AN APOLOGY FOR Mr. john Goodwin: Who having Subscribed Proposals to be presented to the Magistrate concerning matters of Religion; after that, Makes 30 Queries, whether it be the Magistrate's duty to interpose his Authority in matters of RELIGION.  Ephe. 4.14. 
Be no more Children tossed too and fro, carried about with every wind of Doctrine.  Joh. 9.41. 
If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see: therefore your sin remaineth.  Optat. Lib. 3. 
Ille [Donatus Schismaticus] solito furore succensus, in haec verba prorupit; Quid est imperatori cum Eclesia?  Idem. Ib. 
Constat [Macarium Proconsulem] in eos vindicasse, a quibus jussio divina contempta est; Nam, non tibi facies sculptise, Dei vox est.  
London, Printed for John Wright, at the King's Head in the Old-Bayley, 1653.   

An APOLOGY for Mr. John Goodwin.  
men's judgements are as various as their Palates; and Books and Dishes seldom come to two persons with one and the same relish: For as Elihu speaks in Job, The Ear tries words as the mouth tastes meat. It were therefore no wonder if Mr. goodwin's thirty Queries met with thirty times thirty censures.  
But the main Querie and wonder is, How the same hand could subscribe the Ministers Proposals for advancement of Religion presented to the supreme Magistrate, and yet propose this Question.  
Whether the Civil Magistrate stands bound by way of Duty, to interpose his Power or Authority in matters of Religion, or worship of God: and upon the basis of this proposal, raise a fabric of Queries thiry stories high.  
But to Vindicate Mr. Goodwin from the mistakes of those, who upon this last account may be apt to censure him as inconsistent with himself; The Reader (with his good leave) shall have this Apology for him, that among the thirty Queries propounded by him, there is not one to be found, but is either, 

1. Impertinent,  
or 2. Impotent, as to the insinuating any scruple against his own and the Ministers Proposals.   And therefore as he professes, so he hath really dealt modestly in the business, and not at all destroyed the things which he had builded.  
To evince the Impertinency of Mr. goodwin's Queries, as to the creating any doubt against the Ministers and Mr. goodwin's Proposals, and consequently that Mr. Goodwin in the one, and Mr. Goodwin in the other, are not Antagonists as some would fancy. First, It is to be premised; that Mr. Goodwin may justly expect this Right from the Reader, not to be interpreted as setting his hand to the main Querie, (which is the Root upon which his thirty questiuncles as so many Filaments depend) against his hand to the Ministers proposals, nor his hand to those against his heart in this; provided such a sense may be given of his words as will fairly and without violence accommodate both. And that such may be given, need not be doubted: for if the interposition of the civil Magistrates power, which Mr. Goodwin scruples in the prementioned Question, be understood of a Coercive Power in matters of Faith and Worship; a Power that like a Spanish Inquisition, or an English High Commission Court, would compel to a conformity unto the public profession and practice; with such a power the Ministers hold as little correspondency as Mr. goodwin's Queries, and consequently, Mr. Goodwin in his Queries, quarrels not with Mr. Goodwin in his Proposals, but there is a mutual harmony in the one and the other; Etres conjurat amice.  
But to take the confidence to advance one step further, It is affirmed in the second place, that Mr. Goodwin not only may, but indeed must be so understood; at least, if the Vote of the major part of his Questions may carry it. Let them who think it worth their leisure, examine the particulars, since of twenty eight; that is, of all, all but the two last Queries, may without wrong to Justice, be acquitted of being guilty of suggesting any pertinent scruple against the Power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion, save what concerns a constraint (by Mulcts, Fines, Imprisonments, etc.) to a conformity unto the public profession in matters of Faith: Ex ungue leonem. Take a taste instead of all, of his sixteen Querie. In this Querie, he citys Tertullian in these words: That it is palpably unreasonable, that men who are free, should be forced against their wills to sacrifice; when as it is the willingness of the mind that is required in all divine Services. Yea, it may be well judged ridiculous, that one man should be compelled by another to honour the Gods; when as he stands bound at his peril to render those propitious to him of is own accord, etc. And Ambrose thus: The Law of God hath taught us what we are to follow, the Laws of Men cannot teach us this.  
They may extort from persons a timorous change, but they cannot inspire belief. Upon these Authorities, Mr. Goodwin infers, That the Sense of Antiquity was, that matters of Faith did not at all appertain to the Cognizance of the Christian Magistrate, as a Magistrate: That is, (as the words of the Authors themselves expressly carry it) as to inspriring Faith, extorting a change of Profession, and compelling to sacrifice; in which sense only, as he hath Antiquity with him, and his present quotation, and inference are pertinent and sound; so the Ministers and Mr. goodwin's Proposals hold a friendly compliance with Mr. Goodwin and his Antiquity, in this and the rest of his Queries, and Mr. Goodwin with himself, in His and the Ministers Proposals. And consequently the general impertinency of Mr. goodwin's Queries, as to casting any scruple upon the Ministers Proposals, or any blemish upon himself, as counter-querying and quarrelling himself in subscribing them, hath thus fare been vindicated from the mistakes of those that would needs judge otherwise.  
The next thing to be shown in Apology for Mr. Goodwin, is the Impotency of his Queries, to infirm the Proposals affirmed by his subscription. And here his two last Queries do only keep the field, all the rest of the Brigade being justly cashiered upon the Article of Impertinency, in respect of any service done by them, against Mr. goodwin's and the Ministers Proposals. The truth is, these two last Queries seem to lay the Axe to the Root of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion, and charge Mr. Goodwin home against Mr. Goodwin. But to relieve Mr. Goodwin from this Charge of himself against himself, by weakening the stroke and blunting the edge of this Axe; the best way will be first, to lay down the grounds, upon which Mr. goodwin's Queries scruple his proposals—  
And then to discover the sandiness of those grounds by the light of a few principles, to which Mr. goodwin's own assent is not altogether despaired.  
The first of the two last Queries, bottoms is self upon a Jam sumus ergo pares. A parity of Reason why the Civil Magistrate may no more intermeddle in things of a religious nature, than the ecclesiastcal person in Civil. But this Stone is so ill squared, that one way it will be found to narrow, and the other to broad to, prove an adequate foundation whereupon to raise, a Battery that may annoy the Ministers and Mr. goodwin's Proposals. For things of a Religious nature are absolutely such, or mixedly. The Proposals plead not for the Magistrates intermeddling in the former, and it's presumed, Mr. Goodwin will not plead against in the latter. Such are the public Circumstance of Time, Place, and Revenue, and some opinions amongst Papists or Ranters. For it is credible, some Papists would never have sacrificed their lives in pursuance of some treasonable practices, were it not upon the account of a religious Conscience, though miserably misled. Tanlum Religio potuit suadere malorum. Let Mr. Goodwin resolve, whether a Christian Magistrate were obliged to suffer a Heathen under his Jurisdiction to Sacrifice his Child to Moloch etc.  
In the last place, as the foundation of the grand scruple and Top-stone of thirty Queries, comes in the considerable question, whether the Civil Magistrate be not a kind of Bat, that is confined to the twilight of Nature; and whether the Child may adventure to take a lesson out of any Book but natures primer; But least the Reader be mistaken, he must remember, that the Book of Nature according to Mr. goodwin's Edition, comes forth in a just volume: the light of Nature in his Astronomy, is a Star of the first magnitude: And therefore whilst he allows the Magistrate a power to punish offenders, against the light and law of Nature, he outvies the Proposals if he be true to his own principles. For what cannot the light of Nature see, if it looks with Mr. goodwin's eyes, which by the Light of Nature can discover the way to Faith and Salvation. But to spare the sharpening any weapon at this Forge, it shall suffice (by way of conclusion) to Vindicate the Ministers Proposals from all just ground of scruple by a few Corollaries, whose Truth the light of Nature may discover, or at least being discovered must assent to.  
1. The light of Nature teaches all men, and among others the Civil Magistrate, that there is a God, and that God is to be worshipped.  
2. Never was there yet (it were no audacious assertion to add, nor never will be) any Commonwealth in the world which publicly owned all Religions, or none.  
It's true indeed, the Scripture seems to hold forth a promise of a Time wherein all shall own but One, when it speaks of a Day, in which all shall serve the Lord with one consent, and the Lord shall be one, and his Name one.  
3. In all Commonwealths, where there are (as 'tis believed there are in all civilised Commonwealths this day in the World) public places and Revenues set apart to Religious uses, the trust of the disposal of both, is in the Civil Magistrate.  
4. In disposal of both according to this trust, the Civil Magistrates duty is to use (at least) as much wisdom and faithfulness as men are obliged to use in things that concern their own private.  
5. The wise and faithful Christian Magistrate, may be assured of some truths in the Christian Religion, and their opposite errors.  
6. The Christian Magistrate can neither discharge his trust concerning such places and revenues with wisdom, nor faithfulness in the disposal of either to persons, either wholly unknown or known to be enemies to such known truths, or friends to their opposite errors. It were no vain confidence to presume on Mr. goodwin's assent to this position.  
For 'tis to be supposed Mr. goodwin's Church neither would, nor indeed could be obliged upon any rational account, to administer to him of their temporal things, if they were not satisfied in the spiritual things which he administers to them, at least as to the main, however in other things dissenting. And why should it be accounted unreasonable in the Magistrate to expect the like satisfaction in the like case?  
Besides, 
2 Joh. 10  who can deny it to be the privilege and duty of a Master of a Family, to admit such only to Teach in his House as his Conscience shall be satisfied in, and warrant him to receive? Or, to come yet a little nearer; will the Churches distinguished by the names of Independents and Anabaptists (suppose Mr. goodwin's Church) admit of any person either wholly unknown, or known to be grossly ignorant or scandalous (suppose a known Mahemetan, or one of their own judgement, and without scandal but wholly unknown) to Teach in their Congregations without their approbation, and assent first obtained? if not, (as it is presumed they will not) let no man scruple to allow that thing to be the right of the Magistrate, as a public parent, in the disposal of public places and revenues, to persons to be approved by himself, or such as he shall think meet to be trusted therein, which is claimed as a right by every private Parent and Congregation. And whereas Mr. Goodwin in the last Querie hath appealed to the Law of Nature, as to his Caesar, to Caesar he shall go; and therein let be remembered: 

First, that so far power is granted by him to the Magistrate in Religion, as the Law of Nature doth dictate.  
And secondly, That his Contradistinction is unsound in that Querie, where he distinguisheth the worshipping of God in a false manner, from evil doing against the light of Nature, for here he may see, that Idolatry and false worship are against the light and law of Nature: yea that the law of Nature teacheth the Magistrate to make laws against false worship, and Idolatry;   And Indeed the Apostle Paul might serve in stead of all proofs; who clearly shows, that men by the light of Nature might see this truth, that God was not like unto Birds nor Beasts nor was to be worshipped under such Images; but that in so doing, they did detain the Truth (even the evident Truth) in unrighteousness: yet ex aebundanti, here shall be produced (concerning the light of Nature, directing Magistrates to make Laws for Religion) The testimonies both of Gentiles and Jews, which terms commonly comprehend all mankind; and it may serve for an universal Testimony. And first for the Gentiles, let's hear what Plato saith. 
Plato de Repub. lib. 2. & lib. 4.  Let the first Care in every well constituted Commonwealth be, for setting up the true (not a false or fabulous) Religion, in which let the chief Magistrate even from his Childhood be instructed. 
Lib. decimo de legibus.  Ignorance of the true God is the greatest plague of all Commonwealths. Therefore he pulls down the foundation of all humane Society; who takes away Religion, or abolishes it out of the minds of men. Whence it is that all impiety is to be punished with the greatest and most grievous punishments, etc. Therefore in no wise are there to be tolerated in a Commonwealth well ordered, so much as Disputation against God and his Providence, etc.  
Moreover the speeches of them are to be restrained, who say, that Religion is but a devise and appointment of men, that through fear of a greater and venerable power, men may be contained in their duty. Thirdly, All Impiety is to be punished, and that is of three sorts: The first denies that there is any God. The second, denies that God governs these things, especially mankind, etc. The third sort of impiety, is of them, who counted that God by Gifts, Offerings, and Prayers, is appeased and brought to indulge men's wickedness. This opinion also is blasphemous: He disturbs Religion who speaks or writes impiously of the nature of God; therefore he is to be punished, and truly with death.  
And in the very first founding of Rome, Romulus, and Numa, 
Dron. Halic. l. secun.  Pompilius, the first Kings, laid the foundations of their Law-making, in Piety and Justice; and of Romulus particularly it is said, that before all things he began with the divine worship; and of Numa, Pietatem ante omniae docuit homines; He taught men piety before all things: and it is also well known, that Images were not a long time admitted into the Romance Religion. 
170 years. Clem. Alex.   
And now for the opinion of the Jews concerning the light of Nature, condemning Idolatry, and making laws against it. 
Selden de jure Natura Hebid. lib. 1. cap. 10. p. 118.  Mr. Selden with whose Learning and Judgement, perchance Mr. Goodwin will think fit to comply, rather than to contest; doth largely and evidently show, That the Hebrews held there were seven Heads of the Law of Nature commonto all Mankind [the offspring of Noah] Among them, too were between Man and the most holy God: And of these two, a first was Idolatry or strange worship: A second was, the Cursing or Profanation of the name of God.  
And the Gentiles that inhabited among the Jews were FORCED to make a profession of observing them. 
Adige bat. p 127.   
Under the Name of strange worship forbidden to the seed of Noah; that is, to all mankind (according to the Hebrews) was not only the worship of Stones, Statues, images, but of Angels, heavenly bodies, the Elements or any other Creature, etc.  
And whensoever in the Courts of Israel, strange worship was punished with death; there for the like worship the Gentile, or Son of Noah, was executed by the Sword. 
P. 132.  And he not only shows that these offenders were to be punished, but that there was one Head among the seven (imprinted also in the law of Nature) for settling Judges and Judgements for punishing offenders against these Heads. And he gives a reason of his own: For (saith he) Who doth not see that is would be altogether vain and fruitless, 
Lib. 7. cap. 4. pa. 801  to make precepts and prohibitions, except there be also Judicatories, by which the violation of them might be restrained, and punishments inflicted for the same? And to the like purpose he speaks his opinion again. Page 806.  
He said further. That against this Head of Judicatories, 
Cap. 6. p. 812  not only those offended which opposed the settling of Judicatories, but those also which concealed the offences committed against the other six Heads [among which was Idolatry, and Profanation of God's Name] and they were to be punished with the same punishments, to which the offenders themselves were subject. This then is the sum of Mr. Seldens Doctrine out of the Hebrews. Idolaters and Blasphemers were to be punished by the Law of Nature, even with Death. That Judicatories by the Law of Nature were to be set up for this end: That those which opposed these Judicatories, were liable to the same punishments, with the offenders themselves.  
Now let Mr. Goodwin look, whether by any of his Queries, he become subject to these Penalties.  
FINIS.