ANTI-COTTON ANSWERED. Who comes with five hundred Questions against two and twenty of the Examiner Examined, and yet leaves it out of Question, That the Magistrate ought to suppress IDOLATRY, etc. JOB 31.28. This also were an Iniquity to be punished by the Judge; for I should have denied the God that is above. ROM. 13.3, 4. The Magistrate ought to be a terror to evil workers. 1 PET. 4.3. But Idolatry is an evil work [per eminentiam] Therefore the Magistrate ought to be a terror to Idolatry. London, Printed for John Wright, dwelling at the Kings-Head in the Old-Bayley 1653. To the READER. SInce the Question is come down the Stairs, and delivered over by him that first awaked it to a second; The Author of the Examiner Examined may think it a just reason for himself to do the like. Accordingly I have taken upon me as a second to answer that second; though in truth there is very little in his discourse that hath need of answering, the chiefest of his matters having been already foiled in New England, and the rest being but frothy words and impertinent divagations, mistakes of the Questioner, frivolous Questions, and full of contradictions. His words would better become a Play, then sober Truth, who contents herself within a modest comely habit; nay she had rather be Nuda then fucata. And though she speaks plain English, yet abhors scurrilousnesse and rail. How many long-land digressions doth this Author make in his Book. He must go out of his way to meet Tithes, and to fall upon the Ministry etc. Indeed I think he is never out of his way, for I am of opinion that he never proposed any to himself, not knowing whither his unruly fancy would lead him when he puts pen to Paper. His mistake of those short Questions are gross and frequent, sometimes adding to them, sometimes diminishing them, and grounds many of his Questions upon his own mistakes, as you have instanced in this ensuing discourse. Besides, he is mistaken in his whole discourse; there being nothing in the Question that puts Magistrates upon forcing of consciences; and punishing misbelief or unbelief, but external acts as Idolatry and Blaspemy, and infection by communicating of Heresy. Neither is there any thing in the Questions to put the Magistrate upon waging war with Turks or Jews upon the account of Religion. And for the Magistrates judging of Heresy, the first Question of the second Examiner doth tax it by way of supposal. That the Magistrate doth know the saving truth and his judgement right in it, and then whether it's not his duty to cause it to be propogated by Laws, Pag. 41. by maintenance, and suppressing the outward Acts that are contrary: Here is no occasion given for suspending of Magistrates, or for Pagans or Turks to act in Religious matters; for the Questioner speaks of only such as know the truth. How many frivolous Questions, as what would we do if Christ should be born again amongst us, etc. I am loath to cast about how to order things that are impossible to be, Pag. 53. I leave this work to idle melancholy brains. But I think if this Author had lived when Christ was borne, he would not have owned him, because he little respects Moses and the Prophets. His Contradictions are many, and such as destroy his own Tenet. He confesses all Kings, Queens, Judges in the World ought to be nursing Fathers and Mothers to Christ and his Followers; Pag. 3. and yet this must be no truth when it's spoken by another, but he'll question it; Is not this to be guilty of a Spirit of Contradiction. I shall no longer Epistolize the Reader, keeping him from the perusal of the ensuing Discourse, only I desire him to take notice, that this Defendant of the first Examiner being much given to repetitions in his book. His clamorous Arguments do occur almost in every Page, yet though the Defendant speak four times the same thing, I answer the same thing but once; after once Answering esteeming his Arguments when I meet them not to be alive again, but only apparitions or Ghosts of Reason walking in a vain shadow. If any thing seem doubtful in the Replies, some following question or oath will help to explain it, so that by the help of comparing one place with another the Reader may be satisfied. Anti-Cotton Answered. THIS Defendant goes out top-gallant with his Rhetorical Sails hoist up; as soon as he comes to the main, I'll encounter him, in the Interim I'll busy myself in questioning his setting forth. I ask, Qu. 1. Whether he thinks that the Army fought for liberty in Idolatry, Pa. 4. Heresy and Blasphemy, and did prosper for this. Q. 2. Whether such a Soul-freedome being granted to every man as he points out Pag. 5. would be a means to preserve the Commonwealth; Pa. 5. or not rather kindle a desire and an endeavour in the Commonalty after the obtaining of such a liberty for their Bodies and Estates as is granted them for their Souls, viz. that they might maintain whom they pleased to rule them according to their abilities and consciences; which being granted in a short time Actum erit de Rep. Q. Whether he can militate for a toleration of the two great evils, Idolatry and Heresy; and hang out a Flag with this Motto, Soule-freedome. Whereas liberty in whatsoever is evil the Scripture terms bondage. Now he is come forth: let us hear what he can say against these main Questions; I'll first propose the questions in their order, and then give a brief yet full sum of his several Answers; and then subjoin a Reply, vindicating those serious Questions from his trivial Questioning. Question 1. Whether a Magistrate that knows the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ Jesus, do fulfil the Office of a Nursing Father, if he do not cause this saving Food to be given to his Children; and Poison, that is a contrary Doctrine to be kept from them? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Pa. 7.8.10. Whether this Prophecy (If. 49.23.) is not fixed to the distinct Nation of the Jews, by (vers. 22) of this Chapter. 2. Whether these Kings and Queens must needs be such spiritual Fathers as Paul was. These two Questions joining issue make up his sixth Question. 3. Pa. 8. Whether Magistrates be not as essentially civil as the Master of a Ship. 4. Pa. 9.11. Whether Pagan Magistrates be not as truly Magistrates as the best Christians; and whether Pagans converted receive any addition to their Magistracy. 5. Pa. 12.20 21. Whether Magistrates have not often been mistaken and given poison for food, and whether this Doctrine of Kings and Queens being Nursing Fathers cost not the late King Charles his head. Reply. Ad. 1. This Answerer interprets (Isa. 49.23.) to be a Prophecy pecaliar to the Jews, and fixes this interpretation from (verse 23.) Yet for all this his Spirit is not fixed, but he inclines rather to another interpretation as appears from his own words in't he later end of this page, viz. whether here is not promised to this People, or rather (saith he) to these Saints whether literal or spiritual Jews. Thus he enervates the strength of his first Answer by choosing another interpretation; but he is so unconstant that in the tenth Page he seems to be out of love with his choice, saying that some Kings were thus empowered by God, but what is this to all Kings and Queens and Magistrates in the world. To thesE words of his I subjoin his own confession in the third page, and desire to know what Harmony there is bet wixt them; page 3. (saith he) I confess that all Nations, all People's, Kings and Judges ought to be nursing Fathers and Mothers to Christ and his followers. Ad. 2. 1. It is not asserted that Kings and Qneenes should be such spiritual Fathers as Paul was, for than they should give Food to their Children, but the words in the Question are that they should cause this Food to be given. This word (cause) carefully inserted in the Question carelessly omitted by this Answerer perhaps carefully and of set purpose) takes off this needless question. 2. I ask whether Magistrates countenancing and maintaining such as Paul for to nurture up their People in the fear of the Lord may not be called nursing Fathers. This Answerer in his next words allows them to be Shepherds of the People, as Poets (saith he) use to call them; he might have said as Scripture calls them. Ezek. 34.23. Now a Shepherd ought to provide for his Sheep and to drive away the Wolves from the Flocks. How much comes this short of a nursing Father. 3. It is said (verse 23.) that Kings and Queens should bow down to the Saints; yet from these words there cannot be necessarily drawn this inference, viz. that Magistrates should be so far from challenging this Title of being nursing Fathers, as that they should bow down and acknowledge the Saints to be their Superiors; for I desire to know, if I bring up a King's son whom I honour above myself, whether I may not challenge the Office of a nursing Father without degrading the Infant by setting myself above him. Ad. 3. 1. A Magistrate differs much from a Master of a Ship, in regard that those in the Commonwealth are the Magistrates subjects, but the Passengers in a Ship are not the Master's Subjects, neither was he constituted by them. 2. Notwithstanding this vast difference the Magistrate is desired to do no more than this answerer allows to a Master of a Ship, viz. that he show kindness and countenance according to the quality and temper of his own belief and conscience. Upon this concession the Question will follow, viz. that a Magistrate, etc. Ad. 4. 1. It is granted that Pagan Magistrates are as truly Magistrates; for by God they rule as well as Christians; but they cannot discharge this their Office so well as Christians; so likewise Pagans are as truly Fathers, but cannot fully discharge their duties till they be Christians, viz. to bring up their Children in the fear of the Lord. 2 A Pagan converted receives no new addition of power to his Magistracy, but only is enabled to manage this power which he received from God to a right end, viz. for God. Ad. 5. 1. What follows upon this that Magistrates pretending to be nursing Fathers have mistaken Poison for Food; he cannot draw this conclusion that Magistrates ought to take no more care for their Subjects in matters of Religion; by the same Logic I'll argue that Parents having been mistaken grossly in the education of their Children: Fathers are not to look after the bringing up of their Children. What a petious Arguments is this? 2. The true consequence will be this, that seeing Magistrates have been often mistaken, therefore they ought to take the greater care and to do nothing rashly but be well advised. 3. This Doctrine did not cost King Charles his Life, he was fare from being a nursing Father; for he hugged in his bosom that stinging Serpent Idolatry. 4. King Charles was cut off for miscarriages in civil affairs, for not managing his power for the good of his Subjects; yet this example should not deter men from taking the Magistracy upon them, but should rather stir them up to remove the Idols of their Fathers, and to give heed that they rule with diligence and Justice. Question 2.3. Whether the Doctrine of Grace that bringeth Salvation, do not teach men to live Godly, Righteously and soberly; and more particularly, to obey Magistrates, and to live in Love and peace among themselves; and whether such a Doctrine do not advance the peace and prosperity of a Nation; and consequently, whether a Magistrate be not bound to advance this Doctrine, which doth advance the peace and prosperity of a Nation? Whether Godliness hath not the promise of this life and that to come? And whether these promises do not contain in them all good and happiness? and if so whether the Magistrate be not bound, to his power, to advance that godliness which gives all good and happiness to a Nation. The Sum of the several answers. 1. Pa. 13.19. Whether the Magistrate receiving his power from the People can have any power in Spirituals. 2. Pa. 14. Whether there be any such thing as a Nationall Church. 3. Pa. 17. Whether there be not flourishing States that are Pagans; and whether the godly are not persecuted; and whether God's people have any other peace then spiritual peace. 4. Mercy to the persecuted is the upholder of a State, P. 17.18.19. and hath raised Amsterdam. Reply. 1. Ad. 1. Whether the Magistrate being styled a Minister of God for his People's good, is not to defend the true Religion as well as keep the civil peace. 2. Whether a Magistrate in making Laws about Spirituals doth exceed the bounds of his calling, seeing that such laws are for the good of his Subjects, and his Subjexts have given him power to do what is for their good. 3. Whether Christians may not give power about Spirituals to their Magistrates, seeing in some cases it is allowed them to make Ministers. 4. Whether we read in Scripture of any punished for not reforming Idolatry in the reign of the Kings, besides the Kings themselves, which clearly shows that it is the Magistrates duty to punish Idolatry. 5. Whether the People gave the Magistrate power to give liverty to Idolatry and Heresy. Ad. 2. 1. The Answerers three utrums against Nationall Churches are besides the question; for the words in the question viz. that the Magistrate is bound to advance the Doctrine of grace and godliness, do only denote that the Magistrate is bound to encourage men to preach this Doctrine and to keep out of the Pulpit Idolatry and Heresy. I cannot perceive that this question doth erect a Nationall Church; for a Magistrate may do thus much where the Churches are congregational. There is a difference between advancing this Doctrine in a Nation, and making a Nationall Church. 2. I desire to know whether those Presbiterians that admit but one of twenty to be of their Church, or those Independents that are stricter in their admission (whom the Author mentions) deny that the Magistrate is bound to advance the Doctrine of Grace. I am sure the late proposals of divers reverend Divines manifests the contrary, and the Author can assure us what New-England holds in this case. It is granted that there are many flourishing Nations amongst whom the doctrine of Grace hath not been advanced, Ad. 3. but I ask: 1. Whether their peace and happiness shall be so permanent as the peace of those amongst whom this Doctrine is advanced, and I refer the Answerer for a resolution of this question to the 37. Psalm: and whether there may not be a peace in wrath. 2. It is granted that the Godly frequently suffer persecution; what will the Author infer hence? If he will infer any thing against the question, It must be this, viz. that the advancement of godliness hinders the peace of a Nation, and therefore the Magistrate should not advance godliness in a Nation for fear of Persecution. What an Heathenish Argument is this. Let the great ones of the Earth take heed of being offended at the Cross of Christ. Christ saith, Blessed are you when men persecute you for my name's sake, and rejoice that you are counted worthy. 3. This Answerer saith that all outward peace promised upon the condition of holiness is vanished. Unto the falsity of this tenet, let these Scriptures witness, Prov. 16.7. Revel. 6.14. Nav; Peace is given upon this condition, that we might serve God in holiness, Luke 1.74, 75. I''s true that mercy upholdeth a Throne, but I ask: 1. Whether such a mercy as to spare where the Lord bids to destroy will not rend a Kingdom from the Magistrates; 1 Sam. 15 as the sparing of Agag rend the Kingdom from Saul. 2. Whether it is not cruelty to tolerate infected persons to the infection of others. Here the Answerer brings in Ansterdam for an instance; which (saith he) hath flourished many years by being a receptacle of all Fugitives whatsoever. 1. He might as well from the flourishing of Rome have pleaded for the erecting of an Asylum for Thiefs and Robbers. 2. Hath not Genevah flourished many years, though that City hath sheltered no Malefactors, who escapting the hands of Justice have fled thither. But all such have been tried and executed according to Law. 3. Is New-England ever the worse for casting out some schismatical Heretics. This Answerer having a sting in his tail closes with an Invective against Tithes; divers men of such kind of spirits with their Invectives stir up the People, bid them cry, and then bawl out upon the Magistrate for not appeasing them; if such men were kept from writing we should have few of these outcries. Question 4. Whether the Magistrate be not bound to love God with all his might, and accordingly to advance his Glory with all his might? And whether he do so, if he do not put forth all his might in advancing Gods true worship and service, and the chief good of God's People committed to his care? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Pa. 20.21. The weapons of Christians are not carnal but spiritual, 2 Cor. 10. and these are sufficient to batter all strong holds, and the carnal can effect nothing but a storming the Nations into Hypocrisy. 2. Pa. 10.20. Whether in the New Testament Christ hath appointed the civil Sword to be desendor of his Religion. 3. Pa. 21. Whether Religion did even so flourish as under persecution. Reply. 1. Ad. 1. Whether the spirits intent in (2 Cor. 10. is not to set out the spiritual might of Ministers against those who disgraced their personal weaknesses. Q. D. though some amongst you say that Paul Evangelist powerfully Manu & Pennâ, but his bodily presence is weak, his speech is contemptible; yet I do not approve of this saying, for though Paul walks in the flesh, that is in this Body, yet he wars not after the Flesh, that is the strength of our warsare consists not in Rhetorical words and pronunciation, we put not the stress of our warfare upon these, for they are carnal weapons, but ours are spiritual; the result of the whole is. That Ministers who have no good utterance are not to be condemned, or their Ministry thought weak; for they come not in Word but in Spirit. Thus it clearly appears that by carnal weapons is not meant the civil Sword. 2. Spiritual weapons are sufficient, only sufficient to bring down the high thoughts of the heart, and Idolatry, Heresy, and Murders in the heart are only battered by these weapons, but if Heresy, etc. break forth into external acts, they may be reached and punished by the civil Sword; and questionless this outward punishment of Idolatry etc. might truly convert many, as the erecting of the Gallows for Murderers hath brought many to true repentance, and amendment; yet I do not deny but this rigour might make many Hypocrites, dor fear Wolves might cover themselves in Lambs clothing be outwardly Lambs: Yet I ask, 1. Whether such Hypocrites are not better for society, then Ravenous Wolves. 2. Whether Idolatry, Heresy, Murder, penned up in the heart, not daring to break forth for fear of Laws, be not less displeasing to God, then when for want of restraint they break forth into the members, and become reigning sins; for sins of this latter sort God usually punisheth a Nation; therefore the Magistrate is to restrain such sins: further, if such coercive power of the Magistrates be to be omitted because it makes Hypocrites: I ask, Why the Preaching of the Word is not to be omitted, seeing that thereby many have stormed into Hypocrisy. Ad. 2. 1. God hath appointed the civil Sword to defend Religion, Rom. 13.34. 2. The Author might as well ask, why God appoining in the old time Kings to be defenders of Religion, suffered so many of them to be Idolators. Take heed of upbraiding God. 3. If the Revelation be not Apocryphas with this Author, he hath cause to believe that Kings shall burn the Whore with Fire. Ad. 3. 1. Whether the flourishing of Religion under Persecution, will excuse the Magistrate from not defending of the true Religion; though the Israelites increase under the Egyptian bondage, yet Pharaoh goes not unpunished. 2. I ask, whether the Church is not also increased by peace, viz. Act. 2.47. Act. 9.31. Question 5. The People being bound to pray for Magistrates, that under them they may had a peaceable and quiet life in all godliness and honesty. Whether the Magistrate be not bound to do that which the People are bound to pray that he may do? And whether he be not also bound to give himself up to God to be his Servant and Instument, when he granteth this Prayer? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Whether these words godliness and honesty be rightly translited. 2. That Saints should imagine that the civil Sword should defend their godliness, and suppress ungodliness implies a twofold contradiction. 1. That they must imagine the Magistrate, to have a clearer sight in judging of godliness than themselves. 2. It's a Parodoxe that they should not be able to live in godliness without the help of the Magistrate. 3. Whether the Scope of the place be not this, that God would direct the Magistrates to keep their States in peace; that in the Peace of those Nations the Saints might have Peace. 4. Whether the blessed Spirit that is in all God's people be not sufficient to preserve them in godliness without the help of the Magistrate. 5. Whether in these divisions we may pray, that the Magistrate would judge (whose worship and godliness is true, and defend that) and prohibit all others as Heretical, etc. Reply. Ad. The Vulgar Latin renders it ut quietam vivam agamus in omni pietate. 2 Bazd: cum omni pietate 1. This Answerer carps at the translation, yet gives no better, neither a reason of the falsity of this translation. I''s easy to carp and multiply questions without a wherefore. Carpere vel cesses nostra, vel ede tua. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be translated godliness, we shall have little godliness in our Translation. Most translations translate it godliness; for the Readers satisfaction let him read the marginal Notes. Ad. 2. It's a most nuchristan speech that the Apostle should exhort to any duty, that implies unchristian Paradoxes; The duty doth not imply these Paradoxes. 1. Christian's may desire the Magistrate to defend them, and yet need not imagine the Magistrate to have a clearer discerning in godliness then themselves; may not a Carnal man defend a Spiritual man. 2. Cannot the Parliament make a General, for the defence of their cause, but they must imagine the General to have a clearer discerning of the cause then themselves. 3. I''s not denied but that they might live a godly life without the Magistrate, yet they could not live a peaceable and quiet life in all godliness without the Magistrate. Ad. 3. The Author comes fare short of the Scope of the place. 1. For in the former chapter Paul had delivered Hymeneus to Satan, that others might learn not to blaspheme, and he gins his Chapter with this exhort. I exhort therefore that Prayers be made for all in Authority, that we may live, etc. Q. d. that they may put forth their power against such Disturbers of the Church, that we may live quietly; this appears further from the reason that enforces this exhort, (vers. 4.) for God would have all men to be saved and come to the truth. If the Scope of the place had been that God would direct the Magistrates to keep their States in peace, that so in the peace thereof, the Saints might have peace: The Author needed not have added this reason in (vers. 4.) for Carnal men without coming to the truth might have kept the State in peace; and so the Author have had his end. 2. If the Author gives the true Scop of the place, the Author should rather have exhorted tem to pray, that the States (wherein) they lived might have had War; for than they would not have been at leisure to torment Saints; for when the Persecutors had War with other Nations, than the Srs. were free from Persecution, & when they had Peace, than they made War against the Saints. In the Peace of the States the Saints had seldom Peace. Ad. 4 The Spirit is able to keep God's people, though they should want nursing Fathers and Teachers, which as this Answerer saith, are respectively necessary, yet all helps are with Humility to be used, where they may be had, (we have no warrant to cast away means) and are respectively necessary, as this Author speaks. Ad. 5. I''s not desired that the Magistrate would so judge of one worship (as Prebytery or the like) as to set it up, and condemn all others as Alasphemy, etc. But that he would prohibit Blasphemy and Idolatry, and those that are Blasphemers: and I ask, Why we may not as safely pray such a Prayer though divers be of a contrary mind, as we prayed for the Parliament, when divers were of a contrary mind. Question 6. Whether Abraham and the Heads of other Families before the Law, where not Magistrates in their Families? And whether Abraham did not command his Family to keep the way of the Lord? Gen. 18.19. And whether God did not commend him for doing so? And whether Jacob did not purge his House from Idols, Gen. 34.2. and caused his Household to go up to Bethel to worspip the true God? Sect. 10. And whether Abraham and Jacob were merely Fellow Servant with there Servants (as this Examiner saith) and their Household might command Abraham and Jacob, as well as Abraham and Jacob command their Household? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Whether the Questioner deals fairly with the Examiner, in saying that the Examiner saith Abraham's Household might command him as well as he them. 2. Whether any consequence can be gathered from Abraham, and Jacob (who purged his House from Idols) for Masters now a days to follow, seeing that they were typical. 3. Whether it be not God's design to choose men of low degree, and whether it be not against Gods declared Will that we should expect many Christian Magistrates. 4. Whether a Christian that Participates more of the Spirit of Christ, hath not more power in Religion, than the highest Magistrate. 5. Whether a Subject may not reprove a Magistrate for Sin. Reply. Ad. 1. The Questioner doth not at all slander the Examiner laying this assertion to his charge, for that it is his own child, this Answerer himself bears witness; for this Answerer confesseth that its an assertion of the Examiner, viz. Pag. 26. That in Religious matters the Magistrate and Subjects are Fellow Servants; I ask then, why this Answerer cavels thus, seeing that the Questioner speaks not of Abraham or Jacob in a civil respect, but only in a Religious? Ad. 2. Whether Masters of Families may not draw from Abraham's example, this consequence of causing their Family to keep the way of the Lord, seeing that they draw the consequence of baptising their children from Abraham. 2. Whether in this case Abraham was Typical. Ad. 3. Though there should not be many Christian Magistrates, yet those few that are, ought the rather to advance the Christian Religion. 2. Whether if God choose men of low degree and make them Magistrates, it's not God's will that they should advance godliness. Ad. 4. He that hath most of the Spirit is not highest in Religious matters: for in the Church militant, order is to be kept, and the valiantestman is not always Captain. Abilities without a calling doth not give a man Power and Authority. 2. Pari ratione I ask, whether a Subject that participates more of Policy, hath not more power in State matters then the highest Statesman. 3. I ask, whether Magistrates may not be high in the Spirit. Ad. 5. The Subject may reprove a Magistrate, Nathan may reprove David; yet it doth not follow that Nathan may as well command in Religious matters as David. Question 7. Whether Artaxerxes did well in making a Decree for the advancement of the true wership of the true God, and in causing Ezra to teach them the law of God? Ezra 7. And whether the King of Nineveh did well to command his People to keep a general Fast, and to turn from their evil ways, whereby he saved that great City? Or whether he might not have done better to have left them to a careless liberty, and so to destruction? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Whether these two Instances be not ill coupled, for Artaxerxes gave free liberty of conscience to the Jews, whereas the King of Nineveh forced his People to Fast. 2. Did Artaxerxes compel the Jews to his Religion, or the Persians to the Jews, or the Jews to go to Jerusalem. 3. What can be gathered hence; but that it pleaseth God sometimes to affect the hearts of Idolatrous Kings with kindness to his People. 4. Whether this Instance makes not for Soul-freedome in that the Jews were not forced to their own Jerusalem. As to the King of Nineveh. 1. Whether examples in Scripture bind our consciences in worship. 2. Whether this Example of the King of Nineveh be fit for all Nations to imitate, seeing that men's consciences differ as much as the Climates in which they live. Reply. Ad. 1. The Answerer give us in his book the Sum of this Question, after this manner. Whether Artaxerxes and the King of Nineveh did well in making there decrees, he puts these two instances under one utrum, whereas the Questioner makes two utrums of them. Now I ask, who is to be blamed for coupling of these two distinct Instances together. Ad. 2. There is no such thing asserted, but the Question only is, whether he did well in what he did do, or no. Ad. 3. With a little Logic this conclusion may be gathered, viz. If Artaxerxes did well in making this decree (which empowered Ezra to set Judges, which may judge all the people that know the Law of God, and to execute Judgement upon them that would not do them) a Christian Magistrate would do well in Countenancing and Encourage those that teach the law of the Lord, and in punishing those that would not obey it. Ad. 1. All the liberty that is granted them is, that they might choose whether they would go to Jerusalem or no, but those that went to Jerusalem were not left free to what worship they pleased, for vers. 26. whosoever will not do the Law, let judgement be executed upon him, etc. So no Christians are desired to come out of Babylon, but those that are willing. Yet if they come out of Babylon, and dwell under the Christian Magistracy, and will not do the Law of the Lord, let Judgement be executed upon them. Ad. 1. Whether those things that were writ aforetime, were not writ for our learning. Ad. 2. Pari ratione, I'll argue the Alcoran is fit to be followed then the Bible. Why did not Christ make a particular Bible to suit with the Climates according to the elevation of the People. Question 8. Whether any of the Prophets, Apostles, yea our Saviour himself did ever except at the Mngistrates Authority, for questioning them in matters of Religion? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. The Prophets and Christ are ill coupled in this Question, because the Law & the Prophets were until John, and so their Actions cannot be brought in as witnesses with Christ. 2. Whether Christ did not except against the Magistrate's power in Religion, in that distinction, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, etc. was not giving Caesar his due, a giving God his due, what difference can there be between God's due and Caesar's due, but only that of matter of conscience Spiritual and Religious which Caesar had no power over. 3. The Apostles not only refused to obey ungodly commands, but even to own the Courts of the highest in matters of Religion, Act. 4.5. 4. If Christ's Followers should own any tribunal questioning them by Authority, but Christ's in matters of Religion, it would be Blasphemy. Reply. Ad. 1. 1. It's true the Prophets Prophesied of Christ's coming until John, Mat. 11.13. but the substance of their Doctrine is not antiquated by Christ's coming, Mat. 5.17. 2. I ask, why the Prophet's Testimony may not be coupled with Christ's, seeing that the same Spirit that was in Christ, was in the Prophets, 1. Pet. 1.11. Ad. 2. I cannot conceive what objection against the Magistrate's Power can be gathered out of Mat. 22.21. the scope of the place is no more than that the maintaining of God's service, must not excuse them from maintaining the civil power, for they were Caesar's Subjects, and therefore must pay Tribute to Caesar: And though in giving Caesar his due, in some sense they gave God his due (because Magistracy is an ordinance of God) yet this was not God's whole due (for the Ministry is likewise an ordinance of God) and I think the payments towards the maintaining of God's service were easily to be discerned from Caesar's Tribute, and might be called Gods due in a peculiar manner. But none so blind as those that will not see. Ad. 3.1. I ask, whether the Apostles were not often accuse of Heresy before the Magistrates, did they ever plead the Magistrates had no power to judge of such cases. Nay, is not Gallio branded for his indifferency and carelessness in such cases. 2. I'es false that the Apostles Act. 4.5. refused to own the Court, for they pleaded Non-guilty, and made a defence for themselves which is a full owning of a Court. Ad. 4. Whether the Apostles by Answering to Courts that questioned them concerning their Religion were guilty of Blasphemy. Whether Paul counting himself happy in that he should Answer before Agrippa counted it a happy thing to speak Blasphemy. Question 9.10.11.12. If a believing Magistrate, as a nursing Father, recommend to his Children the wholesome Food of the Word, that is able to save their Souls, and encourage those that disperse and dispense it; and withal, forbidden others to give abroad the Poison, contrary to it? Whether the Examiner hath just cause to say, that this is a Ground for another Magistrate to command the giving abroad of Poison, and to forbid the delivering of the wholesome Food that may save his people's Souls? Authority being given by God to Asa to advance true Religion and suppress Idolatry (which he did to deposing of his Mother) Whether this were a ground for Manasseh, (one of his successors) to set up Idolatry, and a principle of Persecution, whereupon he might kill those that would not worship his Idols? When God made a Law, that Blaspemy proved by two Witnesses, should be punished with Death: Whether he therein did lay a principle of Persecution or Murder, whereby Jesabel by two false Witnesses might unjustly put Naboth to death? Whether Paul commanding Christian Fathers to bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, do hereby lay a Principle whereupon Idolatrous Parents may bring up their Children in the nurture and Doctrine of Idolatry; that is, in the Doctrine of Devils? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. The Examiner is not so void of reason as to imagine that corruptions and abuses are sufficient ground to overthrow a truly Christian constitution. 2. Whether Parents may not do that which Paul exhorts them to (Eph. 5.) except they force their Children to their own worship. 3. By this rule the Child coming to be Magistrate must force his Father according to that Typical example of Asa. By this rule King Edward did well in forbidding his Sister Mary her conscience; and Mary could do no other than forbidden her Sister Elizabeth the use of her conscience. Reply. Ad. 1. This Answerer that cannot imagine a Man so void of reason is so Irrational himself; for he brings the Magistrates frequent mistakes in Religion as an argument to overthrow his power about Spirituals. 2 Abuses are to be taken away, or else they will overthrow a Christian Society; but Idolatry, Superstition etc. are abuses of God's works, according to this Author's Catalogue; therefore Idolatry is to be taken away. Ad. 2. 1. If a Father have Children that be Idolators; he cannot fulfil the command of Paul, except he bring them to the worship of the true God. 2. What is this to the Question, the Question is whether this command of Paul lays a principle for the brining up of Children in Idolatry. The strength of this Question lies in the Connexion against which nothing is said by this Answerer. Ad. 3. I ask, whether a Child coming to be Father over his Country may not judge his own Father. 2. King Edward did well in forbidding Mary the use of her conscience because she was an Idolater; but this act of Edward to Mary doth not justify Mary's Act to Elizabeth: For though it be good to be Zealous in a good cause, yet not in a bad cause. Zeal makes a good cause better. Zeal makes a bad cause worse. 3. I ask, wherher Edwards forbidding Mary forced Mary to forbid Elizabeth the use of her conscience. I ask whether the Shepherd driving Wolves from his Flock forces the Wolves to devour his Sheep? I believe if the Shepherd should consent to make no use of his Dogs for the keeping of his Sheep, the Wolves would not desist from devouring his Sheep. 4. I ask, whether it be lawful to cease acting vigorously for God, because we would not have the wicked act vigorously for the Devil and their Idols. And whether upon such a cessation of the godly, the wicked would be less wicked. And whether this were not to make an agreement with iniquities? Question 13. Idolatry being against the light of Nature, Rom. 3.28. Rom. 1. and therefore punishable under the Law of Nature, and so acknowledged by Job, who lived before the Law of Moses; Whether the Magistrate under the Gospel (which gives more light to the discovery of the sinfulness and guilt of Idolatry) may not also restrain and punish that sin? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Whether there be not divers interpretations of this place, 1. the Septuagint renders it thus, viz. this would have been judged a very great iniquity. 2. Some interpret beholding the Sun and Moon, etc. Metaphorically for being puft up with Prosperity and Success. 2. Shall we follow Jobs example and erect New lands of Canaan? 3. God's People are commanded to disobey the civil power in Spirituals, Col. 2.16. 4. Is there not two sorts of Idolatry, 1. Religious worshipping false gods, 2. Moral, as Covetousness. 5. Is there not a fallacy in the term Light of Nature. 6. In Jobs time corporal now spiritual judgements re only proper. 7. Where lies the Harmony between these two Scirptures, Rom. 2.1 Cor. 1. 8. Whether natural wisdom can attain to a true and saving knowledge of God. 9 The civil Sword is to cut off all incivilities though masked under religious pretences, and when Idolatry breaks forth into Whoredom and Murder it's to be punished. Hence I honour that noble act of Augustus against Ovid, and doubtless it is the duty of the civil Sword to cut off long Hair. 10. If God had concealed the old Test. from us, I ask, in what place of the New-Testament he hath commanded the Sword to be drawn in his quarrel. 11. Whether such Nations as were wholly Idolatrous were punished by David. 12. Whether Christ hath not locked up the Magistrates hands; saying, let the Tares alone until the Harvest. Reply. Ad. 1. 1. I ask, whether the Septuagint being a translation be any further to be credited than it agrees with the Original. 2. Whether we may not justly suspect the Septuagints translation of verse 28. of this Chapter, seeing that in vers. 11. they omit wholly what they translate in vers. 28. what they omit in one place we have ground to think they will safely translate in another place where it cannot be omitted. 3. Whether Job 31.26. beholding the Sun is to be interpreted Metaphorically for being puffed up with prosperity and success: It's directly opposite to the scope of the place; for 1. this Iniquity was not to be punished by the Judges. 2. This Sentence, (viz. an iniquity to be punished by the Judges) is annexed, vers. 11. unto the heinous crime of Adultery, and is not annexed to any one sin besides in the whole Chapter, but only to this sin mentioned in this six and twentieth verse. Therefore I Argue that beholding the Sun, must be an iniquity of greater magnitude then to be puffed up with success. 4. That this iniquity which was to be punished by the Judges is Idolatry, I thus argue: 1. Beholding the Sun and kissing the hand is interpreted to be a Religious worshipping the Sun: For it was a custom in worshipping the gods to kiss them, as appears from 1 King 19.18. Now the Sun being two fare distant they kissed their hands, divers Author's witness that this was the manner of worshipping the Sun. 2. Iniquity in the twenty eighth verse may be well put for Idolatry which is iniquity per eminentiam: we have Iniquity put for Idolatry, Josh. 22.17. Numb. 25.4. That Iniquity is to be thus taken in this place appears from the reason that is immediately subjoined, viz. for I should deny the God that is above. Ad. 2. Whether the Magistrates in Jobs time (who was by the concession of this Author before Moses) punishing Idolatry did erect such a Canaan as that which the Jews erected in Moses time. Ad. 3. Col. 2.16. is spoken of the Ceremonial uncleanness that some did put between Meats and Drinks etc. which were indifferent in themselves: compare this place with Rom. 14.2.3. 1 Tim. 4.3.4, 5. and it will appear that there is no such command given as to disobey the civil power commanding a right about Spirituals: Again, nothing at all is spoken concerning the Magistrate in that place. Ad. 4. This division of Idolatry is not very acurat, for Covetousness is Religious Idolatry as well as the worshipping of false gods. I shall not further discuss this Question of the Answerers in this place, for (he saith) he hath spoken it before, and afterwards he speaks it again; indeed most thing, he speaks have two or three Echoes. Ad. 5. 1. I think this Answerer means fallacia extra dictionem, for there is no fallacy used at all. 2. This Answerer himself knows there is no fallacy used at all in that term light of Nature. For in pag. 66. of his book he uses this term in the same sense that it's used in the Question, his own words are these, viz. Nations may attain to (by the light of Nature) many convictions of a Godhead. Ad. 6. This Answerer will never be able to prove, that under the Law corporal Judgements, and under the Gospel Spiritual Judgements are proper 40. modo. Is not Pharaoh punished with hardness of heart a Spiritual Judgement, besides all his Corporal punishments, and are not Corporal punishment spoken of in the Gospel, when it's said the Kings shall burn the Whore with Fire. Ad. 7. There is a blessed Harmony between those two Scriptures Rom. 1.1 Cor. 1.21. The Scope of Rom. 1. is, that though they know God to be invisible, yet they gave the glory of the Creator to the Creature. That of 1 Cor. 1.21. asserts that by the Creation, the world could have no saving knowledge of God; therefore it pleased God to reveal by preaching. I ask, what discord there is between these two Scriptures. Ad. 8. What this Author saith against the light of Nature attaining to a saving knowledge of God, I pass by, as Impertinencies; for the Question asserts no such thing. Ad. 9 This Answerer granteth that if Idolatry breaks forth into Murder and other incivilities, the Magistrate is to suppress these wicked practices and the principles of them. Now I ask, Whether Idolatry being the principle of wicked practices (as this Author confesseth, and Paul proves Rom. 2.) be not to be suppressed. 2. If the civil Sword ought to cut off women's hair from men's heads as being an incivility, I ask, whether the Magistrates ought not to make an Act against the Periwigs about the Chin, and whether this Answerer would honour the Civil Sword, if it should correct Anamolus' Beards, and bring them within rule: whether he would not suffer a Nazarite to live. 3. Let the Reader observe the Pharisaical Zeal of this Answerer, who strains at a Gnat and swallows a Camel: It's a Character of a rotten Zeal to be careful in the less, and carelessly to pretermit the weightier matters of the Law. Ad. 10. God hath commanded the Sword to be drawn against evil doers, Rom. 13. in Rev. It is said the Kings shall burn the Whore with Fire, and 1 Tim. 2. Ad. 1 1. It's granted David did not punish those Nations that were wholly Idolatrous as the Ammonites, neither were the Israelites punished for Idolatry, when they wholly turned to Idols, viz. 1 Sam 7.2.3, 4.2 King. 23.9. 1 Kin. 18.39. neither could they be punished, it's like the case of the Sons of Serviah. 2. If Strangers did sojourn in the land of Canaan, they might be compelled from public and scandalous breaking of the Moral Law, Neh. 13.16. Exod. 20.10. Ad. 12. I ask, whether by Tares is meant Idolators and Blasphemers. Question 14. Idolatry by the testimony of Paul, drawing down heavy plagues upon a People, Rom 1.18. & seq. and delivering them up to a grievous and abominable sins, the worst of Plagues, whereof he giveth a Catalogue; and actually causing the Land of Canaan to spew out the Inhabitants; Levit. 20.2.3, 22, 23. Whether it do not concern the Magistrate to deliver his People from those Plagues, by taking away Idols, the cause of them, and to cast out Idolatry, rather than it should cast out the People from the Land where he governeth? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Whether Covetousness be not as truly Idolatry as worshipping of false gods, how then can we cry out against Idolators; the greatest Idolater cries out against the less. 2. Doth Idolatry with out other Sins bring Plagues upon a Land; and was there not a remedy for the Idolatry of God's People (1 Chron. 36.) until they mocked and despised the Messengers of God? 1. Is it not better to instruct Idolators and Blasphemers than knock them in the Heads? 3. If the Protestants should conquer France, what should they do with all the Papists? 4. Was not the Land of Canaan and all the People of it tipical? 5. Whether all violence in Religion be not for some sinister interest; Jehu pretends Zeal to God, yet having got the Throne of Jeroboam to maintain that Throne he keeps up the worship of the Calves. 6. Whether any man can profess to be a Minister of Christ, and by the rules of Christ depend on that for maintenance to him and his. 7. By this Tenet many of the Servants of Christ have been hunted as the greatest Heretics. Reply. Ad. 1. It's true that in the Gospel there is a clearer discovery of the Idolatry of the heart then in the Law; and i's also true that in the fifth of Matthew, Christ makes a clearer discovery of the Murder and Adultery of the heart. But I ask, Whether since this discovery of the Idolatry Murder and Adultery of the heart religious Idolatry (as this Author styles it) may plead non-guilty; the Reader for his further satisfaction in this case may read the eighteenth Question of the worthy Questionist. 2. I ask, whether Covetousness is worse Idolatry then Religious worshipping of a false god; many interpret the place, covetousness is as Idolatry, it being the wont of Scripture, when it would set out the heinousness of any sin to compare it to this great sin Idolatry; Covetousness is Idolatry by by reduction, the other direct Idolatry. Ad. 2.1. Idolatry is usually accompanied with other sins. 2. If Idolatry was added to the many crying Sins of this Nation it might make us ripe for Judgement. 3. It's not asserted that the committing of a Sin shuts a man out of the Church, but it's obstinacy and pertinacy in his fault that makes him liable to censures; and the Magistrate is to try by fair means to reduce such as are out of the way, but if they will not be reclaimed but despise the Messengers and go on perverting others, the Magistrate is to inflict punishments upon them. Cuncta prius tentanda, sed Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum, ne pars sincera trahatur. Ad. 3. If the Protestants should be Masters of an Idolatrous Country; none holds that they should kill all the Idolators, but they might take the Prophets of Baal (1 Kin. 18.40.) and cause them to be taught otherwise, and not permit carrying of the Idols about streets, etc. The Magistrate in such a case is not to compel men to become Christians, yet he is to punish them for their Blaspheming 1 King. 20.23. Ad. 4. Suppose the Jews to be tipical, yet this argument is of no force, for Idolatry was punishable by the moral Law. Ad. 5. 1. Such reformers as Jehu have their zeal biased with interest, and that is the reason that they are not thorough-reformers, and that they take not heed with all their heart; but having got the Throne of Jeroboam their main end, they care not for pulling down the Calves. But God will visit the blood of such. 2. I ask, Whether there have not been Reformers that have pulled down Idols and not for any sinister end, and whether this Author would submit to such reformers. Ad. 6. This Question is besides our present discourse, yet because this Answerer desires to be corrected of his error in it, for the correction of his error I refer him to 1 Cor. 9.14. Ad. 7. It's not this Tenet, but the abuse of it that hath caused persecution against the Saints: so likewise that Tenet of punishing Murderers by death, hath taken out of the Land of the living many an Innocent: But these abuses cannot be brought as an Argument to destroy the things themselves; for this Answerer confesseth in the thirty ninth page of his Books, that no man can be so void of reason as from Abuses and Corruptions to destroy a true Christian constitution. Question 15. Whether this Examiner do not directly set himself to confute the Apostle; Sect. 9 Paul for the Examiner argues that it is not easy to find that the Heathen should not make a graven Image, nor any marvel that they should by the form of some Creature represent the invisible Being, and worship him in the form of such a representation. But Paul just on the contrary proveth, That by the things that are made and seen, Rom. 1. the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead are so manifest, that they are without excuse who knowing God do not justify him as God, but change the glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man, and to Birds and four footed Beasts. But this brings to mind that saying concerning Idols; That have eyes and see not, and they that worship them are like them, and so are those that plead for them? The Sum of the several Answers. 1. The Examiner is unchrstianly dealt withal in this question. 2. If it be so easy to escape Idolatry how comes it to pass that there are so many Idolators, and that God's People have so often fallen into Idolatry? 3. Since there are may ways of worship in this Nation, as Presbyters & Independency, etc. and all of them are carved Images except that which Christ hath appointed, and yet God's People have an hand in erecting them: I ask, Whether it be not easier for the Indians to erect Images of Gold. Reply. Ad. 1. If the Examiner pursues a Tenet that thwarts the Scripture, it is Christian to deal plainly with him, and tell him that he sets himself against the Scripture: rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith. Ad. 2. 1. The Questioner doth not say its easy to escape Idolatry, but that its easy to find out that the Heathen should not make Idols. There is great difference betwixt finding out a vice, and escaping a vice: Many a Thief can easily find out that theft is a vice; yet cannot so easily escape it. By this it plainly appears that the divers Questions urged to prove that it's not easy for the Nations to escape Idolatry, are nothing to the purpose, but heaps of cowardly Sophistry, changing the Question because he cannot Answer. 2. I grant, it's more easy to be an Idolater than a true worshipper of God, for it's difficult to worship in Spirit and truth: Hence it's (because Idolatry is easy and carnal) that there are so many Idolators. 3. It's easy to find out Murder is a Sin; yet (according to this Author's Logic) jaske, how it came to pass that David fell into this Sin? Ad. 3. jaske, whether Presbytery Indep. etc. which destroy no fundamentals be so gross as Idolatry; or be so easily to be discerned for true or false, as Idolatry which is contrary to the light of Nature. Question 16.17.18. Whether Idolatry may not be punished; Sect. 5. because the Magistrate doth not know the heart of the Idolators? And whether this reason do not directly oppose that Law of God which punished Idolatry, and the execution agreeable to that Law; when those that worshipped the Calf were slain by the command of Moses; and the worshippers of Baal by Jehu; and the Prophets of Baal by Elias. 17. Whether Idolaters may not be convicted by outward actions, professions and confessions; Sect. 5. and thereby the heart of an Idolater discovered, as well as the heart of a Man-killer? For such a one is condemned behause of Malice in his heart; without which it were not Murder nor he a Murderer? 18. If two sins be of a heinous Nature and both deserve punishment, Sect. 5. Whether one that can be discerned should be spared, because the other is not punished for want of discerning; yea, whether of both may be discerned and punishable, yet neither should be punished, because both are not. The Sum of the several Answers. 1. Whether those examples of punishing the worshippers of the Calf are presidential; if these example be presidential, It's the duty of the Magistrate to destroy the greatest part of the world. 2. As to the instance of Murder there is a threefold difference between civil crimes against the State and spiritual crimes against God. 1. There were never any in the world but by the dark light of Nature they have condemned these four Sins, Murder, Adultery, Theft, Lying. 2. Those four are easily convinced and ashamed, they cannot but confess themselves sinners. 3. Without punishing the four former it's impossible men should live as men. 4. To the punishing of Idolatry is the tow edged sword of no estirnation is the delivering up of the Nations to unnatural lusts, Rom. 1. no terror with us. Reply. Ad. 1. 1. The alleged examples (suppose them to be tipical) are sufficient to prove that an Idolater may be punished though a magistrate knows not his heart, and the Examples are alleged to no other purpose. 2. Let the Reader observe how this Answerer nibbles about the sides of these Questions and dares not meddle with the body of them. And indeed it's his usual course to speak against some one part of the Question, and he seldom meddles with the connexion that ties the parts of the Question together, wherein lies the strength of most of the Questions, for as much as they are hypothetical. 3. That it's the duty of the Magistrate to destroy the greatest part of the world cannot be gathered from the former Examples: For we read (1 King. 18.39.) in that general defection of the People, all were not destroyed but only the Ringleaders: and I ask, How consequence can be gathered hence for the punishing of such Nations, as the Moabites; for this is contrary to David's practice, which this Answerer urgeth before. Ad. 2. 1. In Answer to the first difference alleged, I say he contradicts himself in saying, that all Nations in the World condemn Murder, for in pag. 51. of his book he saith that the Mexicans murder many thousand Infants to their Deities, etc. What are not the Mexicans in the World: Again, sure this Author never heard of Man-eaters, nor of Duellers: farther, if no crime should be punished by the Magistrate, but what hath been condemned by all Nations, It's plain Murder should not be punished. 2. In answer to his second difference, I ask, whether many resolute Thiefs have not been hanged in England, that would not confess their fault: I believe if Idolatry was punished as Murder is, many Idolators and Heretics would recant, yet I do not deny but that some Idolators in their gallantry might give their Bodies to be burnt. 3. In Answer to his third I say, without punishing Idolatry and Heresy, it's as impossible men should live as Christians, 1 Tim. 2.2. Ad. 3. 1. That of the two edged Swords is formerly answered. 2. I ask, whether adding Adultery to Murder, aught to free that Murderer from the civil Sword: Gods punishing with spiritual judgements should rather awaken the Judges of the Earth to execute Judgement. Question 19 Whether Asa did well in forbidding Idolatrous worship, and bringing the People into a Covenant with God; Sect. 22. since (as the Examiner saith) he might thereby have made many to turn Hipocrits: when yet the Scripture saith, that they swore with all their heart and sought God with their whole desire? 2 Chr 15 And though Hypocrisy should follow such boly commands, whether the fault of Hypocrisy be not from the Corruption of the Hypocrite, Rom. 7.12.13 and not at all from a holy and good Command. The Sum of the several Answers. 1. It was no guilt of Hypocrisy in Asa to compel that whole Nation, but now to force thousands to a Religion their Fathers knew not; fills a Nation with Hypocrisy. There is a twofold Hypocrisy, that which is more hidden and secret as Achitophel's with David; that which is more open, as that of the ten Tribes professing the name of the God of Israel, and yet with all the worship of the Calves; Is not this the state of a thousand named Christians professing Christ in word but in works denying him, overspread with Abominations and I dolatries. 2. To force the Ignorant profane Nations into a pretended holy fellowship with God, is more than to force into the Beds of men of Honour impudent Whores. Reply. Ad. 1. 1. It was no guilt of Hypocrisy in Asa for it's said the People swore with all their heart: but I ask this Answerer, Whether Josiah was guilty of Hypocrisy of the People that turned feignedly unto the Lord, whether if the Magistrate (God's vicegerent) and the good Laws he makes and execute be the cause of Hypocrisy, God & his Law may not be said to be guilty of Hypocrisy? whether good commands be not to be executed, notwithstanding the Hypocrisy that may follow, in regard that some men only yield outward conformity: whether God for the outward reforming of some Magistrates hath not spared a Nation for their time, and afterwards punished the Nation for their Hypocrisy: which clearly shows that if the heart of a Magistrate be upright in reforming, he is not guilty of Hypocrisy, though his people hipocrititally conform, etc. 2. It's not desired that men should be forced to a Religion their Fathers, knew not, but that they might be kept from Idolatry and Heresy. 3. The Magistrate may prevent this open Hypocrisy of denying God in their work by punishing those Abominations: jaske, Whether a Magistrate punishing these Abominations would by that means fill a Nation with Hypocrisy of this latter sort; whether Asa his forbidding Idolatrous worship filled the Nation with the worship of the Calves: I think Nations are filled with Hypocrisy of this latter sort be the Magistrate not exercising his power to restrain them. 4. In that first Chapter of Titus quoted by this Answerer, the reason is given why so many Professors denied God in their works, and it was, because the mouths of Seducers were not stopped, and ordained Elders set up amongst the Cretians; so that the Magistrates setting up an able Ministry and stopping the mouths of Seducers need not fear the filling of his Nation with Hypocrisy. Ad. 2. 1. I ask, Who pleads for the forcing of Ignorant profane men into fellowship with God; It's only desired that they may be taugh the Law of the Lord; I hope this is no defiling the bed of Christ. 2. Whether he that pleads for the permitting of Spiritual whoredoms and abominations amongst Christians is not guilty of this crime? Question 20. Whether the parts and portions of Scripture that contain Principles necessary to Salvation, Sect. 9 deserve to be called merely by the Name of Forms, and much less to be despised under that Name? And consequently whether the Examiner think it fit upon the title of Forms to despise the Pinciples of the Doctrine of Christ mentioned by the Author to the Hebrews? Heb. 6.1. The Sum of the several Answers. 1. The words of the Examiner are only these (viz. do you yet make so much of Forms as to force men to bow down to them) from which words cannot be gathered that he calls any principle of Salvation a Form or despiseth it under that name: His words seem to note that there are many forms of worship, and that every Sect is apt to force others to bow down to his Form. 2. Papist and Protestant talk of Principles necessary to Salvation, and yet bind up all in one, To believe as the Church believes. 3. Divers reckon up many fundamentals, yet I ask what we think of the short word the Lord Jesus, and howsoever some grant that a distinct knowledge of Christ is necessary to Salvation; yet we know what is extant of a possibility of Salvation without a distinct knowledge of Christ. I ask, Whether it be not dangerous to set a bound of so much knowledge (as to the degrees of it) without which there is no Salvation. 4. Forms of worship are usually without the power of godliness; yet I acknowledge there have been increasings of light in Nationall reformings; and I am fare from imagining that people should hold nothing and do nothing, but I desire men should examine the Scripture and hold fast to the death that which they have received from the Father of lights; And yet better sit still, then still rise and fall. Have all the Spirit, the calling, the presence of God with them as the Apostles had; were it not better for us to acknowledge how naked and blind we are, and to listen to the council of Christ. 5. What Christanity is that which commands that no Doctrine be Preached but what the civil sword shall say is true and Orthodox. Reply. Ad. 1. 1. I ask whether, if Idolatry and Heresy be directly against the fundamentals or principles of Salvation, the Examiner speaking the fore quoted words in behalf of Idolators and Heretics, doth not call the principles of Salvation Forms and despise them under that name. 2. Though there be many forms of worship, as Presbyters, Independents, etc. yet I hope Idolatry cannot be called a form of worship, for it's placed in direct opposition to worship by the Apostle, viz. they turned from Idols to serve the true and living God. Ad. 2. I ask, whether it be not one main point wherein the Protestant differs from the Papist, viz. not to believe as the Church believes. Ad. 3. 1. I do not know what this Author thinks of this one name, Christ Jesus; for he doth not know himself whether to make it a fundamental or no; as appears from his doubtful speeches. But the Scripture saith there is no other name given under Heaven whereby we must be saved, and no man can lay any other foundation. 3. It's very dangerous to limit saving knowledge as to the degrees of it: but as to limit this knowledge as to the heads or parts of it, there is no danger. Now when we speak of principles of Salvation, we speak merely of the heads or parts of saving knowledge, but not at all of the degrees of these parts. Ad. 4.2. If there have been several increasings of light in Reforming, why should the Children of the light hinder Reformation? This should rather be a work of the Children of darkness, who cannot abide the Light because their works are evil. 2. This Author seems to be in a good mind, he would have the People hold something, and do something, but he is of another mind quickly, aliud stans, aliud sedens cogitat, for in the next words he thinks it better to sit still then still to rise and fall: I am not of this man's mind, I should rather choose to go halting and stumble now and then, than not to go at all. And further, I think every man is bound to act according to his light; & though he have not the Spirit, to act as far as the light of Nature and Reason will carry him, It's but a proud Tenet to be no body or else the best; and again, a man may be illighted by the spirit though no saving work which light may further him in actions of such a Nature. But more particularly I ask, 1. Whether Magistrates have not a calling, and also the presence of God amongst them. 2. Whether God hath not promised to be with the Ministry to the end of the world. 3. This is good council, we desire that no man's Inventions might be set up but that Christ and his Word might be the only Councillors. Ad. 5. This is false, no such thing asserted but the contrary, viz. that the Magistrate take care that no Doctrine be preached but what the Scripture shall say is true. Question 22. If God was to be Blest, Ezr. 7.27. for putting into the Heart of a Heathen Magistrate to make Laws for the advancement of true Religion; Whether he doth not come near to a curse that would take out of the Heart oi a Christian Magistrate the advancement of true Religion, and persuade him to give a Toleration to the chief Enemies of Religion, Idolatry and Heresy. This Answerer saith, that the Proposer highly esteems this example of Ezra 7. for he is not content to mention it in the seventh Question, but he brings it in again at last. I wonder this man is given so much to cavilling; let the Reader judge whether Ezra 7. be not brought in here to another purpose than its in the seventh Question. And let the Reader observe how highly this man esteems 1 Cor. 10. Col. 2. indeed every thing he saith, for he hath scarce an Argument in his Book, but he babbles it over and over again, and when he hath no way left to bring in his old Traind-Band of Arguments, you shall have them with an omitto usherd in, etc. or not to respect what hath been said before, or the like, and then he tells all his old tail. But he tells us that to this Question he'll add some new Queres, but he makes a false Mustam, for these are but old ones fetched up again for to make up a number. For, as for his first Quere that he saith he'll add, we have this Quere before in Pag. 74. and again in Pag. 78. and else where: His second Quere by way of addition, we have before in Pag. 31. His third we have often before in his book, etc. I shall make an end desiring God, that he would stir up the Magistrate to put forth his power for encouragement of the true Religion; for as long as People are kept at this pass, that they will have no King nor Ruler in Israel, every man will do what is good in his own eyes. And those that cut off the Magistrate from acting in ecclesiastics, will at last suspect the Magistrates power in Civils: This Author seems to become so far as to suspect a Murderous snare in the Law against Thiefs and Whores, seeing that these Laws fall often upon honest chaste Persons. FINIS.