OF RESISTING THE lawful Magistrate Under colour of RELIGION: AND appendent to it, of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, rendered Damnation, Rom. 13. REPRINTED.  
ALSO, 

Of the zealots among the Jews.  
Of taking up the cross.  
A Vindication of Christ's reprehending St. Peter, from the exceptions of Mr. Martial.    
OXFORD, Printed for H. H. and W. W. 1644.   

Of resisting the lawful Magistrate upon colour of Religion.  
IN this proposal of the point for debate, there are only two words will need an account to be given of them: 1. What is meant by Resisting. 2. Why the word Colour is put in. For the first, Resisting, here signifies violent, forcible, offensive resistance, fighting against, as Hesychius the best Scripture-glossary explains it, ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} all one, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
* {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) and the Apostle in like manner, Rom. 13. 2. using {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, promiscuously for the same, and so in other places, although it is true, it is used sometimes in a wider sense; but that will not here be material, when we here set down beforehand what we mean by it. For the second, the word [Colour] is in the Title added, only for this reason, (not to prejudge the Religion, which is fought for, to be only a colour, but) because it is possible for a man to fight for Religion, and yet not upon colour of Religion; to wit, in case the Religion for which he fights be established by the Law of the Land, for then his colour for fighting may be the preservation of Law, which the Magistrate is bound by oath to maintain, and though he fight for Religion, yet it is under that other colour: whereas he that fights upon colour of Religion, making that his only pretence of fighting, is ipso facto supposed to fight for a Religion distant or contrary to that which is established by Law, and so all pretence or colour of Law excluded, yea, and all supposition of falling in the Magistrate; he standing for the Law present, not against it; which I desire may be the setting of the case, to exclude the fallacy, plurium interrogationum, and to distinguish the quarrel of Religion from that other of Law, and so to meddle at this time only with that which is fully within the Divines sphere, and leave the other to some body else.  
Those two terms being thus explained, and so the state of the question set, the lawful Magistrate, and the established Law of the kingdom on one side; and some person or persons inferior to him, upon colour of Religion, i. e. for some Religion not yet established by Law, on tother side, that it should be lawful to them to take up arms against him, would seem not very reasonable, if he were but a private man, abstracted from regal power, (which sure doth not make it more lawful to resist him then anybody else) having broken no established Law, (as is supposed in the case) for what legal accusation can lie against him in a point wherein he hath not broken the Law? But then this will be more unreasonable, it moreover it be considered, that colour of Religion is so wide and unlimited a thing, that no man, that is never so much in the wrong in any opinion, but thinks himself in the right, (for otherwise he would not continue in that error) and so that colour will be plea equally good to all sorts of errors, as well as truths: and besides, he that hath not so much Religion as to be in an error, may yet have so much wit as to make use of that Apology for his sedition, (to wit, colour of Religion) and plead it as legally as the most zealous professor; and consequently, if that will serve turn, who ever shall but pretend to believe contrary to the Religion established in any kingdom, shall be ipso facto absolved from all bond of Allegiance in foro humano, and if he will adventure the hazard of the judgement to come, shall have no restraint laid on him by any earthly tribunal; and so by this means already, the grounds of the dissolution of any government are laid by this one unpolitic principle, and the world given up to be ruled only by the Religion (which is in effect, the will) of every man; whereas before, there was a State as well as a Church, Policy as well as Religion, a power in the Magistrates hand, besides that in every man's own breast or conscience; and yet more particularly, a restraint for hypocrites, as well as any else, i. e. for pretenders of Religion, who, if this ground would hold, were left unlimited. Where, if it be interposed, that such an one that fallaciously pretends Religion, though by this disguise he escape here, yet shall surely pay for it hereafter; and that that is sufficient, because there is no other Court, but of that searcher of hearts, to which the hypocrite can be bound over: I answer, that although that be true, yet it is not sufficient; because, although there be a judgement to come for all crimes, yet it is notwithstanding thought necessary to have present judicatures also, not to leave all offenders to terrors at such a distance: and indeed, for the continuance of the peace of Communities, to provide some violent restraint at the present for those, whom those greater but future deterrements cannot sufficiently work on. This every man knows is the original of human laws, yea, and of Dominion itself, a prevision that all men will not do their duties for love or fear of God, (it is apparent, the Jews would not under their {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) and therefore for good men's sakes, and for peace sake, and for the maintaining of Communities, those superadditions have been thought necessary, as some thorns in the hedge of God's Law, that may pierce the hands and sides of him that shall attempt to break over or through it. From whence the conclusion will be evident, that the Rules for the preserving of government must be such as shall have force to restrain the Atheist or the Hypocrite, as well as the good Christian (which sure will less need those restraints) or else they are utterly unsufficient to the attaining of their end, i. e. to the preserving of government, peace, community, or protecting any that lives under it: Which being supposed, it will also follow, that nothing must be indulged upon any colour of Religion, (be his Religion never so true, and himself never so sincere in it;) which will open this gap or outlet to others, that may make the ill use of it: For this will be utterly destructive of the end of government (which is, that we may lead a peaceable quiet life, 1 Tim. 2. 2.) yea, and of government itself.  
This argument being thus prosecuted and cleared, might be sufficient to determine this whole business, were it not for one rejoinder which is ordinarily made, the force of which is taken from that supreme care that every man ought to have of his own soul, and consequently of the maintaining of his Religion, on which (to abstract from all possible disputes concerning the particular truth of it, he being perhaps not acute or artist enough to uphold it against all objecters) he is fully convinced, the health and salvation of that wholly depends. For the maintaining of which against all the human power in the World, if he may not take up arms, or do any thing, he cannot see what can be fit for him to fight for, (nothing sure being more precious than that;) or consequently, why he may not take up that opinion of the Beyond-Sea-Anabaptists, That it is not lawful to fight at all: which if it should be yielded to, although for the present it would produce peace, yet it would be little for the advantage of Magistrates in the issue. To this I shall answer, by concession of these four things: 1. That Religion is to be every man's supreme care, the prime Jewel in his Cabinet. 2. That it cannot, at least in human consideration, be expected that any man should be less careful of his false Religion (if he be really persuaded of the truth of it) than any other is of the true. Nay, 3. that if he do not use any lawful means to defend that false (Whilst he is convinced it is the true) Religion, this is a sin of lukewarmness in him; though indeed through prepossession not to open his eyes to greater light and revelation of the truth offered to him, and perhaps through sluggishness not to seek that light, be yet a far greater sin in him. For though no man ought to defend the contrary to what he takes to be truth, yet ought he to be most ready to deposit his error, not only when it doth, but also when it may appear to him to be so, and to seek to those helps that may be instrumental to that end. 4. That in some cases the use of arms is not unlawful. But then all this being thus granted, and so in effect, that all lawful means may be used for the maintaining of Religion, we must yet secondly deny the inference of the Objection, upon this only ground, because though arms may lawfully be used in some cases, and Religion be maintained by all lawful means; yet arms are not a lawful means for this end, and so may not be used in this case; that is, by Subjects against the lawful Magistrate in case of Religion, at least when some other Religion is by Law established in that kingdom. Which Assertion I shall confirm only by four Arguments: 1. Taken from the nature of Religion. 2. From examples of Christ and Christians. 3. From the very making of Christianity, and particularly of the Protestant Doctrine. 4. From the Constitution of this Kingdom, which being subordinate to the other three, may deserve consideration, as far as it agrees with them.  
1. From the nature of Religion, which is an act of the soul, which cannot be forced or constrained by outward violence; and therefore, 'tis apparent, needs no outward defence for the maintaining of it, much less invasion of others. A man may be as truly religious under all the tyranny and slavery in the world, as in the most triumphant prosperous estate? They that have power to kill the body, are not able to commit them least rape upon the soul; they may rob me of my life, they cannot of my Religion; the weakest cripple in the hospital may defy the whole Army of the Philistines in this matter. But you will ask, Is not the outward profession and public exercise of Religion some part of it, and that to be thus maintained, where any attempt to hinder it? To which I answer, That the first of these, the outward Profession, can no more be hindered then the former act of the soul, but rather may be most illustrious in the time of depression. I may confess Christ in the den of lions, in the furnace, on the rack, on the gridiron, and when my tongue is cut out, by patient, constant suffering in that cause. Religion is not so truly professed by endeavouring to kill others, as by being killed patiently ourselves rather then we will renounce it. When I fight, it may be malice, revenge, some hope of gain (or impunity at least) by the present service, any one of a hundred worldly interests, that may help to whet my sword for me; or most clearly, a hope I may kill and not be killed: and so all this while here is no act of confession of Christ in thus venturing my life, although I do affirm I do this for my Religion; because, though I so affirm, men are not bound to believe me, there being so much odds against me, that I do it for somewhat else. But when I say down my life patiently, the sacrifice of my God, resign up all possible worldly interests for the retaining of my one spiritual trust, this is to the eye of man a profession capable of no reasonable suspicion of infincerity; and indeed none so, but this.  
As for the second, the public exercise of the true Religion, it were by all men heartily to be wished that it might be enjoyed at all times, for the advancing of God's glory, increase of charity, conversion of others, &c. But if it may not be had by the use of lawful means, it will not be required of us by God, without whose special providence it is not, that he permitteth us to be forbidden that exercise. Till the same providence be pleased to remove such hindrance, and open to us a lawful way of obtaining it, the primitive Christians secret meetings will first be imitable to us; and if those be obstructed also, their folitudes next. And however, that design of obtaining free exercise of our Religion, will never make any practice lawful to be used in order to that, that before was utterly unlawful.  
But are we not to take care of our children and posterity, as well as of ourselves? If our Religion be now suppressed, our poor children and progeny to the end of the world may in all probability be kept in blindness and ignorance, and so left to the place of darkness irrecoverably. This objection sounds somewhat pathetically, and is apt to affect our bowels, more than our reason; moves our compassion first, and thorough those spectacles is then represented with improvement to our judgement. But for answer to it, though the Doctrine of Election of particular men, as well and as absolutely to the means as to the end, might be to him that acknowledges it a sufficient amulet against this fear, and so no need of that their jealous care for their posterity, any farther than it is in their power to contribute toward them (which sure is no more than to do what is lawful for them to do;) yet the answer will be more satisfactory to all that acknowledge God's providence, however opinionated concerning decrees, that whosoever considers himself as a man, much more as a father of a posterity, must have many things to trust God with, and only God; and among those nothing more, than the future estate of those which are come from him. Yet, if he be importunate and still unsatisfied, unless he himself contribute somewhat to the securing of his posterity in this matter, let me tell him, There is nothing (after his prayers to God, and paternal blessing on them) so likely to entail his Religion upon them, as his sealing it by his sufferings. This sure will be a more probable way to recommend his Religion to them, (when they shall hear, and be assured by that testimony, that their fathers thus hoped in God) then that other so distant, that they died in a rebellion against the King; or, that this Religion had been in their time turned out of the Land, had not they done something so unlawful to protect it. Besides, the greatest prejudice which but posterity (of which we pretend such care) can suffer by my nonresistance, is only to be brought up in a contrary Religion, to hear that way first, but sure not to have their ears deafed against all others when they shall be represented, nor to bring the guilt of non-representation upon them if they be not. And if I bring forth reasonable creatures, I hope they will, by the grace of God, make use of the reason and his grace, to find out that truth that their souls are so much concerned in: and if (through no default personal of theirs) they should miss of it, I hope the invincibleness of their ignorance, and their sincere repentance for all their sins and errors known and unknown, and their readiness to receive the truth, if it were or might be represented to them, would be antidote sufficient, by God's mercy in Christ, to preserve them from that poison, so they were careful according to their means of knowledge to escape all other dangers. And all this upon supposition, but not concession, that the Religion of him that would fight for it, were the truth and only truth; whereas indeed, there is not a more suspicious mark of a false Religion, then that it is fain to propagate itself by violence: The Turks and Papists being the only notable examples hitherto of that practice; till some others, directly upon Popish principles a little varied in the application, have fall'n upon the same conclusion.  
Now secondly for the examples of Christ and Christians, but first of Christ: His example (as to this purpose) is evident in three passages (besides that grand transcendent copy, proposed from the aggregate of all his life and death, Mat. 11. 29. Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly.) The first is, Luk. 9 54. The inhabitants of a Samaritan village would not receive Christ, vers. 53. upon that, James and John remembering what Elias had done in the like kind, 1 King. 18. and 2 King. 1. asked his judgement of it, whether he, would be pleased that they should command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, as Elias did, that is, in effect, whether they should not do well to use whatever power they had (and be confident that God would assist them in it) to the destroying of those whoever they were (and yet that they were not their Magistrates it is clear) which affronted them in the exercise of their Religion, or indeed, which would not receive Christ. To this Christ answers sternly, the words are emphatical, he turned (as to Peter when he gave him that check, Mat. 16. 23.) and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit you are of: that is, Elias was a zealot, 1 Mac. 2. 58. (the full importance of which will belong 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  to another disquisition) & jure zelotarum, might do somewhat against Baal's Prophets, which will not agree with that distant calling or profession of a Disciple of Christ, or Christian; they are mistaken if they think they may do as Elias did. From whence, by the way, is a prohibition fully legal put in against all examples of the Old Testament, (if any such there were) from being pleadable amongst Christians, upon this ground of Josephus his observing, that the Jews were governed by a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, God being as it were their King on earth for a long time, presiding immediately, and interposing by his Oracle, and other particular directions, as well as standing Law, as in that case of Phinees and Elias, &c. By which those acts of theirs, though authorized by no settled or ordinary Law, were yet as legal as whatever in any other commonwealth were done by authority legally descending from the supreme Magistrate. Which whosoever shall now apply to Christians, besides that he professes himself an asserter of enthusiasms, will meet with Christ's check to the Boanerges, You know not what spirit you are of: I have not authorized you to pretend to the Spirit of Elias, or to do what a zealot among the Jews might do.  
The second exemplary passage to this purpose in the story of Christ is, Mat. 26. 51. when Christ was apprehended by those tumultuous persons, at the best but servants of the chief Priests and Elders (not again by any power of lawful Magistrate) Peter drew the sword, and smote off one of those servants ears; upon that, Christ's Answer is the thing to be observed, vers. 52. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword: The speech particular to Peter, a prime Disciple or Christian, that he having drawn the sword in defence of Christ, and in him of Christianity itself, (a more justifiable course then ever any man since undertook under the colour of Religion) must put it up again; but the reason added, of an unlimited universal obligingness to all Christians; For all they that take the sword (as Peter did, in defence of Christ, &c. or else the citation had not been pertinent to him) shall perish by the sword. And the two parallel places which are noted in the margin of our English Bibles, are somewhat considerable; the first, Gen. 9 6. where that Law was given to the sons of Noah, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} concerning the effusion of blood, which sure was not any prohibition to legal, though capital punishments of Malefactors, (but rather the investing the Magistrate with that power of the sword) and yet is by Christ urged as a prohibition to Saint Peter; signifying, that effusion of blood by him in that case to be utterly illegal, and against the intention of that old Law, not abrogated (it seemeth) by Christ. The other parallel place is Revel. 13. 10. where immediately upon the repeating of those words, He that killeth with the sword, shall be killed with the sword, is subjoined, Here is the patience and faith of the Saints. i. e. Christian Martyrs, vers. 7. whose faith it seems and patience must go together; which sure is most irreconcilable with forcible resistance. 
* The fo●… of this ●lace of Christ to St. Peter, see M. M hath laboured to delude, an● therefore 〈◊〉 have laboured to vindicate in anoth●● Discourse hereto appendent, to which I refer the Reader.   
The third exemplary passage of Christ was in his suffering, wherein many particular circumstances might be observed, especially his answer to Pilate, John 19 11. in acknowledgement of his legal power given him from above. But all that I shall observe is only in the general, That he that had so many legions of Angels, certainly sufficient to defend him and invade his enemies, (whatsoever will be thought of the Christians strength in Tertullian's time to have done so too, of which more anon) did yet without the least resistance give himself up to suffer death. And if it should be objected, that this was to accomplish what God hath decreed (ought not Christ to suffer these things, and thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer) and in obedience to that decree, not as matter of example to us, or of intimation, that it had not been lawful for him to have done otherwise. To this I answer, That as Christ was decreed to that death, and nonresistance, so are Christians (if Saint Paul may be believed) predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, Rom. 8. that is, to that pattern of his in suffering, not fighting for Religion: and that revelation of God's will in that decree being supposed, it will follow, That though Christ might have lawfully done otherwise, yet we Christians now may not, especially being commanded to learn of him particularly his meekness; i. e. especially that lamblike quality of the Lamb of God in his sufferings, Isai. 53. 7. So much for the examples of Christ.  
Now for the like of Christians; it will be needless to mention any other than those of whom Tertullian and Saint Cyprian spoke, being so perfectly home to that purpose, Tertul. in Apol c. 37. and his book, Ad Scapulam, wholly to this purpose: and Saint Cyprian in his book against Demetrianus, &c. The sum of which is this, That the Christians of that age had strength sufficient, either to have resisted, or avenged themselves upon their heathen persecuting governors; but in obedience to the laws of Christ, chose rather to die, then do so. The several testimonies (of which this is the Abstract) being so fully produced by many, and known by all, it will be more to purpose to vindicate them from all exceptions, and intercept all evasions, which the wit of this last year (beyond all that any former age pretended to) hath invented to evacuate those testimonies; witness Goodwins anticavalierism, p. 23. &c. And this I shall take leave to do at large, because it is said, many have been satisfied in the lawfulness of their present course, by those Answers and Objections which that book hath helped them to.  
1. It is objected, The father (Tertullian) might easily be mistaken, in making the estimate of the strength of Christians, in comparison of the strength of them that were to oppose them. This is in civil terms, to say, Tertullian wrote he knew not what; or at the softest, he might be ignorant of what he affirmeth he knew; and I am confident, was more likely to know, living then, than the Objecter now, seeing or conjecturing at the distance of so many hundred years; who hath not the least authority (which must be the Judge in matter of fact) on his side, against so distinct and clear affirmation, not only of Tertullian in several places (and that in an apology against the Gentiles, who could and would certainly have tripped him in so manifest a falsehood, if it had been such; and though the negative Argument be not fully convincing, that they did not thus trip him, because we do not hear or read they did, yet will this be of as much force as any he hath to the contrary: This certainly, the writing it to the Gentiles, will be able to conclude, that Tertullian had been very imprudent and treacherous to his own cause, to have affirmed a thing in defence of it, which his adversaries could so manifestly have proved a falsity, if it were not so as he affirmed) but of Cyprian also, who lived about the same time; and no Writer of that age or since produced (I doubt not but I may say, producible) to the contrary.  
Of the proofs that are offered to make it appear possible and probable, that Tertullian should be so mistaken, the first is, Because this was no point of faith, &c. and therefore a devout father might fall under a misprision herein. I grant he might, but that doth not prove he did; no nor that it is probable he should be a more incompetent judge in such a matter, than he that now undertakes to control him: Nay sure, less reason is there to deny the authority of the Ancients in matters of fact (which if they were not evident to them, must needs be much less evident to us, who have no means to know any thing of them but their relations, nor cause to suspect such relations, but either by some impossibility in the things themselves, which is not here pretended, or by some other as authentic relation contradicting it, which is as little pretended) then of faith, the ground of which being only the written word of God, is common with them to us; and therefore may enable us to judge, whether that which they affirm to be matter of faith, be so indeed, to be found really in that sacred Writ, from whence they pretend to fetch it.  
And whereas it is farther added, That no rule of charity or reason binds us to believe another, in any thing which belongs to the art or profession of another, and wherein himself is little versed or exercised: I answer, that this saying, thus applied, will take away, the authority of a very great part of those Histories which nobody yet hath questioned. If it were spoken of Doctrines, it might hold, and sure to that belongs the axiom quoted, Unicuique in arte suâ credendum est; but in narrations it is the unreasonablest thing in the world, to require the Narrator to be of that profession of which he relates the fact; for than no man must adventure to write a King's life but a King: and if Mr. M. Mr. A. or Mr. S. being Ministers of the word, shall write their letters concerning the Parliaments victory at Keinton, and relate the number of the slain on that side, so far inferior to those on the Kings, we must now upon this admonition retract that belief we then allowed them, and begin now (though too late) to question whether it were indeed a victory or no, which caused such solemn thanksgiving in this City. But than secondly, why this Relation should so wholly belong to the profession of another, i. e. not to Tertullian's, I cannot yet discern: For the main of Tertullian's testimony was, That the Christians chose rather to suffer then to resist, though they were able; because Christian Religion taught the one, and forbade the other: And this sure was not without the sphere of the Divine. But for their strength to resist, depending on the number of Christians, not as even balancing the Heathens in the Empire, but as very considerable, and able to raise an Army, if they would make head, I doubt not but Tertullian, a Presbyter, that now laboured in converting and confirming Christians, and was not always in his study, nay, who had lately been a Lawyer, and so not unacquainted with the public, might know and relate with far better authority, than any who hath dared now to contradict him. For, for the art of balancing the power of parties in a kingdom, and grounds of precise determination of such differences, (which as the Objecter denies Tertullian, so he is unwilling to yield to the statesman himself) you shall see anon that we have no need to make Tertullian Master of it, his relation will stand unmoved without it.  
The second proof to blast Tertullian's Relation, is the ordinary one in fashion nowadays; if any man differs in opinion from us, presently to examine his whole life, and if ever he did or spoke any thing unjustifiable, lay that vehemently to his charge, and by that defame him, and then we may spare the pains of answering his reasons, disproving his assertion; he once lied or sinned, and therefore it is ridiculous to expect any truth from him. The Argument is this, He might mistake and miscarry in this, for not long after he miscarried so grievously, as to turn Montanist, who called himself the Holy Ghost, &c. Just as if I should resolve to believe no relation of any Minister (present in either of the Armies) of the strength of that Army, until I had examined, and were assured that he were not a Chiliast, an Arian, nor guilty of any others heresy condemned by the Church: Yea and more, till I had some degree of assurance that he would never be such. Or, as if I should resolve this man knew no logic, because in this period he offends so much against Grammar in these words, [to turn Montanist, who called himself the Holy Ghost;] where the Relative [who] hath certainly no Antecedent; Tertullian cannot, for he called not himself the Holy Ghost, but only used that stile so ordinary nowadays [nos spirituales,] and all others [animales psychici;] and Montanist cannot, unless as once Areopagi signified the Areopagites, so now by way of compensation, Montanist must pass for Montanas; for he it was that called himself the Holy Ghost, not all or any of his followers. This way of concluding, from a slip in Grammar, an ignorance in logic, (especially being backed with the suffrage of so many unconcluding Arguments) will be as fair logical proceeding, as to infer, because Tertullian afterward turned Montanist, therefore than he spoke he knew not what. But than Saint Cyprian was no Montanist, and yet he affirmed the same that Tertullian doth, contra Demetrian: As for the approving of dreams and furious fantasies for true prophecies, (which is added to be revenged on Tertullian, for contradicting this Objecter) I confess I excuse not him, but wish we might learn any thing of him, rather than that. But I hope the narration we have now in hand, was neither Maximilla's nor Prisca's dreams: If it was a fantasy, it was quite contrary to a furious one. And for the close of this Argument, wherein the warning is given as it were from heaven, how unsafe and dangerous it is to build on the authority of men, as I desire the Reader may take it home with him, and from thence resolve to believe no longer any thing upon this Objecters authority, so denudate of all reason; so I do not yet see, why he that once erred, must never be allowed to speak truth; the making of true narrations being compatible with the greatest heresy in the world.  
The third Argument against Tertullian's testimony, is an observation of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that there is a proneness of inclination in much devotion, in persons devoutly given, to overvalue the works and piety of other men. To which my only Answer shall be, That yet I hope it is not observed, that devout men are so strongly inclined to tell plain lies, to this end, that they may make themselves overvalued by others. This must be Tertullian's infirmity, (if the Objecter guess aright) being a Christian himself, and in his apology labouring to raise an high opinion of Christians in the Gentiles, to whom he writes; to which purpose, if he should forge falsities, I must confess it were a shrewd weakness, very ill becoming devotion, whatever the practice of later times may say in excuse of it.  
The fourth proof is from a second observation, That in the pious and orthodox Fathers themselves, there are some touches and strains, some fibrae of the root of bitterness, which afterwards grew rank in the times of Popery, &c. The Answ. All that I can collect from hence toward the conclusion designed, is, that this Objectors sense is, that for Tertullian to say there were Christians enough in the Roman Empire to work revenge on their oppressors, was a spice of Popery; and so there is one new piece of Popery more added, to the many which this Age hath concluded under that title, above the inventory of the Trent catechism. And so now to debate this any further, or profess myself to opine as Tertullian did, is to acknowledge myself Popish, and that is as bad as prelatical; and so from henceforth all my Arguments will but pass for temptations, which none but carnal men must submit to, be they never so demonstrative. Yet must I have leave to wonder, how in the close of this Section these words [the sounder and more considerate knowledge of these latter times] can have any reference to the point in hand: For certainly, for the strength of the than Christian party, our knowledge in these latter times cannot be sounder or more considerate, then theirs that then lived amongst them: or if it be, the words [latter times] will be improper, for sure it will be affirmed only of that time wherein Mr. J. G. wrote this part of this book; for I am confident he was the first that ever revealed this act of more considerate knowledge to the world.  
The fifth and last proof is, That what ever their number was, yet it is no ways likely they should be suffered to have any arms, &c. To which, and to all the prudential state motives whereon it is grounded, (and so to all that Section) I shall return no answer but the very words of Tertullian, which if all put together, they do not defend their Author from all their assaults, neither will I believe the Christians strength was sufficient to buckle with their adversaries. His words are plain: first, if we would hostes exertos agere, deal like professed enemies, desiisset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum? should we have wanted force of numbers (i. e. men) or armed soldiers? (for so sure copiae signifies.) Secondly, he saith as plainly, Castilia vestra, castra implevimus, we have filled your Castles and Camps, (there, sure they were armed; and so the Thebaean Legion, which yielded themselves to the Emperor's butchery, wanted neither number nor arms to have resisted.) Thirdly, he saith, cui bello non idonei? what war had we not been fit for? etiam impares copiis, though we had not had so many armed men as they, qui tam libentèr trucidamur. Their despising of death, (nay, gladness to die) might have put them upon any hazard unarmed; and he professes the only thing that kept them from resisting, was the Doctrine which they had learned, That it was more lawful to be killed, then to kill. Fourthly, he saith, They had a way of revenge without Arms, to wit, by departing from them, by that secession to have brought envy upon them; (as for example, upon dislike of the present state, to have gone to New-England, &c. to raise an odium upon the Old) but this they would not be so malicious as to do neither: nay, besides, amissio tot civium ipsâ destitutione puniisset, the loss of so many Citizens would have been a punishment, by making them less able to resist other enemies; plures hostes, quàm cives usque remansissent, there would have been a greater number of enemies, than there would have been Citizens remaining. Fifthly, to put all beyond exception, he puts them in mind how one night with a few firebrands they might have wrought their revenge, if it were lawful for them to repay evil with evil. This one last particular being considered, is so full a demonstration of the truth now in debate, that supposing there were but one Christian at liberty to use that one firebrand, there can be no longer doubt but that there was sufficient strength to work their revenge, if their Religion would have permitted them to do so. And if their Religion (as was said out of him) were the only restraint, then certainly their weakness was not. Nay, though they should after all this (by a morally impossible supposition) be supposed weak, yet if their Religion did truly restrain them, as he professes it did, this were abundantly sufficient to decide the controversy betwixt us and the Objecter.  
Having proceeded thus far in answer to the several exceptions against the truth of Tertullian's assertion, concerning the strength of those Christians, I am invited farther by a second proffer of the Objecter to make appear, that although Tertullian's assertion should be supposed true, yet it were unsufficient, it would not reach the question, or case in hand. This certainly is strange at first sight, the case in hand being, Whether the reason of their nonresistance were their want of strength. Which in all reason must be determined negatively, when once these two things are supposed; first, that they had strength; secondly, that the command of Christ, or making of Christianity was the cause of their nonresistance, and not want of strength. But there is no truth so evident, but the cunning of such a craftsmaster will be able to transform, both from evidence and truth; and therefore (though in all justice a man might vow never to have commerce with such a man more, that should undertake thus to master his understanding; that he should believe and not believe the same thing; yield the want of strength to be the cause, at the very time when he acknowledges or supposes, first, no want of strength; secondly, somewhat else, to wit, the command of Christ, to be the cause;) yet I shall (to exercise that Christian meekness which I desire to assert by my actions, as well as words) wait on this great Artificer to the second part of his Answer. The sum of which, as he first sets it, is this, That supposing the father spoke truth concerning their strength, yet on some considerations he mentions, It had been in those that were called to suffer, both want of wisdom in respect of themselves, and of charity in respect of others, if they should have made the least resistance. To which my only answer shall be, to beseech him to consider, that this is part of Tertullian's testimony, that the thing that restrained them was (not this wisdom, but) the doctrine of their Christ; concluding it more lawful to be killed, then to kill; and utterly unlawful to repay evil for evil. And as for charity to others, I humbly wish that were, or may yet be considered, how much burden, &c. this resistance (of which he is the professed a better) hath brought on others, who are no parties on either side; nor, I hope, ill Christians, if their only punishable crime be, making conscience of nonresistance.  
To the next Section, in answer to a supposed Reply, where he saith, That it is not probable they had any sufficiency of strength. I answer, that I cannot be so tame as thus to be caught, or so wild as to imagine that improbable, at a time when Tertullian's testimony is supposed to be true, (as now it is supposed) the special part of which testimony is yielded to be, that they had sufficient strength. And where he adds 2. that 'twas not necessary they should be of one mind and judgement touching this sufficiency, &c. I answer, that we do not assert any such necessity, nor doth our cause any way incline us to it, or want that refuge: For sure we affirm not, that they did actually resist (to which only, that concurrence would have been necessary) but only that they would not, though they were able; and to the evidencing of that, the concurrence of judgement you speak of, is not material; for if they that did so think of their strength, were upon grounds of Christian patience and obedience, as far from doing or attempting it as any other, these men would certainly have continued in the same obedience, though all the world had concurred with them in the opinion of their sufficiency. For, to profess Christian meekness first, and then upon any supervenient occurrence to be ready for resistance, though it might be a character of the temporary (that I say not hypocritical) subjection of our days, yet must not we be so groundlessly uncharitable, as to affix it on those Christians: and though the Objecter should renounce his present supposition, and again contend, that Tertullian lied, and so divest him of all authority as a father, of common honesty as a relater; yet sure he will not be so severe to deny him so much of an ordinary Rhetor, as to make that an ingredient in his apology for Christians, which were the highest piece of an accusation. Grant but Tertullian to have any skill in any of his professions, suppose him but an orator, if not a Divine, a tolerable pleader, if not a tolerable man; allow him but skill at the desk, (his first trade, before he was a Christian) the reputation of a little eloquence, though no sincerity, and his very pleadings will be argumentative, though his words may not.  
But 'tis added in the third place, That having no invitation, countenance, or command from any authority, &c. their case was differing from ours. To which I answer again, 1. That it was not still the want of such command or invitation, that restrained them, but the contrary command of Christ; as hath been clear. But than secondly, I pray let me ask a question, as of one which I will in reason suppose not to be unacquainted with the sense of Junius, Brutus, and Buchanan, and it is only this, Whether, if all temporal Magistrates neglect the work of Reformation, the Ministers may not and ought not to attempt it, if they can hope to prevail? If so, then though the case be not just the same now and then, yet the difference is not material or pertinent; for then sure Ministers there would have been to invite, if that had been the Christian way.  
But when it is added within three lines, that we are invited, &c. by as great and as lawful an authority as this State hath any: I must confess, I had thought that the King and both Houses had been a greater authority, unless the meaning be not simply, but ad hoc, as great and as lawful an authority as this State hath any, to do what is now done; and then sure it shall be granted by me, who profess myself to suppose it impossible, that any command given to this purpose should be lawful, or able to secure any from that sentence of Saint Paul's, They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Yet once more, It is possible that the author, by this State may mean a republic, which though it be a word of some signification in some other Countries, yet that our laws acknowledge any such here, I have not yet been taught; nor sure can any part of this kingdom without the King be capable of this Title, till we have moulded a new form of Government, and new laws, as the model of that; for undoubtedly the old ones are not acquainted with any such. But that I will hope is not the meaning, because it is added, that inferior Magistrates, &c. which seemeth to acknowledge, that the Parliament without the King are but inferior Magistrates. Of the agreeableness of that Title of Magistrates and Rulers, to that body without the head, I purpose not to speak; only to that which is added, That they should be obeyed, as well as Kings. I answer, (without canvasing of the place in Saint Peter, which others have done) That if they are to be obeyed; but as well as Kings, then 1. The King that commands not to do it, is to be obeyed, as well as they. 2. Not they against the King, for that the inferiority implies. An inferior Magistrate, in that that is lawful, and within his Commission, and not thwarted by a superior, is to be obeyed as well as if he were superior in that, or as well as the superior in any thing else; but sure not to the despising of the superiors lawful commands, when they do interpose; for that were more then as well. When the King commands that which God and the Law doth not forbid, it may be said, that his commands are to be obeyed as well as Gods; which the Apostle intimates, when he saith, You must be subject for conscience sake; and the ground of this truth is, because indeed God the supreme, commands that subjection to the King in such matters. But sure for all this the King is not to be obeyed against God, or where any countermand of his hath intervened; for this were, in Saint Peter's phrase, to obey men (not as well, but) rather than God. Thus is it in that other case, the inferior is to be obeyed, as well as the superior, (in things lawful, and not contradictory to the superiors commands) upon that ground of necessity of obedience to the superior, from whom he hath his Commission, and as Saint Peter saith, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is sent of him; i. e. of, or by that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, supereminent person, the King; but sure this holds not against the superior, as in the other case it did not. 3. Not they, when they command to take up arms against him whom Saint Paul bids me not resist, upon pain of damnation; and by my oath of Allegiance (if it were otherwise lawful) I have bound myself that I will not. Whereupon it is observable, that the Assertors of this war are now brought to undertake, that damnation, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Rom. 13. shall not signify damnation, (poor men, what a weak thread doth the sword hang in, that is just over their souls? and what a sad condition would it be, if to one that dies a confident Martyr in this war, damnation at the day of doom should prove to signify damnation?) but some temporary mulct; and yet withal, that this war is not against the King; (when yet that other against the Earl of Essex his Army, is not doubted to be against the Parliament;) which two so strange, and yet distant holds, (for if it be not against the King, what need of that other evasion from the damnation that belongs to resisters? or if resisters shall carry it away so easily, why may not war be avowed against the King, by any that will adventure his wrath?) do sure signify men's consciences to be strangely grounded, and themselves very groundlessly confident, which are satisfied upon no better principles, and whose practices are capable of no better security.  
Upon these grounds thus laid, of obedience due to inferior as well as superior (supreme it should be, for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} must here signify, and I hope that our King amongst us is such) Magistrates, the Objecter puts a case, that the inferior governor requires that which is only honest, &c. as to do our best to defend ourselves against those that contrary to law and conscience assault us, the superior that which is contrary to both, viz. to sit still, &c. In this case he resolves it is most clear on his side, for (whether the lawfulness or necessity he intimates not of) resistance against the superior. To this I answer, that it is hard to believe that the Objecter did not purposely intend to deceive his Reader by that phrase [only honest, &c.] for that is a very doubtful sense; it may signify, that nothing else were honest, and then it is in that sense apparently false; for if it were honest to take up arms against a King, yet sure may not-taking-up Arms be honest too; for (whatever that crime of neutrality signify in these days) it may be lawful for a man to suffer injury, to suffer himself to be defrauded (and that by a King, as well as by an equal) 1 Cor. 6. 7. I hope resistance, though it have lately commenced, and taken upon it the degree of virtue, yet hath not turned Projector, got the monopoly of virtue and honesty into its hand, that it should engross and enclose that title, and there be no other virtue or honesty besides this: yet would the affirmations of some, out of no meaner place than the Pulpit, [that all that are for the King at this time are Atheists or Papists] conclude and persuade thus much. But I would fain believe, that the meaning of the phrase [only honest, &c.] is, [no more than honest] i. e. not necessary. But if that be it, then sure the superior governor may deserve to be obeyed in forbidding it, as well as the inferior in commanding: For it will not follow in that case, that the King commands somewhat contrary to the Law of God, and nature; but only somewhat contrary to something which was agreeable, i. e. not against the Law of God and nature; i. e. prohibits a thing lawful, not necessary; as the other is supposed to command a thing lawful, not necessary: which sure were as free for him to do, as for the inferior; supposing, as the Objector supposes, that the command of God indifferently extends it for obedience to either, in things that are lawful. Hence it appears, that in the case here put, the command of the superior is falsely affirmed, to be an unlawful command; (for then the matter of the inferiors command must be supposed, not only honest, but necessary) and if it be a lawful one, it may and will then make void that obligation for that particular, which is supposed by the Law of God to lie on us, to obey the inferior in that which is lawful. The short is, if that which is here spoken of, be in itself necessary, we must do it, as in spite of all countermands of the superior, so without all commands or invitations of the inferior Magistrate; but if it be not necessary in itself, neither will the commands of an inferior make it necessary to any who stands prohibited by a superior.  
In the fourth Section the Objecter offers at a reason, why those ancient Christians (supposing strength in them) should rather patiently suffer, because before their conversion they had consented to the Emperor's power, whereby those Edicts were made for the murdering of Christians, &c. To which I answer, that it is ridiculous to seek out, or impose upon the Reader probable or possible reasons for their nonresistance, when Tertullian in their name specifies the true only reason, the Gospel Doctrine of Christian patience and obedience. But for the particular of their consent, much might be added, to show the vanity of that plea, if that were tanti, or pertinent. I shall only say, that if the Emperor legally murdered Christians, than their consent to that Law (or to the power of the Emperor who made it) would not bind or dispense with them to omit any thing necessary, or otherwise commanded by any greater power; for if I swear to do so, I must break my oath, non obstante what is concluded from Psal. 15. 4. And if it were not otherwise necessary, or commanded by greater power then, neither is resistance now. And then, the King's prohibition will as much restrain me in any thing not necessary, as their heathenish consent could be supposed to restrain them then. Nay, he that makes that consent a nullity. (as this Objecter in fine doth) what reason can he render, why he that gave that consent, might not plead that nullity, for such (though carnal) advantages as life is, if he could make good his pleading, and no other restraint lie on him, but only that null-consent?  
For the fifth Section: How that may be lawful [for an entire body to do, which may not be lawful for a part,] and so for us now, though not for them. I answer, That if the phrase [entire body] signify the head and members too, than the period is true; if not, than the whole Section is fallacious: for it follows not, that though the representative body without the head is more than a party in the Empire, without the representation of the rest, therefore the first may resist forcibly, though the second should not; for he that from Saint Paul denies resistance of Subjects indefinitely to Kings, will not be moved from that hold, by discerning some other flight differences between Subjects, unless they may appear such that on one side they may authorise resistance. But than secondly, If the Doctrine of Christian patience, &c. were the cause of nonresistance, then sure was not this other consideration wherein they differ from us, the cause of it.  
Well, having gone thus far, in attendance on this Objecter, and to exercise that patience, which we so much desire to persuade; there is yet the greatest Fort, behind unvanquished, erected in the sixth Section, and rescued from all supposed assailants in six particulars following, set up like so many fortresses about it: The sum of it is (for I would not be bound to recite what every one may read in a printed Book) that if those Primitive Christians had strength, and might lawfully have resisted, (by the way, Tertullian only affirms the first, and is so far from supposing, that he absolutely denies the second) yet might God hide this liberty from them; and so his after dispensations did require that he should hide it from them, and yet manifest it to us: and these dispensations he specifies to be God's counsel of Antichrists coming into the world than, and of his being destroyed and cast out now. The hiding of this truth, of Subjects power and right to resist their superiors, being necessary to help Antichrist up to his throne. And the commonalty of Christians doing contrary to the will of their superiors, being the men that must have the principal hand in executing God's judgements upon the Whore, Revel. 18. 4, 5, 6, & 9 that is, in the pulling him down.  
To this whole discourse (the first I am confident that ever was written on this Subject) I must answer by degrees, (that I may not omit any thing that is added for proof or explication by the author) and first, I must desire the word may or might [may hide] may be changed into plain intelligible sense. Say, did God hide the liberty of resistance from those Primitive Christians, or no? If he did not, then away with this whole Section, and particularly that affirmation, Pag. 30. that God's dispensations did require that it should be hid from them. But if God did indeed hide it, than first, this is more than a supposition; it is a plain concession, that those Christians Tertullian speaks of, might not lawfully have resisted, though they had had strength (which was so long denied); for the light being hidden, they must have done it without faith, or against conscience; yea, and against God's determinate counsel; who, (the Objecter saith) had great causes to hide it; of which one sure must be, that it should not be used. 2. Here is a great secret of new Divinity, that God hides truths (not as Christ spoke in parables, because they seeing see not, Mat. 13. 13. but) on purpose to help Antichrist to his throne; (of which more anon.) As for that instance of those that eat herbs, I pray consider, whether that be pertinent to prove that God purposely hides truths from us, or particularly this truth in hand: For sure that liberty God hid from none in the Apostles time; for the preaching of the Gospel manifested the lawfulness of meats, as well as herbs; only some saw not, or considered not that that was manifested; and thinking some old legal obligation (as others did circumcision) to lie still on them, submitted to it out of piety. Now apply this to the point in hand. Certainly, the liberty of forcible resistance against superiors (though it should be granted) would never be found of this kind, a liberty brought into the world by Christ, which before had not been there. If he shall affirm it was, (as he must, if that instance of eating be pertinent) though by the concession of the latter part, he must disclaim all his former Old-Testament pleas for resistance, from the people about Jonathan, from David, and from Elisha; yet will he never give any probable appearance for the affirmation in the first part, that Christ gave any such new before-unrevealed liberty: but rather, if any such liberty before there were, it was undoubtedly taken away by Christ, from whose example and precepts it was that those Primitive Christians, and we also, dare not make use of that supposed liberty. The only thing I can imagine possible to be replied, is, That though the comparison hold not exactly, yet it may hold in this, that as that liberty of eating was hid to some, (it matters not by whom, or how) so this of resisting to others. To which I return, that then it is confessed, that this instance doth only illustrate the Objecter's meaning; but not so much as probably confirm his assertion: and then I am sorry I have considered it so long. And therefore to bring the point to an issue, I must thirdly ask, Where this liberty, or the authority for this liberty was, when it was thus hid? Was it in the Old Testament? Though it should be there, as it is not, yet it might be taken away in the New, (as those things which in the Old Testament, or the law of nature, are nearest to giving of that liberty, are absolutely reformed by Christ's doctrine and practice) and then that were good for nothing. Was it in the New? Then deal plainly, show the place in the New Testament which gives that liberty, and is now found out by posterity, though hidden to them. Sure we have found out no new Scripture, to them unknown, (the Nazarites Gospel, though it rehearse some speeches of Christ not in our Canon, yet is not produced for any of this nature: that famous one which it fathers on our Saviour, Nunquam laeti sitis nisi cùm sratrem in charitate videritis, is of another stamp; I would to God this apocryphal Precept might be canonical among us) and for any place of the known Canon misunderstood by them, and now clearly unclouded and revealed to us in a right understanding, which enforces this, I must be so charitable to the Objecter, as to think that if he had discerned any such, he would not have failed to have showed it us, (as well as his interpretations of Rom. 13. and Revel. 17. 17.) if it were but to leave us unexcusable for not being his Proselytes. Beyond these several ways of revelation, if posterity have had any other, (or indeed any but that, of understanding of Scripture by Scripture light, or assistance of God's Spirit, which was not before understood) from whence to fetch a liberty which is not in the Old Bible, or is denied in the New, this is it which we desire so to warn men of, under the name of enthusiasm, which is hardly ever distinguishable from a demure frenzy, and I must call it now, the dream of the dreamers, Jud. 8. that despise dominion, speak evil of dignities, but far from divine revelation. And yet that this is the thing that this Objecter hath an eye to, (and not the understanding of Scripture more clearly than before) may appear, in that he affirms this truth hid from their teachers, (though not from all without exception) who yet if it were hid in the Scripture, were of all others most unlikely not to find it. As for that offer of proof, that this truth might lie hid, because there was no occasion of studying it: I answer, that in Tertullian's days, when there was occasion to study it, (as great as ever can arise any, because the persecutions than were as heavy persecutions) we may by that argument think they would have searched into it, at least the light than would not in ordinary account have proved more dim, as he saith it did, if the Scripture were the candlestick where this light was held out. That which he adds in the next place, of the spirit of courage, patience, and constancy, which was by God poured out on the Church in those days, and so made martyrdom seem a desirable thing to them, is more like a reason indeed of their not-inquiring into this liberty: and herein, I must acknowledge the ingenuity of the Objecter, or the power of truth which extorted this reason from him, so little to the advantage of his cause, and so much of ours: For this is certainly the bottom of the business, the want of Christian courage, patience, &c. (for that kind of courage is not in fighting, but suffering) hath helped us of this last age to that [dream, not] revelation of liberty, which was never heard of among the ancients. But by the way, it seems by the Objecter, that now martyrdom is no desirable thing, nor taking up Christ's cross, nor following of him. We are resolved to have no more to do with martyrdom, think that the thousand years for the Saints to reign on earth are now at hand, and so suffering, or conformity to the image of Christ, no longer the thing we are predestined to; we must set up a new trade of fighting, destroying, resisting, rebelling, leave enduring to those Christians which were furnished with extraordinary strength from heaven. Which are the Objecters words of the Primitive Christians; which, saith he, kept them from studying cases and questions about lawfulness of escaping (which word mere shame hath put in, utterly impertinently, instead of resisting) I confess, I had thought our Queen Mary Martyrs had had this strength from heaven too; and that it was not like miracles, an extraordinary gift only for the infancy of the Church: but now it seems we must expect to see no more Martyrs, till we can remove mountains again: This Objecter, it is clear, is resolved against it at this time, and that his actions, as well as writings, will be ready to testify. For my own part, I trust I shall be as ready to oppose the one, as I am to confute the other, and to think nothing more Christian still, then to be crucified with my Christ; and if I might choose the Article of Christian Doctrine which I should most desire to seal with my blood, I think it would be that of meekness, patience, nonresistance, peaceableness, charity, which I conceive Christ hath been so passionately earnest to recommend unto me, as most diametrically opposite to the most unchristian damning sins of pride, ambition, malice, rebellion, unquietness, uncontentedness, &c.  
Fourthly, for the whole discourse about Antichrist, there must many things be returned: 1. That it is not tolerable in a Christian to affirm, that God purposely hid truths, that Antichrist might come into the world: This so harsh sense the Objecter first disguises in another phrase, that God by special dispensation suffered him to make many truths his footstool; but indeed that reaches not home to the business undertaken to be proved, for it follows not thence, that this of resisting superiors was one of those truths: if it were, than God suffered him to make use of it, which he could not but by its being made known, whereas he supposes it was then hid. If he mean Antichrist hid it, and so made the holding it, his footstool; Then 1. It was not God that hid it, as before he said, but Antichrist. 2. It had then been manifest before, and then began to be hid, when there was most occasion to use it; which before he made improbable. If I were put upon the rack, I could not give a rational account of those words of the Objecter last recited, or such as may but be consonant to his present undertakings. That which follows is more clear, that God caused a dead sleep to fall upon those truths: If he did, I wonder who first raised them out of that dead sleep, Jun. Brutus, or Buchan. or Mr. Goodwin? But still it seems God did on purpose hide truths, in favour and assistance to Antichrist, to help him into the world; and this, not like the spirit of slumber sent on men for their punishment, but on divine truths, which sure had not deserved it. Yet more particularly, that the doctrine of liberty to resist superiors should be so opposite in a special manner to Antichrist, that it was fain to be laid asleep to give him passage into his throne, seemeth very strange to me. 1. Because one piece of Antichrists pride is, to exalt himself above all that is called God, which is mostly interpreted Kings; and if rightly, than they that do so enhance the power of the people, as to make the King universis minorem, and lose the reins of obedience so far as to permit resistance, will I fear discern some part of the mark of the Beast upon their own breasts. 2. Because the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 2 Thes. 26. and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, vers. 7. that hindered, or let Antichrist, and was like to do so still, till he were taken out of the way, was by the Fathers commonly resolved to be the Roman Empire, or imperial sovereignty of Rome: See Tert. de resurr. c. 24. Ambr. come. in 2 Thes. Hier. qu. 11. ad Algas. Chrys. in 2 Thes. Cyr. Hier. catech. 1●. Aug. de civ. Dei, l. 20. c. 19 Lact. l. 7. c. 25. Oecum. in loc. & ib. Sever. & Gen. and therefore on the sacking of Rome by Alaricus the Goeth, S. Jerome presently expected that Antichrist should come; and in his book ad Ageruchiam de monogam. wonders that any one would think of marrying at that time. Hence, have learned men observed, was that custom in the most ancient times to pray in their liturgies for the lasting of the Roman Empire, that so Antichrist might be long a coming, Tert. Apol. c. 33. ad Scap. c. 2. From whence, though nothing else can be demonstratively inferred, yet this certainly may, That in those many father's opinion, the power of Kings continuing intite, was not like to help Antichrist in; nor consequently, the bringing down that power, by the revelation of the doctrine of resistance, like to cause an abortion in Antichrists birth, or now tend to the casting him out of the world.  
As for the evidence of that Revelation-rule, that the communality, in opposition to their Kings, must have the great stroke in executing God's judgement on Antichrist, proved, Revel. 18. 4, 6, 9 I must answer, 5. That I shall never wonder enough at the power of Prejudice evidenced in this Objecter, by what he hath put together to this purpose, pag. 32. To prove that the people contrary to their Kings shall destroy Antichrist, this is thought by him sufficient evidence, that the people are commanded to go out of her, vers. 4. when vers. 9 it follows, that the Kings of the earth shall bewail her, and lament for her: The unconcludingness of the Argument I shall not insist on, but only look forward to another place which he citys immediately, Revel. 17. 17. Where the ten Kings are said to hate the Whore, and make her desolate. Now the word Kings in this last place signifies, saith the Objecter, not the persons of Kings, but their States and kingdoms; and to this purpose proofs are produced: But, first, I beseech him to deal ingenuously, Doth the word King ever signify the kingdom opposed to the King; 1. Any part of the kingdom excluding the King? But then, 2. See the mystery of prejudice which I mentioned, where it is for the Objecter's turn, Revel. 18. the Kings of the earth, must signify their persons, in opposition to their people; but where it is not for his turn, Revel. 17. there the word Kings, must signify the people, or any but the King. Would not the spirit of meekness have easily compounded this business, and have given the word [Kings] leave in both places to signify both their Persons and their realms; and so have reconciled the places, that some Kings with their kingdoms should bewail her, and some again hate her; they bewail her, that continued with her till her destruction, when they see the smoke of her burning, 18. 9 and others hate her, who had once tasted of her filthiness, and repented and left her before: This were very agreeable to those Texts, if we had not peremptorily resolved to fetch some other sense out of them. 3. That first place alone by itself concludes only thus much, that good men come (or are exhorted to come) out from Antichrist, and avenge the Whore; and earthly men that have love to her, bewail her; but not that either the first are all common people, (for sure Kings may be called God's people, or be in that number) or the second none but Kings. As for the proof that those people, vers. 4. are the Subjects of those Kings, vers. 9 because they are such as come out of Babylon, sure that is very weak; for Babylon being the Province of the Whore, there may be Kings as well as Subjects there, and those Kings come out too, as well as those Subjects. For, suppose King and People of England all Popish, why might they not all reform together? It seems Antichrist must never be cast out of a kingdom, till the people do it in spite of the King; and therefore it is concluded, that it was not done here in the days of King Edward, nor Queen Elizabeth, nor King James: and now since the new Revelations have assured men, that Antichrist must now be cast out utterly from among us, it is become necessary that our sovereign should be a Papist; and as much zeal, and as solid arguments used to persuade our friends that indeed he is so, (though his constant word and actions now evidence the contrary) as are produced to maintain any other article of our new Saints belief: One of the most suspected and hated heresies of these days is, to doubt of the Popish affections of our superiors, especially the King. Well, by this doctrine, if the King should chance not to be a Papist, he must turn to be one, or else Popery cannot be cast out in his time. If so he should do, turn Papist on purpose to prepare, or dispose his kingdom to turn Antichrist out, this might be but answerable to God's hiding of truths, to that end to help Antichrist in. But should his Majesty be so malicious as to prove Protestant in earnest, then what would become of that sure word of Prophecy, that so many have been persuaded to depend on, That Antichrist must now be cast out of this kingdom; which, saith the Objector, cannot be, unless the people do it while the King bewails. I hope I have said enough of this.  
As for the connexion of this observation, with the conclusion in hand, (though it matter little now, the observation is proved so false, yet) I shall add, that if the people were to do that great feat of casting out Antichrist, yet it appears not how liberty of forcible resisting their Kings should be a necessary requisite to the work, unless the lawful King be the Antichrist in every country; for otherwise it is very possible, that though they obey their Kings, they may resist Antichrist; though they love and revere their lawful superior, they may hate and abjure their unlawful. Once more, whereas it is again repeated, that the knowledge of the supposed Subjects liberty would have kept Antichrist from his throne; I repeat again, that if it would, God sure would have revealed it to them of all others; unless it appear, that God was more angry with the sins of Christians in Tertullian's age, and so more fought against them, than he doth in ours against us; for though God may of mercy undeserved throw down Antichrist, yet that he should so immediately and illustriously labour to set him up, unless out of deserved indignation to a people, is not easily resolved; yet if this may appear de facto to be so, I shall yield; till then, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
The last blot laid on Tertullian, to obliterate all whatsoever can be fetched from him, is, That the authority of Tertullian, and the submission of the Christians, being both apocryphal, is too light to weigh against the practice of the great Prophet Elisha, &c. To which I answer, That that being supposed, yet the grounds on which Tertullian saith the Christians of his time did so patiently suffer, viz. the doctrine of Christian patience and meekness, are not apocryphal, nor inferior to that of Elisha, though it were supposed to be argumentative, or concluding for resistance. For any thing else added by the Objecter in this business, as the disproving of Tertullian's relations on grounds of Christian doctrine, from the contrary practice of David and Elisha, though I might answer in one word, That Christians are restrained from some things, which were practised without fault in the Old Testament; yet because those Old Testament-examples have been fully cleared by many others of our Writers, and indeed are not pertinent to the discourse I was upon, when this Objecter first met me in the way, and led me this chase after him, I shall not be so impertinent as to add any thing, but conceive myself to have vindicated the testimonies of those Fathers from all possible objections, and so to have joined the practice of Christians, (those ancient Primitive ones) and proved them correspondent to the example of Christ, and so to have made good my second Argument, proposed from the example of Christ and Christians.  
My third is, from the very making of Christianity, and particularly of the Protestant Doctrine. And 1. Of Christianity, which as it differs from the laws both of Moses and Nature, so it constantly reforms and perfects those (dissolves not any thing that was moral in them, nor promises impunity for non-performance, but upon repentance and reformation) elevates and raises them up to an higher pitch, at least then Jews or natural men had conceived or understood themselves obliged to, which the ancient Fathers generally resolve to be the meaning of his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Mat. 5. 17. to fill up all vacuities in those former laws, and add unto them that perfection which should be proportionable to that greater measure of grace now afforded under the gospel. Thus in that Sermon upon the mount, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that top of practical Divinity, (set down by way of particular instance of Christ's purpose, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) besides the third proaemiall beatitude, Blessed are the meek, which certainly though it may contain more, yet excludes not, but principally notes the meek, obedient subjects under government, the non-resisters, and therefore hath the same promise annexed which the Law had given in the fifth commandment; ('twas there, That thy days may be long in the Land; 'tis here, They shall possess the earth, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which Psal. 37. 11. whence it is cited, refers clearly to the land of Canaan, though improved into an higher sense now in the gospel.) And again, besides the seventh beatitude of the peacemakers, or peaceable, ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, being equivalent in the Scripture stile, vid. Jam. 3. 18.) and the eighth, of those that are persecuted for righteousness sake, (whence sure is not excluded the cause of Religion and Christianity itself) as also of taking up the cross (of which I design another discourse to speak more largely) which sure are opposite enough to forcible resisting of lawful Magistrates, especially for Religion: besides all these, I say, in the introduction to that Sermon, there is in the body of the Sermon itself, an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which sure prohibits all forcible resisting or violence even to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the injurious or ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) troublesome person, which if it should chance to be our King, would not certainly be more lawfully or Christianly resisted, than anybody else; especially, when it is our religion which is invaded, which of all other things a whole Army of plunderers cannot rob us of, (as they may of the cloak, vers. 40.) and therefore needs not our violence to retain it; nor is ever injured, but more illustrated by our suffering. To this may be added the consideration of the depositum left by Christ with his Disciples, pacem, peace, John 14. 27. (which it seems only the beloved disciple had recorded) Peace I leave with you, external peace, for the pacem meam, my peace, follows after as a gift perhaps peculiar to them that prised and kept this legacy: and if it be objected that Christ came not to send peace, but a sword, Mat. 10. 34. that sure refers not to Christ's prime counsel or purpose, but to the event; what he foresaw it would be, or what he had determined it ought (which manner of speech is very ordinary in all Authors) for the precept is punctual to Peter against the use of the sword, and to all the disciples for preserving of peace, Mar. 9 50. and to that it is thought the mention of fault belongs in that place, which among other qualities is, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; unitive, have fault in yourselves, and have peace one with another. On these texts, many effectual emphatical descants are added by the Apostles, Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, live peaceably with all men, and Heb. 12. 14. follow peace with all men, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, an agonistical word to run for it as for a prize, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and 1 Thess. 4. 11. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, we render it, study (it is, be emulous, contend, strive, make it your ambition) to be quiet, to which I shall only add two places more, Jam. 3. 17, 18. The wisdom which cometh from above is first pure, then peaceable, &c. Which before, ver. 13. he had called meekness of wisdom, then 1 Pet. 3. 3. where after direction for the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} obedience of wives to husbands (and we know the kingdom's relation to the King is besides others, that of a wife to an husband who is therefore espoused to it with the ring at his Coronation) it is added, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that her bravery consists in the sincerity (I think it should be rendered) of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. If it be objected, that these many places of peace are but general wide illations against resistance, or however, no more pertinent to the case about resisting of Magistrates, then of any other private man: I answer, that though I might thus argue, á minori, (and also assume that no other resistance is near so destructive of peace, as that resisting of the Supreme power, that being indeed the shaking of government itself, which is the band of peace, and the dissolving of which returns us to the state of common hostility, leaves us a wilderness of bears or tigers, not a society of men) yet I shall confess, that I intended not to lay any more weight on this part of the Argument, than any man will acknowledge it able to bear, and that therefore before I infer my conclusion of nonresistance from the making of Christianity, I must add to these places so passionate for peace, another sort of places concerning obedience, of which (without naming the places being so known already) I shall venture this observation, that in the new Testament especially the Epistles of the Apostles (which were all written in time of the reign of wicked Heathen bloody adversaries of Christianity, and can refer to none but those) there is no one Christian virtue, or Article of Faith more clearly delivered, more effectually enforced upon our understandings and affections to be acknowledged by the one (against all pretence of Christian liberty to the contrary) and submitted to by the other, then that of obedience to Kings, &c. It were most easy to vindicate those places from all the glosses and scholia's that the writers of this year, Mr. Goodwin in anticav. Mr Bur. Mr. Bridges, &c. have invented to free themselves and others from the obedience most strictly required there, but I would not again trouble any ingenuous man with such extravagant discourses as even now I learned by experience would be necessary to answer such exceptions, which men's wit or somewhat worse hath produced; besides, those places have been by others vindicated already. I shall only say, whosoever can without coloured spectacles find ground for the present resistance in those places of Scripture, Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 18, &c. so far as to settle and quiet a conscience, I shall not conceive my understanding fit to duel with his, any more than I would wrestle with a fiend, or combat with the fire, which Pythagoras tells me would avail little; he that can be sure that damnation (Rom. 13. 2.) signifies not damnation, but some temporary mulct only (if the King should provable to inflict it) when, vers. 5. it is added we must needs be subject, not only for wrath, (i. e. fear of temporary punishment) but also for conscience sake, (which when it accuses, binds over to eternal wrath, or damnation) I profess I know not what camel he may not swallow; I shall only in the bowels of Christ desire him to consider, what a sad condition it would prove, if being on this confidence engaged, and by God's hand taken away in this war he should at God's tribunal hear Saint Paul avouch, that by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or damnation in that place, he did mean no less than eternal damnation without repentance: O how would his countenance change, his thoughts trouble him, the joints of his loins be loosed, and his knees smite one against another, one general {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} possess all his faculties, and Mr. Bridg: &c. be unable to settle him or give him confidence any longer, when the Tekel shall come out of the wall over against that interpretation of his, that it is weighed in the balance (of truth and judgement) and found wanting; Of this word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} I design another disquisition: only I could not defer to forewarn the Reader of his danger in this place, and now I shall not doubt from the making of Christianity to infer my conclusion of nonresistance, not doubting but the premises will bear it.  
For the other part of this third Argument from the making of the Protestant Doctrine, I would fain be very brief by way of compensation for my former importunity, and therefore shall engage myself not to trouble the Reader with citations or names, which yet might be brought by hundreds of reformed Writers for every Junius Brutus, and Buchanan that hath appeared for the contrary since the Reformation. Though the truth is, suchas these if they must be called Protestants, are yet in this somewhat more than that title ever imported, I may say perfect Jesuits in their principles, and resolutions concerning Kings (no Papists of any Order hath gone so far) although they differ somewhat in the seat of that power of making such resistance. That which I designed to say on this point is only this; That the doctrine of Allegiance to Kings, and of their supremacy in all causes, hath always been counted a principal head of difference between the Protestants and the worst of Papists, and a special evidence, which most men have used, to conclude the Papacy to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Antichrist, is this that the Pope exalteth himself above all that is called God: 1. The Kings of the earth, that he in case the King be not a Catholic, absolves Subjects from their Allegiance to him, that he pretends power over them in spiritual things, and in temporal in ordine ad spiritualia. It is not unknown to any that the Oath of Supremacy if not of Allegiance among us is principally designed to discern and discover Papists, of whom, one of the prayers appointed for the fifth of November affirms, that their Religion is Rebellion, that sure is, that one main difference betwixt Romish and English, Popish, and Protestant doctrine, is that of liberty to rebel in some cases, particularly in that of Religion: In opposition to all which doctrines or insinuations of theirs, there is no Church that ever-expressed their sense in any Article more fully and largely, than ours hath in this particular, witness the several parts of the Homily of Disobedience and Rebellion, printed in Queen Elizabeth's time. And if herein all other parts of the Reformed Church have not gone as far as we, yet shall I not retract my asserting this doctrine purely Protestant, 1. Because this kingdom hath always been esteemed a prime part of the Reformation, wherein the Papacy was legally cast out, not by violence or tumults of the people, and so nothing rejected but what in sobriety was necessary to be rejected, and therefore our Church hath generally been the Norma, or rule, by which others have desired to compose themselves, and never yet any other so preferred before us, as that our ancestors could think sit to conform to them. 2. Because in many other countries the government is not regal, or monarchical, as here it is, Bodin. l. 2. c. 5. de rep. can find none of this nature in Europe, but France and Spain, and England and Scotland (I conceive Ireland he contained under the word Angliam) in which, saith he, Reges sine controversiâ jura omnia majestatis habent per se: Singules civibus nec universis fas est (it seems Master Dale our ambassador, from whom he had received his advertisements of the state of this kingdom had not then heard that our King, though Singulis major, is universis minor, which certainly had divested him of all sovereignty, it being impossible that the sovereign or Supreme of all should be Minor than any) Summi principis vitam, famam aut fortunas in discrimen vocare, seuvi, seu judicio constituto id fiat, &c. As for the Emperor of Germany, Charles the fifth by name, he saith plainly, Tyrannide cives ad rempublicam oppressit, cùm jura majestatis non haberet, which if it be true, will be some excuse to the German Princes in what they did at that time in taking up arms for Religion, though it is most certain what he affirms, that when those Princes consulted M. Luther about it, num id jure divino liceret, whether it were lawful in the sight of God, Ille negavit, he resolved it utterly unlawful: this answer, saith Bodin, Luther gave Perinde atque si Carolus summam imperii solus haberet, and therefore much more must it be given when the case is of a Monarch indeed, as he concludes; and though he acknowledge that distinction, which it seems Luther did not, betwixt that Emperor and true Monarchs, yet is he fain to pass a sad observation upon the fact of those Princes, in taking up arms for Religion, against Luther's advice, Ita funestum bellum reique publicae calamitosum susceptum est, cum ingenti principum ac civium strage, quia justa causa nulla videri potest adversus patriam arma sumendi. I would to God those words were Englisht in every of our hearts: a direful and calamitous war with the slaughter of all sorts, because (though it were for Religion) yet no cause can be counted just of taking up Arms against one's country. The truth is, what was done there though, 1. very unhappily, and 2. against no Monarch, hath been thought imitable by Knox and Buchanan in Scotland, and from thence infused into some few into England, as Penry, &c. But by God's providence hath formerly been timously restrained, and not broken out to the defaming of our Protestant profession. It seems now our sins are ripe for such a judgement, the land divided into two extreme sinful parts; one by their sins fitted to suffer under this doctrine, others sinful enough to be permitted to broach and prosecute it. I meekly thank God, that though my sins are strangely great, yet he hath not given me up to that latter judgement. I conceive I have also given some hints at least of proving my position from the making of the Protestant Doctrine.  
Now for the last Topicke, taken from the constitution of this kingdom. Though that be the lawyer's task, very prosperously undertaken by others, yet one general notion there is of our Laws, which from my childhood I have imbibed, and therefore conceive common to all others with me; and it is this, That the laws of this kingdom put no man (no Papists I am sure) to death for Religion. When Jesuits and Seminary-Priests have suffered, every man is so perfect in the Law, as to know that it is for Treason, by a Statute that makes it such for them to come into this kingdom. The truth of this, and the constant pleading of it against all Objecters, hath made me swallow it as a principle of our Law, that even Popery strictly taken (and not only as now this last year it hath learned to enlarge its importance) is no capital crime. From whence, I profess, I know no impediment to forbid me to conclude, that in the constitution of our State no war for Religion is accounted a lawful war; for that it should be lawful to kill whole multitudes without any indictment, yea, and by attempting it, to endanger, at least, our own, 1. Many good Protestants lives, for that, which if it were proved against any single man, would not touch his life in the least degree, is, I must acknowledge, one of the Arcana belli which I cannot see into. And therefore Sleidan tells us of M. Luther, that he would not allow a war, though but defensive, with the Turk himself, come. lib. 13. pag. 403. and though after he had mitigated his opinion upon a new state of the question, and persuaded the Emperor to it, yet it was with this limitation, Modò nec vindictae, nec gloriae, nec emolumenti causâ subeatur, (three things that are very rarely kept out of war) sed tantùm ut sparcissimum latronem, non ex religionis, sed furti & injuriarum actione aggrediantur. It seems the cause of religion, although it were of Christianity against Mahometism, was not to him a sufficient warrant for a defensive war. But then 2. For this war to be waged against the Prince, (or by any one but the Prince, in a monarchy, as this is) who whatsoever he hath not, hath certainly the power of the sword immediately from God (or else must be acknowledged not to have it at all, for this power cannot be in any people originally, or anywhere but in God, and therefore it may be most truly said, that though the regal power were confessed to be first given by the people, yet the power of the sword, wherewith regality is endowed, would be a superaddition of Gods, never belonging to regal or whatever other power, till God annexed it: in Gen. 9 6. which also seems to be out of all dispute in this kingdom, even at this time, where the universal body of the commonalty, even by those that would have the regal power originally in them, is not yet affirmed to have any aggregate power, any farther than every man single out of government was presumed to have over himself, which sure was not power of his own life; for even in nature there is Felonia de se, and therefore the representative body of the Commons, is so far from being a Judicature in capital matters, that it cannot administer an oath) and therefore is not justly invasible by any subject, or community of subjects, who certainly have not that power, nor pretend to have it, and when they take it, think it necessary to excuse that fact by pretence of necessity, which everybody knows, is the colour for those things which have no ordinary means of justifying them (like that which Divines say of saving of children and idiots, &c. by some extraordinary way.) Nay, 3. For this war to be waged, not against Popery, truly so called, but against the only true Protestant Religion, as it stands (and by attempting to make new laws is acknowledged as yet to stand) established by the old laws of the Land, and therefore is fain to be called Popish (and our Martyr-reformers not able, by those fiery chariots of theirs, to get out of the confines of Babylon) that it may be fit to be destroyed; just as the Primitive Christians were by the persecutors put in wild beasts skins, that in those shapes they might be devoured: this I confess is to me a complication of riddles, (and therefore put by some Artist under that deep-dark-phrase, and title of fundamental laws of the kingdom) to which certainly no liberty or right of the subject in Magna Carta, no nor legislative power, will enable any man to give any intelligible, much less legal name: At which I profess I am not ill pleased, because this I hope will keep it from being recorded to posterity.  
I have done with my fourth Argument, and am heartily sorry I have kept my Reader so long from his prayers, which must set an end to this controversy, for sure Arguments are too blunt to do it; I beseech God to direct all our hearts to a constant use of those means (together with fasting and abstinence, at least from farther provoking sins) to exorcise that evil spirit that hath divided his titles (of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and now at length, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) among us, and by those means infused his mortiferous poison into the very veins of this whole kingdom. [I create the fruit of the lips, peace, peace to him that is far off, &c. and I will heal him. Thou hast moved the land, and divided it, heal the sores thereof, for it shaketh.]  
The word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, according to its origination signifies Censure, Judgement, 
Of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  and in its making hath no intimation, either of the quality of the offence to which that judgement belongs, or of the Judge who inflicts it: that it belongs to human judgements, or sentences of temporal punishments sometimes, is apparent by Luke 23. 40. where one thief saith to the other, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, meaning it seems, the same sentence of death, or capital punishment, called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, c. 24. 20. judgement of death, temporal; and that at other times it signifies also divine judgement, is as apparent, Act. 2●. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, judgement to come, that is, certainly at the end of this world, at the day of doom. So Rom. 2. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the judgement of God, and so again, vers. 3. which vers. 5. is explained to be wrath or punishment against the day of wrath, &c. so Heb. 6. 2. resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement. The truth is in this sense it is mostwhat taken in this book, see Matth. 23. 14. Mar. 12. 40. Luke 20. 47. Rom. 3. 8. and therefore Hesychius, the best Glossary for the new-Testament, renders it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, God's retribution or payment, or rendering according to works. It will not be worth while to survey and consider every place where the word is used, he that shall do so, will perhaps resolve with me to accept of that glossary, and understand it constantly of God's judgement; unless, when the circumstances of the place shall enforce the contrary, as they do in the places first mentioned, and 1 Cor. 6. 7. But then when the context rather leads to the second sense, there will be great danger for any man to apply it to human judgements, for by so doing, he may slatter himself or others in some sin, and run into that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as it signifies eternal judgement, when by that misunderstanding he doth not conceive himself in any danger of it. Of places which without all controversy thus interpret themselves; I will mention two, 2 Pet. 2. 3. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, we render it, whose judgement of a long time lingereth not: which that it belongs to eternal vengeance, appears by the next words, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, we render it, Their damnation, it is literally, Their destruction sleepeth not. The second place is, 1 Tim, 3. 6. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, fall into the condemnation of the devil; that is, sure into that sentence that fell upon Lucifer for his pride (being cast out of Heaven, and reserved to chains of eternal darkness) for the person spoken of here, is the Novice, or new Convert, lifted up with pride, just parallel to the angels newly created, lifted up with pride also, the crimes and the persons parallel, and so sure the punishment also. Now three places more there are which appear to me by the same means of evidence, or rule of interpreting, to belong to the same sense, though I cannot say of them as I did before, [without controversy] For I see it is not only doubted by some, whether they do belong to this sense or no, but that it is resolved they do not: which resolution sure must be obnoxious to some danger, that I say no worse of it. The first of these places is, Rom. 13. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: we render it, They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation: But say others, it must be rendered judgement, as that signifies some temporary punishment which the higher powers may inflict, and nothing else: and this they labour to make appear by the words following: For Rulers are a terror to evil works, and he beareth not the sword in vain, &c. To which I answer, That there is no doubt made by me or any, but that Rulers are to punish men for evil works, particularly that of resistance against them, and not only that, but also crimes against our brethren, and God; and in that respect it is added, vers. 4. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Minister or officer of God he is, and executioner for wrath, that is, punishment temporal to him (indefinitely) that doth evil. But doth it follow from hence, that either he that makes forcible resistance against the superior or Supreme power, or that commits any other sin (which the Supreme power is set to avenge or punish temporally) shall incur no eternal punishment? If this new Divinity should be entertained, it must be privilege and protection to other sins, as well as resistance and rebellion, even to all that any judicial laws have power to punish, for in these also he is the Minister of God, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, an avenger, or executioner for punishment, and there is no avoiding it; but this must be extended indefinitely, or universally, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to any malefactor punishable by that power, or that comes under this cognisance; and so by this logic, he that is hanged, may not be damned, what ever his crime be; an execution on earth shall be as good as a Purgatory to excuse him from any other punishment. But than secondly, suppose a rebel escape the hand of justice here below, by slight, &c. nay, that he prosper in his rebellion, and get the better of it, that the King be not able to punish him; nay, yet farther, that he proceed higher, Despose the King, and get into his place, What {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is he like to receive, if that signify only the King's wrath or temporal punishment? Sure this prosperousness of the crime must make it cease to be a crime, make it commence virtue, as the Turks on their principles are wont to resolve it, saith Busbequius, Ep. 4.— Ex opinione quae Turcis insedit ut res quocunque consilio institutas, si bene cadunt, ad Deum Authorem referant, &c. Or else give it, (though it be a sin never so great, and unrepented of) perfect impunity both in this world, and in another: And certainly this is no jest, for he that observes the behaviours of many men, (the no manner of regrets or reluctancies in their course of forcible resistance, (save only when they conceive it goes not on so prosperously as it was wont) and the great weekly industry that is used to persuade all men of the continued prosperity of the side, as being conceived far more useful and instrumental to their ends, than the demonstration of the justice of it, men's consciences being resolved more by the diurnal, than the Bible, by the Intelligencer than the Divine, unless he turn Intelligencer also, I would we had not so many of those Pluralists.) Will have reason to resolve that this Divinity is the principle by which they move; which if it be not yet brought to absurdities enough, then look a little forward to the conclusion, deduced and inferred vers. 5. Wherefore ye must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Words by prophetic Spirit added by the Apostle, as it were on purpose to contradict in terminis, that new interpretation. Wrath signifies that temporal punishment, vers. 4. which if it were the all that is meant by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, then how can it be true, that we must be subject not only for wrath? Certainly he that resists is not subject ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is all one with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and both directly contrary to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the word used both in the third and fifth verse) and therefore if we must be subject not only for wrath, as that signifies temporal punishment, than he that resists, shall receive more than wrath, as that signifies temporal punishment, viz. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in our rendering, condemnation, if he do not prevent it timously by repentance: which sure is the importance of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but also for conscience sake; that if he do it not, it will be sin to him, wound his conscience, bind him over to that punishment which belongs to an accusing conscience, (which sure is more than a temporal mulct) which is farther clear from the first verse of that Chapter, the command of subjection. For sure, every Divine or apostolical command entered into the Canon of Scripture, doth bind conscience; and the breach of it, known and deliberate, is no less than a damning sin, even under the Gospel, mortiferous and destructive without repentance; which is just equivalent to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he shall receive damnation, in our way of interpreting it. So much for that first place.  
The second is, 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or as our margin, judgement) to himself, &c. This place I find avouched for the confirming of the former interpretation, Rom. 13. That {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies only temporal punishment; and thus it is known the Socinians commonly interpret this place, per {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} non sempiternam damnationem nominatim, sed supplicium in genere intelligendum esse. Volkelius l. 9 de ver. rel.. l. 4. c. 22. That which is used to persuade this to be probable, is that which follows vers. 30. for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep; which belonging only to temporal punishments, is conceived to be a periphrasis of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, judgement, which should seem consequently to be so also: And, indeed, Volkelius hath added other proofs, 1. Because the Apostle speaks of any one single act of this sin of unworthy receiving, (not of any habit, or custom) which he conceives not actually damning now under the second Covenant. 2. Because it is vers. 32. and when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned, &c. To these three (and I know not that there are produced any more) probabilities, I conceive clear satisfaction may be given by those who affirm {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to contain in it eternal punishment: Though if it were only temporal punishment, yet being sickness, &c. which are not inflicted by the Magistrate, but by the hand of God, it will not come home to that which was by Master Br. affirmed of the word in Rom. 13. For this must be premised, that we do not conceive it to signify eternal punishments, exclusiuè, or so as to exclude temporal, but eternal and sometimes temporal too; (for so sure he that for his rebellion receives damnation, hereafter, is not secured from being hanged, drawn, and quartered here) or else eternal if he repent not, and perhaps temporal though he do: by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as I said, I understand with Hesychius, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, God's vengeance, whether here, or in another world; but, I say, in this place both of them, (and so ordinarily in the former also.) This being premised, the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} may still contain in it eternal punishments, vers. 29. though many for this cause of unworthy receiving did fall sick and die, vers. 30. for 1. they might both die and be damned too; or if, as Volkelius saith, the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, obdormiscunt, sleep, be never used in the New-Testament, of those that are destined to eternal destruction, than still may this be very reconcilable with our interpretation, that many for this cause are weak and sickly, and many others sleep, God chastising some by diseases to reform them, and punishing others, who, as Volkelius acknowledges, were guilty only of some single act of the sin only, with death temporal, or shortening their days; which certainly hinders not but that God might punish others that did customarily commit this sin (and perhaps with greater aggravations) with no less than eternal death, however that it were just for him to do so, whatever he did, it is plain by vers. 27. which is parallel to the 29. Whosoever shall eat and drink unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; that is, in Volkelius his own words, Ipusm Christi corpus ac sanguinem contemnere & ignominiâ afficere, ac quantam in ipsis est profanare proculcareque censendi sunt, shall be thought to contemn and disgrace, and as much as in them lies to profane, and tread under feet the body and blood of Christ; which, what is it but to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, Heb. 10. 29? Which yet there is used as a main aggravation of that sin, for which, saith the Apostle, there remains no more sacrifice, vers. 26. It is apparent that the phrase {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, guilty of the body, &c. is parallel to the Latin, Reus Majestatis, used for a traitor, and sure signifies no less than a guilt of a great injury to Christ; which how any man can affirm to be a sin to which no damnation belongs, (supposing no antidote of invincible ignorance or weakness, nor recovery by repentance, nor gracious pardon of God in not imputing some single act of it) I profess myself not to discern, though I think I have weighed impartially all that is said of it. This sure will keep the first proof from being any longer probable; and for the second, (or first of Volkelius) it is already in effect answered too; for though he that is guilty only of some one act of this sin found mercy, yet sure they that are guilty of the customary sin, may speed worse: and indeed of all indefinitely the Apostle speaks according to the sin; as when he saith, The drunkard and adulterer shall not inherit the kingdom of God: Where yet perhaps he that is guilty only of one such act, may find mercy. For the last proof, I conceive it so far from being a probable one against me, that I shall resolve it a convincing one on my side; for if those that were sick, &c. were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned, then sure if they had not been so chastened, nor reformed by that chastening, they should have been condemned with the world; and so their temporal judgements may be a means, through the mercy of God in Christ, to free them from their eternal, but not an argument that eternal was not due to them, but a perfect intimation that it was.  
The third place (which is not indeed of much importance in itself, but only is used to give countenance to the interpretation in the two former places) is 1 Pet. 4. 17. The time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God. Here, say they, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} judgement, is that that befalls the house of God, the godly; therefore but temporal judgements.  
To which I answer in a word, that here is a mistake in applying judgement in its latitude to the house of God, when only it is affirmed by Saint Peter {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the beginning or first part of judgement: for of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or judgement, in this verse, there are specified two parts, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the first part, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the end (or as the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seems to sound in our English, the tail) of it; as Psal. 75. 8. the cup of God's displeasure, or punitive justice, is supposed to consist of two parts, 1. red wine, (or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) and 2. mixture of myrrh and other poisonous bitter spices, called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Apocal. 4. 10. and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Mat. 24. 17. and both together, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, myrrhate wine, Mar. 15. 25. Now, this cup is poured out, and tasted of indefinitely, by the godly some part of it; but the dregs thereof, i. e. the myrrh-bit part, that goes to the bottom, is left for the wicked to wring out and drink: so that only the tolerable, supportable, easy part of the judgement belongs unto the godly; but the end, the dregs, the unsupportable part, to those that obey not the Gospel of God. Or yet a little further, the beginning or first part, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, of the judgement, is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, from the godly, (and so it was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) intimating, that the judgement doth not stay upon them, but only take rise from them: but the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the second, sadder part of it, is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, of them, (or belongs to them) that obey not, &c. So that still in this place also, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies God's judgement of this life and another both; not of this life only, to the excluding of the other, but one part in this life, another in that other: And though the godly had their part in it, yet there was somewhat in the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that the godly never tasted of, but only the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, they that disobeyed the Gospel of God: and this is apparent by vers. 18. For if the righteous {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, we read it, scarcely be saved; it signifies (by comparing that place with Pro. 11. 31. where instead of recompensed on the earth, the Greek translation reads, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) be rendered unto, or recompensed, i. e. punished in the earth, then where shall the ungodly and sinners appear? There are again the two parts of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, one {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, God's retribution to sin here, wherein the godly have their part; and the other, his rendering to the wicked hereafter; and so neither of them the punishment of the Magistrate in this life, as Mr. Bridg. out of Piscator, contends to have it, Rom. 13. and as it must be here also, if others speak pertinently, who use it to avoid that interpretation, which I confess Mr. Bridg. doth not. They that are unlearned and unstable wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Ye therefore beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest you also be led away with the error of the wicked, and fall from your own steadfastness, 2 Pet. 3. 16, 17.   

Of the Zealots among the Jews, and the Liberty taken by them.  
THere was among the Jews, either truly or pretendedly, a judicium Zelotarum, a peculiar liberty or power of zealots, (i. e. of private men led by zeal) to punish or execute Malefactors, whether with death, or any lower punishment. These they style Pious-men inflamed with the zeal of God: And these were wont, when they found any man in the fact, guilty of sedition, blasphemy, or any other crime of the greater size, openly and publicly committed, presently to set upon him, to smite, and if need were, to kill him, without any process of Law against him.  
The original of these came from the fact of Phinees, Num. 25. 7. of whom Mattathias, in his dying oration to his sons, hath these words, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Phinees our father (by zealing the zeal of God, saith the Vulgar Latin) by behaving himself zealously, received the promise of an eternal Priesthood, 1 Mac. 2. 54. Which is also affirmed of Elias, vers. 58. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Elias by zealing the zeal of the Law, or behaving himself zealously for the Law, was received up to heaven; (which belongs to that fact of Elias, immediately before his assumption, when he called twice for fire from heaven on Ahaziah's messengers, 2 King. 1. 10, 12. unless you will rather apply it to that fact of his, 1 King. 18. 40. against the Prophets of Baal, whom he apprehended and slew together every man of them:) by which examples he there stirs up and incites his sons, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to be zealous for the Law, vers. 50. though not to commit any such particular act of that nature, as that which those had done.  
Testimonies of Jewish Writers to this purpose, Master Selden hath put together in his book, De jure Natur. & Gent. ad Heb. plac. lib. 4. cap. 4. and given some hints of explaining some difficulties in the New-Testament from thence. To this belongs that fact of Christ, Joh. 2. 15. as appears by the Disciples; of whom it is said, vers. 17. that upon that occasion they remembered how it was written by the Psalmist, Psal. 69. 9 The zeal of thy house, or for thy house, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, hath fed on me, or carried me with a kind of fury.  
That Christ did not take upon him to be a Magistrate, or a Judge, or a public person here on earth, is sufficiently acknowledged: as also, that as a private man he neither did, nor attempted any thing contrary to the laws or customs of the Jews or Romans: Or if he had, that the Jews who had a competent measure of animosity against him, would not probably have suffered him to have done it Scot-free. From all which it will follow undoubtedly, that this was done by Christ, jure Zelotarum, by the power that belonged to the Zealots, for whom only the Law allowed this liberty. The same is to be said of that attempt of the Jews, Joh. 10. 31. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Jews therefore carried stones again that they might stone him, no legal process having preceded.  
The same Master Selden notes of the servant of the High Priest that struck Christ, Joh. 18. 22. whose answer is a seeming argument of it, vers. 23. If I have spoken well, why smitest thou me? intimating, that if he had said any thing amiss, or irreverently of the High Priest, he should not have questioned his striking him: And yet the truth is, the phrase {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, bear witness of the evil, seems an advertisement, that if Christ had offended, it would have better become the servant to have accused and witnessed against him, proceeded legally, than thus, jure Zelotarum, to have stricken him. On the same ground was the fact of Ananias, Act. 23. 2. though sitting in the Sanhedrin, when he appointed Paul to be smitten, though without any just crime also. The like proceedings the Scribes were, it seems, afraid of, Luk. 20. 6. The people will stone us: which must have been an act of popular zeal, without public judgement. That Saint Steven, Act. 7. 57 was stoned after this manner, is observed by Hugo Grotius, and certainly upon good reasons; for although he were accused of blasphemy, c. 6. and false witnesses brought to that purpose, yet after that, there was nothing legally past against him through all the seventh Chapter, beside his Apology for himself to the High Priest. In the conclusion of which (no sentence passing against him) it follows, that the people {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, vers. 54. which Hesychius will help us to render thus, They were very angry, they were madded with fury or zeal against him, and gnashed their teeth (it seems that flame of zeal produced the same effect in them that the flames of hell are said to do, Mat. 8. 12.) against him, and crying with a loud voice, they stopped their ears, and ran with one accord upon him, (all which, were evidences of a most violent zeal) and cast him out of the City, and stoned him; which out of doubt was not now lawful for the Jews, (all power of capital punishment being before this taken from them, Joh. 8. 31.) nor before legal condemnation ever lawful by the common way of proceeding; no nor after condemnation, to be done thus tumultuously by the people: save only that by the liberty of Zealots it was permitted. So Act. 14. 19 it befell Saint Paul, (God in his providence permitting him to be thus dealt with, by way of retaliation, for his having an hand in stoning Saint Steven, when Barnabas met not with the like adventure) certain Jews that came from Antioch and Iconium having stoned Paul, &c. by this judgement only of zeal, which we now speak of.  
Hither perhaps we may refer that of the Jews, who brought the woman taken in Adultery to Christ, that she might be stoned; not desiring, as it appears, that Christ should give sentence of death on her by ordinary legal judicature, (for neither was Christ a Judge, nor had the Jews now power of capital punishment) but by the liberty of Zealots, which was thought principally to belong to that case of one taken {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in the very fact, as appears by the example of Phinees. So Act. 23. that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, great cry (such as was observed in the story of Saint Steven) was the beginning of the flaming of zeal, and vers. 10. it follows, that the chief captain, or Tribune, sent soldiers to rescue and defend Paul, that he might not be taken by that party of Zealots, who, vers. 12. had bound themselves under a curse, that they would neither eat nor drink until they had slain Paul; who sure could not have done so impunè, had it not been thus indulged to them, as Zealots. So when James and John demand of Christ, whether they should command fire from heaven to descend on a Village of the Samaritans, Luk. 9 54. this they did by the liberty of Zealots, for the legality of their action taking their pattern from the example of Elias, and presuming of the power to do it, because Elias had. (In reference to both which, we read of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Luk. 1. 17. the spirit and power of Elias; that spirit, by which he was incited to that act of zeal, and that power by which he could call for fire from heaven; whereupon it is Procopius his expression of Elias, that he was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, accended with divine zeal, or set on fire by it.) Now when Christ reprehendeth those Disciples, telling them they knew not, i. e. considered not, what spirit they were of, he advertiseth them that this practice of Zealots is not agreeable to the spirit of the Gospel, nor generally to the temper which he came to plant among Christians.  
And having now among the Apostles of Christ themselves found some footsteps of the Jewish zeal, 'twill not be amiss to interpose a conjecture, that from the same original sprung that bloody fact of Peter, cutting off Malchus his ear, Mat. 26. 51. For that this was not lawful for him to do, or justifiable by the ordinary rule, may be guest by Christ's answer of reproof and vouching the Law, (All they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword;) and yet that it was not a fact very enormous among the Jews, or being compared with their avowed practices (though clearly forbidden by the Gospel) Origen and Theophylact seem to intimate. Origen on Mat. 26. Unus eorum qui erant cum Jesu nondum manifestè concipiens apud se Evangelicam patientiam illam traditam sibi à Christo, nec pacem quam dedit Discipulis suis, sed secundùm potestatem datam Judais per legem de inimicis, extendens manum accipit gladium, &c. One of them that were with Jesus, having not yet any full clear conception of that Evangelical patience delivered them by Christ, nor of that peace which he gave to his Disciples, but according to the power given the Jews by the law of enemies, took out his sword, &c. Theophylact yet more clearly in Mat. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Let us not find fault with Peter; for what he did, he did out of zeal, not for himself, but for his Master: but the Lord reducing him to the Gospel-discipline, teaches him not to use the sword, though thereby a man should seem to defend or vindicate God himself. And in another place in Luk. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Disciples are moved with zeal, and draw swords. And in a third place in Mark. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, intimating, that Peter himself counted this fact of his a piece of zeal, for which he might be commended.  
Thus much was not amiss to produce in behalf of this conjecture, that what Peter did in defence of Christ, he did as a Zealot; and yet to see, Christ is so far from approving it, that it incurs the same reprehension which James and John before had met with; nay, somewhat a severer, that all might discern how distant the spirit of Zealots was, from that other of Disciples; the Judaical fervour, from the meekness of the Gospel: Though the Apostles themselves had not yet perfectly learned this truth at Christ's death, nor until the Holy Ghost came to teach them all things, and to bring to their remembrance whatsoever he had in person being present said unto them.  
A plain mention of these Zealots we find, Act. 21. 20. where of some of the Jews 'tis said, they are all {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Zealots of the Law, that were like to be very hot if they saw any thing done to the prejudice of the Law: Of whom therefore Saint Paul is advised to beware. So of Paul himself before his conversion, Act. 22. 3. 'tis said he was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a Zealot of Gods, or in God's cause; and presently it follows, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, I persecuted to death, &c. for so the Zealots were wont to do. So Act. 17. 5. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Zealots of the Jews, or, the Jews inflamed with zeal, (as the old Translation reads it, Zelantes, better than the new, invidiâ commoti) of whom 'tis added, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, took unto themselves certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and made a tumult, and set all the people in an uproar. Of which kind Master Selden has observed, that Simon was one, Luk. 6. 15. Act. 1. 13. called by Saint Luke, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Simon the Zealot; but by the other Evangelists, Saint Matthew and Saint mark, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or (as Schindler and other learned men are bold to mend it) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which we render, the Cananite; but 'tis apparent the word is to be fetched from the Hebrew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Canna, which signifies, Zealot; not from the name of the place: and so is all one with the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as perfectly the same as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and Cephas, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and Tabitha, and many the like. And thus far by Scripture light have we past in this disquisition.  
Now what tumults and riots have been wrought by the rude multitude among the Jews, (or those at lest who had no lawful power in their hand) under the pretence of the privilege of Zealots, no man can be ignorant, who is not wholly unacquainted with Josephus story. For in his relation there is nothing 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  more ordinary, then to find all things disturbed by them, the Temple or holy place defiled, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, by their profane feet, to the reproach of God; chief Priests removed, and others placed in their room without all respect of blood, elected by them either according as they pleased, or else by lot; (as it was in the election of one Phannias the son of Samuel to the high Priesthood) a man, saith Josephus, who {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, was not only unworthy to be high Priest, but that did not so much as know what the high Priesthood was, such was his rusticity.  
Many passages we find scattered in this author, in his books of the Captivity, and large stories of the seditions, and uproars, and massacres, by two sorts of men among the Jews, the one called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, swordmen or Cutters; (of whom Saint Luke makes mention, Act. 21. 38. we render them, murderers; and it seems four thousand of them got together in a company) the second {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Zealots; of whom he makes relations, especially lib. 4. c. 11. where he saith of them, that they killed many of the chief men of the Nation, and still when they did so, boasted and bragged of themselves, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that they were become the benefactors and preservers, or saviours of the City. And by the timidity and baseness of the people concurring with their insolence, advanced so far, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that they took to themselves the election and constitution of the high Priests. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and contemning the rules of birth by which the high Priests were to succeed, they constituted ignoble obscure men in those places, that by that means they might have some abetters and partners of their villainies. And cap. 12. he saith, the name of Zealots was of their own imposing, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as if all that they did (Murders, sacrileges, Profanations, before mentioned) were by them done in good intentions, and not, as indeed they were, in emulation, and even to the outstripping and exceeding the worst actions that had been recorded. Thus far Josephus.  
That these Zealots were a fourth Sect of the Jews, (added to Sadduces, Pharisees, Essens) having its original from Judas Gaulonita and Sadduchus, is the affirmation of Bonaventura Cornelius Bertramus, in the end of his book De polit. Jud. A Sect, saith he, Judaeis ipsis omnibus perniciosissima, ut quae Judaeorum omnium excidium totiusque reip. Judaicae prostrationem non modo accelerârit, sed & eam tam miseram & calamitosam effecerit: A Sect most sadly pernicious to the Jews themselves; the destruction of all whom, and the prostration of their whole commonwealth, it did not only hasten and precipitate, but made it so miserable and calamitous when it came.  
Having proceeded thus far by way of narration, it may chance to be worth the pains to present unto the Reader a conjecture upon the twelfth verse of, the fourth Chap. of the 1 Epistle of Saint Peter, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The vulgar Latin renders it by words utterly unintelligible: nolite peregrinari in fervore. Beza, ne tanquam peregrini exploratione illâ per ignem percellimini: as if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signified a strangers being stricken or amazed: and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} trial by fire: which whatsoever it may in some other place, it cannot do here: because here is added {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is befallen for your trial, which word would be superflous, if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} noted trial by fire. The more simple and clear rendering will be to set the words so, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} may signify a combustion, or fire, or burning, (so both the Vulgar and Beza, Revel. 8. 9 render {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} fumum incendii, and the smoke of her burning) and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} may denote these 3 things. 1. To wonder (so the Greek Scholiast, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) 2. To be affrighted: (so Tertullian, ne expavescite) 3. So as it may be all one with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to be stricken as with an accident wherewith we are unacquainted. These three senses each, as all of them, may be allowed their places here. Now the conjecture is, that by the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the combustion or burning, &c. should be meant, that notable combustion of the Zealots before mentioned, (for indeed the words are of some affinity, the one coming from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, fire, the other from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, growing fervently hot or burning.) The grounds of the conjecture are these; 1. Because that last fatal day, the destruction of Jerusalem is spoken of in that very Chap. ver. 7. as that which for some time had been at hand: for I conceive I can make it plain by comparing of places of the new Test. that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the end of all things is (not the final period of the world, but) that destruction of Jerusalem or the Jewish commonwealth, and of that it is said, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, it is, or hath for some time been at hand, it was not yet comen: but of this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or combustion, that it was then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, already come; which is directly agreeable to the observation of Josephus, and others conversant in the Jewish, who affirm that that raving and rioting of, (and sad civil combustion wrought by) the Zealots, was antecedent and precursory to the final destruction of the Jews by Titus. 'Tis affirmed of this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that it was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, i. e. among you, in your Land, in the midst of you, (as that phrase frequently signifies in the new Test.) by which is marked out some remarkable thing, which was fallen out among the Jews, as that time when Peter wrote; to which time that the raving of the Zealots endured, is apparent by mention of them, Act. 21. 20. Act. 22. 3. and that by their stirs these Christian Jews of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or the dispersion to whom he writes, had been first scattered abroad, may be conjectured by Act. 8. 1. This may suffice for a conjecture, which whether it stand or fall, will not be much concernant to the business which occasioned this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
To conclude this historical uneven discourse, I shall only annex these few animadversions by way of corollary.  
1. That this law, or power, or custom, or liberty of Zealots, was never of force but among the Jews.  
2. That the original and ground of it among them is to be fetched from hence, that among that people, God immediately presided, and reserved many things to be managed and ruled by his peculiar and extraordinary incitation and impulsion, not by any rule of standing public law; that so that commonwealth might be truly capable of that title which Josephus bestowed on it, none of the kinds of human Governments, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the government of God.  
3. That it follows not from hence, that all things which were by the Jews themselves done under pretence of this right, and passed unpunished, were therefore well done; but only those which were undertaken by men truly incited by God, (such as Phineez and Elias) for that privilege is not therefore styled zeli privati, of private zeal, because private men by their own incitation ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as that is opposed to God's) did what they did; but because they did it without legal process, or public judicature. And though I should be so sceptical, as not to dare peremptorily to affirm, that nothing was well done or justifiable in that kind, but what they did who were truly and immediately incited to it by God; yet should I not be so cowardly as to doubt, but that all those Jews were so bound to observe those examples of phineezes and Ellas, that if they were not immediately incited by God, yet they should not dare to exceed the limits of those patterns commended by God, either in respect of the manner of doing, or matter of the action. In one of which you shall find all the examples mentioned in the New Testament, except that of Christ, to have miscarried. And therefore I hope no man will be so unjust to the charitable design of this Paper, so treacherous to his Readers, so unkind to his own soul, as to borrow from these premises new hints of arguments to sustain a desperate cause by his pretence of zeal; for that would be to extract Rosacre out of Treacle, poison from that which was designed for antidote. And he must withal resolve, that if the practice of Christ first mentioned, be his precedent, he must also prescribe to Christ's power; or if any of the other New Testament examples; he must be content to fall under their condemnation, for not one of them that I ever yet heard of, was excused by any.  
4. That this Sect of Zealots when they thus got together into a body was by the Jews themselves (among whom the privilege of Zealots was yet in force) taken for the most unlawful, yea pernicious and fatal, most eminently destructive to that commonwealth (as appears by Josephus and Bertram) and that those things which they did under pretence of law and colour of zeal, were violations of law and mere sacrilege.  
5. That all use of this liberty, all imitation of that Jewish privilege of Zealots in the Old Testament, is clearly interdicted all Christians; First, because the written word is the only Oracle wherein God constantly reveals himself to Christians now under the new Testament, neither are any other incitations to be expected from God, but what in the gospel or New Test. the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the administration of the Spirit (as preaching the gospel is called) doth yield or afford us; what is more than this, yea, though it come to us from the Pulpit, savours of enthusiasms and seducing spirits; Secondly, because Christ hath both by his doctrine and example commended to his Disciples all manner of meekness (and Saint Peter, the meek and quiet spirit, as most precious in God's sight under the gospel, and this a grace most directly contrary to that Spirit of Zealots) yea and hath forbidden all private revenge of injuries (done not only to ourselves, but God) referring all to the Magistrate (whom Saint Paul calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Rom. 13. 4. the minister of God to execute wrath, or an executioner for wrath) and therefore himself meddled not with the woman taken in Adultery; Thirdly, because he interdicted James and John the use of this power, adding a reprehension, and words emphatical to this purpose, he turned and rebuked them, saying, you know not what spirit you are of; intimating, the Christian spirit to be very distant from that of the Zealots among the Jews.  
I shall add no more, but my prayer, that as many as have zeal, may have it according to knowledge, and that knowledge, according to the directions of the gospel.   

Of taking up the cross.  
MAny places of the New Testament there are that require this duty of a Christian, (of which I think I may truly say, that 'tis a duty never so much as in kind required before by God in the Old Testament, nor by the laws of nature, or Canons of any other Religion, and so a peculiar Christian duty) the chief places are these, Matth. 16. 24. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and takeup his cross, &c. and in the same words in the parallel places, Mark 8. 34. and Luk. 9 23. So again, to him who desired to be put in a course by Christ to inherit eternal life, Mark. 10. 21. in the close, Come, take up the cross, and follow me. In all these places 'tis a duty of plain command; yet somewhat farther, Mat. 10. 38. He that taketh not his cross and followeth not after me, is not worthy of me: and in Luk. 14. 27. the words are most punctual, and of unlimited extent, from whence 'twill be hard for any man to obtain any dispensation, or excuse, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}— whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my Disciple. No man will be exempted from the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}— and no Christian it seems can be without it; for that is the meaning of [my Disciple,] not only those peculiar twelve of his, and their successors in the Ministry, for that Relation belongs to them, considered under another notion, as Apostles sent out after by Christ, answerable to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} among the Jews under the Temple, but the disciples are all true followers of Christ, all sincere Christians, and so the doctrine is most plain, that whosoever doth not bear (which as from those other former places appears, implies a taking up) the cross of Christ, cannot be a true Christian.  
Now the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, taking up the cross, will be easily explained what it's full importance extends to, the voluntary embracing of shame, contumely, (for the cross was a contumelious death Heb. 12. 2.) and consequently all other loss of goods, liberty, &c. and beyond that, pain of body and death itself: which are said, to be taken up, not when we bring them unnecessarily upon our own shoulders, (for that is to pull the cross upon us) but when by the providence of God they are laid, or permitted to lie in our way to Christ, or Christian obedience, so that we cannot serve Christ perfectly, but it must become detriment or damage to us, then voluntarily to undergo that detriment, whatever it is, is to take up the cross; and patiently and cheerfully to bear it, is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to carry or bear the cross of Christ, which is the duty, without which a man cannot be a Christian.  
There is now one thing to be a little more punctually considered, the strict and near dependence and connexion betwixt Christianity and the cross; and that from the pleasure and providence of God, and dispensation of things under the gospel, so ordering it generally that we should not serve the Lord our God of that that costs us nothing, but that true Christian piety should bring endurances and sufferings upon us. Thus it is plain it did to Christ our elder brother; the discharge of the office he had undertaken, brought him to the cross, and that cross was the only way to his consecration to the office of high Priest, to which at his resurrection he was inaugurate; vid. Heb. 2. 10. it became him, &c. i. e. God {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (not in bringing, but) bringing, (or being about that most gracious and mighty design of bringing) many sons unto glory, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by sufferings to consecrate or inaugurate, (for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} critically signifies, being the word solemnly used by the Septuagint to signify the legal consecration of the Priests under the Law) the captain of our salvation, that is Christ, who {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, being so consecrated, became the author of eternal salvation, &c. Heb. 5. 9 From hence, without more places it would follow, that we Christians are to expect our {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (whether consecration to our {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} our dignity of being Kings and Priests, i. e. Christians here; or consummation and crowning hereafter, as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} also signifies ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Nyss.) by the same method and means that our captain had his, which is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by sufferings: which course of divine economy is so general and without exception, (2 Tim. 3. 12. yea, and all that will be godly in this world, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, shall be persecuted) that Heb. 12. 6, 7, 8. the words are very remarkable, Whom God loveth, he chastneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, if you endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons, for what son is he whom the father chastneth not? But if you be without chastisement whereof all are partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. Words of a large unlimited latitude, which I cannot discern any way in the world to soften, so as they may be supportable to him, that (as the Psalmist saith) hath no changes, hath enjoyed an age of an uninterrupted continued prosperity, without ever having the cross on his shoulders. I confess I would fain find out some {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or mollifying distinction, as that of the animus martyris, the preparation to suffer, though God never send occasion, that that might suffice for his qualification, who hath no other, but sure that will not be able to allay or take off the force of [an chastneth every son, &c.] and if ye be without, not only if you be not prepared to bear, but if you be without chastisement, then are you bastards, &c. which when it is set down as an aphorism of divine observation under the kingdom of Christ, an axiom of God's gospel-providence, there will be no safety in disputing or labouring to avoid the literal importance of it. To that purpose I conceive those words tend Rom. 8. 28. where to prove the conclusion premised, vers. 28. that all things tend to the good of them that love God, (and what those all things are, is specified, vers. 35. tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, sword,) the Apostle thus argues: From whom he hath foreknown, i. e, fore-appointed, the lovers of God premised, those he hath also predestined to be conformable to the image of his son, i. e. in suffering; and whom he hath predestined, those he hath also called; to wit, to that conformity to which he hath predestined them, (as 1 Pet. 2. 21. the phrase is used, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, for to this ye were called, i. e. to this suffering as Christ did, and c. 3. 9 ye are thereunto called, that you should inherit {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, blessing (not as we render it, a blessing) i. e. that ye should bless enemies as Christ did, and so inherit that exemplary grace of his, which as a grace may as properly be said to be inherited; thus the context seems to enforce it [not rendering evil for evil, but blessing, knowing that you are thereunto called, that you should inherit blessing, &c. i. e. possess that grace after him, so eminently discernible in him.] And whom he hath thus called, he justified and glorified. Where the first and second proposition must be acknowledged universal, that all whom he hath foreknown, all lovers of God, are thus predestined, and all that are predestined, called (by their very title or profession of Christians) to this conformity with Christ in sufferings. Add to these 1 Pet. 4. 18. if the righteous hardly be saved; which must be understood by the sense of the Hebrew phrase, Prov. 11. 30. rendered by the 72. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and here retained by Saint Peter, and then the sense will be [and if the righteous be recompensed, i. e. by an Hebraism, punished in the earth, &c. or more literally to the Greek, If he escape hardly or with difficulty.] (as 1 Cor. 3. 15. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he shall be mulcted or suffer loss, but shall escape) which interpretation the former verse in Saint Peter, confirms [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] for it is the season of that act of divine dispensation, viz. of judgements beginning from the house of God, i. e. of God's inflicting judgements of this life (which are the beginning or first part ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as it follows) of God's retribution for sin) on the Godly] which signifies that the state of the gospel, is that season, though the Law was not: and to the same purpose, the verse following also, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. They that suffer according to the will of God, It seems by all put together, that the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} [scarcely saved] is spoken of suffering, and the will or providence of God is that that disposes it so, and so the conclusion from thence is clear, and universal. The righteous shall be punished in the earth. 'Tis true indeed, under the Old-Testament we find not any such economy, but promises of a long and happy life, in a temporal Canaan to the obedient servants of God, (though sometimes, God was pleased to interpose some variety in this kind, many troubles of the righteous in David's time) but under the gospel 'tis quite contrary, even those duties which are promised a reward on this earth, as mercifulness or almsgiving, are yet to expect the payment of this reward with some mixture (like Homer's good cup poured out always with a dash of the bad) the hundred-fold which such men are promised to receive {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}- in this time, this first inferior harvest of retributions, though they be secular blessings, houses, and lands, &c. yet must they be with persecutions, Mark. 10. 30. Which particular though neither S. Matthew nor S. Luke records, yet S. Peter (who had most reason punctually to observe those words of Christ, being an answer directed to a question of his proposing, as all the three Evangelists acknowledge) remembered them, and so we find them in S. Mark's gospel, which is resolved to have been dictated by Saint Peter.  
Having thus far in the passage briefly pointed at this piece of Gospel-Providence, 'twill not be amiss as briefly to guess at the ends of this divine economy. 1. To administer occasion of the practice and exercise of many Christian duties, and graces, as of patience, meekness, waiting on Christ, of loving our enemies, of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the non-resisting evil, we render it, or not using any violence against him that molests us, (Rendering [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] of the Person, &c.) which if we have in seed or habit, 'tis certainly a great felicity to us, to meet with opportunities to actuate them, both in respect of the evidencing the sincerity of them to God, to our brethren, to our own souls; and in respect of that reward, or crown promised, the great degree of glory, Math. 5. 12. that is proportioned to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to his work, Psal. 62. 12. 2 Cor. 5. 10. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to the nature and number of the Acts, or operations of those gifts or graces, as on the other side, a greater portion of the Torments of hell is allotted to the more multiplied acts of wilful win. 2 To help to mortify any remainders of sin in us, which by continued prosperity are ready and apt to take root, and reflourish in us. 3 To assimilate, or make us like to Christ, to conform us to the image of his son, Rom. 8. 29. that is the image of the crucified Saviour, as was said, that he might be the first borne of many brethren, that is, might have a Church or family, a multitude of brethren like himself, all sufferers as he was. 4 That our sins being punished here, there might remain no arrear to be paid in another world; having had all our Purgatory here, there might remain nothing but heaven hereafter; which the Apostle expresseth 1 Cor. 11. 32. We are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the World: to which Father Abraham refers Luke 16. 25. Lazarus received his evil things in this life time, and now he is comforted.  
These and such like being the designs of this act of God's gospel-providence; It is next observable what a character the Spirit of God sets upon the cross, i. e. Tribulation or affliction here, that it is the happiest, blessedest estate, the most comfortable joyful condition that a Christian can meet with. This riddle and paradox, or prodigy to carnal reason, is become the most ordinary beaten acknowledged truth in the new Testament. 'Tis the close of the beatitudes, in that institution of Christians, the Sermon in the mount, Matth. 5. 10. Blessed are they that are persecuted, and vers. 11. reviled: and the exhortation in this case {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} rejoice, and be exceeding glad, so Luke 6. 22. (which there is some reason to think was spoken by Christ at another time) blessed are you when men shall hate you, and separate you, and reproach you, and cast you out, &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy, &c. Saint Paul had learned this, Col. 1. 24. who now rejoice in my sufferings, yea, and glory too. 2 Cor. 11. 30. 12. 5. 9 Saint James his exhortation is remarkable in the front of his Ep. 1. 2. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers Temptations, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, all joy; i. e. The most joyous accident possible, and vers. 12. blessed is the man that endureth Temptation, &c. & cap. 5. 11. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, behold we count them happy, we render it; it signifies more; behold we account them as a kind of Saints in Heaven, (for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} usually signifies) and Aristotle speaking of some heroical super-human excellencies, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, saith he, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) it seems that of suffering, a most blessed condition. To these add Saint Peter, 1. Ep. 3. 15. but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; where the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is to sanctify, as that is all one with glorifying, or hallowing, or praising; a consequent of the general rule, verse 14. if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye; and perfectly opposite to [being afraid of their terror, and being troubled,] in the end of that verse. and so is an expression of this duty of praising, thanking, blessing God for our sufferings in this life. So again, 1 Ep. 4. 13. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, vers. 12. be not frighted or stricken, &c. but rejoice in as much as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings, and vers. 14. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you, &c. and vers. 16. If any suffer as a Christian (not as a murderer, a thief, an evil doer, a busybody in other men's matters, vers. 15. no great joy or comfort in any of those sufferings) let him not be ashamed but let him glorify God on this behalf, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that it is the season for judgement to begin, or of judgements beginning, at the house of God, as hath been explained; 'tis seasonable that the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the first part of Gods {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; retribution to sin, that which is in this life, should befall the house of God, Christians, and the most obedient of them; and being so, this is matter of rejoicing, and glorifying God. Other places ye will observe easily to the same purpose, let these for the present suffice, to soften this carnal paradox.  
But now having proceeded thus far in a matter, to him that is conversant in the new Testament, so obvious and vulgar, that I shall presume it matter of wonder to him, what should move me to so superfluous and unnecessary an undertaking; I must now take confidence to proceed to that which Arrian calls the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the applying of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} known and granted principles, to particular persons, or cases, or practices. For therein as that excellent Philosopher observes, consists the ground and beginning of all strife and difficulty, and difference betwixt men; no man having any considerable Temptation, to keep him from consenting to the truth of a general proposition sufficiently assert, as long as he appears not concerned in it, and yet every man almost having some irreconcilable quarrel to it, when his actions are required to be ruled by it; hence is it, that the speculative part of knowledge, is far easier than the practical; and as Aristotle saith, the mathematics which are the most abstruse Science, are most easy to be learned by a young man, or a dissolute, of any the most untamed affections, so he have but an ordinary natural capacity, (and 'tis evident by his Organon, that he supposed children to have learned Geometry before they came to logic) whereas of the precepts of Morality, such are utterly uncapable {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: they can recite them by rote, but believe not a word of them.  
I wish it were now uncharitable to affirm the same, of many that have taken upon them, to be the best, and most reforming Christians amongst us; that it continued still to be but our jealousy, what is now proved our sense, that some of those who have hitherto been admired for our strictest Christians, have at length confessed themselves farthest from the merit, and true desert of that title, if the doctrine of the cross which hitherto we have laid down for acknowledged truth, do not at last prove a fable.  
The Apostle Phil. 3. 18. tells us even weeping, that there are many walkers, (I think he means by that phrase {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Christian professors) whom judging by their actions, he cannot choose but call {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, (of whom it seems he had oft admonished them, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) enemies of the cross of Christ; what those were in the Apostles time will not be pertinent now to examine, I shall only with a sad heart (not desiring to judge my brother, but if it were possible, to direct him to prejudge, or at least examine himself, and so either anticipate and prevent, or else prepare himself to approach with confidence God's judgement, and withal, to help undeceive others whom we find ductile to some modern sins, muchwhat upon that dangerous prepossession which the Apostle calls having men's persons in admiration) make these few quaere's, and leave every man's own soul to answer them.  
1. Supposing our grounds laid to be true, I demand whether it be the temper of a true Christian, and not rather of an enemy of the cross of Christ, instead of rejoicing, to repine and murmur under the cross, and evidence that by speaking evil of those powers who have laid it on our shoulders?  
2. To be more refractory after such sufferings, (instead of being more meek and more humble) more violent in matters of indifferency, (by our own continued practice acknowledged to be so in our account, till after such sufferings our judgements or rather our practice altered) and more resolved not to yield obedience in them, then before we thought ourselves bound to be.  
3. To plot and project, and to that purpose to hold correspondence with other men, (whom we conceive already moved with discontents, or ourselves have laboured so to move) to find out the most probable way of delivering us from the cross, whatsoever that way be, beside our addresses to God in prayer to remove it, if he see it best for us in all respects.  
4. To make use of any means to this purpose, which we are not assured is administered and offered unto us by God, of which we can no way possibly be assured, but by the evident goodness and justifiableness, at least, lawfulness in all respects of that means which we thus design to make use of.  
5. To move or stir the quiet and peace of one or more Kingdoms, (though not principally, yet collaterally, or at all) in this contemplation, that we shall get the cross off from our own shoulders, come to a more prosperous condition, yea, though it be but to a more peaceable enjoying of our manner of Religion, than hitherto we have attained to.  
6. To venture on, and (though not primarily to design, if it may be done without it, yet if it may not, then secondarily and consequently) to resolve on the shedding of any one man's blood, which we know would not otherwise be shed, especially if it proceed further, to the waging or but occasioning of a war, in which (whether offensive or defensive on our parts) it cannot be hoped but a great effusion of Christian and Protestant blood will follow.  
7. To attempt or desire the removing of the landmarks, the altering of the Government of Church and State, the working of any considerable change in either, (which we can have no revelation to assure us may not prove author of some inconvenience which we foresee not) the better to secure ourselves or others, that the cross shall not return to our shoulders again.  
8. To think it just and reasonable (and ourselves injured if it be not so) that we should have the greater portion of secular dignities for the future, in regard of some former sufferings of ours; which if it should befall us, would be parallel to that curse, Mat. 6. mercedem habent, they have their reward, in this life.  
9 To endeavour to lay this cross on other men's shoulders, of which we have freed our own, whether those other men be such as were not guilty of our former sufferings, but perhaps pitied and mourned, and prayed for us, (for that were rewarding good with evil) or whether they be our greatest persecutors, (for that will be rendering evil for evil) most perfectly contrary to Christ's doctrine, Mat. 6. 44. Rom. 12, 17, 19, 20, 21.  
Secondly, supposing things to be as now they are in this kingdom, my Question is, First, Whether we have no great reason to believe, that (the doctrine of the cross being not so well laid to heart by those who three years since conceived themselves the principal scholars in that school) God is now pleased to call another sort of men into that form, to try whether they will prove better proficients than their predecessors have done. Secondly, Whether those on whom that lot is now fall'n, be not most eminently bound to glorify God in this behalf, 1 Pet. 4. 16. Thirdly, Whether by the experience of other men's failings in this kind, they have not reason to be earnest in prayer to God, and diligent in using and improving all God's directions, for the due Christian discharging of so glorious, and withal, so difficult a task; that when they are proved to the utmost, are brought forth to resist to blood, they may be found faithful. Fourthly, Whether the obtaining of this grace from God be not more highly conducible to every man's own individual interests, than the removing of the cross from us, though wrought most directly, and by means administered undoubtedly by God himself. Fifthly, Whether it can become a Christian to make use of any means which he is not on sure grounds satisfied to be purely and perfectly lawful (i. e. agreeable first to the Gospel-rule of obedience to Christ in every particular, and second to the lawful commands, of our undoubted superiors, not contradicted by any law or power higher than they) to get now either totally or in part from this cross, i. e. from any pressure which in the discharge of a good conscience God shall permit to fall on any of us.  
When every man in this broken State and Church, most sadly militant, of what persuasions soever he be, hath laid the several parts of these two queries to his heart, and examined himself by them, (which truly I should not have laid thus plainly before him, had I had any other thought or aim, but this one of making it impossible for him to be blind in judging himself) I shall hope he will pardon his Monitor, and save this paper the labour of proceeding further to bear witness against him at any other tribunal than this of his own conscience.  
The Lord prosper this short discourse to the end to which it is designed.   

A Vindication of Christ's reprehending Saint Peter, from the Exceptions of Master Martial.  
THere is nothing more unjust and uningenuous, than Master marshal's dealing about Christ's reprehension of Saint Peter's 
Vid. suprà pag. 7.  using the Sword; whilst he labours to answer the Objection, which from thence is brought against the use of arms, though but defensive, taken up against a lawful Magistrate. The Argument is briefly this: Saint Peter, in defence of his Master (Christ himself) drew his Sword, and cut off the ear of Malchus, one of the High Priests Servants, sent by Commission from their Masters, to apprehend Jesus: and our Saviour commands him to put up his Sword; adding by way of reason, for they that take the sword (take it not when 'tis put into their hands by God, or the supreme Magistrate, or any Delegate of his, who hath the power of the Sword; but take it, usurp it, without legal authority or concession, giving or permitting it to them) shall perish by the sword. Which reason, or backing of Christ's reprehension, is brought to infer, That 'tis a sin for any to use the Sword against the supreme Magistrate, though for defence of Christ, or Christian Religion. To this Master marshal's Answer is threefold: 1. That the speech of Christ to Peter, is not a reproof of the sword taken for a just defence; but of the sword taken for unjust oppression, and a comfort to those who are oppressed with it. For Origen, Theophylact, Titus, Euthymius, interpret the meaning to be, that Christ doth not rebuke Peter for using defensive arms; but to let Peter know, that he need not snatch God's work out of his hands; for God would in time punish those with the sword, that came thus with the sword against him. And that these words are a prophecy of the punishment which the Roman sword should exact of the bloody Jewish nation, according with the like expression, Revel. 13. 10. he that kills with the sword, must be killed with the sword: here is the patience and faith of the Saints; i. e. this may comfort the Saints in their persecutions, that God will take vengeance for them: and for all this, the margin advises the Reader to consult Grotius de jure belli, l. 1. c. 3. n. 3. This is the place at length in Master Martial his Letter to a friend, which (being of some concernment and importance to the present controversy of the times, though not to confirm his cause by this exposition, yet to dispatch one of his special adversaries out of the way) I shall now beg leave to examine; and of all together, observe these four things: First, that the ancient Writers, vouched by him, are not vouched from his own reading, but taken upon trust from Grotius, as also the observation of the Roman Sword, and the place in the Revelations. Secondly, that the interpretation, asserted by him out of them, is not asserted by them. Thirdly, that it is not asserted by Grotius. Fourthly, that Grotius, to whom he owes all this seeming aid to his cause, is the most declared enemy of this whole cause of his, in behalf of defensive resistance of the Magistrate, that he could possibly have fall'n on; and upon occasion of these words of Christ to Peter, hath said as much against it. If these four things be made good, I cannot guess what could be further added, to prove the injustice and uningenuousness, I shall add, the untowardness and unluckiness of this Answer. And for the particulars, I shall but require a Reader with eyes in his head, and suppose him not possessed with a belief of an absolute infallibility in Master Martial, and then I shall be confident to demonstrate them.  
For the first, the proof will be short, if you please but to look on Grotius in the place directed to in his Annotations on the Gospels, pag. 465. almost verbatim transcribing what he had before published de jure belli; you shall in each find every of the particulars mentioned: but for this I would not charge Master Martial, I wish he would always glean out of so good Writers. The only fault here is, that having borrowed so much from him, and digested it into nourishment of his own error, he did not also take the pains to borrow what was present to be had, a most sovereign antidote for his own poison, means of rectifying his mistake: but like the man in Gellius, that had eat so much poison, and therewith so envenomed his blood, that he could poison the Flea that came to bite him: so, he the Grotius, that came to prick and wound; or, if he had pleased, to convert, to b●ing him to repentance.  
For the second, I shall not expect to evince it against so great an authority of Master Martial, without transcribing the very words of those Writers in this matter. Origen upon the place in Mat. 26. tr. 35. p. 118. explains the whole period in these words, (I shall omit no word that is pertinent to the matter in hand:) Unus eorum qui erant cum Jesu, nondum manifestè concipiens apud se Evangelicam patientiam illam traditam sibi à Christo, nec pacem quam dedit discipulis suis, sed secundùm potestatem datam Judaeis per legem de inimicis, extendens manum accepit gladium, &c. Peter it seems had not perfectly learned the doctrine of Christian patience, and the peace which Christ commended to his Disciples, but proceeded according to the Jewish Law of dealing with enemies. This concludes Peter's act contrary to Christian patience and peaceableness, and so makes him capable of Christ's reproof, which Master Martial will wholly divert from him, and cast upon the Jews. Then he goes on, Mox Jesus ad eum, converte gladium in locum suum: Est ergo gladii locus aliquis, ex quo non licet excipere eum, qui non vult perire maximè in gladio. (This clearly of Saint Peter again, and not the Jews, that he must not take the sword out of its place, unless he will be content to perish by the sword:) Pacificos enim vult esse Jesus discipulos suos, ut bellicum gladium hunc deponentes, (O that Master Martial would remember this, and after so fair an admonition, put the military sword out of his mouth also.) Alterum pontificium accipiant gladium, quem dicit Scriptura gladium Spiritûs. Simile autem mihi videtur quod dicit, Omnes qui accipiunt, &c. i. e. omnes qui non pacifici, sed belli concitatores sunt, in eo bello peribunt quod concitant, &c. Et puto quòd omnes tumultuosi & concitatores bellorum, & conturbantes animas hominum, maximè Ecclesiarum, accipiunt gladium, in quo & ipsi peribunt. Excellent seasonable doctrine for these times, if it might be laid to heart; but no way excusing Saint Peter. again, Qui accipiunt 
What if a man should construe this (not o●… occasion of the Militi●  gladium, &c. cavere nos convenit, ut ne occasione militiae, vel vindictae propriarum injuriarum (remember, not for revenge of one's own injuries) eximamus gladium, aut ob aliquam occasionem, quam omnem abominatur haec Christi doctrina, praecipiens ut impleamus quod scriptum est, Cum his qui oderunt pacem, eram pacificus. Si ergo cum odientibus pacem debemus esse pacifici, adversus neminem gladio uti debemus. These are the words of Origen; out of which, he that shall infer that Origen conceived the meaning of the Scripture to be, that Christ did not rebuke Peter for using defensive arms against Malchus, I shall resolve, he hath gotten the philosopher's stone, is alchemist enough to extract fire out of water; any the most contrary sense out of any words. Not so much as one word here of the Jews or the Roman sword that should give them their payment; but all of Peter's sword, and the miscarriages of that. And so much for Origen.  
Then for Theophylact; he is also punctual enough to this purpose: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
In Matth●… p. 162.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Let us not find fault with Peter, (make not too much haste Master Martial to catch that, till you see the consequents) for he did this not for himself, but in zeal for his Master: Herein I shall interpose my conjecture, that Theophylact might think Peter did this, as a Zealot; as James and John would have destroyed the Village of the Samaritans, jure Zelotarum: so his words also sound on Luke, pag. 518. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: and then though that were unlawful for a Christian, a piece of Judaism out-dated by Christ; yet in Peter, as a Jew, not perfectly illuminate, or instructed in the Christian doctrine, (as Origen before observed) it was not so blameable yet, till after the coming of the Holy Ghost, who was to bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had taught them. And therefore perhaps it is, that, although Saint Augustine calls this of Peter, earnalem amorem; yet, amorem Magistri still. The same author upon Saint mark hath these words, upon this same occasion, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Counting this zeal, as in a Jew, rather a commendable thing. If all this be yielded, yet will it be no justification of the like in a Christian; because now Christ hath reformed that law, and checked that Peter, And therefore, the same Theophylact goes on; that though we should not aggravate Peter's fault, nor chide him for it, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ yet Christ reforms him, turns him to the Gospel-discipline, and teaches him not to use the sword, though by so doing he seem to defend or vindicate God himself. Could any man have spoken more expressly or prophetically against Master Martial his doctrine, than this father doth. (So likewise in other places upon Saint Luke's Gospel, pag. 518. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ he confesses Peter was chid for his zeal. And on Saint John's Gospel, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. The Lord reprehends Peter, and threatening, saith, put up, &c. threatening whom? sure that person, in Theophylact's opinion, to whom he said, put up: and that sure was Peter, not the Jews.) But to show you the occasion of Master marshal's mistake: It follows indeed in Theophylact on Matthew, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Insinuat autem, as Oecolampadius renders it: Christ insinuates that by the Romans sword, the Jews that took the sword against him, shall be destroyed. This acknowledged truth, (that the Romans should destroy the Jews, the apprehenders and crucifiers of Christ, i. e. that were guilty of crucifying him,) was, saith he, insinuated in those words of Christ, wherein, as before we showed out of Theophylact's words, he reproved Saint Peter. Now we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or insinuating, or intimating, signifies a secondary or allegorical sense of a Scripture, as it is frequent in that author. Speaking of the cutting off Malchus his ear, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, saith he, he insinuates, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that the Jews did not hear and obey the Scripture, as they should: a mere allegorical interpretation. So when Christ bids him that had no sword, sell his garment and buy one, Luk. 22. 36. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. he speaks enigmatically; and tells them by way of insinuation, what wars and dangers should betide them. Which insinuated or enigmatical sense, though it be acknowledged true, will not evacuate that other literal. For I hope, in Master Martial his own judgement, that 'tis lawful to use a sword in one's own defence, in time of war and danger, and that that lawfulness is authorized by Christ, in those words: which I shall not doubt to acknowledge with him, if it be not against the lawful Magistrate.  
The product then of Theophylact's interpretation will be this; that by those words, (for all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword) Christ reprehends and chides Peter for drawing his sword, and using it, as he did: and withal, insinuates enigmatically the destruction of the Jews by the Romans. Which if it be acknowledged true in both senses, 'twill no way prejudice us, or serve Master Martial, whose cause depends upon rejecting of the former sense, not on asserting the latter: and doth not only affirm, that it is a reproof of the sword taken for unjust oppression, but also that it is not a reproof of the sword taken for just defence: which is absolutely false in Theophylact's opinion, if defending of Christ be just defence, or chiding be reproving; or if teaching not to use the sword, though one seem to defend God himself, be rebuking Peter for using defensive arms for Christ. The short is, though Theophylact's interpretation bring the Jews under Christ's threatening and reprehension, yet doth it no way free Peter from the same; but primarily subjects him to it: The contrary to which is the only thing would be for Master Martial his purpose. 'Tis true indeed, in his Scholia on Saint John, he saith, Christ comforted Peter, which seems opposite to rebuking; but that was not in those words, For they that take the sword, &c. but in those, the cup, &c. ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c.) which Saint John immediately adds, omitting the words of the threatening out of the law. And so much for Theophylact also.  
Now that which hath been thus largely set down out of Theophylact, will sufficiently clear this whole business, without proceeding to examine what may be found in Titus Bostrensis, or Euthymius, to this purpose. The former of these, in his Exposition of Saint Luke, in the Bibliotheca patrum Graec. hath not the least word sounding that way, but rather contrary; interpreting Christ's command of buying a sword, as a designation only of the Jews preparation against him, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and that they were about to apprehend him: which (as Theophylact did, so) he calls, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the intimation of the sword; and saith, that therefore Christ adds, that the things written of him must be fulfilled. And again, that if Christ would have had his Disciples use any human help at his apprehension, a hundred swords would not have been sufficient, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and if he would not, even these two would be too many. But all this he saith upon the passage of the two swords. The truth is, in the Exposition of the Gospel, he saith nothing of this reprehension of Peter, but passes it over in silence. And for his notes on Saint Matthew, as also for Euthymius his, though, I confess, that I have them not by me, yet (besides that I find nothing that way in those Excerpta that Lucas Burgensis hath out of them, who would not probably have omitted the mention of such a rarity, if it were there,) I think I may take upon me at a venture to say, that he that examines those books, shall not possibly meet with more than out of Theophylact was cited: These three Expositors running generally on the same notions, and all of them for the most part gleaning from Chrysostom, (Euthymius being his scholar, Titus his professed Epitomater) who I am sure hath nothing in favour 〈◊〉 this Exposition. Out of him, as the Homes of those after-Expositors, I shall transcribe these few passages, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in his homil. 54. on Mat. c. 26. Why did he bid buy a Sword? to give them assurance that he should be betrayed: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Not that they should be armed on that occasion, (away with that) but to signify his betraying. Then, that their having those two weapons at that time, was upon occasion of killing the lamb for the Passeover, and the Disciples then coming from Supper, and hearing that some would come to apprehend him, took them out from thence with them, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, meaning to fight for their Master; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which was their opinion only, not Christ's intention: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, wherefore Peter is chid for using of it: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and that with a sound threat; which what can it be, but that about which we now contend, they that take the sword, & c? upon the hearing of which words, saith he, he straight obeyed, and did so no more. Again, citing the passage in Saint Luke, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he chid and threatened the Disciples into obedience; and then sets down the words of the threat, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. for all that take, &c. And yet after all these plain words of reprehending and threatning Peter, in those words (all they that take the sword, shall perish by it) he yet adds, that he comforted his Disciples by two things, first the punishment of the betrayers, applying to that the same speech in a Parenthesis (They that take, &c.) and that he suffered not unwillingly. All which together signify clearly the same that we found in Theophylact, (and presume the utmost either of Titus or Euthymius their exposition) that in that threatening of Peter, is intimated also or insinuated enigmatically a threat of those other swordmen that came out with swords and staves to take Jesus: which will not be denied by any, or disputed of by me, so the other be granted, viz. that Peter was here reprehended and threatened; which is the only thing we quarrel in Mr. Martial. And so much for the second undertaking.  
Now that, in the third place, Grotius himself who citys these four Ancients, and is here cited by Master Martial, de jure belli, l. 1. c. 3. n. 3. doth not in this place, or any other of his writings, assert this interpretation, I shall thus prove: The thing that in that place he hath in hand is to inquire, Whether all use of the sword, for a man's own defence, be unlawful under the Gospel? And he resolves, that in case of one private man's being invaded by another, 'tis lawful by the law of Christ, (not necessary, but lawful; a man is only not obliged to the contrary) or notwithstanding the prescribed rules of Christian patience, to kill another in defence of my own life. Against this, three objections he mentions out of the New Testament, Mat. 5. 39 Rom. 12. 19 and the saying of Christ to Peter, Put up thy sword, &c. For all they that take the sword, &c. To those three he answers:  
1. By opposing some other places of Scripture; that of Christ to his followers Luk. 22. 36. that to buy a sword, they should sell a coat. In which company of his auditors there were, saith he, at that time none but his Disciples; and although, saith he, it be a proverbial speech, signifying the great dangers approaching, yet it referred to the ordinary use of swords at that time, for private men's defence in time of danger, not there prohibited by him: applying that of Cicero, Gladios habere certè non liceret, si uti illis nullo pacto liceret: we might not be allowed to have swords, if it were in no case lawful to use them. Which still confirms his point in hand, that in some case, the use of the private sword is lawful.  
2. He proceeds to the particular places, saith, in the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, there is some exception allowed, that it binds only in tolerable injuries; such as the box on the cheek, &c. there mentioned: in the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies not defence, but revenge. Then for that of Peter, it contains, saith he, a prohibition of using the sword, but not in case of defence: for he needed not defend himself; for Christ had said, Let these go, Joh. 18. 8. nor Christ, for he would not be defended, &c. Besides, saith he, Peter took up the sword (in eos qui nomine publicarum potestatum adventabant, quibus an ullo casu resistere liceat, peculiaris est quaestio, infra à nobis peculiariter tractanda;) against those that came in the name of the public powers; against whom, whether it be lawful to make resistance in any case, is a peculiar question, to be handled afterward peculiarly. (And, let me pawn my faith for it, stated negatively.) As for that which Christ adds, All they that take the sword, &c. that is, either a Proverb, or (which is the opinion of Origen, Theophylact, Titus, and Euthymius,) indicat, it shows or intimates, that we should not snatch revenge out of God's hands: and to this applies the place in the Revel. a place in Tertull. Adeò idoneus patientiae sequester Deus, &c. and adds, Simúlque his Christi verbis vaticinium videtur inesse de poenis, quas à sanguinariis Judaeis erat exacturus gladius Romanus: And also in the words there seems to be included a Prophecy of the punishment, that the Roman sword should exact of the bloody Jews. From all which put together, this will be the utmost that Master Martial can conclude, That Grotius conceived, that the speech of Christ to Peter prohibited not all use of the sword, for private defence; (no man saith it did; or that all such defence is unlawful; our case is only of resisting Magistrates) that Origen, Theophylact, &c. owned an exposition of it, that thereby we should be taught, not to take God's office of revenging out of his hand; (which we also make a special part of the importance of that speech, both there, and in the Revel. and so a plain check of Peter, who did take it;) and that withal in these words a Prophecy seems to be implied, of the revenge of Christ's death, wrought by Titus upon the Jews; (and we can acknowledge the Scripture so rich a mine of variety, that it may have this prophetic sense also: though by the way, Grotius citys not this out of those four Writers, (nor could he, for in Origen we find it not) but as from himself, simúlque vaticinium videtur inesse, &c. But for the literal sense, that Peter should not be rebuked by Christ, for using defensive arms against the Magistrate, (when with the use of those, the leaving vengeance to God is utterly unreconcilable) and Christians conceive themselves bound not to use those arms against the Magistrate, for this very cause, because he is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, punishable, revengeable by God alone:) and yet be rebuked for snatching God's work out of his hand: Or that these words should not belong in the prime sense to Peter's fact, as well as in a secondary prophetical seeming one to the Jews, there is not any appearances of sound of any word in Grotius there, or in any other place in that book, or his large Annotations on the Gospels: which if Master Martial had read with his own eyes, he would confess with me. And so much for his citation of Grotius.  
Now, in the last place, for the opinion of this learned man Grotius, (an excellent Casuist, exactly distinguishing the several obligations of Nature, of Moses, and of Christ; a Protestant, and, if an Arminian, far from deserving that part of the censure which Master Cheynel lays on such, of being 
●…f Socin. ●…3.  as lawless as that faction at Munster, whose law it was, Magistratibus ac Principibus nullus subjiciatur) in the business of taking up arms against a King for just defence, I shall refer you to his first Book de jure belli, & cap. 4. (Not that I can hope you will be moved with his authority, when he appears against you, that is not the manner of men nowadays, to be content to be tried by your own witnesses; but for the satisfaction to conscience, which this authors reasons and perspicuity will yield any Christian Reader) the very place whereto he referred the Reader even now for his resolution in that point; and the state of this question being set (An aut privatis aut publicis personis bellum gerere liceat in eos, quorum imperio subsunt;) Whether any private or public persons may lawfully wage war against them, under whose command they are; he defines, that by the very Law of Nature (so much now talked of) 'tis not lawful. 2. That by the Law of the Jews it was not allowed. 3. That it was less allowed, but become more unlawful by the Evangelical Law, Rom. 13. 1. & 1 Pet. 2. 12, &c. and practice of ancient Christians. 4. Confutes the opinion of those that affirm it lawful, for inferior Magistrates to wage warreagainst the Supreme, by reasons and Scriptures. 5. Proposes the case of extreme and inevitable necessity, when the King goes to take away a man's life unjustly: and (whatsoever might from nature or practice of the Jews, as of David, or of the Macchabees, be brought to assert resistance in this case) he defines from the Christian Law, (which commands so oft to take up the cross) an exacter degree of patience; and particularly, when for Religion our superiors go about to kill us, though he will allow flight to some sort of men, yet to no man more than flight; but rather rejoicing when we suffer as Christians. This, saith he, was the course that brought Christian Religion to such an height in the world: and resolves it the greatest injury that can be done to the ancient Christians, to say, that it was want of strength, not of inclinations that way, that they defended not themselves in time of most certain danger of death. Tertullian, saith he, had been imprudent and impudent, if in a writing presented to the Emperors (who could not be ignorant of the truth) he had dared to lie so confidently, when he saith, Non deesset nobis vis numerorum, &c. most admirable passages out of ancient Writers he there citys, for a leaf together to the same purpose, of dying for the truth of Religion; and never defending themselves by Arms, against the illegal will of the lawful Magistrates. (I beseech Master Martial to send to the shop and read the passages, and consider how far he hath departed from the primitiveness, and Christianity of those examples.) And to conclude, Though Grotius (according to his manner; which is to say all that can be wished in any subject) mentions some cases wherein a King may be resisted, yet if you read them, you will find little joy in any of them: As in case a King shall abdicate his kingdom, and manifestly relinquish his Power, than he turns private man, and so may be dealt with as any other such. And some other the like.  
Well, I have said enough of Grotius in the business, and should add no more; but, I remember, I promised to show that on occasion of these words of Christ to Saint Peter, he hath as much against the Exposition pretended to be his, and the whole doctrine of resistance, as the King's friends could desire; and that is in his Annotations on the place, Mat. 26. 52. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
In Luk. p. 464.  &c. Neque vero ad Petrum tantùm admonitio ista pertinet, sed & ad Christianos omnes, qui à publicis potestatibus ad poenam expetuntur ob pietatis professionem: The admonition belongs not to Peter only, but to all Christians, when they are called by the Magistrate to suffer for the profession of piety: and sets the rule in that case, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to commit our souls to God, to expend our lives in his cause that gave us them; alleging to this purpose, what this Peter had learned from this Master, 1 Pet. 4. 16, 19 and answering the common frivolous objection, fetch from the law of natural defence, or self-preservation, showing the difference between the use of that liberty against thieves, &c. (against which the laws and Magistrates give us the liberty) and against the commands of the Supreme Magistrate; whom if in any case of injury, &c. private men may have permission to resist, or repel force with force, omnia erunt tumultuum plena; nulla legum, nulla judiciorum authoritas: the perfect image of our Kingdom at this time, when the words are Englished, as God knows the sense is: and then he concludes with the case of Religion, wherein there is no place of resisting the higher powers, be their violence never so unjust.  
I have undoubtedly made good my four undertakings in this business; and shall beseech Master Martial hereafter to write more cautiously, lest he provoke men to put him and the world in mind of other unjustifiable passages in his writings; to tell him of (that which in mere charity to him I desire he should know men do take notice of) his dealing in a Sermon of his, about Josiah's reformation, preached before the House of Commons long since: and of the applying of the curse that fell on the Inhabitants of Meroz, Judg. 5. (for not helping their sovereign, namely Deborah, against a foreign Enemy, Jabin) to those that will not join with himself against his sovereign, and his Cavaleirs; i. e. those Forces raised by him. I wish heartily that Master Martial, having gotten so much authority as to be the Augustine, the truly polemical Divine of our times, would be so charitable to his disciples, as to imitate him, in retracting so many of his misadventures, as he cannot choose but know to be such; and not to impose too intolerably on their credulity: or so tender of his own reputation, as to acknowledge those himself, which every man that hath eyes doth discern in his books; and would, were it not for mere pity, and the duty of loving enemies, give a large account of.  
But I must remember, that Master Martial adds two appearances of answer more to that allegation from Christ to Saint Peter; a word or two of those. Secondly, saith he, supposing it was a reproof of Peter's using the sword, than the plain meaning is to condemn Peter's rashness, who drew his sword, and never stayed to know his Master's mind whether he should strike or not; and so reproves those who rashly, unlawfully, or doubtingly use the sword. But, I pray Sir, are those the words of Christ, They only that take the sword without asking, or knowing my mind, shall perish, &c. Or have we any reason to think, that Christ would have then dispensed with a known law if he had answered him, and not rather have referred him to be regulated by it, as you see he doth, for all that take, &c.  
2. To see the unluckiness of it again, the text Luk. 22. 49. saith expressly, that they did ask him, said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? so that the question was ask before he smote: And sure, if it had been Christ's pleasure they should smite, one syllable would have expressed it, and justified them; and that might have intervened before his striking: and that it did not intervene, is no argument of the lawfulness of that striking in him, or the like in us; especially when so sharp a reprehension immediately follows.  
3. I shall grant the meaning is to condemn Peter's rashness, in doing a thing so unlawful, without any commission; especially, when it was denied by Christ upon asking; but not that the matter of the fact was perfectly justifiable, if abstracted from that rashness: or that now Christ's judgement being declared by his answer to him, it should be more justifiable in us, who have his example for our document.  
4. I shall ask Master Martial, whether he hath asked and received knowledge of his Master's mind or no? he must not mean any of his great earthly Masters, (that join with him in the war against the Supreme; for sure, if such tell us we may, or be so minded, that doth not prove that 'tis lawful; for than I must ask them what Master they asked? and so, if they have none, conclude them in the number of the rash smiters;) but Christ, (for sure he was Peter's Master) or some taught by him in his word, who may give him assurance of the mind of Christ: and if this be produced we will be his disciples also. For, for his Supreme Master on earth, the mere-human Christ, the Lord's anointed, I believe he means not that he should be asked, whether he may be, and should be resisted? and as little reason is there for us to be satisfied by being told by any others inferior to him, (especially by the chief resisters) that we may lawfully resist.  
3. Master Martial adds a consideration, that now was the hour come of Christ's suffering, and not of his Apostles fighting, wherein Christ would not be rescued, no not by twelve legions of Angels, much less than by the sword of man: therefore he saith to Peter, Put up, &c. but intended not, that it should always be unlawful for his people to use the sword in their just defence against unjust violence; for than he would never have commanded them but a little before, that he that hath two coats, let him sell one and buy a sword. To this I answer, 1. That Christ might suffer, though Peter did resist; as we know he did; and consequently, the hour of his suffering being come, could not make it in him a crime to resist, if otherwise it were not: It might make Christ refuse the help of his sword, but not produce the text proper to man-slayers against him, unless the fact in itself were of that nature. 2. This patient manner of Christ's suffering, and prohibiting resistance in his just defence, though it were then peculiar, and by decree necessary to Christ; yet is it since become matter of example, and necessary imitation to us, by force of that observation past upon it by Saint Peter, and entered into the Canon of our Scripture, 1 Pet. 2. 21. Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps, &c. And this used as an argument to enforce on us that duty, vers. 18. of being subject not only to good and gentle, but also to froward Masters. So that now, thirdly, though that check had been peculiar to Saint Peter's act, clothed with those circumstances, of being done when 'twas Christ's hour of suffering; yet it will be obliging to us also, who are hereunto called, vers. 21. to suffer as patiently as Christ did. But then fourthly, we conclude not from any or all of this, that it should be always unlawful for Christians to use the sword in their just defence: nor indeed, that it was unlawful then; Kings may and might subdue by the sword their rebellious Subjects: and private men might defend themselves from private invaders, and besides the proverbial meaning of that speech (of selling a coat and buying a sword, whereby, say the fathers, he foretold them the dangers impendent over their heads, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Chrys. and advised them to provide for their own security) I shall not doubt to acknowledge that this liberty of private defensive resistance is authorized by that same Scripture: But the resisting of the Magistrate by the Subject, is the thing that from Christ's words to Peter we undertake to show unlawful, and not any other resistance; and that the swords were appointed by Christ to be bought to that purpose, is not attempted to be proved by Master Martial; and to suppose it without proof, is to affirm, that no man could invade, or be fit to be killed, but Magistrates. The truth is, here is some art used, either by Master Martial, or some other Artificer (interest, prejudice, or the like) by Master Martial to deceive the Reader; or by that other to deceive the Composer, by using the phrase of just defence against unjust violence, (which every man grants lawful among private men) and concluding that not to be made unlawful by this text, (which we do not affirm,) whereas all the dispute is, of resisting (not simply any man, but peculiarly) the Magistrate (and those that come with authority from him,) which we do affirm to be the very thing exemplified and rebuked in this Text, and so still stands (by that reprehension of Christ) forbidden to us, in despite of Master marshal's evasions.  
'T will be now matter of wonder to any, that all this paper should be spent in defence of this one Argument, so briefly confuted and dispatched by Master Martial; but I shall answer that wonder too: First, that at the entering on this examination of those few, the necessity of this length of words was not foreseen. Secondly, that though the escaping the force of this place would not be matter of triumph to Master Martial, because there be other places of the New Testament produced by his adversaries, yet unanswered, and one is enough to establish a Christian truth; yet the vindicating and clearing of this one from all exceptions, is the absolute carrying the cause against him by that one: And therefore if this may be compassed, (which I am confident is by this discourse) we may spare all further travel in this business; and command the Subjects sword taken out (though upon supposition of just defence, how unjustly soever that be pretended) against the lawful Magistrate, to return to its sheath again. I wish to God it would obey the command.  
Tu verò discipuli & amorem pium & humilitatem considera: alterum enim ex diligendi fervore; alterum ex obedientiâ fecerat. Nam cùm audisset, Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam, statim obtemperavit, & nusquam postea istud fecit. Titus Bostr. in Matth.  
Non se sed magistrum est ultus, praeterea nondum perfectae & consummatae virtutis erat. Quod si vis Petri sapientiam intelligere, videbis posteà caesu● & sexcentas injurias passum, nullis malis, nullis calamitatibus pertur●●●● 〈◊〉 omnia tolerantem. Euthym. in Johan.  
Ille utitur gladio, qui nullâ superiori ac legitimâ potestate vel jubente vel concedente, in sangninem alicujus armatur. Nam utique Dominus jusserat, ut ferrum discipuli ejus ferrent, sed non jusserat ut ferirent. Quod ergo incongruum, si Petrus post hoc peccatum factus est pastor Ecclesiae: sicut Moses post percussum Aegyptium factus est rector istius Synagogae? uterque enim non detestabili immanitate, sed emendabili animositate justitiae regulam excessit, uterque odio improbitatis alienae; sed ille fraterno, iste Dominico, licèt adhuc carnali, tamen amore peccavit. Aug. lib. 22. cont. Faust. Man. cap. 70.  
FINIS.