HAGIOMASTIX, OR THE SCOURGE OF THE SAINTS DISPLAYED In his colours of Ignorance & blood: OR, A vindication of some printed Queries published some months since by Authority, in way of Answer to certain Anti-papers of Syllogisms, entitled a Vindication of a Printed paper, etc. Wherein all the most seemingly considerable Exceptions (for truly considerable there are none) imputations, inferences and conclusions made, and exhibited in the said Anti-papers of Syllogisms against the said Paper of Queries, are nonsuited, and demonstratively proved to be malignantly importune and frivolous; the said Queries containing nothing, insinuating nothing prejudicial in the least either to the lawful Authority of the Civili Magistrate; or to any orderly, due or effectual course for the suppressing of errors and Heresies. Every day they wrist my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil, Ps. 56. 5. My soul hath long dwelled with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war, Psal. 120. 6, 7. Vide miserrimam impiorum & calumniatorum conditionem; Deus est iis onus, nos sumus iis onus, ipsimet sibi sunt onus. Lutherus. By JOHN GOODWIN, Pastor of a Church of christ in Colemanstreet. LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, for Henry Overton in Popes-head-Alley. 1646. TO THE READER. READER, I know not whether thou hast Sect. 1. taken up the observation before me: but whether thou hast, or hast not, it is worthy of not a few of thy thoughts, to consider, 1. what manner of estate, condition, or being that is, which God as yet reserves amongst his treasures, as the utmost line and period of that Blessedness which his infinite wisdom and goodness met in consultation, have projected for the creature of his grace and love. 2. How, and after what manner, upon what terms, and by what degrees, he hath designed the accomplishment and execution thereof. For the former, that great Secretary of Heaven, the Apostle Sect. 2. Paul gives a brief description of it, 1 Cor. 15. 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, who hath put all things under him, that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL. God hath always from the beginning, been the sovereign and chief Good, in, i. unto, or among his Saints: but he never was, nor will be, their only or alone good, until he shall cause all dispensations of himself unto them whatsoever, by means, or things inferior to himself, how excellent or glorious soever, to cease; and vouchsafe to be himself, the alone, and only dispenser of himself unto them; In which case, he shall be ALL IN ALL. As long as meats or drinks, silver or gold, houses or lands, friends, or other Relations, Magistrates, or Ministers, Bibles, or other good books, yea as long as habits of Grace and Holiness, yea as long as Jesus Christ himself as Mediator, shall be any thing at all unto the Saints, any ways necessary, any ways useful; God shall not, cannot be ALL IN ALL unto them. And therefore, we see in the Scripture recited, that Jesus Christ himself, who is here called, the Son, who hath made way, as it were at a distance, for the advancement of his Saints to this height of blessedness and glory which we speak of, by a gracious acceptance, and faithful performance of the Great Office of a Mediator; must yet make further way for it, by divesting himself of that very Office, by which, he did not only lay the foundations thereof, but shall further bring the Creature to the very door and entrance of the possession; where himself yet stands, yea and shall stand, until the fullness of time appointed by the Father for the Saints entrance, or admittance into it, and then he shall, and will with unspeakable gladness and joy, give place unto his Father's counsel concerning that transcendent blessedness of his Saints. For this (doubtless) is that which the Apostle meaneth, when he saith, that when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the SON also himself be SUBJECT unto him, who put all things under him. By that SUBJECTION, which the Son shall now exhibit and yield unto God the Father, is clearly meant, his submission unto the counsel of his will, concerning the resignation of the Mediatory dignity and office; and that precisely for this end and purpose, (as the Apostle himself expresseth it) that God may be ALL IN ALL; which counsel of God, cannot (as hath been said) take place, whilst Jesus Christ acteth, or executeth any thing at all for the benefit of the Saints, as Mediator. And in as much as this submission of Christ, though it be unto his Father, and his counsel, yet is for his Saint's sake, I mean, to make way for their highest exaltation; and i● that respect, he is and will be herein serviceable unto them; it may (possibly) be the meaning and fulfilling of that promise, Luk. 12. 37. For the latter; that condition of the Saints spoken of, Sect. 3. wherein God shall be ALL IN ALL, as it is, and must of necessity be, absolutely the best and richest in blessedness of being; so hath God, according to his usual method in such cases, assigned unto it, the hindmost and last place amongst all the several estates and conditions, through which he intends to carry his Saints (which I conceive to be more, and more various, then generally is thought, or believed) but this being the most absolute and perfect condition, whereof the creature is capable, hath the days of eternity set out for the continuance of it. First, as we know it is nature's method and manner of proceeding, Sect. 4. to begin with what is less perfect, and to go forward to that which is more; so is it the method likewise of the God of nature, to be still upon the rising hand, more liberal and gracious in his succeeding, then in his ante-ceding dispensations. Howbeit, (saith the Apostle) that was not first, which is spiritual, but that which is natural: and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from Heaven a 1 Cor. 15. 46, 47. . And elsewhere: For we know in part, and prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part, shall be done away b 1 Cor. 13. 9, 10. . God will alter, and change, and lay by dispensation after dispensation, until he comes to such a dispensation, wherein he will be fully satisfied, and never change more. And this is that which we have described (with the Apostle) to be when himself will be ALL IN ALL, dispenser, dispensation, and dispensed, unto all his Saints. Again, 2. that this Dispensation, wherein God will Sect. 5. thus be ALL IN ALL, must needs be the most absolute and perfect, and the creature enjoy the greatest blessedness of all other under it, is evident from hence. After what manner soever, or in what kind soever, or to what degree soever, he shall please to dispense or communicate himself unto men, by the interveniency or mediation of what creature, or creatures soever, there must of necessity be found some relish or taste (at least) of the weakness or defectibility of the creature, in the dispensation, and consequently it cannot be so rich and full, as if no created being whatsoever had to do, little or much in it, but only God himself. Where there is no defect in the efficient, this being simply one, there can be no defect in the effect, at least not from any deficiency in that action, by which it is produced; as on the contrary, where there is a juncto of efficients, whether two or more, all joining and concurring to the production of one and the same effect, if there be any one of them defective and weak (as second, or created efficients evermore are, in respect of the first, or increated) the prints or footsteps of this weakness must of necessity be found in the effect. It is a true observation, that such, whether actions, or substances, which received their beings, by way of miracle, or of immediate efficiency from God; have ever been more excellent and perfect in their respective kinds, than others of the same kind with them, in the production whereof, natural or second causes have had their interests, and cooperations. Never were the walls of any City so dismantled or malled by any engine of war, or battery of Cannon whatsoever, as the walls of Jericho were upon the blowing of the trumpets of Rams horns. Et cecidit murus sub se (saith the Text) i. and the wall fell down beneath itself a Josh. 6. 20. : That is (as Lavater interprets) absorptus est in terram, was swallowed down into the earth. In like manner, Naaman's cure of his leprosy by washing in Jordan, was so absolute and perfect, that the Text saith, that his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child a 2 King. 5. 14. . So the healing of the Cripple, who had been lame from his mother's womb, was so complete, that immediately upon it, he leaping up, stood, and entered into the Temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God b Acts 3. 8. . In like manner the wine, wherewith our Saviour recruited the wedding feast in Canaan of Galilee, out of the water-pots, is said to have been the good wine c Joh. 2. 10. . i. better than that which the vine or grape afforded. And from this observation, probably arose that idiom or propriety of speech among the Jews, to signify the excellency of things in their kinds, by calling them the things of God; as fair and goodly Cedars, are called (Psal. 80. 10.) the Cedars of God. So great and high mountains, the mountains of God, Psal. 36. 6. So a great and potent army or host, the host of God, 1 Chron. 12. 22. This by the way. The reason why God is pleased, so to order and contrive the Sect. 6. passage and conducture of his Saints to that their utmost blessedness and glory, when he will be All in All, as to carry, and cause them to pass under many less perfect dispensations of himself, wherein creatures like themselves shall administer unto them, is (doubtless) the most exquisite proportition, which such a method and projection holds, as well with the advancement of his own glory, as of the contentment and blessedness of the Saints themselves. The saying is, Fessum quies plurimùm juvat; Rest hath ever the best relish with him that is weary: and that pleasantness, which (as Solomon saith) is in the light of the Sun, is preferred to an higher degree of acceptation in the eyes of men, by the sadness and darkness of the night. God indeed made both Summer and winter d Psal. 74. 17. , (as David observeth) but certainly with this subordination, Winter for Summers' sake. The weak thoughts and expressions of childhood, do much commend the solid wisdom and discourse of men. And generally, that which is imperfect, ushereth in perfection with the greater acclamation and triumph. God, if so it had seemed good in the eyes of his wisdom, might have begun with his Saints, where now he purposeth to end; and never have suffered any created being to have interposed, or been any thing at all unto them: he might have been unto them, not only Alpha and Omega, but also, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and all the letters of the Alphabet besides, from the first to the last. But then Israel had wanted sour herbs, wherewith to eat the Paschall Lamb: and the God of Israel himself had wanted those large contributions, which the weakness and imperfections, and unacceptable deportments of the creature in her subministrations unto his Saints, have already, and further will, cast in to the treasury of his glory. It is the best and highest improvement of the sourness of the creature, to commend the sweetness of God; and of the weakness of the creature, to advance, quicken, enlarge, and raise our apprehensions in the contemplation of the strength, fullness and perfection of God. It is said of Augustus, a wise and politic Prince, that he adopted Tiberius, a man of a rugged and unpleasanc disposition, to succeed him in the Empire, for this end, Ut ipse quandoque desiderabilior foret, that the people being offended & discontented with rough behaviour of the Successor, might remember the Predecessor with the more honour and desire. What this Emperor projected for his honour (as he supposed) in his Successor, God hath designed for his glory in his Predecessors (for Successors he means to have none) I mean, in those creature▪ Ordinances and Dispensations, whereby he first communicates himself and his goddess, but in an under manner and degree, unto his Saints, until the year of that Great Jubilee comes, when Christ himself shall deliver up the Kingdom unto the Father, and God be ALL IN ALL. Amongst many others, there are two great Ordinances Sect. 7. and Dispensations, by which the good pleasure of God is, to communicate of himself, his goodness, and love unto his Saints, during the present state and condition of things in the world; the one is that of the Ministry of his Word; the other, of Civil Magistracy; the one intended for their calling out of this present world, in respect of their hearts and ways, and for the fitting of them for their future glory; the other, for their protection in this present world, that under the shadow of it, they may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty a 1 Tim. 2. 2. . And though God sometimes said unto Israel, that he both gave them a King in his anger, and also took him away in his wrath b Hos. 13. 11. ; yet the contrary may be truly affirmed of his intentions in giving both those Ordinances we spoke of, unto the world: He gave both the one & the other, as well Magistracy, as Ministry, and again, this, as well as that, in love; yea, and continues them in love; and in time, will take them away too in love unto his Saints. First, that God gave them both in love, is evident, from the nature and proper tendency of their respective offices and employments, as God himself hath declared them. Concerning the Magistrate, the Holy-Ghost saith, That he is the Minister of God to thee for good c Rom. 13. 4. ; and that he attends continually upon this very thing d Vers. 6. ; i. the doing of thee good in his place and office; with many other things of like consideration elsewhere, relating unto the import of this Ordinance. Again, concerning the ministry of the Word, it is said to have been given by Christ, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man▪ unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ e Ephes. 4. 12, 13. . So that there i● no question, but that as well the one, as the other, were given by God in love, unto the world, and in special manner unto the Saints. Again, 2. there is as little question to be made, but that Sect. 8. they are in love also unto the Saints, continued, and kept on foot by God in the world. This appears, partly by the continuance of those respective Laws of engagement (which were lately mentioned) upon both the one, and the other, God not having reversed, nor intending to reverse the least jot or tittle in either, whilst he intends to continue the Ordinances themselves; partly also from hence, because, though these Ordinances, as well the one as the other, may very possibly, in regard of the undue qualifications of the persons in whom they shall be vested, and by whom, executed, prove now and then very trouble some and afflictive unto the Saints; yet they can hardly fall into such hands, so unworthy or vile, but that the community (at least) of the Saints, though not all particulars, will be in a better condition by the means of them, than they would be without them, until the Great wheel of the world be turned round, and that part of it which hath been below hitherto, and is like yet to be lower than it hath been, for a season, be brought to stand above. Thirdly (and last) that God will in love also unto his Sect. 9 Saints, abolish and take away both the one and the other of the said Dispensations, is yet more evident (if more may be) then either of the former. Because, 1. the native intentions of God in the giving of them, will be so fare perverted by those, into whose hands they will in process of time come, that no man looking upon them in their execution and manage, will be able to say, these are Ordinances of God. 2. Because, God will make the abolition and dissolution of these, the introduction and bringing in of other Dispensations, far more rich, and blessed, and , in their stead. The former of these reasons, with the conclusion itself, is plainly asserted and laid down by the Apostle. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom unto God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule Tunc enim abolebitur omne imperium, & omnis potentia, & virtus, politica, & Ecclesiastica. Parcus in Apoc. 21. 22 (as well Ecclesiastic, as Civil) and all Authority (as well Ecclesiastic, as Civil) and power. For (saith the Apostle, as giving a reason of the said dissolution by Christ) he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet a 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25. , Clearly implying, that that enmity, which Christ shall find against himself & his Saints, in all Rule, Authority, and power, will be, if not the proper and adequate cause, yet the main occasion, upon which he will proceed to their dissolution. The latter reason, is held forth unto us by John, who having first described, and taken a perfect survey of that Holy City, new Jerusalem, which came down from God out of Heaven, (by which, according to the sense almost of all Expositors, is meant the Church of Christ in her Great and Blessed Reformation) towards the close of his discourse upon this subject, he tells us what he miss, and did not see amongst all the glorious or naments and rarities of this City, viz. a Temple, meaning, a material Temple, or a Temple properly so called. And I saw (saith he) no Temple therein. But because it might seem strange that such an holy City as this should be without a Temple in it; he therefore explains himself of what kind of Temple he spoke, when he said, he saw no Temple in it, by showing what manner of Temple there was in it notwithstanding. FOR (saith be) the Lord God Allmightie, and the Lamb, are the Temple thereof. By this causal particle, FOR, he clearly implies, that had it not been, that the Lord God Allmightie, and the Lamb (i. by the figure, Hendiadis, elsewhere used in this book) the Lord God almighty, in, and by the Lamb, [Christ] vouch safed to become the Temple thereof, i. to perform the work of the Ministry unto the Inhabitants of this City, and to teach them the knowledge of God, and of the Lamb himself, viz. by way of immediate impression, or inspiration, there should have been a material Temple in it, i. the present function and office of the Ministry should have taken place there. But by reason of the excellency of this metaphorical and supernatural Temple, out of which all the inhabitants of the City, from the greatest to the least of them, were constantly furnished with such a perfect knowledge of God, and of his ways, that there was no place for any unrighteousness, or unworthy act amongst them; therefore John adds; And the City had no need of the Sun, nor of the Moon to shine in it, i. had not need of any Civil Magistracy, either sovereign or subordinate, (frequently signified in Scripture, by the Sun and Moon a Isa. 60. 19, 20 M●l. 4. 2. Rev. 7. 12. 13. cum 15. And Gen. 1. 6. The Sun and the Moon, are both said to rule. Jam in isthoc coelo Antichristiano (ad naturalis coel● typum) plurimae sunt stellae, diversaeꝰ magnitudinis, Principes, deuces, Praesules, Reguli, Reges. Sunt & magna Luminaria instar Solis & Lunae, etc. Mede. Apoc. p 270. ) to keep them in order: for (saith he) the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamae is the light thereof: that is, the abundant and glorious influxes of the light of the knowledge of God, which God by Christ still dispensed and conveyed into the hearts and souls of the Saints (the inhabitants of this City) caused them to walk in all the ways of righteousness, and true holiness, without the least stumbling or offence. So that the sword of Magistracy would be but an impertinency in this City. In this estate of the Saints, these prophetical promises will receive their full accomplishment; And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children b Isa. 54. 13. joh. 6. 45. . And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord. For they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them c Jer. 31. 34. Sect. 10. . And yet (by the way) I do not conceive this to be the last estate or condition of the Saints, wherein God will be ALL IN ALL. Reader, I have drawn up this brief Discourse in this place, chief to give unto thee, and to all the world, a plain and ingenuous account, what my judgement and thoughts are about Civil Magistracy; because I have been (most unduly, and untruly, and in the very face of many demonstrations to the contrary, both real, and nominal) represented as an enemy to it; and particularly by the Authors of that Vindication, which, not through any substance or weight in itself, but by reason of the weakness of others giving a loud testimony of strength unto it, occasioned the following Discourse. I clearly and freely acknowledge it to be an Ordinance of God; yea, an Ordinance of very gracious intentions unto men, in him who is the Author and founder of it. And though I conceive it to be a very tender Ordinance, extremely obnoxious to take soil, and apt to lose the grace and beauty of it, when it comes to be handled by men; yet when it doth fall into clean and tender hands, it makes the Sun ashamed, and the Moon abashed, at the brightness, beauty, and blessing of it. Yea I conceive it to be an ordinance of that grand import and concernment unto the world, during the present state of persons and things in it, that it cannot lightly fall into hands so fare unsanctified, or unworthy the administration and manage; but that it will do more than bear its own charges, more than balance the inconveniences, which shall at any time attend the execution of it. I look upon it, as the only preventive appointed by God to keep the world from falling foul upon itself, and being destroyed by its own hands. And as I judge those very impolitic Christians, and as men rejecting the counsel of God (for their spiritual good) against themselves, who by casting off Church-Ordinances by Pastors and Teachers, seem to catch at the spiritual privilege of new Jerusalem, before it be come down from Heaven; so do I judge those very unchristian Politioians, and as men rejecting the counsel of God likewise (for their politic and civil good) against themselves, who think they should, or might anticipate that other great privilege of this Heavenly City, which we spoke of, (freedom from Magistracy,) by a present ejecting of this Ordinance out of the world. Alas! though God (as the Apostle informeth us) hath provided better things for us who live under the Gospel, than he did for his people under the Law; yet if they who lived under the Law, had cast off those levitical ordinances and observations appointed by God for their generation, upon pretence of weakness and unprofitableness in them, saying, that they would not worship God at Jerusalem, but only in spirit and truth; because this was more Evangelicall and perfect; had they not attempted to put God himself to rebuke in his dispensations, and withal consulted loss and disadvantage to themselves and their own souls, in their spiritual, if not in their temporal affairs also. Those fruits, which being gathered and eaten in the spring of the year, whilst they are yet green and sour, are apt to cause diseases, and to prove destructive unto health, if not unto life itself; if let grow upon their trees until Autumn, or the due season of their ripening, may now be gathered and eaten, not only without danger, but with delight also, & advancement of health. In like manner, though the days be acoming, when deliverance from that, both Ministry and Magistracy, which now support and accommodate the Christian world, though with a mixture of many disaccommodations in both, will be as a resurrection from death unto life, unto the Saints; yet to attempt a deliverance from either, until the Lord God almighty, and the Lamb shall vouchsafe to interest themselves in such dispensations, which shall eminently be both the one and the other (as we heard) must needs be as a covering of the Sun with sackcloth, and a turning of the Moon into blood, I mean of a dark and dismal consequence unto the world. For mine own part, if I have, or hereafter shall at any time Sect. 11. suffer any unjust or hard measure from either, I may possibly plead the righteousness of the cause, for which I suffer; yea, out of the case of suffering from either, I may declare the mind of God as well touching the respective bounds, limits, interests, and duties of either, (at least negatively) as concerning the qualifications requisite in the persons, to whom the dispensation, either of the one, or of the other, aught to be committed [thus fare, I presume, I keep within the compass and bounds of my Profession] but as I have never, so I shall never (God assisting) disparage either the one Ordinance or the other, in the least, nor yet seek or counsel the devestiture of any person lawfully called to the administration of either; except it be in submission and subserviency unto that Magistracy, which hath a lawful power to divest, upon just and lawful grounds; yea and to command my assistance in such a case; as I make no question but that the Parliament of England hath, within the circumference of this Kingdom. Neither is there (I am confident) the least jot or tittle to be found in any of my writings, which hath the least affinity with either of these positions or assertions; 1. that there ought to be no more, no other kind of Authority in the Civil State, then in the Ecclesiastic; 2. that the people have a lawful power, to divest or depose Magistrates lawfully called, when, or as they please: Both these positions have been charged upon me, as enmity against Caesar, was upon Christ. But as Christ, though charged as an enemy unto Caesar, was notwithstanding Caesar's best friend, and the greatest assertor of his Empire and power; so however an undue representation hath been made of me, as if I were of opposite affections to our present Magistracy and Parliament; yet (without the least touch of vanity, or disparagement unto any man's, either affections, or service, to the Parliament, be it spoken) I have been (and yet am) as real in affection, as faithful (that I say not, even fruitful also) in my service to the Parliament, as any man whatsoever. It hath been the hereditary portion of the best and faithfullest Sect. 12. servants of God for many descents and generations, from the hand of their enemies, and those that sought their ruin, to have all their say and do, any ways capable of the form, perverted into matter of opposition, and argument of disloyal intentions against the Rulers and Governors of this world. Jerusalem was represented by her enemies as a rebellious City, and hurtful unto Kings and Provinces a Ezra. 4. 15. . The refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, to worship the golden image which Nabuchadnezzar set up, was represented to him by their enemies, as done in contempt of him. These men, O King, (say they) have not regarded thee b Dan. 3. 12. . So daniel's praying unto God, was brought to King Darius by his enemies, in the form and shape of a disloyal contempt of the King. This Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O King, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his Petition three times a day c Dan. 6. 13. . To pass by many other instances, the Lord Jesus Christ himself only asserting unto himself a Kingdom, though with an express declaration, that it was not of this world, was for this notwithstanding accused before Pilate, as an enemy unto Caesar, (Whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar d joh. 19 12. .) Whereas, nevertheless, it is he by whom King's reign, and Princes bear Rule e Pro. 8. 15, 16. . In like manner, those who at this day, are most single and sincere in their affections, most loyal and faithful in all their expressions, to the honour and safety of the Civil Magistrate amongst us, are notwithstanding by men of sinister and unworthy ends, personated as men of destructive principles and practices to all Government & Magistracy, only because they dare not calculate the power of the Magistrate, for the meridian of the torrid zone of High Presbytery; and give unto Caesar, the things that are Gods, that so Caesar may have wherewith, not to accommodate or gratify himself (in the least) whether in point of honour, or advantage in any kind; but only the lusts and desires of unreasonable men. For, as for the word, Presbytery, and the Government of Sect. 13. that denomination, concerning which some things are argued here and there upon occasion in the Discourse ensuing, I desire to be understood toties quoties, not of that Presbytery, which the Parliament hath thought meet to establish for a season in this Kingdom, but (as I clearly distinguished in my thirty-one Querie) that which is so importunely desired and maintained by the Ministers; between this latter Government, and the other, there is a difference not much unlike that, which is between the Lion and the Lamb. The latter, is like the fourth beast in Daniel, which had great iron teeth, dreadful and terrible a Dan. 7. 7. ; which devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the RESIDUE [i. whatsoever it did not, or could not convert into its own substance] with the feet of it; having notwithstanding a presumptuous Inscription of JUS DIVINUM written in the forehead of it; the former resembleth the wisdom which is from above, being peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated b James 3. 17. ; and in these considerations, of a fare better resentment (I believe) with congregational men, then with those, who (in effect) pretend and say, that they can do nothing, without both powers, the one formally, the other, eminently, vested in them. I commonly, if not constantly, the Presbytery, which is the Great Contention of the Kingdom, and contestation of my pen, with the signal and proper Epitheton, HIGH. And so if my pen at any time bewrays, either by reproof, Sect. 14. or otherwise, any offence taken at my Brethren in the work of the Ministry, who are of a dissenting judgement from me in the point of Government; I desire in all such passages to be understood, as speaking only of such, who violently contend for the High and Anti-Parliamentary way of Presbytery; and who being of Gangrena's gang, and Procrustian race, breath out nothing but fire, fury, and fierceness against all those, who are either weaker or stronger, either more foolish, or more wise, than themselves. As for those, whether Ministers, or others, who are led by the light of their consciences to serve their God (both theirs and mine) in the way of Presbytery; but are tender in obtruding their judgement or practice, as the pattern in the Mount, upon others; my heart is with them; their persons and piety I reverence and honour; nor do I, nor shall I, in any parallel opportunity for Christian service or converse, make the least difference between them, and those of mine own judgement. As for Gangrena, because I perceive that they who speak Sect. 15. reason and truth, are but Barbarians unto her, and speak a language which she understands not; and though she hath been brayed in a mortar among wheat with a pestle a Prov. 27. 22. , yet nothing of her foolishness is departed from her▪ I shall here take my leave of her (in a few lines) as not judging her worthy of being smitten any more with the pen; but rather with the whip, of correction; yet not this for her conscience sake in matters of Religion; but for her moral misdemeanours, practised and persisted in against the common light and law of nature, in her unworthy defamations and revile of worthy and well deserving men; and that by forged and vile reports, published and spread abroad against them. For doubtless she pleaseth herself, with the consolatory discourse of the drunkard, presented in the book of the Proverbs by Solomon: They have stricken me; but I was not sick: they have beaten me, and I felt it not. When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again a Prov. 23. 35. . Nonsense in the highest, found in her writings, she avouches for elegancies of phrase: fell and fiery contradictions, by ten, by fifties, by hundreds, putid self-dawbing, and self-admiring expressions, arguings without any colour or semblance of reason in them, Christian promises of candour and fairness performed in most Unchristian wrest of words & actions, and other hateful and malign expressions, forging of circumstances, yea sometimes of whole substances, in matters of fact, to the reproach of godly, learned, and well deserving men, with the like; these are but light matters, and no more considerable in any way of disparagement, being found in her works, than some straws lying upon the surface of a rich piece of land, or some sticks broken in an hedge, or a pane or two of glass cracked in the windows of a fair dwelling house, are to prove a Lordship or Mann●r not to be excellent b Gangr. 3d. p. 285. . But if Gangrena's Antapology be excellent, such boyles & botches, such putrified sores and ulcers as these notwithstanding, I would gladly know of her how vile and obnoxious she intends to be, before she means to cry, unclean, unclean; I am sound, neither morals, nor intellectuals. Some are of opinion, that the Devils, though they commit many foul and horrid acts continually, yet they are Extra statum demerendi, they sin not. It seems Gangrena▪ claims part and fellowship in some such privilege as this; the misdemeanours of her pen, how ridiculous soever, in point of ignorance and folly, how foul and abominable soever in forgery and untruth, are no errors, no miscarriages, no more offensive, or worth the taking knowledge of, than straws upon the ground, or sticks broken in an hedge, or panes cracked in a window; as if she knew not well what comparison to compare them with, to express the nearness of their neighbourhood unto a mere nothing. But, Reader, what wilt thou say, if his Great self-admiresse, who thinks herself either above, or beneath, all misprisions whatsoever, whether in matter of learning, or of manners, (being indeed in the very midst and thickest of them both,) hath in that very sentence, wherein she laboureth to similitude herself out of the dishonour and disparagement of either, profaned the excellency of her learning yet once more, by dealing so in-grammatically with her nominative case, (that man who hath a Lordship or Manor propounded to him) that she hangs him up in the air, without the help of any verb to take him down. Doubtless, he that than doth not put the nominative case and verb together, when he engageth with the best of his skill to vindicate himself from the disparagement of an insufficiency that way, may well be conceived to give a pregnant demonstration, that he is insufficient indeed. When a man doth not find the way to such or such a place, where being come, he knows that he shall receive a great sum of money, otherwise in danger to be lost, is it not a sign greater than reproof, that this man knows not, cannot find the way to the said place? The signal story in her third Part, under whose banner and Authority all the rest in their respective troops and squadrons serve, is the relation of a March beaten upon an invisible Drum in Ducking field-Chappell in Cheshire, whilst an Independent Church was performing of their worship and service there. This relation, this relatresse solemnizeth, 1. with an exact description of many circumstances of weighty cognizance. 2. With two theological and grave observations upon it. First, she lays her foundation for the credit of the whole, in the relation of a godly Minister (at least, if not a Presbyterian also) of Cheshire, who related it, not with some, nor with a little, nor with a deal, but with a GREAT deal of confidence; and that not simply as a Truth, nor yet as a certain Truth, nor yet as a MOST CERTAIN Truth; but as a MOST CERTAIN Truth, known to many of that County. Secondly, she takes notice, that there was not only a sound, but a perfect sound, as of a man beating a March on a Drum. Thirdly, that this perfect sound of a March was heard, 1. as coming into the Chapel; 2. as going up all along the I'll through the people, and so about the Chapel. Fourthly, that this sound notwithstanding, yet nothing was seen. Fiftly, that this perfect sound of a March, was heard, whilst Mr. Eton was preaching. Sixtly▪ that it was heard by Mr. Eton, and the people that sat in several parts of the Chapel. Seventhly, that Mr. Eton and the people were terrified with it. Eightly, that it caused Mr. Eton to give over preaching. Ninthly, that it caused him, in stead of preaching, to fall to praying. Tenthly, that the said March still beating, they (Mr. Eton and the people with him) broke up their exercise for that time. Eleventhly, (and last) that they were glad to he gone. Tou have heard the Text (this passage of Providence, as she calls it, toward these Independents) hear now the grave and learned Commentaries of the Relatresse upon it, which consist in two worthy Observations. First, she conceiveth, that this passage of Providence, speaks thus much to the Independents, and to the Kingdom, that the Independents are for wars, desirous of wars, and thirst for a new war with Scotland, etc. Secondly, that the wars which they would have, and occasion, shall prove their ruin, the means to overthrow all their Conventicles, etc. and cast them out of England for ever; as the Bishops and their faction were greedy for a war against the Scots, to support their greatness, etc. But, Reader, if the Author of Gangrena, were a man in any reputation for wisdom or honour, here is a dead fly that would cause his ointment to send forth a stinking savour for ever. This passage of Providence, (as this Son of shame and inconsiderateness calleth it) this perfect sound of a March, beaten on an invisible Drum, etc. asserted with as much confidence, as pen could well express, and by the tenor whereof this false Prophet and Diviner of follies, undertakes to know and to declare, the secret thoughts and intentions both of God and men, was nothing else (as many that were present when this Tragicomey was acted, and some of them Presbyterians; yea some, that saw the invisible Drummer, do report,) but a dog scratching his ear, and with his foot, upon every advance thereof to scratch, beating the sounding side of the pew wherein he was. And as for the greatest part of those circumstances, wherewith the main body of this notorious— is dressed and beautified, as the sound of the March was heard as coming into the Chapel, and then as going up all along the I'll, etc. that Mr. Eton and the people were terrified with it; that Mr. Eton gave over preaching, and fell to praying; that they broke up their exercise, because of the March still beating, etc. All these are nothing else, but sparks of that unhallowed fire, which burns in the bowels of Gangrena's race, and consumes the very foundations of ingenuity and Truth in High-Presbyterian Spirits. If Gangrena herself had a forehead made of any other mettle, than brass, or iron, any sense or touch of ingenuity, or true honour, she would bind her face in the dust, and keep her sin and shame company in darkness for one seven years, at least, after such a shameless and prodigious abuse of the world and herself, as this. But (as Seneca saith) one tree, though it be never so tall, is not wondered at, when the whole forest or wood bears others of the same growth and stature a Non est admirationi una arbour, quando totum nemus in eandem altitudinem surrexit. : So I fear, that Gangrena being conscious of no more credit or truth in any other of her tales, is not much affected or stirred in spirit with the discovery of her nakedness, or foul falsifications in this. I believe (and not without ground) that a very great part of the foul stories which she relates with truth in the matter of fact, would upon due examination and trial, be found the perpetrations, not of that sort of men, on whom she father's them under the Names of Sectaries and Independents, but of persons of her own judgement, and fellow-members with her of the Church of England; witness the story of him who mingled with silver, base metal of lead, brass, iron, and so carried it into the Tower in great Ingots, &c b Gangr. 3d. p. 192. . This man (as I understand) is by this time known not to have been a great Independent (as Gangrena blazoneth) but of more affinity both in judgement & practice with one Mr. Edward's. So that Sectary, who snatched the man's band, and tore it in pieces before his face, if Sectary he was, or is, it is of that Order surnamed Presbyterian. The like may be said of the Baptizers of Ball-Esau c Gangr. 3d. p. 18. , with many others. But for Gangrena, and that service which she hath done unto Satan against the Saints, by reproaching, calumniating, aspersing, traducing them in the sight of the Sun, I shall leave them from henceforth unto him who judgeth righteously; not intending to rake in this dunghill any more, which gins to be very noisome and offensive, even in Presbyterian nostrils themselves. So little cause have either I, or my party to fear her writings more than any other man's, who hath yet appeared, (as she most vainly, but so much the more like unto herself, boasteth) though it were no great honour to a thief that useth to rob on the highway, to be more feared by travellers, than an hundred honest men. For the present I shall add; that as some Great Benefactor to the Popish Religion, bestowed a Legend of lies upon it, which they call Legenda aurea, the golden Legend, for a prop or pillar to support it, because it was crazy; so hath Gangrena's master, out of his tender affections, & bountiful respects to the cause of high-Presbytery, being extremely jealous (as it seems) that it will never stand strong upon foundations of Truth, been at the cost and charge to compose a great body of the same kind of materials, which we may very truly and properly call, Legenda plumbea, or the Leaden Legend, to supply that which is wanting in the Truth for the supportment thereof. But certainly it will be more tolerable for the Golden, then for the Leaden Legend, in the day of judgement. First, because the Golden Legend belies only, or for the most part, Saints of her own, or her friends making; and secondly, belies them still on the right hand; whereas our Leaden Legend, advances only stories on the left hand; and with these, dishonours, either only, or for the most part, Saints made such by God. In so much, that had Gangrena pretended to plead the cause of that Government by Presbytery, which the Parliament hath established, and not that, so importunely desired by herself, and her friends, (which is opposite to it) she had been a notorious Trespasser against the late Ordinance of Parliament, which prohibiteth any thing, to be either preached, or written, in derogation of that Government, which they have established. For as be that should come, & under prop or apply to a strong and new-built house, a company of crooked and ill-shapen shores, or pieces of old worm-eaten timber, should derogate from the strength of the building, and notoriously disparage the Architect; so whosoever shall go about to confirm, strengthen, or uphold the Government settled by the Parliament, by any base, unworthy, and indirect means, cannot reasonably be judged but by such practices, to act in derogation thereof, and that in an high degree. And so, Gangrena, farewell: Res Tuas, & historias tuas, habeto tibi. They shall from henceforth be to me, as things which are not; excepting only my promise of a further addition unto my Answer to the Antapology; whereunto (God willing) I shall apply myself, when I see the times in a state of convalescencie, and likely to gather strength to bear such a subject. In the mean time, thy preferment, which (it seems) is to be Principi Tenebrarum ab historiâ, I shall lament, not envy. Persecute the Saints, reproach the righteous; traduce the friends of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ: but know thou, that for all these things, God will bring thee to judgement a Eccles. 11. 9 . Having dispatched with Gangrena, I have only a word Sect. 16. or two to speak with some of her friends, about another business. There are of this Generation, who (it seems,) having a faculty to make verbal victories of real disasters, importunely applaud their Champions (which were four, if not five to two) and congratulate their great success in a disputation lately held in Christ-Church-Parish, about the lawfulness, not so much of the payment, as of the demand, of tithes by the Minister. By means of which dispute, though there was nothing said but had tantum for quantum, answer for argument in full return; not so much as any one man, that I can hear of, who came scrupuled in the point, that went away satisfied, (except it were in the justness of the ground of his scruple and of the unlawfulness of that, which could not by all that was there said be justified) yet some of the party, as if they were bound by their Covenant to provide, perfas, & nefas, that Presbyterians may in all things have the pre-eminence, or were acted by that Maxim of the Consistory Quod non potest fieri per viam justiciae, fiat per modum expedientiae. of Rome, That which cannot be done in a way of right, let it be done by way of expediency; have (as I understand from several hands,) filled the City with this vapour, that Mr. Goodwin and his Colleague in the dispute, had their mouths stopped, and were not able to answer a word to those who opposed them. I was once under some thoughts, of penning and publishing the contents of the said Disputation, looking for this puff of wind from that point of the Compass, from whence it now bloweth; and may yet, upon the occasion given, do it, if I could clear my hands of some other work, which as yet sticks close to them. In the mean time (Reader,) thou mayst please to understand, that there were only two arguments produced, and insisted upon, by the Patrons of Tithes; which (I speak unfeignedly) being thoroughly examined and looked into, are of no more strength to carry the cause of demanding tithes, than a couple of silly Lambs yoked in a team, are able to draw a Western wain of twenty hundred weight, through the deepest ways, or up the steepest hills. I had not touched upon this string, had not others played too loud upon the base. One thing (amongst many others) seems very unreasonable Sect. 17. unto me in the way of High Presbytery, which I judge worthy advertisement in this place. The Sons of this judgement & way, judge it Christian and meet (as they have reason in abundance to do) mutually to tolerate one another in lesser differences (as they use to call them) that is, in such differences about such opinions, which lie off at some distance from the fundamental Doctrines or Principles of Christian Religion, & which are deducible from these by process of rational discourse. And the truth is, that without a reciprocal Toleration in such differences as these, they would hardly ever cement, or hang together, or grow into the unity of a body; unless they agreed to cast lots amongst them, whose judgement should be King, to prescribe Doctrines and opinions for Laws unto all his fellows. Now considering that the main Principles, and fundamental Doctrines of Christian Religion, are much more difficult to be comprehended by reason, or to be assented unto as Truths, than such deductions or conclusions, which in an ordinary way of discourse, may be inferred from, and resolved into, their known or granted Principles; it seems repugnant to all grounds of reason and equity, that men should have favour in their dissentings about these, and be judged worthy of death for dissenting in the other. Penal Laws are not wont to be enacted amongst men, against any such miscarriages or deficiences in men, which require an excellency in virtue, wisdom, or understanding to prevent▪ but only against such, which the common and known principles of reason, justice, and honesty, are sufficient to restrain. It is proper indeed, that Laws of encouragement, and of rewards, be made to provoke and stir men up to actions of honour, and which are difficult to perform, especially such, which are like to be of public benefit, or service to the State; but not to enact any penalty against those, who shall not perform such actions, unless it be the loss, or non receiving the reward promised by Law to those that shall perform them. I have oft heard, of an ancient Law in England, by which there was a reward appointed for every man that should kill a Wolf, but I never heard of any, which imposed a penalty upon those who killed none. And if men desire to insure all those to the way of High Presbytery, who do not religiously, & out of pure conscience, descent in judgement from it, their only course is, to procure some Law or Statute to be made, wherein some considerable reward shall be appointed by way of encouragement to all those that shall adhere to this way; only with this proviso, (for righteousness and conscience sake) that this reward be not assigned unto them out of the due rights and privileges of those, who notwithstanding shall descent from them. And now, good Reader, I have nothing more, wherewith Sect. 18. to detain thee from the discourse itself. The God of Heaven give thee a free, clear, and disengaged judgement, to examine, try, and narrowly consider, into what Opinions or Tenets in Religion, thou sufferest thy soul and conscience to be Baptised. The Holy Ghost speaking (doubtless) of these times, prophesied long ago, that many should run to and fro, and [by this means] knowledge shall be increased a Dan. 12. 4. . In the times of Popery, men generally stood still, made no inquiries beyond the lips of their Teachers, and knowledge than was at a stand, and advanced not. But since God hath been pleased to put it into the hearts of men to conceive and think, that there may be Tracts or Regions of knowledge, beyond the line of the travails, and discoveries of their Teachers, and have made many studious expeditions themselves to find them out, knowledge hath increased; yea and will increase daily more & more, if we relapse not into the lethargy of Popish slothfulness and servility, and suffer our Teachers to exercise a Dominion over our Faith. Some of the principal weapons, by which a compulsive power over the judgements and consciences of men hath been defended, are here, by strength or argument, and pregnancy of Scripture demonstration wrung out of the hand of those, who have fought with them, not the good fight of Faith, but the bad fight of the flesh, hitherto. The good will of him that dwelled in the Bush, be thy portion for ever. Thine in the service of Truth and Peace, JOHN GOODWIN. From my Study in Coleman-street. Jan. 22. 1646. ERRATA. PAg. 2. after, Atheist, r. I trust. p. 9 l. 7. for, suffer, r. suffered. p. 15. l. 26. for, of, r. out of. p. 15. l. 14. for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 16. l. 24 for conscience, r. conscience. p. 20. l. 27. for, Peteter, r. Peter. p. 22. l. 12. for, n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 25. l. 14. for, Authors, r. Author. p. 25. l. 17. for, understanding, r. undertaking p. 26. l. 21. for, hose, r. house. p. 30. l. 35. for, conceid, r. conceived. p. 33. l. 27. for, donee, r. donee. p. 36. l. 14. for, of the Canonicallnesse, r. of the Ancients who questioned the Canonicallnesse. p. 40. l. 22. for, commanded, r. command. p. 40. l. 27. for, enemies, r. enemy. p. 60. l. 34. for, coporation, r. corporation. p. 70. l. 36. for, Trush, r. truth. p. 71. l. 27. for, Parliament man, r. Gentleman. p. 88 l. ult. for, matters, r. matter. p. 95. l. 31. deal, to. p. 113. l. 10. for, anh, r. and p. 106. l. 15 for, carriage, r. carriage. p. 119. l. 6. for, either in, r. either, in. p. 122. (in the margin) for, reluet, r. relucet. ¶ The principal Contents, as well of the Epistle, as Discourse, are the unfolding of these particulars. 1. What the Author's judgement is touching Civil Magistracy, Ep. sect. 10. 2. With what affection or intentions, God both gave, continues, and at last will dissolve Civil Magistracy. Ep. sect. 7, 8, 9 3. What the reason is, why God will have creature-dispensations to precede his being All in All. Epist. sect. 6. 4. Who they are, that have still been represented as enemies to Magistracy. Ep. sect. 12. 5. In what sense the Author takes the word, Presbytery; and against what manner of persons he argueth in his discourse. Ep. sect. 13, 14. 6. How unworthily that great self-admiresse, Gangrena, acquitteth herself in her stories and pamphlets. Epist. sect. 15. 7. How unworthily a late Disputation in Christ-Church-parish about Tithes, is reported by some. Epist. sect. 16. 8. Whether differences in fundamentals, be not to be tolerated, as well as (if not rather) than differences in such points, which are fare more easily determined by reason. Epist. sect. 17. 9 What (most probably) the Anti-querists design is in their Antiquerisme. Dissect. 2. 10. What the design of the Querist clearly was, in the Queres. sect. 3. How near the zeal of High-Presbyterie hath eaten some men up. sect. 4. 11. Whether there be any touch or tincture of Blasphemy in the second Querie. sect. 5. 12. How the Prelatical, and High-Presbyterian proceed comport. sect. 6. 13. Whether the Contra▪ Querists' Syllogisms, be not too hard for their answers. sect. 8. 14. Why the Counter Querists' answer by way of Syllogism. sect. 7. 15. Whether the Querist reproacheth all punitive Justice, etc. sect. 11. 16. Whether he maketh Christ's Spirit now, contrary to God's Spirit in the old Testament. sect. 12. 17. Whether the story of Ananias and Sapphira's death, doth any ways justify putting to death for matter of Conscience, or Religion. sect. 14. 18. Whether the second Querie, supposeth, that the makers of the Ordinance do not certainly know the opinions therein threatened with death, to be damnable heresies. sect. 16, 17, 18. 19 Whether it be contrary to the manifest word of God, to say, that God is not one in three persons. sect. 21. 20. What belongs to a certainty of knowledge in matters of Religion. sect. 24, 25. 21. What opinions sentenced with death in the Ordinance, are not contrary to the manifest word of God. sect. 26. 22. How hard it is to know, what the Ordinance meaneth by the word, Scriptures, when it sentenceth with death the denial of them to be the word of God, sect. 28. 23. What infallibility the second Querie intends. sect. 29. 51. 24. How passionate the Anti-querists are against the second Quere, and wherefore. sect. 30. 25. Whether all the Opinions sentenced by the Ordinance, be the known Principles of Christianity. sect. 33. 26. Whether the Laws of God in the old Testament, which commanded false Prophets, Blasphemers, Idolaters, to be put to death, be in force under the New. sect. 34, 35, 36, 37. 27. Whether our Saviour reproved either the Jewish Church or State, for tolerating errors and sects amongst them. sect. 41. 28. Whether ways of violence and blood for the support of true Religion, be according to the light and law of Nature. sect. 43. 29. How the Counter Querists prove, that Luther maintained no error about freewill. sect. 52. And whether Consubstantiation be not as gross, yea and as dangerous an error, as some threatened with death by the Ordinance. sect. 53. 30. Whether, or what clearing or settling of Truth there is amongst us, more than in the beginnings of the Reformation. sect. 54. 31. Whether the open and public profession of errors, be more or less pernicious, than the practice of sins in a like kind and degree. sect. 57, 58, 59 32. Whether any great difference between imprisonment for life, and death. sect. 59 33. In what sense only it is true, that they who hold damnable heresies, have no true grace, etc. sect. 64. 34. Whether the Parable of the tares, be meant only of Heretics and false Teachers. sect. 69. 35. Whether, and how the Ordinance is bend against the faces of many that are conscientious. sect. 75. 36. Whether they be always instruments of evil, who publish Doctrines (in any sense) hurtful to the peace of the Church and State. sect. 76, 77. 37. Whether zeal, or lukewarmness, the more likely cause, of the Bishops casting out. sect. 79. 38. What the wisdom of the Parliament can, and their Justice will do, for the undoing of all the Ordinance intends to do. Sect. 81. 39 Whether the Anti-Querists sufficiently prove, the Moral Law in the ten Commandments, to be the rule of a Christians life? and whether the Christian Sabbaoth be included in the general scope of the fourth Commandment? Sect. 82. 83. 40. Whether the Anti-Querists know what they mean by Arminian freewill? Sect. 84. 85. 86. 41. Whether their Description of Blasphemy, and impugning the word of God be competent? Sect. 87. 42. Whether, and how far, they concur with the Querist, about the necessity of Reason, to direct or lead their Faith? Sect. 89. 90. 91. 43. Whether any of the Querists Friends are to be thanked, for that strong opposition, which is between the two Governments by Presbytery, the one established by the Parliament, the other, importunely desired by the Ministers? Sect. 93. 94. 95. 44. Whether the Anti-Querists have sufficiently justified the Ordinance about the words presumptuously? Sect. 96. 97. 45. Whether they do not grant the Ordinance to be neither Christian, nor reasonable, in the punishment of Blasphemy there enjoined? Sect. 99 46. Whether the duties of Magistracy rise and fall, are more, or fewer, according to the different qualifications of the Magistrates themselves? Sect. 99 105. 47. Whether it be lawful to teach Children, or others, to pray, whom we cannot reasonably judge capable of our Instruction in this kind? Sect. 102. 48. The two mountains, from the tops whereof the fairest prospect of High-Presbyterie in her exaltation, may be taken. Sect. 104. 49. Whether persons engaged, be so much the more meet to be Judges? Sect. 105. 50. Whether it be probable, that there is not any one point in Religion, but hath been controverted? Sect. 106. 51. What is the true ground of Gangrena's satisfaction about the truth of her stories? Sect. 97. 52. Whether God made any controverted point in Religion, especially between Priest and Priest, etc. matter of death or imprisonment under the Law? Sect. 106. 107. 108. 53. In what sense the Civil Magistrate is said to be custos utriusque tabulae. Sect. 109. Texts of Scripture, unto which some light is given either in the Epistle, or discourse itself. 1. COr. 15. 24, 25. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all Rule, and all Authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. Epist. Sect. 9 1 Cor. 15. 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Ep. Sect. 2. Rev. 21. 22. 23. And I saw no Temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb are the Temple of it. And this City hath no need of the Sun, or of the Moon to shine in it: for the glory of God did light it: and the Lamb is the Light of it. Ep. Sect. 9 Dan. 12. 4.— Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased, Epist. Sect. 18. Job. 1. 9 Doth Job serve God for nought? Disc. Sect. 3. Rom. 5. 10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Sect. 13. Matth. 23. 8. But be not ye called Rabbi. Sect. 31. Deut. 13. 5. And that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, etc. Sect. 34. 35. 36. etc. Levit. 24. 16. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death. Sect. 36. 35. etc. 1 Cor. 10. 11. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples, or tips. Sect. 35. Deut. 4. 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, etc. Sect. 37. 2 Cor. 10. 4. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds. Sect. 44. Rom. 13. 4.— For he is the Minister of God, a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Sect. 45. 46. 47. etc. Deut. 12. 48. No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. Sect. 48. 2 Thess. 3. 10.— This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Sect. 48. Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off that trouble you. Sect. 61. Matth. 13. 29. But he said, nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye pluck up the wheat also. Sect. 69. 70. 71. etc. Matth. 25. 15.— And the Children crying in the Temple. Hosanna, etc. Sect. 102. Psal. 8. 2. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise. Sect. 103. Deut. 17. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously; and will not hearken to the Priest, or Judge, even that man shall die. Sect. 107. Esa. 49. 23. And Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers, etc. Sect. 109. 110. HAGIO MASTIX, OR THE SCOURGE OF THE SAINTS. IT was a sad expression of Luther in his days, when he said, we should find cause to melt and be dissolved into tears, if we seriously consider what strange errors we have stumbled upon, that there is not so much liberty now allowed to any man, as to speak the Truth a In lachrymas meritò solveremur, si nobiscum perpenderemus in quos errores impegerimus, ut n●c ●odie liberum sit veritatem dicere. Luth. Postill. . Yet if this were the worst of those times he complains of, he lived in a golden age, in comparison of the days which are already in part come, and attempted by some with an high hand to be brought yet in fuller measure, upon the faithful servants of God in this Land. It is a small thing for the Spirit which works in many of the sons of high Presbytery, to deny men liberty of speaking the Truth; the very enquiring and ask after Truth, is made wickedness and blasphemy, impudence, audaciousness, yea little less than Atheism, or Devilism itself, by the angry suggestion and clamorous imputation of this Spirit. That in saying these things I put this spirit to no other rebuke, than what the Truth itself, and its own professed noonday actings and workings do witness against it, needs none other Sect. 2. proof or demonstration, but only the perusal of the fift page, of a late Pamphlet, entitled, A vindication of a printed paper, etc. against the irreligious and presumptuous exceptions (irreligiously and presumptuously so called) called, Some humble and modest Queries. In the said page, that importune spirit we speak of, foameth out his own shame in these words (amongst many others of like unchristian inspiration) Who are you sir, that have dared in your heart to conceive such A WICKEDNESS AND BLASPHEMY, as this Querie contains in the bowels of it? And again— I summon all Readers in the name of God and Christ, to look upon them, and to stand amazed at your IMPUDENCE, that have been so AUDACIOUS as to AFFIRM, or insinuate &c.— The man (if yet he be a man) hath not yet the one half of his mind in railing and revenge upon a Christian and honest action and design, but querieth the Querist further, with this modest and humble Querie: what are you that speak thus? An ATHEIST, or a DEVIL? If he be an Atheist, he is one of that Order, who worship the true God in Spirit and Truth: If a Devil, it is in such a sense, wherein his Lord and Master was the Prince of Devils. If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household a Mat. 10. 25. ? He that takes pleasure in the Dialect of a railing and reviling pen, without any mixture or allay of sense, Reason or Religion, may satiate himself when he pleaseth, with the fragments and remainders of the said page, with the better (or rather, worse) half of that which followeth. Who is the Syllogizer, or Author of this vindication, I am not Sect. 2. in the least desirous to know; nor do I intent ever to bestow two words upon the inquiry: I can pray for him, though unknown, upon that ground, on which our Saviour prayed for those that crucified him, (if his condition will admit it) Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do b Luk. 23. 34. . Many conceive that the Licencer, and Author, have but one Name between them; of which apprehension though there be more reasons and grounds than one, and more especially the many lose assertions (that I say not falsifications) in the discourse itself, yet for my part I determine it not; only this I conceive, that whoever is the Author, is but a personated, though highly pretended, Friend to the Parliament; but that what he is in love and friendship indeed, he is to their enemies, Sect. 3. and those that labour to lay the honour as well of their persons, as proceed, in the dust. And whereas in the very frontispiece of his book, he flourisheth over his design, as if it were (at least in the principal branch of it) the Assertion and maintaining of the Magistrates Authority both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters; yet this outside compared with the inside of the book, shows it to be but like the Apothecary's box, which hath Pharmacum in titulo, in pixide venenum; physic in the title, but poison in the vessel. For first, he that shall not only teach and encourage, but even necessitate and compel (urging by way of duty, and conscience, being an high compulsion, in the kind,) Caesar, not to be content with the things that are Caesar's, but to lay claim unto, and hand upon, the things that are Gods: and secondly, shall (in the same sense) necessitate and compel the Parliament, to such actions, which apparently tend to the deep discontenting, if not to the utter destroying of those persons in the Land (at least the most considerable part of them) of whose fidelity unto them even in the face and presence of death, they have had proof upon proof, and proof upon proof again, and that above, and beyond all contradiction, (both which are clearly the material, if not the formal design, of the said vindication) Whosoever I say shall lift up his hand to either of these, is (without control) no friend to the Civil Magistrate, much less to the Parliament; except that be friendship to sow discord between friends, or to persuade men upon specious pretences, to destroy their Preservers, yea and those, who if the clouds should return after the rain, are more likely than any other generation of men that I know this day under Heaven, to be their Preservers the second time. It is a shrewd sign, that they that set men on work to tread down the hedge, would willingly have the corn trodden down also. Whereas the Syllogizer undertakes to know (for he asserts it Sect. 3. without scruple) that the Queries were put forth, as to stop, if it were possible, the Houses proceed in it, (he means the printed paper) so howsoever to blast what they should do in the pursuance of it, and the Parliament also, (as if the two Houses were one, and his Parliament another,) if they do, or shall do, any thing therein etc. doth he not lift up himself into the throne of God, and fit and judge the reins, and secret intentions of the hearts of men? I will notasperse Sect. 3. him with the filth of his own kennel, or ask him, whether he be an Atheist, or a Devil, to write thus: but certain I am, that the tenor and strain of this accusation is purely Satanical; being drawn to the life according to that pattern, Job 1. 9 Doth Job serve God for nought? For as the Devil seeketh here to traduce and embase that external course of sanctity and uprightness which Job held, by falsely charging it with sinister ends and motives; so doth the Syllogizer (be he one, or be he more, or be he Legion) in the words tendered, most unworthily calumniate, and deprave the Christian and candid intentions of him who advanced that honest paper of the modest and humble Queries; his ends therein being neither to stop, whether possible, or impossible, the Houses proceed in it, nor yet to blast what they should do in the pursuance of it (as this angry Dreamer surmiseth;) but only to minister occasion unto the members of both the Honourable Houses religiously to consider, how they might proceed and walk with a straight foot in the pursuance of it; and keep off at a due distance from the importune and violent counsels and suggestions of Presbyterian Interests; which without all peradventure, are of the most sad and threatening portendence, amongst all our dangers to this State and Kingdom, if they be not reduced by the wisdom and courage of both Houses of Parliament. Lord, make thy servants in both Houses, wiser than their enemies: Lord, make them wiser than their teachers: Lord, keep them from such Teachers, who are their enemies. But as for the Querist, he in his, both intentions and desires, in order to the Parliament proceed for the suppressing of errors and Heresies, is so fare from seeking to make a stop of them, or to blast whatsoever they shall do in this kind, that his soul longeth as for summer fruit, to see the methods of Heaven, the wisdom and will of God for so blessed a purpose, as the suppression of errors and Heresies is, first discovered, and then vigorously prosecuted and pursued, by the Parliament, or whoever otherwise shall be found lawfully interessed therein. Yea he is so fare from intending to blast any thing the Parliament shall do according to the will of God, for this end, that if any such course as this shall be effectually advanced by them before the term of his breath be expired, he professeth, as in the presence of God, that he shall rejoice over it as the characteristical felicity of his days. Sect. 4. Which Christian and clear Intentions of the Querist, in putting Sect. 4. forth the said Queries, considered, it had been no such supererogating act of Charity in the Syllogizers (for being in the way of my Reply, tidings are brought unto me, that they are certain striplings of the Assembly, that have laid their Logic together to advance that sum of Syllogisms with their Answers, which must as it seems, serve in stead of a sufficient Answer to the Queries) but be they sons of this, or of what other Interest soever, it had been no such supererogating act, or work of Charity, as to have drawn the suspicion of Popery upon them, in case they had not, for a word, suppose unproper, or less considerate, arraigned the Author at the bar of their Tribunal, as a man guilty of impudence, wickedness, blasphemy, Atheism, yea and Devillisme itself; yea and besides all this, have so devoutly, solemnly, and Apostle-like, commanded and charged, that he be delivered up unto Satan by his own Church or Congregation a Pag. 5. and 6. of the Vindication. . If this be the spirit that rules in the air of Presbytery, it is like to be an element agreeing only with the constitution of Limb and Ojim, of Owls and Satyrs and doleful creatures, and not for Christian, sober, or peaceable men. But the Church or Congregation he speaks of, know well (I question not) that the wrath of man neither worketh, nor adviseth, the righteousness of God; and that the zeal of Presbytery hath so fare eaten up the reasons, Judgements, Consciences of many of her children, that they have not so much of any of these left as wherewith to discern any thing from Blasphemy, or what deserveth casting out unto Satan which courteth not the Classic cause. It is no hard matter, either for them, or any other men, to see thus fare into the chambers of high Presbyterian secrets, by the glass-window of the Antapology, (in the light whereof the children of that way can hardly give over rejoicing to this day) the Author hereof requiring of the Churches of Christ, as they would vindicate the glory and honour of Christ to call their Pastors to an account and admonish them, and bring them to public Repentance for their public sin, (the emphasis whereof is their anti-presbyterializing) or else upon impenitency and obstinacy, to cast them out of their Churches b Antapol▪ p. 307. ; as if the power of Excommunication and delivering up unto Satan, were given by Christ unto his Churches, chief to take vengeance upon the enemies of High-Presbyterie, as Blasphemers, and Sect. 5. the grand enemies of the honour and glory of Christ himself. Though I conceive that my Anti-querie-men ploughed with Mr. Edward's heifer in drawing that long furrow upon the back of the Querist which hath been complained of, and have learnt of him to charge Churches as they regard the honour of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, with that super▪ christian duty, of delivering up their Pastors unto Satan; yet reflecting upon themselves (it seems) as men of a more Apostolical, sublime and sacred investiture than he, whose merits were never as yet crowned with Assemblian glory, they think it not worthy their grandeur or Authority, to talk or take notice of the little finger, (I mean, of calling to an account and admonishing, before Excommunication, as the Author of the Antapology, decently enough to the tenuity of his Interest doth) but the first word they speak, is the weight of the loins of this Dreadful sentence itself: he that shall ask as question which by the interpretation of their jealousy, may possibly tend to the disservice of High-Presbyterie, deserves ipso facto to be posted away to the Devil, and not to have the favour of so much respite from the shame and torment, as the time of being called to an account, or admonished, doth amount unto. Reader if thou be'st not amazed, Heaven and Earth, and whatsoever is capable of the impression in either, will be astonished at the insufferable height, the prodigious insolences of these men. But it may be the occasion of this un-manlike impotency, and Sect. 5. extravagancy of passion, will balance it: the provocation or offence given was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so hideous and horrid, that the nature of man was no more able to bear it, than the sight of Medusa's head without being disnatured by it. There is no sore but may have a plaster broad enough to cover it. And is there any deportment of men at so deep a defiance with all principles of reason, equity, humanity, Christianity, but what by the mediation of productures may be reconciled? Reader, if the whirlwind of these men's ecstasy hath not ravished even thee also into the gyre or circle of it, prepare thyself either for double astonishment, or triple indignation, against the discovery and discourse of that, in the monstrousness whereof these men put their trust, not only for shelter and protection against all those that shall say unto them, black is their eye, for any miscarriage of their pen; but for applause Sect. 5. also, for solemn and sacred acclamations, as well over the light, as the heat of their zeal; over their profound Learning in confuting, as well as over their Religious indignation, in declaiming with so much ardency and raisedness of soul against it, as they have done. I know no parallel worthy that deportment of the men, in both, unless it be that of the High Priest, who upon some words spoken by our Saviour, resented by him as of no good correspondencle with his ends, though otherwise full of soberness and Truth, (the Text saith) rend his clothes, saying, He hath BLASPHEMED: what have we any more need of witness? Behold, now ye have heard his Blasphemy a Mat. 26. 65. . The Blasphemy here charged upon Christ by the High Priest, is of that kind of Blasphemy, for which the Querist is arraigned by these high-spirited sons of Levi: the supercilious and importune confidence in the High Priest, that Christ was a Blasphemer, had spoken Blasphemy; (ye have heard his Blasphemy: what need we any more witness? etc.) exactly answers the rage and height of these men's plerophory, that the Querist is a Blasphemer (at least) all ambiguities and doubtfulnesses discounted, in his second Querie. Thirdly and lastly, the exemplary Devotion and high-born zeal of this High Priest in rending his , because of the great dishonour which the Lord Christ had done unto God, by his Blasphemy, portraictureth to the life the stupendious elevation of these men in all ardency of pious affections, to render the Querist, the supposed Blasphemer, a man of all ignominy and reproach, the hatred and abhorring of men; a man worthy of no better quarter in the world, then to be delivered up unto Satan, that he may learn not to blaspheme; i. not to query any further the spirit or proceed of High-Presbytery, which (it seems) is a duty much taught and urged in Satan's School. These men may well style themselves the sons of Levi; for they give a sufficient account that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Acts 4. 6. , of the kindred of the High Priest: — Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat. Only herein the pattern seems to be more passable, than the portraiture. That which Christ spoke, though it was as fare from Blasphemy, as any thing asserted, or affirmed, lightly could be, yet it was an assertion, or affirmation, as Blasphemeis frequently Sect. 6. are: but the Querie arrested for blasphemy by the angry sons of High-Presbytery, is a pure Querie or Question; nothing is affirmed, nothing denied in it. And though I will not deny, but that possibly such questions may be invented, and with study thought upon, which may (in some sense of the word) be blasphemous; yet do I not remember that ever I heard, or read of any such; nor can I readily conceive how any such can be framed. But as the Philosopher's maxim is: Quicquid recipitur, recipit●● ad modum recipientis; i. whatsoever is received, is not necessarily received, either according to the disposition or intention of the Agent or giver, or according to the nature or proper tendency of the thing itself received; but always according to the nature and disposition of the Receiver. If the High Priest we spoke of, had not waited for the halting of the Lord Christ, yea had not his soul longed for somewhat against him, wherewith ●oth to comfort his Conscience within him under those faint and feeble thoughts it had of his being a dissembler and wicked person, and to render him obnoxious also, and hateful unto the people; it is no ways credible that ever he would have found blasphemy in the words now triumphed over, as unquestionably guilty of that demerit, there being another interpretation and constructure of them fare more obvious and nearer hand, then that which found Blasphemy in them. Nor do I, nor can I, impute that construction of the Querie, which makes blasphemy of it, either to the persons, or to the learning, or to the Judgement, or to the grace of the Anti-querists; but unto the enemies of all these, viz. their deep hatred against the person of the Querist, the impatiency and impotency of their desires to represent him to the world as a stigmatical infamous and irreligious man, their sworn service and devotion to the cause of High-Presbytery, with a non obstante etc. Had not these evil spirits extremely wronged the men, and stripped them stark naked of the soft clothing of their ingenuity; the Querie had been as innocent, and as fare from Blasphemy, as the Antapology, yea as the Vindication itself. It was no impertinent or truthless observation in him, who so Sect. 6. fare minded the proceed of the Anti-christian and Papal Clergy in the days of their Interests amongst us, and likewise of the Pontifical and Episcopal Clergy, In theirs, as to be able to Sect. 6▪ see, and say; that as well the one as the other did still so state and represent unto the people all such practices and actions, whether of their own or other men's, wherein their secular pomp and Interests were concerned, as to make God and Christ a party with them; to entitle them to part and fellowship with themselves, as well in whatsoever they did, as in whatsoever they suffer. The device was to persuade the world, partly that whatsoever they did, in order, either to the support, or enlargement of their own Greatness, they did it out of Conscience, and as persons trusted by God with the affairs of his glory; partly, that whosoever cast honour upon them, or yielded subjection unto them, did it not so much unto them, as unto God himself; and again, that whosoever opposed, or neglected them, opposed and neglected God himself much more. How near all things are now carried according to this pattern in the mount, I shall not declare; but leave unto men, who have eyes to see, to consider of a The Presbyters of the Assembly, and others, are so fare from the domineering humour of Diotrcphes, that they could gladly and hearty have quitted all intermeddling in Church-Government, if Jesus Christ had not by office engaged them thereunto; Jus Divinum Regim. Ecclesiast. lately published in the Name of sundry Ministers of the City of London, pag. 11. of the Preface▪ . Only this I shall take leave to observe, and say; that these Antiquerie-masters, are their crafts-masters in this Pontifical artifice; for (oh!) how are they troubled! how are they pained, and afflicted in soul, about the Queries; not (good men!) that themselves, or their Interests in the cause of Presbytery are any ways disturbed, struck at, or in danger to suffer by them; we hear ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem, not the least mutter or whisper of this sorrow, or complaint throughout the whole discourse; but the great anguish and vexation, the amazement b page 5. of their devout souls is, that the honour of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Authority of the Spirit c page 6. , are blaspheme● in them; that in stead of bringing the true Doctrine of the Father and the Son, the Queries have brought all the Doctrines of God into so absolute an uncertainty. O thou that searchest the reins and the hearts, wilt tho●e not judge the hypocrisy of these men (if yet they be hypocrites) and give to every one of them according to their work d Revel. 2. 23. ? For what? are the men so super-superiatively zealous, for the honour of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the Authority of the Spirit, and yet all their Faith, all their knowledge, all the Doctrines they have received concerning God, brought into an absolute uncertainty by one poor Querie, or Question? If a question hath so dangerously shaken the Religion of these men, surely even a weak Argument would turn it upside down. O Church of England, Sect. 7. whatsoever thou art, tremble to build thy Faith upon the foundation of these thy Teachers: for they confess (if they mean as they say) that in all these Doctrines concerning God and Christ, they are brought into an absolute uncertainty; and that by the force of one Question only. It seems that their belief of all they know, of all they teach concerning God and Christ, is suspended upon the hope they have of the goodness of the cause of High Presbytery: so that when the goodness of this cause is any ways made doubtful or questionable unto them, a pang of a proportionable uncertainty in those other things also seizeth on them. They say that they perceive that (which no man perceives besides themselves) viz. that the Querist is in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity; but the Querist perceives that which is of a fare clearer vision; viz. that ●f all the Doctrines of God and Christ be with them brought into an absolute uncertainty, they are, if not in, yet very near to, that gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity whereof they speak. But what strange accident befell the learning of these men, that Sect. 7. intending to go to Dothan, they should take the way to Samaria? that intending, or (at least) pretending, to Answer Questions, they should gird their Logic to them, and make Syllogisms, and fall upon answering these? Is Soul also among the Prophets? Are the members of the Assembly come to their new lights too? For to this day (doubtless) it was never known or heard, that men should frame Arguments and Syllogisms of their own, and call their Answers unto these, Answers to the Questions of another. When they taught the late Catechism of their present Church, and asked the child, What is your Name? and, who gave you this Name? did they teach the child to answer, first by framing Syllogisms out of, or upon the Questions; and then, by answering these Syllogisms in stead of the Questions? If they had meant fairly, and nothing but what was upright in the sight of God and men, in addressing themselves to Answer the Queries, these being fairly and directly proposed, why did they fetch about by the way of the fullers field, by which Rabshekah came against Jerusalem a Esa. 36. 2. ; I mean by the way of Syllogisms and Arguments, by which the truth is wont to be opposed by her adversaries, not the Questions of the friends of Truth answered? why did they not answer to the particulars demanded, immediately and directly, Sect. 7. either by affirmation, negation, or distinction; which is the way and method by which Christ and his Apostles answered all the Questions proposed to them, which they thought meet to answer? Or howsoever, they never made Syllogisms, calling their Answers to these, Answers to the Questions proposed unto them by others. Certainly these men would not have traveled out of the King's highway, but to lie in wait to rob and steal from those, who travel honestly and peaceably in it: There was (out of all doubt) some Clergie-Classique fetch, or reach in the projecture: the men are better husbands of their Syllogisms and Logic, then to pursue or hunt after Truth or spiritual things with them: these they still take, and come by with as much ease and expedition, as Jacob came by his Venison, which he fetched out of the stock. b Gen. 27. 9 14. Therefore when they take their Bo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their quiver, when they come to Syllogisms, and painful reasonings and debates, it is a great sign they have some secular game or other in chase, which for the most part is not so tame, nor so easily brought to hand, as the other. But is it lawful for me upon this occasion, to do as these men frequently do in their preaching, I mean conjecture? Reader, with thy leave, I shall take the boldness to present thee with my notion, upon the case. These contraquerists prudently considering, that in the Queries, as they came from the Author, there was nothing at all either affirmed or denied, so that whatsoever the tenor or purport of them was, they could not with any tolerable colour or pretext, fasten any opinion, either 〈…〉 〈…〉 negative, or affirmative, upon him that framed them, wherewith to blast either the reputation of his person, or his Queries; therefore to blind vulgar eyes, and to set a face upon a backsidebusinesse, they judged it of best comport with the Classic cause presumptuously to conclude, that whatsoever the Querist questions in the negative, he holds and asserts in the affirmative; as on the contrary, that whatsoever he querieth in the affirmative, he holds in the negative; and so to take of these affirmatives and negatives, and digest them into Syllogisms, as they please; which Syllogisms (forsooth) the simple Presbyterian, for his better edification in the delusions of his Teachers, must compel his fan●●● to believe, to be mine; and the Answers given to them, to be theirs, and these insoluble (at least) and more sacred then to be Sect. 8. 9 touched with the least finger of an Examination. But, oi all you, that are the Sons and daughters of God, Sect. 8. whether in the way of Presbytery, or in a better, stand still, and behold your Heavenly Father at this day in the same posture of working wonders, wherein he stood in the yesterday of old. Therefore behold (saith he) I will proceed to do a marvellous work amongst this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent me● shall be hid a Esay. 29. 14. . These politic and prudent sons of High Presbytery, thought they had spread a table for themselves of their Syllogisms; but that God who taketh the wise in their own craftiness b 1 Cor. 3 19 , hath turned this table into a snare unto them; and hide their understanding out of the way when they lift up their hand to the Syllogisms. For in the framing of these, their answers considered, they are like such Conjurers, who being novices in their profession, sometimes raise those spirits, which, their skill failing them, they know not how to lay, or conjure down. Though I own not any one of the Syllogisms, as intimated or asserted, either Majors, Minors, or Conclusions, by me in the Queries; yet to let the Kingdom and whole world see, upon how broken a reed they shall lean, if they trust to the Learning or Judgement of these men in the great things of their peace, I shall be willing to undertake for the Syllogisms (at least for the most of them) against their Answers. For doubtless the Arguments do by their Answers, as Aaron's rod did by the rods of the Egyptian Sorcerers c Exod. 7. 12. ; they swallow and eat them up. In my Vindication of the gentlemen's Syllogisms against their Sect. 9 Answers; to save as much as may be without detriment to the cause, the labour of transcribing, and so to contract the whole discourse into as narrow a compass, as the Subject of it will bear; I shall not repeat the Syllogisms themselves, but only lay open the weakness and insufficiency of the respective Answers; and this by a manifest disabling and overturning the Principles, reasons, and grounds, on which they are built. I could wish the Reader, who shall have the opportunity, and please to peruse these papers, had the Vindication itself, or those Anti-papers by him, to which these, by way of opposition, relate: it is like he might apprehend the particularity and appositenesse of what is here insisted Sect. 10. upon for the dissolution of those Answers, more fully, and with some advantage to his satisfaction; yet by what he shall he●e find, he may be able, even without that aid, competently to conceive and judge, what is the strength, and what is the weakness, of the said Answers. First then, their Answer to their first Argument or Syllogism, Sect. 10. framed by occasion of my first Querie, is built upon this distinction: The making of snares of any of the Doctrines of Christ for the destruction of the lives of men, may be taken two ways; first, for a malicious intention, and formal desire to take away men's lives: Secondly, for no more but the appointing of the punishment of death for such as shall WICKEDLY oppose any of the Doctrines of Christ. In this latter sense, they conclude it lawful, yea and necessary, to make snares of the Doctrines of Christ, for the destruction of the lives of men, and deny it in the former. But First, the Ordinance doth not say, who shall WICKEDLY preach, teach, publish, any opinion contrary, etc. but that, all such who shall WILLINGLY preach, teach, etc. shall, without abjuring, suffer the pains of death. Therefore the said Distinction is impertinent, and reacheth not the cause in hand. For who with half an eye, is not able to see a vast difference, between preaching, or publishing a point, WILLINGLY, and WICKEDLY? when Presbyterian Ministers preach false Doctrine, as that tithes, or Presbyterial Government are Jure Divino, that it is unlawful either to sell or buy Bishops Lands, that the Parliament is bound to do as the Assembly would have them, that legal preparations are simply and absolutely necessary before Conversion, that men are bound to believe that which they have no reason to believe, that Repentance goeth before Faith, that Christ suffered the torments of Hell, with twenty and ten vain speculations, and visions of their own hearts besides, wherewith they corrupt and poison the Judgements of their simple and credulous Auditories, I presume they do all this WILLINGLY; but whether they do it WICKEDLY, or no, let themselves judge and say. But Secondly, suppose the Ordinance had said, WICKEDLY, as the Syllogisme●s speak; I demand of them what they mean by the word, WICKEDLY, and who shall judge and determine of this modification or aggravation of the offence? Suppose a man Sect. 10. should preach very zealously, and with fervency of Spirit against any of those Tenets which these men call the Doctrines of Christ, as against the Jus Divinum, or lawfulness of tithes, or of Presbytery, or the like; will they call this a preaching WICKEDLY? If so, than themselves preach WICKEDLY, as oft as zealously. If by WICKEDLY, they mean, obstinately, or with obstinacy (an expression which the paper called, The Ordinance, useth) this is to give light by darkness: and I demand, as before, what they mean, by obstinately? For neither doth the Ordinance, nor the Asserters of it, (who yet undertake too to be the Interpreters of it, when, and as they please a page 1, 2. ) declare, or determine any thing at all herein. If by preaching, or publishing a Doctrine obstinately, they mean, a preaching it after admonition, or after means used, yea or after sufficient means used (I mean, sufficient, in the Judgement of those that use them; yea or of those who are interressed in the same judgement with those that use them) than themselves, as oft as they preach the point of Infant-Baptisme, preach obstinately, and consequently, WICKEDLY? For they have been admonished again and again by the Antipoedobaptists, both by writing and otherwise; who also have used means upon means, and those by themselves and all of their party, judged to be abundantly sufficient to convince them, of the error of this Doctrine (for so they judge it to be.) So again, (according to this interpretation of the word) when they preach against the lawfulness of selling and buying the Bishop's Lands, they preach obstinately, and so WICKEDLY, for by the late Ordinance of Parliament published in that behalf, they are admonished, yea, and in the Judgement of the Parliament, sufficiently informed, of the lawfulness of both. Instance might be given in twenty points more of like consideration. If they have any other sense or meaning in the word, Obstinately, which is more cryptical, or mysterious, it is but reasonable and equal, that it be declared and made known; before the lives or liberties of the Saints, or other men be endangered by it. It is most un-christian and repugnant to the law and light of nature itself, that any such Laws or Statutes should be made, wherein either the lives or Liberties of men are touched; and yet the sense and meaning of them, by the ambiguity of the words, wherein they are conceived, be of doubtful interpretation unto those, who are so Sect. 10. deeply concerned in them. Laws and Statutes, wherein the precious lives and Liberties of men are concerned, ought not to be like Aristotle's acroamatiques; concerning which he said, when he had published them, edidi, & non edidi. i. I have published them, and I have not published them; meaning, that as he had set them forth, few were able to understand them: but to be plain and transparent in their sense and meaning; that even persons of meanest capacity may without an Interpreter, see to the bottom of them. Or Thirdly, (and last,) if by WICKEDLY, in their distinction, they mean, maliciously, (which the word seems most properly to import) I desire to know of them, whom they will constitute or make Judges of this inward and soule-misdemeanour; or what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what Symptoms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or signs they will Authorise, as infallibly demonstrative of this malignity? For it is no ways Christian or equal, that the Saints (or indeed any other sort of men) should be deprived of their lives, or precious Liberties, upon what Interpretation of the Law, either the Jury, or the Judge shall please to make. But the case and condition of the Saints would be most deplorable upon such terms as these; in as much as there are very few either Juries, or Judges, but being strangers to the work of Grace, inwardly hate this generation of men; according to that (with many the like) saying of the Scriptures: Marvel not my Brethren, if the world hate you a 1 Joh. 3. 13. : whereunto that of our Saviour himself also agreeth; Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you of the world, therefore the world hateth you b Joh. 15. 19 . Now it being the genius or property of this affection of hatred, to desire and seek the destruction of that which is hated, (Quem quisque odit, periisse expetit) it were most sad with the Saints, if they that hate them, should have the Liberty of interpreting not only their actions and practices, as they please; but also of the Laws themselves too, by which these are to be judged. Thus than it fully appears, that the Distinction, upon which the Syllogizers build their Answer to their first Syllogism, is, by reason of the ambiguity and doubtfulness in one of the most signal and important terms in it, altogether insufficient and null; and in exactness of truth, no distinction at all; no more, than a dish, with an hole in the bottom of it, is a dish, or a man without a soul, a man. Miserable is the condition of those, whose Faith Sect. 11. 12. must be pinned upon such sleeves as these. There are several other importune, reasonless, and false assertions Sect. 11. and suppositions made to support the said Answer and Distinction. As 1. That he that shall but insinuate a reproach upon the Ordinance in such a phrase as this, of making a snare for the destruction of the lives of men, doth with the same hand or tongue cast a reproach upon ALL the punitive Justice that ever was, or will be in the world a page 3. . Certainly these gentlemen's Logic stood at their left hand in stead of their right, when they advanced such a consequence, or saying, as this? Doth he that insinuates it as a thing unlawful, to put an Heathen to death for asserting the principles of his false Religion, cast a reproach upon the Justice, which shall punish him with death for murder, rebellion, or insurrection? Or doth he that insinuates it as a thing unworthy a Christian Magistrate or Judge, to put a man to death for professing, or affirming that for truth, which he verily believeth to be so, though indeed it be false; cast a reproach upon such Magistrates or their punitive Justice, who shall punish murder, perjury, incest, or any the like sins committed against the light of nature, and the knowledge of the perpetrator, with punishments suitable to the respective natures and demerits of them? It seems that to sin out of ignorance, and with knowledge; with Conscience and against Conscience, are of one and the ●ame consideration and demerit, with these men. Oh England, if thou sufferest thyself to be led by such Guides as these, take heed of falling into the ditch, out of which there is no rising again. Secondly, the said Answer leans upon the broken reed of this Sect. 12. supposition; that the Spirit of Christ now, should be contrary to God's Spirit in the Old Testament, if it should not justify and allow, yea and require the punishment of death under the Gospel, for the violation of such Doctrines and Laws, as well of the first, as second Table, for the violation whereof this punishment was expressly appointed by the Authority of God then. If the pens of these men were not intoxicated with the new Wine or Must of Presbytery, they would never utter such Atheological stuff as this. Was the Spirit of Christ in the New Testament, contrary to God's Spirit in the Old, because he discharged a woman taken in adultery, only with this admonition, Go, and sin no more; permitting none but such to stone her, who were, Sect. 13. without sin a Joh. 8. 3. 7. 11. ; whereas the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, appointed that both the adulterer and the adulteress should SURELY be put to death b Levit. 20. 10. Deut. 22. 22. ? Or because Christ prohibited calling down fire from Heaven to consume those who refused to receive him c Luk. 9 55. was his Spirit contrary to the Spirit of God in the Prophet ELIIAH, by which he called for fire from Heaven to do that sad execution, and that upon person● of an inferior delinquency in respect of them (at least as the tenor of the Histories compared together seems to import?) Or what reason can these irrefragable Doctors give, why the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, which is but one and the same Spirit with the Spirit of Christ in the New, should not be at as much liberty to alter the punishments or penalties, as the Ordinances of worship appointed in the Old Testament, under the New? Are the former so much more sacred than the latter, that though these be changed, yet those must of necessity abide for ever? Is there nothing in that great dispensation of God, by which he shaken the Earth also, as well as the Heavens d Heb. 12. 26. , I mean the sending of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ in the flesh into the world? was there no occasion hereby ministered unto God, to vary from his ancient economy of governing his Church and people, as much as an alteration or change of some external penalties, amount unto? But we shall have occasion once and again to discourse Old Testament matters with our new Masters, before they and I part: therefore for the present we leave them under the shame of this supposition also. Thirdly, the said Answer halts shamefully upon this leg also; Sect. 13. it affirmeth, that that speech of Christ Luk. 9 The Son of man i● not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, hath a peculiar reference to his being on Earth in the form of a servant, which implieth, that when he laid aside the form of a servant, and ascended up into Heaven, he ascended, not to save men's lives, but to destroy them; or at least, that now, being in Heaven, he is more inclinable to destroy the lives of men, than he was whilst he remained in the form of a servant: Both which are emphatically false; the Lord Christ, even after his receiving up into glory, being altogether as tender of the preclous lives of men, as before; yea and giving out his Divine virtue and power every whit as bountifully, as well for the comfort and preservation of men's lives whilst they Sect. 14. stood by them, as for the restoring or recalling of them, when they were departed a Act. 9 40. Act. 20. 9, 10. . Yea the Scripture teacheth us to look upon the blessed condition of Christ glorified, as a more hopeful ground of obtaining grace and favour from him in every kind, than his being in the form of a Servant was. For if when we were enemies (saith the Apostle) we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved BY HIS LIFE b Rom. 5. 10. . Fourthly, the said Answer blusheth also with the red of this inference, or supposal: viz. that because that negative expression of Christ mentioned, that he came not to destroy men's lives, is not necessarily an absolute negation, but rather a preferring of one thing before another; therefore it is necessarily and absolutely a preferring of one thing before another; and the meaning of it necessarily and absolutely this, that Christ came not only, or so much, to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Doth the possibility, or nonnecessity of the being of a thing either so or so, necessarily and absolutely imply the being of it otherwise? This (it seems) is one of the Logic pillars, upon which Presbytery hath built her house. Fiftly (and last) the Answer we speak of, vanisheth away, and dieth in the hand of this most senseless and importune reasoning. Sect. 14. If Peter by his word struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for their sacrilegious dissimulation; and Christ himself threaten destruction to Jerusalem for rejecting him their Messiah, then is the destroying of men's lives by the Civil Magistrate for contradicting the most fundamental Doctrines of Christ, agreeable to the Spirit of Christ. Doth the Antecedent and consequent in this hypothetical proposition agree any whit better than harp and harrow? Is the contradicting of what a man knows no sufficient ground or reason, why he should judge, or think it to be a Truth, nor with his best endeavours is able so to judge of it (which according to the common Tenet of these men themselves, is the case of all unregenerate men, in respect of the fundamental Doctrines of Christ) a sin of the like nature, or equally punishable, with the sin of Sacrilegious dissimulation; which the sinner cannot but know to be an abomination? See before, Sect. 11. Or is the threatening of destruction by Christ himself to Jerusalem upon an old score of all manner of provocations and abominations, which had run on for many generations together; which threatening notwithstanding was not Sect. 14. put in execution till almost forty years after it was denounced; is such a threatening (I say) as this by Christ himself, of a like consideration with the actual and present inflicting of the punishment of death upon a man by a Civil Magistrate, only for contradicting in words such or such Tenets in Christian Religion, suppose the most fundamental, of the Truth, or likelihood whereof the miserable wretch hath no assurance, nor (perhaps) knoweth how to come by any? Whatsoever an Apostle may do by the immediate and infallible direction of the Holy Ghost; nay, whatsoever Christ himself may do by virtue of his Authority and Interest, having all power of Judicature put into his hand by God, may a Magistrate do by virtue of that limited Authority and Interest which he hath, and by the suggestion or direction of his own spirit only, or of those that are subject unto error and misprisions, as well as his? Is it reasonable to say that a child may undertake as much as a man? or a Subject, as much as his Prince? Take a parallel of these men's reasoning: if the Vine may bring forth grapes, why not the thorn? if the figtree figs, why not the thistle? Take another: If Presbytery be Jure Divino, why not Episcopacy? why not Independency? If something be something, why not nothing? The Faith of these men had need be strong; for their reasonings (I am certain) are extremely weak. But their salve for this sore is; to enjoin their Proselytes upon pain of death to cast their Reason out of their Religion; and then quid libet will serve to prove quodlibet. But before I discharge them at this point, I must know of them, or at least demand of them, by what light, new, or old, did they discern this for a truth, that Peter by his word struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for their Sacrilegious dissimulation? Do these men justify the Argument of the Romish Disputants, from Ecce duo gladii, Behold, here are two Swords, to prove that Peter was invested, as well with secular, as a Luk. 22. 38. Ecclesiastic power? Or do they conceive, that smiting with death is an Ecclesiastic, or Church Censure? Or suppose it be, had Peter power to inflict it by his word? Did God impart his omnipotency unto him? Concerning Ananias it is indeed related how Peter according to the duty of his place, admonished him of his sin; and that Ananias upon hearing the Admonition or Reproof, gave up the Ghost a Act. 5. 5. (or, died) but it is not where said, nor is it any ways Sect. 14. probable, that Peter intended any such severe execution in his admonition; and consequently it cannot be said, that he struck him dead with his word; except only in such a sense, as a man may be said to kill his Brother, who doth it at unawares: and if a Magistrate shall thus slay with death an Heretic, or opposer of the Doctrines of Christ, viz. at unawares, I shall do my utmost to excuse him; and the rather, if he shall do it, only by admonishing, or reproving him for his errors. Concerning the death of Sapphira, it is said indeed that Peter foretold it, before it was inflicted; behold (saith he, unto her) the feet of those which have buried thy husband, are at the door, and shall carry thee out. But from these words, it cannot be concluded that Peter struck Sapphira dead with his word, except only in such a sense, as the faithful Ministers of this Land, may be said to have struck it with all those heavy Judgements or plagues that have fallen upon it, in as much as they foretold and preadmonished the Nation of them before they came. The greatest difference is, that Peter had his prediction of Sapphira's death, by a more immediate revelation from God; the Ministers have their predictions of the Judgements executed upon this Nation, by the mediation of the Scriptures, which hold forth grounds for such predictions. If Magistrates be able upon substantial grounds to foreshow what Judgements will fall upon those that shall oppose the Doctrines of Christ, in case these Judgements shall fall upon them accordingly without the Magistrates interposal for their procurement, I shall freely allow them this imitation of Peteter in striking Ananias and Sapphira dead with his word. For I much doubt, whether it had been lawful for Peter, having prophesied of Sapphira's death, to have slain her with a Sword for the vindication of his Prophecy. But surely these men were not ware of their friends, (if of themselves) when they pleaded the example of Peter smiting Ananias and Sapphira with death for dissimulation, to strengthen the hand of the Civil Magistrate to punish offenders accordingly. For I verily believe, were it his duty, and he conscientious in the performance of it, to smite hypocrisy and dissimulation with the Sword, that great and numerous party, which the Anti-Querists have for the present in the Land, would soon be reduced to the shaking of an olive tree, and to the gleaning of grapes after the vontage. In the mean while Sect. 1●. we clearly see with what rotten timber the house of the Lord (so called) is now built by the great Architects of it. We have now done with the Answer of our Syllogists, to their first Argument: and have found the Argument laughing the Answer in the face to scorn. Proceed we in the next place to the examination of their Answer Sect. 15. given to their second Syllogism, which by the strength of their imagination and Logic together, they hale and pull out of my second Querie (that unhappy Querie of Classic indignation) at which so many of this way have made shipwreck of their patience and manlike ingenuity; discovering themselves, not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Jam. 5. 21. subject to like passions with other men, which was Eliiah's infirmity; but to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. subject to passions appropriate to themselves, of a worse and more deplorable nature than other men's. But let us hear how they answer this Argument of their own: this they attempt to do, first, by Reason; secondly, by Passion. For the first: this Answer (or rather, this part of their Answer) stands upon two legs, (with much ado) the first is this: That they who after admonition, maintain damnable Heresies, are no longer to be esteemed Brethren, but enemies to Christ, etc. and therefore are to be accordingly dealt with b page 4. . This ground is true: but as true it is, that it is nothing to the purpose. For first, there is no mention of any such thing, as damnable heresies, in the Argument which they propose to answer; but only of such opinions, which for aught the inflicters of death know, may be the sacred Truths of Christ. If they will grant, that such opinions, may be damnable Heresies which for aught the men they speak of know, may be sacred Truths of Christ; I grant both the Truth and pertinency of the supposition or ground: but if they grant it, it undoeth them in all they further have to say, either in way of Reason, or of passion, in this Answer (as will appear presently.) And Secondly, whereas they say, that such who after admonition, shall maintain damnable heresies, etc. are to be dealt with all accordingly, (i. either as God hath commanded, or as otherwise is reasonable, in such cases) I know no man 〈…〉 in this gainsayeth them. But what is this to the inflicting of the heavy censure of death upon men▪ these are the terms of the Syllogism, which they pretend to answer. Sect. 16. Are these equipollent expressions in their Logic; to deal with an offender according to his offence; and, to inflict the heavy censure of death upon him? Surely these men are Stoics, and hold the Paradox, Omnia peccata esse aequalia, i. that all sins are equal. The question between them and their Syllogism, is not, whether they who maintain damnable heresies after Admonition, be to be dealt with accordingly; no, nor yet, whether such are to be punished with death; but whether it be agreeable to the mind of Christ, for men to inflict the censure of death upon men, for holding forth such opinions, which for ●ught they know may be the sacred Truths of Christ. But to this Question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem is to be found in all their Answer; neither in the more lightsome part of it, which should have been reason (had it proved), nor yet in the dark of it, which is passion without dispute. The second leg made of reason (such as it is) upon which this answer Sect. 16. stands, in the rational part of it) is this: that the Opinions threatened with death in the Ordinance, the makers of the Ordinance do CERTAIN●Y know to be damnable heresies. This they prove by this Reason; because they are contrary to the MANIFEST word of God, and overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion. But (By the way) what if the makers of the Ordinance (which I and many more, suppose to be men of Clergie-orders, rather than persons of any other Interest or capacity) have that certainty of knowledge which is here with so much confidence asserted to them, though this (I confess) were it granted, would be somewhat to the Syllogism (though not much neither) yet is it nothing at all to the Querie, from whence the Syllogism pretends legitimacy of descent. For certain I am that the Querie denies it not. If it be replied; yea, but it intimates a denial of i●. I demand, upon what ground is this supposition built? or what reason is there to charge the Querie, with such an intimation? if it be answered; because it was framed upon occasion of the Ordinance, and owns relation to it. And therefore, except some such supposition as this be virtually contained in it, viz. that the makers of the Ordinance do not certainly know the opinions threatened therein with death, to be damnable heresies, the Querie is altogether eccentrical, and irrelative to the point, to which it pretends. I answer, that this is a most simple and unclerk-like allegation, and no ways demonstrative. Sect. 17. For First, what though the Querie was framed upon occasion of the Sect. 17. Ordinance, yet is it not necessary that it should speak to, or of, any of the particulars contained in the Ordinance. When a man being below, intends to go up into a chamber, or upper room, he doth not set his first, nor second, nor third step into the room itself, whereinto his desire is to enter, but steppeth at first upon lower stairs, which are at some distance from it. Nothing is more usual, then in examinations, and inquirings out of matters, whether by Justices of Peace, Judges, or others, at first to propose Questions or Queries to the persons that are to be examined, that are preparatory only, and introductive to such further Questions, which strike at the business principally intended to be inquired after, and found out. I presume the intent of the late Catechism of the present Church of England (so called) was, neither to teach the persons that were to be cathechised, what their Names were, or who gave them their Names, nor yet to inform the Catechist of either of these: but to instruct those that were to be catechised, in the fundamental points of Christian Religion. Yet we know that the framers of this Catechism, thought meet to begin with those questions, What is your Name: and, Who gave you this Name; which do not concern immediately or directly any point of Religion, but to serve only by way of introduction to those questions which follow, and whose tendency was, the instruction of the persons catechised in things worthy to be known. So that to plead or to pretend, that, because the body of my Queries was compiled upon occasion of the Ordinance, therefore the first or second Querie must directly and particularly strike at the Ordinance, or any thing contained in it (much more at the makers of the Ordinance,) or else be altogether irrelative to it, is a kind of arguing, which cannot lightly proceed but from men of one of the worst constitutions that are to be found amongst Christians, namely, such, who are men only in malice, and children in understanding. Therefore all that passionate and un-christian bluster, of wickedness, blasphemy, impudence, are you an Atheist, or a Devil, with all the rest of the black Regiment of unhallowed expressions, which spread themselves upon the fift and sixth pages of the Vindication, is occasioned only by that kind of ignorance in the Antiquerists, Sect. 18. which the Philosopher calls ignorantia Juris, the Ignorance of the Law, and excludes from all excuse. The men certainly were sick of their disease, who sought amongst all the do and say of Christ, wherefore to stone him; and at last, for want of a better or a better coloured for their purpose pitched upon that, which was as innocent as any of the rest, viz. his making himself the Son of God a joh. 8. . The Counter-Querists, being desirous above measure, to find some, one, or more, amongst my Queries, that would take compassion on them, and ease the burden of their great grief by furnishing them with an occasion to disgrace both me, and their fellows; have cast their eye, and se● their heart upon the second, as best of countenance for their design; which yet in truth and evidence of interpretation, as little favoureth them in the way of this unrighteousness, as any other. Secondly, let the Querie in hand be sifted to the bran, there Sect. 18. will not so much as the smallest dust be beaten out of it, to asperse the MAKERS of the Ordinance, whoever they be, with any such insinuation, as that which the Syllogisme-makers charge upon it; viz. that the opinions therein threatened with death, may, for aught the said MAKERS know, be the sacred Truths of God. The Querie speaks only of those, who shall inflict the heavy censure of death upon men for holding forth such, or such Doctrines and opinions; no● at all of the Ordinance-makers. Now a Jury, who shall pass a verdict against a man, which in ordinary course of Law, toucheth his life; and so a Judge that shall give a sentence of death against him; yea and the executioner of this sentence may every whit a● properly be said to inflict the censure of death upon him, as they that make the Ordinance, or Law, by occasion whereof he suffereth. So then, though it should be granted, that the Querie intimateth or supposeth this, that the inflicters of death upon men for holding forth such opinions, which by the Ordinance are threatened with death, may very possibly not certainly know, but that they are the Truth● of God; yet it no ways follows from hence, that this intimation i● leveled against those who made the Ordinance, (much less against the Parliament, who made it not:) which yet the Anti-querie-men most in●ulfly and ignobly, but so much the more like unto themselves, charge the Querie with) because there are divers others, Sect. 19 to whom, according to the tenor of the Querie, it may relate, yea and to whom men of ingenuity and understanding, might easily have conceived, that, according to the intention of the Querist, it did belong, rather than to the makers of the Ordinance. For whatsoever may either reasonably, or charitably be thought of these; confident I am, that upon due consideration it will be found, that many men who are put upon Juries, yea and some Judges too, & executioners especially, know nothing certainly by those Doctrines in the Ordinance threatened with death, but that they are, or may be the sacred Truths of God. And thus we see how grievously an innocent Querie hath been handled, racked, and tortured by the Sons of violence, to force an accusation from it against the Authors. Well ●● the comfort is, that what men make crooked in their day, God will make straight again in his. And now, having abundantly justified the Querie against the Sect. 19 Syllogism, let us according to our understanding, see whether, or how fare the Syllogism itself notwithstanding, is justifiable against the Answer given in by the Cata-Querists to it. We have vindicated it in part already; and have clearly showed, that the first thing they answer to it, is either a mere impertinency, or else a Sword to slay their own opinion with. See Sect 15. We exhibited the second particular of their Answer, at the beginning of Sect. 16. which amounted to this; that the makers of the Ordinance must needs certainly know that the opinions sentenced with death in the Ordinance, are damnable Heresies, because they are contrary to the manifest word of God, overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion. To this I answer (earnestly desiring the Reader well to observe, and to carry in mind the tenor and substance of the allegation.) First, if all the opinions sentenced with death in the Ordinance are damnable Heresies; contrary to the manifest word of God, overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion, etc. How came it to pass that the Honourable House of Commons (as we have been once and again informed by your weekly Intelligence concerning their proceed) after a long and serious debate, judged the contrary; not suffering the denying of God to be one in three Persons to pass as a damnable Heresy, or contrary to the manifest word of God, etc. which yet is one of the opinions threatened with death in Sect. 20. the Ordinance? If they had judged this a damnable heresy, contrary to the manifest word of God, overthrowing, etc. What reason can be given, why they should be more favourable to it, refusing to charge it with death, then unto many others, upon which the thought meet to lay this heavy sentence conceiving them to be opinions or Doctrines of that deep demerit, and dangerous import? Will these Anti-Querists charge this Honourable House with injustice or partiality between Doctrine and Doctrine, Opinion and Opinion? Howsoever, Secondly, It is evident from the tenderness of this Honourable Sect. 20. House in not suffering the said Opinion to pass for a damnable heresy, etc. that if the makers of the Ordinance did certainly know, that all the Opinions sentenced therein with death, were damnable heresies, contrary to the manifest word of God, overthrowing, etc. that they knew more than all the said Honourable House besides. Which considered, I summon all Readers and persons under Heaven to consider and give sentence, whether these sons of shame ●nd folly, had not much more reason (if they durst) to have vented that outrage of senseless choler and most unchristian passion against this Honourable Hose itself, then against me, which they pour out, pag. 5. of their Vindication (or Revenge rather) in these words. First to the Querist: Who are you sir, that have dared to conceive in your heart such a wickedness and blasphemy as this Querie contains in the bowels of it? Look again upon the Opinions which the Ordinance threatneth with death: or if you will not, I summon all Readers in the Name of God and Christ to look upon them, and to stand amazed at your impudence, that have been so audacious, as to affirm or insinuate (which yet I have not done in the least, as hath been sufficiently proved, though these sons of Levi be so impudent and audacious as to calumniate me with it) that all those things, OR EVEN ANY OF THEM, may (for all that the Parliament knows, or any that will not make himself infallible) be the sacred Truths of God. And presently after: What are you that speak thus? an Atheist? or a Devil? Behold, oh England, a map of thy misery! Thy teachers imagine mischief in their heart: they sharpen their tongues like a Serpent: adders poison is under their lips. a Psal. 140. 3. Are such lips meet to preserve knowledge? But why do they charge me, and not the Parliament rather, with wickedness, Blasphemy, Impudence; audaciousness? Sect. 21. Why do they not ask the respective Members thereof; What are you that speak thus; are you Atheists? or are you Devils? Yea why do they not charge the Assembly, as they regard the honour of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. to deliver them up unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme? They are the persons against whom the pretended ground of all these brutish vociferations lieth, not I They are they, who (if the intelligence be authentic and true) have affirmed, or at least throughly insinuated, that all the Doctrines and opinions threatened in the Ordinance with death, are not CERTAINLY known to them, either to be damnable heresies, or contrary to the manifest word of God, or overthrowing the foundations of Christian Religion. They have declared their sense to the contrary, and that upon a most weighty and Christian ground. For in as much as the Scriptures, or manifest word of God doth no where affirm, that God is One in three Persons, they had the greatest Reason in the world, not to sentence the denial thereof with death. If once this door be opened, that the expositions or Interpretations of Scripture, or deductions from Scripture, made by men, shall be made binding upon the Judgements and Consciences of others, under civil mulcts and penalties in any kind, where, or when, or in what cases shall it be shut? Or who shall be found meet to separate the vile from the precious in this kind? I mean, to determine, what expositions, or deductions they are, the denial whereof shall deserve to be punished; and again, what, or which of either kind they are, that may be refused without danger? Reader, give me leave to try to cut the comb of these men's Sect. 21. confidence, by propounding a Question to them. I shall not ask them, what they are? whether they be Atheists, or Devils? they may possibly have learned by this how to answer these Questions. But the Querie I shall put to them is this; How, or by what means, or upon what grounds they themselves CERTAINLY know, that this Opinion (which is one of those, which as hath oft been said, the Ordinance threatneth with death) viz. that God is not one in three Persons, is either a damnable heresy, or contrary to the manifest word of God, or overthrowing the foundations of Christian Religion? Certain I am, that the Scriptures, which we vulgar and unlearned ones call the word of God (it may be the Seraphical Doctors, to Sect. 11. whom we now address, have some other word of God, which we know not of) no where affirms, or holds forth this, that God is one in three Persons; nor doth it any where use the term, or word, person, in reference unto God. If it be replied and said; yea, but it plainly affirmeth, God to be One in Three: and it as plainly ascribeth to every of these Three, such things, which plainly evince them, to be so many Persons. I answer, First, that my memory serves me, as ill as the Consciences and reasons of these men served their masters in drawing up their Vindication, that is, quite faileth me, if the Scripture any where plainly affirmeth, that God is One in Three. This certainly is a phrase, or expression, which the Scripture knoweth not. It is indeed said, concerning the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, that these three are one a 1 Joh. 5. 8. . But to say, that God is one IN these, or any other, Three, is the voice of men, not of God. Therefore these Gentlemen, cannot reasonably or with Truth say, that they CERTAINLY know the denial of this to be a damnable Heresy, etc. by the Scriptures, at least not by the Scriptures alone, without the mediation and interveening of their own reasons and understandings, to draw it forth by way of inference or deduction. Now then, if the knowledge which they have of any conclusion, suppose it be a Truth, depends, though but in part, upon the actings & workings of their own reasons and understandings, which are confessedly fallible, and very obnoxious to mistakes, especially in the things of God; impossible it is that this knowledge should be CERTAIN, yea though the grounds or principles, from whence they derive it, be never so CERTAIN or infallible. It is a known maxim in Logic; that Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem. If either of the Premises be but probable or contingent, the conclusion raised from them, will never be a necessary, or CERTAIN Truth. I confess there is a great difference between deduction and deduction, inference and inference, in point of clearness and satisfactoriness to the Judgement and Conscience of a man: one may have such a kind of certainty or evidence in it in respect of him, that he is able to lay down his life in attestation of the Truth of it, whereas (haply) he is not willing to sacrifice the least hair of his head upon the service of another; yet the greatest evidence or certainty to me in this kind is no sufficient Argument to evince an absolute or universal Sect. 21 CERTAINTY in the thing, I mean a certainty in respect of all other men, considering that (as one saith) the same things Eadem possunt ali●ni videri man f●stè vera, quae alteri videntur manif●ste falsa. may seem manifestly true to one man, which seem manifestly false unto another; nor can any man have any such assurance of another man's judgement or understanding, as that they must needs be without error or mistake in such things, wherein himself remains doubtful. Secondly, how much less can these impatient and importune boasters of their CERTAIN knowledge, know certainly that God is One in three Persons (the denial whereof the Ordinance threatneth with death) by the Scriptures alone, when as these no where assert it? So that (for aught I certainly know) to vindicate the CERTAINTY of their knowledge in this point, they must flee to the Familists, and crave quarter with them in their Sanctuary of extraordinary Revelation. Thirdly, (and last, to this) confident I am, that if these great Confidentiaries of the certainty of their knowledge being three in number (if report mis-counteth not) were but dealt with upon this occasion, as those base and bloody Elders are reported in the Apocryphal story of Susanna, to have been served by Daniel upon another occasion, I mean, were they presently taken and examined apart each from other, what they mean by the word, PERSON, when they say, God is one in three Persons, they would agree no better in their Answers, than those Elders did in theirs; but one would answer, that a Person, was a Myrtle tree; the second, a lentish tree: the third, a tile tree; my meaning is, that no one of them would agree with either of his fellows, in his notion or definition of a PERSON. And then with what face, can these enemies both of nature and Grace, require of poor, weak, simple and illiterate people, that they under pain of death, believe, that God is One in three Persons, when as themselves, who conceive they ride upon the wings of all knowledge, Learning, and understanding, cannot agree among themselves what a PERSON is; or if they do agree, it is ten to one but it is an agreement in error, and disagreement with the Truth. Poor English souls! Were you ransomed with the precious blood of Jesus Christ, to sell yourselves under the hand and power of such hard and cruel Masters as these? But Thirdly, I would gladly know of these Classic Authors, why, Sect. 22. Sect. 22. or how this should be a reason, to demonstrate, that the makers of the Ordinance must needs certainly know, that all the Opinions threatened with death in it, are damnable heresies; viz. because they are contrary to the manifest word of God, and overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion. For first, if this be a demonstrative reason to the makers of the Ordinance, of the conclusion specified, why is it not so to all others? and particularly to those, who are supposed either for the present to hold, or at least to be in a possibility of holding, the Opinions threatened with death in the Ordinance? God forbidden that I should cast the least prejudice or aspersion upon the makers of the Ordinance, whose Persons are to me altogether unknown: I am willing to hope the best, and to judge charitably of them, as viz. that they are men truly fearing God: But yet if the strength or stress of these men's Answer to their Syllogism, lieth in this supposition, I shall crave leave (I hope without offence) to require of them a probate of it. Nor for any doubt I have of the thing; but because I do not love to gratify men in lose disputes. But this I confess is no part of my charity towards them, to judge that to be demonstrative unto them, which unto others of equal capacity and understanding, if not superior, is not so much as Topical, or probably concluding. Porphyry, Julian the Apostate, with many other adversaries of Christian Religion, of great abilities and Learning, knew that all, or most of the Opinions threatened with death in the Ordinance, were contrary to the manifest word of God, I mean the Scriptures, and likewise overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion; and yet they were so fare from knowing CERTAINLY hereby, that they were damnable heresies, that they apprehended them not in the least, to be so much as errors. And in case any root of this bitterness shall at any time spring up amongst us, if any such person, one or more, shall arise in this City, or elsewhere in the Kingdom, teaching or publishing any of those perverse things (a possibility at least whereof the Ordinance itself supposeth) it cannot well be conc●ied, but that they must needs know them to be contrary to what these men (I suppose) call the manifest word of God, and likewise overthrowing the foundations of Christian Religion; and yet if we shall suppose them to be CERTAINLY KNOWN unto them for damnable heresies, we Sect. 23. 24. cannot with any good accord to this supposition, suppose they will ever hold, or publish them. Or Fourthly, if we shall suppose that these men, who shall, or may Sect ●3. hold or publish any of those Opinions sentenced in the Ordinance, may possibly not know them to be contrary to the manifest word of God, or overthrowing the foundations of Christian Religion: how can this contrariety, or destructive nature to Religion in these Opinions, be any sufficient proof or demonstration, that the makers of Ordinance must needs CERTAINLY know them to be damnable heresies? That which one man living in England, is ignorant of, there is a possibility (at least) that another may be ignorant of it also. Now than if there be but so much as a possibility, that the makers of the Ordinance may not know, that the said Opinions are contrary to the manifest word of God, or destructive to Christian Religion; these ill properties in them can be no sufficient or demonstrative proof, that they do CERTAINLY KNOW them to be damnable heresies. For that which a man may possibly b● ignorant of, can be no suffient ground to another, upon which to conclude any CERTAINTY OF KNOWLEDGE in any point whatsoever, in such a man. If I suppose (for example) that Peter may be ignorant whether James be in London or no; I cannot conclude that Peter knows any thing, much less knows any thing CERTAINLY, by means of James his being in London, though it be never so true that there he is: yea, and that he hath informed Peter of never so many things. It is not the ground, cause, or reason of any thing which necessarily furnisheth a man with the knowledge of the thing; but the apprehension and knowledge of them, and that in their relation of causality unto the thing. So that the Vindicators are quite out, in assigning the contrariety which is in the Opinions sentenced in the Ordinance to the manifest word of God, together with their destructiveness to the foundations of Christian Religion, as a reason or ground why the makers of the Ordinance must needs CERTAINLY know them to be damnable heresies. Fiftly, whereas our Querie▪ opponents talk with so much peremptoriness Sect. 24. and importune confidence of a CERTAIN knewledge, in the Ordinance-makers (and consequently, in themselves) that the Opinions condemned in the Ordinance, are damnable heresies; I am half jealous, from the air of their confidence, that Sect. 25. they understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirm a 1 Tim. 1. 7. , I mean that they know not, or at least consider not, what belongs to a CERTAINTY OF KNOWLEDGE in matters of Religion, and the things of God. It is a gracious and excellent degree of persuasion concerning the truth of the Gospel, and much more concerning the Truth of particular Doctrines in it, when men being called to it by God, are made able and willing thereby to lay down their lives for them, or in confirmation of them. If themselves have attained such a persuasion or knowledge of the Truth of Gospel-Doctrines, as this, they have cause to be thankful, and to glorify God abundantly in this behalf. He hath no● dealt so with many of his children: nor have thousands of Professors any such persuasion or knowledge of them. Yet these Gentlemen may please to understand, that such a knowledge of spiritual Truths, which is sufficient to strengthen a man's hand to die for them, may very possibly be fare from a CERTAIN knowledge of them. We have read and heard of man 〈…〉 who have been enabled to die, yea and have died, for some Doctrines or Opinions, out of that strength of persuasion which they had of the Truth of them, which notwithstanding we generally know were not true. Now most certain it is, that there can be no CERTAIN knowledge of the truth of any thing, that is false. Therefore such a knowledge or persuasion of any Gospel-Truth, which makes men willing and ready to die for it, is no sufficient proof of a CERTAINTY in this knowledge. Which considered, that opposition between a necessity of being Sceptics in Religion, and a necessity of knowing some things certainly (which our Answer-men make in the sequel of this part of their Answer) gives no testimony at all either to their learning or understanding. For no man (I presume) will call him a Sceptic in Religion, who is so fare persuaded and confidenced of what he holds in it, that he is willing and ready to die in attestation of the Truth thereof. And yet (as hath been said) such a persuasion or confidence as this, doth no ways import a CERTAINTY of knowledge. Sixtly, It is the common Doctrine and Opinion of those Authors, Sect. 52. which are generally by Protestants reputed Classic and Orthodox (though mine own Judgement I confess, rather inclines another way, that all other Arguments and proofs, which Sect. 25. are usually (yea, or which can be) brought, to prove the Divinity of the Scriptures, and the Truth of this Gospel, are but dialectical, and probable, not demonstrative, or conclusive without all fear of Truth on the other side, or however not sufficient to persuade men to a firm assent unto them. They only allow the supernatural and immediate work of the Spirit * Atque hoc argumentum [nempe Testificatio Spiritus Sancti, etc.] ut est renatorum proprium, ita solum corda eorum, non solum de veritate & Authoritate Scripturae sacrae convincit, sed etiam persuadet, ut assentiantur, & in eâ firmiter acquiescant: reliqua omnia communia sunt etiam non conversis, quos quidem etiam convincunt, atque ora contradicentibus obturant, sed SOLA NON PERSUADENT NEC MOVENT AD ASSENTIENDUM, NISI INTUS TESTIMONIUM SPIRITUS SANCTI ACCEDAT Ursimus Catech. Proleg. c. 4. Sect. 14. Haec cer●è à legentibus & audientibus percipiuntur. Sed ut cum fructu fiat & verâ fide, necessarium est, ut suorum uniuscujusque afflatu Spiri●ls sui, cor tangat, ut veritatem Divinam in his Scriptis elucentem agnoscat, ad quorum lumen alioqui ambulare non possunt qui spirituali caecitate detin●ntur, donee Deus iis, quibus verbum illud legitur aut praedicatur, CORDA ILLUMINET; sine quo Spiritûs motu, Ecclesiae verae testimonium, quod medium ad fidem utile etiam censemus, sed neque unicum, NEQUE SUFFICIENS, prorsus esset inefficax. Andr. Rivet. Isag. cap. ●. Sect. 8. Quare quod piis hominibus sole clarius est, illis [qui sunt mentibus obtenebratis] quavis est caligine obscurius. Musc. Loc. De sacris Scriptures. Quare si nostrum illud, credere Scripturae, pendet à Spiritu Sancto, quid obstat, quò minùs concl●damus, quod proposuimus, Scripturae authoritatem, quoad nos pendere à Spiritu Sancto agente in Conscientiis nostris? Probatur jam minor. Nemo c●edit iis quae continentur i● Scripturâ Sanctâ nisi doctus à Deo. At quicunque credit Scripturae, credit iis omnibus, quae continentur in eâ. Ergo nemo credit Scripturae, nisi doctus à Deo, id est, per fidem insusam. Minor per se patet: quia Scripturae credere, in hac saltem controversiâ, est eam habere pro verè Divinâ, extráque omnem comparationis aleam. Chamier. Panstrat. lib. 6. cap. 3. Sect. 2, 3. Et posteà, loquens de Augustino: Sic bonus ille Pater propriá experientiâ didicit, eam fidem, quâ amplectimur Scripturarum Authoritatem, esse à Deo, NON VERO ACQUISITUM ALIQUID. asserting and sealing up the Truth of both in the Consciences of men, as an Argument of that Interest, I mean as an Argument demonstratively and infallibly conclusive. Is it then such an hideous or enormous supposition, as these men desire to inform the world in thunder and lightning; or is it at any such distance from their own Principles, to suppose, that men may possibly not know CERTAINLY the great Truths of the Gospel, to be Truths? and consequently, not know CERTAINLY, that the opinions threatened with death in the Ordinance, are damnable heresies? Is there any thing more horrid or strange in such a supposition, than there is in this; that God hath not by the supernatural, infallible, Sect. 26. immedate work of his Spirit, revealed and sealed up to the Consciences of many men, the unquestionable Truth of the Gospel? And is it any thing more strange to suppose this, than it is to suppose, that all men are not Kings, nor all Princes, nor all Nobles, nor all wise, nor all rich, with the like? Surely these men through the abundance of their zeal, will shortly vote it, wickedness, blasphemy, impudence, Atheism, Devillisme, an impiety calling for an Anathema, a delivering up unto Satan, etc. for a man to suppose or intimate, that light is not darkness; or that darkness is not light; that sweet is not bitter, or, that bitter is not sweet; that a man's feet are not his hands, or that his head is not his feet. The most clear and pregnant truth is, that the intimation, wherewith they charge the Querie now in Sanctuary, (and this undeservedly too) and against which they rise up in the might of their indignation, is of no more demerit, no more worthy censure, than one of these; yea and that the most innocent of them, if any be suspected. Dear English souls, take heed of putting a Sceptre into the hands of these men. For they can be angry and become Lions, and call ears, horns, when they please. By the way, before we leave this point, I desire, by occasion of the ground lately mentioned, as the common, if not the general, Tenet of our best and most Orthodox Writers, that it be taken into serious consideration; whether, or how fare it is meet to punish or censute poor miserable men, for not holding, or not asserting the Truth of those things; which they cannot come, without much labour and contention of mind, yea not without some good degree of reason and understanding too, to judge so much as probable; nor at all to come to believe or know them CERTAINLY, but only by an immediate and supernatural work of the Spirit of God? Are men to be punished, because God hath not imparted unto them his Spirit of Grace, and supernatural illumination? Seventhly, and lastly; Neither is it true (as hath been proved at Sect. 26. large) that all the opinions threatened with death in the Ordinance, are either contrary to the manifest word of God, or overthrowing the foundations of Christian Religion. Therefore no such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or properties in them as these, can be any reason, to prove, that the makers of the Ordinance must needs CERTAINLY know them to be damnable Sect. 27. heresies. For non entis, nulla est efficacia, nulla operatic. That which is not, cannot be a reason or cause, of that which i●. A man's person cannot be protected by a Castle in the air. By the way, I suppose that by the manifest word of God, the Answerers mean, Texts, or passages, first, of such Scriptures which are manifestly, i. unquestionably, and without all dispute, the word of God. And secondly, which are capable of no other exposition, sense or meaning, but what as plainly and directly as in the very terms themselves, exhibit and give out the opinion, whether one, or more asserted by them. If they intent or mean any thing less than this, by their, manifest word of God, they speak snares and ambiguities: therefore in this sense I understand them, and counterargue with them thus. First, that all the Opinions sentenced with death in the Ordinance, are not contrary to the manifest word of God, is evident by what hath been already argued, concerning this (which is one of them) viz. that God is not one in three Persons a Sec Sect. 19, 20, 21. . This, how untrue or erroneous soever, in a sense, it may be, is not contrary to any manifest word of God. Nor have the Syllogismers proved so much as one jot or title of this: and yet I believe they have proved as much of it, as ever they will do, or can do. So again, That Christ is not God coequal with the Father (which is another of these Opinions;) neither is this contrary to any manifest word of God in the sense declared: though I judge it contrary to the Truth. Probatio incumbit affirmanti: Let the assertors of it to be so, prove their assertion; but to say much, and prove little, is one of the principal pillars in their School. So again, that Christ's death is not meritorious in the behalf of believers, is another of these Opinions: I marvel what manifest word of God they will find, unto which this is contrary. That the Scriptures are not the word of God, is another: taking the word, Scriptures, for all the books of the Old and New Testament, divifim and conjunctim as they are now received and acknowledged amongst us (which is the only sense the Ordinance can reasonably mean) if they can find me any manifest word of God, whereunto this is contrary, I will in recompense of such a favour, abate them three absurdities and four, in the sequel of my examination of their Vindication. Again Sect. 27. Secondly, neither are all the said Opinions sentenced in the Ordinance with death, overthrowing the very foundations of Christian Religion. Sect. 27. Taking the word, Scriptures, in the sense even now declared, viz. for all, and every the books of the Old and New Testament, this Opinion, that the Scriptures are not the word of God, doth not overthrow the foundations of Christian Religion. The book of the Revelation is Scripture, or a parcel of the Scriptures; yet was this book for a long time together denied to be the word of God, by far the greater part of Christians in the world; who yet remained unshaken in the foundations of their Religion. Luther denied the Epistle of James to be the word of God; and yet was built as strongly upon the foundations of Christian Religion, as these severe Taxe-Masters themselves (not disparagement to their Faith:) Musculus himself so fare professeth himself to reverence the judgement of some of the Canonicalnesse of the latter Epistle of Peter, the two latter Epistles of John, the Epistle of Judas, the Epistle to the Herbrewes, and the Apocalypse; yea and of some later writers also (for he speaks in the plural number) who discanon the Epistle of Judas, that he judgeth himself less tied or bound up in his judgement by these Scriptures, then by other. a Inter libros Novi Testamenti sunt nonnulli, d● quibus etiam veterum sententiae variant: utpote Epistola posterior Petri, duae posteriores Johannis, Epistola Judae, Epistola ad Hebraeos, & Apocalypsis johannis, quae in Concilio Laodiceno cap. 39 & ultimo, inter Canonicas Scripturas non recitatur: quibus etiam eam, quae jacobo inscribitur, quidam reccen●iores connumerant. M●● modestiae non est ut de his pronunciem, sintneeorum, sub quorum nominibus extant, vel secus. ludicia tamen veterum hoc efficiunt, ut minùs simillis, quam coeteris Scripturis astrictus; l●cèt haud facilè quaevis damnanda cens●am, quae in illis leguntur. Musculus Loc. De sacris Scriptures. It were easy to add more instances of like nature. And though for myself, I can, and do without scruple, subscribe to the Truth of this Doctrine, yea and am ready, God assisting, to die for it, that God is one in three Persons; yet I know some who deny it; who notwithstanding this denial, I know also in part by my own experience and acquaintance, but more fully by the testimony of others (worthy credit in as great a matter as this) to be of exemplary life, fruitful in good works, holy, heavenly, Christian in all their Conversation; as fare as men are able to judge or discern. Shall we say, that such men as these, hold not the foundations of Christian Religion? But it is none of least or lowest of our Classic intrusions to umpire among the Stars (I mean the Doctrines of Christian Religion) and to determine positively and above all possibility of mistake, which are of the first, which of the second, which of the third magnitude; Sect. 28. and with all, to call them all by their Names; as if they knew them as exactly, as he that made them. Besides, when the Ordinance sentenceth a denying of the Scriptures Sect. 28. to be the word of God, with death; I desire to know, whether by the SCRIPTURES, it meaneth, the English Scriptures, or that book or rather volume of books, called the Bible, translated (as is said and as I believe) out of the original, Hebrew and Greek copies into the English tongue: Or, these Original or Greek copies themselves: or my third thing really differing from either of these. I suppose, it is no foundation of Christian Religion, to believe that the SCRIPTURES, in the first sense, are the word of God: these Rabbis themselves, do not hold it for an Article of their Faith, that God spoke to his Prophets, or Apostles in English; no nor yet that our English Translation doth agree in all things with the true sense and meaning of the Originals. If they do believe either of these, I must thus fare profess myself an Antisidian to them. If by the SCRIPTURES, the Ordinance meaneth, the Original Hebrew and Greek copies, out of which the English Bible is said to be translated; I desire to know, upon what grounds, either of Reason, or Religion, these men, or any others, can require of men under the pain of death, yea under the pain of eternal death a The Vindicaters, call the denying of the Scriptures to be the word of God, a DAMNABLE heresy. , to believe such writings to be the word of God, the matter, or contents whereof they neither know, nor are capable of knowing, upon any better terms of assurance (I mean in an ordinary way of providence) than the testimony, Common Report, or Authority of men? For what other or better assurance, can plain and unlearned men, and such who are altogether ignorant of the original Languages, and not in any capacity of learning them (which is the case of thousand thousands in the Land) attain or come unto, that such and such things, as the English Translation presenteth unto them, are contained in those Original Copies? Yea in case they were expert in the Original Languages themselves, according to what is called expertness or skilfulness in them at this day; what other, or what better assurance can they have, than the Testimony and Authority of those men, from or by whom they have gained this knowledge, that this skill or knowledge of theirs is according to the Truth; or that those respective significations, meanings, importances of words and Sect. 29. phrases, which they have learned from men, are the very same with those, which the Penmen of their Original Copies intended respectively in their writings? It is well known amongst Scholars, and men but of ordinary reading, that words and phrases in other Languages, by continuance of time and succession of generations, lose their primitive and ancient force and significations, and contract such, which are very much differing from them. Many instances might be given hereof both in the Latin tongue, and our own: but I leave this for men, the face of whose studies is set towards such observations. And put the case there were no such mortality as we speak of in the significations and importances of words, but that they also were yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever; yet the Scholar can have no better assurance than his Master's honesty or word, that he is taught by him according to the best of his skill or knowledge; except (haply) it be the concurrent testimony of other Teachers in the same Profession; whose words and testimonies are but of the same line of fallibility, with his. So then, the holding the Scriptures to be the word of God, in either of these two senses, or significations of the word, can with no tolerable pretext or colour, be called a foundation of Christian Religion; unless their foundations be made of the credits, Learnings, and Authorities of men. If the Ordinance intendeth any third sense, of the word, SCRIPTURES, when it threatneth the denial of them to be the word of God, with death; these undertakers for the Innocence of it, shall do well to declare and explain this sense, and not to leave it as a Lion hid in a thicker, to break out upon, and destroy those that pass by at unawares. Thus have we proved at large, that the two legs, on which Sect. 29. the Anti-Querists Answer to their second Argument stands, to be but two sticks covered with rotten or proud flesh, and this skinned over only with a superficial or washie colour of Reason; and consequently, that the said Argument remaineth still in full force, strength, and virtue; and so the Querie, from whence it was drawn, to be impregnable, honest, sober, and harmless, as well in the proposal, as consideration of it, no ways unbecoming the wisdom, gravity, or zeal of a sound Christian. As for that distinction which they subjoin, concerning a man's being infallible, I cannot likely think but that they are self-condemned in it. Sect. 30. For surely they could not imagine, that the Querie speaks of any absolute or universal infallibility; or that the Querist doth not partake so fare in common sense with the Anti-Querists themselves, as to know, that an infallibility in discerning some one thing from another, doth not necessarily require an universal or infinite infallibility? And therefore to what purpose come they forth with this grave Aphorism; that ●●● may certainly know some things, and yet not be infallible in all things? Had it not been a saying of as much savour, if they had said; certainly men may be worth an hundred pound in estate, though they be not worth a thousand; a Sparrow may be as big as a Partridge, though it be not as big as a Swan. And yet notwithstanding, though they build their Answers with such hey & stubble as these, they must needs glory over the work of their hands with this acclamation; Thus this second Querie is sufficiently answered, etc. Surely the word, SUFFICIENTLY, in these men's Dialect, imports the manner of all actings and plead for the High-Presbyterian cause: so that whatsoever they shall say, or argue in order unto this, it receives this modification from between the efficient, and the end; it is SUFFICIENTLY argued and proved. May they no● (in a manner) as well pretend and say, when they have only cited those first words in Genesis, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, that they have by this Scripture SUFFICIENTLY proved the Jus Divinum of Presbytery; as make their boast, that they have SUFFICIENTLY answered my second Querie with those impertinent, weak, reasonless, truthless allegations (as hath been abundantly proved) of which this Answer (so called) is made? But as it was in that old saying amongst the Romans, between their two Captains, that Ode●●●u● conquered, but Gallienus triumphed: so is it between the present Syllogism, and the Answer to it: The Syllogism conquers, and the Answer triumpheth. Oh England, my heart is enlarged towards thee, and I will open my mouth proportionably unto thee: Take heed of the grand Imposture, of this word, SUFFICIENTLY, in the writings, and in the teachings of thy Teachers: they have learned, to call their chaff, wheat: and to say of stones, that they are bread. But in what degree these men were straightened for want of reason, Sect. 30. in answering their own Argument, they are enlarged in Sect. 30. passion against my Querie. But what? were they so super-superlatively incensed against it, because they were able to make no better work of answering it? Or di● th● spirit of it touch the apple of their eye, and so through the extream●ty of the pain, their imaginations suffered, yea and their Consciences also, through a consent and sympathy with the part affected? But whatsoever the true cause of the accident is; I verily believe, that never did there such a flood of profane and senseless passion, break out of the spirits of men that were called Christian, from the first day of this Denomination in the world, to this very hour, as these men pour out upon a Querie, whose innocence, (I say not, weight and worth) hath been vindicated upon such grounds of evidence and Truth, that the light of the Sun is not more apparent at noonday, than it. Were not the Fountains of the great deep of Corruption within them all broken up, when this Deluge of bitter waters issued from them? And as Joshua, that he and the people with him might be avenged of their enemies, spoke unto the Sun and Moon to stand still; Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon a Josh. 10. 12. ; so did not these men, their hearts being set to take revenge upon the Querist, when they girded themselves to the work, commanded their reasons and consciensces to stand still, and cease from their motions; each of them respectively directing themselves to their own, and saying, Reason, stand thou still over passion; and thou, Conscience, in the valley of Indignation, until we have avenged ourselves in fire and brimstone upon our enemies, that Arch-Enemy of our most beloved Designs? But if in the day of their Answer, (I mean, in the Rational part of it) we found nothing but night and darkness; can we hope in the night thereof, I mean the passionate part of it, to find day, or so much as the dawnings of reason, truth, or understanding? I had once thoughts of speaking particularly to every strain and passage herein: but upon more mature debate with myself about the undertaking, I considered, that in case I were an Engineer, I should do but childishly, to load a Cannon only to batter a mushroom, or a bubble which children raise with soap and spittle out of a nutshell. And thus our second Querie, that great abomination of Classic souls, hath fully recovered herself out of those fogs and Sect. 31. mists, which partly by the ignorance, partly by the ill will of her adversaries, were spread round about her, and shines in perfect beauty; being only troubled and full of sorrow for this; that ever she should be an occasion to men pretending to Religion, of so much rebuke and shame, as must needs fall upon those who have opposed her. Sect. 31. Their third Argument rejoiceth against their Answer given to it, because this also is built upon sandy foundations. As 1. that to be called Rabbi, is to require men to believe that which they teach them, merely because they teach it without any Authority from God in his Word. This is a most strange, and truthless saying; and excuseth Scribes and Pharisees, (and who not?) from ever desiring to be called Rabbi. For certainly none of these were ever so simple, as to require men to believe that which they taught them, MERELY because they taught it without any Authority from God in his word. There was none of them all, but pretended Authority from God in his word, for what they taught; but especially, it is the firstborn of incredibilities, that they should require men to believe what they taught them, upon this ground, MERELY because they taught it without any Authority from God in his word. Can it enter into the heart of a man, especially of any man that professeth the service of the true God, and belief of the Scriptures, to think honourably of his Teacher, MERELY and simply because he teacheth without any Authority from God in his word? Certainly if the Scribes and Pharisees had fished with this bait, especially amongst the Jews, for the acclamations of Rabbi, they had caught nothing but contempt and shame in stead thereof. Therefore for men to enjoin or compel men to call them Rabbi, is (in the sense of the Querie, & in the Scripture import of the phrase) either to enjoin them (especially under any penalty, as of their disfavour, or the disfavour of God, or otherwise) to receive or believe any Doctrine, as the Truth of God, because they teach it for such, viz. either as a true Interpretation of, or deduction from the word of God, whether they give any sufficient account that it is either the one, or the other, unto those, on whom they impose upon such terms, this tribute of belief; or else to prohibit them, on the like terms, the holding and maintaining of such or such Doctrines, because they judge them to be contrary to the word of God, without giving any sufficient account or reason unto the prohibited, Sect. 32. to prove them so. Now I query the Anti-Querists, whether the makers of the Ordinance do not in this sense, compel men to call them Rabbi; i. Whether they do not prohibit men under penalties, and those most grievous, from holding forth such and such Doctrines, as being contrary to the word of God, without giving any sufficient account (or indeed any at all; that I say not, without being able to give any that is sufficient) unto the persons thus prohibited, that they are indeed contrary to this word. 2. The Answer now under correction, is polluted with this unclean Sect. 32. supposition; viz. that the makers of the Ordinance do nothing else therein, that can be interpreted a desire to be called Rabbi, then to charge men that they teach no other Doctrine, than what the word of God holds forth, and the Prophets and Apostles have taught a Pag. 7. . Most unworthy men! First, there is not one jot or tittle of any such charge as this in the Ordinance. 2. There is that in the Ordinance (which was even now mentioned) which in the strictest and most proper sense of the phrase, is to compel men to call them Rabbi; and this of no affinity at all with the tenor or substance of such a charge. And whereas it further addeth; that if any Church-Censures be to be used for any matter of Doctrine, this will be as much to force men to call them Rabbi, as the Civil Magistrates making this Ordinance, forces any to call them Rabbi: I answer, this assertion or comparison is true, only with this explication, viz. when any Church-Censure shall be used for any matter of Doctrine, without any sufficient account given by this Church of the erroneousness of this Doctrine, unto the person, or persons, against whom the censure shall pass. In this case, Church-Censures for matters of Doctrine, and the Ordinancecensures, are much of one and the same consideration▪ 3. As this Answer saith, that for the proof of the minor, it is nothing else, but a reiteration in other language of the former blasphemies against the Doctrine of God and Christ, belched out in the former Querie, and needs no other answer than that; so say I of this assertion; it is nothing else but a reiteration in fewer words, of those truthless, reasonless, sapless, senseless imputations, belched out against that Querie, and needs no other Answer, than what hath been already at large given to it. But 4. (And last) This Answer is a most notorious Delinquent Sect. 33. against the truth, in asserting, that those that have any sense of Religion, Sect. 40. know (whether the Magistrate should recommend them, or not) those Doctrines (viz. which are any ways sentenced in the Ordinance; for the Querie, on which this Argument pretends to be built, queries concerning all the Doctrines specified in the Ordinance) to be the sacred Truths of God, as being the KNOWN PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY, and clearly to be proved out of the word of God. Certainly there have been and are, thousand thousands in the world, who have had as rich and deep a sense of Religion, as our Anti-Querie-masters themselves, who never esteemed, either the Government of the Church by Presbytery, or the lawfulness of Baptising Infants, or the being of the Churches of England, true Churches, (with many Doctrines more punishable by the Ordinance) to be any of the known principles of Christianity. Nay did there any until now, even among those whose judgements stood for Church-Government by Presbytery, or that held the Churches of England to be true Churches, ever assert these for the known Principles of Christianity? That N. B. aught to be Parson, or Pastor of the Parish-Church of D; or that M. N. aught to stand in the same relation to the Parish-Church of another D. are not these also the known Principles of Christianity? O Church, or Churches of England, be ye true, or be ye false; as you love the things of your peace, look out better Oracles than such Teachers as these, to consult with about the Principles of your Christianity. In their fourth Argument, as likewise in their Answer to it, they Sect. 34. take no notice at all, of what the Querie honestly desired to remind them, viz. of any dying themselves for the maintenance and defence of their Religion; but only of putting others to death for th●se ends. I hope they do not intimate hereby, that their lives are dearer to them, than their Religion, though other men's lives be not. Well, but how do they prove that it is Christian to maintain Religion by putting others to death? (though they know not, it seems, what to say of maintaining it by dying themselves.) Their proof is that staple commodity in the Classic Trade, viz. the Law of God in the old Testament, which commanded false Prophets, and Blasphemers, and those that seduce to Idolatry to be put to death. But if I should go about to prove, that the man Moses is now alive, by this argument, viz. because he was alive under the old Testament, should I not spread a table of mirth for these men? Or if I should go about to prove, that such or such an habit, is of the French fashion, because it is of Sect. 34. the Spanish, would they approve my Logic? If they did, I should scarce approve of their approbation. And is there any better sinew in their reasoning, wherein they prove a thing to be Christian, because it is Jewish? Yea, but they were ware of this exception, and way-layed it thus. This Law of God given under the old Testament, for putting false Prophets, Blasphemers, and seducers to Idolatry, to death, is still in force, even for the maintenance of Religion. But how do they prove this? thus: because the reason which God gives of such a Law, is this; that all the people may hear and fear, and do no more so wickedly. Deut. 13. 11. The ground upon which this reason stands, and must be made Orthodox, (if there be any such thing in it) is this; that whilst the reason of any Commandment or Law takes place, or is in force, the Law or Commandment itself, grounded upon that reason, must take place, and be in force also. But of how ill a compliance such a reason or assertion as this, is with the Truth, will sufficiently appear by these parallels; Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of Faith a Rom. 4. 11. ; i. in the nature of a seal, or, that it might be a seal, unto him, and his posterity, of the righteousness of Faith. But this end of Circumcision, the sealing of the righteousness of Faith, still takes place; i. it is still necessary, that the righteousness of Faith be sealed unto men. Therefore Circumcision, or the Law commanding Circumcision, is still in force. Take another; God commanded the children of Israel under the old Testament, to make them fringes in the border of their garments, throughout their generations (there is no such clause as this in the Law for putting blasphemers or Idolaters to death, for the perpetuation of it,) and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribbon of blue; And that it should be unto them for a fringe, that they might look upon it, and remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them, and that they seek not after their own heart, and their own eyes b Num. 15. 38, 39 . But the end of these fringes, and of the looking of them, viz. the remembering of all the Commandments of the Lord, and the doing of them, and the not seeking after our own heart, or eyes, takes place, and is still in force under the New Testament. Therefore the commandment which enjoins them for such an end, is still in force: and consequently the Anti-Querists aught to wear fringes with a ribbon of blue upon their garments. If it be here answered and said; it's ●●ue, the Laws enjoining Sect. 35. Ceremonies, or things typical, as Circumcision and fringes were, Sect. 35. though the end of them still takes place, and remains under the New Testament, yet the Commandments themselves, and the Ceremonies or typical things commanded, are abolished by Christ; but the putting of Idolaters, blasphemers, false Prophets to death, are not Ceremonies, or things typical; Therefore the Laws enjoining these may remain in force, though the other be abolished; and the rather, because their end (as hath been said) remaineth. But for Answer, 1. Be it so; that these latter commands were not abrogated by Christ, (though the Truth will appear on the other side) yet the gentlemen's reason urged for their non-abrogation, is lame; viz. that their end is still in force. If this were a sufficient reason for the non-abrogation of a Law, those other Laws enjoining Ceremonies, would be still in force, and as much un-abrogated, as these; their ends (as hath been proved) remaining in force, as well as the end of these. And these Gentlemen (I make no question) know by this time, that they are in a Logic praemunire in this argument, as being guilty of treason against that sovereign Maxim; A quatenus, ad de omni, efficax est illatio. And yet the truth is, that if the continuance of the ends in force, of those Laws they speak of under the old Testament, be altogether impertinent and insufficient (as we have showed it is) to evince a still-standing, or a non-abrogation of the Laws themselves; I know not how to relieve them in this case, nor where to find a reason better colouring with such a supposition. But 2. Neither is it such a Sunshine Truth, to say that the punishments enjoined by God under the Old Testament, were not typical. Certain I am, that the Apostle Paul, having spoken particularly of several punishments executed by God upon his people under the Old Testament, upon the occasion concludes thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. All these [things, or, punishments] befell them as types a 1 Cor. 10. 11 . And as the common opinion (I suppose of these Divines themselves) is, that the promises made unto the Jews, of the Land of Canaan, and external happiness and peace there, in the Old Testament, were typical, as well as literal, carnal, historical, whereas the promises made unto the Churches of God under the New Testament, are generally more spiritual, having less of the Earth, and more of Heaven in them; So if I shall say, that the Sect. 36. threaten, or punishments also enjoined by God then, (I mean under the levitical Law) to be inflicted in his Church upon delinquents, were more bodily, and afflictive to the outer man, than the punishments enjoined under the Gospel, and consequently, were not only carnal or bodily, but typical also, and presignificative of those greater and more spiritual in the Gospel; I say, if I should reason thus à comparatis, I believe I should receive no better answer to my Argument from my Classic Antagonists, than I have done to my Queries in their Vindication. For certainly, the Analogy is savoury and Scripture-like: that as God, when he discovered and opened Heaven more than he had done formerly, thought good to put more of it, and of things relating to it, and less of the Earth, and of the things thereof, into those promises of his, by which he now intended to gather in the world unto him; in like manner, when he had discovered Hell also, and the dreadful terror thereof, fare beyond all former discoveries, that he should put more of it, and of things relating to it, and less of outward or bodily sufferings, into those threaten or punishments, by which his purpose was to vindicate the Gospel, with the Grace thereof from disobedience and contempt in his Churches. Cutting off from his people, under the Law, is exchanged, for casting out from his people, under the Gospel. And if the expression of cutting off, be any where found in the Gospel, it is metaphorical, and allusive only to the usual manner of dealing with, or at least of threatening offenders under the Law; being such a figurative expression, as that wherein Believers, are called Priests a Revel. 1. 6. ; and their distributions, or almsdeeds, Sacrifices b Heb. 13. . 3. There is this clear reason, why that Old Testament Law, for Sect. 36. the putting of false Prophets, Blasphemers, and seducers to Idolatry, to death, should not now be in force upon any such terms as it was, when, and where it was given; because in all difficult cases that happened about matters of Religion, the Jews to whom this Law was given, had the opportunity of immediate consultation with the mouth of God himself; who could, and did from time to time, infallibly declare what his own mind and pleasure was in them. So that except those that were to give sentence in cases of Religion, had been desperately wicked, and set upon blood, and had despised that glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God amongst them, they could Sect. 36. not do injustice; because God himself was always at hand, to declare unto them what was meet to be done; and what kind of Blasphemer, and so what kind of Idolater particularly it was, that he by his Law intended should be put to death. Whereas now, the best ●●acles that Magistrates and Judges have to direct them in doubtful cases abou● matters of Religion, are men of very fallible judgements, and every ways obnoxious unto error and mistake. Yea confident I am, that the wisest and most learned of them, are not able clearly or demonstratively to inform the Magistrate or Judge, what Blasphemy, or what Idolatry it was, which was by God sentenced to death under the Law. I cannot but think that they will (for acquaintance sake) be merciful unto that Idolatry, (and not vote with the old Law against it) which yet the Apostle Paul condemns, and commands to be mortified, (Col. 3. 5.) And for many other things or practices, which are commonly called Idolatry, and so (I question not) voted by these men; I must (for conscience sake) so fare be merciful unto them, as not to judge them neither sentenced by God to death in that Law. And for that Blasphemy, which was made punishable with death by this Law; some of the Jews restrain it only to the naming or expressing of the Name Jehovah; others of them, extend it no further then to the naming of this, and that other Name of God, Adonaic. I presume that our Anti-Querie-masters themselves do not judge the naming of either the one, or the other, or both of these Names, to be a Blasphemy worthy death: no nor yet to be the Blasphemy sentenced by God to death under the Law. Where our English Translation readeth, Blasphemeth, And whosoever shall blaspheme the Name of the Lord, (Levit. 24. 16.) The Chaldee translateth, expresseth: the Septuagint, nameth; (which they do also, vers. 11. a See M. Ainsworth upon the places. ) Junius and Tremellius read the clause thus: Qui verò execratur nomen Jehovae, i. But who so curseth the Name of Jehovah. So that it seems the greatest Doctors, both of Jews and Gentiles, differ, and are at a loss, the light of their great learning notwithstanding, about the nature, quality, or kind of that Blasphemy, which was by God made punishable with death in his Law. But our Anti-Querists (it seems) are wiser than either Jews or Gentiles. Therefore to go about to prove, that the Law for putting Blasphemers, and seducers to Idolatry to death, is now, or amongst us in force, because it was once given unto the Jews; Sect. 37. is as if I should prove, that a man may safely and without danger walk among bogs, and precipices, and ditches at midnight, because he may well do it at noonday. 4. They that will have the ancient Law for putting Blasphemers Sect. 37. and Idolaters to death, to be now in force, by virtue of that ●●nction or promulgation which it received from God under the Old Testament, must consequently hold, that it is in force, not simply as to the inflicting of death upon the offenders, but in all other particulars also that were commanded by the same Authority with this. As 1. the person tempted to Idolatry, must not conceal the tempter, be he brother, son, daughter, wife, friend, never so dear, but must kill him himself; for so the Law run●; But THOU shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death a Deut. 13▪ 9 . 2. Though he must kill him himself, yet it must be with the joint concurrence and assistance of all the people; for so it follows in the Law: And afterwards the hand of all the people b Ibid. . 3. Nor must he kill him after any manner, nor with any kind of death; but with stones only. For so saith the Law: And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die c Vers. 10. . 4. Not only the seducer unto Idolatry, but even the seduced themselves, especially if they be a whole City, must be put to death. The Law is as express in this, as in any of the former. Thou shalt surely smite the Inhabitants of that City with the edge of the sword d Vers. 15. . 5. Not only the inhabitants of this City must be slain, but the cattles also therein. The Law is punctual in this also. And the cattles therein with the edge of the sword e Ibid. . 6. Not the men and beasts only must be slain, but the City itself must be utterly r●●'d, ruin'd, destroyed: Destroying it utterly (saith the Law) and all that is therein f Ibid. . 7. This City must be an heap for ever, and never built again g Vers. 16. . These are the plain words of the Law. 8. (And last) it was not lawful to preserve any thing, though never so little, of the stuff or goods belonging to this City; but it was, even every whit of it to be burnt with fire. And thou shalt gather (saith Moses) all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the City, and all the spoil thereof, every whit h Ibid. . So then, if the men with whom we have to do, will needs raise the dead unto life, and give present vigour and force to the Commandment of God under the Old Law for putting Blasphemers and Idolaters to death; I must say unto them, as Paul saith to the Galatians in the case of Circumcision; Sect. 37. For I testify again (saith he) to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law a Gal. 5▪ 3. . In like manner if men will urge the Law for putting those oft-named Offenders unto death, as being still in force, they make themselves debtors, to require and urge the execution of this whole Law, in all the particularities and circumstances thereunto belonging, as they have been mentioned. For who hath any power to make an Election and Reprobation amongst the Commandments of God, where God himself hath made none? Or to say unto him, in this, or in that we will obey thee, but in a third, and a fourth, we must be excused? Is this the Divinity, and conscience of these men? If therefore there be no persuading of them, but that the said Offenders must needs die by virtue of that Law so oft specified, let them first provide and press it as matter of duty and conscience upon the Magistrate or Judge, that they die no other death, then by stones: 2. In case themselves shall at any time be the accusers of such persons, they must make conscience of it to be the executioners likewise of death upon them themselves, or with their own hands. 3. They must enjoin all the people to join with them in the execution; and so go along in all the other particulars, teaching for Doctrines, and pressing for duties, all the respective branches of the Law, as they have been presented from the Scriptures. For the Commandment of God is express and strict in this behalf. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall yo● diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you b Deut. 4. 2. . Which clearly implieth, that they do not keep the commandments of God, who maim and mangle them, who take and leave of them at their pleasures. The men we speak of, making somewhat of the Law contended about, to be in force, and some things of it, not; make this Law of God like unto a man struck with a dead palsy, who hath one half of himself alive, and the other half dead; or like those imperfect animals, that were bred of the slime and mud which the Deluge le●t behind it, as the Poet describeth them. Altera pars vivit, rudis est par● altera tellus, i. One part's alive; the other, dead lumpish Earth. Yea, these men by umpiring the commands of God as they do, make themselves as so many Nebuchadnezars amongst them; who acted that power which he had on earth upon such terms, that Sect. 38. (as the Prophet Daniel told his Son) whom he would, be slew, and whom he would, be kept alive: and whom he would, he set up, and whom he would, he put down a Dan. 5. 19 . Oh England, if thy Teacher's claim and exercise this arbitrary power over the Precepts and Commandments of God, take thou heed of their Kingdom. But 5. Those particularities which have been mentioned, a● annexed Sect. 38. unto, and co-injoyned with the commandment for putting Idolaters and Blasphemers to death, (with some others) as, 1. the kind of death, viz. by stoning: 2. the enjoining the accuser, to be the first in the execution, and that with his own hands. 3. The slaying of the cattles also with the sword. 4. The burning of the stuff or goods of the offenders with fire, and that every whit, (with the rest;) these (I say) do sufficiently intimate, that the Law or Commandment itself, was appropriate unto the Nation of the Jews, and not intended for other Churches, States, or Kingdoms, under the Gospel: none of which ever practised, or thought themselves bound in conscience to practise any of them: nor indeed had any sufficient ground, whereon to judge themselves bound in conscience to practise them; no nor yet were any of them ever taught by any of their Teachers, though many of these were resolute enough for that Church-Government, which now acteth with so much impatiency for her exaltation. 6. If the obligation of the Mosaical Law for putting Blasphemers, Idolaters, etc. to death, was intended by God to continue under the New Testament, why was the Apostle Paul, so fare from enjoining a believing Brother, to detect, or to put to death, his infidel, or Idolatrous wife, that he doth not permit him so much as to put her away from him, in case she please to dwell with him b 1 Cor. 7. 12. ? And why doth ●e not enjoin the believing wife, to seek to take away the life of her Idolatrous or unbelieving Husband, according to the Law, but on the contrary requires of her not to le●ve him, if he be pleased to dwell with her? Certainly this Doctrine of the Apostle holds no tolerable correspondency with the opinion of our severe Inquisitors, about the non-abrogation of the Law for putting Idolaters to death. 7. If the Law in Question, was by the in●e●● of God, the Lawgiver, Sect. 39 to continue in its native vigour and force under the New Testament, than was every person in an Idolatrous State or Kingdom, Sect. 40. whilst it remained wholly Idolatrous, bound thereby, to seek the death one of another, yea and to destroy one another with their own hand. Yea the civil Magistrate was bound to sentence all his Subjects that practised Idolatry, to death, without exception; and consequently to make a bloody desolation throughout all his dominions. To pretend, that the said Law takes hold only of Christian Magistrates, and binds them to the execution mentioned, not on Magistrates whilst they are yet Heathen; is a ridiculous pretence. For what duty soever belongs unto a Magistrate, as such, belongs to every Magistrate, of what capacity or condition soever he be otherwise. Or if the pretence were admitted as legitimate, yet would not the absurdity be at all healed by it, but rather heightened. Because even than it would follow, that in case the Supreme Magistrate in an Idolatrous State or Kingdom, were first converted to the Christian saith, he were bound by virtue of this his conversion, to destroy the lives of all his subjects without exception, whom the present case are supposed to be all Idolaters. If it be said; yea, but he ought first to instruct and admonish them, and by all good means to endeavour to reclaim them from their Idolatry: If after sufficient means used in this kind, they shall still persist in their Idolatries, than he is to put the said Law in Execution. I answer; there is no such clause of mitigation or respite, as this, in the said Law; but the Idolater, and the Blasphemer, were forthwith, upon the truth of the fact evidenced by witnesses, to be put to death a Levit. 24. 14. 16. . Therefore if this Law be still in force, it must be put in execution without any such explication, or reserve: the addition of such an interpretation makes a new Law, and doth not establish, but rather disannulleth the old, as if it were weak and unprofitable. 8. If the said Law be in force under the Gospel, than were believers Sect. 40. in Idolatrous States and Kingdoms, upon their respective conversions to the Christian Faith, bound to accuse their neighbours being Idolaters, and Blasphemers, round about them, before the Magistrate, especially if he were Christian; and to require the execution of this Law of God upon them, i. to have them put to death. Whereas the Gospel requires a quite contrary deportment in Christians towards such, viz. that which was loving and harmless, and apt to gain upon them, and to persuade them into the Christian Faith. That ye walk honestly towards those that are without a 1 Thes. 4. 12. . And Sect. 41. again: Walk in wisdom towards those that are without b Col. 4. 5. . As we have opportunity, let US DO GOOD UNTO ALL MEN, especially, &c c Gal. 6. 10. . Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak against you, as evil doers, they may by your good works which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation d 1 Pe● 2. 12. . So that it is so fare from being the duty of Christians to seek the destruction of the lives, either of Idolaters or Blasphemers under the Gospel, by accusing them unto the Magistrate for either of these crimes, that there is a solemn engagement laid upon them by God to seek the salvation of their souls. Yea that Ecclesiastic or Church-punishment which the Gospel itself inflicts upon such offenders, is in special manner calculated by God for the saving of their souls e 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. . 9 (And last) If it should be granted, that all and every the Sect. 41. Laws hitherto contested about, as well that for putting to death the false Prophet, as those for inflicting the like punishment upon the Idolater and Blasphemer, were still in force under the Gospel, yet what is this to the justification of the Ordinance; at least in fare the greatest part of it? Is there any thing in any of these Laws, which so much as coloureth, much less cotteneth, either with the inflicting of death upon those that shall err any of these errors, though very dangerous in their kind, as that the bodies of men shall not rise after they be dead, or that there is no judgement after death, or that Christ is not God coequal with the Father, with divers others, which the said Ordinance threateneth with death, if published; or with the inflicting of imprisonment upon those, that shall hold and maintain, either that the Churches of England are not true Churches, or that the Church-Government by Presbytery is unlawful, or that a man by nature hath no free will to turn to God, with several others of like consideration, no whit more favoured by the Ordinance? Evident it is, that the Great Sect or party among the Jews, which are called Sadduces, with their Disciples, held and maintained publicly, those Great Errors or Heresies; 1. That there is neither Angel, nor Spirit; 2. That there is no Resurrection of the dead f Acts 23. 8. , (which is one of the opinions made death by the Ordinance,) yea and (as some learned Author's report) rejected all the Prophets besides Moses. And yet these were not only tolerated amongst them, and not put to death, but they were in equal credit and esteem with those of sounder judgement in these points; yea and had great Interest, not Sect. 41. in the common sort of men only, but also in those who were in chief places of power and Authority a Acts 4. 1. Acts 5. 17. etc. . The Scribes and Pharisees also both held and taught many most dangerous and erroneous Doctrines, yea such by which (as our Saviour himself chargeth them) they made the Commandments of God of none effect b Mat. 15. 3, 4. 6. . Yet were these also in great honour and esteem in this Church and State. And though our Saviour upon occasion reasoned against, yea and reproved them all, for holding and teaching these errors, and gave warning unto the people to take heed of them; yet did he never charge this Church or State, or those that bare office in either, with sin, or unfaithfulness in their places, for not proceeding against them, in regard of their errors, either by imprisonment, or death. And yet we know, that the zeal of his Father's house did eat him up; and that he attempted a Reformation amongst them, especially in matters of Religion, and the worship of God, with an high hand of zeal, wisdom, and Authority c Joh. 2. 14, 15, etc. ; Yea, as Solomon spoke of trees, from the Cedar that is in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall d 1 King. 4. 33. ; so did Christ teach and press upon men, all, and all manner of duties, from judgement, mercy, and faith, (the mighty things of the Law) even unto the paying tithe of mint, anise, and cummin e Mat. 23. 23. . Therefore by the false Prophet, who was commanded to be put to death, Deut. 13. 5. was not meant every Heretic, or erroneous person, (as men in these days count heresy and error; who sentence every opinion, which opposeth, either their ease, or their honour, or their profit, either as the one, or the other) nor yet those who taught or published any false doctrine, though of dangerous consequence; but only those, who endeavoured to persuade men to the worship of a false God; and that by affirming, that they spoke by the inspiration of some deity, and that their say were to be esteemed Oracles. What doctrine it was, which made the Prophet or Teacher of it guilty of death, is expressly determined in the Law itself, and asserted to be this; Let us go after other Gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them f Deut. 13. 2. . And that the Law of God made against false Prophets, and worshippers of false Gods, was not intended against those, who otherwise held that the Law of God was to be kept, but were infected with some other error, is sufficiently evident from hence; because in former times among the Jews, who were affected with a vehement love and zeal towards their Law, Sect. 42. Heretics notwithstanding (as hath been already observed) were tolerated; and particularly the Sadduces, (of whose errors and heresies we spoke before.) These, although the greatest part both of the People and the Rulers believed them to err exceedingly, nevertheless they were not expelled the City, neither exempted from being Magistrates, or bearing any other civil office: yea they were not hindered from coming to the Temple or the Synagogues. All these things considered, I refer it to the arbitrement of all men of understanding, whether of the first, second, or third degree, whether our Anti-Querie-men, or their complices, who so passionately rejoice over the old Law for putting false Prophets, Idolaters, and Blasphemers to death, as if it countenanced their occupation, of traducing, troubling, molesting, persecuting, even the Saints of God themselves, for holding and professing such opinions, which they are pleased to call errors or heresies; whether (I say) the said Law hath any more communion with such practices or proceed, than light hath with darkness, or Christ with Belial. And yet this Law is the firstborn of their strength, whereby they edify themselves in this Doctrine of violence and blood. O Church of England, and you that number yourselves amongst the members thereof, beware of men, I mean your Teachers, lest they become Jews unto you, and go about to persuade you, that they have a Law; and that by their Law Christ himself ought to die a Joh. 19 7. . They falter in their Answer to their fift and sixth argument, (as Sect. 42. they call it) first, by affirming, or, which is equivalent to it, clearly supposing, that stratagems, methods, and ways of violence and blood, (viz. so ordered, and put in execution upon such occasions, as the Ordinance directeth; for except this be their meaning, they answer nothing to the purpose, nor at all to the Querie) are those ways which God himself commanded to be used for the support of the true Religion. This we have lately proved to be notoriously false. God never commanded any violence to be used, nor any blood to be shed, nor any civil penalty to be inflicted, for any error, or misprision in judgement about matters of Religion; but only in case of seduction to the worship of false Gods; which notwithstanding the Ordinance doth not at all touch or mention. Whereas they add, as soon as they had any civil Magistrates, they speak like themselves, that is, unlike men of much understanding. For 1. who do they mean by Sect. 43. this pronoun, THEY? we have no substantive, one or more anteceding, unto which it can relate, but only Papists, or wicked men. And did God himself command those ways of violence and blood, which the Ordinance insisteth upon, to be used by either of these for the support of true Religion, as soon as they had any civil Magistrates? Tied Divinity! Secondly, if by the pronoun, THEY, they mean the Jews (which seems to be their meaning) I wonder, and would willingly learn, how long it was, after the pretended Command given unto them for the support of true Religion, before they had Civil Magistrates? because these learned Clerks suppose some Interim. Doubtless they had Moses, both before, and when, and some while after, the said Command was given unto them by God: and I have not heard that ever Moses was voted out of his civil Magistracy by any Synod or Assembly. And besides Moses, this people had, even before the giving of the Law specified, as well as after, Civil Magistrates a Exod. 18. 24, 25, etc. . Again 2. This Answer shameth the Authors, by Asserting, that Ezra Sect. 43. blessed God for putting such a thing (viz. as the supporting the true Religion, by those stratagems, methods, and ways of violence & blood, whereby Heathens support their Idolatrous worships) into the heart of King Artaxerxes. Whereas it is evident from the very text of Scripture, which they cite (viz. Ezra 7. 27.) that the thing, which Ezra blessed God for putting into the heart of this King, was, precisely and particularly this, the beautifying of the house of the Lord which was at Jerusalem. As for that part of this King's Edict, wherein he makes the transgression of his own Laws, i. the dictates of his ow● will, equally punishable with the transgression of the Laws of God, v. 26. certainly this was never of Gods putting into his heart, nor did Ezra ever so judge; nor (consequently) ever bless God for it. 3. Nor have we yet the compass of the folly in this Answer. For it further argueth a confirmation, that ways of violence and blood for the support of true Religion, are according to the light and Law of nature, from hence, because they have been used by Idolatrous Heathens, to maintain their Idolatry, and by Antichristian Papists too maintains their abominations. Because the WHOLE world (as John saith) lieth in wickedness b 1 john 5. , is it an argument, that wickedness, or to lie in wickedness, is therefore according to the light or Law of nature? Did it ever enter in the heart of an understanding or considering Sect. 44. man, to imagine, that those ways, or moral practices, wherein even the worst or vilest of men (as Heathenish and Antichristian Idolaters are) generally walk, are according to the light and Law of nature? Certainly this saying, was rather spoken according to the light and Law of nature; Recti argumentum est, pessimis displicere. i. That Sen. which displeaseth the worst, is like to be good. And if it be according to the light and Law of nature, to support Religion by methods and ways of outward violence and blood, I desire to know, of what Religion this is asserted, whether of that which is true, or that which is Idolatrous and false. If of the former, then is it notoriously contrary to the light and Law of nature, to seek to destroy the true Religion by methods and ways of violence and blood; and consequently, the heathenish and Antichristian Idolaters, who attempted the destruction of the true Religion for the support of their own by such means, walked not according to, but directly against the light and Law of nature in so doing. And then this practice of theirs, is so fare from being any argument, that ways of violence and blood for supporting Religion, are according to the Law and light of nature, that it argueth the contrary. If it be understood of the latter, viz. of an Idolatrous or false Religion, certainly not support of this by any means whatsoever, is according to the light or Law of nature; in as much as these directly lead to the abhorring and detesting of all such Religions, not to the supporting of them in any kind. Dear English souls, take heed of your Teachers; especially when they plead for themselves, and their own Kingdom; very seldom in these cases do they speak words either of soberness or Truth. Their seventh Argument or Syllogism is not framed according Sect. 44. to the tenor of the Querie to which it pretends, and in this respect we may well wave their Answer given to it. Yet to let the world see how superficial these men are in their divinity, we shall animadvert a few things upon it. First, they here affirm, that whoredom, adultery, murder, theft, are the strong holds of Satan, mentioned 2 Cor. 10. 4. as well as heresies and errors. But how do they prove this? only by the threadbare argument of their own Authority; which, both reason and Scripture ever and anon failing them, as being neither of them calculated for the meridian of their affairs, they are necessitated to use so frequently, that familiarity hath bred contempt. Certain I am, Sect. 44. that the best Expositors, and some of their best friends otherwise, leave them to themselves in that notion. Strong holds (saith Calvin) the Apostle calleth Counsels, and height lift up against God, of which he speaks afterward: but thus he calleth them properly and significantly. For his intent is to glory (or boast) that there is nothing so fortified in the world, but that he is able to throw down. As if he should say, I know how carnal men pride it with their swelling conceits, how presumptuously and securely they despise me, etc. a Munitiones vocat confilia, & celsitudinem adversus Deum elatam de quibus po●tea loquitur: sed proprie & significauter it● app●llac. Vult enim gloriari nihil esse tam munitum in mund●, cui diruendo non sit p●r futurus; acsi d●ceret: Scio equidem quam superbiant suis ampullis humines carnales, & quam fastuose ac secure me contemnant, etc. Calv. in 2 cor. 10. 4. . Musculus is of the same mind, about the same expression. Of what strong holds (saith this Author) the Apostle speaketh, he presently declares, saying, casting down imaginations. Some translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, counsels; but it properly soundeth, reasonings or ratiocinations. He means the counsels of humane reasoning, not sincere, but corrupt, in which especially Satan reigns amongst men. And then citys Chrysostom's Exposition, for the confirmation of his own. chrysostom (saith he) expounds it of the pride of the Greeks, and the strength or power of their Sophisms, and Syllogisms with more to this purpose, b De quibus autem munitionibus loquatur, evestigio subjungit dicers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vertunt autem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confilia: Vox ipsa so●a●, ratiocinationen. Intelligit de confiliis ratiocinationis humanae, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said corrupt, in quibus potissimum Sa●an regnal inter homines. Chrysostomus exposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Muscul. in 2 cor. 10. 4. . Besides, whereas they most unworthily, and contrary to all reason, and without the least occasion given, insinuate, That he who will maintain from that Text, 2 Cor. 10. that none but properly spiritual weapons are to be used against the strong holds of sin (there is not the least intimation of such a thing in the Querie) he wholly denies all civil punishment, and all the exercise of the Magistrates sword against evil doers; the clear truth is, that themselves by numbering whoredoms, adulteries, murders, thefts, etc. amongst the strong holds there spoken of, are the men that dash their foot against this stone. For, if spiritual weapons, be mighty through God, to cast down the strong holds here spoken of, and murders, thefts, adulteries, etc. be some of these; to what purpose is any civil punishment, or what necessity is there of any exercise of the Magistrates sword against evil doers? when there is any one means appointed by God, which is MIGHTY through him, to effect Sect. 45. that which is necessary to be done, what necessity is there of any other, of any more means to be added hereunto for the effecting of it? Is it agreeable to any rule of Scripture, or principle of reason, to multiply means for the bringing any thing to pass, when there is one means, not only sufficient, but mighty, or potent also through God to effect it? Certain I am, that it is none of God's method so to do.▪ If there had been a law (saith the Apostle) that could have given life, surely righteousness should have been by the Law a Gal. 3. 21. : implying, that if God had sufficiently provided for the justification, and salvation of his creature, one way, or by one means, he would never have added another, as a competitor with it. Upon this principle, that reasoning also of his stands, I do not abrogate the Grace of God: For, if righteousness be by the Law, than Christ died in vain▪ b Gal 2. 21. ● . Clearly implying, that to assert a sufficiency (much more a mightiness, or potency) in the Law for justification, plainly abrogates and makes void the grace of God in giving Christ to die for our justification. In like manner, they who grant, that spiritual weapons are mighty, through God, to cast down adulteries, murders, thefts, etc. abrogate the sword of the Civil Magistrate, in relation to the casting down of these and such like sins. Therefore, certainly the Gentlemen do but beat the air, in affirming, that whoredom, adultery, murder, theft, etc. are some of the strong holds mentioned, 2 Cor. 10. 4. Secondly, the said Answer leaneth in the best of its strength, Sect. 45. upon this supposition (or, assertion rather) that the spreaders of errors and Heresies are certainly ranked in the Scriptures amongst those evil doers, against whom the Civil Magistrate is the Minister of God to execute wrath * Rom. 13. . This (I confess) is the most manlike argument or plea, which this generation of men, either are wont, or, indeed, able to produce, to colour over their bloody Tenet, for a necessity of civil compulsion, in matters of Conscience and Religion: yet how effeminate and weak it is, will clearly appear by these considerations. First, evident it is, that the Apostle, Rom. 13. sets forth the duty, interest, and power of a Magistrate, simply, as a Magistrate, not as a Magistrate qualified in one kind or other, least of all as qualified with the true knowledge of God, or with the knowledge Sect. 46. of the controversies and questions in Christian Religion. If such a thing as this shall be supposed, then must there be some appointed to examine and judge, who are lawful Magistrates, (i. e. endued with the true knowledge of God, &c▪) and consequently may lawfully, as Ministers of God, execute wrath against them that do evil. And if so, who shall these examiners and judges be? or according to what rules or directions shall they proceed in this important affair? But this (I presume) is so apparent, that we shall not need contend further for it. Secondly, it is altogether inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness of God in the Government of the world, so much as to interest, much more to lay a necessity upon, his Deputies, the civil Magistrates or Rulers hereof, to interpose with their power in such things, whereof, for the generality and fare the greatest part of them, he knew they would be not only ignorant, but uncapable; yea, and not only they (I mean the Magistrates themselves) but even fare the greatest part of men also; yea, even those men themselves, who he knew would pretend with as much height and confidence to a knowledge of them, as any others. And certain it is, that matters of Error and Heresy in Christian Religion, are of this nature; at least a very great part of them. For who did ever pretend, challenge, or claim, a deeper insight into matters of Error and Heresy in Christian Religion, a greater sufficiency or dexterity to judge and determine, what was Error, what not, what was Heresy, what not, than the Papal Bishops and Clergy, in the day of their power, and especially the Pope himself? And yet we know, and generally confess, that all these were incompetent and insufficient judges in such matters as these, & that they did from time to time put darkness for light, and light for darkness; bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter; condemned Truth to death, instead of Error; advancing Error instead of Truth. Thirdly, If Magistrates, as such, be uncapable themselves of Sect. 46. discerning between Error and Truth in Christian Religion, as put the case, between the congregational Government, and that of Presbytery, which is agreeable to the word of God, and which not, or whether both, or whether neither: to whom, or to what generation of men can they safely entrust their judgements and consciences in this case for regulation and direction, so as to run Sect. 46 no hazard of incurring the wrath of God, for smiting with the sword without cause? If it be said, they must and may safely trust the godly, orthodox, and faithful Ministers, amongst whom they live; I answer first, Put the case there be no such vein of Ministers as these, or however, none whom they can look upon as such, within their territories; what shift shall they then make for such an address? Secondly, If they themselves be uncapable (which is the supposition now argued upon, and it hath been proved, that generally they are uncapable) of discerning between Truth and error in questions, and matters of doubtful disputation in Christian Religion; how shall they be able to know, or satisfy themselves, who are faithful and orthodox, and who not? He that cannot judge what is erour, and what is truth, cannot determine what men or Ministers are Orthodox, and what not. Thirdly, In case the Ministers living under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, (th●se I mean who are reputed godly, faithful, and orthodox) shall be divided in judgement among themselves, and one part of them adjudge that for truth and orthodox doctrine, which the other shall condemn for error and Heresy; (a case of daily occurrence) under which of these shadows shall the Magistrate repose with peace and safety? To say, that in this case he is bound to cleave unto the major vote or party amongst them, and to smite, where they shall say smite, is (upon the matter) either to say nothing, or else that which is extremely obnoxious. For first, what if they be equally divided? in this case a major vote is but a castle in the air. Secondly, In case they be not equally divided; what if the judgement or conscience of the Magistrate shall incline to the lesser party, as conceiving their grounds and reasons to be of more pregnancy and weight, than the other, and cannot concur or go along with these? Thirdly, Take any society, coporation, or company of men of what capacity soever, under Heaven; as well reason, as experience evinceth, that the major part of them are ever the weaker in judgement and understanding; and that commonly it is found in greater meetings and conventions, that the elder serves the younger, I mean, that matters are carried and concluded against the sense Sect. 46. of men of greatest abilities and worth, when there is any division of votes amongst them. Fourthly, and lastly, if the Magistrate be bound, in the case under consideration, to cleave either to the one party or the other, whether the lesser, or the greater, and to smite that with his sword, as error or Heresy, which either of them adjudgeth for such: he stands bound likewise to punish and smite with the sword, that whole party of Ministers, as erroneous and Heretical, whose judgement he rejecteth in the consultation; though when he called them hereunto, he looked upon them as godly, orthodox, and faithful. And if cases of this nature should frequently happen, I mean wherein the civil Magistrate shall have occasion to advise with his godly Ministers, for his information about errors, and Heresies, and these Ministers be divided in their judgements about them; and the Magistrate be bound to punish errors and Heresies with the sword, which that interpretation of the Scripture in hand now opposed by us, imposeth upon him as a duty; he should still, toties quoties, and from time to time, be bound in conscience to destroy or molest one party of the godly Ministers under him; and so ere long must needs make a sad desolation in his territories of such men; Therefore. Fourthly, and lastly, when the Apostle saith concerning the Magistrates, that he is the Minister of God, a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, etc. that indefinite expression, him that doth evil, is not to be taken or understood universally, for whosoever doth evil, after what manner, or in what kind soever; but with limitation, pro subjecta materia. 1. for the doer of such or of that kind of evil, which appertained to the cognizance of the Magistrate, and whereof ordinary Magistrates, or Magistrates in general, as well Heathen, as Christian, are competent judges, as all such evil is, which is manifestly such, and of a Political consideration, as that which is contrary to the light and law of nature, as Whoredom, Adultery, Murder, Theft, Injustice, Sedition, Treason, etc. that this is the true interpretation and meaning of this Scripture, is further confirmed. First, by the like expressions of frequent occurrence in the Sect. 47. Scriptures, viz. where indefinite, yea, and sometimes universal, expressions, are used to signify, not a simple or absolute, but a relative Sect. 48. or restrained universality of things, i. e. either a universality of such things, which are particularly treated of in those places, where these expressions are found; or of such, whose natures or conditions are reasonably capable of those things, which either are attributed to them, or enjoined concerning them, in such expressions. As for example, God himself saith, Exod. 12. 48. that no uncircumcised person should eat of the ; Yet this general or universal expression, is not to be extended unto women of the daughters of Abraham, as if they were restrained hereby from eating the Passeover, because they are persons uncircumcised; the reason is, because the note or universality, NO, in the prohibition, NO uncircumcised person shall eat, etc. imports, not an absolute, but only a relative universality, viz. of all that kind of uncircumcised persons, which the verse speaks of, which are males; who also are the only persons capable of circumcision. So when the Apostle commanded the Thessalonians, that if any would not work, he should not eat; * 2 Thess. 3. 10. his meaning was, not to forbid nourishment or food to be given, either to sick or lunatic persons, or to young children, or to any person whatsoever uncapable of working; but only unto those, who changed an ability of working, into idleness, and stubbornly refused to labour in a calling. So in the Scripture in hand, when he saith indefinitely, that Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil; the word Rulers, doth not signify ALL Rulers whatsoever, but only such, who rule according to the will of God: for otherwise, we know there are many Rulers, who act contrary to this rule or assertion of the Apostle, and are a Terror, not to evil works, but to good. In like manner, when the Apostle saith, that the Magistrate is the Minister of God, to execute wrath upon (or against) him that doth evil; by him that doth evil, it is no way necessary that he should mean every man without exception, who doth that which is evil in one kind or other, but only every man that doth any such evil, which is of a political cognizance, and proper for a Magistrate, as a Magistrate, to punish. Secondly, if by him that doth evil, in this Scripture were Sect. 48. meant, every man without exception that doth any kind of evil; then should the Magistrate be the Minister of God, and consequently be enjoined by him by way of duty, to punish men for conceiving Sect. 49. evil thoughts, for committing adultery in the heart, for coveting that which is another man's, without doing any thing outwardly which is evil, or injurious to him, etc. For whosoever doth any of these things, most certainly doth that which is evil: but if we shall suppose, that the Magistrate stands bound by his office to execute wrath, upon such evil doers as these, we had need make them Gods indeed, and give them knowledge of the hearts of men, or else we shall make them little better than devils, by bringing the guilt of sin, and of unfaithfulness in their places upon their heads, without end. Thirdly, If God should require of the Magistrate to execute wrath upon spreaders of errors and heresies as evil doers, he should be an hard Master indeed, and think to gather, where he hath not strewed, and to reap, where he hath not sown * Mat. 25. 24. . For doubtless, he neither hath given, nor doth give any sufficiency of means to discern between Heresy and sound Doctrine, between Error and Truth, (at least in many points in Christian Religion) to one Magistrate of an hundred; I might (I believe) keep within the compass of Truth, and say, of a thousand. Especially, if we shall look upon those Magistrates which were then in being in the world, when this Scripture was written; and upon occasion of whose power to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, this admonition was given by the Apostle unto the Romans, it will clearly be found, that they generally were so fare from being able to judge what was Error and Heresy, what Truth and Orthodox, in Christian Religion, that they judged this Religion itself, to be the grand Error and Heresy of the world. Fourthly, That by him that doth evil (in the clause under debate) Sect. 49. the Apostle doth not mean, spreaders of Errors or Heresies in Christian Religion, but only the actors of such impieties, which were known to be such, by the heathen Magistrates, who then bare rule over them, is evident from the context itself, and the import of the same expression in the former part of the same verse, which is this. For he (the Magistrate) is the Minister of God to thee for thy good. But if thou shalt DO THAT WHICH IS EVIL, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain. By doing that which is evil in this passage, cannot be meant, the spreading of Errors or Heresies; because they had not Sect. 50. so much reason of being afraid of the Magistrate here spoken of, for spreading of these, as for publishing or preaching the most Orthodox Truths of Christianity. They might without any danger at all from the Magistrate here spoken of, have published and taught, that the Idols which the Romans worshipped, were true Gods; that the worship of Christians, that Jesus Christ was a deceiver, and not the Son of God, with twenty such abominable errors and blasphemies more. They had ten times more cause to be afraid of the powers that now were, for publishing the most Orthodox Truths, as that there is but one God, that the Gods of the Romans were either dumb Idols, or speaking Devils; that Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God, and only Saviour of the world, etc. Therefore, by that evil, upon the doing of which they had cause to be afraid of the Roman powers or Magistracy, the Apostle only means such wicked acts or practices, which they were apt to punish and take vengeance on, as apprehending them prejudicial or destructive to the peace, safety, or welfare of their state; and not any publishing or spreading of errors or heresies, of the evil whereof they were wholly uncapable. Fifthly, That doing of evil, against which the Magistrate here Sect. 50. spoken of, is the Minister of God to execute wrath, is opposed unto that subjection to the higher powers, (enjoined in the first verse) and of the same consideration with the resisting of these powers, so sharply reproved and threatened, ver. 2. From whence it clearly appears, that by it is only meant the doing of such evil, which was prohibited by the Roman Laws and Edicts * Quod bonum est facito, hoc est, legibus obtemperato. Contrarium est, si seceris malum, id est, legibus fueris inobediens a●t refractari●s, Par. ad Rom. 13. 4. . For no man can be said, either to refuse subjection unto, or to resist the powers, under which he lives, who lives in an orderly subjection and obedience unto all their Laws. Now certain it is, that neither the Roman Emperor or Senate in these days, had enacted any law against the publishing of Errors or Heresies, in Christian Religion. Therefore the publishing of these could be no branch or part of that evil, by the doing whereof the Roman powers should have been resisted in their Laws. Sixtly, and lastly, That doing of evil, against which the Magistrate is said to be the Minister of God to execute wrath, ver. 4. is directly opposed to that doing of good, spoken of v. 3. unto which Sect. 51. there is a promise made of receiving praise from the Magistrate. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ma●●●, oppovitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bono morali, de quo ver. 3. Idem. Ibid. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the sam●. Now certainly that doing of good, for which the Apostle undertakes that they shall have praise from the Roman Magistrate, was not the preaching or publishing of the great and orthodox truths of Christian Religion, of the goodness of which service they were wholly insensible, yea, rather enemies unto it (as hath been said) therefore, by that doing of evil, which is opposite hereunto, cannot be meant the spreading of Errors and Heresies; but only the perpetration of such moral impieties, of the evil whereof to their state and welfare, they were fully sensible. Thus we have sufficiently, and by the clearest evidence of the Scriptures themselves, vindicated the Scripture-passage in hand, from that hand of violence, which goeth about to force it upon a bloody service; yea, and to draw the Magistrate by it into a dangerous engagement, (far above his abilities and strength) only to promote the secular designs of Ecclesiastical men. O England, England, make much of thy Scriptures, but take heed of the glosses of thy Teachers. And when they shall say unto thee, Lo here is our Presbytery, and lo it is there, believe them not: for they shall show great signs and wonders of zeal for Reformation, and building (as they call it) the house of God, and shall deceive many. Neither of those two pillars, neither the ancient law of God for putting false Prophets, Idolaters, and Blasphemers to death, nor the Magistrates being the Minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, were ever hewed by God to support that fabric of Church-Government, which these men labour in the very fire to build upon them. And yet these are their Gods: and these being taken from them, they may lament with Micah, and say, what have we more. * Jud. 18. 24. In their Answer to their ninth Argument, they sit down qui●● Sect. 51. besides the cushion. The major in this syllogism, is this: They who inflict death upon men for maintaining a doctrine contrary to their interprecation of Scripture, had need be as infallible, at least as touching the sense of that Scripture, as God himself; or else they do what is not lawful for them to do. Their answer is, This major is fals●, because it is blasphem●●●. It is blasphemous to assert ●r suppose, that any man, in any thing which he knows never so certainly, is as infallible as Sect. 51. God himself. This Answer of these men, is truly prophetical; and if the people of England were but capable of the spirit that breathes in it, they might clearly foresee, what they mean to do with an Ordinance of Parliament to punish Error, Heresy, and Blasphemy, if they could procure it, together with the managing and interpretation of it, to be put in their hands, (whereof their hopes are pregnant if ever such an Ordinance shall be established) viz. to accuse, molest, crush, whom they please, by making Error, Heresy, Blasphemy▪ of what saying, or expressions of theirs they please, though never so innocent and sound (in the genuine and true import of them,) if there be but a word that is capable of wresting, or abuse from their hand. Was such an assertion, especially such a supposition, as this▪ that a man in something which he knows, may be a● infallible a● God himself, ever voted Blasphemy, until now? nay, was there ever any supposition, or bare intimation whatsoever, called Blasphemy until now? at least any such supposition or intimation, which is only collected from the words of another, and not acknowledged or owned, as a lawful inference, by the speaker himself? But suppose the Syllogism, had not supposed, but in terminis asserted, that a man may in some particular of his knowledge, ●e a● infallible as God himself; by what law either of reason or Religion, will this be evicted of Blasphemy? Certain I am, that there is no communication of any of the incommunicable attributes of God in it, nor any thing asserted to the creature, which is only vested in God▪ no, nor any any thing tending in the least to the dishonour or disparagement of the divine nature or being. And yet (by the way) every thing tending to the dishonour of God, is not presently Blasphemy, except these Great masters can prove, that every sin whatsoever, is Blasphemy. But first, infallibility in God in respect of every respective particularity of his knowledge, is no incommunicable attribute of his, in any other sense then as all his attributes whatsoever are incommunicable: for many things which are infallibly known unto God, are likewise infallibly known unto men. Secondly, Though the infallibility which is in God, be in respect of every particular of his knowledge, infinite, as whatsoever is in God, is God himself, and so infinite; and in this sense or consideration, no creature can be truly said to be as infallible Sect. 51. as God▪ yet as the Divine infallibility imports a certainty, and that upon unerring-grounds, that things are so and so indeed, as God apprehendeth them to be; men themselves, in respect of some particulars of their knowledge, may truly be said to be as infallible as God himself, i. e. to know certainly upon unerring-grounds, or grounds that cannot deceive them, that things are so, as they conceive of them, or apprehend them to be. And if the syllogism, whose Answer is now under canvasse, be framed to the mind, or sense of the expression in the Querie, than the syllogism Ego de caepis interrog●, et tu respondes de alliis. speaks of onions, and the Answer answereth concerning leeks. But between the onions and the leeks, the root of this jealousy groweth rank, that there is like to be old sharking, and straining, wresting, and wring▪ tentering, and tormenting, of the words and expressions of godly men, to make Error, Heresy, and Blasphemy of them, and so to bring them under the dint of the Magistrates sword, when once the Ordinance mentioned, shall be established, and the construction of it entrusted in Ecclesiasticke-hands. For (as Christ long since said to the daughters of Jerusalem, who wept for him) if they do these things to a green tree, what shall ●e ●one to the dry? If these men can make the bulrush of Blasphemy to grow without the mire of an obnoxious expression, what will they do in case words shall be spoken, whose interpretation will require some charity to make them innocent? As for the rest of this Answer, I must clearly profess (though it may be to mine own disparagement) that I do not well understand it; that gentle air of sense which breathes from it in the face of my understanding, rather whispers an inconsistence, than any good agreement between the parts of it. It supposeth, that a man is neither to yield himself to suffer, or to cast away his own life without certain knowledge of God's truth and will in the thing, (d● quo tamen totus dubito) nor yet to take away another man's life in a judicial way (quod potius cred●) and ye● supposeth withal, that wars may be lawful on their part, who fight under any Prince or State, cannot in any degree be said to know infallibly, either the right of the cause they fight for, or the guilt of all those they fight against and slay. In which cross passages, the Author's first suppose (without any proof at all) a plurality of ●●gre●s in an infallibility of knowledge: and yet suppose also (with a greater defiance unto Sect. 52 reason, of the two) that a CERTAINTY of knowledge is none of these degrees. I fear the whole fabric of their Doctrine concerning Church-government, taken together, is but a supposition. In their Answer to their tenth Argument, first, they prove that Sect. 52. Luther maintained no error about free will or election, by the testimony or witness of his book De servo arbitrio. But first, they produce no testimony from this book of any such import; viz. wherein the author affirmeth, that he never maintained any error concerning these points. Secondly, If they had, or yet should produce such a testimony, how incompetent a proof would it be of their assertion? For who is there, though of the greatest integrity and parts withal, that judgeth his own judgement to be erroneous, in what points soever, how erroneous soever it be? Thirdly▪ it is very possible, that he that writes a book entitled De serve arbitrio, may, even in this book itself, maintains an error about freewill; or▪ if not in this, yet in some other. Fourthly, Augustins' book of Retractions, doth not prove that he never held or maintained those opinions which he there condemns, but the contrary. So though it should be granted that Luther in his book De serum arbitrio, rejects every opinion that is erroneously held about freewill, yet it no ways follows from hence, that ●e never maintained a●y error about it; lest of all doth it follow, that he never maintained any error about election. But these men's dictates, though never so lose, must pass for demonstrations. Fifthly, Luther himself, who saw one edition (if not more) of this book De serum arbitrio, before he died, did not acknowledge it with any great confidence, as entirely his. For in an Epistle written to his friend Capit●, in the year 1537 he professeth, nullum ●e agn●scere justum suum librum, nisi FORTE de serum arbitrio, et Catechismum * Sculet An●al. Evang. Dec 2. i● Anno, 1526. . Sixtly▪ It was the judgement and assertion of some, and is at this day the constant asseveration of many of Luther's followers, that he retracted the book now in question before his death. A● this day (saith Scultetus) almost all the Ubiquitaries are of this opinion, that Luther revoked his book De servo arbitrio * H●die omnes ●●re Ubiquitari● in illa sententia sunt Lutherum revocasse servum suum Arbitrium S●nl●●t. ●bi supra. . Seventhly, The said Author acknowledgeth, that Philip Melancthon, who was Luther's great friend and companion, in his latter writings waved the opinion maintained in the book De servo Arbitrio, and joined Sect. 53. with Erasmus in his judgement, for the freedom of the will. Therefore the improbability that Luther himself also should have now declined it, is not so great. Lastly, the generality of our late Protestant writers, who in their judgements generally are more Calvins than Luther's, do generally▪ upon occasion, charge the Lutherans, or followers of Luther, with unsound opinions, about and Election. So that it is every ways probable, (at least) that Luther himself was peccant, (as peccancy in this kind is now called) in his judgement about these points. But be it either so, or otherwise, the witness of his said book De Servo arbitrio, is but a slim proof, that it was not so. But we must (I see) be content with hay and stubble, who have neither silver nor gold to build with. Secondly, Whereas the Query supposeth, the erroneous opinion Sect. 53. of Consubstantiation to be fare more gross and dangerous than many particularised in the Ordinance; these Gentlemen Answer, That Luther● error of Consubstantiation, is neither so gross, nor so dangerous, as any of the opinions threatened by the Ordinance with death. Do not these men deserve, and that ex abundanti, their places in the Assembly▪ for this Seraphical strain? The Queree querieth of them, wh●ther Luther deserved either imprisonment, or death, for his opinion about Consubstantiation; To this they Answer, that this error is not so gross or dangerous, as any by the Ordinance threatened with death. So then, by the way, they grant, that the Civil Magistrate, under whom Luther lived, was defective in his duty towards God, that he did not put his great Ambassador and most faithful servant Luther into prison, and there keep him fast from doing the devil any more harm all his days. But with what face of sense, reason, learning or Religion, can these men affirm, that The Error of Consubstantiation is neither so gross, or so dangerous, as any of the opinions threatened by the Ordinance with death? Certainly, in point of grossness, there is scarce any, if any at all, of these opinions from the first to the last of them, to be compared therewith. The error of Consubstantiation is apparently so gross, that the grossest of the outward senses themselves (I mean that of touching) is able to discover and confute it. Is the error of God his not being one in three persons, or, that the Holy Ghost▪ is not God, Sect. 54. with several others threatened by the Ordinance with death, are these, I say, errors of so terrene a calculation, or so obnoxious unto a redargution by the senses? And for matter of danger, I would gladly learn from these Grandees, what difference there is, between holding the Error of Consubstantiation, and, that Christ is not ascended into Heaven bodily, (which latter is one of the opinions threatened by the Ordinance with death?) But Thirdly, and lastly, this Answer goeth out in this snuff. The Sect. 54. opinions which he and others held which were erroneous, were in the beginning of the Reformation, when three had not been such means of conviction, nor such a clearing or settling of Truth, as there is amongst us, aspecially in the fundamental Doctrines, etc. But First, why were there not such means of conviction in the beginning of the Reformation, as there is now amongst us? Certain, I am, that there was as much learning, and as much labour, and as much conscience and faithfulness, in and about the beginning of Reformation, in very many of those persons whom God interessed in this honourable service, as there is amongst us. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zuinglius, P. Martyr, Bucer, Occolampadius (with many more names of like note with these) have not their Superiors in any of these now amongst us. I wish they had their equals. There is no more comparison, for stature in learning, and in all manner of worth, between young Luther * Mr. Edward's Gang. 3. par. p. 77. printeth a passage of a letter, sent by a godly Minister (as he useth to call all those, that will honour or rather flatter him) wherein this minister affirmeth, that he spoke prophetically, that usually called him (the said mr. Edw.) in Cambridge, ●●●g LUTHER. , and old, then is between the thistle in Lebanon, and the Cedar in Lebanon. And for countenance from heaven, the Histories of those times make it evident, that the Worthies mentioned, had another manner of a Divine presence and assistance with them, than all the cleerers or setlers of Truth (so called) now amongst us, can with any colour or face of Truth pretend. Secondly, I shall write myself a debtor of a very high favour unto these Gentlemen, if they will please to inform me, what clearing or settling of Truth there is now amongst us, either in fundamental Doctrines of Religion, or in any other, above what the primitive times of the late Reformation enjoyed. If by settling of Truth, they mean suppressing of Truth, by casting the diabolical aspersions of Socinianism, Arminianism, Popery, Antinomianisme, etc. * Mr. Edw. Gan. 3 par. pag. 114. upon it, that so it may stand still, and rest where it is, and propagate no further, well may they glory (or indeed be Sect. 54. ashamed) of that settling of Truth now amongst us. But if by settling of Truth, they mean, a building, settling, or holding of it forth, upon substantial, clear, and demonstrative grounds, what means the continual enterfe●rings and clashings of our Presbyterian Pulpits themselves, one against another? yea, how comes it to pass, that so seldom can any one Sermon be heard out of their pulpits, but quarrels with itself? What mean the numerous Anti-Votes in the Assembly itself, and some of these proceeding from persons of the most eminent worth amongst them, if not against all, or the greater part, yet against some of the main and most material Doctrines concluded there? what mean the crosse-lines and contradictions of that frequent occurrence in books lately printed; and these not only in, and about the point of Presbytery, between Presbyterians themselves, and particularly between Mr. Rutherford, and Mr. Edward's, (whereof instance might be given in sundry particulars) but in Doctrines also of a fare more fundamental consequence, as about the power of man in his unregenerate, yea, and in his regenerate condition too, about the nature of Justifying Faith, yea, about Justification itself (than which I know no Doctrine more fundamental) concerning which notwithstanding, it is a very rate thing to find any two, either of our late Writers, or our present Preachers, uniform in their judgements; yea, or to find any one of either of these, entirely consistent with himself? Several months since I heard a Parliament man of eminent worth and note, reckon up six or seven several Sects or subdivisions amongst the Presbyterians themselves; since which time I make little question, but that their Sects have multiplied. So that whereas my Anti-Querists talk of so much clearing and settling of truth amongst us, above the happiness of the first times of Reformation in this behalf; the truth is, that that Truth they speak of, even in her main and most fundamental branches, was never more disturbed, perplexed, intricated, obscured, made more inaccessible to the understandings, capacities, and consciences of ordinary men, from the beginning of the Reformation they speak of, than it is at this day amongst us. O England, England, if thou dependest upon thy Teachers for truth, even in the greatest points of that Religion which thou professest, thou must fish for it in Sect. 55. their troubled waters. In their eleventh Answer, having built upon the rubbish of the Sect. 55. foundations lately demolished, and told us, First, that the doctrine of the Lords day was not so cleared, as it is now, (I wonder by whom, or by what light of demonstration) Secondly, that even now it is not so clear in any other Churches, as it is here in England, (I see the moral of the fable verified; if a man be the painter, the Lion shall be made to couch at his feet) Thirdly, That the truth of it is not settled in other Kingdoms or States, as it is amongst us (it seems they make a difference between clearing, and settling: and so I believe, that in their sense, there is a very great difference indeed; the former being God's way, the latter, mens) In the fourth place they add; it may justly be believed, that if he (Calvin) were now alive in this Kingdom, he▪ would not publish or maintain any thing contrary to the observation of the Lords day, as it is enjoined by the Laws and Ordinances of this Realm. But may not the justness of these men's belief in this case, be justly questioned? Is it a just or righteous thing to believe, or to suppose, that a man of worth, of able parts, of eminent learning, of a composed judgement, of a tender conscience, would balk with God and his own soul, in shunning to declare, what upon mature study, upon diligent and faithful inquiry, he judgeth to be the counsel or will of God, through fear of an Ordinance or Law in a civil State? I believe if Calvin were now alive, whether in this Kingdom, or in any other, he would con these Gentlemen small thanks for such a commendation. The dregs settled in the bottom of this Answer, are these: can it be less than a wilful slander, and malicious purpose of rendering the Ordinance odious, to name death as a punishment for maintaining any thing against the Ordinances and Laws about the Lords day, etc. But so this Querist deals in other of his Queries, etc. But let charity, or reason, or common sense, or who ye will, judge, whether it be less than a wilful slander, and malicious purpose of rendering the Querist odious, without a cause, to charge him with naming death as a punishment for maintaining any thing against the Ordinances and Laws, about the Lords day? To Queree, whether Calvin deserved either imprisonment, or death, for teaching and maintaining, etc. (which is the tenor of the Queree) is this to charge Sect. 56. the Ordinance with threatening death as a punishment for maintaining any thing about the Lords day, against the Ordinances and Laws? If not, how can it render the Ordinance odious, except (haply) it be either in the jealous consciences of such men, who are under some regret, and secret counterworking of conscience through fear, lest the Ordinance, though pleasing to them, that is, to their flesh, should yet be odious indeed in the sight of God, or else in the over-jealous conceit of those, whose chief hopes and comforts on earth are bound up in the honour and success of the Ordinance; and who lie under the bondage of this fear, that if the Ordinance should prove odious in the eyes of men, themselves should suffer and bear the same burden with it. To say that Nicholas or Matthew, or any other person, is either homo, or BRUTUM; is it any ways to name or intimate, that brutu●s, is either the genus, or species of either? But when men's minds are set to do unworthily, they become uncapable of greater differences, then are between conjunctive and dis-junctive particles, though there be no such affinity or likeness between these, which need encumber any sober man's judgement, in or about their dijudication. But Gangraena, and her Paramour hath justified all the sons of▪ Presbytery besides, in all their slanders, calumnies, false aspersions, malicious imputations, and reports; they that are malicious, are not malicious, in comparison of him that superabounds in malice. Omnis Caesarea cedat labor Amphitheatro: Unused pro cunct is fama loquatur opus. Let all men's malice give Gangraena place: Let Fame, instead of all, this one piece grace. In their Answer to their twelfth Argument, if they mean as Sect. 56. they say, they make some part of atonement for their delinquency against the Queries hitherto. For here they grant, that no man is punishable for his mere mistake, whatever his opinion be: but for being so pertinacious in his mistake in matters of great consequence, as that he will not forbear to publish his mistakes to the infection of others, and the mischief of their souls, and to the ruin, or at least miserable Sect. 57 disturbance of the Church of God. I freely acknowledge that whosoever, out of pertinacy in his mistake, not only in matters of greater consequence, but even of lesser, will not forbear to publish his mistakes, to the infection of others, etc. i. e. with a desire or intention to infect, and mischief the souls of others, etc. deserves severely to be punished; nor shall I ever plead mercy for such a man. If the Ordinance had explained itself after any such manner as this, I (I presume with many others) should have been satisfied in it, without any more ado; and not have needed to crave satisfaction about it, as now we have done. But in case any man shall really and conscientiously judge that opinion of his, which others call a mistake, and perhaps is so indeed, to be a truth of God; and shall withal really judge, that he is bound in conscience to hold forth such an opinion as being in his judgement and conscience the undoubted truth of God; and withal necessary to be published and made known unto men, for their spiritual benefit and good; in case (I say) the publishing of his opinion or mistake, upon such terms as these, shall prove the infection of others, or inconvenience, or (if you will) mischief the souls of others, etc. I have no ground either in Reason, or Religion, to judge this man worthy, either death or bands. Nay, if to publish such mistakes, and that even with pertinacy▪ which tend to the infection of others, and mischief of souls, etc. were a matter worthy either death, or bands, I have sufficient grounds both in Reason and Religion, to judge and think, that very many Ministers of the Anti-Independent interest, yea, many of very eminent repute amongst them, would upon due examination and trial, be found in the condemnation. The strength of their Answer to their thirteenth Argument, Sect. 57 leans upon this staff: That the open and public profession of errors, is more pernicious, than the practice of sins in a like kind and degree: they instance, To teach there is no Christ, is more dangerous (they say) then to live as if there were no Christ, and yet make a profession of him. Well, but my judgement (and the judgements I believe of many more) and this Doctrine, are at odds. But these men attempt a reconciliation by the mediation of this reason, for the proof of their Doctrine. The one (they mean, the public profession of errors) justifieth what it doth, as lawful, under pretended Sect. 57 grounds of truth: The other practiseth, and yet POSSIBLY not so impudently as to justify his own practice: But First, may not a man as possibly, publicly profess an error, otherwise then under pretended grounds of Truth, as practise, or commit sin, without a justification of what he practiseth? Certainly, he that practiseth a sin, hath the same necessity lying upon him to justify what he doth; which he, who publicly professeth an error, hath to justify this practice of his. Nor can I understand, why, or upon what ground, our Anti-Querists should make any such opposition, between a professing of error, and practising of sin. Is it their sense, that a public profession of error, is no practising of sin? Secondly, when they say, by way of opposition to him that publicly professeth an error, that he that practiseth sin, may yet possibly do it not so impudently as to justify his own practice; do they not plainly suppose, first, that he that practiseth sin, may practise it upon such terms, viz. so, as to justify his practice (which supposition of theirs, I confess, is attested for truth, by daily examples of Practitioners in this kind) and secondly, that when men do thus practise, the practice of sin is everywhit as pernicious, as the public professing of an error. And if so, doth not the reason which they bring to plead the cause of their assertion, prevaricate with it; and set up that which is contradictory to it, in its stead. But this is no news, amongst those, who think themselves too good to subject unto the truth. But Thirdly, the question is not, which of the two, a public profession of error, or the practice of sin in a like kind, etc. be more pernicious; but which of them is more punishable, which deserves the greater punishment? For in many cases, practices or actions that are more pernicious, i. e. more prejudicial and hurtful unto others, may deserve less punishment, than some others which are less hurtful. The fact of a mad man, who in the heat of his distemper shall fall foul upon a man, and dangerously wound him, is more hurtful unto him, than the fact of him that shall fairly take his purse upon the highway, or cheat him of a parcel of his money. But either of these latter facts is more punishable than the former. Many instances, more of like consideration might be added. Therefore, Fourthly and lastly, as to the assertion or conclusion itself; Sect. 58 that the public profession of error, is more pernicious than the practice of sin, etc. (if by pernicious, the assertors mean, punishable; which they must mean, if they speak any thing to the purpose) the truth, or error of the comparison, will be clearly tried by this touchstone. If the open and public profession of error, hath first more of the will in it, be more voluntary: Secondly, if it be more against the light, and law of nature; and then, Thirdly, and lastly, if it be more pernicious (as they speak) or mischievous unto men, than the practice of sin in a like kind and degree; then have these men judged righteously between them; the public profession of error is more punishable, than the practice of sin, etc. But if all things be found contrary between them, and the practice of sin in a like kind or degree, be first more voluntary; & secondly more repugnant to the light and law of nature; and Thirdly, of an equally, or a more, pernicious and dangerous consequence, than the public profession, or holding forth of an error; then have these men (it is much to be feared) taken a bribe, which hath blinded their eyes, and caused them to stumble in judgement. Now concerning the two former, there is little question to be made, but that they are more rank in such a practising of sin, as they put in the comparison, as (for example) in living as if there were no Christ, then in professing an error, as, viz. that there is no Christ. For first, that which is done contrary to that knowledge which a man hath, of what he ought to do, cannot reasonably be thought, but to have more of the will in it, than what is done out of ignorance, or with a concurrence of the judgement of the doer. Now men may profess that there is no Christ, with a perfect concurrence of their judgement: for they may verily think that there is no such person, as many thousands in the world do: (yea, it can hardly be supposed with any good consistence in reason, that any man ever did, or will profess that there is no Christ, who doth not really and inwardly judge so) but they cannot practise or live in Adultery, Murder, Theft, Oppression, Deceit, etc. (which is to live as if there were no Christ) but they must needs oppose their judgements, and consciences, with the strength of their wills. Secondly, the sins mentioned▪ Adultery, Theft, etc. are clearly▪ and at first sight against the light and law of nature; but the denial of the being of such a person as Christ, who is both God and Sect. 58. man, is not contrary to any law or principle in nature; at least to none, that is clearly such. Thirdly and lastly, for the degree of danger, or perniciousness in either; (though the punishablenesse of a practice is not, as hath been said, so much to be measured by this) I conceive the practice of the sins, to be equally pernicious (at least) with the profession of the error. The degree of perniciousness in a practice, is to be judged by these two things: first, by the degree of the evil, which it is like to produce, or possibly may produce. Secondly, by the degree of the likelihood in it to produce this evil. That which possibly may occasion or produce a greater evil than another, is not necessarily the more pernicious; except there be a proportionable likelihood that it will produce it. Nor is that necessarily the more pernicious, which is the more likely to occasion or produce evil; unless the degree of the evil, which it is likely to occasion, be thereafter. But when the evil or mischief which two several practices possibly may or are likely to produce, is one and the same; then that is clearly the more pernicious, which is the more likely to produce this evil. First than it is clear, that to live as if there were no Christ, may very possibly occasion men to think, that indeed there is no Christ, as well as to profess in words, that there is no Christ. So that in respect of the evil (at least in that particular, which is now in consideration) which both the one and the other may produce; there is no difference between the two practices. If then there be as great a likelihood, that to live as if there were no Christ, (as viz. in Adultery, Theft, Deceit, etc.) will produce the evil mentioned, as to profess in words, that there is no Christ; then is the former everywhit as pernicious, as the latter. The degree of a likelihood to produce evil (in that kind we speak of) is to be estimated by some such rule as this; that which is as apt or likely to corrupt the minds or judgements of men, with the evil of the error, hath the same likelihood in it to produce the evil: and that which hath the greater aptness in this kind, hath the greater likelihood. Now that method or means of corrupting the minds of men with errors, which is more plausible and tempting, and more complying with the flesh, is more apt and likely to produce the evil, than another, which is less plausible and tempting in this kind. If so, then for men to live as if there were Sect. 59 no Christ, is more pernicious, and likely to mischief the souls of others, then to say, or profess in Words that there is no Christ. For first, examples, are more insinuating, and tempting, and apt to gain upon men, than doctrines, or bare assertions, or arguings of things are, Peter speaks of some husbands, who may be won by the conversation of the wives, when they cannot be gained by the word * 1 Pet. 3. 1. . And if examples on the right hand be more operative and persuasive in this kind, than doctrines of the same kind; certainly examples on the left hand, are not behind. He spoke both reason and experience, who said: Tardiùs irritant animos demissa per aurem, Horat. Quàm quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus— What by the ear is let into the mind, Engageth little; but it soon inclines By what the eye presenteth— Secondly, this great error, that there is no Christ, being presented Sect. 59 and recommended to the sensual hearts of men for a truth, with those sensual accommodations of present pleasures and profits (as it is in the example of Adultery, Drunkenness, Deceit, etc.) comes upon terms of more advantage to gain entertainment with men, then when it comes only in a sound of words, or in the dry notion of a doctrine. Yea, the truth is, that the great error we speak of, that there is no Christ, would be of little, or no accommodation to the flesh (and consequently there would be no great danger of its infection) did it not contribute towards that peaceable liberty for the practice of sin▪ which the flesh or sensual part of men so ardently wisheth and desireth. Therefore when it cometh unto the soul visibly attended and accompanied with that retinue of carnal gratifications, which it in part as well begetteth, as maintaineth; the very sight and beholding of these, pleads, and procures acceptation for it, in the eyes of the carnal judgements, and fleshly minds of men, and awakens and invites the foolish heart to entertain it. Thus we see how inorthodox these Anti-Congregationall zealots are, in the main pillar of that Answer which now we oppose, Sect. 60. being (as hath been said) this; That the open and public profession of errors, is more pernicious, than the practice of sins in a like kind and degree. O England, who hath bewitched these, and many others of thy Teachers, that they should so seldom see, or at least, speak the Truth, as they do! But Secondly, because in the sequel of this Answer, they strike again at that dis-junctive expression in the Queries, either imprisonment or death, as very injurious to the Ordinance, when the opinion queried about, is by the Ordinance only threatened with imprisonment; and Gangrena herself; who is loath to be out at any game of frowardness or folly, is partaker with them of this un clerklike, (yea, unmanlike) exception; * Gang. 3. par. besides, what hath been already said for the full justification of it with men, who have no soft places in their heads, nor hard in their hearts; I here add, that howsoever — Lucis tam dira cupido Virgil. (as the Poet's expression is) i. e. such an uncouth or dismal desire of life, may possibly enthral or bewitch Gangrena, and her lovers, that a prison above ground, and a prison under ground, may seem very un-synonomous, and as fare distant one from the other, as the East is from the West; yet to ingenuous and free-spirited men, there is no such great difference between them. Nay, unto many dispositions, yea, unto all men of solid understanding, present imprisonment in the chambers of death is many ways more desirable, then perpetual imprisonment, or for term of life, under the hand of our common Jailers; especially upon those terms of misery and extremity, which the fare greater part of those suffer and endure, who are imprisoned by men. So that in case the expression in the Queries so oft quarrelled, had been conjunctive, imprisonment and death, and not dis-junctive (as now it is) imprisonment or death, there had been no such capital injury or offence committed against the Ordinance: how much less, the does▪ junctive being every ways, as well in appearance, as in truth and substance, innocent? But ears, must be horns, when Lions will. Their fourteenth Answer, cometh not ●eere their fourteenth Sect. 60. Argument by sixteen foot, at least. Their Major in this Argument, is this: None ought to urge a truly faithful and conscientious Sect. 61. Minister to publish contrary to what he is persuaded of, nor to threaten him with death or imprisonment, if he shall declare himself otherwise. To this they are pleased to Answer, That this Major is not universally true. Their reason: For though no Minister that is truly faithful and conscientious, may publish any thing, when he ●● persuaded it is an error; yet if any such Minister hath first published any dangerous error, to the dishonour of God, and the mischief of souls, he may be justly urged to make reparation for the evil which he hath caused, by publishing the contrary Truth: and may, if he shall refuse, be threatened with imprisonment, and even of death. They that can reconcile this reason unto the cause, which it undertakes, may do it, if they please: I confess I cannot. For is there so much as a face, or the lightest stricture of an appearance of any thing in it, to prove, That a truly faithful and conscientious Minister, may be urged, or threatened with imprisonment or death, to publish contrary to what he is persuaded of, etc. If he be persuaded of Truth, in that which is contrary to what he hath published, he shall not need, being truly faithful and conscientious, to be urged, much less threatened with imprisonment or death, to make reparations by the publishing of it. His faithfulness and conscientiousness will of their own accord lead him hereunto. If he be not persuaded, both the Quer●e and the Argument are still where they were, both un-answered. Whereas in the sequel of this Answer, they cite that of the Apostle, Sect. 61. Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off that trouble you, to prove, that he, that shall still persist to publish dangerous errors, may be threatened with death (I suppose they mean, and cut off by death also) I answer, first, that certainly though they let Paul alone with his own words, yet they exchange meanings with him. For he doth not here speak of cutting off by the sword of the Magistrate, which is by death; but by the sword of the Church▪ which is by excommunication. chrysostom, with whom Calvin agrees in his notion, conceives that the Apostle in his expression of cutting off, alludes to circumcision, which was made by abscission: and wisheth, that as they distracted the Church by preaching and urging the Doctrine of Circumcision, or cutting off, so themselves should be cut off. Now that cutting off, which was by circumcision, was not to the death, or destruction, but to Sect. 62. the benefit of the circumcised. Mr. Perkins calls the passage in hand, an imprecation or curse pronounced by Paul upon the false Apostles, and moveth this question upon it; Whether we may not curse our enemies as Paul did? To which he answers negatively, No: his reason: For we have not the like spirit to discern the persons of men what they are: and our zeal for God's glory, is mixed with many corrupt affections, and therefore to be suspected. So that his judgement is, not only that no argument can be drawn from this Scripture for the death or imprisonment of any teachers of errors, or troublers of Churches in that kind; but not so much as for any imprecation, or wishing of evil against such. Luther's interpretation of the place differs not much; who expounds the Apostles malediction or imprecation (as he calls it) against the disturbers of the Church, in the nature of an Anathema, and makes this to be the sense of it, that God would not guide or prosper either their Doctrine, or their do. * Rectè igitur facit Paulus, quod perturbatores ●llos maledicit, & pronunciat sententiam eos esse Anathema, cun omnibus quae sunt, docent, & faciunt, quodque imprecatur eis ut ex●i●dantur ex bac vitâ, & precipue ex Ecclesia, hoc est, ne Deus gubernet & fortunet Doctrinam & omnes actiones eorum, Luther ad Gal. 5. 12. Musculus understands the place clearly of excommunication. I would they were cut off (saith he) But from whence? Even from the body of the Churches of Christ, into which they had insinuated themselves, as if they had been members of them; whereas indeed they were pernicious pests. They who are cut off, are abalienated from all communion and fellowship therewith, etc. It is true he speaks afterwards of cutting off by the Christian Magistrate: but his Text, according to his own interpretation of it, administers no ground at all unto him so to wish. Nor indeed doth he wish any such cutting off as this, but upon this ground or supposition, that the Churches of Christ have no other means whereby to be rid of those unworthy teachers and Pastors, whom he judgeth meet to be cut off; which yet they ought to have, yea and might have, if they did not willingly suffer themselves to be deprived of it; and then they should stand in no need at all of the strong hand of the Magistrate for such a purpose. Whereas they add, that Christians in former ages submitted to Sect. 62. suffer, with profession, that if they had been Heretics or Blasphemers they had deservedly suffered; and for proof hereof, allege that of the Apostle Paul (when he was accused to have offended against the law of the Jews and the Temple) If I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die, Act. 25. 8. 11. they here also commit that iniquity, by which they still build Sect. 63 their house of High Presbytery; I mean, they misuse the good Word of God. For is there any thing in the passage they cite▪ which so much as colours with that assertion, which they argue from it? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the Apostle.) i. e. if indeed I did (or do) injustice, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not, etc. Do any of the Heretics, or Sectaries now (as these men are pleased to call all those, who refuse eandem insanire insaniam, with them) refuse to suffer, or die, upon such terms as these? Let them produce any one man of that generation which they so avile, and tread under their feet like clay and mire, or stones in the streets, who ever refused to suffer for injustice proportionably to his offence? or to die, having committed any thing worthy of death? It may possibly be, that some of them have pleaded their innocency, when matters of injustice have been laid to their charge: and others have declared their judgements in opposition to some, who would make what they please, or what pleaseth not them, matters worthy of death. But in both these they are so fare from going against, that they follow, the example of the Apostle Paul; who denied that he had done any injustice, or committed things worthy of death, as his malicious accusers had traduced and falsely charged him to have done. O England, when will thy Teachers cease to pervert the straight ways and word of the Lord! when shall it yet be? Their Answer to their fifteenth Argument is somewhat faint Sect. 63. and tender. They speak here as if they cared not much whether they spoke or no yet they take courage to say, that the public holding of some opinions may be so prejudicial to the public peace, as may deserve imprisonment, and yet not deserve excommunication, etc. But their strength is wholly spent with bringing forth the bare assertion, that they have not left wherewith to or guard it with any proof. And indeed a thousand such sayings may more easily be asserted, than any one of them substantially proved. I desire to know what opinions those are, the public holding whereof may be so prejudicial to the public peace, as to deserve punishment; and yet not be so prejudicial, either to the honour of God, or to the proceed of the Gospel or to the well being of that particular Church, which ought to take cognizance of them, as to deserve excommunication. I fear that the public peace is oftener Sect. 63. prejudicial to the public holding forth of many truths, than the public holding forth of any opinion whatsoever prejudicial unto that. Whereas they add, that the Apostle did not call them beloved Brethren, that at Corinth denied the resurrection, but the rest of the Church that ●●ld the Truth; except either they will say, that they speak it by Revelation, or else give some, either Scripture, or reason to prove it; I trust they will give us leave to judge it Apocryphal, and to number it amongst the transgressions of their pen. That which follows, is yet of a more ignoble calculation: for they say, neither were there any such in the Church of Corinth, or Christian Churches then, that held opinions of fare worse consequence, then very many, or even then any of those errors, which the Ordinance threatens with death. But first, why, or in relation whereunto, do they tell us this story? would they have their Reader think, that in saying this (though they could prove it, which they neither do, nor, I believe, can) they answer the demand of the Querie? They that are willing to be deceived▪ may so judge. But the Querie doth not ask, whether there were not in the Church▪ who publicly held some opinions of worse consequence, than many of those which the Ordinance threatens with death; but, than many of those which this Ordinance threatens, either with imprisonment, or death. But when a shadow will do the deed, what need men take care for the substance? and when half answers will serve the turn, such as are complete and whole are but superfluities. Secondly, for my satisfaction about the truth of the assertion, I desire to consult the learning and judgements, and consciences of these men▪ whether this opinion, that the bodies of men shall not rise again after death, which they know was held in the Church of Corinth▪ again, whether the denying of justification to be by Christ alone, which they know was entertained by many in the Churches of Galatia; yet again, whether to deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, which it seems from 2 Joh. v. 7. was the opinion and doctrine of many in these times; whether I say every of these opinions, especially the second, be not of worse consequence, and more destructive to the eternal salvation of men, than this, that there is no day of judgement after death; which yet is one of the errors threatened with death by the Ordinance? Sect. 64. Their Sxteenth Argument (so called) is fraudulently made, and drawn up quite besides the tenor and import of the Querie; Sect. 64. and therefore though I cannot undertake simply for the justification of it, yet is it much more righteous than the Answer made to it: For▪ First, this affirmeth, that those who hold and publicly maintain any of the opinions, punishable by death in the Ordinance, cannot be so full of grace and goodness as those of a contrary judgement. An assertion (doubtless) no ways reconcileable with any sound principle, either in reason or Religion. Yet our Anti-Querie-men▪ undertake the patronage and defence of it, by this plea: Because (say they) they who h●ld, and publicly maintain DAMNABLE heresies, have no true Grace, or goodness at all. But (for Answer to this) I would know of these men, what they mean, by DAMNABLE Heresies? For I fear they spread a net in the darkness of this word, DAMNABLE, to deceive their simple ones▪ If by DAMNABLE, they mean that, which is always and inevitably accompanied with eternal Damnation, there is truth in their reason, but no pertinency at all to their purpose; unless they be stronger than God, and can do impossibilities: as (particularly) prove, that all the opinions punishable by death in the Ordinance, are DAMNABLE in such a sense, i. e. of an absolute inconsistence with Grace, and forgiveness of sin by God. I fear their touchstone, whereby they try opinions and heresies whether they be DAMNABLE in this sense, or no▪ is but counterfeit and naught, and doth but abuse them, and many more with them. Yet if they will please to give it a name by which we may know it, we shall be the better able to examine and judge of it. For my part, I verily believe, that there are very few opinions or heresies (as some men call Heresy) which are DAMNABLE in this sense. My reason is, because the Scripture so expressly saith, That whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. And if there be no opinion absolutely inconsistent with such a believing▪ but only that, which is either formally, or virtually, contradictory to it; Certain I am, that there are not many DAMNABLE in the sense now argued upon. Yea, I make much question, whether all opinions, which are only virtually and by way of implication, contradictory Sect. 65. thereunto, be absolutely inconsistent with this believing; and consequently DAMNABLE (in the said sense.) But if by DAMNABLE Heresies, they only mean, such opinions or errors, which are of dangerous consequence (especially if they who hold them▪ should withal hold all other Errors, which in a consequential way depend upon them) and in this respect are justly and deeply condemnable, or censurable by men; their reason vanisheth into nothing, for want of truth in it. For many who hold and publicly maintain DAMNABLE Heresies, in this sense, may have, yea and some (as fare as men are able to discern) defacto, have true Grace and goodness, (as hath been formerly asserted in this Discourse) and might be instanced in many more. But, Secondly, That which follows in this Answer, is of a far weaker Sect. 65. constitution, then that which went before. For here they affirm, that they that hold any of the other opinions punishable by the Ordinance, cannot be so full of grace and goodness, as they MAY BE who are of a contrary judgement. But First, The Querie doth not make any such ridiculous demand▪ whether those that are of a contrary judgement MAY NOT be as full of Grace and goodness, as those that hold the opinions made obnoxious by the Ordinance. But the purport of the Querie is this: Whether it be not possible, that these (viz. taken in their present condition, with all their infirmities, whether in point of opinion, or practice) may be as full of Grace and goodness, as the other? (viz. taken and considered likewise with their respective burtherns in both kinds, as for the present they walk laden with them.) Now compare the gentlemen's Answer (in the words mentioned) with the Question put to them, and you will find no more sympathy between them, than is between Harp and Harrow. Secondly, Neither is there any whit more Truth, than pertinency of relation, in the said Assertion. For certainly they that hold some, yea, or all, the opinions punishable by the Ordinance, may be as full of Grace and goodness, as they may be, who are of a contrary judgement, viz. if God will please to interest his power for the cleansing of the former from all filthiness, both of opinion and practice, as well as of the latter. The Opinions punishable Sect. 66. by the Ordinance, are every whit as reduceable by the spirit of God, as the errors held and maintained by men of a contrary judgement: (for I suppose that they also have their errors, if they be men) and their persons or souls likewise capable of as great inlargements for, and with Grace from the hand of God, as theirs. Thirdly, Whereas they further here say, That those who hold, and publicly maintain any of those Heresies▪ cannot be so truly serviceable to the State, as those of a contrary judgement; because that thereby they even provoke God against the State, by the dishonour they bring to him, and the mischief they do to his people; Do they suppose that those of a contrary judgement, amongst whom it is notoriously known, that there are fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, deceitful, covetous, oppressors, proud, persecutors, etc. Do they suppose (I say) that such abomination-workers as these, do not at all provoke God against the State, or bring dishonour to him, or do mischief unto his people? For without such a supposition as this, it is evident, that those who maintain some one, yea, or more, of the heresies (so called) or errors made punishable by the Ordinance, may be as truly serviceable to the State, as those of contrary judgement; yea, and this with the full consent of that very reason, which is here brought to prove the contrary. Or do these men conceive, that whosoever will undergo the penance of bowing down his neck to the yoke of high Presbytery, shall hereby obtain Sect. 66. a plenary remission of all his sins from God; yea, and Do●a●i●tae, qui prae s● omnes alios Christian as condemna●ant severitatem censurae in suos re●ana 〈…〉: et in suis ●aetibus h●mi es 〈…〉 os, ●● oped o●, Gildo●ia●●s, Primianosque pa ●●●autur●●. Mart. Loc. Class. 4 cap. 5. ●●ct. 15. further be made uncapable of all further provocation? These men who are so furiously clamorous against Sectaries and Heretics (in which bundle of clamour they bind up the names of many that are precious in the sight of God and good men) do themselves imitate one of the worst strains that was found in one of the worst kind of Sectaries, (I mean the Donatists) with the reproach of whose memory and practice they so frequently stigmatize those who descent from them. The Donatists (saith Peter Martyr) who condemned all other Christians in comparison of themselves, were very remiss in their censures of those of their own Sect. and patiently suffered even the most impure of men in their Assemblies *. And of Eunomius the Heretic it is reported, that suis sectatoribus quodvis scelus indulgebat. That is, he favoured Sect. 68 his complices or followers in any mischief whatsoever. Fourthly, whereas they allege, that each of the erroneous opinions punishable by the Ordinance, hath somewhat of visible prejudice Sect. 67. to the Church and state; and from hence argue, that those who hold and publicly maintain any of these opinions, cannot be so serviceable to the State as those who hold the truth in those things, may be; this is a bird of the same feather, and hath been plucked already. Doubtless they who hold the truth in th●se things, may notwithstanding hold such erroneous opinions otherwise, and withal be so unworthy beyond the others, in their practices, and course of conversation; that there may be much more visible prejudice both to the Church and State in these: yea, in either of them, then in the errors of the other. But when they add, that the Queree (against which they argue) seems to infer, that no Law is to be made to afflict or punish those that are godly, and serviceable to the Commonwealth; they lay a necessity upon me, either to judge them self-condemned in the charge, or else weak beneath the line of such men, who understand plain English. For the clear truth is, that there is not so much as the least s●emingnesse of any such inference or intimation, in the Querie. In their Answer to their seventeenth Argument, they follow Sect. 68 their occupation; first, they dictate, and then calumniate. They dictate▪ that the Ordinance is not like to discourage (they mean from the Ministry) any, but heretical and erroneous spirits, who would do mischief in the Ministry, if they were admitted unto it. By the way, is it not much that Ministers of an Anti-Congregationall Interest, should speak against those who do mischief in the Ministry? Therefore (saith the Apostle) thou art unexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest, dost the same thing * Rom. 2. 1. . But how do they prove, that the Ordinance is not like to discourage any, but heretical and erroneous spirits? No otherwise, then by the profound demonstration of an Authoritative silence. They are n●●i ad imperium, borne to Sovereignty; and it is an indigne thing to put them upon the servility of disputing. The rule is, Lex imperet, non disputet: and is it not meet that Lawmakers should partake of the honour and privileges of the Law? But if they could content themselves with the office of Dictatours, and not Sect. 69. entrench upon Satan's employment also of calumniating; it were a very considerable deduction from that sum of misery, wherewith the nation is now charged by them. Our Anti Querists have borrowed Gangrena's forehead, and are not ashamed to say, that it is the Querists calumnious insinuation, that the common doctrines of the Churches of God in this present age, are but misprisions and common errors in matters of Religion. Reader, if there be so much as the quantity of a mo●e in the ●unne of any such insinuation in the Querie; let them wear the crown of Sagacious and quick-discerning men, and let the dung hill (meet for slanderers to sit on) be assigned unto me for my portion. But if they in the charge have sinned the sin of the dung hill, why should sin and shame part company? All the Querie can so much as seem to intimate about this point, is, that men of greatest worth for parts and abilities, are more likely than other men, to discover the common errors and misprisions of the present age in matters of Religion. But doth he that supposeth there are common errors and misprisions in matters of Religion, intimate, that the common doctrines of the Churches of God are but misprisions and common errors in Religion? Or doth he that supposeth that there is much base and counterfeit coin abroad, intimate, that the best Silver and Gold are but counterfeit? Or doth he that supposeth, that illiterate and ignorant men are common in the world, intimate, that the wisest and most learned men are but illiterate and ignorant? Apagè calumniarum quisquilias. In their eighteenth Answer, p. 20. pretending to answer an Sect. 69. Argument drawn from the parable of the tares, they say, that the parable doth not forbid to pluck up the tares in one field, for fear left others should pluck up the wheat in another [field] In this doubtless they speak most truly. For Christ was not afraid, left the plucking up of the tares in this world, should occasion the plucking up of the wheat in the next world. For the field, wherein both the wheat and the tares are to grow together, is expressly said to be the world, i. e. this present world. The field is the world, Matth. 13. 38. So that our Antagonists thus fare, in the point in hand, speak most substantially for matter of truth; but most childishly, as for matters of Answer, or reason otherwise. Whereas they add; that the parable forbids to pluck up the tares, when by the Sect. 70. same act they may be in danger to pluck up the wheat with it; if they can be content to have a sober sense put upon their words, (a better, I believe, than their own) I willingly subscribe unto this also. For they, who by plucking up that, which they call tares, (and perhaps is so) in one part of the field, shall, or probably may, occasion or provoke others, to pluck up that, which they also call tares (and perhaps is not so, but good wheat) in another, may very properly be said, by the same act to be in danger of plucking up the wheat also with it. And there is little question (indeed) to be made, but that this was our Saviour's express meaning in those words: lest while you gather up the tares, you pluck up also the wheat with them * Mat. 13. 29. . i. e, lest by your example, in gathering out the tares in your part of the field▪ or, where you have to do, you occasion or excite others to pluck up the wheat in that part of the field where they have to do: which latter thing, if it should be done, may justly be imputed to that act of yours in gathering or plucking up the tares. Our Saviour in this Parable expresseth himself to be so exceedingly tender of the lives and liberties of his Saints and faithful ones (signified by the Wheat) that he prohibits the doing of such an act, which otherwise, even his servants themselves would judge most necessary to be done, chief because he knew and foresaw, that the doing of it would endanger these, I mean, the lives and liberties of many of his Saints, He declareth himself willing and desirous, that rather some unworthy men should be spared, then that their suffering should occasion the causeless sufferings of his Saints, But Secondly, When they say on, That the tares cannot be meant in Sect. 70. that parable, ONLY of Heretics or false Teachers; do they not forget themselves exceedingly, and give away the cause of high-Presbytery at once? He that shall say, that Abraham did not ONLY beget Isaac, doth he not suppose and grant, that Abraham howsoever did beget Isaac? So he that shall say, that Christ did not ONLY call Peter and Andrew to be Apostles, doth he not clearly imply, that yet he called these, as well as others to that dignity? In like manner when our Counter-Querists say, that the tares in the parable cannot be meant ONLY of Heretics and false Teachers, they plainly and fairly grant, that yet they are meant of these, as well as of any other sort of wicked men. Sect. 71. If so, then must not the Servants of Christ, whether Magistrates or Ministers, gather them out from amongst the wheat by death, but suffer them to grow together in the field, i. e. in the world, until the great harvest in the end of the world: that is, they are to leave them, as for matter of corporal punishment, to the proceeding of God himself against them at the great day. Therefore Thirdly, whereas they attempt to prove their said assertion, by saying, that by our Saviour's own Interpretation, they are ALL those that in the field where the good seed is sown, are the children of the wicked one, i e. all those who being ungodly in heart, do manifest their ungodliness to the view of others; they do notoriously falsify our Saviour's Interpretation, and substitute that in the stead of it, which is not only contrary to his meaning and word, but unto reason itself▪ yea, and to the clear sense and mind of the Scriptures elsewhere. For First, Our Saviour doth not say, that the tares, are ALL the Sect 71. children of the wicked one; but indefinitely thus: The tares are the children of the wicked one * Mat. 13. 38. . Now indefinite propositions are not always equipollent unto universals; but are to be construed, sometimes as particulars, sometimes as universals, according to the nature of them, together with direction of other circumstances, and assertions of the same Authors in which they are found. Secondly, That our Saviour by the tares, doth not mean universally, ALL the children of the wicked one, is evident, because he only speaks of such tares which were sown amongst the wheat, (i. e. the children of the Kingdom, or of the Gospel) and sprang up together with it * Ver. 25. 26. . Now there were, and are at this day, ungodly ones, and children of the wicked one, in such parts or places of the field, where no wheat was ever sown; I mean in such parts of the world, where the word of the Kingdom (the Gospel) was never preached. Thirdly, the tares of which the Parable speaketh, are said to have been sown by the envious man some time after the wheat was sown. Therefore they cannot be meant, of ALL the children of the wicked one, or of ALL that are manifestly ungodly, because there were great numbers of these in the field (the world) even at the time when the wheat was sown, and the world first planted with the Children of the Kingdom: yea, and long before. Sect. 72 Fourthly, If by the tares should be meant ALL wicked and manifestly ungodly ones, then ought not thiefs, murderers, nor the most desperate kind of malefactors under Heaven, be cut off from the world by the sword of the civil Magistrate, but be let alone in their respective ways and practices of mischief, until the judgement of the great day. For our Saviour expressly orders and enjoins, that the tares, of which he speaks in the parable, be suffered to grow together [with the wheat] until the harvest * Matth. 13. 30 . If our Anti-Querists whoever they be, thus charge the master of the house, with the crime of Anti-Magistraticallisme, it is no great matter if they charge those of his household with it much more. Fiftly, such wicked and ungodly ones, and such only, are meant Sect. 72. by the tares in our Saviour's parable, the taking away of whose lives, is like to endanger the lives of his Saints, the children of the Kingdom, and that more generally. But he said, nay, lest whilst ye gather up the tares, ye pluck up also the wheat with them * Ver. 29. . Now the cutting of many manifestly ungodly and wicked ones, by the sword of the Magistrate; as viz. Murderers, Thiefs, Traitors, etc. doth no ways endanger either the lives or liberties of the Saints, but rather is a preservative and security and honour unto them. The reason is, because these (the Saints) are generally kept by the power of God through Faith, as unto salvation; so from the perpetration and breaking out into such horrid and vile practices, as these. Therefore when the actors of such impieties as these, are punished by the Magistrate, the innocency and unblameableness of their ways are set of with the greater lustre and commendation. So that Sixtly and lastly, by the tares in the parable, according to our Saviour's interpretation, is meant only that vein, or sort of evil doers, who serve the Kingdom of Satan by sowing false Doctrines, by corrupting the purity of the Gospel, as by spreading Errors and Heresies in the Churches of Christ amongst the Saints, etc. There are several circumstances in the Parable, which clearly restrains the sense and interpretation of the tares to false Teachers, and spreaders of Errors and Heresies. First, false Teachers and corrupters of the purity of the Gospel, were not found in the world, till some while after, that the Gospel had been purely and sincerely taught in the world, (as the tares were Sect. 73 not sown, till some while after the sowing of the wheat) whereas there were evil-doers of all other kinds in abundance, at this time, and before (as hath been already said.) There were indeed, false Teachers and corrupters of the truth in the Church of the Jews, before and at the time when the Gospel was first published in the world, such were the Sadduces, Pharises, etc. and so there were Teachers of many vanities amongst the Gentiles in many places. But the Gospel cannot properly be said to be corrupted with Errors or false Doctrines mingled with it; first, until the Truth of it was declared and planted in the world: Nor secondly, by any, but by those who profess it. Secondly, the tares appeared not, till after the blade of the wheat was sprung up, yea, and had brought forth fruit * Mat. 13. 26. . Nor were there any false Teachers heard of, who corrupted the Truth of the Gospel, until the Apostles had planted the Gospel in the purity of it, and made many proselytes to it in the world, which our Saviour elsewhere (viz. Joh. 15. 16.) calleth a bringing forth fruit. But evil doers in other kinds there were as many (or rather more) before the wheat had brought forth this fruit, as afterwards▪ Thirdly, the enemy, or envious man, who is said to have sown Sect. 73. the tares, (the Devil) went his way, (as the parable saith) when he had done this work; that is, he did it slily and covertly; he was not seen or observed when he did it, nor till some while after. Those false Teachers who mingled Evangelicall Truth with Errors and Heresies, were not suspected for such at the first, no nor discerned at all by very many professing Christianity, either first or last, viz. all such▪ who embraced their errors, instead of truth, and continued in them. Whereas in Murders, Thefts, Seditions, Rebellions, Treasons, with many other kinds of impiety, Satan is apparent, and to be seen (as it were) with open face. Fourthly, the gathering up of the tar●s, endangered the plucking up of the wheat also with them. In like manner, if Magistrates or others shall be busy about plucking up Sectaries, Heretics, Teachers of Errors, etc. they will be in continual danger of plucking up the wheat also, I mean godly men, and children of the Kingdom. First, because many truly pious and conscientious men, children Sect. 73. of the Kingdom, may easily be drawn into some unwarrantable Sect, or opinion. Secondly, such opinions as expose those who hold them forth, to the reproachful names of Sectaries, Schismatics, Heretics, etc. and in this respect shall be sentenced, and proceeded against by the Magistrate▪ as erroneous and heretical, may well be the sacred Truths of God; and the persons holding them forth unto the world, the best and faithfullest of his servants; Examples hereof were frequent in this very Kingdom in the days of Papal power. Thirdly, and lastly, the very example of one kind of Magistrate plucking up the tares, as he calls tares, in one place; is very likely to occasion the like plucking up, by a Magistrate of another spirit in another place, of such as he calls tares, who yet, very possibly, may be the good wheat. Whereas if we speak of moral impieties and the workers of these, as Adulterers, Murderers, Oppressors, Traitors, etc. there is little or no danger, that the Saints (at least, not any considerable numbers of them) should suffer by any proceed of the Magistrate against these, because, First, they are seldom given up to the committing of such sins as these. Secondly, because, there are no other practices, whether righteous or unrighteous, that are any thing like unto these, or wherein there is ordinarily any place for a mistake, by men of ordinary understanding. Thirdly, and lastly, neither can the example of any one Magistrate, inflicting punishment upon offenders in any of these kinds, in reason or likelihood of event, occasion another Magistrate of what spirit soever, to inflict punishment upon those who are not offenders; in as much as all Magistrates are of one and the same judgement in this, that moral misdemeanours, and particularly those that were mentioned, with their like, aught to be punished. Fifthly and lastly, the tares are by the order and command of Christ, to be suffered to grow together with the wheat, until the harvest. But evident it is, that Christ would not have murders, thefts, adulteries, and other moral misdemeanours, to be left unpunished by the Civil Magistrate until the last day; because then, he should carry the sword in vain, and not be God's Minister to execute wrath upon such as do evil; and so the Office of Magistracy would be quite taken away by such an interpretation. Therefore without all controversy, by the tares are precisely and determinately Sect. 74. meant, false teachers, and spreaders of errors in Religion (and yet not all these neither, though now we have not time to distinguish) whom the Magistrate may suffer to grow with the wheat unto the harvest, and yet have work enough for his sword, and his Office stand in full force, strength, and virtue, for the benefit and accommodation of the world. But our Anti-Querists perceiving this Parable coming against Sect. 74. them and their bloody Tenet, like an armed man, against whom no resistance is to be made, they wisely seek to divert the course of it another way; and fain would persuade the world, that the scope of it rather relates to the providence of God in the ministry of Angels, then to the duty of the Magistrate (this certainly is a new light hung out by the Gentlemen Presbyterians.) And because they could not much confide in such an empty speculation as this, or think that it would ever pass the judgements of men with acceptation; therefore through fear they betake themselves to the refuge of this darkness: That there is some obscurity in all parables to make them suit. And because they would not willingly be disturbed in their way, by this or any other Parable, therefore they further give this prudent admonition to their Adversaries concerning Parables, that they are not to be urged beyond their scope; which they would have both them and all the world to presume, is never to hurt or to endanger High-Presbytery. Which also (in effect) they confess, in the words following; which (the errors, either of their press, or pen, or both, corrected with as much skill and faithfulness as I can) are these: The scope of which Parable, that it is not to show the Magistrate's duty, may appear further by our Saviour's interpretation and making no application, or [showing] what men should do here in sparing any wicked man, but showing what God will do at the day of judgement, as is MANIFEST to any that will read Christ's interpretation of it. It seems then, notwithstanding some obscurity in the Parable, yet there is some light also in it. For whatsoever maketh MANIFEST is light. And the truth is, that there is more obscurity in these few lines of theirs, then is in all the Parable they speak of. For they tell us twice over (for failing) of Christ's Interpretation of the Parable; and yet deny that he makes any application. For my part I understand not how any man can make an interpretation of a Parable, without Sect. 75. making some application or other. If their meaning be, that Christ in his Interpretation of it, did not apply it to the Magistrate, or speak of his duty in sparing any wicked man, (which they seem brokenly to imply.) I Answer, It is not necessary for the opening or interpretation of a Parable, to interpret or apply every particularity contained in it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in expressness of words: it is sufficient, if such and so many particulars of it be interpreted, or applied; by the understanding whereof other particulars also, and consequently the whole Parable, may be understood. Now certain it is, that Christ hath so fare interpreted the Parable of the tares, and made application of so many of the particulars in it, that the residue of it may by the light of the●e, be clearly understood. So that it no ways follows, that because Christ did not apply the Parable (viz. in expressness of terms, or, totidem verb●) to the Magistrate, or show what he should do here in sparing wicked men; that therefore the duty of the Magistrate in this behalf, is not clearly and with sufficient evidence of the Truth, held forth in the Parable. The former part of their Answer to the Argument under protection. Sect. 75. consisting of the greatest part of their twentieth page, hath been fully answered in what hath been replied to the latter: From whence also it clearly appears, that the whole tenor and carriage of it, lies quite besides the spirit, drift, and scope of the Querie. The scope of this, was not to ask, whether any man ought to neglect a duty, for fear of any inconvenience, one, or more, greater or lesser, that may possibly attend the performance (which is all that this part of the Answer maketh at) but whether such an act or practise as is there mentioned, be not likely to to produce that inconvenience or evil, for the prevention whereof, the Lord Christ hath declared himself against the practice. In their nineteenth Answer they do nothing less than rage rightdowne; affirming, first, that the minor in their own Argument, is nothing else but the impudence of the Querist, with whom any Heretic or Blasphemer may pass for a conscientious man. What? Gentlemen, and give such course language? Christians, and revile at this rate? Men of conscience, and call that my impudence, which they inwardly judge to be their own commendation? Sect. 75. For certainly they judge all these Arguments and Syllogisms to be their praise and honour, and accordingly in their Epistle to the Reader, they cunningly, and very effectually crave of him, that which they conceive to be their due in this kind, by rendering Rog●●▪ & quidem e●fi●a●●s●●● qui r●dd●● r●g●●●● caus●s. Sen. reasons, upon which they may crave it, viz. the pains they took in the composing of them; and the hope they have of giving ease and satisfaction by them to their Readers. But First, what manner of monstrous beast is this unhappy minor, which thus affrights these men out of their Christian wits? Alas! it is but this innocent Lamb, (whether mine or theirs.) The Ordinance in question, is apparently bend against the faces, if not of the most, yet of a very considerable part of the best and most conscientious men amongst us. Well, it seems this Lamb must make a sacrifice: but how, or with what knife do the Priests slay it? with this: It is false, the Ordinance is only bend against Heretics and Blasphemers and other erroneous spirits, who will needs, notwithstanding any admonition, publish doctrines that are hurtful to men's souls, and the peace of the Church and State. But is not the Lamb yet alive for all this stroke given unto it? Or is not the bare affirmation of the minor thus struck at, as Authoritative and Authentic, as the bare negation of the Answer? If the Anti-Querists know any such difference between themselves and the Querist, that all his say must needs be hay and stubble, and all theirs silver and gold, they shall do well to inform him of it. He shall presently, upon the information, if it be competent, make all his say to become homagers unto theirs. But with as much confidence as they seem to rejoice against the poor minor, as being false, above, and beyond, and without all question, they soon pull in their horns, and think it best to distinguish, to cover the nakedness and shame of their denial. But alas! the covering of the distinction is too scant and narrow for the service, the nakedness of the denial appears notwithstanding. Of which latter sort (say they, speaking of those who publish Doctrines hurtful, as they are pleased to term them, to the peace of the Church and State) if any should be conscientious, the Ordinance is no ways bend against their faces, as they are conscientious, but as they are instruments of evil, etc. But First, whether may not they, who publish Doctrines hurtful to Sect. 76 Sect. 76. the peace of the Church and State (in a sense) be instruments of good and not of evil, in so doing? Christ and his Apostles preaching the Gospel, published Doctrines, that occasioned divisions and distractions both in Families and States, as we all know. And yet in propriety of speech, these Doctrines published, were not hurtful to the peace of either, i. e. to the real good, and due peace of either. They were indeed hurtful and interruptive, of, and to, that sinful peace wherein they found them; but they who published them, were never the more instruments of evil. In like manner if there be any agreement or peace in a Church or State, in any thing which is evil, or erroneous; they who shall publish Doctrines which may probably occasion the disturbance of such peace (especially as the degree of the evil, and nature of the error may be) are not therefore instruments of evil. But miserable is the condition of that Church or State, which shall punish men, not only truly conscientious, but instruments also of good unto them, under the notion of instruments of evil. Secondly, I desire to engage the consciences of these men, to Sect. 77. answer me to these four Questions. First, Whether they do not look upon the publishing of the principles of the congregational Government (and so of that which they call Anabaptism) whether by way of Doctrine, or of practice, as the publishing of Doctrines hurtful to the peace of the Church and State? Secondly, Whether they do not judge the number of those persons amongst us, who publish such Doctrines as these, either by word, or practise, to be a very considerable number? Thirdly, Whether they do not judge fare the greatest part of these men to be truly conscientious? If they shall answer affirmatively (as I know their consciences will, whatsoever themselves will do) to all these Questions; I will (as to this point) crave but another Answer to this brief Question, whether the Ordinance in debate be not bend against the faces of all these men? Themselves grant in terminis, that it is bend against such, who (in their sense, for so they must needs be understood) shall publish Doctrines that are hurtful to the peace of the Church and State; yea, they grant by way of a clear supposition, that there are of Sect. 78 these who are conscientious (if they should not, their own consciences would not bear it at their hands) only, they deny, that the Ordinance is bend against these men, AS they are conscientious. Did ever the Dragon or the Beast, I mean Rome, either Pagan or Antichristian, bent their bloody Edicts or persecutions against the Saints, the most conscientious men amongst them, AS they were conscientious? or in any other respect or consideration whatsoever, then AS (in their sense) instruments of evil? The most ungodly persecuting wretch that ever breathed under these Heavens, did never persecute or speak evil of a Saint, AS a godly, or conscientious man. If themselves were severely punished, and their live and estates taken from them, AS false accusers of their brethren; would it be any ease or gratification to them, that they were favoured and not proceeded against, AS Presbyterians, or conscientious men? But if such distinctions as these be their bottom grounds and reasons to prove either majors, or minors false, and to make outcries against them, as being nothing else but the impudence of the Querist, etc. who can refrain lamentations and tears over the souls of those, whose dependence is for the great things of life and immortality, on such men. Whereas they charge the Querist, as a man, with whom any Heretic or Blasphemer may pass for a conscientious man; I pass by it, as judging that no man will think it worth the taking up. Whereas they engage themselves with so much diligence to Sect. 78. prove, that Laws must be bend against Instruments of evil, notwithstanding any conscience they pretend to have; take knowledge, Reader, that it is but a stolen device to delude simple and inconsidering men; usually practised by those, who being not able to grapple with an Adversary, in the point in question between them, hunt counter and follow with great eagerness and openness of mouth a false sent; laying on proof upon proof, reason upon reason to prove something, which it may be hath some affinity, at least in a sound of words, with the Question in hand, but was never denied, nor intended to be denied, by their opposer, nor indeed is any matter of controversy between any; that by this means they may cover their weakness and insufficiency to deal with their Adversary, from weak and injudicious men, and seem to carry the day before them with a strong hand. The Counter-Querists Sect. 79 have taken this Sanctuary, once again, and the third time also, in this their Vindication: and they do it palpably in this place. For did the Querist ever deny, or intimate the least inclination in him towards a denial, but that Laws ought to be bend against instruments of evil, notwithstanding any conscience they pretend to have. Therefore the labour which they bestow in the proof of this, they should have done well to have converted some other way; and particularly, in seeking out a rock▪ to build their High-Presbytery upon, which all this while stands upon sandy and lose foundations. That which they yet add in the close of this Answer, concerning Geneva, having Laws against Heretics, etc. neither reacheth the demand of the Querie, nor yet the import of their own Argument, pretending legitimacy of descent from it, It is one thing for a State to have Laws against Heretics; another, by Laws or Ordinances to strike at great, and very considerable numbers of the best and most conscientious men amongst them▪ If those Laws against Heretics and false Teachers in the State of Geneva, of which they speak, were compared with the Ordinance whereof we both speak, I believe they would be so fare from justifying it, that it would rather justify them, by being more unrighteous and unreasonable than they. In their twentieth Answer, they sing over their old note; affirming, that the Ordinance is of no such bloody consequence to truly Sect. 79. pious and conscientious ●en, [as any thing which the Bishops did attempt against the godly whom they hated] as they presume they have showed. But where, or to whom, or by what light they have showed it, I am yet to Query. Whereas they add in the close of this Answer, that the Bishops were cast out for their lukewarmness; do they mean for their lukewarmness in attempting the sorrows, troubles, molestations, of conscientious and pious men? or in procuring Ordinances and Laws, for the support and strengthening of their Kingdom? Doubtless their zeal in this kind was very great: though Alexander may conquer beyond the line of Philip's Victories. And I believe, that it was more their zeal in this kind, than any lukewarmness, that was the cause of their casting out: and (to join with our Antagonists in their Admonition) let others take heed of the like. Sect. 80. We shall lightly pass by their 21 Answer, as containing little Sect. 80. in it, but this bare assertion; That the Ordinance, in the words or intent of it, gives unto wicked men no advantage or opportunity to accuse the best Ministers of such things which may touch their lives, or bring much trouble unto them; but ONLY gives advantage to the best men, to be rid of the worst Ministers. With what conscience they speak thus, I refer to themselves, and their own consciences; With what truth, I refer to all unpartial considering men to judge. Are the Ministers who walk in the congregational way, the worst of Ministers? For my part, I hearty, and as in the presence of the all-knowing God, wish they were: and that all those who are of a contrary judgement to them, had the spirit of their Grace, knowledge, and goodness in every kind doubled and trebled upon them. In their 22 and 23 Answer, (p. 24.) they tell us (in effect) Sect. 81. What the wisdom of the Parliament can, and what their justice and care will (no doubt) do, for the undoing of all the Ordinance intends to do. For in case the Parliament will please to undertake, and settle a thorough and effectual course, that neither the simplicity of the Jury, nor of the Judge, nor yet the simplicity, nor duplicity, of any, or all the Ministers of the Provincial or Nationall Assembly, shall be any prejudice to the lives or liberties of studious, learned, and conscientious Ministers, or others; it may very well be presumed, that the Ordinance will have very little to▪ do, in point of execution; and that the principal use and service of it will be, to put the Parliament upon▪ the trouble of contriving and settling such a course. In their 24 Answer (p. 25.) they bring forth strange children. Sect. 82. As first, That the fourth Commandment, doth in the words of it, require only one day in seven, to be kept holy, as a Sabbath, and doth not expressly command the observation of the Jewish Sabbath, etc. If so, then were the Sabbaths, which the Jews observed, of their own choosing: and how then doth God so frequently call them, His? Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep, Exod. 31. 13. and Nehemiah in his prayer unto God expresseth himself thus: And madest known unto them thy Holy Sabbath, etc. Neh. 9 14. In which words, he doth not only appropriate the Jewish Sabbath unto God, but likewise calls it his holy Sabbath; i. a day which he hath sanctified Sect. 83. unto himself and his worship; yea and expressly saith, that God made it known unto them (the Jews) i. revealed unto them on which day of the seven he would be solemnly worshipped by them. See also Levit. 19 3. 30. Esa. 56. 4. Ezek. 20, 12, 13. with other places many. God is not wont to appropriate any thing unto himself which is of humane election, in, or any ways appertaining unto his worship; though sometimes he calls many of these things, theirs, to whom he hath given or appointed them. And besides the reason of the Commandment, for in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth etc. expressly characterizeth that very day as intended by God for a Sabbath unto them, which they observed. But the assertion is so empty, and obnoxious, that surely it will fall in the judgements of men without thrusting. Secondly, This Answer advanceth with this Divinity; that within the general scope of the Commandment, which is the observing of those times, and those only as necessary to Religion, which God himself appoints, was included the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, before Christ's Resurrection, and the Christian Sabbath, the Lords day, is now since Christ's Resurrection, included also. But First, If the Jewish Sabbath was included in the Commandment, or in the scope of the Commandment, before Christ's Resurrection, how came it to be excluded after his Resurrection? Hath the Resurrection of Christ any such influence upon the moral Law, as to cause it to eject, or cast out any thing formerly by way of duty contained or included in it? Secondly, If the scope of the Commandment, be the observing of those times and of th●se only, etc. which God himself appoints; then how comes the observation of the Christian Sabbath, or Lords day, to be included therein; considering, that according to the Doctrine of this Answer, this day was no more appointed by God, than any of the other six? Or were all the six days besides, as well included in it, as this? If so, why are they not as well observed? Thirdly, If the Christian Sabbath or Lords day; be now since Sect. 83. Christ's resurrection included in the scope of the Commandment; I would gladly know, how, or by what Authority, or by whose act it hath been brought within the verge of this scope, so as to be included in it. If Answer be made, that it hath been brought Sect. 83. in by the Authority, or act of God; then doth he not in this Commandment only require one day in seven to be kept holy as a Sabbath; but he requireth circumscriptively and particularly which of the seven he will have so kept. If it be said, that it hath been brought in by the Church, or by men, then have men power to take it out again, and to put in any other of the six in the stead of it. And how did the Resurrection of Christ contribute any thing towards the bringing of this day within the scope of the Commandment, if it depended upon the will and pleasure of men? But into the secret of these men's Divinity in this place, my soul as yet cannot find the way to enter. And Thirdly (and last) do these men substantially prove, that the moral Law contained in the ten Commandments, is the rule of a Christians life, only by saying, that the Christian Sabbath, is now included in the general scope of the fourth Commandment, and that the Sacraments of the New Testament, Baptism and the Lords Supper, are included within the scope of the second Commandment now? First, they prove not so much as the least hair of their heads amount unto, of either of their assertions: and yet neither of them lieth so near any known principle either of Reason, or Religion, that they need have feared▪ the proverbial reproof of lighting up a candle to see the Sun, in case they had bestowed a slender argument or two, upon the clearing of them. But secondly, if what they affirm in both, were granted, yet their conclusion is not hereby gained. For only such a Law can properly be called a rule of life to Christians, which either particularly, or at least sufficiently, prescribes and regulates all things necessary to be done by a Christian, as a Christian. Now the general scope of the two Commandments specified, and much more the Commandments themselves, are so fare, either from prescribing, or regulating either of the duties respectively affirmed to be included in them, that without particular direction for the performance both of the one and the other, otherwise; neither of them had ever been practised by men, notwithstanding the general scope of the said Commandments, yea and Commandments themselves. I trust the Anti-Querists themselves do not make any such Law the Rule of their lives, which neither teacheth nor directeth them what to do. To the twenty fifth Query, desiring to know in what sense the Sect. 84. Sect. 84. Ordinance maketh it an Error, to hold, that a man by nature hath free will to turn unto God; they return this sleeveless and froward Answer: That there are scarce any words, but a Caviller may pretend of them, that they are to be understood divers ways. But good Gentlemen, doth the Querist pretend this of the words in hand? doth he not particularly assign, and plainly explicate two distinct senses wherein the said words may be taken; humbly craving to know●, which of the two was the sense intended by the Ordinance? But I confess that in High Presbytery, where Authorativenesse hath her throne, to desire a steady and distinct explication of things, is (constructively) to cavil. However, it had been no such meritorious strain of ingenuity in these men, having two distinct senses of a clause ready form, stated, and presented to their hand, with a modest desire to know, which of the two was to rule, for them to have clearly answered either for the one, or for the other: or in case neither of them had comported with the intent of the Ordinance, to have substituted a third in their stead. But instead of this, they disparage themselves with this tergiversation in the procedure of their answer: But the Parliament hath so oft declared against Arminianism, of which this, (I wonder which, or what?) is a chief Article, and so 〈…〉 our former Parliaments, that no man hath any reason to imagine, that they understand any other thing by that opinion (they should have done well to have told us what opinion it is they speak of) than the Arminian freewill, which by the Reformed Churches is generally condemned, as a pernicious Error. But First, I wonder how these men come to know, or to presume what the Parliaments sense is about that . which is sentenced with imprisonment in the Ordinance, when as (confident I am) that they have never yet given an account of their sense therein, either unto them, or any other. Secondly, I would willingly ask these men, what competent grounds they have, to think (especially with so much confidence as their words import) that either the Parliament, or especially the makers of the Ordinance, mean, the Arminian ; when as, first, it is probable, that they never studied the state of the Controversy between the Arminians and their opposers, about the point of ; and so cannot know (at least otherwise Sect. 86. then by lose and common hear say) what the Arminian is. And secondly, inasmuch as many, and those Scholars and Students in Divinity by profession, who have bestowed some time and study in the controversy, are yet scarce able to give any sensible account of the difference, or state of the Question, between the combatants. Thirdly, I desire of them, that they will please in their rejoinder, to relieve my darkness in the point with their light, and clearly inform me, what themselves mean by the Arminian Free will. I have bestowed some time, and upon occasion inquired as narrowly as some others, to find out what was the sense and opinion of Arminius himself, about the bondage, and freedom of the will: I have likewise consulted the writings of some that are generally reputed his followers, upon the same occasion. By comparing the Master with some of his Disciples, I clearly find that there is to the full as great a difference between the judgements of the one and of the other (in the point now under consideration) as there is between the judgement of the generality of learned Divines in England, and Arminius himself. Yea, I profess, that looking lately into Arminius, on purpose to find some passa●● or expression, one or more, of some rank import upon the subject, and I could meet with none, but what with a fair and reasonable construction of the words, was fully reconcileable with the judgements and expressions of some reformed Churches, yea and of some of eminent note and desert, both for piety and soundness of judgement, amongst ourselves. Amongst some of Arminius followers I confess I found it otherwise. Now than this is the request which I make to these men (and I trust they will not judge it unreasonable) that they will plainly declare themselves what they mean by their Arminian Freewill; whether that, which is held and taught by Arminius himself, or which is maintained by some of his followers; there being so material and considerable a difference between them? Fourthly (and last) whereas they send us to the generality of Sect. 86. the Reformed Churches to inform ourselves, what it is, which is made punishable by the Ordinance with imprisonment, defining it to be that, which by the Reformed Churches is generally condemned as a pernicious Error. First, I cannot but judge it unreasonable Sect. 87 in the highest, that the generality of men amongst us should be made obnoxious to imprisonment, by such an expression in an Ordinance or Law, the sense and meaning whereof they cannot come to understand, but only by consulting the writings and all the confessions of Faith, set forth by all the Reformed Churches respectively. Alas, the fare greater number of men amongst us, are wholly uncapable of this information, not understanding the language, wherein these Confessions of Faith are written. Secondly, To my knowledge the Reformed Churches themselves do not generally, at least not universally agree, in condemning the Arminian freewill, as a pernicious Error, but some of them do subscribe and publish that to the world upon this subject for truth, which others of them condemn for an Error. So that the Anti-Querists have merely baffled in their Answer, instead of giving any satisfaction to the Querie, demanding the sense of this clause in the Ordinance, that a man by nature hath freewill to turn unto God. In their 26 and 27 Answer, pag. 29. though they quit themselves Sect. 87. with somewhat more fairness and ingenuity, than they do in all the rest, yet they do not speak distinctly enough to the mind of the Querie, when by Blaspheming, in the Ordinance, they say, are meant, only such horrible expressions against God, as cannot with patience be heard by any Christian ear. In this description, there are sundry particulars of a very doubtful interpretation. As first, when they define, Blasphemy, by horrible expessions against God, whether they exclude Christ man, or as being man, from being an object capable of this Blasphemy. Secondly, what they mean by a Christian ear; whether the ear of a person, who is Christian indeed, i. e. a true and sound Believer, or of a Christian at large, and by outward pr●●●ssion only. We know there is a great difference between the ear of the one, and of the other, in respect of tasting Blasphemy. If they mean the ear of a sound Christian, a true Believer, it is a point of no easy decision to determine, who amongst men are such. If the ear of a Christian at large, I suppose they cannot but know, that there are many such ears, who can hear any Blasphemy whatsoever, with patience (whatsoever is meant by it) more than enough. Thirdly and lastly, what they Sect. 88 mean, by being heard with patience, whether by Patience, they mean such a composedness of mind and spirit, which keeps men from all unseemly deportment or expression of themselves outwardly, in cases of provocation: (which is the common signification of the word) or else such a temper, by which a man is indisposed to grieve, or take sorrow upon such occasions, which usually cause sorrow and grief of heart unto men. Stand we by, either the one signification of the word, Patience, or the other, the clause, cannot be heard with patience, will be found very inconvenient to be put into the definition, or description of Blasphemy. If we stand by the former, certain it is, that the more Christian the ear is, the greater Blasphemy will be heard with patience. The stronger and better built any Christian is, the further he will be from any unseemly carriage upon any provocation whatsoever. If by the latter, the sense is altogether uncouth, and no meat either for the ear, or understanding. Of like ambiguity, and encumbered with the same difficulties, is their explication of this clause in the Ordinance, impugning the word of God; this (they say) cannot reasonably ●e thought to signify less, than such reproaches against the Truth, or divine Authority of the Scriptures, as are not to be endured by those that believe them to be the word of God. If this be all that is meant by the said clause, than men may impugn the word of God (I mean the Scriptures) in a Scholastic way, by arguments framed against the Divinity of them, without coming under the dint or stroke of the Ordinance▪ in case they refrain reproachful expressions. But suppose these men should give us a clear and a fair sense of these, and all other expressions in the Ordinance, that are dark and dubious, yet this would not justify the Ordinance, unless the makers and contrivers of it will please to ratify them with their subscriptions. For (as the maxim is) Ejusdem ●st ●●rpr●t●ri cujus est condere. They only have power to interpret a Law (viz. authoritatively, and with such an interpretation, on which a subject may safely repose) who by a lawful power made it. Their Argument pretending to the 28 Querie, is framed quite Sect. 88, besides it; and their Answer, as much besides the Argument. In this Answer, they first grant, that to say and maintain, that God seethe no sin in the justified, in a sense, is justifiable and true: and yet Sect. 8● secondly they affirm, that it may be made punishable notwithstanding. The reason they give, is only this; because in another sense (which they call the literal, and common) it is a dangerous and pernicious error. But will any man Christianly disposed, judge it meet, that the saying or publishing, that Christ is a Vine, or a door, should be made punishable; unless they declare the particularity of that sense, wherein they make it punishable. But this light courtesy cannot (it seems) be obtained in the case of Gods seeing no sin in the justified, of those, who yet would have the world believe, that they have sufficiently Answered the Queries. Before they come to Syllogise the twenty ninth Querie, they Sect. 89. make a sad complaint of it, that it is perplexed, and the sense of it involved, etc. But I marvel why they should turn Querulists against the Querist upon occasion of this Query, when as in their Answer to it (setting aside a gentle evaporation of some folly towards the beginning of it, and a little fit of frowardness in the end) they are more distinct, and speak more steadily to the heart of it, than they do to any of the rest in their respective Answers; yea they have not quitted themselves so like men of judgement and understanding in all their discourse besides, as they have done in the sober part of this Answer; which (for their credit) I shall set down in their own words, and improve a little for their benefit. He (say they) that hath read the Socinian books, whose proper opinion it is, that a man must believe no more, then by his reason he can comprehend, will easily be satisfied, that the Ordinance plainly requireth, that a man should not refuse to believe those Doctrines, which are clearly, and certainly, for the matter of them, laid down in the word of God; as for example, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the incarnation of the Son of God▪ although for the manner of them he cannot by his reason comprehend them, and NOT THAT A MAM MU BELIEVE THAT WHICH HE HATH NO REASON OR GROUND FOR IN THE WORD OF GOD. So then they clearly, and fairly grant, that the Ordinance doth not require, that a man must [or aught] in point of Religion, believe any thing, but what he hath reason and ground for, in the word of God. From hence then it follows First, that Reason ought to be every man's leader, Guide, and Sect. 90 Sect. 90. Director in his Faith, or about what he is, or aught to believe: and that no man ought to leap with his Faith, till he hath looked with his Reason; and discovered what is meet to be believed, what not. This is sound Divinity indeed: and few more such principles as this, well digested by these men and their friends, would make them worthy of that title of honour which they so much affect, I mean, Orthodox. Secondly, From the said Grant it followeth also, that Ministers ought not to require their people, to believe any thing (much less every thing) which they teach, unless they have a reason and ground for it (and those sufficient, for mortuus hon●●, non est homo; nor is an insufficient Reason, any reason at all, in this case) from the word of God. Thirdly, it followeth yet further, that neither ought men to receive or subscribe unto with the hand of their Faith, the determinations or decretals of Synods, Councils, or Assemblies of persons of what capacity or worth soever, in matters of Religion, unless they have a sufficient Reason or ground from the word of God, for what they do receive in this kind. Fourthly, and lastly it followeth yet once more from the foresaid grant, that men ought to make use of, yea, and engage to the uttermost, their Reasons or their discursive abilities, in all matters of Faith and Religion whatsoever; and not to swallow any thing by a lose credulity▪ but to look narrowly upon every thing with the eye of Reason, before they receive it by the hand of Faith. All these deductions are of a legitimate and clear descent from the mentioned grant, and are all of them pregnant, noble▪ and magnific Truths. Only I cannot well understand, why the Gentlemen should grant, that a man must not, or ought not, to believe, what he hath no reason or ground for in the Word of God, and yet condemn this for an error, that a man ought to believe no more, than what by Reason he is able to comprehend. For if a man cannot believe any thing, but what he knows to have a being, nor yet believe the parricular modus or manner of any thing, unless he knows it to be such, as he believes it to be; and again, if he cannot know either being, or manner of being▪ unless he conceives, or comprehends it in and by his Reason, what either the one, or the other is (which is a Truth unquestionable) it undeniably Sect. 91. follows, that a man ought not to believe any thing, either being, or manner of being, but what by reason he is able to comprehend, i. e. able upon good ground to satisfy himself, that either the one, or the other, is so, or such, as he believeth them to be. As to the two instances, wherein they insist, the Doctrine of the Sect. 91. Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, affirming, that a man ought not to refuse to believe them, although for the manner of them he cannot by his reason comprehend them: I Answer, First, that as by my reason, I can and do comprehend, and know them to be incomprehensible, so I believe them accordingly to be. Again, Secondly, as by my reason, I neither do, nor can comprehend or conceive, the particular modus or manner of either, so neither do I, or ought I, nor indeed can I (without running an extreme hazard of an erroneous belief) believe any thing at all concerning them; save only their incomprehensibleness in the general: or, that they are incomprehensible; which (as was said) I am able by my reason to comprehend▪ So then, these two Assertions or Doctrines (well understood) First, That a man ought to believe no more, than what he hath reason and ground for in the Word of God. And Secondly, t●●●: That a man ought to believe no more, than what he is able by his reason to comprehend, are but of an equipollent import; and there is nothing more (much more, nothing more erroneous) in the one, then in the other. That towards the beginning of this Answer (yea, there is a piece of a duplicate of it, in the end of the Answer too) is extremely unreasonable and obnoxious; wherein they suppose (yea, little less than in terminis affirm) that they that will be satisfied what the Ordinance meaneth, by making it an error, to hold, That a man ought to believe no more, than what by his reason he is able to comprehend, must read the Socinian Books, and there inform themselves what their proper opinion is. For is it in any degree reasonable, equal, or just, that such an Ordinance or Law should be made (and that for the imprisonment, which is, by interpretation, the utter undoing of men, in case of delinquency) the sense or meaning whereof they are in an utter incapacity to understand, unless they read such books, which first are only extant in such a language, which not one of an hundred is able to Sect. 92. understand; and secondly, are so rare, and hard to be gotten, that for the space of 13 years and upwards (ever since my coming to the city) though I have from time to time made a narrow inquiry after them, and laid out in several places, where I conceived I should be most likely to speed, for some or other of them, yet could I never to this day procure, either for love or money (as the saying is) so much as any one of them. Their groundless mistake, about what the Querist (as they say) would imply to be the sense of the words in the Ordinance; and their turning of the Querie, with a wet finger, as if there were nothing material in it, but an heap● of words, I pass by and pardon, being content they should be numbered amongst their infirmities quotidianae incursionis. In their Answer to the thirtieth Querie they maintain, that Sect. 92. the Ordinance doth express, what it meaneth by obstinacy, when it threateneth the publishing of such and such doctrines with obstinacy. Their reason is, because the Ordinance appoints admonition to go before punishment. But is this an explication of what it meaneth, by obstinacy? Certainly these grand Assertors of the Ordinance, had quitted themselves upon terms of more wisdom for the honour of it, if they had plainly g●●●ted, that it had not indeed made any sufficient explication of itself in that particular. For is a man to be judged obstinate, who shall do that, though after admonition, which, his admonition notwithstanding, he judgeth, and that upon good grounds, to be his duty to do? Were the Apostles obstinate, for preaching in the na●● of Jesus, after that the Highpriest, Rulers, and Elders, solemnly met in a Council, had admonished them; yea, and straight charged and commanded them, that they should in no wise speak or teach any more in that Name * Act. 4. 18. . Oh England! awake, (for I fear thou sleepest) look about thee, and consider, how easily, and when thou least thinkest of it, thou mayst be an obstinate offender, if men of this spirit should be thy Judges. In their 31 Answer, they tell a mystical or misty story; of Sect. 93. the sense or meaning whereof I am no ways guilty; yet I shall tell it after them, because some (possibly) may understand it, though I cannot. As some perhaps (say they) of the Querists friends may be thanked for it (they speak of that strong opposition insinuated in Sect. 93. the Querie, between the government established by the Parliament, and that so importunately desired by the Ministers) who have endeavoured to bind heavy burdens upon others, ever persecuting them for not yielding to those things, which even the consciences of those that press them, know they cannot, and believe, they may not, yield unto; so careful and tender are they of their brethren's consciences; so is it neither of that kind they would have it, being no way in favour of there Independency. For First, It is the strangest news to me that I have heard many a day, that any of my friends should deserve thanks, either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the opposition they speak of between the two Governments. I cannot believe that any person, man, or woman, Congregationally inclined, did ever either persuade any of the Ministers they speak of, to oppose that Government by Presbytery, which is established by the Parliament; nor yet distil into them any of that spirit, or those principles, out of which they oppose it. How then should they be accessary to the opposition? Secondly, whereas they charge the friends of the Querists yet further, with endeavouring to bind heavy burdens upon others, ever persecuting them for not yielding to, etc. this is tidings, yet seven degrees stranger than the other. If it be true, then is the scandal of Independency ceased from amongst us. For if Independents also endeavour to bind heavy burdens upon others, and to persecute men for not yielding unto those things, which in conscience they cannot yield unto then are we all of one mind and of one judgement. and practice the same things. But Thirdly. I would feign know, what heavy burdens they are, which the independents (since they must be so called) endeavour to bind upon others. Do our Brethren of the Presbyterian interest, call or judge this a heavy▪ burden to be restrained from, or not to have their hand strengthened by the Parliament, or Laws unto, the troubling or molesting of their Brethren, who descent in some particulars from them? I know no other burden but this, any ways endeavoured by any of that parswasion to be imposed, or bound upon them. If they call or count this a burden, better they hurthened with the peace of men of a better conscience than themselves, then eased or relieved by their unjust pressures. Sect. 94. Fourthly, I am yet fare more desirous to know, what persecution, they, or any of their judgement, have suffered from In dependants, for not yeeding to those things, which even the consciences of those that press them, know they cannot, and believe they may not, yield unto. If they shall refer me for satisfaction herein to that which follows in the sequel of this answer, where they speak of some, who, under the name of Brethren, that have so much cried out against persecution in their words and writings, have yet attempted and proceeded in the strangest persecution that ever was amongst professed Christians, to wish and joy in the imposition of that upon their Brethren, which themselves, who are for the imposition of it, yet count unlawful to be submitted unto; I must profess that I am so fare from receiving satisfaction hereby in the least, in reference to that desire, that I look upon the reference, as a sending of me from the twilight to midnight, to read a dim print; or as an unworthy insulting over my petition, in giving me a stone, instead of the bread which I desired. But. First, Though the persecution they here speak of, be, as they say, Sect. 94. very strange, yea, as I say, yet more strange, then as they present it; so strange, that I believe it was never yet attempted, neither in these days, nor in the days of any of their forefathers, amongst the men they speak of, professed Christians; yet is it not of that devouring or fiery calculation, of which many of those persecutions are, which are daily breathed forth by the lips and pens of many of their Interest, against those who wish them no harm. But Secondly, It is not a little strange to me, that they should represent that as a persecution so STRANGE, as never yet attempted among professed Christians, when as themselves (if it be persecution) have attempted, yea, and practised it in this very discourse. For do they not in their Answer to the second Querie, p. 6. impose it upon, yea and solemnly charge (which is more than to wish) the Querists own Church or Congregation, as they regard the honour of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Authority of the Spirit, by which the Holy Apostle delivered those anathemas, that they put him away from among them, and deliver him to Satan? and yet do they not withal judge it utterly unlawful, for the members of a particular Church or Congregation, Sect. 95 to exercise authority over their Pastor, or to proceed to a sentence of excommunication, especially, against the chief officer, by and of themselves? Therefore, if to wish or joy in the imposition of that upon their Brethren, which themselves, who are for the imposition of it, yet count unlawful to be submitted unto, be so strange a persecution, as they render it; certainly themselves, and thousands more of their friends, are the strangest persecutors (and that with the strangest persecution) that ever were. For what joy anh stamping with the foot hath there been amongst the children of high-Presbytery, for this Answer to the Queries, (as empty as it is) and more emphatically, for the shameless piece of outrage, committed in that part of this Answer, which relates to the second Querie, where the said strange persecution is so vigorously acted. Thirdly, Till these men shall make due proof, that that Sect. 95. strange persecution they speak of, hath been indeed attempted and proceeded in by persons interessed in judgement for the congregational way; I must look upon the report and charge (and shall desire others also to look upon them with the same eye) as Nehemiah looked upon the contents of Sanballats' letter, to which he returned this answer. There are no such things done as thou sdyest, but thou fainest them out of thine own heart * N●h. 6. 8. . ● shall not believe without a double voucher, that ever any Idependent, either wished, or joyed in the imposition of any thing upon their Brethren, which yet they counted unlawful to be submitted unto. Probatio incumbit affirmanti. But Fourthly, Whereas they say and grant in Answer to this Querie, that Presbyterial Government in the Ordirance, must needs signify that which it doth in other Ordinances of Parliament, that Government which the Parliament hath begun to settle, (and consequently, it cannot signify that Government by Presbytery so importunely desired by the Ministers, there being so unpleasing a difference between them) they answer (I confess) with some ingenuity, and that which may do good service. Fiftly and lastly, when they further say, that the Government settled by the Parliament, is not of that kind they (the Querists friends, they mean, Independents) would have it, themselves fairly take of that charge of strange persecution, which (as we heard) they fastened on them; viz. in wishing or joying in the imposition of that upon their Brethren, which yet they count unlawful to be submitted unto. For certainly no man wisheth or joyeth in that, which is not of that kind of thing, that he would have; much less in the enacting, or imposing of it. In their 32 and 33 Answer, (for here they answer double) they Sect. 96. except against the Queries: but think ye for what? Surely for a very innocent offence; viz. for nothing but desiring to know and understand, (and that upon sufficient account given of such a desire) what the Ordinance meaneth, by blaspheming the name of God, or impugning the word of God, WILLINGLY AND PRESUMPTVOUSLY; and further to know, by whom the Admonition is to be given, the inefficaciousnesse whereof upon the parties admonished, brings their sins and errors under the dint and stro●e of the Ordinance. Notwithstanding, having first made a light essay, to justify the Ordinance in her non-explica●ion of her terms, WILLINGLY, PRESUMPTVOUSLY, by the example of God himself, who made a Law, Numb. 15. 30. which saith expressly, the man that doth presumptuously, shall die, and yet tell him no more than the Ordinance doth, what is meant by presumptuously; and again, in her concealing her intent about her Admonitour, from the Apostles bidding Titus reject an Heretic after the first and second admonition, without describing what h● means by an admonition, (as if the Querie had been as simple as the Answer, and made such a demand as this) after (I say) this light and harmless velitation, wherein the air is beaten, instead of the Queries; they come to the main body of their Answer to both the Queries, which is this: Neither is it any hard matter to understand what it is to blaspheme willingly, which can signify nothing else, but a man's own understanding the words which ●● speaks, to be reproachful word● against God, or she Scriptures, or the Trinity; which (they add) will easily appear, either by the nature of the words themselves, or at least by his Answer, when he shall be called in question about it. But First, I confess that any thing, relating to the prejudice of such Sect. 97. men, whom we have a desire to make Delinquents and bring under censure, though never so doubtful, yet will easily app●●●● to us in this posture. It is the manner of Gangrena, when she is challenged and charged face to face, with her shameless and brazenfaced traducements of worthy and blameless men, being not able to give any tolerable account of truth in one story of ten which she reports; It is her manner (I say) tofling out her hand against those that come to her, with a desire to make that straight, which she hath made crooked, and tell them over and over, that she hath received satisfaction, she hath received satisfaction. And this is all the account and satisfaction, that in any way of fairness and love, is to be had from her. Certainly she is more beholding to the impotency of her own desire, to stain the honour of Indepency and her sons, for that satisfaction she receiveth about the truth of fare the greatest part of her stories, then to any steadiness or worth of information that is brought unto her. Dum sibi quisque placet, credula turba sumus. i e. Faith is at hand for what we would believe. And for the two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or means of discovery mentioned in the Answer in hand, to make it easily appear, when a mans own understanding judgeth the words which he speaketh to be reproachful against God, or the Scriptures, they are very ambiguous Oracles; and hard is the condition of that man, whose life or liberty shall be suspended upon their Answer, especially as the consulters, and judges of this Answer may be. But Secondly, Suppo●e we have a piece of a tolerable answer to the Query, about what is meant by the word, WITTINGLY, yet I presume they will not say, that we have any thing like an Answer, concerning the intent of the word, PRESUMPTVOUSLY. For what? will they vest the prerogative of God in the makers of the Ordinance; and plead, that because he commands, without explaining, therefore they may warrantably do the like? Besides, though God did not explain many things of difficult interpretation in the letter of his Laws, given unto the Jews; yet was there ●ittle or no danger of committing any error in judgement, or doing any thing unjustly by reason of such difficulties, because (as was formerly said) the mind of God in all doubtful and difficult cases, was ready to be communicated unto them without any danger of mistake, by the standing Ordinance of his Oracle among them. If the makers of the Ordinance, and those that are to judge men upon occasion of the Ordinance; had any such Ordinance as this, any such Oracle to consult in difficult cases, as that amongst the Jews, well might we bear generalities and ambiguities of terms in their Laws. But alas! their Oracles are flesh, and not spirit; and ap● to put more affection, than judgement, into their Answers. And besides all this; there is little question to be made, but that the sense and import of the word PRESUMPTVOUSLY, was fixed, and known to be determinately one, amongst the Jews, when the Law mentioned was given by God; whereas now it is volatile amongst us, and is sometimes here, and sometimes there, and sometimes no man knows where; as appears by that passage cited from Mr. prynn's pen in the Query. So that the Divine Parallel insisted upon, doth no ways relieve the Ordinance in that straight, whereinto it is brought by the Querie about the word, PRESUMPTVOUSLY. But Thirdly and lastly, we have a mere nullity instead of satisfaction, Sect. 98. about the person by whom the Admonition mentioned in the Ordinance, is to be administered; as likewise about those other material circumstances, which the Querie toucheth upon. I must crave leave to represent the words of the Querie, that so the emptiness of the Answer may more fully appear. Thus than the Querie, modestly, in as much as the said sins committed contrary to admonition, are so severely punishable by the Ordinance; by whom is it intended that this admonition must be given, to bring the said sins under the di●t and stroke of the Ordinance? whether by a Magistrate only, or by a Minister; and that either in his public Ministry, and in general, or in private, and in personal address? or by any man, of what rank, or quality soever? To all these particulars, we have an Answer given, which doth not so much as touch▪ no, nor yet so much as face any one of them. Whether it be worth the transcribing or not, we shall bestow the courtesy upon it. This then is their Answer, [to a question not put to them] And for the word, Admonition, it may be asked him [the Querist] whether he will object against the Apostle, for bidding Titus reject an Heretic after a first and second Admonition, without describing what he means by Admonition. But good Gentlemen, the Querist was not troublesome unto you, with desiring to kvow, what the Ordinance meaneth, by the word, Admonition; but from whom, and according to what manner of administration, it must be received by him, who by walking contrary to it, shall become a Delinquent against the Ordinance. Are not the Queries substantially answered, and to admiration (at least) yea, and to the utter downfall of Independency, by such Answers as these? But, nunquam sera est ad bonos mores via; and it may be the rear of their Answers will be more masculine, and make atonement for the front and main body, which have turned the back, and not the face, upon their enemies. Let us therefore pass on, to Their 34 Answer. In this they tell us, that the Ordinance declines Sect. 99 not the punishment of Blasphemy, as appointed in the New Testament, whereof they annex this close demonstration: for though excommunication be not settled by the Parliament in any case, yet blasphemy is expressly by the Ordinance of Parliament punished with suspension, which is in order to excommunication, (or delivering up unto Satan) and when excommunication comes to be settled, there is no question but blasphemy shall be so punished. But in the mean time, the present question is not, how Blaspemy is like to be punished, when the Parliament shall come to settle excommunication; but whether, not any Ordinance of Parliament, but the Paper Ordinance which occasioned the Queries, doth Christianly or reasonably, in declining the punishment of Blasphemy expressly appointed by God in the New Testament, and to prefer a punishment mentioned only in the Old, etc. It seems by their Answer, that they yield the said Paper-Ordinance guilty of the crime queried, by asserting the honour of the Parliament, as having done in part, and intending further to do Christianly and reasonably, in making Blasphe 〈…〉 punishable with Excommunication, or delivering up unto Satan; which is the punishment expressly appointed by God for this sin in the New Testament; whereas the said Paper-Ordinance, in opposition to the Christian intentions of the Parliament in this behalf, makes it punishable with death. There is no way for them to wash their hands of the prevarication, but by professing themselves to be Erastians', and of their judgement, who by delivering up unto Satan, will have nothing else to be meant, but cutting off by death by the civil Magistrate. And yet neither would this be any proper salve for the sore; unless they will further shame themselves with this explication; that when they say, that Blasphemy is expressly by the Parliament punished with suspension, in order to Excommunication, or delivering to Satan, they mean, in order to cutting off by the Magistrate's sword with death: and thus reconcile the Old Testament and the New, touching the punishment appointed for Blasphemy in the one and the other. Secondly, When in the sequel of this Answer, they affirm, that that general sentence of not bearing the sword in vain, and being a Minister of God, a revenger of wrath to him that doth evil, not only allows, but commands a Magistrate to make a Law for punishment of Blasphemy even with the civil sword; and that according to this Querists own conscience, unl●sse he will dare so fare to blaspheme, as to say, that a Blasphemer is not an evil doer. First, the Querist and his conscience are so fare from the Blasphemy of this new model, I mean of saying, th●t a Blasphemer is not an evil doer, that he judgeth (and not without some ground) that himself judgeth a Blasphemer to be an evil do●r in an higher degree, than the Catalina Querists' themselves. And yet secondly, neither he, nor his conscience know any competent ground to think, that the general sentence they speak of, doth any ways command a Magistrate to make a Law for punishment of Blasphemy with the civil sword. He hath formerly given a free and large account of his judgement and sense of that Sentence, in his defence of his seventh Querie. And whereas they pretend, that the New Testament mentio●s ●● particular civil punishment at all▪ because it speaks not at all unto ●i●ill Magistrates, who were then ●ll generally Pagan, etc. I answer, that if they think that Magistrates have any whit the more power for being Christians, or the less, for being Pagans; or that the duties of Magistrates, are either any ways multiplied to a greater, or contracted to a smaller number, by any difference whatsoever in the persons in whom it is vested, their thought is not commensurable with the truth. That which belongs to a Magistrate, as a Magistrate, belongs unto any, unto every Magistrate whatsoever: and that which belongs unto a Christian, as a Christian, belongs unto every Christian whatsoever. It is a weak conceit to imagine that Paganism should excuse any man from any duty whatsoever appropriate to that relation or office which he suste●nes. Sins are not wont to excuse one another. So then Pagan Magistrates lying under the Law of Magistracy, as well as Christian, there is little question to be made, but that what the Apostle speaks to or of, either in regardof their office, duty or place of Magistracy, he speaks unto both. But Thirdly, When they leave their own occupations of making Sect. 100 Answers, and instead hereof turn Querists, and make Questions, they do not quit themselves workmen-like in their new trade. For here they demand▪ Will this Querist offer to say, that it is neither reasonable nor Christian to punish that detestable wickedness with d●ath now, which is mentioned, 1 Cor. 5. 1. because the New Testament doth not express the punishment of death, as due to it, which the Old did, Levit. 20. 11. Or if he can allow himself to be so impudent, will he allow no punishment at all for murder, or adultery, because the New Testament mentions no civil punishment for such wickedness? what is there in either of these Queries, to strain the Querists pen in giving answer, more than there would be in these (in case I should propose them to them) to put either them, or their wits or their consciences, to it, to find an Answer; will they say, that it is lawful for the major and stronger party of Professors in a State or Kingdom, though the worse, to tread and trample the minor or lesser part under their feet, though the better? Or if they can allow themselves to be so impudent, as to assert this, will they allow those that are trodden upon, no recompense from Heaven for their unjust sufferings, because the Laws of men make no provision for their satisfaction in such a case? Would the Gentlemen take it well, if I should address myself unto them in two such Queries as these; though I believe I should not put them to the charge of many thoughts to return an Answer to them? But to these Queries, the Querist answereth freely and plainly; that he judgeth it very reasonable and Christian to punish, not only that particular wickedness about which they Querie, with the punishment appointed by God in the Old Testament which is death, though the New Testament expresseth no such punishment, ●●●ue to it, but murders also, adulteries, and all other sins and misdemeanours whatsoever committed against the Law and Light of nature, with civil punishments answerable to their natures and demerits respectively, whether by death, or otherwise. Only he desires to add two things for the further explication of himself upon the case. First, that he deemeth it not equal, or of any fair consistence with the light of nature, that two several punishments, not only distinct, but opposite in their natures, both of them the highest and greatest in their respective orders and kinds, should be decreed by one and the same Authority to be inflicted for one and the same sin, or offence. Secondly, that he judgeth it most reasonable and Christian, that when any sin, whereof there are many kinds and degrees, some against the light and law of nature, others not; shall by a Law be made punishable with any civil punishment, especially with death; that that, both kind and degree of this sin, against which the severity of this Law is intended and bend, be particularly named, described, and set out in the letter of this Law. That wherewith they close this Answer, themselves say, that it was before mentioned in the case of the seducer to Idolatry; and I like wise desire to refer the Reader for his satisfaction about it, to what hath formerly been argued upon this case. There is little or nothing, either in their Argument upon, or Sect. 101, in their Answer to, the 35 Querie, of the spirit or purpose thereof. The Reader may please to compare them. Only they speak comfortably in their Answer, (if they would make it good) when they tell us, that though the Querist would feign suppose congregations; which belong not to a Parish Church; yet our Laws ●now none such. Long may our Laws, and Lawyers too, enjoy the happiness of this ignorance; and know no other congregations than those which belong to Parish Churches. I confess that could I have presomed so far of the Ordinance, that it had taken no knowledge of any Congregations, but such, well might this Querie have kept company with things that are not. Nor is their 36 Argument framed to the Querie. However in Sect. 102. their Answer they dissemble it, and smite the Querist with their Censorian mace, for saying, that doubtless it is not lawful to teach Children, or whosoever, to pray, unless we can reasonably judge them capable of our Instruction in this kind. I thought such a saying as this had been innocent enough, to escape the Inquisitors office. But so officious (●t seems) they are that they must have a saying to ●●: and their saying is this. Although this Querist is so confident, as to say, Doubtless it is not lawful (by the way, Doubtless, doth not always import confidence, but sometimes rather an allay thereof) yet he not only therein contradicts the general practice ●●th of our Divines and Christians, who began to teach children to pray, as soon as they begin to speak or understand, but opposes Christ himself▪ who justified the children's crying Hosanna to the son of David, when it cannot reasonably be thought they understood so much of him, as to have learned how to pray, etc. Reader, canst thou think that these men understand the nature of a Contradiction? I fear they are better at the practice, than the Theory, of Contradictions. But, if thou hast ploughed with these gentlemen's Heifer, I pray thee help me to find out their riddle. The Lord Christ saith, (speaking of those that cried Hosanna to him) I tell you, that if these should hold their peace, the st●nes would ●rie * Luke 19 40. . Now suppose the persons of whom our Saviour speaks, had been defective in the service, and so the stones had supplied this defect, and cried (as he saith they would have done) as they did; can it not reasonably b● thought, that our Saviour would have justified these stones, in such a seuse, and upon such terms, as now ●e justified the other? And in case he had done this, justified the stones in crying Hosanna; can it reasonably be thought, that this fact of his, would have justified those, that should have gone about to teach stones to pray? or have contradicted the assertion of those, who should notwithstanding affirm it to be unlawful, to go about such a work, as to teach stones to pray? But Secondly, I wonder upon what ground, or engagement of their reasons, they should say, that it cannot reasonably be thought that they understood so much of him as to have learned how to pray. Those that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 21▪ 15. (the place cited by them) which in this place is commonly translated▪ childs (else where, servants) are Luk. 19 37, 39 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples; which doubtless argueth more than a probability, that they understood (or at least were capable of understanding) so much of Christ, as to have learned (in some measure at least) how to pray. Besides, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though sometimes it signifieth ● young child, yet more frequently it signifieth a child of some growth and 〈…〉 ature capable of instruction, etc. sometimes (as was said) a young man, or servant; the diminutive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being more frequently used to signify a little, or young child. So that there is very little in the word, children, to countenance these men, in their assertion. Thirdly, Nor doth that testimony cited from David, Psal. 8. 1. Sect. 103. Out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings hast thou ordained praise, by which they say that Christ justified the children's crying Hosanna, any ways attest their notion. For first, certainly those that were able to cry Hosanna, were neither Babes nor Sucklings, (in the literal and strict signification of the words.) Secondly, neither by this testimony did Christ intent so much to justify the act of the children, as the wisdom, and power of God in the dispensation. As when Babes and Sucklings show forth the praise of God (in David's sense) this act of theirs (such as it is) doth no ways commend or justify them, but only the gracious providence of * Ipsi quidem muti sunt, sed mirabilis Dei providentia, qua t● ipsis reluet, instar est sonorae et magniloquae facu●…iae. God about them. They (saith Calvin upon the place, as cited by Matthew, speaking of these Babes and Sucklings) are mute and dumb: but the wonderful Providence of God which shines forth in them, is instead of a sounding and stately eloquence. Thirdly, The place in the Psalm, is more generally understood in a metaphorical sense, by expositors; and doubtless was not otherwise cited, or applied by our Saviour here, viz. then as a Scripture holding forth and attesting this providential method, course, and practise of God; to make the meanest and weakest of his creatures, bountiful contributors unto his praise and glory, Fourthly, (and last for this) in case God should desire extraordinary praise and glory from children not yet capable of Instruction, or learning how to pray, the officiousness of men in attempting to teach them how to pray, would rather be injurious unto, than any ways comporting with, this his desire. For whatsoever he in this case shall work in an extraordinary way for his praise or glory, in, or upon, or for, such children; the effect and fruit hereof will in all likelihood, be attributed (atleast in part) to the seemingly-pious endeavours of those, who taught them to pray, though to no purpose, at least with no effect. Fourthly, and lastly, Whereas they avouch it the general practice both of our Divines and Christians, that they began to teach children to pray as soon as they begin to speak, or understand; if instead of the disjunctive, or, they had put, the conjunctive, and, I should rather have believed them. If they know some, either Divines, or Christians (though the opposition, or distinction, is not very lovely) who teach their children to pray as soon as they begin to speak, whether they understand or no; I know others, that judge such a practice little less than the taking of the Name of God in vain, and in that respect forbear it. So that howsoever the practice is not so general, as these men seem to import. And to me it seems still unreasonable (nor do I know how to help it, but by a surrender of my judgement into the hands of unlawful Lords) that men should bestow their time and labour in teaching or instructing such subjects, in any knowledge, skill, or faculty whatsoever, which they cannot reasonably judge to be capable of their Instructions. In their 37 Answer, they suppose two great Suppositions, Sect. 104. which I believe that seven years' study of all the Divines in the world, will hardly make good. As first, that themselves, and men of their party, are engaged in the Truth in all things, or all opinions whatsoever mentioned in the Ordinance. From hence they argue and conclude themselves, to be more ●eet and competent Judges in such cases, which may, or shall fall out about any the points in the Ordinance, than any persons whatsoever, who in their judgements stand undeclared about them. The second is like unto it, and is this, that not only many, or most of the things mentioned in the Ordinance, but all of them are clearly enough determined in the Scripture, to warrant the consciences of those that are instructed in their doctrines, to punish those that persist to publish and maintain any thing contrary to them. We never had ●uch a prospect of high Presbytery in her exaltation, as we have from the tops of these two mountains. But, First, It seems that a very low degree of clearness in the Scriptures (I fear, doubtfulness and obscurity itself) will warrant the consciences of these men, to crush their opposers, and all those that shall stand in their way, being upon their full speed towards their ●ase, honour, and other accommodations in the world. He that supposeth gain to be godliness, * 1 Tim. 6. 5. will find Scriptures in abundance cl●●r enough (as these men count clearness) to warrant his conscience in the practice of covetousness, unmercifulness, and oppression without end. It is a thing of most dangerous consequence, when men have put the stumbling-blocks of their iniquity before their faces, to go and a●ke counsel of the Lord * Ezek. 14. 3, 4. ▪ Secondly, Suppose the Scriptures be clear enough to warrant the consciences of these men, to hold themselves with the Ordinance in the points and doctrines countenanced therein; yet what clearness have they in these, more than darkness itself, to warrant them in the punishing of those, who are contrary-minded unto them, especially in some of these? Certain I am, that they have produced nothing in this discourse, which hath the least glimmering of any clearness in this kind. But▪ Thirdly, When they express themselves indefinitely, thus; clearly enough, to warrant the consciences of those that are instructed in those Doctrines, to punish those▪ etc. do they intent to interest all their proselytes, tag and rag, without exception, when once they have imparted the Doctrines of the Ordinance unto them▪ in a warrantableness of power, to punish those that persist to publish any thing contrary to them? Do they warrant the consciences of the profane and rude multitude to become their auxiliaries in persecuting and molesting their conscientious Brethren? Fourthly, whereas they determine, that in every point, whether Sect. 105. clearly, or not clearly, determined, mens being already engaged in the Truth, doth not make them unmeet, but rather more meet to be judges in such cases (viz. than those, who as yet stand undeclared; for so the Querie) not considering man (I suppose) can concur with them in their determination. The end of judging and deciding controverted opinions in Religion between party and party, being first the uniting of their judgements; and secondly, (if it may be) the uniting them in the Truth; evident it is, that those who are looked upon by one of the parties, as professed enemies to their judgement, and engaged on the contrary side, are like to prove but mediators of small value to compromise between them, and those who descent in judgement from them. Their very engagement on the contrary side, cannot in reason but be looked upon as a very great disadvantage to what they shall speak or argue, be it for the Truth. Topical arguments from a friend, or a person no ways engaged or declared against men, are wont to go further, and to do more in swaying the judgements of men, than seven demonstrations from a professed and known enemy. Fifthly, and lastly; whereas they yet add▪ that if they be supreme Magistrates, who are already engaged for the Truth, they have Authority from God to appoint subordinate Judges, viz. such who are also already engaged in the same Truth; First▪ I desire to know, for what end these subordinate Judges should be appointed? what shall their work or employment be▪ Only to tell men with Authority and power, and an iron Sceptre in their hand, that they are the men that are Orthodox and know the Truth; and to give sentence of imprisonment, death, or the like▪ against all those▪ who will not think as honourably of them, as they do of themselves? The truth is, that all the work and service that such Judges can do by virtue of this their deputation, being truly interpreted, amounts to no more. Secondly, I would learn from these men, whose learning (it seems) teacheth them the confidence of being engaged in all Truth, where God hath given any Authority to supreme Magistrates, suppose engaged in the Truth, to appoint subordinate Judges, to determine and judge amongst the people, what is, or shall be, or must be Truth, and what not, Certain I am, that if God hath given any such Authority or power to supreme Magistrates engaged in, or for, the Truth; he hath given the same to Magistrates of like supremacy, though engaged against the Truth. The Authority and power of supreme▪ Magistracy is uniform, standing and fixed (at least in respect of God) as the abstracted natures and essences of things always are; nor are they capable of any variation, either dextrorsùm, or sinistrorsum, either sursùm, or deorsùm, by any qualification whatsoever, whether on the right hand, or on the left, in the persons invested with it. But of this before. The Gentlemen have but one opportunity more (in this Discourse) to gather up the credit, which they have scattered hitherto. Let us see how learnedly they take their leaves. The truth is, that in their Answer to their last Argument, they Sect. 106▪ quit themselves more unworthily, then in any of the former; (except haply in the second; when, it seems, they dealt by their credits and consciences both, as those that stoned Steven, did by their garments, when to expedite themselves for the work, they laid them down at a young man's ●eet, whose name wa● Saul▪ * Act. 7. 58. etc. 22. ●0. . Their minor proposition in this Argument, is this. God hath given no authority to civil Magistrates or others, either in the Old or New Testament, to make an Exposition of any clause in the Law, controverted between men of equal worth, a matter punishable with imprisonment or death. This proposition (say they) is not true: but have they not said it to the shame and confusion of their pens for ever? or can they find a fourth man under Heaven, that is possessed but of the ordinary interest of a man, willing to venture his reputation with theirs, in such a crazy bottom, as this? But let us see how and with what coards, they under-gird their vessel, for fear of falling in pieces. First, they say, the minor is not true; unless any man can prove, that there neither is, nor ever was, any authority in any Civil Magistrate (for if not in them, then in no others) in any matter of Religion. But, First, doth the truth of any one proposition, depend upon any man's ability, to prove another to be true? Certainly, the minor, which they deny, may be true, though no man can prove, either that which they propose, or any other proposition whatsoever. The truth of propositions is independent; though the manifestation or proof of this truth, be not. Secondly, what truth, or colour of Truth, is there in that hypothetical; If not in them, then in no others. Was there no Authority in the Apostles about matters of Religion? or were they Civil Magistrates? Or if their meaning be, that in case Magistrates have no Authority in matters of Religion, then have they none in other matters; the connexion is still as lose and wild as before; and not so much as an eye of a consequence in it. There is every whit as much sense and reason in this: If a man hath no gold, he hath no silver: Or in this, If a man hath not four legs, he hath not two. But let us go on with them, and see how they prove the necessity of proving that which they propose, to prove their minor untrue. Forasmuch (say they) as there is no one point in Religion, but hath been controverted by one or other, who have had as much learning and gravity, as others of the contrary opinion, and by men of as much PRETENDED piety and conscience in their way, as others, except that of the Deity itself. But, First, How do they prove, that there is no one point in Religion but hath been controverted by ●●● or other of equal learning and gravity, with th●se of the contrary opinion? Nay, they had been worthy to lose all their Interest of Authority, if they had so much as attempted to prove or argue such a position as this. For confident I am that all the learning, wit, memory, books in the world, are not able to prove it. For f●●st, who knows how many points there are in Religion, but only he that numbers the stars in the firmament of Heaven▪ and knows the account of the Sands upon the Sea shore: Therefore to say, There is no one point in Religion, but hath been controverted, (except that of the Deity) is the saying of men that know not what they say▪ Secondly, who hath weighed in a balance the learning and gravity of men, so exactly, as to be able to say, these and these men are equal in both; but only he that hath weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance * Esa. 40. 12. . Secondly, whereas they add, and by men of as much PRETENDED piety and conscience in their way▪ as others; they go on the other side of the way, and balk the Query, which doth not speak of any PRETENDED learning, gravity, piety, conscience, etc. but of such which are so in reality and Truth. Thirdly, Not only the generality of their Rule, but even the restraint, or exception itself which they make, is just matter of exception. For certainly the point of the Deity itself, hath been controverted amongst Philosophers; and the names of some who maintained the negative, as Di●gora● and others, are to this day upon record in many writers. Fourthly, To say that there is ●●●●● point of Religion but hath been controverted, etc. is, not only a saying uncapable of any due probation by men, but of an extremely improbable, and importune import. For who can lightly imagine, that ever it was controverted between any, whether men ought not, as fare as is possible, to have peace with all men; or again, whether a man ought to love his neighbour as himself, with twenty and ten more of like consideration, which might soon be added. But, Fiftly, and lastly, suppose all that hath been opposed hitherto in this answer, were admitted for Truth; what tittle, letter, syllable, word, sentence, is there to be found in it, which so much as looks towards a proof of that conclusion, against which it pretends; viz▪ that God, neither in the 〈…〉, not in the New Testament, hath given any 〈…〉 to the ●ivill 〈…〉 to ●●k● a● exposition of any clause in the L●●, cantravented 〈…〉 men of equal worth, parts, pi●●ie, etc. a matter 〈…〉 i ●ab●e ●ith 〈…〉 or death▪ This ass●●t●on, which is the mi●●● donied by them, may well laugh at all the opposition that hath been 〈…〉 against it hitherto, in the face to scorn. But though he that went before▪ was not H●●tor, yet he that follows, may be Achilles. Well, let us look him in the face, howsoever. His physiognomy is this. Yet itis ●●id●n● that in the Old Test 〈…〉ent, God comm●nded to punish with d●●●h, false Prophets, and 〈…〉 to Idolatry, and ●acrificers to Mol●ch; who all brought th●s● greatest matters of Religion to ●● controverted points. High Presbytery, hath all this while been beholding to Blasphemers, false Prophets, and seducers to Idolatry under the Old Testament, for the support of his cause and Kingdom. Here (it seems) Blasphemers are discharged from the service, and Sacrificers to M●lech entertained in their st●ad. But let ●● see how the cause prospers upon this new recrute of the Army, which maintains it. All these, false Prophets, Seduc●rs, etc. Sacrificers, etc. brought those greatest matters of Religion to ●● controverted points. First, How shall we do for an Antecedent, to that Relative, THOSE? Here is a servingman, that wants a master. What great, or greater, or greatest matters of Religion, are THOSE, which were brought by the Por●or● spoken of, to be controverted points? Secondly, How do these Gentlemen prove▪ or how doth it any ways appear, that the wicked persons they speak of, brought any of of the greatest matters of Religion to be controv●rted points▪ Or if they did, or could prove this; Yet, Thirdly, They have a worse crow to pull still, then that; which i●, to prove, that they brought such matters▪ the greatest matters of Religion, to be controverted points, between Priest and Priest, Scribe and Scribe, between learned, grave, pious, and conscientious men ●n both sid●●. I hope they will not go about to untie the knot wi●h this dishonourable finger; a●●er ●● false Prophets▪ Seducers to Id●●●ri●, Sacri●●cers to M●l●eh, for learned, 〈…〉 conscientious men; or of equal worth, parts, learning, judgement, conscience, with those Priest's and Scrib●●, who were of greatest ●●●inencie in these, and opposed them in their judgements and ways. If they will affirm this, they will do it at the utmost peril of high Presbytery, which is not like to thrive after such a defence. If they will not affirm it, let them confess that they have said nothing hitherto to the purpose, or point in Question. But it may be they will yet dig deeper, and find the treasure at last. They work on, thus. But more than this, (we have need of more, or else we are like Sect. 107. to have nothing) Deut. 17. 12. he expressly commanded, that even in all controverted points, he that would not stand to the sentence of the Judge, or of the Highpriest, should be put to death. Reader, be pleased but to run over with thine eye, that entire passage of Scripture, from which these men break ofF a few words to serve their turn; and thou wilt be tempted (at least) with a jealousy, lest they be men, who make no scruple at all to build up the honour of their cause, with the dishonour of the Scriptures. (Read Dent. 17. from the beginning of verse 8. to the end of the 12. verse.) For, First, Whereas they say, he expressly commanded, that EVEN in ALL controverted points, he that would not stand, etc. the tenor of the Scripture (as to this point) speaketh thus: If there arise smatter too hard for thee in judgement, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, etc. † Deut. 17. 8. Is a matter of controversy, between blond and blood, between stroke and stroke, plea and plea, [about these] ALICE, EVEN ALL, controverted points? Or is great A, ALL, EVEN ALL the letters of the Alphabet? Secondly, Are matters of controversy between blood and blood, etc. matters of controversy between Priest and Priest, Scribe and Scribe, about the exposition of some clause in the Law? (which are the only matters queried in the Querie.) Thirdly, Nor doth God in this passage of Scripture, expressly command, without caution and limitation, that even in this controversy itself, he that would not stand to the sentence of the Judge, or Highpriest, should be put to death; but only then, when the Priests, the Levites, and the Judge, should give sentence, or inform them, according to the Sentence of the Law * Deut. 17. 11. Fourthly, Nor doth God here, either expressly, or so much as by intimation, command that any man in what matter of controversy soever, should be put to death, simply for not being willing or content to stand to the sentence of the judge, or of the Highpriest, but only for doing presumptuously; and this, in not harkening unto the Priest, that was then to stand to minister before the Lord his God, or unto the judge, * ver. 12. i. e. (as the words will well bear) for contemning or affronting either the Priest or the Judge, in their sentence; or reproaching it as unjust, without any consideration had upon it. But in no reasonable construction of the word, can he be said to do presumptuously, who upon a respectful and mature consideration of an opinion, or sentence given, and with expressions of reverence and honour towards him that either holds the one, or gives the other, is not able to bring his judgement or conscience to submit, either unto the one, as true; or unto the other, as just. And yet, Fifthly, and lastly, Evident it is, from several expres●ions in the passage of Scripture we speak of, * Then thou shalt arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall ch●s●, v. 8. And thou shalt come unto the Priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, v. 9 And the man that will do presumptuously, & will not hearken unto the Priests, that stands to minister there before▪ the Lord thy God, etc. v. 12. Sect. 108. that that sentence of the Priest or judge, (for the High▪ Priest, which the Gentlemen speak of, appears not, at least under that title, in the text) against which he that should do presumptuously in not harkening to it, was to be put to death; was only such a sentence, which the Priest did upon inquiry by Vrim and Thrummim, receive immediately, or however, infallibly, from the mouth of God himself. And (for my part) if our Inquisitours can give any satisfying account that the sentence, which they, or any other Judge, shall award against those, who shall be found Delinquents against the Ordinance, comes, or is given unto them, upon any such terms, (I mean, by infallible revelation) from God; I shall think it equal and meet, that he that shall do presumptuously, and not hearken unto it, should be put to death. We have now had the soul of this Answer, and have found it mortal; yet what rejoicing is there in the words following, as if it were crowned with glory. So fare is it (say the men) from Gods not giving in the Old Testament any Authority to make a controverted point a matter of death, or imprisonment. That which they say▪ in these words, is scarce sense; that which (I suppose) they would say, is not any thing they should say, whether they had a mind, either to speak Truth, or to their purpose. For, first, God never gave any Authority to make a controverted point a matter of death or imprisonment, but only a presumptuous misdemeanour against a Divine sentence, given for the determination of such a point. Secondly, if he had made a controverted point, matter of either, yet unless this controverted point, could be proved (which yet hath not been so much as attempted) to have been a point controverted between Priest and Priest, between learned, grave, pious and conscientious men on both sides, it had been nothing to the point in hand, nor to the import of the Querie. The Gentlemen Vindicators draw their last breath in these words: And in this Answer to these Queries, divers things have been s●ewed▪ (but none, as hath been proved, sufficient to prove) that the same Authority belongs to the Civil Magistrate under the New Testament: which is also generally expressed by Divines under that phrase of being Custos, the Guardian of both the Tables of God's Law; and by the Prophet (Esai. 49. Esai. 60.) under those phrases of being Nursing Fathers to the Church, and bringing in their glory to it; which must needs imply using their Authority to suppress th●se dangerous Errors and Heresies, even by imprisonment or death inflicted, upon the obstinate maintainers and publishers of them, if no other means will serve. Reader, the common saying is verified in this Discourse, or Vindication: Qualis vita, finis ita. Such as the life, such is the death. It hath lived hitherto full of affection to the cause of high Presbytery; but hath spoken weakly for it. So now it dies, without any declining in the one, or raising itself up in the other. But First, what the meaning of Divines is, in that gener all expression, Sect. 109. The Civil Magistrate is Custos utriusque Tabulae, the keeper of both Tables, I confess I do not well understand. If it had been the saying of an Apostle, I should (I conceive) have judged myself under a deeper engagement, to make a district inquiry into it, than now I do. The richest and best sense of the saying, that I know, is this: The Civil Magistrate is the keeper of Both Tables; that is, is in special manner obliged, by virtue of his Office and High Place of dignity amongst men, whereunto God hath called him, to be a diligent and exemplary observer and doer of the whole will of God; contained in both the Tables of his Law. In such a phrase or figure of speech as this sense represents the saying in, the Apostle saith concerning the Magistrate we speak of, that he is the Minister of God unto thee for good. He is, that i●, by the engagement of his place and Office, he ought to be a Minister of God unto thee, for thy good, Rom. 13. 4. Another sense in goodness not much inferior to the former, is this: The Civil Magistrate is the keeper of, etc. that is, is bound by the tenure of his place and Dignity, to provide (above the rate of other men) by all means authorized by God, that all duties commanded, either in the first or second Table, be performed by all under his jurisdiction. This (I conceive) is most likely to be the sense, wherein Divines and others so frequently use the saying. But this sense imports neither duty upon, no● power in this Magistrate, to compel men by the sword to be of his Religion (though he be never so confident that his Religion is true, and the best that is, to be embraced by men) but only upon this supposition (which with all the artificial dressing and colouring that hath been bestowed upon it, could never yet be made to look like a Truth) viz. that men really conscientious in their way, and peaceable, may contrary to their conscience, be forced into another way, by the material sword. The Magistrate is bound by all lawful means whatsoever to procure the observation of both the Tables, and to guard every precept in them both, against all disobedience and contempt from men; but he is not bound to do so much, as the least hair on his head amounts unto, in any unrighteous way, though by it he might hope to purchase the perfect observation of all things commanded in both Tables, by men unto the world's end. Secondly, whereas they seek for that bloody Authority which they so much desire to vest in the Civil Magistrate, in the Prophet Isaiah, and think they have found it in those expressions, wherein he prophesies that Kings shall be Nursing Fathers unto the Church, and shall bring their glory to it; I Answer. First, that Nurse's use to administer in milk, not in blood, unto Sect. 110. their children. Nor doth the notion or Relation of a Father, import any thing more, than care, love and tenderness, towards their children. Now Fathers may abundantly express themselves towards their own children, in all these, without beating or slaying other men's Children, who in the same Town, City, or Kingdom, live peaceably by theirs, and mean them no harm. Musculus (a very learned and Orthodox Divine) doth not understand the Prophecy, or promise of Kings being Nursing Fathers unto the Church, of the times of the Gospel, or of any affection which Kings in these days should show unto it (nay, he professeth that he thinks the Holy-Ghost would have spoke quite otherwise, had he intended to speak, or prophesy of th●se * Cum cogito qualis sit facta Ecclesia, postquam Christianos est Principes nacta, ac qui fixt opum Ecclesiaslicorum fructus, existimo spiritum sanctum, fi de illis loqui voluisset, long fuisse dicturum alia. Mu●c. in Esa. 49. 23. but conceives that it was fulfilled in that favour, which Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Esther, Zorobabel, Ezra, with many others of the jewish nation and Church, found in the eyes of the Kings of Babylon during the captivity * Quemadm●dum olim Moses in aula Pharaonis, ita incaptivitate Babylonica, Daniel Sidrac, Misa● Abednego, in aula Regis Babel sunt educati. Nota est historia Esther, Zorobabelis, Edrae, etc. in quibus sane impletum est quod hic dicitur, erunt Reges ●utricii tui, etc. Ibid. ; who, as Nurses, and foster▪ Fathers use to return the Children which they bring up, unto the Parents, when they demand them, or are desirous to take them home; so did these Kings▪ restore these children of the Church unto God their Father demanding them, when they gave them liberty (with other accommodations) to return into their own Land. Yea, the Prophet hmiselfe explains his prophecy of Kings being nursing Fathers unto the Church, according to the tenor of this exposition. Thou shalt also (speaking unto the Church) suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of Kings, etc. Esa. 60. 16. See also Esa. 61. 6. So that these nursing Fathers of whom Esa speaks, do no ways nourish the conceit of these Gentlemen, concerning the Authourity or power of the Civil Magistrate under the New Testament. Secondly, For that other expression, and shall bring their glory to it (if it were to be found in this Prophecy, as I believe it is not) this is more a stranger to their purpose then the former. For in what Dialect, or construction of words, can the cutting off, or punishing of erroneous persons, or Heretics within the Church by Civil Magistrates, be termed, a bringing of their glory unto the Church? There is (I grant) such an expression in the book of the Revelation * Revel. 21. 24. 26. ; but evident it▪ is (by comparing this place with Esa 60. throughout) that by that glory, which the Kings of the Gentiles shall bring unto the Church, is meant nothing else but their wealth and riches; which are called a man's honour, or glory, Gen. 31. 1. And of that which was our Fathers, hath he gotten all this glory. Yea, the Exposition is made by the Holy Ghost himself, Esa. 61. 6. Ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye b●ast yourselves, Besides (as to the place in the Revelation) evident it is, that it speaketh of such an estate or condition of the Church, when it shall be no ways infested or endangered by Heretics or Erroneous Persons, inasmuch as the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb, intent then to be the Temple of it * Rev. 21▪ 22. . Thus than ye see how the infelicity of the Greek Proverb is fall'n upon these men (the Vindicators) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; their Treasure proves but coals. No Scripture they can address or apply themselves unto for the support of their cause, will take any pity or compassion on them (in that behalf.) The Queries from the first to the last stand yet unanswered; yea (I fully believe) unanswerable; except it be by Answers, made of such water which will quench the iron furnace of High Presbytery. FINIS.