THE Depths of Satan DISCOVERED: OR, The Jesuits last Design to Ruin RELIGION. BEING, Some Observations upon a Pamphlet, called, The Swords Abuse Asserted: By JOHN VERNON.  
Presented to the Consideration Of the 

Army.  
City.  
Kingdom.    
By PHILOPATRIUS PHILALETHES.  REV. 2.24. 
To as many as have not this Doctrine, and which have not known the Depths of Satan.  2 PET. 2.18, 19 
For when they speak great swelling Words of Vanity, they allu●e through the Lusts of the flesh, etc. Those that were cl●a●e escaped from them who live in Error. While they promise them Liberty, they themselves are the servants of Corruption.  
London, Printed for John Wright, at the King's Head in the Old-Bayley. 1649.   

To the truly Christian Reader.  
IT is very well known, to every understanding Christian, that there are two main Pillar● of a Reformed State, the two great Ordinances of God. Magistracy and Ministry: And it's as easily observable, that many there are, (whether ignorantly, or intentially) who are, Sampson▪ like, laying hold of those two Pillars, though they pull down therewith, the house of the Kingdom and Church, upon their own and others heads. How much the latter, (the Ministry) hath been undermined in all times, especially within these last dozen years, there's no observing Christian but hath taken notice. What Innovasions and subscriptions, have been Imposed upon godly and faithful Ministers, by the Prelates, to drive them from their Stations, and out of the Kingdom, who doth not yet remember? Within these last seven years the same Design hath been carried on, bu● in another dress. The great sesuiticall Project (for they lie behind the Curtain, and Act it) hath been to make the Ministers (whom they could not corrupt) and Ministry, vile and contemptible, which hath proceeded to a very high degree. The 〈◊〉 to effect it hath been this: First, To pour out upon them whole Dung-carts of the vilest Reproaches in Pamphlets, that ever Christian ear heard, thereby to expose them to the scorn of the people, and so to nullify the Success of their Ministry. Secondly, To cry down their Office, either as Antichristian, or none, Setting up Preachers of the basist of the people, (as Jeroboam made Priests) admiring and adoring them above the most Learned, Faithful, able Minister's of the G spell; from whom, as Instruments under G d, they re●●●ved the knowledge and grace they have, (if they have any) yet now contemn them (which true grace cannot do) as the dirt under their feet. Thirdly, To cry down Learning, Arts, Universities, as useless; pretending to new Revelations, which are the m●er delusions of Satan. Fourthly, The last, but not lest destructive, to cry down their settled Maintenance by Tithes▪ and leave them to the cold and comfortlesse-Charitie of the people, which will starve them out that are in, and keep others from entering in. (This alone will do it) if the rest fail.  
For the former (the Magistracy) it hath been the long policy of Antichrist; to persuade the world, that the Christian Magistrate, hath nothing at all to do in matters of Religion, that so he might usurp that power into his own hands. This damnable Doctrine, destructive to Religion, to State and Church, hath long been contended against by all the Reformed Churches, and their Learned Champions.  
And little could we expect, that any men, that pretend to Reformation, should herein have complied with them. But our fear and jealousy is, they are acted and agitated, either by strong delusions of Satan, or by the subtle Insinuations of disguised Jesuits, who have now at last transfromed themselves into Angels of Light, in stead of their former fierce heat. It's known to all the world, that the Protestant Religion in England is settled by Parliamentary Power, and Laws by them established: And whilst that stands in its faithfulness and vigour, Popery is not like to enter here. Many ways have been attempted, either to corrupt it, or break it, in former and later times; but, blessed be God, all in vain. But now of late, there is at once a double design upon it; to break the Being of it, and the Authority of it in matters of Religion, together, or if not both, the latter. And this is the design of the Pamphlet, entitled, The Swords abuse asserted. Wither this Gentleman, the Author of it, or any in the Army, have such Intentions, I dare not say; but the Positions, lately offered to the world, do clearly ponderate that way. This I find to be his Principle, destructive enough, which ●he asserts, pag. 15. That Christians and Heathens in Civil Affairs, are alike subjected to the Civil Sword, but neither subject in Religious causes; and there can be no Restraint, where there must be no Superiority; than which, no Jesuit could have spoken worse. This he obscurely hinted in his Title Page, but kept it for a Reserve, till he had baffled his Readers eyes with some appearance of reasons against Restraint, which is but one part of the Magistrates power. We shall weigh what he says, and clear up to the Reader, The Depths of Satan vailed therein.   

The Depths of Satan DISCOVERED.  
Quaere.  
Whether the Civil Magistrate, though he shall not compel, yet may ●ot restrain those who profess not Christianity, from divulging their Principles, especially by visible worship, or practise in Idolary?  
BEfore I come to debate this Controversy, I shall say something by way of distinction, to the stating of the question.  
1. For the Title of the Book, it might very well pass, in a right sense, as applied to the distempers of the Times. If he mean it of them, to whom he speaks, as he seems to do in that Dedication, A word to the Army, viz. That it is an Abusing of the Martial Sword, to take upon them to determine of matters of Religion, or to take power to themselves to limit or extend the Liberty thereof: We should easily agree with him, to assert it a very great Abuse, for them, a Parliament sitting, (from whom they have their Commission only for Martial Affairs) to intermeddle in matters of Religion, as beyond their Sphere, as he speaks. But if he mean, 
pag. 3.  (as he expressly discovers himself, pag. 15.) That the Supreme Magistrate, hearing the Civil Sword, hath nothing to do, about matters of Religion, he abuses his Reader and his own Reason, to undertake to assert it; as shall appear in the sequel.  
2. We distinguish of Temple-worke, (as his Title Page calls it:) If he mean it thus, That the Sword is an useless Toole (his own phrase) for the first Erecting or Constituting Members of a Church, gathered out from Heathens, that is for the Conversion of men to the Christian Faith; it's readily granted: For Christ's subjects, must be all volunteers, a willing people. But if he mean, that in a constituted Church, the Christian▪ Magistrate hath nothing to do, to restrain men from the violation of Christian Truths, or the Rules of Religious worship, in the external Profession and exercises thereof; he shall find himself miserably mistaken. Conversion of Souls belongs primarily to Christ, by the operation of his Spirit; instrumentally to the Ministers of Christ: But when men are converted to the faith and profession of the Gospel, and have embraced the Truths and worship of it, if then they shall blaspheme or corrupt those Truths, or profane that worship, the Magistrate, (we think) hath power to restrain, yea, and to punish them for that violation.  
3. Conversion itself, is two ways considerable; either with respect to the Conscience, which we may call the internal real Conversion to the Faiths being made thereby tru● believers; and this is the work of Christ's Prophetical and Kingly Office; or else with respect to the outward Profession of the Faith: This latter is the object of the Magistrates power, in regard of regulation of it, according to the Rules of the word; for he is made the Keeper of both Tables, in regard of the external acts and exercises thereof.  
4. It's one thing for the Magistrate to prescribe a Rule of Faith (as the Pope presumes) or a form of worship of God; another to look to the preservation of both (prescribed by Christ) from the corruption of Seducers and False Teachers, or the violation of profane men: 
As he, pag. 4.  The ordering of the visible worship of God, as he speaks, and the ordaining of the Rule of Faith, whereunto all are alike subject, etc. belong entirely and solely to Jesus Christ.  
5. We note one notable fallacy all along this Dispute●● Pamphlet; that is, Petitio principii, that he seems to insinuate it as granted, (which many others of his way do) That there is no Rule of Faith or Worship determined, or held forth in the word; but all is now Skepticall: (Sure we are, there is scarcely one Truth but it is questioned in this Age.) For if there be any one Fundamental Principle of Truth, or Rule of Worship, held forth clearly in the Scripture; the Blaspheming of that Truth, and teaching men so; the Profaning of that Worship, and practising so, may be restrained by the Magistrate; yea, and punished too, as we think: And yet this very Restraint or punishment is deceyed and beaten down by the force of this man's Arguments; which what strength they have, shall now be considered.  
First, he says; His capacity cannot discern the distinction betwixt the Compulsive and Restrictive Power; being fully persuaded, the former is sufficiently included in the latter; And he who hath power for the latter, shall by frequent restraining, upon every frivolous occasion, make me restless till I read his pleasure: That I worship as he worships, and so I feel his power to the former, etc.  
To which I answer: First, Surely then his capacity is very narrow and shallow, the distinction is so clear and evident. An instance is ready in Nebem. 13. concerning the fourth Commadement, one of the first Table, and a part of worship: Nehemiah did not compel the Heathen Merchants to keep the Sabbath in the prescribed manner, yet did he restrain them from polluting of it. Secondly, It is so fare from Truth, that the fromer is included in the latter, as that instance and many more demonstrate, that it is rather true backward; that the latter Restriction is included in the former Compulsion, not Compulsion in Restriction. Thirdly, The Jewish Magistrates did restrain Heathens from the Profanation of the Sabbath, and other Services, yet never did, nor might compel them to the observation of them till they voluntarily Proselyted: And this Restraint was thus fare beneficial, that it prevailed to bring them to Proselyte to the Jewish Religion, that they might enjoy the Privileges of it: And if Restraint of Seducers and false-Worshippers have the same effect upon them, to bring them to embrace the true Faith and right Worship of God, I know no hurt they have by it. A Stranger (said the Law) shall not eat of the Passeover, nor enter into the Temple till circumcised; And this difference in partaking of many privileges, was a mercy to the Gentiles, to win them to come in, for the privilege sake. There are many such Laws of Restraint in all States, which yet never come to Compulsion; as he cannot but know. But,  
Though the Restrictive may be different, yet it ever centred in the Compulsive; and the most cruel of Tyrants have first appeared in the Restrictive, etc. But this, if it be not a contradiction, is contrary to what he said afore: There he said, Compulsion was included in Restriction: Now Restriction centres in Compulsion. Secondly, That word (Ever) is false, and contrary to manifold experience, as afore. And mark the Logic of these men; they commonly conclude a general, from one or two particulars. Tyrants, (as the Pharisees and Jews) have sometimes appeared in the Restrictive, before the Compulsive; no Restriction ever centres in Compulsion. Thirdly, Nor is the Restraint, to force them that obey it not, to the contrary practice: Nor does Compulsion come as the consequent thereof: If any punishment follow, it is for disobedience to the Law of Restraint, E. G. Nehemiah restrains the Heathens for selling wares on the Sabbath days; and threatens to lay them in durance, if they did transgress that Prohibition: but he never intended by the Restraint or punishment, to compel them to observe the Sabbath, as the Jews did, in Religious Sanctification of it. Lastly, To prevent this consequent Compulsion, let it be made a Law, that no man, shall openly Blaspheme the Truth of God, or Profane the worship of God; and if he do not, he shall not be compelled to believe as the Magistrate believes, or worship as the Magistrate worships: And as this may suffice for his security against Compulsion, so it clearly puts a difference between Restriction and Compulsion: Consider the next.  
Secondly, Hereby (says he) I make the Civil Magistrate Judge of Christianity, which as none can assume without sin, 2 Cor. 1.24. So none can consent to, without being guilty of strong endeavours to dethrone the Lord Jesus to whom alone this judgement is committed, and whose Sceptre only can sway the Conscience, etc.  
1. Let him apply this to the state of the Jews, and see how in consequent it is. The Magistrate than had power to judge of the Rule of Worship, without sin; else, how could he Restrain men (or punish them) for transgressing the Rule? And if the Rule of Christian Truth, and Worship, be as clearly prescribed in the new Testament (as it is) why may not the Christian Magistrate, be as competent a Judge of Christianity, and Restrain from the violation of it?  
2. It is equivocal, the word (Judge) and so he deludes us: It is one thing to be a Lawmaker, which is (as his Text hath it) to have Dominion over their Faith, by prescribing a Rule of Faith, or Worship: Another to be a Judge of the Violation of that prescribed Rule: The Apostle Paul himself was a competent Judge of the Rule of Faith, and so of the Violation of it; though he was not the Lord of their Faith, to coin new Articles of Faith, without command from Christ: Say the same of the prescribed Worship: Nor is this to consent to the dethroning of Jesus Christ, nor to take upon them to Sway the Conscience: For we suppose the Rule of Worship prescribed, and the Magistrate to have power only upon the external man, to preserve from the violation of that worship; not to Compel or Sway Consciences or Hearts, to worship God aright with internal worship. Therefore this Disputer, (whether ignorantly or fallaciously, I know not) deceives his disciples with a double false supposition: First, That there is no certain, 
* He cannot expect a concurrence of any party considerable in the Nation, in Principles of Christianity, pag. 8.  determined, clear Rule of Faith or Worship, in the Scriptures, but all is doubtful and uncertain, without Revelation: Secondly, That the Magistrate by this Restriction; intends Compulsion, and that of Conscience, to believe or practise, what it doth not believe, to be the Rule of Faith or Worship: And withal, that those that grant him this power of Restraint, give him a Power to Sway Conscience, so to believe or practise; which we disclaim as much as himself. Nor doth the Magistrate by this Restraint of Seducers or Idolaters, take upon him to convert Souls, (the work of Jesus Christ alone) but to keep them from infecting others, by false Doctrine or false Worship; and in the end, to reduce the Erroneous to the right ways of God.  
3. The instance of Paul's Restrictive Power on Mars-hill, in quite beside the question: He was a Minister, not a Magistrate; and the work being Conversion of Heathens to the Faith: for the Constitution of a Church, not in a Church Constituted: For I demand, If after Paul had settled a Church, and given them the Rule of Faith and Worship, any Professor thereof should have Apostated from both, or either; whether he would not by his Apostolical power, have restrained him, by Church censures? If so, his Texts and proofs falls as heavily upon the Ecclesiastical power, as upon the Civil: and all his absurdities pretended here, fall upon S. Paul: He makes himself a Judge of Christianity, and consents to the dethroning of Christ; takes upon him to Sway the Conscience, and convert hearts, which is peculiar to the Sceptre of Christ, etc. But this Doctrine, tends evidently to nothing but Skepticisme, and profaneness; that every man may not only believe, but publish and practise Errors and Idolatry, without control, either of Magistrate or Minister. And thither we see it inclines apace, and there we fear it will end, if not betimes prevented. But further,  
He gives a caution: That if Christ send a Servant, saying, What I have revealed to you in secret, preach you on the house tops. Go to the public Synagoge in this Season of their assembling, which otherwise you cannot procure; Go, I say, and reason with them, for they are in all things too Superstitious: Do not you run the hazard of restraining in this case, under pretence of disturbance: If their public way be according to the way of Christ, the privilege of Disputing is according to the Directory of Christ, 1 Cor. 14, 22. It not, etc.  
To this we say, First, This man seems to be a mere Skeptick, and (as was said afore) to suppose there is no Rule of Truth or Worship prescribed; and the times to be, as in the Apostles days, before the New Testament was written: And withal, he seems to be a Familist, expecting Revelations, which he insinuates in those words, [What I have revealed to you in secert] And yet afore, he calls the Army to direct themselves [by Christ's proclaimed Law as their Line; at least for the work of his own worship and Temple, pag. 3.] and to measure their proceed herein by the pattern of his Scriptures.] But it is no new thing for Errors to intersere and contradict themselves. For, if there be any certain Rule of Truth or Worship, what reason is there, that any man, under pretence of New Light, should have liberty to dispute it? Is not this a plain disturbance of the Church? Suppose the public way be the Way of Christ, why should any man dispute it over and over again? What need he go and reason with them, who are in nothing Erroneous or Superstitious, but observant of the way of Christ? Will Christ send men to disturb his Settled Truths and Worship? And yet▪ if every man, that will pretend a new Revelation, may have liberty to dispute the old ways of Christ, and by a subtle wrangling Jesuitical wit, puzzle weak Christians with new Skepticismes, nothing will more disturb the Peace of the Church, as was evident once in the Church of Galatia; and is in Ours at this day. I would they were cut off, that thus Trouble it; The privilege of Disputing, which he pleads from 1 Cor. 14. was before the Rule was written, when there was an extraordinary gift of Prophesying, and new Revelations were discovered concerning the Truths of the Gospel: But the same Apostle censures this liberty after the Truth and Rule thereof was clearly delivered, 1 Tim. 6.3, 4, 5. [If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness: He is proud, knowing nothing, doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh Envy, Strife, Rail, evil Surmising, (and mark that) perverse Dispute, of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the Truth: from such withdraw thyself: Where the Apostle meets just with the practices of our Times;] Supposing, that when once the Form of sound words (as i● a called, 2 Tim. 1.13.) is delivered to the Church, and the Doctrine according 〈◊〉 Godliness is once Settled, no man may have the liberty to Dispute them: And if he do, he is proud, doting (or sick) and disturbs the Peace of the Church. He that thus troubles the Church, shall bear his judgement, who ever be he, Gal. 5.9. But we proceed.  
Thirdly, The conviction of the understanding being the foundation of Conversion, and that a faculty that cannot be forced, nor satisfied without an overcoming Reason; A powerful Argument, would soon subdue that noble part, when civil Restraint would increase prejudice, and confirm obscurity: Therefore the way of God is rather, Come, let us reason together, etc.  
But this man dreams of such a Restraint, as never came into any rational man's head. Was ever Restraint used as an argument to convince or convert men? to make a man believe this or that without reason? No: The man shall be informed by the strength of Scripture-Reason; and Light held forth to him, if he be able or willing to receive it: And if after all the best information, he cannot, or will not see that Light, he shall not be forced to believe or practise what he understands not to be the way of Christ. Only, if he be in an Error, in Doctrine or Worship (as we suppose him to be, in this Dispute) he shall be restrained, not from believing or practising secretly, his own Erroneous way; but from venting his Error, or practising openly his Idolatrous worship, to the Infection of others; and this was ever God's way: The Leper, (suppose he did think himself clean) was not restrained to make him believe himself a Leper, but to prevent others infection: The same God that said, Come, let us reason together; said also, Thou shalt not suffer Seducers or Idolaters, or Sabbath-breakers, within thy gates: The same Apostle, which said, [I beseech you brethren, by the mercies of God, etc.] said also of False Teachers, [whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, etc. and I would they were cut off that trouble you.]  
Oh (but says he) A noble Spirit, a carnal Sword can never restrain! who attempts it, partakes of other men's Hypocrisy: But this supposes that noble Spirit to be in the right way, and the Magistrate to be in the wrong: Whereas we suppose (in this dispute) the man to be in the wrong, and the Magistrate in th●●ight. Secondly, It is not Restraint (of which we speak) that makes Hypocrites; but compulsion to make men believe or practise what they believe, not to be the ways of Christ; which is not now the question.  
4. Humane restriction, is inconsistent with the very name and nature of the Gospel, that a man cannot mention such a thing, without including himself amongst the enemies thereof; It imparts nothing but a proffer of Peace, Love, etc. even to the poorest Captives, flat Idolaters, etc.  
Here we must distinguish, (what this Disputer, ignorantly or Jesuitically confounds) For the Conversion or first gathering of a man or people, to make a Church, the Gospel knows nothing but Peace, etc. But when a Church is Constituted, it hath a Rod of Censures for the Immorigerous, Apostates, or Seducers: If be say, that's nothing to the Magistrate, but belongs to the Ministers: I answer, let him look to that; For his Argument strikes at all Restriction, as well as Civil: (and so do all his Arguments.) The Gospel imports (says he) nothing but proffers of Peace, etc. which in a constituted Church, is utterly false: But if the Civil Magistrate, being a Christian, should not interpose by a civil Restriction, to restrain Seducers, Idolaters, etc. they would little regard the Ecclesiastical, to the great, not only disturbance of the Peace; ●ut utter subversion of the Church.  
But says he; If your Precedent be from the Law (wherein indeed, such restriction would better suit with literal service, especially the Restrainers, b●ing as well. Typical, as the Sacrificed▪ you are debtor to the whole Law to do it● and Christ shall profit you nothing.  
This is first an Antinomian fancy, as may easily be observed, or a conceit of one, that denies the authority of the Old Testament: For, though the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws were Typical, and so fare void; yet the Moral Laws (by which the Magistrate's power is established) is still in force; as is abundantly proved by others: The fourth Commandment gives Superiors power to restrain Sabbath-breakers; and more than that, to punish them, if Jew's, or Christians; And the fifth Commandment gives Magistrates power to restrain, (and punish) all wicked practices: Says not the Gospel the same? Rom. 13.4. [He is the Minister of God, a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil] who shall distinguish where the Law distinguishes not; and say, It respects wickednesses of the second Table, not of the first?  
2. He would insinuate, That the Services of the Old Testament were only literally, and so Typical; whereas they had Moral services also, and in them the power of the Magistrate apparently did interpose, upon the Profanation of them.  
And, 3. He would have his Reader believe, The Restrainers were also Typical (as their Sacrifices were) and only Typical, and in nothing Moral: whereas they had Moral Laws, and exercised their Moral power, in Restraining or punishing offenders accordingly, as shall appear. It is therefore a Scandalous wicked Censure, to say [The desire after Civil Power to restrain, etc. is the character of men not yet reform by the power of the Gospel] when both Law and Gospel confirm that power.  
But he hath Scripture proof, which cannot easily be evaded, Mat. 13.28. [You shall perceive a zealous servant for the honour of Christ, discerning clearly the enemies of Christ, and told they were such, Idolaters, for they were the visible children of the Devil, compared to Tares, etc. Well, the servant desires to destroy them; No, saith Christ, lest you pluck up the Wheat likewise: but might be not restrain them? No, let them grow: whence may be clearly and safely concluded, That men may not pluck up the enemies of Christ, or restrain them by an human● power, etc.]  
This is the great place, and grand Argument of all Seducers to plead their own Liberty and Toleration; I shall therefore digress a little, and take into consideration what another subtle (if not Jesuited) Author argues in this point, for Liberty of Prophesying; The book is very plausible, and very taking (as I perceive) with some of good parts, and great place, especially in this particular: I think it not amiss to set down the sum of his discourse also upon this Text, and to Antidote (if possible) the Poison of both. Thus he proceeds:  
The difficulty of Exposition of this Text, 
D. Tailor, Liberty of Prophesying, p. 194.  Mat. 12.24. etc. is reducible to these two questions.  
1. What is meant, by (Gather not;) that is, what kind of Sword is forbidden; For the Spiritual Sword, that is not forbidden to any sort of criminals, for that would destroy the power of Excommunication. It lies therefore against the Temporal Sword, in cutting off some persons.  
2. What is meant by Tares, or who those persons be. They are either persons of ●ll lives, inre practicâ, or else faulty in re intellectuali, (in opinion) there is no third. The former is not meant, because it would destroy all bodies politic, which cannot consist without a compulsory power of the Sword. It must then he meant of the latter sort in opinions, commonly called Heresies. And the reason here given confirm this; lest you pluck up also the Wheat.  
For, 1. Heresy is of so nice a consideration, that by our mistakes we may root up Truths, when we think to root up Heresies.  
2. When a revolution of humane affairs, sets contrary opinions in the Throne or Chair, they should root up and persecute Truths, as they were persecuted before.] This is the sum and strength of his discourse.  
I shall first join issue with the Doctor, and show you how fare he agrees with our Author, and how fare he disagrees with the Truth itself.  
1. The Doctor, (and so our Author) mistakes the scope of the Parable, (beyond which it is not Argumentative, as Scholars say). 
Beza in Loc. and others.  For that is only this, [" That there shall be a mixture of good and bad in the Church, to the end of the world] Not to show what censures are to be inflicted, or what persons are to be censured or tolerated.  
2. Our Saviour himself tells us who the t●●es are, vers. 38. The children of the wicked; and vers. 41. All things that offend and do iniquity: So that its apparently meant of ill livers, as well as of ill opinioners.  
3. Of evill-livers, it cannot be meant of open wicked men, that they should be tolerated, for that would destroy, not only Civil Government, but the State itself and Commonwealth; but of secret Hypocrites, who are so like the Wheat, that we may easily mistake, and root up one for another.  
4. It cannot be meant of all offenders, in re intellectuali, in opinion: for some Heretics are so gross, and so destructive of Religion, Piety, and Government, that the Doctor himself elsewhere grants, yea, proves they may, and must be rooted up; yet if his reason be of any force, it pleads for toleration of all Heresies; For the Text doth not so nicely distinguish as he does; but speaks indefinitely, if not universally, of all tares, ever clearly discovered so to be, (as our Author says) and yet bids the servant not pluck them up, nor restrain them; but let them grow. Therefore one of their glasses, (if not both) is false, and corrupts the Text, instead of interpreting it.  
5. His second Reason from the Revolution of humane affairs, revolves upon his own head: For he grants, yea, affirms, That those Heresies which destroys Fundamentals, or undermine Piety, or overthrow Government, may be prosecuted, (prosecuted he says, improperly.) Now, if those Heretics of those destructive opinions, get into the Throne or Chair, no doubt but they will persecute the Orthodox, (as the Arrian● did, and Papists do.) Therefore by this reason, the most gross and heterodox Heresies must be tolerated, lea● we pluck up the Wheat: that is, give them occasion when Times turn, to persecute the Orthodox: This is new Divinity, which the Jesuits themselves will scarcely own; I am sure, where they have powe●, they do not practise.  
And now I re urn to my Author: first, observe his Logic, who would conclude a Theological Proposition from a Parable, not considering, that it proves nothing besides the scope of it, which is, as I have said, [That these shall be in the purest Churches, a mixt●● of bad and good, till the great day of Discrimination, the day of Judgement.] The rest is but a● the Lace or Trim of the Garment.  
2. Let him, (or let the Reader) take notice, that this Interpretation of his, utterly destroys all Civil Government, and Ecclesiastical too: Civil, in that he acknowledges these Tares to be wicked livers, Idolaters, children of the Devil, visibly discovered; and yet allows neither plucking up, nor restraining; which besides, must needs be the destruction of Commonwealths: Ecclesiastical, in as much as the Text hath no destruction of Power, Civil, or Ecclesiastical, (though speaking of the Church intentionally, it rather respects the Ecclesiastical than the Civil) and saith ind●●●●●ly, That none must pluck them up nor restrain them; which not only destroys the Censure of Excommunication, (as the Doctor afore said) but the Church itself; which, though Wolves and Foxes over-runne and waste it, hath no power so much as ●o restrain them, [with out trespass (as this man says) against the express command of Christ, who hath reserved that work to his harvest.] Is not this brave Di●initie?  
3. To give him, (or the Reader) further satisfaction, take the Parable in those particulars, an Argumentative; we distinguish of the person●, who may challenge the power of Restraining. They are either private or public: A private person, a servant, (as he was that a●ked the question, whether he might pluck up, or restrain the Tares) hath not such power to punish or restrain Idolaters, or wicked livers: But if he say, A public person, Civil, or Ecclesiastical, hath not such power, he begs the question, and besides, discovers an anabaptistical Spirit, denying Magistracy and Ministry: To which he speak very Suspiciously, pag. 7. in prosecution of this in the next argument, when he says. [the Magistrate, (so called) mark, so called; as if there were none.  
4. One thing more; even the letter of the Parable, though it allow not plucking up the Tares; yet in common practice, the Husbandmen do restrain and keep them down, by weeding Hooks, lest they overgrow the Wheat: So, (which is our question) there is allowed a Restraining of Idolaters, and Heretics, from spreading their Infection, to the destruction of the Church. And now we come to his last Argument.  
5. It is the most usual thing for Christians indeed, to be plucked up and restrained, though under other notions; and that perhaps might be the Reason why Christ refused to suffer any restraining precedent, though by a Tare discerning servant: Nothing is more common, then to put a Christian into a Bear's skin, when men intent to bai● him.  
This was in part the Doctor's fear and reason: If Heretics get power, they will prosecute the Orthodox: Ergo, the Orthodox having power, must not prosecute Heretics, but suffer them to range and ravine, and destroy Souls: Put it in second Table wickednesses, and see the absurdities: If Thiefs and Traitors get power, they will persecute and destroy the just Magistrates: Ergo, the Magistrate may neither punish nor restrain Thiefs, etc. for freare of Retalitation: Again, There is nothing more usual than for Tyrants and wicked Persecutors, to pluck up and destry Godly Christians under other notions than are true: Ergo, Godly Magistrates may not prosecute, (persecution is for Truth and the Gospel's sake) damnable Heretics, under their own true Notions.  
2. This Doctrine, well learned and practised, would prevent any Persecution at all; and so evacuate all those Prophecies of persecution; all that will live godly shall suffer persecution, etc. and all those promises made to the persecuted, and all preparations to it, by suffering graces, etc. For if there be no prosecution for the vilest Heresies, not so much as a Restraint; but a Toleration of all Opinions: I hope poor Truth shall have a Toleration granted her, as well as others; and then there will be no persecution by the public Magistrate: which yet is especially foretell, as the worst piece of persecution. [Ye shall be brought before Kings and Rulers for my name's sake; Scourged in Synagogues, etc.] Had his Doctrine been practised in the Primitive times, it might have prevented much of persecution; Had the Christians but said, We will not prosecute you for your Idolatries, or damnable Opinions, if we get into place and Power of Government; do not you persecute us; Tolerate you us, and we will tolerate you: If God call men to suffer under Tyrants and Persecutors, under what notion soever, he knows how to deliver, support, crown them for all their sufferings. And men must not cry down the Truths of God, for fear, that if Tyrants get the Throne, they will make Christians suffer under other the vilest notions, even in Bears skins.  
After he hath done with his five Arguments against the question stated at first; He starts an Objection which no wise man would make; and gives an answer (nothing to the present business) merely to give himself an occasion, to let fall some drops of other poisonous Opinions, and to discover the corruption of his judgement.  
1. He seems to plead for Blasphemy, etc. when he censures the Parliament at an [Oppressing Power; for their Ordinance lately renewed, for the restraining and punishing of men, as Blasphemers, and Sectaries, for many Points consonant with sound Christianity.  
2. He shows himself again a Skeptick, when he says: [So confused is the judgement of the universal, that we cannot expect a concurrence of any party considerable in the Nation, in Principles of Christianity.]  
3. He places all Power of Government in the people, which is the next way to Anarchy; when he says: [I hope here's none that aspire to any power but what the people shall invest them with, and may repeal, as they shall see such their servants proceed conduce to, or against their common safety, which by Nature all men are enabled to determine.]  
4. He Slanders Presbyterians, under the name of Smectimnuus; as Persecutors, [as in their arbitrarily vestry power, having used violence, not only to their fellow sufferers; but towards even those who w●●●d themselves to effect their freedom,] whereas its evident to all the world, Presbyterians have had no Power, (and, never used violence to any) and that Sectaries have had the greatest liberty, or licentiousness rather, to vent their Errors; and have offered the greatest Persecutions by Tongue and Pen, in the most opprobrious, reproachful Language that Hell itself could lend them; witness all those Scurrilous Pamphlets that have flown abroad these three or four last years; The Lord lay it not to their charge.  
This being done, he comes again to dispute in many places of Scripture more, and then to answer some Objections. The place is 2 Tim. 2.24. [The Servant of the Lord must not strive (for his Master did it not) but he gentle; (gentleness, it seems, best befits a Christian, and restrains the rebellious) unto all men who oppose themselves (poor Naturalists, Heathens, Idolaters, etc.) and this simple way, is the Lord Christ's way of restraining. Though it confound the wisdom of the wise, and be accounted an inlet to all manner of Libertinism, etc. He will have no unwilling worshippers, no civil restrainings, etc.]  
The Gentleman, it seems, is well pleased with this Argument that he repeat it again (though in other terms) for he said the same in his fourth Argument above, only with some variety and additions here: We might send him back thither for his answer. But we add: Note First, The mis-application, or misinterpretation of that Text: We are speaking of the Magistrates Power, and the Text speaks of the Qualification of a Minister, that hath to do with Conversion of Infidels and Heathens: Secondly, If he will needs apply it to the Magistrate; That he must not strive, but be gentle unto all men that oppose themselves: He directly destroys all Government, and denies power to restrain the most wicked Thiefs ●nd Murderers, etc. (for they must be dealt with as gently as others, to convert them) and however, opens a door to Di●ertinisme in Church and State: Thirdly, And this he does expressly, when he says, [" Christ will have no civil restraining] Surely herein, either he speaks against his conscience, or he ●nowes not what he says.  
And now again he makes an excursion to abuse the Parliament, by whose Commission, he was once a Soldier, and to animate his fellows in destructive ways, wherein I purpose ●ot to follow him; but consider what he says to some Objetions against himself, and his own Opinion.  
Obj. 1. The Jewish Magistrates restrained Idolaters of old, ●nd that as being against the light of natural Government, ●hey may do so now.  
In answer to this; Let us examine the ground of Idolaters being punished; we find it in these three things.  
1. That they never punished them till they were commanded from Heaven to do it, Exod. 22.20.  
But we Reply; If that Commandment be according to ●he light of nature, it bond them before, though they knew ● not, or practised it not: There are other Commandments here specified, which are according to the light of nature, ●e transgression whereof was punishable; though perhaps, be punished, till there were a settled Commonwealth: Now ●l Nations punished or restrained those that blsaphemed their Gods: It being a principle of nature, that God must be worshipped alone, and that with his own worship. And may be ●aid of some transgressions of the Commandments of the second Table, which are according to the light of nature, that they did not punish them, till they were commanded from Heaven to do it.  
2. The people, as well as the Magistrate, had an hand in punishing the Idolater, Deut. 13.9.  
Repl. The hand of the people was in it; either as accusers▪ Thou shalt not conceal him, vers. 8. or as witnesses, as Deut. 17.7. or as executioners, in helping to put him to death; but the man was brought to the gates, the place of Judgement, vers. 5. and so the condemning and Judging power was in the Magistrate.  
3. The punishment is exactly there described, and so we must not mangle it, if we make that our Rule. Death even to wives, or nearest relations, was here commanded.  
Repl. There is a distinction to be made, between the Moral and Judicial part of a Commandment in the Old Testament: When the substance of a Commandment is Moral, it binds ever; though the circumstances which are Judicial, may be varied. It were easy to instance in several Commandments, if it were needful. But he goes on.  
All which indeed did lively represent, in every of these particulars the power of Christ, and the Spiritual order of his Church in the Gospel, etc. and therefore in order to that work, his servants are to converse with Idolaters, and may have civil society with them also, 1 Cor. 5.10. etc.  
This is the common evasion, to make all Typical in the Old Testament: And thereupon some have quite dis-a-vowed any proof from the Old Testament, and in time have come to cast off the New also, and are turned Antiscripturists. But I pray, may we not (as Anabaptists do) as well cast off the power of the Migistrate in punishing wickednesses of the second Table, and say, The Magistrates and their Acts of Power were all Typical; and represented the power of Christ, and the Spiritual Order of his Church in the Gospel? For the rest of his answer, he seems to distinguish between Converse, and having civil society with Idolaters: If he take them for both one; it's granted, and his Text allows it; Necessity of conversing, or having civil society with them, especially in those times, when they were most Heathens, executed their society; and may do so now in the like cases: yea, Christians may Converse with them, to convert them in their own Countries. But what's this to the point in hand, whether Magistrates Christian may restrain Idolaters in their own Land, from exercising their Idolatry openly, to the seducing of others, as well as the public dishonour of God? Till this be proved, let him know, It is an unchristian slander, to say, [That the Civil Sword in Spiritual Affairs, is (in its own nature) a Supporter of the Beast;] It hath been so, by accident abused, the Magistrates themselves being Antichristian; But if the Magistrate be Christian and Godly, nothing is more destructive of the Beasts power, as experience hath proved; and nothing which the Beast doth more oppose, than the Magistrates power in Spiritual Affairs; as tha● which hath and doth, and will at last utterly destroy his Usurped Kingdom, Rev. 17.16. Christ's weapons are very good, and alone powerful to make true Christians, but the Magistrates Sword is also useful, to regulate them, when so made.  
Obj. 2. But would you have Idolaters to dwell amongst us? men may then live as they list. To this he answers:  
I would indeed have all Jews or Heathens, or what ever Ignorants are native, as freely to Converse as Commerce with you, without restraint upon Religious Causes; and that you would consider, yourselves might never have been Converted, if you should not so have been freely suffered, etc.  
Repl. 1. What ever this man would have, I am sure the Apostle would not have Christians freely to Converse (which imports familiarity, intimacy) with Idolaters, no not in Civil Affairs, 2 Cor. 6.14. [Be not unequally yoked together (in Marriage; he means) with Infidels or unbelievers; And vers. 17. Summon all Christians, to come out from among them, and be Separate; and touch not the 〈◊〉 things.  
2. When he adds, [" without Restraint upon Religious Causes] it may be meant there; First, That they shall have free liberty to come to our Assemblies to hear the Word; and that we may discourse with them, as occasion is offered, to convert them; or, Secondly, That they shall have liberty to Erect Synagogues, or build Temples to Exercise their Idolatries, in Christian ●ingdomes, and ours be permitted freely to go to their meetings, where great danger of corruption of ours, (our nature being made prone to Heresy and Idolatry, as fruits of the flesh) than hope of our Conversion of them: If in the former sense he mean it, we grant it; for otherwise, we, or rather our fathers, had never been Converted: They may come to us, as Heathens of old might Proselyte to the Jews. If in the latter sense; it is (we think) clearly against Scripture side and the Saints practise: We may not go to them to their Idolatrous Temple, nor make marriage with them, etc. nor yet suffer ours to be Seduced by them: And here comes in the Restraint we speak of, by Superiors, Fathers, Masters, Magistrates especially; for the reason being the same, and perpetually Moral, it concerns the Christian Magistrate in the Gospel, as well as the Jewish Magistrate. Nor does this reprove Christ for providing no other means to restrain from Idolatry (which he infers.) For Christ hath provided other means, even this power of Superiors in the sense aforesaid. And I pray, did this man never hear of whole Churches, subverted by Heretics and Idolaters? What thinks he of the seven Churches of Asia, and the Roman Church itself, which he acknowledges and calls Antichristian? Have not Seducers and Idolaters, by degrees, utterly subverted them? Yet they, whose names are written in the Book of Life, shall be preserved unto Heaven, when the rest shall perish by his Toleration.  
Obj. 3. But allow this, and we may quickly have our Civil State subverted? He answers.  
To this the experience of other Nations might be a sufficient answer: the Hollanders flourishing ever since they suffered every man to worship according to his conscience, even Jew's themselves, etc.  
Repl. That prosperity and flourishing should be made a Mark of the Goodness of a State or Church, (by any but a Jesuit) is to me very strange. More, that the Hollanders should be made a pattern of a true Reformed State. And he may remember, that if the Arminian Errors had prevailed in Holland, but for a Toleration; It was feared they had ere long subverted the State, and reduced it into the King of Spain's hand again. As for other States, even the Roman itself, considered either as Heathen Idolaters, when they had a Pantheen of Gods, and every one suffered [to worship according to his Conscience: or as Antichristian Idolaters; since they worshipped the Host and Images, they flourished in both Estates: And prosperity is rather a Mark of a false, than a true Church: Yea, when Rome itself began to be Antichristian, all Histories tel● us, how the State of the Empire, was subverted and taken from the Emperors, and given to the Pope.  
But (says he) observe, that whilst every man enjoys his liberty, it is his proper Interest, to endeavour the preservation of that Commonwealth; for in that he preserves himself, etc.  
But (say I) this is athiestical, profane Policy. Indeed, if there were no God▪ or nothing to be respected but men's own Quiet and Interest, this were a fine way: All Errors will reasonably well agree together (as the Devils do in Hell.) But if men have any conscience of their own duty, in a zealous promoting of God's glory, in an earnest contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saint, Jud. v. 3. or in a charitable care over the Souls of other men, this Interest would be quickly laid aside. Is it not the duty of every Superior, Father, Master, Magistrate, to advance the glory of God, and to secure the Souls of their Inferiors as well as their bodies? Concerns it not every faithful Minister, Yea Christian, to maintain the Truth, and oppose Error? This man speaks of a Matchiavilian politic Religion, without any zeal for God, any charity to men's souls, where self-love, and selfe-quiet, etc. only predominates. And if it be the duty of every one, (as it is) to contend earnestly for the Faith, will not this meet with much opposition, by heretical Spirits? And will not that cause the most mortal divisions, and so procure ruin to the Church first, and then to the State? Truth must oppose Errors: and Errors will oppose Truth: And if there be but one Truth, and many Errors, will not all Errors oppose that one Truth, though they tolerate one another? The reason is, Errors are but Diversa, Divers (for the most part) amongst themselves; but Truth and Errors are Contraria, Contraries, and can no more be reconciled, than Light and Darkness. I shall give him but one instance; at Rome itself; where almost all Errors and Sects are tolerated, only Protestants are not tolerated; because Protestant Truths oppose all Errors, Romish as well as others.  
Now mark what will be the issue of such a Toleration as the Gentleman pleads for, viz. a Subversion and utter Suppression of Truth, by the joint opposition of all Errors at once] And I am confident, this is the last and most desperate Design of Antichrist, and his Agitators the Jesuits, to destroy this Church and State, and to subdue it unto Antichrist. They have tried all ways by fraud and violence, to effect this: nothing (blessed be God, will yet do it. Now their last refuge is, a Toleration of all Religions; and Popery, it's hoped, shall have a place amongst them. Which if it be granted, I dare be a Prophet, that Popery shall swallow up all the other Errors, and bring them all to itself; but poor Truth only shall be denied a Toleration. For whereas before, we had only or chief Popery to oppose, now all the Sects and Errors will jointly fight against us. And besides, All the Sests in some things agree with Papists already: All the Arminian Points (which are blanched Popery) having been kept out at the foredoor, are crept in at the backdoor of Connivance, and Preached and maintained by most of the Sectaries, and new Jesuitical Seducers. How easy then is it, for Papists and them to be reconciled ●n the rest, by a Jesuitical subtle wit? So in the last ruin, Popery will be predominant. Yea, those very men, that now ●ry up Toleration, when once they have gotten power, will cry ●owne Toleration, not only of true Portestant Religion, ●ut also of any Sect, unless it comply with their ends, as ex●erience tells us, in their own Countries. They that now cry ●ut of Persecution of their Errors, will be the greatest Persecutors of the Truth. Oh the Stupidity, shall I say, or giddiness of the people of this Nation! who are bewitched with ●esuiticall Counsels, to hasten their own and our ruin. Oh ●hat the honest men in the Army, would but see how they do, not only the Cavaliers work in the State, but the Jesuits worke ●lso in the Church, to the destruction of both. The Lord awaken and open their eyes betimes, to see the things that be●ong to their and our Peace, before it be too late, and they be ●id from their eyes.  
Yet further: A State (says he) cannot be subverted, but either by force, or by a general consent. The force is easily prevented, when the first thirty men, meeting in Arms, for such an end, are by the Law Traitors, and may be proceeded against accordingly: And no man can imagine it possible to subvert the State by a general consent, when there will be such variety of judgements, and every man is free, and in fear of a change, lest he be a loses by it.  
In answer, we say, First, a State may be subverted by fraud ●nd subtlety, and that's the way now in Agitation: But se●ondly, I am glad to hear him say, [Force may easily a (mark that, easily) be prevented, when the first thirty men meeting in Arms, are by the Law Traitors, and may be proceeded against accordingly.] I fear the Army will give him little thanks for this Discovery. For what is the great pretence for all the irregular motions of the Army, but an impossibility: to prevent the Force of the contrary party, had the Treaty gone on effectually? And this friend of their●● says plainly and honestly; Force may easily be prevented by such a Law. Such a Law there is not yet established, but such a Law was intended in the Propositions to the King; and if this might easily prevent Force; all pretences of Impossibility are hereby made void. Let all the people hear this. Thus God catches the wise in their own craftiness, and makes them betray themselves: Thirdly, But may not a State be subverted by consent? No: [because there will be variety of judgements, etc.] There may be variety of judgements, and all differing from the Truth; but who knows not that Errors agree in the root; and most of them bordering upon Popery, (which is natural in many points to all men, as might be proved) how easy then is it to reconcile them all against the Truth, to the subversion of the Church first, and the State next. Nor need they fear a change, or to be losers by it; for all Sects (its observable enough) propound one common end to themselves, Liberty; and Popery is a Religion of Liberty enough: and so no losers by it.  
Obj. 4. There is one Objection more come lately to his knowledge, and that is this: How can it be called an Agreement of the people, when many thousands (otherwise faithful) in conscience cannot subscribe to it; if you disallow of this Civil Restrictive power, etc. He says,  
That the Title of (Agreement) imports nothing without Relation to the Substance following, which is, for the foundation of Future Peace and Freedom: and he that lays a foundation of slavery, to please Oppressors, when he proclaims out Freedom, shall not answer that Agreement, but the carnal heart of a deceitful Tyrant. Nor deserves he to be accounted faithful, but deprives himself of proffered Privilege and Freedom, that cannot subscribe or agree thereto, except he may make all others his slaves, etc.  
This is plain dealing indeed; Here he tells us, First, That Restrictor power, is Oppressive, Tyrannical, Antichristian; which yet is proved, to be the very ordinance of God; unless he will say, That Restrictive power in the Jewish Magistrates, ●as Oppressive, Tyrannical, Antichristian: The Consciences ●f those Times, ought no more to be restrained or complled, ●han now under the Gospel. Secondly, He tells you what ●ou must trust to, be you otherwise never so Faithful; If you cannot in conscience subscribe that Agreement, you must not be accounted Faithful, nor may you expect any Privilege or freedom; So that the more Faithful and Conscientious a ●●an is, the more he deprives himself of the proffered Freedom, which is by another discovered to be present Slavery. 
M. Ashurst, his Reasons, etc. ) And ●e more false and lose a man is, the more benefit shall he ●ave by that Agreement, a Liberty of Conscience to profess ●hat Errors he will, and a Licentiousness of life to do ●hat he list, being himself made a Judge of his subscribed agreement. Besides, he seems to contradict here what he granted above, a Liberty to every man, pag. 14. to worship God 'cording to his Conscience. Which, if it must be granted to all; ●as by his Doctrine it must) why shall not those that have ●eene Faithful, who cannot in Conscience, consent or subscribe ●o that Agreement, have their Liberty of Conscience as well as others? But I pray, Christians, take notice what you sh●ll ex●ect from these Jesuitical Designs. You shall be tolerated so ●ong as you agree with them, in their Destructive Principles, ●nd when they have gotten you i● to such a snare, that you can ● Conscience proceed no further, farewell your Privileges and freedom. You shall then be made the vilest slaves to Jesuiti●ll Lusts, and your pretended Toleration end in Intolerable ●averie, and bitterest persecution. Consider what I have said, ●nd the Lord give you understanding in all things.  
FINIS.