SOME MODEST AND HUMBLE queries Concerning a Printed Paper, entitled, An Ordinance presented to the Honourable House of Commons, &c. for the preventing of the growing and spreading of Heresies▪ etc▪  ROM. 14. 5. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. ISA. 59 9 Therefore is judgement far from us, neither doth justice over ●ake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity, &c. JOB. 8. 1. Who is this that darkneth counsel by words without knowledge? HOS. 5. 1. hear ye this, O Priests, and harken ye House of Israel— for judgement is towards you; because you have been a snare on Mispah, and a net spread upon Tabor, HOS. 9 8. The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: but the Prophet is the snare of a Fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God. Quid prodest habere zelum Dei, & non-habere scientiam Dei? Orig. Quid ergo saviunt, ut Stulticiam suam dum minuere volunt, augeant? Long diversa 〈◊〉 carn●●●●… & pietas— Defendenda Religio est▪ non occidendo, sed moriendo; non savitiâ, sed patientiâ. non scelere, sed 〈◊〉 illa enim malorum sunt, haec bonorum. Lactant. De Iust. c. lib. 5 cap. 20. Omnis Lex debet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suae equitatis. Calv. 
Published by authority.  
LONDON▪ Printed by Matthew Simmons for Henry Overton, and are to be sold in Popes-head Alley, 1646.   

To the Reader.  
BEing accidentally encountered by a vagrant▪ Paper, printed though without Authority, yet with this Inscription; An Ordinance presented to the Honourable House of Commons, etc▪ and conceiving partly by the frame and spirit of the discourse, partly from some un-clerk-like expressions in it, that certainly those worthy Gentlemen, whose names are specified in the said Inscription, were more or less wronged by the publishing and spreading of it under their names; and that it was some other spirit that breathed in it, not theirs; I supposed that possibly I might do the said Gentlemen some right, by a proposal of some Queries upon occasion of some particularities in it, by means whereof they may the better consider, in case it relates to them either in whole, or in part, whether it be not unworthy of them; or whether, and to what degree those have injured them, who issued the said undeserving Papar with such a badge of honour upon it, as the two names of two such well-deserving men.   

QUERIES about the ORDINANCE.  
WHether it be agreeable to the Spirit of Christ, (who came into the world, as himself saith not to destroy men's lives, but to save them 
a Luk. 5. 56. ,) to make snares of any of his Doctrines for the destruction of the lives of men?  
Whether it be agreeable to the mind of Christ, for men to inflict the heavy censure of death upon their Brethren, for holding forth such Doctrines, or opinions in Religion, suppose contrary to admonition, which, for aught the said inflicters know, except they make themselves infallible, may be the sacred Truths of God?  
Whether it be agreeable to the will of Christ, for civil Magistrates to compel men, upon pain of death, to call them Rabbi, or Masters, when as he hath so expressly charged men, yea▪ his Apostles themselves as well as others, not to be called Rabbi, or Masters 
b Mat. 23. 8. 10. ▪ or whether to enjoin and compel men (especially upon the penalty of death,) to preach and teach in many the most weighty and difficult points of Religion, nothing but the dictates of their own judgements and wills, be not much more then simply to be called Rabbi, or Masters, i. then simply to connive at, & comply with those, who profess in all things to submit their judgements and Consciences unto them? yea, whether is it not, to threaten men, and that in the ●orest manner of all other, if they will not call them Rabbi, or Masters, i. if they will not sin against the commandment of Christ?  
Whether is it Christian to maintain that Religion, by putting others to death, which (as Lactantius saith) men ought to defend, non occidendo, sed moriendo, i. not by slaying others, but by dying ourselves for it?  
Whether is it not evident from Tertullian, Lactantius, and other ancient and authentic Writers, that the Idolatrous Heathen sought to maintain their Idolatrous Religions, by the same Stratagems▪ methods, and ways, which the said Ordinance proposeth, for maintaining the Religion of Christ?  
Whether our best Records of later times do not clearly show, that the Papacy, and Antichristian party in the world, have still gone about to uphold that false and abominable Religion, which they profess, by those very shores and props, wherewith the Ordinance we speak of seeks to support the true Religion of Christ?  
Whether are errors and Heresies any other things; then some of those strong holds and imaginations in men, which (as the Apostle saith) exalt themselves against the knowledge of God 
a 2 Cor. 10. ? Or whether can they be better thrown down then by those weapons▪ which (as the same Apostle speaketh) are mighty through God▪ for that very purpose? And whether are these weapons carnal, or spiritual?  
Whether to enjoin Ministers or others upon pain of death, imprisonment, &c. not to teach or maintain any thing, in many the greatest and most weighty points in Religion, contrary to the present sense and apprehensions of the said Injoyners, being but few in number, (comparatively) be not to quench proceedings; and to say (in effect) unto the holy Ghost, reveal nothing more unto others, than thou hast revealed unto us; or rather thus; if thou hast not revealed the Truth unto us, reveal it not unto any other men?  
Whether they, who inflict the heavy sentence of death upon men, for maintaining an opinion or Doctrine contrary to their sense and Interpretation of a Scripture, one or more, had not need be as infallible in their judgements, (at least as touching the sense and meaning of all such Scriptures) as God himself?  
Whether did Luther (with divers other worthy Assertors of the Truth in his days against the Papists) deserve death, imprisonment, &c. for maintaining, and that publicly, and against frequent Admonition, by Zuinglius, Calvin, &c. the erroneous opinion of Consubstantiation; an error far more gross and dangerous than many particularised in the Ordinance; besides many others not inferior in evil unto this, as concerning freewill, election & c?  
Whether did Calvin deserve either imprisonment or death, for, teaching and maintaining publicly by writing, that the observation of the Lord's day, as it is enjoined by the Ordinances and laws of this realm, is not according to the Word of God?  
Whether doth a Minister, in case that in the performance of his office in preaching the Gospel, he shall mistake the mind of Christ, or the true sense of a Scripture, one or more, cited, & interpreted by him according to the best light which God hath given him, deserve either death or imprisonment, for his mistake? or whether many of the opinions made liable hereunto by the Ordinance, be constructively, any thing moe, or of any worse demerit, than a mistake, or misunderstanding of some Scriptures?  
Whether a mistake in judgement, (as suppose a man verily and in the simplicity of his heart, judgeth that Infants ought not to be baptised, or that Presbytery is unlawful, or the like) joined with a public and free profession of his judgement in this kind, be more sinful, or more deserving imprisonment, death, &c. than an open and manifest denial in works, of such Truths, which yet men profess in words; as when men profess that they believe Jesus to be the Son of God, and that the Scriptures are the word of God, &c. and yet live loosely, profanely, in drunkenness, riot, &c. Or whether the Ordinance maketh not the former denials, which at most are but of Truths very questionable and obscure, yea and but of inferior consequence neither (at least comparatively) punishable by imprisonment or death; whereas it inflicts no censure at all upon these latter denials (except it be in the case of blasphemy) which are every whit as full & public as the other, yea and of Truths both more generally received, and far more easy to be proved; yea and of a far greater and more formidable consequence, than those other?  
Whether Ministers, truly faithful and conscientious, being fully persuaded in their souls and consciences, that many of the opinions asserted in the Ordinance for Truths, yet are not such, but errors (of which persuasion there are many such Ministers in England) shall do well to comply with the Ordinance, (so called) against their judgements; and publicly hold forth to the people those things for truths, which they are absolutely persuaded in their judgements, to be nothing less? Or whether the said Ordinance, threatening them with imprisonment or death, in case they shall declare themselves otherwise, be not a dangerous temptation upon them, to draw their foot into that snare of death?  
Whether, the public holding of any such opinion, which according to the doctrine of the Apostles themselves, deserves not excommunication from, or by a Christian Church, may yet deserve imprisonment, or a cutting off by death, by the civil Magistrate? Or are they, who are meet and worthy to live and converse as members in a Church of Christ, unworthy so much as to live in a politic or civil State? Or were there not in the Church of Corinth, (yea and in other Churches besides in the Apostles days) who publicly held some opinions of far worse consequence, then very many of those, which the said Ordinance censureth, either with imprisonment, or with death; Of whose excommunication, notwithstanding the Apostle is silent, even than when he argueth against, and condemneth their errors. Yea doth he not entreat them graciously, notwithstanding the danger of their error, calling them beloved Brethren 
a 1 Cor. 15. 58.  & admonisheth them to take heed of being deceived; to be steadfast & unmovable? &c.  
Whether is it not very possible, that persons, who may hold, and upon occasion publicly maintain, many of the opinions condemned as errors, by the Ordinance, may yet be as full of grace and goodness, as precious in the sight of God, as fruitful in every good work, as serviceable to the State, and commonwealth, as those who are of another judgement and practice? O● what repugnancy is there in either of those things, unto any of these? if so, whether can it be a thing well pleasing unto God, or of any good accommodation to the State, to make a Law for the punishing or afflicting of such persons?  
Whether is not such an Ordinance, (were it an ordinance indeed) in the very nature and direct tendency of it, likely to prove a grand discouragement unto many from taking the calling of the ministry upon them, (the kingdom suffering at present so extremely for want of able and faithful men in this calling,) and especially such, who are most ingenuous, and most eminently qualified by God for this great work? or whether are not men of greatest worth for parts and abilities, especially in conjunction with good and tender consciences, (the most absolute composition for the ministry,) more like than other men to decline that employment, wherein they are so much the more like to suffer for a good conscience sake, than other men; by how much the more likely they are to discover the common errors and misprisions of the present age in matters of Religion, than they?  
Whether is not the said Ordinance, in the example of it, a direct encouragement and confirmation to Popish Magistrates, to persecute the faithful servants of God, who live in their territories with fire & sword, for professing the truth of God amongst them? And whether do not they, who here seek to pluck up the tares, by such an Ordinance, pluck up the wheat also there, by the same?  
Whether was there ever any such Ordinance, or State act, ever heard of, or known, in any the Reformed Churches? I mean, which was so apparently bent against the faces, if not of the greatest part, yet of so considerable a part of the best and most conscientious men amongst them, as this is?  
Whether was there ever any thing done in the Bishop's times, or any thing attempted to be done by this generation of men in the day of their greatest interest and power in the kingdom, of that bloody consequence to those godly persons, Ministers, or others, whom they most hated, and sought to crush, as this Ordinance, if once established, is like to be, to surre greater numbers of truly pious and conscientious men?  
Whether the said Ordinance ministereth not an advantage, of opportunity to the worst and wickedest of men, who commonly hate the best and faithfullest Ministers most, to accuse them unduly of such things, which according to the ordinary course of Law, may touch their lives, or otherwise bring much affliction, and vexation to them?  
Whether twelve simple countrymen, such as our ordinary Juries usually consist of at country Assizes, who (alas!) are far from being versed, or any ways judgemented in the profound questions in Divinity, (unto many of which the Ordinance relateth) and who are generally uncapable of such equipollencies, proprieties, and differences of words, upon the understanding, or right discerning whereof, the innocency or guiltiness of the person indicted is very likely to depend, be of any competent faculty or interest, to pass upon the life or liberty of a studious, learned, and conscientious man, in such cases, which the greatest and ablest professors of divinity in the world, are not able clearly, or with any competent satisfaction to the scrupulous (many times) to resolve, or determine?  
Whither an ordinary Judge of Ass●●e, who either doth not pretend, or (at most) in most cases, doth but pretend to any thoroughness of search or inquiry into the deep things of God in the abstruse and disputable points of Religion, as that of free will, of the Trinity, of the hypostatical union, concerning the death of Christ, the condition of the soul after death, &c. be a competent Judge in such Questions and cases as these, especially over, and against such men (to the bereaving of them, either of life or liberty) who are known to be men of able parts, and to have made the study of Divinity, their sole employment all their days, being otherwise, grave, and sober, and conscientious men in all their ways?  
Whether these two opinions, (both of them attainded for errors, and made equally punishable by the ordinance,) 1ᵒ That the moral Law contained in the ten commandments is no rule of a Christian life. 2ᵒ That the observation of the Lord's day, as it is enjoined by the Ordinances and laws of this realm, is not according, or contrary to the word of God; can possibly be both errors, or justly punishable; since the Observation of the Lord's day, as it is enjoined by the Ordinances and laws of this realm, is nowhere to be found in the moral Law contained in the ten commandments; this Law requiring the observation of another day, differing from that, the observation whereof is enjoined by the Ordinances and laws of this realm? Or if the Law contained in the ten commandments be the rule of a Christian life, whether do they walk Christianly, who do not conform themselves unto it? nay, who place a great part of their Christianity, in walking, if not contrary to it, yet quite beside it? as all they do, who observe the Lord's day, as it is enjoined by the Ordinances and Laws of this realm; and celebrate the two Sacraments, baptism, and the Loods Supper, mentioned likewise in the Ordinance?  
Whether doth the Ordinance, making this a punishable error, to hold that a man by nature hath free will to turn unto God, by this expression, of having free will to turn unto God, intend to grant any will at all in men by nature to turn unto God, though much encumbered and oppressed with corruption, and indisposition to such an act, and in that respect, meaneth that it is not free; or else to deny all, and all manner of will in men, in respect of this act; so that when God purposeth to make men willing to turn to him, he must create a new faculty of will in him, as also a new disposition or propension in this will, whereby it may be freely carried upon this act of conversion?  
What does the Ordinance mean, by blasph●ming the name of God, or any of the Holy Trinity? doth it mean any kind or degree of sin, against the third commandment? or any, and every kind of swearing▪ as by Faith, Troth, or the like; so that upon the second offence committed in this kind, after, and contrary to admonition, the party offending is to suffer death? or doth it by blaspheming the name of God, &c. intend only the highest kinds of Blasphemy, as the calling of God, or of Jesus Christ, accursed, wicked, unjust, unfaithful, & c?  
What doth the Ordinance mean, by impugning the word of God? doth it mean, the opposing by way of argument and discourse, every truth contained and delivered in the Word of God? or only the proposal and enforcement of such reasons and grounds, the tendency whereof is, to prove it, indefinitely taken and considered, not to be the Word of God?  
In what sense doth the Ordinance make it erroneous and punishable, to hold, that God seeth no sin in the justified? inasmuch as there is a sense, (if not more than one) wherein it is most certainly true, that God seeth no sin in such persons (
a Numb. 23. 21. Jer. 18. 23. Psal. 32. 1. &c. )?  
In what sense doth the Ordinance adjudge it an error, worthy to be punished, and that with no less than perpetual imprisonment, in case it be not abjured; to hold and maintain▪ that a man is bound to believe no more, than by his reason he can comprehend? Doth it intend to make men of this Faith, that they are bound in conscience to believe more than they can comprehend, that is, clearly and fully conceive any reason why they should believe? If so, then how much, or to what proportion of object are they bound to believe, beyond what they are able to comprehend by reason, sufficient & clear grounds of believing? Are they bound to believe in this kind (I mean, beyond what they are able to comprehend by reason) without measure, bounds, or limits? If so, are they bound to believe all things without exception, that shall any ways, or by any hand be presented unto them? Or, if Reason ought not to regulate or limit men about the object or matter of their believing, then are they bound to believe those things, concerning which, there is no ground or reason at all, why they should be believed? If so, whether is Divine Revelation, or the asserting of things by God, any ground or reason, comprehensible in that relation, by that faculty of Reason, or understanding in a man, for the believing of all things so revealed, and asserted? If so, whether is not Reason, able to comprehend and judge of all things required by God as necessary to be believed, so far, as they are necessary to be believed, i. e, as far as they are revealed by God? Or is any man bound to believe that, concerning which it is unpossible for him, or any man, to comprehend, or conceive any reason, why it should be a Truth; and consequently worthy or meet to be believed? Or what instance can be given in any particular branch of the object of Faith, which ought to be believed, and yet is unpossible to be comprehended by Reason, that it is a Truth? Or whether ought any man (at least, in sensu composito,) to believe the deepest or highest mystery in Religion, any further, or any otherwise, than as, and as far, as he hath Reason to judge it to be a Truth?  
What doth the Ordinance mean, by publishing Doctrines with obstinacy? Doth it mean a publishing of them, contrary to the will, pleasure, or prohibition of the Assembly of Divines, or of any particular man, whether they show unto the Assertors or Publishers of such Doctrines, any sufficient reason to convince them, or no? Or what kind, or manner of Reasons doth it intend those shall be, upon the tender whereof, either by the said Assembly, or others, the publisher of the Doctrines shall be judged obstinate, in case he shall still publish them? Or if, by publishing with obstinacy, be meant, a publishing contrary to the desires, or injunctions of men, without any sufficient reason given of their desires, or injunctions in this kind; then in what sense or notion doth the Ordinance understand the word Obstinacy? or how many desires, prohibitions, or injunctions of men to the contrary, must precede and be administered, before a man shall according to meaning and intent of the Ordinance, be said to publish a Doctrine obstinately?  
Whereas the said Ordinance maketh it an error, and the publishing of it punishable with imprisonment, to hold, that Government by Presbytery is unlawful; whether doth it mean, that Government by Presbytery which the Parliament hath established, or that Government by Presbytery, which is so importunely desired and defended by the Ministers; because there is (it seems) a strong opposition, and vast difference between the one and the other, at least in some things? Or doth it intend, all, and all manner of Government by Presbytery, in what sense or notion soever?  
What doth the paper mean, by blaspheming the Name of God, or impugning the Word of God, wittingly, and presumptuously, considering, that (as Mr. Prynne informs us at 
a Truth Triumphing over falsehood, p. 109▪  large) the word, presumptuously admits of a strange variety of significations? And since the sin of blaspheming the Name of God (with the other) must be committed wittingly, and presumptuously, or contrary to Admonition, before the Ordinance (so called) takes hold of it, or maketh it punishable; upon what testimony, evidence, or indication, one or more, shall the said sins be adjudged to be committed wittingly?  
Again, inasmuch as the said sins committed contrary to Admonition, are made so severely punishable by the Ordinance; by whom is it intended that this Admonition must be given, to bring the said sins under the dint 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?  
God having appointed an express punishment (by way of remedy and cure) of blasphemy, in the New Testament (whom I have delivered up unto Satan, saith Paul, that they may learn not to 
b 1 Tim. 1. 20  blaspheme,) whether is it either reasonable or Christian, to decline this punishment of so sovereign a nature for the healing of the sin, and to prefer a punishment mentioned only in the Old Testament, which, though appointed by God for those times, yet hath no such Evangelical virtue or property ascribed unto it?  
Whether the Ordinance, in ordering the Delinquent or party accused, to renounce his error in the public Congregation of the Parish-Church whence the complaint comes; intends only this renunciation, when the complaint of the error Preached or maintained, comes from, or out of such a public Congregation? or in case it comes from, or out of another Congregation, viz. which is not parochial, or held in a Parish-Church, whether then doth the Ordinance intend any such Renunciation at all? or in what Congregation doth it intend it? Or whether is any complaint of an error published or maintained, admittable by the Ordinance, but only those, that come from some public Congregation of a Parish-Church?  
In what sense desireth the Paper to be understood, when it maketh an action punishable with imprisonment, to publish, that it is not lawful to teach children to pray? or whether doth it measure children, by age, or by understanding? If by either, at what age, or under what line or scantling of understanding must they be, when it shall be punishable by the Ordinance, for any man to affirm, that it is not lawful to teach them to pray? For 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, and of learning how to pray.  
The Scriptures not having clearly determined or defined, what is erroneous, or heretical, in many (if not in the most) of the particulars mentioned in the said Ordinance; who, or of what capacity or Interest ought they to be, that are meet to be constituted judges or determiners of such cases and questions? whether those, that already are profoundly engaged on the one hand? or those who as yet stand undeclared in either? Or who have any power or authority from God to appoint Judges in such cases as they please?  
Whether did God ever give any power or Authority to civil Magistrates, or others, either in the Old Testament or the New, to make any controverted exposition of any clause or clauses in the Law, controvertible between Priest and Priest, Scribe and Scribe, though published and declared, or any matter whatsoever of doubtful disputation between grave, learned, pious, and conscientious men on both sides, punishable either with imprisonment or death? And whether are not many of the points condemned by the Ordinance, matters of this nature, controvertible (I mean) yea, and actually controverted between persons of equal worth, parts, learning, judgement, conscience, on both sides?  
FINIS.