THE scripture's PLEA FOR MAGISTRATES. Wherein Is showed the unlawfulness of resisting the lawful MAGISTRATE, under colour of RELIGION.  ROM. 13.2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. 
OXFORD, Printed by Leonard Lichfield, 1643.   

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}) 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 failing 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. 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 ●ure 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, if 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 bend of Allegiance in f●ro humano, and if he will adventure the hazard of the judgement to come, shall have no restrain 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 unpoliticke 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 peace as well as a Church, Policy as well as Religion, ● power in the Magistrates hand, besides that in every man's own breft or conscience; and yet more particularly, a restraint for hypocrites as well as any else, ● for pretenders of Religion, who, if this ground would hold, were left unlimited. Where if it be interposed that such an one that thus falliciously pretends Religion, though by this disgu●se 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 is it not sufficient, because, although there be a judgement to come for all crimes, yet it is no withstanding 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 determents cannot sufficiently work on. This every man knows is the original of human laws, yea, and of Dominion itself, a provision 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. 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 ●ll use of it. For this will be utterly destructive of the end of government (which is, that we may lead a peaceable and 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 kingdoms, 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 the 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 this, the outward Profession, can no more be hindered then the former act of the soul, but rather may be most illustrious in 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 whe● my sword for me, of 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 lay down my life patiently, the sacrifice of my God, resign up all my 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 insincerity, 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 ●hos; e be obstructed also, their solitudes 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 stands somewhat pathetically, and is apt to affect our bowels more than our reason; moves out 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 opinioned 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 to come from him. Yet if he be imfortunate 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 at 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 by 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 that 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 their 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 the Papists being the only notable examples hitherto of that practice, till some others, directly upon Popish principles a little varied in the application, have fallen 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, Matth. 11.29. learn of me, for I am meek and lowly.) The first is Luke 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 cle●r) 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, Matth 16.23.) and rebuked them, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  and said, Ye know not what manner spirit you are of● that is, Elias was a Zel●t, 1 Mac. 2.58. (the full importance of which will belong to another disquisition) & jure zelotarum, might do some what against B●●ls 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 (● any such there were) from being pleadable amongst Christians, upon this ground of Josephus his observing that the Jews were governed by a 〈◊〉, God being as it were their King on earth for along 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 ● 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 Zelo● among the Jews might do.  
The second exemplary passage to this purpose in the story of Christ is, ●a●. 26.51. when Christ was apprehended by those tumultuous persons, at the 〈◊〉 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 ●is 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) most put it up again; but the reason added of an unlimited universal obligingness to all Christians▪ For all they that take the sword (●Peter did, in defence of Christ, &c. or else the citation had not been pertinent to him) shall perish by the 〈◊〉.) And the two parallel places which are noted i● 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: 1. Christian Martyrs, vers. 7. whose faith it seems and patience must go together, which sure is most irreconcilable with forcible resistance.  
The third exemplary passage of Christ was in his suffering, wherein many particular circumstances might be observed, especially his answer to Pilate, Jo● 19.11. in acknowledgement of his legal power given him from above. Be 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 had 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 conformable 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. 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 speak, being so perfectly home to the 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 ●eathen 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 Amicaval●eri●, p. 230 &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●mig●● 〈◊〉 mistaken in making the estimate of the strength of Christians in 〈…〉 strength of them that were to oppose them. This is in civil terms, to 〈◊〉 Tertullian's 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 thing their 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 his was no point of faith, &c. 〈◊〉 therefore a devout father might fall under ● 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, no● 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, Vnicuique 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 ●●tters concerning the Parliaments victory at Keinton, and relate the number of the stain 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. 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, & 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 conforming 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 now adays, if any man differs in opinion from us, presently to examine his whole life, and if eve● 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 other heresy condemned by the Church: Yea and more, till I had some degree of assurance that he never would 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 cited that stile so ordinary now adays [nos spirituales] and all others [animales psychici] and Montanist cannot, unless as once Areopagi signified the Areopagites, 
Surect.  so now by way of compensation, Montanist must pass for Montanus, 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 concluding Arguments) will be as fair logical proceeding, as to infer, because Tertullian, an 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 fancies 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 fancy, it was quite contrary to a furious one. And for the close of this Argument, wherein the w●●ning ●● 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 denudats 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 grow rank in the times of popery, &c. The Answ. All that I can collect from hence toward the conclusion designed, is that this objecters 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 praelatical: 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 than 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 whatever 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 exerto● agere, deal like professed enemies, desiisset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum? should we have wanted force of numbers? (i. men) or armed soldiers (for so sure copiae signifies.) Secondly, he saith as plainly, Castilia vestra, castra ●p●e vimus, 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 bell● 〈◊〉 idonei? what war had we not been fit for? (etiam impares copi●, though we had not had so many armed men as they) qui tam libenter trucidam●r. 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 is to do neither: nay, besides amissio tot civium ip●â destitutione puniisset, the loss of so many Citizens would have been a punishment by making them less able to resist other enemies; plures hostes quam cives usque remansi●ent, 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 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 tertullia'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 abetter) hath brought on others who are not 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 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 el●quence, though no sincerity, and his very pleadings will be argumentative, though his words may not.  
But 'tis added in the third place, that having no invitation, countenance, or command from any authority, &c. their 〈◊〉 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 Ju●ius Brutus, and Buchanan, and it is odely 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 〈…〉, for then sure Ministers there would have been to invite, if that had 〈◊〉 the Christian way.  
But when it is added within there line●, 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 hath Houses had been a greater authority; ●nlesse the meaning be not simply, but ad hoc, or great and as lawful an authority as this State hath any, to do what is now do●, 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 S. 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 〈◊〉 laws, as the model of that; for undoubtedly the old ones are not acquinted 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 S. 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 it 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 S. 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, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of, on by that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} supereminent person, the King; but sure this holds not against the superior, a● in the other case it did not. 3. Not they when they command to take up arms against him whom S. Paul bids me not resist upon 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 ass● of this war, are now brought to undertake, that damnation, or 〈…〉 shall not signify damnation (Poor men, what a weak thread doth the 〈…〉, that is just over their souls? and what a sad condition would it be, 〈…〉 that dies a confident Martyr in this war, damnation at the day of 〈…〉 prone 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 〈◊〉, and yet distant hold (for if it be not against the King, what need of 〈◊〉 other evasion, from the damnation that belongs to resisters, or if resister● still 〈◊〉 it away so easily, why may not War be avowd 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 inferiors as well as superiors (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 finest, &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 fit 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. 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. not against the Law of God and nature, i. 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 objecter 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 them 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 〈◊〉 inferior make it necessary to any who stands prohibited by a superior.  
In the fourth Section the object● 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 commit any thing necessary or otherwise commanded by any greater power; for if I swear to do so I must break my oath, non-obs●an●e what is concluded from Ps. 15▪ 4. And if it were not otherwise necessary or commanded by greater power, than 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 ●ender why he that gave that consent, might not plead that nullity, for such (though carnal) advantages as life is, if it 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 thee? 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 slight 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 the 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 be 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 then, 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 ●ay 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. ●0. that God's dispensations did r●quire that it should be hid from them: but if God did indeed hide it: then first, this is more than a supposition, it is a plain concession that those Christians Tertullian speaks of might not lawfully have re●isted, though they had had strength (which was so long denied) for the light be●ng hidden, they must have done it without faith, or against conscience, yea, and ●gainst Gods determinate counsel, (who, the Objecter saith, had great causes ●o hide it, of which one sure must be, that it should not be used. 2. Here is a ●reat secret of new Divinity, that God hides truths (not as Christ spoke in para●les, because they seeing see not, Mat. 13.13. but) on purpose to help Antichrist ●o his throne. (of which more anon) As for that instance of those that eat ●erbs, 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 had 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 Testam. pleas for resistance, from the people about Jonathan, from David, and from E●isha, 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 Objecters 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 no● in our Canon, yet is not produced for any of this nature: that famous one which it fathers on our Saviour, Nunquam laeti sitis n●si cùm fratr●m in charitate vid●ritis, 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 unex●usable 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, Jude 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 Tertul. days when there was occasion to study it, (as great as ever can arise any, because the persecutions then, were as heavy persecutions) we may by that argument think they would have searched into it, at lest 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 & constancy which was by God poured out on the Church in those days, and so made mar●yrdome 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 had put in, ●u●●erly impertinently, in stead of resisting) I confess, I had thought that our Q. Mary Martyes 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 so 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 con●u●e 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, non resistance, peaceableness, charity, which I conceive Christ hath been so p●ssionately 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 that 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 objector 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 tru●hs, 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, use 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 objector 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 M Goodwin? but still it seems God did on purpose hide truths in favour & 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 Singulis minorem, & 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. 2▪ 6. and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, v. 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. Dear see 24. Ambr. come. in 2. Thes. Hier. qu. 11. ad Algas▪ Chrys. in 2 Thes. Cry. Hier. catech. i e. Aug. de civ. Dei, l. 20. c. 19 Lact l▪ 7. c. 25 Oecum. in ●oc. & ib. S●ver. & Gen. and therefore on the sacking of Rome by Alaricus the Goeth S. Jerom presently expected that Antichrist should come, and in his book ad Ageruchiam de mon●gam: 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 entire, 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 page 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 concludingness 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 1. 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 Objecters 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 King's verse 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 Revelation 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 faith the Objecter 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 no● 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 than {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
The last blot laid on Tertullian to obliterate all whatsoever can be fetched from himlis, 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 argumentive, or concluding for resistance. For any thing else added by the objector 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, & indeed are not pertinent to the d●scourse I was upon, when this Objecter first ●●et me in the way, and led me this wild go ●ha●e 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 ● 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 to an higher pitch, at least th●● Jew● 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 va●u●ties 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 proaemi●ll 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. Iam. 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) which sure are opposi●e 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 then 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 peculi●r to them that prised and kept this legacy, and if it be objected that Christ came not to send peace, but a sword, Matth. 10.34. that sure refers not to Christ's prime counsel or purpose, but to the event; what he foresaw it would be, not 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 swor● and to all the disciples for preserving of peace Mar. 9.50. and to that it is thought the mention of salt belongs in that place, which among other qualities is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} unitive, have salt 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. 1●. 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 Thessaly. 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, James 3.17.18. The w●sdome 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 〈◊〉 husbands (and we know the kingdom's relat●on 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, à 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 sh●king of government itself, which is the band of peace, and the dissolving of which, returns 〈◊〉 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 re●gn 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 Master Goodwin in ●ntican. Master Bur. Master Bridges, &c. have invented to free themselves and others from the obedience most strictly required there, but would not again trouble any ingenious 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 friend, 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 prove able to inflict it) when, v. 5. It is added we must needs be subject not only for wrath (i. 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 h●nd 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 l●sse 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 Master 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 balances (of truth & 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 Br●ius, Butherius, and Buthanan that hath appeared for the contrary since the reformation. Though the truth is, such as 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 Papist of any other order hath gone so far) although they differ some what 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 spiritualis. It is not unknown to any that the Oath of Supremacy if not of allegiance among us is principally designed to discern and 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 fit 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 Auglia●) in which, saith he, Regis sine controversia jur●●●nia majestatis habeant per se: Singulis civi●us nec universit ●as 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 ●●●versis minor, which certainly had divested him of all sovereignty it being impossible that the sovereign or supreme of all should be Minor than any (Sumni prinsipis vitam fama●●ut fortunas in discrimen vocare, seu visen 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 iura maiestatis non haboret, 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 Martin Luther about it num id ●ure 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 atqua si Carolus summam imperit solus haberes, 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 publica calami tosum suscepi●s est, cum in gentiprincipurs ac civi● strage, quia iusta causa ●●llowideri 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 a●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 si●full 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 topic, 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, yo●, 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 Artaria 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. li. 14. 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, M●do nec vindictae, nec gloria, nec emolumenti caur● sub●●●●●, (three things that are very rarely kept out of war) sed tantum ut spur●issimum l●tronem, non ex religionis, sed ●urti & injuriarum actione aggradiantur. It seems the cause of Religion, although it were of Christianity against Mahometism, was not to him a sufficient warrant for a defensive w●● 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, where with 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 〈◊〉 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 des●, 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 notable, 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 Artists 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 charta, 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 father provoking sins) and exerci●e 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, 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}, making, 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. 24.26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, judgement to come, that is, certainly at the end of this world, at that day of doom, So Rom. 2. ●. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the judgement of God, and so again vers. 3. which v. 5. is explained to be ●rath 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 most what 〈…〉 this Book, see Mat. 23. ●4. Mat. 12.40. Luke 20.47. Rom. 3.8. and therefore He●, 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 ●●●th 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 〈◊〉 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 flatter 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}, to 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 it, 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, v. 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 flight, &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, depose 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 infered, v. 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, v. 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. Volk●lius l. 9 de ver. rel.. l. 4. c. 22. That which is used to persuade this to be probable is that which follows ver. 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 said ver. 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 maybe 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 promised that we do not conceive it to signify eternal punishments exclusive 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 be 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, ver. 29. though many for this cause of unworthy receiving did fall sick and die, ver. 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}, o●do●miscunt, sleep, be never used in the N. T. of those that are destined to eternal destruction, than still may this be very reconcilable without 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, how ever that it were just for him to do so, what ever he did it is plain by ver. 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 Ipsum Christi corpus ac sanguin●m 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, ver. 26. It is apparent that the phrase {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} guilty of the body, &c. Is paralleled to the Latin Reus Maiestatis 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 merit of 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 opposing judgement in its latitude to the house of God, when only it is affirmed by S. Peter of the {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 else 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. & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Matth. 24.17. and both together, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} myrrhato, wine, Mark 15.25. Now this cup is poured out, and tasted of indefinite by the godly some part of it, but the dregs thereof, i. the myrrh bitter 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 some what in the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that the godly never ●asted 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 the 18. 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 Prov. 11.31. where in stead 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. 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. Br. doth not.  They that are unlearned and unstable wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, ye therefore beloved, seeing ye know those things before, beware lest you also being led away with the error of the wicked fall from your own steadfastness, 2 Pet. 3.16.17. 
FINIS.