ther? (viz. taken and considered likewise with their respective burtherns in both kinds, as for the present they walk laden with them.) Now compare the Gentlemens Answer (in the words mentioned) with the Question put to them, and you will finde no more sympathy between them, then is between Harp and Harrow.

Secondly, Neither is there any whit more Truth, then perti∣nency of relation, in the said Assertion. For certainly they that hold some, yea, or all, the opinions punishable by the Ordinance, may be as full of Grace and goodnesse, as they may be, who are of a con∣trary judgement, viz. if God will please to interesse his power for the cleansing of the former from all filthinesse, both of opi∣nion

and practise, as well as of the latter. The Opinions punish∣able* 1.245 by the Ordinance, are every whit as reduceable by the spirit of God, as the errours held and maintained by men of a contrary judgement: (for I suppose that they also have their errors, if they be men) and their persons or soules likewise capable of as great inlargements for, and with Grace from the hand of God, as theirs.

Thirdly, Whereas they further here say, That those who hold, and publiquely maintain any of those Heresies▪ cannot be so truely service∣able to the State, as those of a contrary judgement; because that there∣by they even provoke God against the State, by the dishonour they bring to him, and the mischiefe they doe to his people; Doe they suppose that those of a contrary judgement, amongst whom it is notoriously known, that there are fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, deceit∣full, covetous, oppressors, proud, persecutors, &c. Doe they suppose (I say) that such abomination-workers as these, doe not at all provoke God against the State, or bring dishonour to him, or do mischiefe unto his people? For without such a supposition as this, it is evident, that those who maintain some one, yea, or more, of the heresies (so called) or errors made punishable by the Ordinance, may be as truly serviceable to the State, as those of contrary judge∣ment; yea, and this with the full consent of that very reason, which is here brought to prove the contrary. Or doe these men conceive, that whosoever will undergo the penance of bowing downe his neck to the yoke of high Presbytery, shall hereby ob∣taine* 1.246 a plenary remission of all his sinnes from God; yea, and* 1.247 further be made uncapable of all further provocation?

These men who are so furiously clamorous against Sectaries and Heretiques (in which bundle of clamour they binde up the names of many that are precious in the sight of God and good men) doe themselves imitate one of the worst straines that was found in one of the worst kinde of Sectaries, (I meane the Do∣natists) with the reproach of whose memory and practise they so frequently stigmatize those who dissent from them. The Do∣natists (saith Peter Martyr) who condemned all other Christians in comparison of themselves, were very remisse in their censures of those of their owne Sect. and patiently suffered even the most impure of men in their Assemblies *. And of Eunomius the Heretique it is re∣ported,

that suis sectatoribus quodvis scelus indulgebat. That is, he fa∣vored* 1.248 his complices or followers in any mischiefe whatsoever.

Fourthly, whereas they alledge, that each of the erroneous opi∣nions punishable by the Ordinance, hath somewhat of visible prejudice* 1.249 to the Church and state; and from hence argue, that those who hold and publiquely maintaine any of these opinions, cannot be so ser∣viceable to the State as those who hold the truth in those things, may be; this is a bird of the same feather, and hath beene pluck't already. Doubtlesse they who hold the truth in th••se things, may notwithstanding hold such erroneous opinions otherwise, and withall be so unworthy beyond the others, in their practises, and course of conversation; that there may be much more visible prejudice both to the Church and State in these: yea, in either of them, then in the errors of the other. But when they adde, that the Queree (against which they argue) seems to inferre, that no Law is to be made to afflict or punish those that are godly, and service∣able to the Common-Wealth; they lay a necessity upon me, either to judge them selfe-condemned in the charge, or else weak be∣neath the line of such men, who understand plaine English. For the cleer truth is, that there is not so much as the least s••em∣ingnesse of any such inference or intimation, in the Querie.

In their Answer to their seventeenth Argument, they follow* 1.250 their occupation; first, they dictate, and then calumniate. They di∣ctate▪ that the Ordinance is not like to discourage (they meane from the Ministery) any, but hereticall and erroneous spirits, who would do mischiefe in the Ministery, if they were admitted unto it. By the way, is it not much that Ministers of an Anti-Congregationall Inte∣rest, should speake against those who doe mischiefe in the Ministery? Therefore (saith the Apostle) thou art unexcusable, O man, whoso∣ever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou con∣demnest thy selfe: for thou that judgest, dost the same thing * 1.251. But how doe they prove, that the Ordinance is not like to discourage a∣ny, but hereticall and erroneous spirits? No otherwise, then by the profound demonstration of an Authoritative silence. They are n••••i ad imperium, borne to Sovereignty; and it is an indigne thing to put them upon the servility of disputing. The rule is, Lex im∣peret, non disputet: and is it not meet that Law-makers should par∣take of the honour and priviledges of the Law? But if they

could content themselves with the office of Dictatours, and not* 1.252 intrench upon Sathans imployment also of calumniating; it were a very considerable deduction from that summe of misery, wherewith the nation is now charged by them. Our Anti Que∣rists have borrowed Gangrena's forehead, and are not ashamed to say, that it is the Querists calumnious insinuation, that the common doctrines of the Churches of God in this present age, are but mispri∣sions and common errours in matters of Religion. Reader, if there be so much as the quantity of a mo••e in the ••unne of any such insinuation in the Querie; let them weare the crown of Sagacious and quick-discerning men, and let the dung hill (meet for slaun∣derers to sit on) be assigned unto me for my portion. But if they in the charge have sinned the sinne of the dung hill, why should sinne and shame part company? All the Querie can so much as seem to intimate about this point, is, that men of greatest worth for parts and abilities, are more likely then other men, to discover the common errours and misprisions of the present age in matters of Religi∣on. But doth he that supposeth there are common errours and mis∣prisions in matters of Religion, intimate, that the common doctrines of the Churches of God are but misprisions and common errours in Religion? Or doth he that supposeth that there is much base and counterfeit coine abroad, intimate, that the best Silver and Gold are but counterfeit? Or doth he that supposeth, that illiterate and ignorant men are common in the world, intimate, that the wisest and most learned men are but illiterate and ignorant? Apagè calum∣niarum quisquilias.

In their eighteenth Answer, p. 20. pretending to answer an* 1.253 Argument drawn from the parable of the tares, they say, that the parable doth not forbid to pluck up the tares in one field, for feare left others should plucke up the wheat in another [field] In this doubtlesse they speake most truly. For Christ was not afraid, left the plucking up of the tares in this world, should occasion the plucking up of the wheat in the next world. For the field, wherein both the wheate and the tares are to grow together, is expresly said to be the world, i. e. this present world. The field is the world, Matth. 13. 38. So that our Antagonists thus farre, in the point in hand, speake most substantially for matter of truth; but most childishly, as for matters of Answer, or reason otherwise. Whereas they

adde; that the parable forbids to pluck up the tares, when by the* 1.254 same act they may be in danger to pluck up the wheat with it; if they can be content to have a sober sense put upon their words, (a better, I beleeve, then their owne) I willingly subscribe unto this also. For they, who by plucking up that, which they call tares, (and perhaps is so) in one part of the field, shall, or pro∣bably may, occasion or provoke others, to pluck up that, which they also call tares (and perhaps is not so, but good wheat) in another, may very properly be said, by the same act to be in danger of plucking up the wheat also with it. And there is little question (indeed) to be made, but that this was our Saviours expresse meaning in those words: lest while you gather up the tares, you pluck up also the wheat with them * 1.255. i. e, lest by your example, in gathering out the tares in your part of the field▪ or, where you have to doe, you occasion or excite others to pluck up the wheat in that part of the field where they have to doe: which latter thing, if it should be done, may justly be imputed to that act of yours in gathering or plucking up the tares. Our Saviour in this Parable expresseth himself to be so exceedingly tender of the lives and li∣berties of his Saints and faithfull ones (signified by the Wheat) that he prohibits the doing of such an act, which otherwise, even his servants themselves would judge most necessary to be done, chiefly because he knew and foresaw, that the doing of it would endanger these, I mean, the lives and liberties of many of his Saints, He declareth himself willing and desirous, that rather some unworthy men should be spared, then that their suffering should occasion the causelesse sufferings of his Saints, But

Secondly, When they say on, That the tares cannot be meant in* 1.256 that parable, ONELY of Heretiques or false Teachers; doe they not forget themselves exceedingly, and give away the cause of high-Presbytery at once? He that shall say, that Abraham did not ONELY beget Isaac, doth he not suppose and grant, that Abraham howsoever did beget Isaac? So he that shall say, that Christ did not ONELY call Peter and Andrew to be Apostles, doth he not cleerly imply, that yet he called these, as well as others to that dignity? In like manner when our Counter-Querists say, that the tares in the parable cannot be meant ONELY of Heretiques and false Teachers, they plainly and fairely grant, that yet they

are meant of these, as well as of any other sort of wicked men.* 1.257 If so, then must not the Servants of Christ, whether Magistrates or Ministers, gather them out from amongst the wheat by death, but suffer them to grow together in the field, i. e. in the world, untill the great harvest in the end of the world: that is, they are to leave them, as for matter of corporall punishment, to the proceeding of God himself against them at the great day. Therefore

Thirdly, whereas they attempt to prove their said assertion, by saying, that by our Saviours own Interpretation, they are ALL those that in the field where the good seed is sown, are the children of the wicked one, i. e. all those who being ungodly in heart, doe manifest their ungodlinesse to the view of others; they doe notoriously falsifie our Saviours Interpretation, and substitute that in the stead of it, which is not onely contrary to his meaning and word, but unto reason it self▪ yea, and to the cleer sense and minde of the Scrip∣tures elsewhere. For

First, Our Saviour doth not say, that the tares, are ALL the* 1.258 children of the wicked one; but indefinitely thus: The tares are the children of the wicked one * 1.259. Now indefinite propositions are not alwaies equipollent unto universals; but are to be construed, some∣times as particulars, sometimes as universalls, according to the nature of them, together with direction of other circumstances, and assertions of the same Authors in which they are found.

Secondly, That our Saviour by the tares, doth not mean univer∣sally, ALL the children of the wicked one, is evident, because he onely speaks of such tares which were sown amongst the wheat, (i. e. the children of the Kingdome, or of the Gospell) and sprang up together with it * 1.260. Now there were, and are at this day, un∣godly ones, and children of the wicked one, in such parts or places of the field, where no wheat was ever sown; I mean in such parts of the world, where the word of the Kingdom (the Gospel) was never preached.

Thirdly, the tares of which the Parable speaketh, are said to have been sown by the envious man some time after the wheat was sown. Therefore they cannot be meant, of ALL the children of the wicked one, or of ALL that are manifestly ungodly, because there were great numbers of these in the field (the world) even at the time when the wheat was sowne, and the world first plan∣ted

with the Children of the Kingdome: yea, and long before.* 1.261

Fourthly, If by the tares should be meant ALL wicked and manifestly ungodly ones, then ought not theeves, murtherers, nor the most desperate kinde of malefactors under Heaven, be cut off from the world by the sword of the civill Magistrate, but be let alone in their respective wayes and practises of mischiefe, untill the judgement of the great day. For our Saviour expresly orders and enjoyns, that the tares, of which he speakes in the parable, be suffered to grow together [with the wheat] untill the harvest * 1.262. If our Anti-Querists whoever they be, thus charge the master of the house, with the crime of Anti-Magistraticallisme, it is no great matter if they charge those of his houshold with it much more.

Fiftly, such wicked and ungodly ones, and such onely, are meant* 1.263 by the tares in our Saviours parable, the taking away of whose lives, is like to endanger the lives of his Saints, the children of the Kingdome, and that more generally. But he said, nay, lest whilst yee gather up the tares, yee pluck up also the wheat with them * 1.264. Now the cutting of many manifestly ungodly and wicked ones, by the sword of the Magistrate; as viz. Murtherers, Theeves, Traytors, &c. doth no wayes endanger either the lives or liberties of the Saints, but rather is a preservative and security and honour unto them. The reason is, because these (the Saints) are generally kept by the power of God thorough Faith, as unto salvation; so from the per∣petration and breaking out into such horrid and vile practises, as these. Therefore when the actors of such impieties as these, are punished by the Magistrate, the innocency and unblameablenesse of their wayes are set of with the greater lustre and commendati∣on. So that

Sixtly and lastly, by the tares in the parable, according to our Saviours interpretation, is meant onely that veyne, or sort of evill doers, who serve the Kingdome of Sathan by sowing false Doctrines, by corrupting the purity of the Gospell, as by sprea∣ding Errours and Heresies in the Churches of Christ amongst the Saints, &c. There are severall circumstances in the Parable, which cleerly restraines the sense and interpretation of the tares to false Teachers, and spreaders of Errours and Heresies. First, false Teachers and corrupters of the purity of the Gospell, were not found in the world, till some while after, that the Gospell had

been purely and sincerely taught in the world, (as the tares were* 1.265 not sown, till some while after the sowing of the wheat) where∣as there were evill-doers of all other kindes in abundance, at this time, and before (as hath been already said.) There were indeed, false Teachers and corrupters of the truth in the Church of the Jews, before and at the time when the Gospell was first publi∣shed in the world, such were the Sadduces, Pharises, &c. and so there were Teachers of many vanities amongst the Gentiles in many places. But the Gospell cannot properly be said to be cor∣rupted with Errours or false Doctrines mingled with it; first, untill the Truth of it was declared and planted in the world: Nor secondly, by any, but by those who professe it.

Secondly, the tares appeared not, till after the blade of the wheat was sprung up, yea, and had brought forth fruite * 1.266. Nor were there any false Teachers heard of, who corrupted the Truth of the Gospell, untill the Apostles had planted the Gospell in the purity of it, and made many proselytes to it in the world, which our Saviour elsewhere (viz. Joh. 15. 16.) calleth a bringing forth fruite. But evill doers in other kindes there were as many (or ra∣ther more) before the wheat had brought forth this fruite, as after∣wards▪

Thirdly, the enemy, or envious man, who is said to have sowne* 1.267 the tares, (the Devill) went his way, (as the parable saith) when he had done this worke; that is, he did it slily and covertly; he was not seen or observed when he did it, nor till some while after. Those false Teachers who mingled Evangelicall Truth with Er∣rours and Heresies, were not suspected for such at the first, no nor discerned at all by very many professing Christianity, either first or last, viz. all such▪ who imbraced their errours, instead of truth, and continued in them. Whereas in Murthers, Thefts, Seditions, Rebellions, Treasons, with many other kindes of impiety, Sathan is apparant, and to be seene (as it were) with open face.

Fourthly, the gathering up of the tar••s, endangered the plucking up of the wheat also with them. In like manner, if Magistrates or o∣thers shall be busie about plucking up Sectaries, Heretiques, Tea∣chers of Errours, &c. they will be in continuall danger of pluck∣ing up the wheat also, I mean godly men, and children of the King∣dome.

First, because many truly pious and conscientious men, chil∣dren* 1.268 of the Kingdome, may easily bee drawn into some unwar∣rantable Sect, or opinion. Secondly, such opinions as expose those who hold them forth, to the reproachfull names of Sectaries, Schismatiques, Heretiques, &c. and in this respect shall be sentenced, and proceeded against by the Magistrate▪ as er∣roneous and hereticall, may well be the sacred Truths of God; and the persons holding them forth unto the world, the best and faithfullest of his servants; Examples hereof were frequent in this very Kingdome in the dayes of Papall power. Thirdly, and lastly, the very example of one kinde of Magistrate plucking up the tares, as he calls tares, in one place; is very likely to occasion the like plucking up, by a Magistrate of another spirit in another place, of such as he calls tares, who yet, very possibly, may be the good wheat. Whereas if we speak of morall impieties and the workers of these, as Adulterers, Murtherers, Oppressors, Traitors, &c. there is little or no danger, that the Saints (at least, not any considera∣ble numbers of them) should suffer by any proceedings of the Magistrate against these, because, First, they are seldome given up to the committing of such sins as these. Secondly, because, there are no other practises, whether righteous or unrighteous, that are any thing like unto these, or wherein there is ordinarily any place for a mistake, by men of ordinary understanding. Thirdly, and lastly, neither can the example of any one Magistrate, inflicting punishment upon offenders in any of these kindes, in reason or likelihood of event, occasion another Magistrate of what spirit soever, to inflict punishment upon those who are not offenders; in as much as all Magistrates are of one and the same judgement in this, that morall misdemeanours, and particularly those that were mentioned, with their like, ought to be punished.

Fifthly and lastly, the tares are by the order and command of Christ, to be suffered to grow together with the wheat, untill the harvest. But evident it is, that Christ would not have murthers, thefts, a∣dulteries, and other morall misdemeanors, to be left unpunished by the Civill Magistrate untill the last day; because then, he should carry the sword in vain, and not be Gods Minister to execute wrath upon such as doe evill; and so the Office of Magistracy would be quite taken away by such an interpretation. Therefore without

all controversie, by the tares are precisely and determinately* 1.269 meant, false teachers, and spreaders of errors in Religion (and yet not all these neither, though now we have not time to distinguish) whom the Magistrate may suffer to grow with the wheat unto the harvest, and yet have work enough for his sword, and his Office stand in full force, strength, and vertue, for the benefit and accom∣modation of the world.

But our Anti-Querists perceiving this Parable comming a∣gainst* 1.270 them and their bloody Tenet, like an armed man, against whom no resistance is to be made, they wisely seek to divert the course of it another way; and fain would perswade the world, that the scope of it rather relates to the providence of God in the mini∣stery of Angels, then to the duty of the Magistrate (this certainly is a new light hung out by the Gentlemen Presbyterians.) And because they could not much confide in such an empty speculation as this, or think that it would ever passe the judgements of men with ac∣ceptation; therefore through feare they betake themselves to the refuge of this darknesse: That there is some obscurity in all parables to make them sute. And because they would not willingly be di∣sturbed in their way, by this or any other Parable, therefore they further give this prudent admonition to their Adversaries concer∣ning Parables, that they are not to be urged beyond their scope; which they would have both them and all the world to presume, is ne∣ver to hurt or to indanger High-Presbytery. Which also (in effect) they confesse, in the words following; which (the errors, either of their presse, or pen, or both, corrected with as much skill and faithfulnesse as I can) are these: The scope of which Parable, that it is not to shew the Magistrates duty, may appeare further by our Savi∣ours interpretation and making no application, or [shewing] what men should doe here in sparing any wicked man, but shewing what God will doe at the day of judgement, as is MANIFEST to any that will read Christs interpretation of it. It seems then, notwithstand∣ing some obscurity in the Parable, yet there is some light also in it. For whatsoever maketh MANIFEST is light. And the truth is, that there is more obscurity in these few lines of theirs, then is in all the Parable they speak of. For they tell us twice over (for failing) of Christs Interpretation of the Parable; and yet de∣ny that he makes any application. For my part I understand not

how any man can make an interpretation of a Parable, without* 1.271 making some application or other. If their meaning be, that Christ in his Interpretation of it, did not apply it to the Magistrate, or speak of his duty in sparing any wicked man, (which they seeme brokenly to imply.)

I Answer, It is not necessary for the opening or interpretation of a Parable, to interpret or apply every particularity contained in it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or in expressenesse of words: it is sufficient, if such and so many particulars of it be interpreted, or applyed; by the understanding whereof other particulars also, and consequently the whole Parable, may be understood. Now certain it is, that Christ hath so farre interpreted the Parable of the tares, and made application of so many of the particulars in it, that the residue of it may by the light of the••e, be cleerly understood. So that it no wayes follows, that because Christ did not apply the Parable (viz. in expressenesse of tearmes, or, totidem verb••) to the Magistrate, or shew what he should doe here in sparing wicked men; that there∣fore the duty of the Magistrate in this behalf, is not cleerly and with sufficient evidence of the Truth, held forth in the Pa∣rable.

The former part of their Answer to the Argument under pro∣tection.* 1.272 consisting of the greatest part of their twentieth page, hath been fully answered in what hath been replyed to the latter: From whence also it cleerly appears, that the whole tenour and carriage of it, lies quite besides the spirit, drift, and scope of the Querie. The scope of this, was not to ask, whether any man ought to neglect a duty, for feare of any inconvenience, one, or more, greater or lesser, that may possibly attend the performance (which is all that this part of the Answer maketh at) but whe∣ther such an act or practise as is there mentioned, be not likely to to produce that inconvenience or evill, for the prevention wher∣of, the Lord Christ hath declared himselfe against the practise.

In their nineteenth Answer they doe nothing lesse then rage right-downe; affirming, first, that the minor in their own Argu∣ment, is nothing else but the impudency of the Querist, with whom any Heretique or Blasphemer may passe for a conscientious man. What? Gentlemen, and give such course language? Christians, and re∣vile at this rate? Men of conscience, and call that my impudency,

which they inwardly judge to be their owne commendation?* 1.273 For certainly they judge all these Arguments and Syllogismes to be their praise and honour, and accordingly in their Epistle to the Reader, they cunningly, and very effectually crave of him, that which they conceive to be their due in this kinde, by rendring* 1.274 reasons, upon which they may crave it, viz. the paines they took in the composing of them; and the hope they have of giving ease and satisfaction by them to their Readers. But

First, what manner of monstrous beast is this unhappy minor, which thus affrights these men out of their Christian wits? A∣lasse! it is but this innocent Lamb, (whether mine or theirs.) The Ordinance in question, is apparently bent against the faces, if not of the most, yet of a very considerable part of the best and most conscientious men amongst us. Well, it seems this Lamb must make a sacrifice: but how, or with what knife doe the Priests slay it? with this: It is false, the Ordinance is onely bent against Heretiques and Blas∣phemers and other erroneous spirits, who will needs, notwithstanding any admonition, publish doctrines that are hurtfull to mens soules, and the peace of the Church and State. But is not the Lamb yet alive for all this stroke given unto it? Or is not the bare affirmation of the minor thus struck at, as Authoritative and Authentique, as the bare negation of the Answer? If the Anti-Querists know any such difference between themselves and the Querist, that all his sayings must needs be hay and stubble, and all theirs silver and gold, they shall doe well to informe him of it. He shall present∣ly, upon the information, if it be competent, make all his sayings to become homagers unto theirs. But with as much confidence as they seem to rejoyce against the poore minor, as being false, a∣bove, and beyond, and without all question, they soon pull in their hornes, and think it best to distinguish, to cover the naked∣nesse and shame of their deniall. But alasse! the covering of the distinction is too scant and narrow for the service, the nakednesse of the deniall appeares notwithstanding. Of which latter sort (say they, speaking of those who publish Doctrines hurtfull, as they are pleased to tearme them, to the peace of the Church and State) if any should be conscientious, the Ordinance is no wayes bent against their faces, as they are conscientious, but as they are instruments of evill, &c. But

First, whether may not they, who publish Doctrines hurtfull to* 1.275 * 1.276 the peace of the Church and State (in a sense) be instruments of good and not of evill, in so doing? Christ and his Apostles preaching the Gospel, published Doctrines, that occasioned divisions and distractions both in Families and States, as we all know. And yet in propriety of speech, these Doctrines published, were not hurtfull to the peace of either, i. e. to the reall good, and due peace of either. They were indeed hurtfull and interruptive, of, and to, that sinfull peace wherein they found them; but they who published them, were never the more instruments of evill. In like manner if there be any agreement or peace in a Church or State, in any thing which is evill, or erroneous; they who shall publish Doc∣trines which may probably occasion the disturbance of such peace (especially as the degree of the evill, and nature of the error may be) are not therefore instruments of evill. But miserable is the condition of that Church or State, which shall punish men, not onely truely conscientious, but instruments also of good unto them, un∣der the notion of instruments of evill.

Secondly, I desire to ingage the consciences of these men, to* 1.277 answer me to these foure Questions.

First, Whether they doe not look upon the publishing of the principles of the Congregationall Government (and so of that which they call Ana-Baptisme) whether by way of Doctrine, or of practise, as the publishing of Doctrines hurtfull to the peace of the Church and State?

Secondly, Whether they doe not judge the number of those persons amongst us, who publish such Doctrines as these, either by word, or practise, to be a very considerable number?

Thirdly, Whether they doe not judge farre the greatest part of these men to be truely conscientious? If they shall answer af∣firmatively (as I know their consciences will, whatsoever them∣selves will doe) to all these Questions;

I will (as to this point) crave but another Answer to this brief Question, whether the Ordinance in debate be not bent against the faces of all these men?

Themselves grant in terminis, that it is bent against such, who (in their sense, for so they must needs be understood) shall pub∣lish Doctrines that are hurtfull to the peace of the Church and State;

yea, they grant by way of a cleer supposition, that there are of* 1.278 these who are conscientious (if they should not, their own con∣sciences would not beare it at their hands) onely, they deny, that the Ordinance is bent against these men, AS they are conscientious. Did ever the Dragon or the Beast, I mean Rome, either Pagan or Anti-Christian, bend their bloody Edicts or persecutions against the Saints, the most conscientious men amongst them, AS they were conscientious? or in any other respect or consideration whatsoever, then AS (in their sense) instruments of evill? The most ungodly persecuting wretch that ever breathed under these Heavens, did never persecute or speak evill of a Saint, AS a godly, or conscien∣tious man. If themselves were severely punished, and their li∣vings and estates taken from them, AS false accusers of their bre∣thren; would it be any ease or gratification to them, that they were favoured and not proceeded against, AS Presbyterians, or conscientious men? But if such distinctions as these be their bot∣tome grounds and reasons to prove either majors, or minors false, and to make out-cryes against them, as being nothing else but the impudency of the Querist, &c. who can refraine lamentations and teares over the soules of those, whose dependance is for the great things of life and immortality, on such men. Whereas they charge the Querist, as a man, with whom any Heretique or Blasphe∣mer may passe for a conscientious man; I passe by it, as judging that no man will think it worth the taking up.

Whereas they ingage themselves with so much diligence to* 1.279 prove, that Laws must be bent against Instruments of evill, notwith∣standing any conscience they pretend to have; take knowledge, Rea∣der, that it is but a stale device to delude simple and inconsidering men; usually practised by those, who being not able to grapple with an Adversary, in the point in question between them, hunt counter and follow with great eagernesse and opennesse of mouth a false sent; laying on proofe upon proofe, reason upon reason to prove something, which it may be hath some affinity, at least in a sound of words, with the Question in hand, but was never denied, nor intended to be denied, by their opposer, nor indeed is any matter of controversie between any; that by this meanes they may cover their weaknesse and insufficiency to deale with their Adversary, from weak and injudicious men, and seem to car∣ry

the day before them with a strong hand. The Counter-Que∣rists* 1.280 have taken this Sanctuary, once againe, and the third time also, in this their Vindication: and they doe it palpably in this place. For did the Querist ever deny, or intimate the least in∣clination in him towards a deniall, but that Lawes ought to bee bent against instruments of evill, notwithstanding any conscience they pretend to have. Therfore the labour which they bestow in the proofe of this, they should have done well to have converted some other way; and particularly, in seeking out a rock▪ to build their High-Presbytery upon, which all this while stands upon sandy and loose foundations.

That which they yet adde in the close of this Answer, concer∣ning Geneva, having Laws against Heretiques, &c. neither reach∣eth the demand of the Querie, nor yet the import of their owne Argument, pretending legitimacy of descent from it, It is one thing for a State to have Laws against Heretiques; another, by Laws or Ordinances to strike at great, and very considerable num∣bers of the best and most conscientious men amongst them▪ If those Laws against Heretiques and false Teachers in the State of Geneva, of which they speak, were compared with the Ordinance where∣of we both speak, I beleeve they would be so farre from justify∣ing it, that it would rather justifie them, by being more unrighte∣ous and unreasonable then they.

In their twentieth Answer, they sing over their old note; af∣firming, that the Ordinance is of no such bloody consequence to true∣ly* 1.281 pious and conscientious ••en, [as any thing which the Bishops did attempt against the godly whom they hated] as they pre∣sume they have shewed. But where, or to whom, or by what light they have shewed it, I am yet to Query. Whereas they adde in the close of this Answer, that the Bishops were cast out for their luke∣warmnesse; doe they mean for their lukewarmnesse in attempting the sorrows, troubles, molestations, of conscientious and pious men? or in procuring Ordinances and Laws, for the support and streng∣thening of their Kingdome? Doubtlesse their zeale in this kinde was very great: though Alexander may conquer beyond the line of Philips Victories. And I beleeve, that it was more their zeale in this kinde, then any lukewarmnesse, that was the cause of their casting out: and (to joyn with our Antagonists in their Admo∣nition)

let others take heed of the like.* 1.282

We shall lightly passe by their 21 Answer, as containing little* 1.283 in it, but this bare assertion; That the Ordinance, in the words or intent of it, gives unto wicked men no advantage or opportunity to accuse the best Ministers of such things which may touch their lives, or bring much trouble unto them; but ONELY gives advantage to the best men, to be rid of the worst Ministers. With what consci∣ence they speak thus, I referre to themselves, and their own con∣sciences; With what truth, I referre to all unpartiall considering men to judge. Are the Ministers who walk in the Congregation∣all way, the worst of Ministers? For my part, I heartily, and as in the presence of the all-knowing God, wish they were: and that all those who are of a contrary judgement to them, had the spirit of their Grace, knowledge, and goodnesse in every kinde doubled and trebled upon them.

In their 22 and 23 Answer, (p. 24.) they tell us (in effect)* 1.284 What the wisedome of the Parliament can, and what their justice and care will (no doubt) doe, for the undoing of all the Ordinance in∣tends to doe. For in case the Parliament will please to undertake, and settle a thorow and effectuall course, that neither the simplicity of the Jury, nor of the Judge, nor yet the simplicity, nor duplicity, of any, or all the Ministers of the Provinciall or Nationall Assembly, shall be any prejudice to the lives or liberties of studious, learned, and conscientious Ministers, or others; it may very well be presumed, that the Ordinance will have very little to▪ doe, in point of exe∣cution; and that the principall use and service of it will be, to put the Parliament upon▪ the trouble of contriving and setling such a course.

In their 24 Answer (p. 25.) they bring forth strange children.* 1.285 As first, That the fourth Commandement, doth in the words of it, re∣quire onely one day in seven, to be kept holy, as a Sabbath, and doth not expressely command the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, &c. If so, then were the Sabbaths, which the Jews observed, of their own chusing: and how then doth God so frequently call them, His? Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep, Exod. 31. 13. and Nehemiah in his prayer unto God expresseth himself thus: And madest known unto them thy Holy Sabbath, &c. Neh. 9. 14. In which words, he doth not onely appropriate the Jewish Sabbath unto God, but

likwise calls it his holy Sabbath; i. a day which he hath sanctified* 1.286 unto himself and his worship; yea and expresly saith, that God made it knowne unto them (the Jewes) i. revealed unto them on which day of the seven he would bee solemnly worshipped by them. See also Levit. 19. 3. 30. Esa. 56. 4. Ezek. 20, 12, 13. with other places many. God is not wont to appropriate any thing unto himselfe which is of humane election, in, or any wayes ap∣pertaining unto his worship; though sometimes he calls many of these things, theirs, to whom he hath given or appointed them. And besides the reason of the Commandement, for in six dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth &c. expresly characterizeth that very day as intended by God for a Sabbath unto them, which they observed. But the assertion is so empty, and obnoxious, that surely it will fall in the judgements of men without thrusting.

Secondly, This Answer advanceth with this Divinity; that within the generall scope of the Commandement, which is the observing of those times, and those onely as necessary to Religion, which God him∣selfe appoints, was included the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, before Christs Resurrection, and the Christian Sabbath, the Lords day, is now since Christs Resurrection, included also. But

First, If the Jewish Sabbath was included in the Commande∣ment, or in the scope of the Commandement, before Christs Resur∣rection, how came it to be excluded after his Resurrection? Hath the Resurrection of Christ any such influence upon the morall Law, as to cause it to eject, or cast out any thing formerly by way of duty contained or included in it?

Secondly, If the scope of the Commandement, be the observing of those times and of th••se onely, &c. which God himselfe appoints; then how comes the observation of the Christian Sabbath, or Lords day, to be included therein; considering, that according to the Doct••ine of this Answer, this day was no more appointed by God, then any of the other six? Or were all the six dayes besides, as well included in it, as this? If so, why are they not as well observed?

Thirdly, If the Christian Sabbath or Lords day; be now since* 1.287 Christs resurrection included in the scope of the Commandement; I would gladly know, how, or by what Authority, or by whose act it hath beene brought within the verge of this scope, so as to

be included in it. If Answer be made, that it hath beene brought* 1.288 in by the Authority, or act of God; then doth he not in this Commandement onely require one day in seven to be kept holy as a Sab∣bath; but he requireth circumscriptively and particularly which of the seven he will have so kept. If it be said, that it hath beene brought in by the Church, or by men, then have men power to take it out againe, and to put in any other of the six in the stead of it. And how did the Resurrection of Christ contribute any thing towards the bringing of this day within•• the scope of the Commandement, if it depended upon the will and pleasure of men? But into the secret of these mens Divinity in this place, my soule as yet cannot finde the way to enter. And

Thirdly (and lastly) doe these men substantially prove, that the morall Law contained in the ten Commandements, is the rule of a Christians life, onely by saying, that the Christian Sabbath, is now included in the generall scope of the fourth Commandement, and that the Sacraments of the New Testament, Baptisme and the Lords Sup∣per, are included within the scope of the second Commandement now? First, they prove not so much as the least haire of their heads a∣mount unto, of either of their assertions: and yet neither of them lyeth so neare any known principle either of Reason, or Religion, that they need have feared▪ the proverbiall reproof of lighting up a candle to see the Sunne, in case they had bestowed a slender argu∣ment or two, upon the clearing of them. But secondly, if what they affirme in both, were granted, yet their conclusion is not hereby gained. For onely such a Law can properly be called a rule of life to Christians, which either particularly, or at least suffici∣ently, prescribes and regulates all things necessary to be done by a Christian, as a Christian. Now the generall scope of the two Commandements specified, and much more the Commandements themselves, are so farre, either from prescribing, or regulating either of the duties respectively affirmed to be included in them, that without particular direction for the performance both of the one and the other, otherwise; neither of them had ever beene practised by men, notwithstanding the generall scope of the said Commandements, yea and Commandements themselves. I trust the Anti-Querists themselves do not make any such Law the Rule of their lives, which neither teacheth nor directeth them what to doe.

To the twenty fifth Query, desiring to know in what sense the* 1.289 * 1.290 Ordinance maketh it an Error, to hold, that a man by nature hath free will to turne unto God; they returne this sleeve-lesse and froward Answer: That there are scarce any words, but a Caviller may pretend of them, that they are to be understood divers wayes. But good Gentlemen, doth the Querist pretend this of the words in hand? doth he not particularly assigne, and plainely explicate two distinct senses wherein the said words may be taken; humbly craving to know••, which of the two was the sense intended by the Ordinance? But I confesse that in High Presbytery, where Authorativenesse hath her throne, to desire a steady and distinct explication of things, is (constructively) to cavill. However, it had been no such meritorious straine of ingenuity in these men, having two distinct senses of a clause ready formed, stated, and presented to their hand, with a modest desire to know, which of the two was to rule, for them to have clearly answered either for the one, or for the other: or in case neither of them had com∣ported with the intent of the Ordinance, to have substituted a third in their stead. But instead of this, they disparage themselves with this tergiversation in the procedure of their answer: But the Parliament hath so oft declared against Arminian••sme, of which this, (I wonder which, or what?) is a chiefe Article, and so 〈…〉〈…〉 our former Parliaments, that no man hath any reason to imagine, that they understand any other thing by that opinion (they should have done well to have told us what opinion it is they speake of) then the Arminian freewill, which by the Reformed Churches is generally con∣demned, as a pernicious Error. But

First, I wonder how these men come to know, or to presume what the Parliaments sense is about that Free-will. which is sen∣tenced with imprisonment in the Ordinance, when as (confident I am) that they have never yet given an account of their sense therein, either unto them, or any other.

Secondly, I would willingly ask these men, what competent grounds they have, to think (especially with so much confidence as their words import) that either the Parliament, or especially the makers of the Ordinance, mean, the Arminian Free-will; when as, first, it is probable, that they never studied the state of the Controversie between the Arminians and their opposers, a∣bout

the point of Free-will; and so cannot know (at least other∣wise* 1.291 then by loose and common heare say) what the Arminian Free-will is. And secondly, inasmuch as many, and those Scho∣lars and Students in Divinity by profession, who have bestowed some time and study in the controversie, are yet scarse able to give any sensible account of the difference, or state of the Questi∣on, between the combatants.

Thirdly, I desire of them, that they will please in their Rejoyn∣der, to relieve my darknesse in the point with their light, and clearly informe me, what themselves mean by the Arminian Free will. I have bestowed some time, and upon occasion inquired as narrowly as some others, to finde out what was the sense and o∣pinion of Arminius himself, about the bondage, and freedome of the will: I have likewise consulted the writings of some that are generally reputed his followers, upon the same occasion. By comparing the Master with some of his Disciples, I clearly finde that there is to the full as great a difference between the judge∣ments of the one and of the other (in the point now under con∣sideration) as there is between the judgement of the generality of learned Divines in England, and Arminius himself. Yea, I pro∣fesse, that looking lately into Arminius, on purpose to finde some passa•••• or expression, one or more, of some rank import upon the subject, and I could meet with none, but what with a faire and reasonable construction of the words, was fully reconcileable with the judgements and expressions of some reformed Churches, yea and of some of eminent note and desert, both for piety and soundnesse of judgement, amongst our selves. Amongst some of Arminius followers I confesse I found it otherwise. Now then this is the request which I make to these men (and I trust they will not judge it unreasonable) that they will plainly declare themselves what they mean by their Arminian Freewill; whether that, which is held and taught by Arminius himselfe, or which is maintained by some of his followers; there being so materiall and considerable a difference between them?

Fourthly (and lastly) whereas they send us to the generality of* 1.292 the Reformed Churches to informe our selves, what Free-will it is, which is made punishable by the Ordinance with imprisonment, defining it to be that, which by the Reformed Churches is generally

condemned as a pernicious Errour. First, I cannot but judge it un∣reasonable* 1.293 in the highest, that the generality of men amongst us should be made obnoxious to imprisonment, by such an expres∣sion in an Ordinance or Law, the sense and meaning whereof they cannot come to understand, but onely by consulting the writings and all the confessions of Faith, set forth by all the Re∣formed Churches respectively. Alas, the farre greater number of men amongst us, are wholy uncapable of this information, not understanding the language, wherein these Confessions of Faith are written.

Secondly, To my knowledge the Reformed Churches them∣selves do not generally, at least not universally agree, in condem∣ning the Arminian free-will, as a pernicious Errour, but some of them doe subscribe and publish that to the world upon this sub∣ject for truth, which others of them condemne for an Errour. So that the Anti-Querists have meerly baffled in their Answer, in∣stead of giving any satisfaction to the Querie, demanding the sense of this clause in the Ordinance, that a man by nature hath free-will to turne unto God.

In their 26 and 27 Answer, pag. 29. though they quit them∣selves* 1.294 with somewhat more fairnesse and ingenuity, then they do in all the rest, yet they do not speak distinctly enough to the minde of the Querie, when by Blaspheming, in the Ordinance, they say, are meant, onely such horrible expressions against God, as cannot with patience be heard by any Christian eare. In this description, there are sundry particulars of a very doubtfull interpretation. As first, when they define, Blasphemy, by horrible expessions against God, whether they exclude Christ man, or as being man, from being an object capable of this Blasphemy. Secondly, what they mean by a Christian ear; whether the ear of a person, who is Christian indeed, i. e. a true and sound Believer, or of a Christian at large, and by outward pr••••••ssion onely. We know there is a great difference between the eare of the one, and of the other, in respect of ta∣sting Blasphemy. If they meane the eare of a sound Christian, a true Beleever, it is a point of no easie decision to determine, who amongst men are such. If the eare of a Christian at large, I sup∣pose they cannot but know, that there are many such eares, who can heare any Blasphemy whatsoever, with patience (whatsoever is

meant by it) more then enough. Thirdly and lastly, what they* 1.295 meane, by being heard with patience, whether by Patience, they mean such a composednesse of minde and spirit, which keepes men from all unseemly deportment or expression of themselves out∣wardly, in cases of provocation: (which is the common significa∣tion of the word) or else such a temper, by which a man is in∣disposed to greeve, or take sorrow upon such occasions, which usually cause sorrow and griefe of heart unto men. Stand we by, either the one signification of the word, Patience, or the other, the clause, cannot be heard with pat••••nce, will be found very incon∣venient to be put into the definition, or description of Blasphe∣my. If we stand by the former, certaine it is, that the more Chri∣stian the eare is, the greater Blasphemy will be heard with patience. The stronger and better built any Christian is, the further he will be from any unseemly carrage upon any provocation whatsoever. If by the latter, the sense is altogether uncouth, and no meat ei∣ther for the eare, or understanding.

Of like ambiguity, and incumbred with the same difficulties, is their explication of this clause in the Ordinance, impugning the word of God; this (they say) cannot reasonably ••e thought to signifie lesse, then such reproaches against the Truth, or divine Authority of the Scriptures, as are not to be indured by those that beleeve them to be the word of God. If this be all that is meant by the said clause, then men may impugne the word of God (I meane the Scriptures) in a Scholastique way, by arguments fram'd against the Divinity of them, without comming under the dint or stroake of the Or∣dinance▪ in case they r••fraine reproachfull expressions.

But suppose these men should give us a cleer and a faire sense of these, and all other expressions in the Ordinance, that are dark and dubious, yet this would not justifie the Ordinance, unlesse the makers and contrivers of it will please to ratifie them with their subscriptions. For (as the maxime is) Ejusdem ••st ••••rpr••t••ri cu∣jus est condere. They onely have power to interpret a Law (viz. authoritatively, and with such an interpretation, on which a sub∣ject may safely repose) who by a lawfull power made it.

Their Argument pretending to the 28 Querie, is fram'd quite* 1.296 besides it; and their Answer, as much besides the Argument. In this Answer, they first grant, that to say and maintaine, that God

seeth no sin in the justified, in a sense, is justifiable and true: and yet* 1.297 secondly they affirme, that it may be made punishable notwithstan∣ding. The reason they give, is onely this; because in another sense (which they call the literall, and common) it is a dangerous and pernicious error. But will any man Christianly disposed, judge it meet, that the saying or publishing, that Christ is a Vine, or a doore, should be made punishable; unlesse they declare the par∣ticularity of that sense, wherein they make it punishable. But this light courtesie cannot (it seemes) be obtained in the case of Gods seeing no sin in the justified, of those, who yet would have the world beleeve, that they have sufficiently Answered the Queries.

Before they come to Syllogize the twenty ninth Querie, they* 1.298 make a sad complaint of it, that it is perplexed, and the sense of it in∣volved, &c. But I marvell why they should turne Querulists a∣gainst the Querist upon occasion of this Query, when as in their Answer to it (setting aside a gentle evaporation of some folly to∣wards the beginning of it, and a little fit of frowardnesse in the end) they are more distinct, and speake more steadily to the heart of it, then they doe to any of the rest in their respective Answers; yea they have not quitted themselves so like men of judgement and understanding in all their discourse besides, as they have done in the sober part of this Answer; which (for their cre∣dit) I shall set downe in their owne words, and improve a little for their benefit. He (say they) that hath read the Socinian bookes, whose proper opinion it is, that a man must beleeve no more, then by his reason he can comprehend, will easily be satisfied, that the Ordinance plain∣ly requireth, that a man should not refuse to beleeve those Doctrines, which are clearly, and certainly, for the matter of them, laid downe in the word of God; as for example, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the incarnation of the Son of God▪ although for the manner of them he can∣not by his reason comprehend them, and NOT THAT A MAM MƲST BELEEVE THAT WHICH HE HATH NO REASON OR GROƲND FOR IN THE WORD OF GOD. So then they clearly, and fairly grant, that the Ordinance doth not require, that a man must [or ought] in point of Religion, be∣leeve any thing, but what he hath reason and ground for, in the word of God. From hence then it follows

First, that Reason ought to be every mans leader, Guide, and* 1.299 * 1.300 Director in his Faith, or about what he is, or ought to beleeve: and that no man ought to leap with his Faith, till he hath looked with his Reason; and discovered what is meet to be beleeved, what not. This is sound Divinity indeed: and few more such principles as this, well digested by these men and their friends, would make them worthy of that title of honour which they so much affect, I meane, Orthodox.

Secondly, From the said Grant it followeth also, that Mini∣sters ought not to require their people, to beleeve any thing (much lesse every thing) which they teach, unlesse they have a rea∣son and ground for it (and those sufficient, for mortuus hon••••, non est homo; nor is an insufficient Reason, any reason at all, in this case) from the word of God.

Thirdly, it followeth yet further, that neither ought men to receive or subscribe unto with the hand of their Faith, the deter∣minations or Decretalls of Synods, Councils, or Assemblies of persons of what capacity or worth soever, in matters of Religion, unlesse they have a sufficient Reason or ground from the word of God, for what they doe receive in this kinde.

Fourthly, and lastly it followeth yet once more from the fore∣said grant, that men ought to make use of, yea, and ingage to the uttermost, their Reasons or their discursive abilities, in all mat∣ters of Faith and Religion whatsoever; and not to swallow any thing by a loose credulity▪ but to look narrowly upon every thing with the eye of Reason, before they receive it by the hand of Faith. All these deductions are of a legitimate and cleere descent from the mentioned grant, and are all of them pregnant, noble▪ and magnifique Truths. Onely I cannot well understand, why the Gentlemen should grant, that a man must not, or ought not, to beleeve, what he hath no reason or ground for in the Word of God, and yet condemne this for an error, that a man ought to beleeve no more, then what by Reason he is able to comprehend. For if a man cannot beleeve any thing, but what he knows to have a being, nor yet beleeve the parricular modus or manner of any thing, un∣lesse he knows it to be such, as he beleeves it to be; and againe, if he cannot know either being, or manner of being▪ unlesse he conceives, or comprehends it in and by his Reason, what either the

one, or the other is (which is a Truth unquestionable) it undeni∣ably* 1.301 follows, that a man ought not to beleeve any thing, either being, or manner of being, but what by reason he is able to compre∣hend, i. e. able upon good ground to satisfie himself, that either the one, or the other, is so, or such, as he beleeveth them to be.

As to the two instances, wherein they insist, the Doctrine of the* 1.302 Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, affirming, that a man ought not to refuse to beleeve them, although for the manner of them he cannot by his reason comprehend them:

I Answer, First, that as by my reason, I can and doe compre∣hend, and know them to be incomprehensible, so I beleeve them accordingly to be. Again,

Secondly, as by my reason, I neither doe, nor can comprehend or conceive, the particular modus or manner of either, so neither doe I, or ought I, nor indeed can I (without running an extreame hazzard of an erroneous belief) beleeve any thing at all concer∣ning them; save onely their incomprehensiblenesse in the gene∣rall: or, that they are incomprehensible; which (as was said) I am able by my reason to comprehend▪ So then, these two Asser∣tions or Doctrines (well understood) First, That a man ought to beleeve no more, then what he hath reason and ground for in the Word of God. And Secondly, t••••••: That a man ought to beleeve no more, then what he is able by his reason to comprehend, are but of an equipollent import; and there is nothing more (much more, no∣thing more erroneous) in the one, then in the other.

That towards the beginning of this Answer (yea, there is a piece of a duplicate of it, in the end of the Answer too) is ex∣treamely unreasonable and obnoxious; wherein they suppose (yea, little lesse then in terminis affirme) that they that will be satisfied what the Ordinance meaneth, by making it an errour, to hold, That a man ought to beleeve no more, then what by his reason he is able to comprehend, must read the Socinian Books, and there in∣form themselves what their proper opinion is. For is it in any de∣gree reasonable, equall, or just, that such an Ordinance or Law should be made (and that for the imprisonment, which is, by in∣terpretation, the utter undoing of men, in case of delinquency) the sense or meaning whereof they are in an utter incapacity to understand, unlesse they read such books, which first are onely

extant in such a language, which not one of an hundred is able to* 1.303 understand; and secondly, are so rare, and hard to be gotten, that for the space of 13 yeers and upwards (ever since my com∣ming to the citie) though I have from time to time made a narrow inquiry after them, and laid out in severall places, where I concei∣ved I should be most likely to speed, for some or other of them, yet could I never to this day procure, either for love or money (as the saying is) so much as any one of them.

Their groundlesse mistake, about what the Querist (as they say) would imply to be the sense of the words in the Ordinance; and their turning of the Querie, with a wet finger, as if there were nothing materiall in it, but an heap•• of words, I passe by and pardon, being content they should be numbred amongst their infirmities quotidianae incursionis.

In their Answer to the thirtieth Querie they maintaine, that* 1.304 the Ordinance doth expresse, what it meaneth by obstinacie, when it threateneth the publishing of such and such doctrines with obstinacy. Their reason is, because the Ordinance appoints admonition to go be∣fore punishment. But is this an explication of what it meaneth, by obstinacy? Certainly these grand Assertors of the Ordinance, had quitted themselves upon termes of more wisedome for the honour of it, if they had plainly g••••••ted, that it had not indeed made any sufficient explication of it selfe in that particular. For is a man to be judged obstinate, who shall do that, though after admonition, which, his admonition notwithstanding, he judgeth, and that upon good grounds, to be his duty to doe? Were the Apo∣stles obstinate, for preaching in the na•••• of Jesus, after that the High-Priest, Rulers, and Elders, solemnly met in a Councill, had admonished them; yea, and straitly charged and commanded them, that they should in no wise speak or teach any more in that Name * 1.305. Oh England! awake, (for I feare thou sleepest) look about thee, and consider, how easily, and when thou least thinkest of it, thou maist be an obstinate offender, if men of this spirit should be thy Judges.

In their 31 Answer, they tell a mysticall or mistie story; of* 1.306 the sense or meaning whereof I am no wayes guilty; yet I shall tell it after them, because some (possibly) may understand it, though I cannot. As some perhaps (say they) of the Querists friends may

be thanked for it (they speake of that strong opposition insinuated in* 1.307 the Querie, between the government established by the Parlia∣ment, and that so importunately desired by the Ministers) who have endeavoured to binde heavy burthens upon others, ever persecu∣ting them for not yeelding to those things, which even the consciences of those that presse them, know they cannot, and beleeve, they may not, yeeld unto; so carefull and tender are they of their Brethrens consciences; so is it neither of that kinde they would have it, being no way in favour of there Ind••pendency. For

First, It is the strangest news to me that I have heard many a day, that any of my friends should deserve thankes, either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the opposition they speake of between the two Governments. I cannot believe that any person, man, or woman, Congregationally inclined, did ever either perswade any of the Ministers they speake of, to oppose that Government by Presbytery, which is established by the Parliament; nor yet distill into them any of that spirit, or those principles, out of which they oppose it. How then should they be accessary to the oppo∣sition?

Secondly, whereas they charge the friends of the Querists yet further, with endeavouring to binde heavy burthens upon others, e∣ver persecuting them for not yeelding to, &c. this is tidings, yet se∣ven degrees stranger then the other. If it be true, then is the scan∣dall of Independency ceas••d from amongst us. For if Indepen∣dents also endeavour to binde heavy burthens upon others, and to per∣secute men for not yeelding unto those things, which in conscience they cannot yeeld unto then are we all of one minde and of one judge∣ment. and practice the same things. But

Thirdly. I would faine know, what heavy burthens they are, which the independents (since they must be so called) endeavor to binde upon others. Doe our Brethren of the Presbyterian interest, call or judge this a heavy▪ burthen to be restrained from, or not to have their hand strengthened by the Parliament, or Lawes unto, the troubling or molesting of their Brethren, who dissent in some particulars from them? I know no other burthen but this, any wayes endeavoured by any of that parswasion to be imposed, or bound upon them. If they call or count this a burthen, better they hurthened with the peace of men of a better conscience then

themselves, then eased or relieved by their unjust pressures.* 1.308

Fourthly, I am yet farre more desirous to know, what perse∣cution, they, or any of their judgement, have suffered from In de∣pendents, for not yeeding to those things, which even the consciences of those that presse them, know they cannot, and believe they may not, yeeld unto. If they shall referre me for satisfaction herein to that which follows in the sequel of this answer, where they speak of some, who, under the name of Brethren, that have so much cryed out against persecution in their words and writings, have yet attempted and proceeded in the strangest persecution that ever was amongst pro∣fessed Christians, to wish and joy in the imposition of that upon their Brethren, which themselves, who are for the imposition of it, yet count unlawfull to be submitted unto; I must professe that I am so farre from receiving satisfaction hereby in the least, in reference to that desire, that I look upon the reference, as a sending of me from the twilight to midnight, to read a dim print; or as an unworthy in∣sulting over my petition, in giving me a stone, instead of the bread which I defired. But.

First, Though the persecution they here speak of, be, as they say,* 1.309 very strange, yea, as I say, yet more strange, then as they present it; so strange, that I believe it was never yet attempted, neither in these daies, nor in the daies of any of their forefathers, amongst the men they speak of, professed Christians; yet is it not of that devouring or fiery calculation, of which many of those persecu∣tions are, which are daily breathed forth by the lips and pens of many of their Interest, against those who wish them no harm. But

Secondly, It is not a little strange to me, that they should re∣present that as a persecution so STRANGE, as never yet at∣tempted among professed Christians, when as themselves (if it be persecution) have attempted, yea, and practised it in this very dis∣course. For doe they not in their Answer to the second Querie, p. 6. impose it upon, yea and solemnly charge (which is more then to wish) the Querists own Church or Congregation, as they re∣gard the honour of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Authority of the Spirit, by which the Holy Apostle delivered those fore-mention∣ed Anathema's, that they put him away from among them, and deli∣ver him to Satan? and yet doe they not withall judge it utterly

unlawfull, for the members of a particular Church or Congrega∣tion,* 1.310 to exercise authority over their Pastour, or to proceed to a sentence of excommunication, especially, against the cheife of∣ficer, by and of themselves? Therefore, if to wish or joy in the im∣position of that upon their Brethren, which themselves, who are for the imposition of it, yet count unlawfull to be submitted unto, be so strange a persecution, as they render it; certainly themselves, and thou∣sands more of their friends, are the strangest persecutours (and that with the strangest persecution) that ever were. For what joy anh stamping with the foot hath there been amongst the children of high-Presbytery, for this Answer to the Queries, (as empty as it is) and more emphatically, for the shamelesse piece of outrage, committed in that part of this Answer, which relates to the second Querie, where the sayd strange persecution is so vigorous∣ly acted.

Thirdly, Till these men shall make due proofe, that that* 1.311 strange persecution they speake of, hath been indeed attempted and proceeded in by persons interessed in judgement for the Congrega∣tionall way; I must looke upon the report and charge (and shall desire others also to looke upon them with the same eye) as Nehe∣miah look'd upon the contents of Sanballats letter, to which he returned this answer. There are no such things done as thou sdyest, but thou fainest them out of thine own heart* 1.312. •• shal not believe without a double voucher, that ever any Idependent, either wished, or joyed in the imposition of any thing upon their Brethren, which yet they counted unlawfull to be submitted unto. Probatio incumbit affir∣manti. But

Fourthly, Whereas they say and grant in Answer to this Que∣rie, that Presbyteriall Government in the Ordirance, must needs signi∣fie that which it doth in other Ordinances of Parliament, that Govern∣ment which the Parliament hath begun to settle, (and consequently, it cannot signifie that Government by Presbytery so importunely desired by the Ministers, there being so unpleasing a difference be∣tween them) they answer (I confesse) with some ingenuitie, and that which may doe good service.

Fiftly and lastly, when they further say, that the Government setled by the Parliament, is not of that kinde they (the Querists friends, they mean, Independents) would have it, themselves fairly take

of that charge of strange persecution, which (as we heard) they fastened on them; viz. in wishing or joying in the imposition of that upon their Brethren, which yet they count unlawfull to be sub∣mitted unto. For certainly no man wisheth or joyeth in that, which is not of that kinde of thing, that he would have; much lesse in the enacting, or imposing of it.

In their 32 and 33 Answer, (for here they answer double) they* 1.313 except against the Queries: but thinke ye for what? Surely for a very innocent offence; viz. for nothing but desiring to know and understand, (and that upon sufficient account given of such a desire) what the Ordinance meaneth, by blaspheming the name of God, or impugning the word of God, WILLINGLY AND PRESƲMPTƲOƲSLY; and further to know, by whom the Admonition is to be given, the inefficaciousnesse wher∣of upon the parties admonished, brings their sins and errors under the dint and stro••e of the Ordinance. Notwithstanding, having first made a light essay, to justify the Ordinance in her non-explica••i∣on of her terms, WILLINGLY, PRESƲMPTƲ∣OƲSLY, by the example of God himselfe, who made a Law, Numb. 15. 30. which sayth expresly, the man that doth presumptuous∣ly, shall dye, and yet tell him no more then the Ordinance doth, what is meant by presumptuously; and againe, in her concealing her intent about her Admonitour, from the Apostles bidding Titus reject an Heretique after the first and second admonition, without describing what h•• meanes by an admonition, (as if the Querie had been as sim∣ple as the Answer, and made such a demand as this) after (I say) this light and harmelesse velitation, wherein the aire is beaten, in∣stead of the Queries; they come to the maine body of their An∣swer to both the Queries, which is this: Neither is it any hard matter to understand what it is to bla••pheme willingly, which can sig∣nifie nothing else, but a mans owne understanding the words which •••• speakes, to be reproachfull word•• against God, or she Scriptures, or the Trinity; which (they adde) will easily appeare, either by the nature of the words themselves, or at least by his Answer, when he shall be called in question about it. But

First, I confesse that any thing, relating to the prejudice of such* 1.314 men, whom we have a desire to make Delinquents and bring un∣der censure, though never so doubtfull, yet will easily app•••••••• to

us in this posture. It is the manner of Gangrena, when she is chal∣lenged and charged face to face, with her shamelesse and brazen∣fac'd traducements of worthy and blamelesse men, being not a∣ble to give any tolerable account of truth in one story of ten which she reports; It is her manner (I say) tofling out her hand a∣gainst those that come to her, with a desire to make that streight, which she hath made crook'd, and tell them over and over, that she hath received satisfaction, she hath received satisfaction. And this is all the account and satisfaction, that in any way of fairnesse and love, is to be had from her. Certainly she is more beholding to the impotency of her owne desire, to staine the honour of Inde∣pency and her sons, for that satisfaction she receiveth about the truth of farre the greatest part of her stories, then to any steadi∣nesse or worth of information that is brought unto her.

Dum sibi quisque placet, credula turba sumus.

i. e.

Faith is at hand for what we would beleeve.

And for the two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or meanes of discovery mention∣ed in the Answer in hand, to make it easily appeare, when a mans own understanding judgeth the words which he speaketh to be reproach∣full against God, or the Scriptures, they are very ambiguous Ora∣cles; and hard is the condition of that man, whose life or liber∣ty shall be suspended upon their Answer, especially as the con∣sulters, and judges of this Answer may be. But

Secondly, Suppo••e we have a piece of a tolerable answer to the Query, about what is meant by the word, WITTINGLY, yet I presume they will not say, that we have any thing like an An∣swer, concerning the intent of the word, PRESƲMPTƲ∣OƲSLY. For what? will they vest the prerogative of God in the makers of the Ordinance; and plead, that because he com∣mands, without explaining, therefore they may warrantably doe the like? Besides, though God did not explain many things of difficult interpretation in the letter of his Laws, given unto the Jews; yet was there ••ittle or no danger of committing any er∣rour in judgement, or doing any thing unjustly by reason of such difficulties, because (as was formerly said) the minde of God in all doubtfull and difficult cases, was ready to be communicated

unto them without any danger of mistake, by the standing Or∣dinance of his Oracle among them. If the makers of the Ordi∣nance, and those that are to judge men upon occasion of the Or∣dinance; had any such Ordinance as this, any such Oracle to con∣sult in difficult cases, as that amongst the Jews, well might we beare generalities and ambiguities of termes in their Laws. But alasse! their Oracles are flesh, and not spirit; and ap•• to put more affection, then judgement, into their Answers. And besides all this; there is little question to be made, but that the sense and import of the word PRESƲMPTƲOƲSLY, was fixed, and known to be determinately one, amongst the Jews, when the Law mentioned was given by God; whereas now it is volatile amongst us, and is sometimes here, and sometimes there, and sometimes no man knows where; as appears by that passage ci∣ted from Mr. Prynns pen in the Query. So that the Divine Pa∣ralell insisted upon, doth no wayes relieve the Ordinance in that streight, whereinto it is brought by the Querie about the word, PRESƲMPTƲOƲSLY. But

Thirdly and lastly, we have a meer nullitie instead of satisfa∣ction,* 1.315 about the person by whom the Admonition mentioned in the Ordinance, is to be administred; as likewise about those o∣ther materiall circumstances, which the Querie toucheth upon. I must crave leave to represent the words of the Querie, that so the emptinesse of the Answer may more fully appeare. Thus then the Querie, modestly, in as much as the said sins committed con∣trary to a••monition, are so severely punishable by the Ordinance; by whom is it intended that this admonition must be given, to bring the said sins under the di••t and stroke of the Ordinance? whether by a Ma∣gistrate onely, or by a Minister; and that either in his publique Mi∣nistery, and in generall, or in private, and in personall addresse? or by any man, of what ranke, or quality soever? To all these particu∣lars, we have an Answer given, which doth not so much as touch▪ no, nor yet so much as face any one of them. Whether it be worth the transcribing or no, we shall bestow the courtesie up∣on it. This then is their Answer, [to a question not put to them] And for the word, Admonition, it may be asked him [the Querist] whether he will object against the Apostle, for bidding Titus reject an Heretique after a first and second Admonition, without describing

what he means by Admonition. But good Gentlemen, the Querist was not troublesome unto you, with desiring to kvow, what the Ordinance meaneth, by the word, Admonition; but from whom, and according to what manner of administration, it must be received by him, who by walking contrary to it, shall be∣come a Delinquent against the Ordinance. Are not the Queries substantially answered, and to admiration (at least) yea, and to the utter downfall of Independency, by such Answers as these? But, nunquam sera est ad bonos mores via; and it may be the reere of their Answers will be more masculine, and make attonement for the front and maine body, which have turned the backe, and not the face, upon their enemies. Let us therefore passe on, to

Their 34 Answer. In this they tell us, that the Ordinance de∣clines* 1.316 not the punishment of Blasphemy, as appointed in the New Testament, whereof they annex this close demonstration: for though excommunication be not setled by the Parliament in any case, yet blasphemy is expresly by the Ordinance of Parliament punished with suspension, which is in order to excommunication, (or delivering up unto Sathan) and when excommunication comes to be setled, there is no question but blasphemy shall be so punished. But in the meane time, the present question is not, how Blaspemy is like to be punished, when the Parliament shall come to settle excommunication; but whether, not any Ordinance of Parliament, but the Paper Ordinance which occasioned the Queries, doth Christianly or reasonably, in declining the punishment of Blasphemy expresly appointed by God in the New Testament, and to preferre a punishment mentioned onely in the Old, &c. It seemes by their Answer, that they yeild the said Paper-Ordinance guilty of the crime queried, by asserting the honour of the Parliament, as having done in part, and intending further to doe Christianly and reasonably, in making Blasphe〈…〉〈…〉 punishable with Excommunication, or delivering up unto Sathan; which is the punishment expr••sly appointed by God for this sinne in the New Testa∣ment; whereas the said Paper-Ordinance, in opposition to the Ch••istian intentions of the Parliament in this behalfe, makes it punishable with death. There is no way for them to wash their hands of the prevarication, but by professing themselves to be Erastians, and of their judgement, who by delivering up unto Sa∣than, will have nothing else to be meant, but cutting off by death

by the civill Magistrate. And yet neither would this be any pro∣per salve for the soare; unlesse they will further shame themselves with this explication; that when they say, that Blasphemy is ex∣presly by the Parliament punished with suspension, in order to Excom∣munication, or delivering to Sathan, they meane, in order to cut∣ting off by the Magistrates sword with death: and thus reconcile the Old Testament and the New, touching the punishment ap∣pointed for Blasphemy in the one and the other.

Secondly, When in the sequell of this Answer, they affirme, that that generall sentence of not bearing the sword in vaine, and being a Minister of God, a revenger of wrath to him that doth evill, not onely allows, but commands a Magistrate to make a Law for punish∣ment of Blasphemy even with the civill sword; and that according to this Querists owne conscience, unl••sse he will dare so farre to blas∣pheme, as to say, that a Blasphemer is not an evill doer. First, the Querist and his conscience are so farre from the Blasphemy of this new modell, I meane of saying, th••t a Blasphemer is not an evill doer, that he judgeth (and not without some ground) that him∣selfe judgeth a Blasph••mer to be an evill do••r in an higher degree, then the Cata. Querists themselves. And yet secondly, neither he, nor his conscience know any competent ground to thinke, that the generall sentence they speake of, doth any wayes command a Magi∣strate to make a Law for punishment of Blasphemy with the civill sword. He hath formerly given a free and large account of his judgement and sence of that S••ntence, in his d••fence of his se∣venth Querie.

And whereas they pretend, that the New Testament mentio••s •••• particular civill punishment at all▪ bec••use it speakes not at all unto ••i∣••ill Magistrates, who were then ••ll generally Pagan, &c. I answer, that if they thinke that Magistrates have any whit the more pow∣er for being Christians, or the lesse, for bei••g Pagans; or that the duties of Magistrat••s, are either any wayes multiplied to a greater, or contracted to a smaller number, by any difference whatsoever in the persons in whom it is vested, their thought is not commensurable with the truth. That which belongs to a Ma∣gistrate, as a Magistrate, belongs unto any, unto every Magistrate whatsoever: and that which belongs unto a Christian, as a Chri∣stian, belongs unto every Christian whatsoever. It is a weake

conceit to imagine that Paganisme should excuse any man from any duty whatsoever appropriate to that relation or office which he suste••nes. Sins are not wont to excuse one another. So then Pagan Magistrates lying under the Law of Magistracy, as well as Christian, there is little question to be made, but that what the Apostle speakes to or of, either in regardof their office, duty or place of Magistracy, he speakes unto both. But

Thirdly, When they leave their owne occupations of making* 1.317 Answers, and instead hereof turne Querists, and make Questions, they doe not quit themselves workmen-like in their new trade. For here they demand▪ Will this Querist offer to say, that it is nei∣th••r reasonable nor Christian to punish that detestable wickednesse with d••ath now, which is mentioned, 1 Cor. 5. 1. because the New Te∣stament doth not expresse the punishment of death, as due to it, which the Old did, Levit. 20. 11. Or if he can allow himselfe to be so im∣pudent, will he allow no punishment at all for murther, or adultery, be∣cause the New Testament mentions no civill punishment for such wic∣kednesse? what is there in either of these Queries, to straine the Quer••sts pen in giving answer, more then there would be in these (in case I should propose them to them) to put either them, or their wits or their consciences, to it, to finde an Answer; will they say, that it is lawfull for the major and stronger party of Professours in a State or Kingdome, though the worse, to tread and trample the minor or lesser part under their feet, though the better? Or if they can allow themselves to be so impudent, as to as∣sert this, will they allow those that are troden upon, no recom∣pence from Heaven for their unjust sufferings, because the Lawes of men make no provision for their satisfaction in such a case? Would the Gentlemen take it well, if I should addresse my selfe unto them in two such Queries as these; though I believe I should not put them to the charge of many thoughts to returne an Answer to them? But to these Queries, the Querist answereth freely and plainly; that he judgeth it very reasonable and Christian to punish, not onely that particular wickednesse about which they Querie, with the punishment appointed by God in the Old Testament which is death, though the New Testament expresseth no such punish∣ment, •••• ••ue to it, but murthers also, adulteries, and all other sins and misdem••anors whatsoever committed against the Law and

Light of nature, with civill punishments answerable to their na∣tures and demerits respectively, whether by death, or otherwise. Onely he desires to adde two things for the further explication of himselfe upon the case. First, that he deemeth it not equall, or of any faire consistence with the light of nature, that two seve∣rall punishments, not onely distinct, but opposite in their natures, both of them the highest and greatest in their respective orders and kindes, should be decreed by one and the same Authority to be inflicted for one and the same sinne, or offence. Secondly, that he judgeth it most reasonable and Christian, that when any sinne, whereof there are many kindes and degrees, some against the light and law of nature, others not; shall by a Law be made punishable with any civill punishment, especially with death; that that, both kinde and degree of this sinne, against which the severity of this Law is intended and bent, be particularly na∣med, described, and set out in the letter of this Law.

That wherewith they close this Answer, themselves say, that it was before mentioned in the case of the seducer to Idolatrie; and I like wise desire to referre the Reader for his satisfaction about it, to what hath formerly been argued upon this case.

There is little or nothing, either in their Argument upon, or* 1.318 in their Answer to, the 35 Querie, of the spirit or purpose there∣of. The Reader may please to compare them. Onely they speake comfortably in their Answer, (if they would make it good) when they tell us, that though the Querist would faine suppose congregati∣ons; which belong not to a Parish Church; yet our Lawes ••now none such. Long may our Lawes, and Lawyers too, injoy the happi∣nesse of this ignorance; and know no other congregations then those which belong to Parish Churches. I confesse that could I have pre∣somed so far of the Ordinance, that it had taken no knowledge of any Congregations, but such, well might this Querie have kept company with things that are not.

Nor is their 36 Argument framed to the Querie. However in* 1.319 their Answer they dissemble it, and smite the Querist with their Censorian mace, for saying, that doubtlesse it is not lawfull to teach Children, or whosoever, to pray, unlesse we can reasonably judge them capable of our Instruction in this kinde. I thought such a saying as this had been innocent enough, to escape the Inquisitors office.

But so officious (••t seems) they are that they must have a say∣ing to ••••: and their saying is this. Although this Querist is so con••••dent, as to say, Doubtlesse it is not lawfull (by the way, Doubt∣lesse, doth not alwayes import confidence, but sometimes rather an allay thereof) yet he not onely therein contradicts the generall pra∣ctise ••••th of our Divines and Christians, who began to teach chil∣dren to pray, as soone as they begin to speake or understand, but oppo∣ses Christ himselfe▪ who justified the childrens crying Hosanna to the son of David, when it cannot reasonably be thought they understood so much of him, as to have learned how to pray, &c. Reader, canst thou thinke that these men understand the nature of a Contradi∣ction? I feare they are better at the practice, then the Theo∣rie, of Contradictions. But, if thou hast ploughed with these Gentlemens Heyfe••, I pray thee help me to finde out their riddle. The Lord Christ saith, (speaking of those that cried Hosanna to him) I tell you, that if these should hold their peace, the st••nes would ••rie* 1.320. Now suppose the persons of whom our Saviour speakes, had been defective in the service, and so the stones had supplyed this defect, and cried (as he saith they would have done) as they did; can it not reasonably b•• thought, that our Saviour would have justified these stones, in such a seuse, and upon such terms, as now ••e justified the other? And in case he had done this, justified the stones in crying Hosanna; can it reasonably be thought, that this fact of his, would have justified those, that should have gone a∣bout to teach stones to pray? or have contradicted the assertion of those, who should notwithstanding affi••m it to be unlawfull, to go about such a worke, as to teach stones to pray? But

Secondly, I wonder upon what ground, or ingagement of their reasons, they should say, that it cannot reasonably be thought that they understood so much of him as to have learned how to pray. Those that are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mat. 21▪ 15. (the place cited by them) which in this place is commonly translated▪ children (else where, servants) are Luk. 19. 37, 39. called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, disciples; which doubtles argueth more then a probability, that they understood (or at least were capa∣ble of understanding) so much of Christ, as to have learned (in some measure at least) how to pray. Besides, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though some∣times it signifieth •• young child, yet more frequently it signifieth a child of some growth and 〈…〉〈…〉ature capable of instruction, &c.

sometimes (as was said) a young man, or servant; the diminu∣tive, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being more frequently used to signifie a little, or young child. So that there is very little in the word, children, to coun∣tenance these men, in their assertion.

Thirdly, Nor doth that testimony cited from David, Psal. 8. 1.* 1.321 Out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings hast thou ordained praise, by which they say that Christ justified the Childrens crying Hosanna, any wayes attest their notion. For first, certainly those that were able to cry Hosanna, were neither Babes nor Sucklings, (in the li∣terall and strict signification of the words.) Secondly, neither by this testimony did Christ intend so much to justifie the act of the children, as the wisedome, and power of God in the dispensa∣tion. As when Babes and Sucklings shew forth the praise of God (in Davids sense) this act of theirs (such as it is) doth no wayes commend or justifie them, but onely the gracious providence of* 1.322 God about them. They (saith Calvin upon the place, as cited by Matthew, speaking of these Babes and Sucklings) are mute and dumbe: but the wonderfull Providence of God which shines forth in them, is instead of a sounding and stately eloquence.

Thirdly, The place in the Psalme, is more generally understood in a metaphoricall sense, by expositors; and doubtlesse was no other∣wise cited, or applyed by our Saviour here, viz. then as a Scrip∣ture holding forth and attesting this providentiall method, course, and practise of God; to make the meanest and weakest of his creatures, bountifull contributors unto his praise and glory, Fourthly, (and lastly for this) in case God should desire extraordi∣nary praise and glory from children not yet capable of Instruction, or learning how to pray, the officiousnesse of men in attempting to teach them how to pray, would rather be injurious unto, then any wayes comporting with, this his desire. For whatsoever he in this case shall worke in an extraordinary way for his praise or glo∣ry, in, or upon, or for, such children; the effect and fruite hereof will in all likelyhood, be attributed (atleast in part) to the seem∣ingly-pious endeavours of those, who taught them to pray, though to no purpose, at least with no effect.

Fourthly, and lastly, Whereas they avouch it the generall pra∣ctise both of our Divines and Christians, that they began to teach chil∣dren to pray as soone as they begin to speake, or understand; if instead

of the disj••nctive, or, they had put, the conjunctive, and, I should rather have beleeved them. If they know some, either Divines, or Christians (though the opposition, or distinction, is not very lovely) who teach their children to pray as soone as they begin to speak, whether they understand or no; I know others, that judge such a practise little lesse then the taking of the Name of God in vain, and in that respect forb••••re it. So that howsoever the practise is not so ge∣nerall, as these men seem to import. And to me it seems still un∣reasonable (nor do I know how to helpe it, but by a surrender of my judgement into the hands of unlawfull Lords) that men should bestow their time and labour in teaching or instructing such sub∣jects, in any knowledge, skill, or facultie whatsoever, which they cannot reasonably judge to be capable of their Instructions.

In their 37 Answer, they suppose two great Suppositions,* 1.323 which I beleeve that seven y••ers study of all the Divines in the world, will hardly make good. As first, that themselves, and men of their party, are i••gaged in the Truth in all things, or all o∣pinions whatsoever mentioned in the Ordinance. From hence they argue and conclude themselves, to be more ••eet and competent Judges in such cases, which may, or shall fall out about any the points in the Ordinance, then any persons whatsoever, who in their judgements stand undeclared about them. The second is like unto it, and is this, that not on••ly many, or most of the things men∣tioned in the Ordinance, but all of them are cleerly enough determined in the Scripture, to warrant the consciences of those that are instructed in their doctri••es, to punish those that persist to publish and maintaine any thing contrary to them. We never had ••uch a prospect of high Presbyterie in her exaltation, as we have from the tops of these two mountaines. But,

First, It seems that a very low degree of cleernesse in the Scrip∣tures (I feare, doubtfulnesse and obscuritie it selfe) will warrant the consciences of these men, to crush their opposers, and all those that shall stand in their way, being upon their full speed towards their ••ase, honor, and other accommodations in the world. He that supposeth gaine to be godlinesse, * 1.324 will find Scriptures in abundance cl••••r enough (as these men count cleernesse) to warrant his conscience in the practise of covetousnesse, unmercifulnesse, and oppression without end. It is a thing of most dangerous consequence, when

men have put the stumbling-blocks of their iniquity before their faces, to go and a••ke counsell of the Lord* 1.325▪

Secondly, Suppose the Scriptures be cleer enough to warrant the con∣sciences of these men, to hold themselves with the Ordinance in the points and doctrines countenanced therein; yet what cleernesse have they in these, more then darknesse it self, to warrant them in the punishing of those, who are contrary-minded unto them, especially in some of these? Certaine I am, that they have produced no∣thing in this discourse, which hath the least glimmering of any cleernesse in this kinde. But▪

Thirdly, When they expresse themselves indefinitely, thus; cleerly enough, to warrant the consciences of those that are instructed in those Doctrines, to punish those▪ &c. do they intend to interesse all their proselytes, tagge and ragge, without exception, when once they have imparted the Doctrines of the Ordinance unto them▪ in a warrantablenesse of power, to punish those that persist to publish any thing contrary to them? Doe they warrant the consciences of the prophane and rude multitude to become their auxiliaries in perse∣cuting and molesting their conscientious Brethren?

Fourthly, whereas they determine, that in every point, whether* 1.326 cleerly, or not cleerly, determined, mens being already ingaged in the Truth, doth not make them unmeet, but rather more meet to be judges in such cases (viz. then those, who as yet stand undeclared; for so the Querie) no considering man (I suppose) can concurre with them in their determination. The end of judging and deciding contro∣verted opinions in Religion between party and party, being first the uniting of their judgements; and secondly, (if it may be) the uniting them in the Truth; evident it is, that those who are looked upon by one of the parties, as professed enemies to their judgement, and ingaged on the contrary side, are like to prove but mediatours of small value to comprimize between them, and those who dissent in judgement from them. Their very ingage∣ment on the contrary side, cannot in reason but be looked upon as a very great disadvantage to what they shall speake or argue, be it for the Truth. Topicall arguments from a friend, or a person no wayes ingaged or declared against men, are wont to go further, and to doe more in swaying the judgements of men, then seven demonstrations from a professed and known enemy.

Fifthly, and lastly; whereas they yet adde▪ that if they be su∣preme Magistrates, who are already ingaged for the Truth, they have Authority from God to appoint subordinate Judges, viz. such who are also already ingaged in the same Truth; First▪ I desire to know, for what end these subordinate Judges should be appointed? what shall their work or imployment be▪ Onely to tell men with Au∣thority and power, and an iron Scepter in their hand, that they are the men that are Orthodox and know the Truth; and to give sentence of imprisonment, death, or the like▪ against all those▪ who will not think as honourably of them, as they doe of them∣selves? The truth is, that all the work and service that such Jud∣ges can doe by vertue of this their deputation, being truely inter∣preted, amounts to no more. Secondly, I would learn from these men, whose learning (it seemes) teacheth them the confi∣dence of being ingaged in all Truth, where God hath given any Authority to supreame Magistrates, suppose ingaged in the Truth, to appoint subordinate Judges, to determine and judge amongst the people, what is, or shall be, or must be Truth, and what not, Cer∣tain I am, that if God hath given any such Authority or power to supreme Magistrates ingaged in, or for, the Truth; he hath given the same to Magistrates of like supremacy, though ingaged against the Truth. The Authority and power of supreme▪ Magistracy is uniforme, standing and fixed (at least in respect of God) as the abstracted natures and essences of things alwayes are; nor are they capable of any variation, either dextrorsùm, or sinistrorsum, either sursùm, or deorsùm, by any qualification whatsoever, whe∣ther on the right hand, or on the left, in the persons invested with it. But of this before.

The Gentlemen have but one opportunity more (in this Dis∣course) to gather up the credit, which they have scattered hi∣therto. Let us see how learnedly they take their leaves.

The truth is, that in their Answer to their last Argument, they* 1.327 quit themselves more unworthily, then in any of the former; (ex∣cept haply in the second; when, it seemes, they dealt by their cre∣dits and consciences both, as those that stoned Steven, did by their garments, when to expedite themselves for the work, they laid them down at a young mans ••eet, whose name wa•• Saul▪ * 1.328. Their mi∣nor proposition in this Argument, is this. God hath given no au∣thority

to civill Magistrates or others, either in the Old or New Testa∣ment, to make an Exposition of any clause in the Law, controverted be∣tween men of equall worth, a matter punishable with imprisonment or death. This proposition (say they) is not true: but have they not said it to the shame and confusion of their pens for ever? or can they finde a fourth man under Heaven, that is possest but of the ordinary interest of a man, willing to venture his reputation with theirs, in such a crasie bottome, as this? But let us see how and with what coards, they under-gird their vessell, for feare of fal∣ling in pieces.

First, they say, the minor is not true; unlesse any man can prove, that there neither is, nor ever was, any authority in any Civill Magi∣strate (for if not in them, then in no others) in any matter of Religion. But,

First, doth the truth of any one proposition, depend upon any mans ability, to prove another to be true? Certainly, the minor, which they deny, may be true, though no man can prove, either that which they propose, or any other proposition whatsoever. The truth of propositions is independent; though the manifesta∣tion or proofe of this truth, be not.

Secondly, what truth, or colour of Truth, is there in that hypo∣theticall; If not in them, then in no others. Was there no Autho∣rity in the Apostles about matters of Religion? or were they Civill Magistrates? Or if their meaning be, that in case Magistrates have no Authority in matters of Religion, then have they none in other matters; the connexion is still as loose and wilde as before; and not so much as an eye of a consequence in it. There is every whit as much sense and reason in this: If a man hath no gold, he hath no silver: Or in this, If a man hath not foure legges, he hath not two. But let us goe on with them, and see how they prove the necessity of proving that which they propose, to prove their minor untrue.

Forasmuch (say they) as there is no one point in Religion, but hath been controverted by one or other, who have had as much learning and gravity, as others of the contrary opinion, and by men of as much PRETENDED piety and conscience in their way, as others, except that of the Deity it self. But,

First, How doe they prove, that there is no one point in Religion

but hath been controverted by •••••• or other of equall learning and gravi∣ty, with th••se of the contrary opinion? Nay, they had been wor∣thy to lose all their Interest of Authority, if they had so much as attempted to prove or argue such a position as this. For confident I am that all the learning, wit, memory, books in the world, are not able to prove it. For f••••st, who knows how many points there are in Religion, but onely he that numbers the stars in the firmament of Heaven▪ and knows the account of the Sands upon the Sea shore: Therefore to say, There is no one point in Religion, but hath been con∣troverted, (except that of the Deity) is the saying of men that know not what they say▪ Secondly, who hath weighed in a bal∣lance the learning and gravity of men, so exactly, as to be able to say, these and these men are equall in both; but onely he that hath weighed the mountaines in scales, and the hils in a ballance * 1.329.

Secondly, whereas they adde, and by men of as much PRE∣TENDED piety and conscience in their way▪ as others; they goe on the other side of the way, and baulk the Query, which doth not speak of any PRETENDED learning, gravity, piety, consci∣ence, &c. but of such which are so in reality and Truth.

Thirdly, Not onely the generality of their Rule, but even the restraint, or exception it selfe which they make, is just matter of exception. For certainly the point of the Deitie it selfe, hath beene controverted amongst Philosophers; and the names of some who maintained the negative, as Di••gora•• and others, are to this day upon record in many writers.

Fourthly, To say that there is •••••• •••• point of Religion but hath been controverted, &c. is, not onely a saying uncapable of any due pro∣bation by men, but of an extremely improbable, and importune import. For who can lightly imagine, that ever it was controver∣ted between any, whether men ought not, as farre as is possible, to have peace with all men; or againe, whether a man ought to love his neighbour as himselfe, with twenty and ten more of like consi∣deration, which might soone be added. But,

Fiftly, and lastly, suppose all that hath been opposed hitherto in this answer, were admitted for Truth; what tittle, letter, syl∣lable, word, sentence, is there to be found in it, which so much as lookes towards a proofe of that conclusion, against which it pre∣tends; viz▪ that God, neither in the 〈…〉〈…〉, not in the New Testament,

hath given any 〈…〉〈…〉 to the ••ivill 〈…〉〈…〉 to ••••k•• a•• expositi∣on of any clause in the L••••, cantravented 〈…〉〈…〉 men of equall worth, parts, pi••••ie, &c. a matter 〈…〉〈…〉i ••ab••e ••ith 〈…〉〈…〉 or death ▪ This ass••••t••on, which is the mi•••••• donied by them, may well laugh at all the opposition that hath been 〈…〉〈…〉 against it hi∣therto, in the face to scorne. But though he that went before▪ was not H••••tor, yet he that followes, may be Achilles. Well, let us looke him in the face, howsoever. His physiognomy is this.

Yet itis ••••id••n•• that in the Old Test〈…〉〈…〉ent, God comm••nded to pu∣nish with d••••••h, false Prophets, and 〈…〉〈…〉 to Idolatri••, and ••acrificers to Mol••ch; who all brought th••s•• greatest matters of R••••igion to •••• contr••verted points. High Presbytery, hath all this while been be∣holding to Blasphemers, false Prophets, and seducers to Idolat••ie un∣der the Old Testament, for the support of his cause and Kingdome. Here (it seems) Blasphemers are discharged from the service, and Sacrificers to M••lech entertained in their st••ad. But let •••• see how the cause prospers upon this new recrute of the Army, which maintaines it. All these, false Prophets, Seduc••rs, &c. Sacrificers, &c. brought those greatest matters of Religion to •••• controverted points.

First, How shall we doe for an Antecedent, to that Rela∣tive, THOSE? Here is a serving-man, that wants a master. What great, or greater, or greatest matters of Religion, are THOSE, which were brought by the Por••or•• spoken of, to bee contr••verted points?

Secondly, How doe these Gentlemen prove▪ or how doth it any wayes appeare, that the wicked persons they speake of, brought any of of the greatest matters of Religion to be controv••rted points▪ Or if they did, or could prove this; Yet,

Thirdly, They have a worse crow to pull still, then that; which i••, to prove, that they brought such matters▪ the greatest matters of Religion, to be controverted points, between Priest and Pr••est, Scribe and Scribe, between le••••ned, grave, pious, and consciencions men ••n both sid••••. I hope they will not goe about to untie the knot wi••h this di••••onourable finger; a••••er •••• false Prophets▪ Seducers to Id••••••ri••, Sacri••••cers to M••l••eh, for learned, 〈…〉〈…〉 conscien∣tious men; or of equall worth, parts, learning, judgement, conscience, with those Pries•••• and Scrib••••, who were of greatest ••••••inencie in

these, and opposed them in their judgements and wayes. If they will affirme this, they will doe it at the utmost perill of high Presbytery, which is not like to thrive after such a defence. If they will not affirme it, let them confesse that they have said no∣thing hitherto to the purpose, or point in Question. But it may be they will yet digge deeper, and finde the threasure at last. They worke on, thus.

But more then this, (we have need of more, or else we are like* 1.330 to have nothing) Deut. 17. 12. he expresly commanded, that even in all controverted points, he that would not stand to the sentence of the Judge, or of the High-Priest, should be put to death. Reader, be plea∣sed but to run over with thine eye, that intire passage of Scrip∣ture, from which these men breake ofF a few words to serve their turne; and thou wilt be tempted (at least) with a jealousie, lest they be men, who make no scruple at all to build up the ho∣nour of their cause, with the dishonour of the Scriptures. (Read Dent. 17. from the beginning of verse 8. to the end of the 12. verse.) For,

First, Whereas they say, he expresly commanded, that EVEN in ALL controverted points, he that would not stand, &c. the tenour of the Scripture (as to this point) speaketh thus: If there arise ••matter too hard for thee in judgement, between bloud and bloud, be∣tween plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of con∣troversie within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse, &c. * 1.331 Is a matter of con∣troversie, between blond and bloud, between stroke and stroke, plea and plea, [about these] ALL, EVEN ALL, controverted points? Or is great A, ALL, EVEN ALL the letters of the Al∣phabet?

Secondly, Are matters of controversie between bloud and bloud, &c. matters of controversie between Priest and Priest, Scribe and Scribe, about the exposition of some clause in the Law? (which are the onely matters queried in the Querie.)

Thirdly, Nor doth God in this passage of Scripture, expresly command, without caution and limitation, that even in this con∣troversie it selfe, he that would not stand to the sentence of the Judge, or High-Priest, should be put to death; but onely then, when the Priests, the Levites, and the Judge, should give sen∣tence,

or informe them, according to the Sentence of the Law* 1.332

Fourthly, Nor doth God here, either expresly, or so much as by intimation, command that any man in what matter of controver∣sie soever, should be put to death, simply for not being willing or content to stand to the sentence of the Iudge, or of the High-Priest, but onely for doing presumptuously; and this, in not hearkning unto the Priest, that was then to stand to minister before the Lord his God, or unto the Iudge,* 1.333 i. e. (as the words will well beare) for contem∣ning or affronting either the Priest or the Judge, in their sentence; or reproaching it as unjust, without any consideration had upon it. But in no reasonable construction of the word, can he be said to do presumptuously, who upon a respectfull and mature conside∣ration of an opinion, or sentence given, and with expressions of reverence and honour towards him that either holds the one, or gives the other, is not able to bring his judgement or conscience to submit, either unto the one, as true; or unto the other, as just. And yet,

Fifthly, and lastly, Evident it is, from severall expres••ions in the passage of Scripture we speake of,* 1.334 that that sentence of the Priest or Iudge, (for the High▪Priest, which the Gentlemen speake of, ap∣peares not, at least under that title, in the text) against which he that should do presumptuously in not hearkning to it, was to be put to death; was onely such a sentence, which the Priest did upon inqui∣rie by Ʋrim and Thrummim, receive immediately, or however, in∣fallibly, from the mouth of God himselfe. And (for my part) if our Inquisitours can give any satisfying account that the sen∣tence, which they, or any other Judge, shall award against those, who shall be found Delinquents against the Ordinance, comes, or is given unto them, upon any such termes, (I meane, by infallible revelation) from God; I shall thinke it equall and meet, that hee that shall doe presumptuously, and not hearken unto it, should be put to death.

We have now had the soule of this Answer, and have found it mortall; yet what rejoycing is there in the words following, as if it were crown'd with glory. So farre is it (say the men) from Gods not giving in the Old Testament any Authority to make a contro∣verted point a matter of death, or imprisonment. That which they say▪ in these words, is scarce sense; that which (I suppose) they

would say, is not any thing they should say, whether they had a minde, either to speak Truth, or to their purpose. For, first, God never gave any Authority to make a controverted point a matter of death or imprisonment, but onely a presumptuous misdemeanour against a Divine sentence, given for the determination of such a point. Secondly, if he had made a controverted point, matter of ei∣ther, yet unlesse this controverted point, could be proved (which yet hath not been so much as attempted) to have been a point con∣troverted between Priest and Priest, between learned, grave, pio••s and conscientious men on both sides, it had been nothing to the point in hand, nor to the import of the Querie.

The Gentlemen Vindicators draw their last breath in these words: And in this Answer to these Queries, divers things have been s••ewed▪ (but none, as hath been proved, sufficient to prove) that the same Authority belongs to the Civill Magistrate under the New Testament: which is also generally exprest by Divines under that phrase of being Custos, the Guardian of both the Tables of Gods Law; and by the Prophet (Esai. 49. Esai. 60.) under those phrases of being Nursing Fathers to the Church, and bringing in their glory to it; which must needs imply using their Authority to suppresse th••se dangerous Errors and Heresies, even by imprisonment or death inflict∣ed, upon the obstinate maintainers and publishers of them, if no other means will serve. Reader, the common saying is verified in this Discourse, or Vindication: Qualis vita, finis ita. Such as the life, such is the death. It hath lived hitherto full of affection to the cause of high Presbytery; but hath spoken weakly for it. So now it dies, without any declining in the one, or raising it self up in the other. But

First, what the meaning of Divines is, in that gener all expression,* 1.335 The Civill Magistrate is Custos utriusque Tabulae, the keeper of both Tables, I confesse I doe not well understand. If it had been the saying of an Apostle, I should (I conceive) have judged my self under a deeper ingagement, to make a district inquiry into it, then now I doe. The richest and best sense of the saying, that I know, is this: The Civill Magistrate is the keeper of Both Ta∣bles; that is, is in speciall manner obliged, by vertue of his Office and High Place of dignity amongst men, whereunto God hath

called him, to be a diligent and exemplary observer and doer of the whole will of God; contained in both the Tables of his Law. In such a phrase or figure of speech as this sense represents the saying in, the Apostle saith concerning the Magistrate we speak of, that he is the Minister of God unto thee for good. He is, that i••, by the ingagement of his place and Office, he ought to be a Mi∣nister of God unto thee, for thy good, Rom. 13. 4.

Another sense in goodnesse not much inferiour to the former, is this: The Civill Magistrate is the keeper of, &c. that is, is bound by the tenure of his place and Dignity, to provide (above the rate of other men) by all meanes authorized by God, that all du∣ties commanded, either in the first or second Table, be performed by all under his jurisdiction. This (I conceive) is most likely to be the sence, wherein Divines and others so frequently use the saying. But this sence imports neither duty upon, no•• power in this Magistrate, to compell men by the sword to be of his Reli∣gion (though he be never so confident that his Religion is true, and the best that is, to be imbraced by men) but only upon this sup∣position (which with all the artificiall dressing and colouring that hath been bestowed upon it, could never yet be made to look like a Truth) viz. that men really conscientious in their way, and peaceable, may contrary to their conscience, be forced into ano∣ther way, by the materiall sword. The Magistrate is bound by all lawfull meanes whatsoever to procure the observation of both the Tables, and to guard every precept in them both, against all dis∣obedience and contempt from men; but he is not bound to doe so much, as the least haire on his head amounts unto, in any un∣righteous way, though by it he might hope to purchase the per∣fect observation of all things commanded in both Tables, by men unto the worlds end.

Secondly, whereas they seek for that bloody Authority which they so much desire to vest in the Civill Magistrate, in the Pro∣phet Isaiah, and think they have found it in those expressions, wherein he prophesies that Kings shall be Nursing Fathers unto the Church, and shall bring their glory to it; I Answer.

First, that Nurses use to administer in milk, not in blood, unto* 1.336 their children. Nor doth the notion or Relation of a Father, im∣port

any thing more, then care, love and tendernesse, towards their children. Now Fathers may abundantly expresse themselves to∣wards their own children, in all these, without beating or slaying other mens Children, who in the same Towne, City, or King∣dome, live peaceably by theirs, and mean them no harme. Mus∣culus (a very learned and Orthodox Divine) doth not under∣stand the Prophecie, or promise of Kings being Nursing Fathers unto the Church, of the times of the Gospell, or of any affecti∣on which Kings in these dayes should shew unto it (nay, he pro∣fesseth that he thinkes the Holy-Ghost would have spake quite other∣wise, had he intended to speake, or prophecie of th••se * 1.337 but con∣ceives that it was fulfilled in that favour, which Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Esther, Zorobabel, Ezra, with many others of the Iewish nation and Church, found in the eyes of the Kings of Babylon during the captivity * 1.338; who, as Nurses, and foster▪ Fa∣thers use to returne the Children which they bring up, unto the Parents, when they demand them, or are desirous to take them home; so did these Kings▪ restore these children of the Church unto God their Father demanding them, when they gave them liberty (with other accommodations) to returne into their owne Land. Yea, the Prophet hmiselfe explaines his prophecie of Kings being nursing Fathers unto the Church, according to the tenour of this exposition. Thou shalt also (speaking unto the Church) sucke the milke of the Gentiles, and shalt sucke the brest of Kings, &c. Esa. 60. 16. See also Esa. 61. 6. So that these nursing Fathers of whom Esa speakes, do no wayes nourish the conceit of these Gentlemen, concerning the Authourity or power of the Civill Magistrate un∣der the New Testament.

Secondly, For that other expression, and shall bring their glory to it (if it were to be found in this Prophecy, as I believe it is not) this is more a stranger to their purpose then the former. For in what Dialect, or construction of words, can the cutting off, or punish∣ing of erroneous persons, or Heretiques within the Church by Civill Magistrates, be termed, a bringing of their glory unto the

Church? There is (I grant) such an expression in the booke of the Revelation * 1.339; but evident it▪ is (by comparing this place with Esa 60. throughout) that by that glory, which the Kings of the Gentiles shall bring unto the Church, is meant nothing else but their wealth and riches; which are called a mans honour, or glory, Gen. 31. 1. And of that which was our Fathers, hath he gotten all this glory. Yea, the Exposition is made by the Holy Ghost himself, Esa. 61. 6. Ye shall eate the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye b••ast your selves, Besides (as to the place in the Revelation) evi∣dent it is, that it speaketh of such an estate or condition of the Church, when it shall be no wayes infested or indangered by He∣retiques or Erroneous Persons, inasmuch as the Lord God Almigh∣ty, and the Lamb, intend then to bee the Temple of it * 1.340. Thus then ye see how the infelicity of the Greek Proverb is falne upon these men (the Vindicators) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; their Threasure proves but coales. No Scripture they can addresse or apply themselves unto for the support of their cause, will take any pity or compassion on them (in that behalf.) The Queries from the first to the last stand yet unanswered; yea (I fully be∣leeve) unanswerable; except it be by Answers, made of such water which will quench the iron furnace of High Presbytery.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In lachry∣mas meritò solveremur, si nobiscum per∣penderemus in quos errores impegerimus, ut n••c ••odie liberum sit ve∣ritatem dicere. Luth. Postill.
• * 1.2

  Sect. 2.
• a 1.3

  Mat. 10. 25.
• * 1.4

  Sect. 2.
• b 1.5

  Luk. 23. 34.
• * 1.6

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.7

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.8

  Sect. 3.
• * 1.9

  Sect. 4.
• * 1.10

  Sect. 4.
• a 1.11

  Pag. 5. and 6. of the Vin∣dication.
• b 1.12

  Antapol▪ p. 307.
• * 1.13

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.14

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.15

  Sect. 5.
• a 1.16

  Mat. 26. 65.
• b 1.17

  Acts 4. 6.
• * 1.18

  Sect. 6.
• * 1.19

  Sect. 6.
• * 1.20

  Sect. 6▪
• a 1.21

  The Presby∣ters of the As∣sembly, and others, are so farre from the domineering humour of Diotrcphes, that they could gladly and heartily have quitted all intermed∣ling in Church-Go∣vernment, if Jesus Christ had not by office inga∣ged them thereunto; Jus Divinum Regim. Eccle∣siast. lately published in the Name of sundry Mini∣sters of the City of Lon∣don, pag. 11. of the Preface▪
• b 1.22

  page 5.
• c 1.23

  page 6.
• d 1.24

  Revel. 2. 23.
• * 1.25

  Sect. 7.
• * 1.26

  Sect. 7.
• a 1.27

  Esa. 36. 2.
• * 1.28

  Sect. 7.
• b 1.29

  Gen. 27. 9. 14.
• * 1.30

  〈…〉〈…〉 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.31

  Sect. 8. 9.
• * 1.32

  Sect. 8.
• a 1.33

  Esay. 29. 14.
• b 1.34

  1 Cor. 3 19.
• c 1.35

  Exod. 7. 12.
• * 1.36

  Sect. 9.
• * 1.37

  Sect. 10.
• * 1.38

  Sect. 10.
• * 1.39

  Sect. 10.
• a 1.40

  page 1, 2.
• * 1.41

  Sect. 10.
• a 1.42

  1 Joh. 3. 13.
• b 1.43

  Joh. 15. 19.
• * 1.44

  Sect. 11. 12.
• * 1.45

  Sect. 11.
• a 1.46

  page 3.
• * 1.47

  Sect. 12.
• * 1.48

  Sect. 13.
• a 1.49

  Joh. 8. 3. 7. 11.
• b 1.50

  Levit. 20. 10. Deut. 22. 22.
• c 1.51

  Luk. 9. 55.
• d 1.52

  Heb. 12. 26.
• * 1.53

  Sect. 13.
• * 1.54

  Sect. 14.
• a 1.55

  Act. 9. 40. Act. 20. 9, 10.
• b 1.56

  Rom. 5. 10.
• * 1.57

  Sect. 14.
• * 1.58

  Sect. 14.
• * 1.59

  a Luk. 22. 38.
• a 1.60

  Act. 5. 5.
• * 1.61

  Sect. 14.
• * 1.62

  Sect. 1••.
• * 1.63

  Sect. 15.
• a 1.64

  Jam. 5. 21.
• b 1.65

  page 4.
• * 1.66

  Sect. 16.
• * 1.67

  Sect. 16.
• * 1.68

  Sect. 17.
• * 1.69

  Sect. 17.
• * 1.70

  Sect. 18.
• a 1.71

  Ioh. 8.
• * 1.72

  Sect. 18.
• * 1.73

  Sect. 19.
• * 1.74

  Sect. 19.
• * 1.75

  Sect. 20.
• * 1.76

  Sect. 20.
• a 1.77

  Psal. 140. 3.
• * 1.78

  Sect. 21.
• * 1.79

  Sect. 21.
• * 1.80

  Sect. 11.
• a 1.81

  1 Joh. 5. 8.
• * 1.82

  Sect. 21
• * 1.83

  Eadem possunt ali••ni videri man f••stè vera, quae alteri vi∣dentur mani∣f••ste falsa.
• * 1.84

  Sect. 22.
• * 1.85

  Sect. 22.
• * 1.86

  Sect. 23. 24.
• * 1.87

  Sect ••3.
• * 1.88

  Sect. 24.
• * 1.89

  Sect. 25.
• a 1.90

  1 Tim. 1. 7.
• * 1.91

  Sect. 52.
• * 1.92

  Sect. 25.
• * 1.93

  Atque hoc argumentum [nempe Te∣stificatio Spi∣ritus Sancti, &c.] ut est re∣natorum pro∣prium, ita so∣lum corda eo∣rum, non so∣lum de verita∣te & Autho∣ritate Scrip∣turae sacrae convincit, sed etiam persuadet, ut assentiantur, & in eâ firmiter acquiescant: re∣liqua omnia communia sunt etiam non conversis, quos quidem etiam convincunt, atque ora contradicentibus obturant, sed SOLA NON PERSUADENT NEC MOVENT AD AS∣SENTIENDUM, NISI INTUS TESTIMONIUM SPIRITUS SANCTI ACCEDAT Ursimus Catech. Proleg. c. 4. Sect. 14. Haec cer••è à legentibus & audientibus percipiuntur. Sed ut cum fructu fiat & verâ fide, ne∣cessarium est, ut suorum uniuscujusque afflatu Spiri••ls sui, cor tangat, ut veritatem Divinam in his Scriptis elucentem agnoscat, ad quorum lumen alioqui ambulare non possunt qui spi∣rituali caecitate detin••ntur, donee Deus iis, quibus verbum illud legitur aut praedicatur, COR∣DA ILLUMINET; sine quo Spiritûs motu, Ecclesiae verae testimonium, quod medium ad fidem utile etiam censemus, sed neque unicum, NEQUE SUFFICIENS, prorsus esset ineffi∣cax. Andr. Rivet. Isag. cap. ••. Sect. 8. Quare quod piis hominibus sole clarius est, illis [qui sunt mentibus obtenebratis] quavis est caligine obscurius. Musc. Loc. De sacris Scripturis. Quare si nostrum illud, credere Scripturae, pendet à Spiritu Sancto, quid obstat, quò minùs concl••damus, quod proposuimus, Scripturae authoritatem, quoad nos pendere à Spiritu San∣cto agente in Conscientiis nostris? Probatur jam minor. Nemo c••edit iis quae continentur i•• Scripturâ Sanctâ nisi doctus à Deo. At quicun{que} credit Scripturae, credit iis omnibus, quae con∣tinentur in eâ. Ergo nemo credit Scripturae, nisi doctus à Deo, id est, per fidem insusam. Mi∣nor per se patet: quia Scripturae credere, in hac saltem controversiâ, est eam habere pro verè Divinâ, extrá{que} omnem comparationis aleam. Chamier. Panstrat. lib. 6. cap. 3. Sect. 2, 3. Et posteà, loquens de Augustino: Sic bonus ille Pater propriá experientiâ didicit, eam fidem, quâ amplectimur Scripturarum Authoritatem, esse à Deo, NON VERO ACQUISITUM ALIQUID.
• * 1.94

  Sect. 26.
• * 1.95

  Sect. 26.
• * 1.96

  Sect. 27.
• a 1.97

  Sec Sect. 19, 20, 21.
• * 1.98

  Sect. 27.
• * 1.99

  Sect. 27.
• a 1.100

  Inter libros Novi Testa∣menti sunt nonnulli, d•• quibus etiam veterum sententiae variant: utpote Epistola posterior Pe∣tri, duae posteriores Johannis, Epistola Judae, Epistola ad Hebraeos, & Apocalypsis Iohannis, quae in Concilio Laodiceno cap. 39. & ultimo, inter Canonicas Scripturas non recitatur: qui∣bus etiam eam, quae Iacobo inscribitur, quidam reccen••iores connumerant. M•••• modestiae non est ut de his pronunciem, sintneeorum, sub quorum nominibus extant, vel secus. ludicia tamen ve∣terum hoc efficiunt, ut minùs simillis, quam coe∣teris Scripturis astrictus; l••cèt haud facilè quae∣vis damnanda cens••am, quae in illis leguntur. Musculus Loc. De sacris Scripturis.
• * 1.101

  Sect. 28.
• * 1.102

  Sect. 28.
• a 1.103

  The Vindi∣caters, call the denying of the Scriptures to be the word of God, a DAMN BLE here∣sie.
• * 1.104

  Sect. 29.
• * 1.105

  Sect. 29.
• * 1.106

  Sect. 30.
• * 1.107

  Sect. 30.
• * 1.108

  Sect. 30.
• a 1.109

  Josh. 10. 12.
• * 1.110

  Sect. 31.
• * 1.111

  Sect. 31.
• * 1.112

  Sect. 32.
• * 1.113

  Sect. 32.
• a 1.114

  Pag. 7.
• * 1.115

  Sect. 33.
• * 1.116

  Sect. 40.
• * 1.117

  Sect. 34.
• * 1.118

  Sect. 34.
• a 1.119

  Rom. 4. 11.
• b 1.120

  Num. 15. 38, 39.
• * 1.121

  Sect. 35.
• * 1.122

  Sect. 35.
• a 1.123

  1 Cor. 10. 11
• * 1.124

  Sect. 36.
• a 1.125

  Revel. 1. 6.
• b 1.126

  Heb. 13.
• * 1.127

  Sect. 36.
• * 1.128

  Sect. 36.
• a 1.129

  See M. Ains∣worth upon the places.
• * 1.130

  Sect. 37.
• * 1.131

  Sect. 37.
• a 1.132

  Deut. 13▪ 9.
• b 1.133

  Ibid.
• c 1.134

  Vers. 10.
• d 1.135

  Vers. 15.
• e 1.136

  Ibid.
• f 1.137

  Ibid.
• g 1.138

  Vers. 16.
• h 1.139

  Ibid.
• * 1.140

  Sect. 37.
• a 1.141

  Gal. 5▪ 3.
• b 1.142

  Deut. 4. 2.
• * 1.143

  Sect. 38.
• a 1.144

  Dan. 5. 19.
• * 1.145

  Sect. 38.
• b 1.146

  1 Cor. 7. 12.
• * 1.147

  Sect. 39.
• * 1.148

  Sect. 40.
• a 1.149

  Levit. 24. 14. 16.
• * 1.150

  Sect. 40.
• a 1.151

  1 Thes. 4. 12.
• * 1.152

  Sect. 41.
• b 1.153

  Col. 4. 5.
• c 1.154

  Gal. 6. 10.
• d 1.155

  1 Pe•• 2. 12.
• e 1.156

  1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20.
• * 1.157

  Sect. 41.
• f 1.158

  Acts 23. 8.
• * 1.159

  Sect. 41.
• a 1.160

  Acts 4. 1. Acts 5. 17. &c.
• b 1.161

  Mat. 15. 3, 4. 6.
• c 1.162

  Joh. 2. 14, 15, &c.
• d 1.163

  1 King. 4. 33.
• e 1.164

  Mat. 23. 23.
• f 1.165

  Deut. 13. 2.
• * 1.166

  Sect. 42.
• a 1.167

  Joh. 19. 7.
• * 1.168

  Sect. 42.
• * 1.169

  Sect. 43.
• a 1.170

  Exod. 18. 24, 25, &c.
• * 1.171

  Sect. 43.
• b 1.172

  1 Iohn 5.
• * 1.173

  Sect. 44.
• * 1.174

  Sen.
• * 1.175

  Sect. 44.
• * 1.176

  Sect. 44.
• a 1.177

  Munitiones vocat confilia, & celsitudinem ad∣versus Deum ela∣tam de quibus po••tea loquitur: sed proprie & significauter it•• app••llac. Vult e∣nim gloriari ni∣hil esse tam mu∣nitum in mund••, cui diruendo non sit p••r futurus; acsi d••ceret: Scio equidem quam superbiant suis ampullis humines carnales, & quam fastuose ac secure me contemnant, &c. Calv. in 2 cor. 10. 4.
• b 1.178

  De quibus autem muni∣tionibus loquatur, evestigio subjungit dicers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vertunt autem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, confilia: Vox ipsa so••a••, ratiocinationen. Intelligit de confiliis ratiocinationis humanae, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sed corrupt••, in quibus potissimum Sa••an r••gna•• inter homines. Chrysostomus expo••it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Muscul. in 2 cor. 10. 4.
• * 1.179

  Sect. 45.
• a 1.180

  Gal. 3. 21.
• b 1.181

  Gal 2. 21. ••
• * 1.182

  Sect. 45.
• * 1.183

  Rom. 13.
• * 1.184

  Sect. 46.
• * 1.185

  Sect. 46.
• * 1.186

  Sect. 46
• * 1.187

  Sect. 46.
• * 1.188

  Sect. 47.
• * 1.189

  Sect. 48.
• * 1.190

  2 Thess. 3. 10.
• * 1.191

  Sect. 48.
• * 1.192

  Sect. 49.
• * 1.193

  Mat. 25. 24.
• * 1.194

  Sect. 49.
• * 1.195

  Sect. 50.
• * 1.196

  Sect. 50.
• * 1.197

  Quod bonum est facito, hoc est, legibus obtem∣perato. Contra∣rium est, si sece∣ris malum, id est, legibus fue∣ris inobediens a••t refractari••s, Par. ad Rom. 13. 4.
• * 1.198

  Sect. 51.
• * 1.199

  * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ma••••••, oppouitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bono morali, de quo ver. 3. I∣dem. Ibid.
• * 1.200

  Jud. 18. 24.
• * 1.201

  Sect. 51.
• * 1.202

  Sect. 51.
• * 1.203

  Sect. 51.
• * 1.204

  Ego de caepis in∣terrog••, et tu re∣spondes de alliis.
• * 1.205

  Sect. 52
• * 1.206

  Sect. 52.
• * 1.207

  Sculet An••al. Evang. Dec 2. i•• Anno, 1526.
• * 1.208

  H••die omnes ••••re Ubiquitari•• in illa sententia sunt Lutherum revocasse servum suum Arbitrium S••nl••••t. ••bi su∣pra.
• * 1.209

  Sect. 53.
• * 1.210

  Sect. 53.
• * 1.211

  Sect. 54.
• * 1.212

  Sect. 54.
• * 1.213

  Mr. Edwards Gang. 3. par. p. 77. printeth a passage of a let∣ter, sent by a godly Minister (as he useth to call all those, that will honor or rather flatter him) wherein this minister affirmeth, that he spake prophe∣tically, that usu∣ally called him (the said mr. Edw.) in Cam∣bridge, ••••••g LVTHER.
• * 1.214

  Mr. Edw. Gan. 3 par. pag. 114.
• * 1.215

  Sect. 54.
• * 1.216

  Sect. 55.
• * 1.217

  Sect. 55.
• * 1.218

  Sect. 56.
• * 1.219

  Sect. 56.
• * 1.220

  Sect. 57.
• * 1.221

  Sect. 57.
• * 1.222

  Sect. 57.
• * 1.223

  Sect. 58
• * 1.224

  Sect. 58.
• * 1.225

  Sect. 59.
• * 1.226

  1 Pet. 3. 1.
• * 1.227

  Horat.
• * 1.228

  Sect. 59.
• * 1.229

  Sect. 60.
• * 1.230

  Gang. 3. par.
• * 1.231

  Virgil.
• * 1.232

  Sect. 60.
• * 1.233

  Sect. 61.
• * 1.234

  Sect. 61.
• * 1.235

  Sect. 62.
• * 1.236

  Rectè igitur facit Paulus, quod perturbato∣res ••llos maledi∣cit, & pronunciat sententiam eos esse Anathema, cun omnibus quae sunt, docent, & faciunt, quodque imprecatur eis ut ex••i••dantur ex bac vitâ, & pre∣cipue ex Ecclesia, hoc est, ne Deus gubernet & for∣tunet Doctrinam & omnes actio∣nes eorum, Lu∣ther ad Gal. 5. 12.
• * 1.237

  Sect. 62.
• * 1.238

  Sect. 63
• * 1.239

  Sect. 63.
• * 1.240

  Sect. 63.
• * 1.241

  Sect. 64.
• * 1.242

  Sect. 64.
• * 1.243

  Sect. 65.
• * 1.244

  Sect. 65.
• * 1.245

  Sect. 66.
• * 1.246

  Sect. 66.
• * 1.247

  Do••a••i••tae, qui prae s•• omnes alios Christian as condemna••ant se∣veritatem censu∣rae in suos re••ana∣〈…〉〈…〉: et in suis ••aetibus h••mi es 〈…〉〈…〉os, •••• opt•• o••, Gildo∣••ia••••s, Primia∣nosque pa ••••••au∣tur••••. Mart. Loc. Class. 4 cap. 5. ••••ct. 15.
• * 1.248

  Sect. 68.
• * 1.249

  Sect. 67.
• * 1.250

  Sect. 68.
• * 1.251

  Rom. 2. 1.
• * 1.252

  Sect. 69.
• * 1.253

  Sect. 69.
• * 1.254

  Sect. 70.
• * 1.255

  Mat. 13. 29.
• * 1.256

  Sect. 70.
• * 1.257

  Sect. 71.
• * 1.258

  Sect 71.
• * 1.259

  Mat. 13. 38.
• * 1.260

  Ver. 25. 26.
• * 1.261

  Sect. 72
• * 1.262

  Matth. 13. 30
• * 1.263

  Sect. 72.
• * 1.264

  Ver. 29.
• * 1.265

  Sect. 73
• * 1.266

  Mat. 13. 26.
• * 1.267

  Sect. 73.
• * 1.268

  Sect. 73.
• * 1.269

  Sect. 74.
• * 1.270

  Sect. 74.
• * 1.271

  Sect. 75.
• * 1.272

  Sect. 75.
• * 1.273

  Sect. 75.
• * 1.274

  Rog••••▪ & qui∣dem e••fi••a•• ••s•••••• qui r••dd•••• r••∣g•••••••• caus••s. Sen.
• * 1.275

  Sect. 76
• * 1.276

  Sect. 76.
• * 1.277

  Sect. 77.
• * 1.278

  Sect. 78
• * 1.279

  Sect. 78.
• * 1.280

  Sect. 79
• * 1.281

  Sect. 79.
• * 1.282

  Sect. 80.
• * 1.283

  Sect. 80.
• * 1.284

  Sect. 81.
• * 1.285

  Sect. 82.
• * 1.286

  Sect. 83.
• * 1.287

  Sect. 83.
• * 1.288

  Sect. 83.
• * 1.289

  Sect. 84.
• * 1.290

  Sect. 84.
• * 1.291

  Sect. 86.
• * 1.292

  Sect. 86.
• * 1.293

  Sect. 87
• * 1.294

  Sect. 87.
• * 1.295

  Sect. 88.
• * 1.296

  Sect. 88,
• * 1.297

  Sect. 8••
• * 1.298

  Sect. 89.
• * 1.299

  Sect. 90
• * 1.300

  Sect. 90.
• * 1.301

  Sect. 91.
• * 1.302

  Sect. 91.
• * 1.303

  Sect. 92.
• * 1.304

  Sect. 92.
• * 1.305

  Act. 4. 18.
• * 1.306

  Sect. 93.
• * 1.307

  Sect. 93.
• * 1.308

  Sect. 94.
• * 1.309

  Sect. 94.
• * 1.310

  Sect. 95
• * 1.311

  Sect. 95.
• * 1.312

  N••h. 6. 8.
• * 1.313

  Sect. 96.
• * 1.314

  Sect. 97.
• * 1.315

  Sect. 98.
• * 1.316

  Sect. 99.
• * 1.317

  Sect. 100.
• * 1.318

  Sect. 101,
• * 1.319

  Sect. 102.
• * 1.320

  Luke 19. 40.
• * 1.321

  Sect. 103.
• * 1.322

  Ipsi quidem muti sunt, sed mirabilis Dei providentia, qua t•• ipsis reluet, instar est sonorae et magniloquae facu•…•…iae.
• * 1.323

  Sect. 104.
• * 1.324

  1 Tim. 6. 5.
• * 1.325

  Ezek. 14. 3, 4.
• * 1.326

  Sect. 105.
• * 1.327

  Sect. 106▪
• * 1.328

  Act. 7. 58. &c. 22. ••0.
• * 1.329

  Esa. 40. 12.
• * 1.330

  Sect. 107.
• * 1.331

  † Deut. 17. 8.
• * 1.332

  Deut. 17. 11.
• * 1.333

  ver. 12.
• * 1.334

  Then thou shalt arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall ch••s••, v. 8. And thou shalt come unto the Priests, the Le∣vites, and unto the judge that shal be in those dayes, and in∣quire, v. 9. And the man that will doe pre∣sumpt••ously, & will not hear∣ken unto the Priests, that ••••andeth to mi∣nister there be∣fore▪ the Lord thy God, &c. v. 12. Sect. 108.
• * 1.335

  Sect. 109.
• * 1.336

  Sect. 110.
• * 1.337

  Cum cogito qualis sit facta Ecclesia, post∣quam Christia∣nos est Principes nacta, ac qui fixt opum Ecclesiasli∣corum fructus, existimo spiritum sanctum, fi de il∣lis loqui voluis∣set, longe fuisse dicturum alia. Mu••c. in Esa. 49. 23.
• * 1.338

  Quemadm••∣dum olim Moses in aula Pharao∣nis, ita incapti∣vitate Babylo∣nica, Daniel Sidrac, Misa•• Abednego, in aula Regis Babel sunt educati. Nota est historia Esther, Zorobabelis, Edrae, &c. in quibus sane impletum est quod hic dicitur, erunt Reges ••utricii tui, &c. Ibid.
• * 1.339

  Revel. 21. 24. 26.
• * 1.340

  Rev. 21▪ 22.