AN ESSAY In Defence of the GOOD OLD CAUSE, OR A Discourse concerning the Rise and Extent of the power of the Civil Magistrate in reference to Spiritual Affairs. WITH A PREFACE Concerning 

The Name of the Good old Cause.  
An Equal Commonwealth.  
A  Synod.  
The Holy Commonwealth published lately by Mr. Richard Baxter.   AND A VINDICATION OF The Honourable Sir HENRY VANE from the false aspersions of Mr. BAXTER.  
By HENRY STUBBE of Ch. Ch. in Oxon.  
Vincat Veritas.  
London, Printed in the Year 1659.   

A premonition to the Reader.  
BEing unexpectedly called to this work by the good providence of God in our late changes: I must beg thy pardon, of what judgement soever thou art, for several imperfections that may have happened in the attempt. If thou art a friend to the Good old cause, I be 〈◊〉 thee to excuse the defects of a person whose real inclinations thou canst not question without wronging the greatest innocence in the World: I have hastened the work, that so my forwardness might recompense all other miscarryages, what is now but an Essay, may hereafter grow up to a just defence: If thou art one who dissentest any way from me, I must further acquaint thee, that excepting the preface, I never saw three of these sheets together: they were never transcribed, and in the writing, as new passages did occur to my memory, so I pasted them on, sometimes not where they should have come in, but where I could conveniently place the labels: so that if there be any lapses of Memory, small incoherences, transpositions or other errors, as are the products of unusual haste, I must either entreat thy pardon, or submit to what severity thou canst make use of, after this acknowledgement in any part, which is but as it were the fringe of the ensuing discourse. I assure thee I have not imposed upon thee any citation, but for the Truth of them thou must have recourse to their originals, and not to versions, which may deceive my adversary, but have not me. That Mallela, whom I quote, is a Greek manuscript in Oxford library. I think I have deserved moderation from all men, unless Mr. Baxter quarrel with me, whom I have dealt more roughly with, than other wise I should, because he seemed (and I am informed was) instigated by the Courtiers to revile, in so opprobrous a manner, the abettors of a Commonwealth: if I am too confident against him and some others, whom I name not; I throw myself at the feet of the more learned and judicious Episcoparians: if they convince me, I shall lay my hand upon my mouth, and willingly become a proselyte to Truth. It is upon this account, that as I profess myself to publish my own opinions, without interesting any other in the debate; so I have chosen no dedicitour, being loath to engage any into the patronage of what upon a sober refutation I myself shall retract as solemnly as I do now divulge it: I aim at nothing but Truth; nor do I write to serve any party or designs of any men. If any shall think me worthy of being their convert, they shall not need to print against me; I shall do them as much justice who (being loath to write against a book with this Title) may advise me by Letter, as any who shall appear in print: and I only further add, that I desire they would calmly argue, and not disquiet me 〈◊〉 ●●opular harangues and preach●● such as conclude nothing: and 〈◊〉 knall reflections, since I know 〈…〉 it is for men to say that he, 〈…〉 a Toleration of all opinions, is himself 〈◊〉; I do declare that there is no necessity of that, and my history of Toleration will evince it; and moreover I own entirely Perkin's doctrine in the chain of Salvation; and if I differ from Beza about punishing heretics, I know not how I am bound up to call any man Master. I must also desire the errata of the printer may be excused, for I have not had any opportunity to revise any proofs.  
From my Study in Ch. Ch. Oxon. July 4. 1659. Henry Stubbe.   

The Preface.  
I Am not ignorant with how much hazard any man writes in these days of ours; but, to write now, and for THE GOOD OLD CAUSE (which, especially where I live, is often mentioned with detestation, reproach, and scorn) is to contend with all the discouragements that might terrify one from becoming an Author. Some there are who (like to Alexander the Coppersmith at Ephesus) decrye the Goodness of what their interest leads them to condemn: others question the Antiquity, and doubt whither this Sumpsimus be more old than their Mumpsimus. To the former I endeavoured a reply in the Treatise ensuing. Of the latter sort of men I desire they would consider, That it is not denied but at the beginning, and in the carrying on of the late Civil wars there were sundry causes that engaged several parties into that Quarrel against the King, particular Animosiities, Scandals, sense of future Emoluments great or less, Defence of Liberties and Religion under different garbs and apprehensions. These, (besides what the public declarations of Parliament held forth, whilst neither the privileges of Parliament, nor the Liberties of the people on the one hand, nor the Corruptions of a King (of whom I may say as of Lewis the Eleventh of France, All his [evil] council did ride upon one horse) were sufficiently discovered, and the means for establishing the ●●rst, and redressing such inconveniences a● the last might create us, unthought on, or at least such as might not be proposed to a Nation half-prejudiced for an inveterate Monarchy: These were the incentives which prevailed with men to contribute to the effecting of such changes as we are witnesses of in England. Yet had there been ten thousand other motives, I should not count it a Sole●s●e, but Truth, to say That LIBERTY, civil, and spiritual, were the GOOD old cause. And however some may say that it was none of The Old cause to assert any proper Sovereignty in the people: yet I must tell them that the vindications of the Parliament against the papers of the King then in being show us, that such a Sovereignety was presupposed, and if it were not the old cause, it was the foundation thereof, and avowed for such: those rights and liberties of the people, the maintenance of which occasioned the war, had not been the voluntary concessions of Kings, but either of Usurpers, or enforced from such as did not, usurp in person, though in deed their whole succession was but a continued usurpation. If the Sovereignty were elsewhere stated, it was only the executive part, which is but an improper Sovereignty, the Legislative paramount Authourity and concerns of the people had been long before avowed by Lawyers and Divines of the chiefest rank. If it was none of the cause of our war to change the Constitution of the Commonwealth into any other form than we found it in. I answer that that needed not to be, since the form was not, nor is now changed, The Petition of right and other laws in being had already deposed Monarchy, and we were only to improve, not create a Republic. They who manage these objections had reduced us to that posture as a very little alteration in an invidious name, and some other circumstances, might secure the people in those Privileges and immunities from which they would not recede. Whereas it is said further That the Sovereignty being mixed or distributed into the Hands of King, Lords and Commons, no part had Authority to change the Constitution. I shall not ask these men, How the Commons came to be admitted to share in that mixture of Government? But to me it is indubitable, that since the end of the establishing a King and Lords, was the welfare of the people and Commons, whatever distribution of Government may have been enacted, yet it is the end that regulates the means, and renders them useless and rejectaneous upon occasion; and hereof either the Commons must be Judges, who feel the Pressing inconveniences of the means controverted, or else they who reap advantages by such deviations and grievances, and who are too much interessed to determine aright. If Pharaoah may judge, he will say the Israelites are idle, rather than oppressed with burdens. If there be any yet so obstinately perverse as to explode the Title upon this account; yet cannot any deny but that it is an Old (as well as Good) cause in opposition to the Instrument, and that most non-sensicall paper called the petition and advise of such a juncto as must never be reputed of hereafter, but with the infamy of Parlamentum indoctorum, or a Parliament that lacked learning, and wit or Honesty: and it is so fare from impossibility, that it is not abfured for the same thing in a different respect to be New and Old. I shall illustrate this by something, which if it be in it's own nature less convincing, yet it is not to be rejected by our most implacable Adversaries. How often have our Parliaments declared this or that to be a fundamental right, and the birthright of the subject, which yet is not to be found established or bottomed upon any thing but that claim, antecedent to our constituted laws, whereunto Nature doth embolden us. That which the Parliament under the first [acknowledged] cause did avow as the fundamental constitution of this Kingdom, that the Sovereignty thereof was mixed in a King, and two Houses of Lords, and Commons, with several other things of the like nature, cannot be justified but by such a defence: since the Monarchy is supposed to be founded at the Conquest, or if we will rise higher, yet will no enquiry direct us to a mixture of Sovereignty, such as the Commons fundamentally share in: there being no such order of Estates (if I may so call it) until Henry the first, and for their power it may be better disputed then proved by any other way then what will evince Our Cause to be Old, as well as their privileges etc. Fundamental. I cannot inform myself of any other manner whereby to justify that Protestation of the Commons, which is recorded by Dr. H●ylin in his Ad●e●t cement on the History of the Reign of K. James. And Rushworth in his collections.  

The protestation of the Commons. Jac. 19 1621.  
THe Commons now assembled in Parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto, concerning sundry Liberties, Franchises and Privileges of Parliament, among others here mentioned, do make this Protestation following: That the Liberties, Franchises, Privileges, and Jurisdiction of Parliament, are the ancient and undoubted Birthright, and inheritance of the Subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the King, state, and defence of the Realm, and of the Church of England, and the maintenance and making of Laws, and redress of mischief and grievances, which daily happen within this Realm, are proper subjects and matter of Counsel, and debate in Parliament: And that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses, every member of Parliament, hath and of right aught to have Freedom of Speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same: And that the Commons in Parliament have likewise Liberty and Freedom to treat of the matters in such order as in their judgement shall seem fittest: and that every member of the said house hath like Freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation (other then by censure of the House itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning, or declaring any matter, or matters touching the Parliament, or Parliament business. And that if any, of the said Members be complained of, and questioned for any thing done or said in Parliament, the same is to be showed to the King by the Advise and assent of all the Commons assembled in Parliament, before the King give credence to any private Information.   
This and many other Parliamentary expressions, (though True, 
In the Civil Law, he wh● was mode completely fere, and one of the ingenui, though his Mother had been and were a Servant or bondwoman, and his birth Servile, yet upon such his enfranchisement he was said natalibus restitui, to be restored to his BIRTHRIGHT, that is not to such as he was borne to by his immediate parentage, but such as appertained to him by descendence from Adam. L. 2. D. de natalib. restituend. as it is cited by Selden de jur. nature l. 2. c. 4. p. 163.  just and equitable) in former and later days, can, in my judgement, be no better verified then the Old cause, when most disadvantageously looked upon, as being no otherwise Laws, Privileges, and undoubted Birthrights, then that they should and ought to be so. But, to proceed: I often, communing with my own soul in private, use to parallel our bondage under the Norman yoke, and our deliverance there from, to the continuance of the children of Israel in Egypt, and their escape at last from that slavish condition: and as the several providences attending them in their journey into the land of promise have created in me thoughts of resembling mercies and distractions that have befallen us in our progress to Freedom; so particularly the late dispute about the Good Old cause did cause in me some reflections upon the course which Moses took to disengage the people of the Lord in those days from their servitude, God tells Moses that he would bring the Israelites out of the affliction of Egypt, unto the land of the Can●anites to dwell there, Exod. 3. v. 10, 16, 17, 18. And this Message he was to impart unto the Elders of Israel. Yet withal (as Philo Judeus saith, and the circumstances of the text render it certain) he is commanded, he and the Elders of Israel to say unto the King of Egypt, the Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go (we beseech thee) three days journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God. Exod. 4. v. 29. So Moses gathered together all the Elders of the children of Israel, and acquainted them with this Message and intendment; but it scarce seems probable that he told the generality of the people his main design; for the Israelitish women manying promiscuously with Egyptians, and all of them being under such taskmasters as by love or terror might gain an intelligence of the final departure intended by that Nation, it is unimaginable, how things should have been, for so long a time as their deliverance was effecting, concealed from Pharaoh and his intelligencers. And Moses with Aaron went in and prayed Pharaoh, that he would let the people go three days journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord: Exod. 5. v. 3. And this is not only the pretence of Moses, but he is commanded (ch. 7. v. 16.) to say, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee saying, Let my people go that they may serve me in the wilderness. In fine, All the declaration of their intents, which they made to Pharaoh, was, that they might go and sacrifice in the wilderness. Exod. 8. v. 27. and ch. 10. v. 24, 25, 26. Yea, it seems by the contest betwixt Pharaoah and Moses and Aaron (ch. 10, v, 10, 11.) that at first they desired liberty only for the Men to go; and not that they might go with their young and with their old, with their sons and with their daughters, with their flocks and with their herds. It is expressly said by the King, Go now ye that are Men, and serve the Lord, for that you did desire: It is observed by Philo that the land of Canaan in the direct road was three days journey from Egypt: so that if their desire to serve the Lord in the wilderness, and to sacrifice unto him, was an Expression of their intendments to fix in the promised land; if all those occasions for a further explanation of their thoughts, when Phara●ah said he would let them go and sacrifice in the wilderness, only they should not go very fare away (ch. 8, v. 28.) and when they desire to carry all their relations and goods with them, for to hold a feast unto the lord, at which time Pharaoh suspected their contrivances to free themselves, and said, Let the Lord be so with you, as I will let you go, and your little ones, Look to it, for evil is before you, (ch 10. v. 10.) And when Pharaoh desired only that their flocks and herds might stay; it is then that they answer, Thou must give us also sacrifices and  offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God. Our cattles also shall go with us: there shall not an hoof be left behind, for thereof must we take for to serve the Lord our God: and we know not with what we must serve the Lord until we come thither, (ch. 10. v. 24, 25, 26.) if all those occasions could draw from them no clearer manifestation of their purposes, (and perhaps the Egyptians upon a persuasion of no further intent did lend them jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment wherein to appear at the feast) Exod. 12. v. 35. and ch. 3. v. 22. but that even at the last Pharaoh says to them, Rise up, and get you forth from amongst my people, both you and the children of Israel: and go serve the Lord, as ye have said. (c. 12. v. 31.). Truly methinks upon these circumstances. If Pharaoh did arm to pursue them of whom he did not, nor we, hear that they went three day's journey to sacrifice, or that they performed any such solemnity, or held on that journey which they made a semblance at first to take: but turned and encamped before Pi-hariroth between Migdol and the sea, ch. 14. v. 2, 5. and fled without a thought of returning to Egypt: nay if he had overtaken them so as to expostulate with them why, and for what cause they did so deal with him? could he have made use of other words than we are now upbraided with? Is this the Old cause that you pretended for your departure? Is this the Old cause which your God proposed unto you at first, or was that only a pretence for other designs! did you bring your children and cattles with you for this, or some other professed end? Is this your sacrificing? Call you this a going to keep a feast unto your God? Or a freeing yourselves from that subjection you were under? Did we  you with our choice raiment? Did we adorn you with jewels, that you might carry them quite away? Is this to serve the Lord, or yourselves? To sacrifice unto God, or to your own net? To borrow or to rob? Nor might Pharaoh only have upbraided them thus: The murmuring Israelites (having been at first unacquainted with Mose's design) either did, or might have clamoured in the like manner, when they were compassed about with Pharaoh's army on the one side, and the redsea on the other, and said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? Wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us to carry us forth of Egypt? Exod. 14. v. 11. In this posture of affairs (wherein, as also in the first attempts of Luther, I find the like proceduce to what ours are said to have) I observe that Moses is satisfied in his obeying the call of the Lord, and having freed the Israelites from an unjust bondage; he trusts in the Lord for a good issue, saying only to the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord. ch. 14. v. 13. The Lord grant that we may follow his example, and be strengthened to follow God in his merciful deal with us, and not murmur and distrust that arm which hath brought us to that Freedom we now are in: we have travailed through a desert, and our God hath guided us prosperously, and his Assisting providence ought to be looked upon by humble and discerning souls as a cloud going before us daily, to instruct us, who have any apprehensions thereof; but as removing also behind, and blinding those who oppose and would destroy that Commonwealth of Israel which the Lord will erect, whose salvation let them stand still, and see, who are not so resolute as to quit their fears for a more active temper.  
There is one considerable Objection which may, and will be made against what I have discoursed concerning the rise of Government, that it tends to the establishing of an Unequal Commonwealth, which is so much decried and petitioned against by men of great repute, honesty and faithfulness to the Good old cause. Hereunto it will not suffice that I profess myself ready to acquiesce in what shall be the determinate resolutions of the Good people of this Nation, and that whatsoever my sentiments are, I shall never esloign myself from the common interest; nor shall I say that it is a very unequal commonwealth which doth regard equally men of different qualifications; neither will I blame that supererogating tenderness which they express for the liberty of those who would have deprived them of theirs. But I must declare it, that I cannot imagine how in equity and reason they can estate their yet dissenting and repugning adversaries in such Franchisements, which they may more lawfully wish, than put them in possession of, against their wills, unless it can be proved that they are either madmen, fools, or children: which will be more difficult to be justified here, then in the case of the Indians, who are acquitted by Casuists from such imputations, when charged on them by the usurping Spaniards. They who have pleaded for an equal Commonwealth, show the excellency, and the conveniency thereof, if constituted, but show not how it can be imposed upon all, nor how a power can be erected over any men which is not derived from them. It is not Mr. Harrington (by whose industry and learning I acknowledge myself to have been highly benefitted, in whose works the judicious may observe with how much difference the Pedantical part of mankind, and a Gentleman may discourse upon the same things; for whose Civilities my resentments are not greater than is the ambition I have to merit the honour I receive by so illustrious an acquaintance) It is not he that would more promote an equal commonwealth then myself universally; I admire his model, and am ready to cry out, as if it were the pattern in the Mount: it is not that which can be controverted out of any thing I have said, but who the persons are that shall enjoy the benefit thereof: A plea here for the honest and faithful souls amongst us, I hope will not argue any dissatisfaction towards them; not shall I be culpable towards them, if I think the universality of this nation is not to be trusted with liberty at present, that an equal Commonwealth is that whereunto we ought and may prudentially grow, but which we cannot at once abrick, without running an extraordinary hazard of being again enslaved. What have we effected hitherto by so much jeopardy and bloodshed? is it only that our enemies being foiled in the field should have an opportunity to dispute the fruits of our Victories a second time upon more advantageous terms? In batailes' number may be counterpoised by valour, and skill, or the like, but in an equal Commonwealth, when the swords we have disarmed them of are again put into their hands, and all hopes of prevailing depend upon a majority, we put things by such a procedure unto as great danger as is the certainty that plurality of votes (given out of a sense of revenge, ignorance, or multiplicity of interests in them who agree only in dividing from us, will sway to the prejudice of those that established a Commonwealth, and the subversion of all that God hath been thus long a building amongst us. These may be contrivances for a generous Gallantry, but must not render Oceana amongst the number of Romans. The people of this nation are not to be looked upon as broken lose from their ancient and accustomed form, and one●y wild● and giddy because unreduced into orders. This may be the condition of our patriots, and the faithful adherents to the Good old Cause, I confess, but for the others they are so fare from being giddy, that they are determinate for Kingship and an uniformity? so fare from being got lose (which argues a voluntariness in them) that they seem now to be in fetters, forced to a state (which is not freedom to them that regret it) into which they did not break lose, and to whom the first blushes of a Commonwealth are as dismal as the appearance of daylight to Cerberus when Theseus had unchained him, and drawn him out of Hell up unto the surface of the earth; Cerberus he be held the light, he yelled, and vomited up a most deadly poison called Aconitum, and returned to his former Station. A people under orders (and enured to them) convinced of their interest in this, or ignorant of any other Government, may be serene and prudent, void of discord as the (Venetian, who is not of the same temper with us) Switz, and Hollanders, of the dissensions whereof late years in both can give us a testimony: But a people unconvinced of their interest, not unanimous in any common concern, except as Ephraim and Manasseh were to ruin Judah, not instructed in, yea averse from a Republic, that such a people put into orders (in which no overruling power must retain them, for they must be their own Army) should be so serene and calm, it is unimaginable; though they were better blended and mixed with the interposing numbers of honest men than the Situation of Estates and fortunes permits us to expect, and lessened in the infinity of trades and other dependants that subsist by them. These resueries (if I may use that expression) may then pass for prudence, when for a weak-limbed infant to go, no more will appear requisite then that it be put into a standing stool. Amphion might have meted out the platform of Thebes when he went to build it with his harp, and contrived the City and its bulwarks; yet if the stones (supposed to follow his Music, and not repugn) unpolished and unshapen had only danced after him, not all the Orders in the world could have effected a well-built and lasting structure. A mariner trusteth not unto the Sea, but to this ship. The spirit of the people is in no wise to be trusted with their liberty, but by Stated laws or Orders, so the trust is not in the spirit of the people but their Orders, which as they are leaky or tight are the ship, out of which the people being once embarked cannot stir, and without which they can have no motion. It is admitted that a mariner doth not only rely upon the calmness, or navigableness of the Sea, but that he puts much of his confidence in his ship: But to make the Similitude any way to illustrate, and to persuade our Patriots and Legislators to rely on the spirit of the people, if they be as mariners the Objectour must reduce the people to such a posture that they be as tractable and manageable as a ship, in which a prudent Mariner imbarkes; such a ship is not well contrived in black and white, but well built, and ballasted, and fitted with tackling. A Commonwealth resembling must have good orders and a prevailing spirit, such as may comply with those Orders, which temper being wanting in the nation, cannot be introduced but by an overruling power, if the Republic take in more than the honest party. A defectiveness in the Orders 〈◊〉 not render the people destitute of motion, (for that can never happen, especially in a Northern climate) but depraved and exorbitant in their motion: and yet even these inconveniences are supplied in defective Commonwealths by a gallantry of spirit, as a vigorous strength of nature overcomes diseases, but a free air and spirit is not supplyable by good orders in any time of trouble, but it is as ominous as the succumbency of nature, which physicians say to be of worse presage than an acute and violent disease. This is much more illustrated from the comparison drawn from an Army, disciplined, and drawn up into several batallions. To make it so that they do not rout themselves, notwithstanding their excellent order, you must make it their interest, not to do so: and you must also make them apprehensive that such is their interest, (for men do not pursue what is really their interest, but what seems so to them) or you must so dispose of the well-affected (which, if a small number, must not scatter, lest they be rendered useless through the intermixture of more numerous and powerful renegadoes) malcontents as that they may, and that according to Order, be able to awe the other into what they are not otherwise disposed to in their minds. Now, it is manifest, that in the present posture of our affairs it is not the interest of all nor of an infinity (without assuming a new course of life in their old age) to promote a Republic: nor are all whose interest it is to promote, sufficiently convinced thereof: It is evident than what course must be taken, unless we limit our Commonwealth unto the honest and faithful party, leaving the residue so much liberty as they are now capable of, or may prove hereafter. That this latter way is not only prudential, but just, I do suppose evident from what I have said concerning the Original of power, and that all other procedure, however it may terminate in the Good of the people, is not to be legitimated in itself: And it is further illustrable out of the Commonwealth of Israel. When the Israelites came out of Egypt, they were not only six hundred thousand men besides women and children, of one kindred, parentage and people, but also a very large accessionall of strangers (besides Servants) who joined with them in that expedition. 
Philo Jud. de vit. Moses. l. 1. Eusebius hist. eccls. l. 1. c. 7. Nicephorus l. 1. c. 11.  As Philo Judaeus, Eusebius, and Nicephorus tell us: and it is thought how that Egyptian, husband to Shelomith, whose son blasphemed (Levit. 24.10.) was such a one, and no proselyte, as Jarchi saith he was. These Strangers had a natural liberty to dispose of, and however they were fewer in number then the Israelites, yet could not their paucity deprive them of their birthright. They were going to Canaan together, nor had the Israelites so disposed of (or God by promise to them) of that land as that none should be proprietors but themselves. In the wilderness, God being their Lawgiver (whither by an Act of Soveraingnety, or by that Authority which men sensible of their fallibility ought to pay, and will pay necessarily to an unerring and omniscient deity, when they are convinced there is no fraud, I dispute not) they erect a Commonwealth (for however some are pleased to style it a Theocracy, yet I apprehend not the truth thereof: for neither does his electing Judges repugn with the being of a Commonwealth, more than hiselecting Kings destroy a Monarchy: nor his delivering himself as he was occasionally consulted, for so he did too under Kings: so that either theirs was no Monarchy at last, or a Republic at first.) This Commonwealth is made up only of Jews as proprietours in the land of promise: the strangers must either departed, or become Proselytes of habitation, [Proselyti domicilii.] and resign themselves up to an obedience unto seven precepts given to the sons of Noah; they must live without propriety of land, without any capacity of national employment civil or military, or share in the legislative power; yea they must also be under different laws and penalties under Judges to be chosen by themselves (or imposed upon them) out of their own number, or from amongst the Jews: Or if they would become proselytes of justice, [proselyti justitiae,] And submit themselves wholly unto the law of Moses, they did not gain thereby a complete suffrage in the Congregation of Israel, they were capable of no public command or trust, (as of the Aqueducts) limited in their marriages, retained a character of their being only Devisors, (hence Paul said he was an Hebrew of Hebrews, Philip. 3.5,) and however they gained the appellation of Jews, yet were they not citizens in Aristotle's judgement, who thinks a principal effect of such a condition to be a participation of the magistratical and judiciary power, but strangers in the Gates.  
It is evident from hence that a Commonwealth need not at first take in all that come forth with them out of Egypt, as it were much less those that they should take in the Canaanites that fought against them. An example hereof is God himself in his immediate Legislation.  
It is evident that such a Commonwealth is to be termed a Commonwealth, and an equal one, otherwise Israel (with the division specified) was none, or else at least it is not only just but prudential (for God perfectly owns both those attributes) to establish an unequal one; unequal according to the several orders of men, equal according to one, the Israelite.  
Nor indeed was Israel only such a Commonwealth but Sparta, and Venice, and Rome after her growth and grandeur. Of the last it is observable, that the overthrow thereof was in part caused by the Old citizens becoming idle, effeminate, debauched, not educated in the principles of a Republic, but entangled in Rhetorical flourishes, besides their disproportioned conditions as to Estates: and partly, by the additional of New citizens, such as were dependants upon Monarchies, educated under them, or enured to a different Republic from the Roman constitution (now it is natural for a man to subvert, or timorously to defend what he thinks not good) thus Julius Caesar made the Gauls citizens of Rome and Senators, [Sueton. l. 1. c. 76.] not that he thought the Orders would restrain them, but that they would (retaining their inclinations) overthrew the Orders. To make Ordes to secure by it a Minority in a broken and differently-factions nation, is all one as if one should presume to say to a distressed Paralytic (in whom they are only so many remaining spirits as to continue life, not give motion) arise up and walk, showing him or prescribing withal how he should go. I do verily think it would not be more Blasphemous for any to speak so to the infirm, the a tempting of God in our preservation to rely upon Orders in a Commonwealth that by the several interests, animosities, educations, and conditions of men is as broken as Rome in its declination. 
In Israel the Jews do tell us that they never forced any to be prosclytes; yea if any did turn prosclyte of justice (and such had a vote in the great Congregation) out of fear or any secular advantage, they were admitted to a profession of the religion, but not to emoluments accrueing thereupon: thus, say they, in the days of King David and Solomon, when Israel flourished above other nations, none were admitted to complete proselytisme, lest the apprehensions of temporal benefies might prevail with multitudes to come in, and so the Assembly be swayed by the Proselytes, notwithstanding the Orders and concurrence of the multitude of Israelites in whom was solely the executive part of Magistracy and more.  Furthermore if Rome, and Israel by accessionall proselytes, and Venice might grow up to such an inequality as to be an Aristocracy in comparison of some parties, or provinces: why may not a Commonwealth at first be so erected? Since Oceana is the first complexive Republic, we have not only the establishment, but flourishing estate, continuance, and Security of all Republics almost for to encourage us. And in a diffused Republic at first, if the Government of one Moses, Lycurgus, or ●imoleon ruling purely for the good of the people, and with intentions to enstate them in a perfect freedom, doth not create a Tyranny, why should otherwise a coordinate Senate made up of many Solons, Lycurgus', and Thrasybulus' be termed an Oligarchy, when acting only for the same ends? I cannot but declare my judgement for the promoting of Mr. Harrington's model (in the praises whereof I would enlarge, did I not think myself too inconsiderable to add any thing to those applauds which the understanding part of the World must bestow upon him, and which, though Eloquence itself should turn Panegyrist, he not only merits but transcends) yet as limited to the good people which have adhered to the Good old cause, and I suppose the Commonwealth of Israel may herein, as in other causes, become our pattern. But if we must stretch the cords farther, I see no security but in some influencing Senate, who may so long continue as the necessity of the nation shall require it: for to determine them a time of durance, and not to be able to determine a period to what is the cause of their durance, is not only presumptuous, but it carries with it this further inconvenience, that the maligners of a Commonwealth will know how long to cherish their hopes for an aftergame, (and so will not comply) whereas by this indeterminate constitution of theirs they will be forced to abandon such thoughts, since there will be stateholders' whilst they shall not cease to give occasion for their continuance. How fare this Coordinate Senate may proceed, how it may not degenerate into an Oligarchy, they which proposed it will doubtless find out: I think the example of the Decemviri hath nothing in it to their prejudice: and it is so fare from being likely, that I think it impossible for any number of our patriots to erect an Oligarchy by such a Senate, for which I have greater motives than the confidence of their Goodness, (which yet I have an extraordinary belief of.)  
That other exception made by some against entrusting an equal Commonwealth (in the sense vulgarly urged) is, that such is the posture of this nation at present, that if they be universally enstated in a perfect Liberty, they will invade Liberty of Conscience. That they may do it, notwithstanding established Orders, is, I think, clear from what I have already said, in case it should be their will and intent. That there is just cause to fear they will do it, may appear from these, as well as other considerations. They who are for a free Toleration are the less numerons, beyond all proportion, and their advantage is that they are possessed with the Militia of the nation, and under good commanders, resolute in themselves, and assisted with prudent counsellors: On the other side they which would overthrow Toleration are the more numerous, greater-landed men (so that possibly it may be found that in the balance of land they possess five parts of seven, or the like) the expensiveness of their ways renders many as traders or dependants obnoxious to them: if you arm them they will soon take courage, and renew their interest in their dependants (which never sinks but with their estates, though it may be broken through defect of power, which will be taken away by the Equality instituted and what such dependants may do, you may see in the Commonwealth of Ephesus in the tumult of Alexander the Coppersmith) especially having these encouragements, that however it be impossible for the Episcoparians and Presbyterians to prosper and continue together, yet may they rise together (as did Presbytery and Independency) and both have hopes of cheating each other into an uniformity, or out of the profits accrueing from a destroyed-Sectarian-Toleration: the difficulties whereof at long-running are not so great, but the quick wit and sight of the one party, and the shortsightedness of the other may justify any seeming compliance by an event not much more uncertain (considering withal the temper of our nation) than it is certain that the glory and pride, which depends upon a religious-Soveraignty, will be overthrown by the abettors of a free Toleration. Their joint grounds of confidence are a Ministry totally disaffected from such courses, and ready to make Opposition to be the Cause of God, and possesse-weak spirits with the hopes of prospering here and assurance of Salvation hereafter: 
I have read it somewhere how the principal thing which kept the Spaniard from securing Portugal at first, when he had it in possession, was the Ministry or Epiests there: at the conclu●on of each mass they used to desire the people to say one Ave Mary for to ●e delivered from the Castiltan; whereby the old animosities were still upheld. And now, since the Pope refuses to confirm the Portugal clergy, whereby vacan● advantageous places are unsupplyed, they are inclined to the Spaniard again, and dispose the people to a revolt, and so are mainly Authors of the present danger of their Country.  what influence these aprehensions may have upon the minds of men we both have, and do experience: nor would I have any think the repute of the Ministry so decayed, as that they are contemptible, or that they ever will be whilst there is so great a number to be served by their continuance, and yet gain by their being humbled. Having all these spokesmen scattered over the land, they have the Universities in their hands, from whence they are Masters of all the education of the youth in the nation: so that their party is strengthened with a succession of persons resolute & knowing in their way, and in esteem with the people, with whom to have been at the University and to be a Scholar, a wiseman, etc. it is all one: besides the dependences which the gift of fellowships and other places of emolument doth procure them: besides, they do not only strengthen themselves, by their hold in the Universities, but they are thereby in a condition to weaken the Good people of this land; for if they send their sons and relations to the University, they are there partly by advice (the Tutors being universally disaffected, or such as will not concern themselves on any side, looking upon all with indifferency) and partly by example either principled to overthrow the Good old cause, or rendered indifferent towards it, whereby the present Patriots are in all likelihood so straitened, that through want of Successors the adherents to them are populus virorum, or men in whose lives the Commonwealth is bound up, and in reference to the mercy's God hath effected for us and by us, in which he seems audibly to tell us, I am your shield, and your exceeding great reward; we on the other side, as Abraham, may reply, Lord God, what wilt thou give us, seeing we go childless? This is such a truth as those faithful ones, who have sent their children to Oxon. have experienced to their sorrow. Things being in this posture, I leave any to judge whether the Honest-party ought to put themselves upon the mercy of the generality of this nation upon Soule-regards: in Holland at the Synod of Dort Episcopal and Presbyterial Divines agreed to condemn the Arminians, yet spared one another, though a good consequence-spinner might fasten as many absurdities and blasphemies upon the opinion of some that were Judges, as upon theirs who were sentenced: and since amongst us at present both parties condemn (but the Episcoparians with a greater tenderness and compassion) at least the one would exterminate, and the other convince, that so he may destroy the survivor. If David did trust the Assembly of Israel with a religious debate; it was of no moment in comparison of our concerns: The people never used to consult at the mercy seat, but the King, and under Saul they were not idolaters, but there being no emergencies, or Saul, fearing an Oracle unsuitable to his aims, did not consult it: the Ark therefore remained in obscurity: now David he asks the Assembly, not whether he should worship another God, or entertain some new religion, or religious opinion, but whether (retaining the same worship or religion they had) he should bring again the Ark of God? and is it any wonder, if a people sensible of the calamitous reign of Saul, and assured, that if the Ark were present and consulted, all such disasters would be prevented, did assent in such circumstances? Ought we to trust the people with a decision of religious matters of a different nature, such as not only transcend their, but all humane comprehension?  
I shall here conclude a Preface, which I am sensible how long it is, but that I think it incumbent upon me to take notice of a book lately published by Mr. Richard Baxter, entitled an Holy Commonwealth. I must profess unto the world that Mr. Baxter first occasioned my assuming a pen at this time: under the Government of the late— he published a book pretendedly against the Papists, but indeed the bitterest Satire that ever I think was penned against the Good people, the fault of this land: there it was that he transcribed Aulicus, and the Grub-street pamphlets to frame a Legend for the Catholics of Kederminster. Hereupon my heart burned within me, and I wrote a letter during that upstart Protectourship in defence of the honest men, partly whom he had aspersed; partly to undeceive the World; that the man who wrote so many books, who so superciliously condemned the ignorance of others, who so dogmatically sensed it, and who was so favoured at Court and famed for learning, was no Scholar at all, not skilled in Latin, Greek or Hebrew, not versed in Ecclesiastical history, or philosophy, etc. But a mere Glow-worm in literature, who borrowed his lustre from the darkness of the night, and ignorance of them he converses with; partly also I was engaged out of a sense of the truches and apprehension of those favours I had received from Sr. H. Vane, to vindicate his repute from the calumnies of this Whiffler in Theology: having finished that letter, and dispatched it away, April. 20. th'. 1659. It pleased God by unexpected means, and a still wind, to work cut Salvation to his people that waited for it, at what time I considering what it was that the Ministers and other adversaries did principally clamour at, though Mr. Baxter had produced nothing of reason but a railing accusation, to set down my thoughts about a Free Toleration, and the Magistrates power in spiritual matters: and that so, as to decline all impertinent or remote discourses. It pleased God that at the same time Mr. Baxter and myself should be occupied in a different way, and I look upon it as an extraordinary providence that God should so dispose my writing as it might entirely cross and destroy his. The study of Politics hath not been more my employment than his, nor do I pretend to be versed therein, and so I think myself to be one of those he intended his book for, as he tells us; Upon the whole, I must pronounce it, that since printing was used, I think there was never such a bundle of nonsense published: if he had not given it so specious a Title, I should have styled it the Commonwealth of— One would imagine he had forgot who ruled in White Hall, to whom he addressed his books, and for whom he pleaded, when he blames Mr. Harrington's model, because thereby my Lord Ale-seller may be Custos rotulorum. Certainly Mr. Baxter forgets O.P. And he is not now at all in his mind, whom elsewhere he styles of famous memory. I will not meddle much with particulars therein, because I find there too long a discourse to be managed in a preliminary, I reserve it, or remit it to others for a demonstration of the charge of ignorance which I fasten on him: and for the opinions he charges sometimes with blasphemy, he cannot be unacquainted with what imputations of that nature may and have been affixed to his darling fancies: nor is it a part of the Method of charity which Davenant proposeth to the reformed Churches, that blasphemy and detestable names of heresy be imposed upon men for remote consequences: it is expressly censured by him. His whole work may be counted good, As he was counted clean under the law, who was overspread with Leprosy. If a Leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the Leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague, from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the Priest looketh: then the priest shall consider: and beheld, if the Leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague, it is all turned white, he is clean. Levit. 13. v. 12, 13. And thus I dismiss him at present, only wishing him that since he hath never yet been an University-man (or not long) that he would come and spend some time here, not only for his proficiency in his studies, but that he may practically see the inconveniences and absurdities of his politics by the Government of his reverend friends the Visitors of Oxon. and Canons of Christ's Church. If Mr. Baxter think it below him to go to School again at this age, and after such Eulogies bestowed upon him of the learned, Eagle-eyed and judicious, though Cato in his old age did learn a language which I have demonstrated elsewhere Mr. Baxter to have need of: he would do well to repair to Geneva, not only to inform himself that such consequences as he imagines are not to follow from several positions in this Book, are not the conclusions of a rational disputant, but an Hypochondriack, or one who only manageth disputes at Kedermenster, being himself Respondent, Opponent, and Moderator: but also to persuade them out of their Democracy, and the illegality of making, instead of presenting Magistrates: besides he may inform them that since the Lord Ale-seller is absurd, 

The Romans fetched Cincinna●us from the plough to be Dictator.  
That this is the practice of Geneva, I have been to d● by an Honourable eye witness.   the Magistrates ought not in their applications to the people at their entry upon and going out of their Offices, to call the Multitude of several pettit tradesmen, My Lords, nor stand bare before them: he may desire them to remark it in their notes that God mistook himself when he said Deut. 17.15. Thou shalt make him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose. For it is God that makes Kings, it is he that conferrs the power, and, if any thing, the presentation or choice is in the people. 
Holy Comm. p. 225.  He would do well however to write a Monitory to them, That their Government is such as Heathens have been their Examples in. As if the Heathens had done nothing that were imitable: or Jethro were not of Moses council. The Scripture doth not allow such reasonings, which makes use of the examples of the Heathen to condemn the Jews and Christians by. It was an Omission in the Apostles to give the Church the name of a popular Assembly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and also not to tell the Republics of Ephesus, Athens, etc. That they sinned in the Exercise of a power that was not vested in them, 
Pref. to the H. Com.  it was not lawful for them to be a Democracy, each confiscation was robbery in them, and every act of judicature and usurpation: they should have told them, and the people of Rome, that there was no Real Majesty in the People, and made use of those arguments which are now published (yet I think not as an extraordinary discovery of latter ages) to undeceive them in that point. 
Holy Comm. p. 63.  Though Mas●er Baxter confess p. 78. Thes. 67. The reason why God did not universally by his law tie all the World to one form of Government, is, because the difference of persons, times, places, neighbour's, &c, may make one form best to one people, and at one time and place, that is worst to another. Monarchy is best for some, Aristocracy to others, and Democracy to others. Can that be best for any, which is never lawful? Or can that be bad which hath God's approbation, as here Master Baxter grants it to have in some cases? I see we need only dispute the circumstances we are in (and that hath been excellently done by Master Harrington, The Letter from an Officer in Iroland, and two letters to L. Gen. Fleetwood) to evince a Democracy, and Master Baxtor did fallaciously dispute in general against it by twenty impertinent objections, 
Holy Comm. p. 89, etc.  proving Democracy to be ordinarily the worst in thosi, which is only so in hypothesi, some circumstances. But this was not the only neglect in the Apostles, they should have told those Republics, that they did but delude themselves, 
Pref. to H. Comm.  and indeed were no Republics: for That the people should (ordinarily) exercise the Sovereignty is a monstrous confusion, and Morally impossible. Oh! for Master baxter's considering cap! had the Apostles said so, the people would have thought stranger of their policy, than God's; and Paul would justly have been termed a Babbler. They needed but have opened their eyes and seen what Master Baxter thinks morally impossible, and what he guesses to be monstrous confusion, to be the greatest Order imaginable. I should tell the world how fare Master Baxter enlargeth the number of Romances: Thus Rome, Athens, yea Israel, etc. become mere fictions: and Geneva, Holland, Swisser land, etc. Remove into Utopia and New atlant. All this is as Morally certain upon what Mr. Baxter lays down, as it is certain that he contradicts himself. p. 87. Thes. 78. Democracy is a Commonwealth where the Sovereign power is in all, or the major vote of the people to be exercised for the common good and to Some popular forms [are there any popular forms that do not?] admit all the multitude to vote in Government without distinction. He told us before [yet the prefate too is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that the Sovereign power is not in all; then is Democracy a vice or defect in Government, not a species thereof, or Commonwealth: and Ochlocracy is like mettle upon mettle in Heraldry, Vice upon vice, or the degeneration of a corruption. It may be that Mr. Baxter doth speak some way or other de facto, as it is clear that he admits de facto Some popular forms to be made up of the whole multitude, which yet was Morally impossible. Surely he learned these concessions from Sancho in Don Quixote, who tells his Master, it may be so, but it is impossible: or doth not the Manchegall divine outdo the Squire, for Mr. Baxter saith it is so, and yet it is morally impossible. I should too much presume upon my Reader to think he would credit Master Baxter before the experience of several ages, or imagine that this Clerk could perceive twenty difficulties, which not only Bycurgus, Solon and Dion, but Moses and Calvim did not apprehend; yet neither shall I altogether pass by the Reasons which were designed to establish the blood of the Cromwel's, and extirpate a Commonwealth. Thes. 81. Democracy or Popular Government is ordinarily the worst, because it comes nearest to the utter confounding of the Governors and Governed: the ranks that God hath separated by his Institution. I confess Monarchy doth confound the governed only, and yet it is never the better for that. Such a difficulty as this might have been easily discovered by Moses, or he advised of it by God, when he erected his Democracy: yet is there any thing more orderly than that? Any thing more remote from confounding Governors and Governed? did his political Constitution destroy the fifth Commandment in his Moral Law? It is false that God hath [absolutely] instituted some to be Rulers, a●● some to be Subjects; yet them that are Rulers, and them that are Subjects, both their conditions are of God, and the latter aught to obey the former, since the powers that are are of God, yet hath not God by his institution separated the ranks of men, but by his providence; how otherwise can a Democracy be from God's approbation, (p. 78. Thes. 67.) and yet in this Confusion of Orders? Whereas he says that the founding of a Commonwealth is next to the nullifying of Government, and therefore it is said four times over in the Judges, chap. 17. v. 6. chap. 18. v. 1. chap. 19 v. 1. chap. 21. v. 25. That [in those days there was no King in Israel:] and twice it is added [but every man did what is right in his own eyes] as if there had been no Government at all. There is no such insinuation in the Text at all, nor is the Defect of a King in Israel more true where it is expressed, then where it is not, throughout the Book of Judges. What if it had been said in the days of Joshuah, there was no King in Israel? Or in the days of Gideon, when the people desired him to be King over them? Judg. 8.22, 23. The men of Israel said unto Gideon, rule thou over us, both thou and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian. And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you. Those dull Israelites were not sensible of the confusion which they did live in: nor did Gideon perceive it: They did offer him the Kingdom, because he had delivered them out of the hands of the Midianites: the inducement is Gratitude, and none of Mr. Baxters' difficulties: He refuseth the Kingdom, because that in those days when there should be no King in Israel, and every man should do what was right in his own eyes, than the Lord should rule over them. This very passage, together with that of God to Samuel in the like circumstances, 1 Sam. 8.7. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. These places are a sufficient confutation of what Master Baxter adds to the Text. But let any judge if it be more for the dispraise of a Republic, that (without any further addition) it is said, in those days there was no King in Israel: then to Monarchy after, that in those days reigned King David? or in those days there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes: and afterwards, there ruled Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin. Another of Master Baxters arguments is, p. 90. Thes. 82. Nothing more incident to corrupted nature than self-love to blind men, and every man to be partial in his own cause: now it is the people that are to be governed, judged, punished, etc. and therefore how likely are they by partiality to themselves, to make the Government next to none? I answer that Mr. Baxter, p. 102. Thes. 99 objecteth against a Democracy, that it is the worst, because it will exercise the greatest cruelties; which though it be false, yet is a charge inconsistent with that of partiality. Secondly, this objection is either ill framed, or it is destructive to all Government, for in all Governments some must be Judges in their own Case, and this Exception is nonsense. The Question is, whether seeing Arbitrary power, or a power to judge in ones own case must reside somewhere, where then is it best fixed? I suppose in the people; and that it is as impossible for a Democracy to be partial, as for one upon a hundred Dice to cast as many, or fifty one aces, which is a security infinitely greater than what Mr. baxter's one Die will afford us. And this is security enough against what Mr. Baxter urges p. 93. That the Laws cannot hold a Democracy from abrogating Christianity. I answer, no, not if they will: but if it be once prevalent, you have a pretty good security [a moral Impossibility] that it should ever be exterminated. What may happen under a Monarchy the narrations of Japan, besides the actings of Jeroboam, Nabuchadnezzar and others will testify: but it is evident that no Commonwealth permits the Inquisition, and Christianity was much more easily planted in Commonwealths (for the Jews after the Captivity, however they had the name of Kings sometimes among them, were a kind of one, or an Aristocracy, as Josephus tells us:) and when but a few made up all Christendom, with how much difficulty was our Saviour put to death. Whereas Mr Baxter saith further, p. 93, 94. that he is a Fungus, and not a man, that knoweth not by experience how easily bad men can make good Laws to be a nose of Wax. This saying doth not become a Divine, who disavow it in the Scripture, which being a law without an Authentical public interpreter, is avowed to lie under no such inconveniences. In a Republic, where there is an appeal to the people, it is Morally impossible it should be so: we ought not to think it so easy to delude a multitude, as a few: nor ought we to vouch the experience of corrupt Officers under a Monarchy (for other experience no man in England of his own knowledge can allege) to the like issues under a Republic, where these and all other difficulties are prevented: neither can the maleconstitution of Rome, whence proceeded all its defaults, prejudice Mr. Harrington's Oceana, where all are remedied: and this is a sufficient reply to all those arguments from inconveniencies which Mr. Baxter brings, they being all Ignoratio elenchi. But who would not laugh at the following Sophisms in the Kederminster disputant, such as I have scarce heard from freshmen here. p. 95. Thes. 88 Democracy is furthest from Unity, and therefore furthest from perfection: and therefore the most imperfect sort of Government, O Malvezzi, how hast thou exploded this argument in thy discourses upon Tacitus? as if it were an unity of persons, and not unanimity which made a Government perfect. That unity is the companion of perfection, and division departeth from it as it doth from unity, is commonly acknowledged; which caused the Pythagoreans to curse the number of [Two] because it was the first that presumed to departed from unity. Is not this a fine argument for a Theologue? Doth not it overthrow the Trinity, as well as a Commonwealth? Was it not a simplicity in the Pythagoreans (if they were so absurd as Mr. Baxter makes them; which they were not: but he understands neither them nor Greek) to attribute Presumption to things destitute of understanding, and to curse Arithmetic, because a man might mis-tell his Money or the like. This is a sallacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They who cursed two would not have admitted three to bear witness in Heaven: and if two were such an execrable division, how is it that God having made one man, did not think it meet he should be alone? Thes. 8.9. ' That is the most imperfect Government which departeth farthest from the divine universal Form, but so doth popular Government. For the universal kingdom hath but one King. This is a pretty Topick, and such as Bellarmine and the Papists make use of to prove that there ought to be one Pope, head of the Church. Let the world judge whose cause Mr. Baxter pleads, and what contumelies might be fastened on him. It is not the Unity of a Governor in person that makes a Commonwealth resemble God; for Aristotle (and he is of more credit than Pythagoras) saith, that to be ruled by Laws is to be ruled by God: but to be ruled by a Man is to be ruled by a Bruit. But further there is as little consequence in the Argument, as distance betwixt Heaven and Earth. Where there is a disparity in the ruled, there must be no parity of rulers: but in Mankind there is no disparity, all are equally free, none are born Subjects or Rulers: and to make a Monarchy best, you must introduce such a disparity, as that one may transcend as God; for if many excel an Aristocracy or Democracy is best. His other arguments from Angelical Natures, and the government used by nature in man are no less ridiculous: I wonder how he miss that of Crows, Bees, etc. That Government is best which is most suited to the nature of man: now that varies according to circumstances, as Mr. Baxter acknowledges: How ignorantly done was it then by Mr. Baxter to bring such arguments, as either prove Monarchy alwaves best, or not at all: for it will still be true, that the Universal kingdom hath but one King, without the danger of succession for a worse, and without hazard of tumults, etc. but it is not so in Mankind. These Objections and the like, concern not only the Independents to answer, but Presbyterians; for they prove against an Aristocracy in Church as well as State: though Mr. Baxter cannot prove that the Government of the Church was, or aught to be Monarchical, but popular, and if it had only been for the name sake, he should have declined the mention of the Church, which is Ecclesia: and what nonsense is it for him to argue, p. 97. As Christ himself is the Monarch, a King of his Church, and the One head of his body, so did he settle in every particular Church those Bishops, Presbyters or Pastors, whom he hath commanded the people to obey as Ru●ers. The comparison is nought as Christ is the one head to one body; so he hath subjected the people too in his Church to many heads. I desire that Mr. Baxter would evince, that Christ did settle, in every particular Church, Bishops: and that the Order of Grace did so fare overthrow the Order of Nature, that the people should be the origine of the one power (as I do now suppose) and not of the other. Sure I am, that Ambassadors to a people are not thereby rulers over a people. His arguments from the want of Secrecy, etc. have been refuted by the contrary experience, as well of reason in Malvezzi, Boccalini, and others; so that I may well think that Mr. Baxter took us for a Commonwealth of Bees, and therefore instead of solid Reasonings, and a coherent Republic, he thought to dissipate us by casting dust into the Air. I intended to have said more against that Book of his, but finding myself now under a more necessary diversion than that work would be, I hope I may be excused till another time.   

Whether the Civil Magistrate hath any power in things of Spiritual concernment?  
THough it seem that this Question may be easily decided out of a consideration of the very Terms themselves; things Civil and Spiritual being of a different nature, and not subordinate, so as he who is deputed to administer the former, is not thereby impowered to intermeddle with the latter any way: the Appellation of Civil Magistrate no less determines the Object and extent of his power, than the contrary Title of Spiritual Lord would restrain him that should be so constituted from any jurisdiction in Temporals: or a Commission for N. N. to be Admiral at Sea, limits his command, so as he hath no rule upon Land. But since the Implication of the Terms is not convincing enough with them who are either resolved, or interested otherwise: I shall make a brief inquiry into the rise and original of Magistracy, and the limitation of such power.  
Magistracy it is the exercise of a Moral power: one of these is the root and measure of the other, which if it exceed it becomes exorbitant, and is no longer Magistracy, but a corruption thereof.  
Almighty God hath so ordered the affairs of this world, that Man partly through his own inclinations, partly out of a sense of his necessities not otherwise relieveable then by mutual assistance, is become naturally Sociable: and Society (as man is corrupted by Adam's fall) cannot be upheld and preserved but by the deputation of some that may make it their principal business to attend unto the good of the community, and securing of each individual in such rights as they respectively shall agree upon towards each other; and for the executing of which trust they do mutually promise amongst themselves and to their Governor or Governors that they will be assistant unto him or them with their utmost power.  
From God's having so disposed of things Magistracy is called God's ordinance [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] And the Conscience hereof [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] or apprehension that man hath of such sociable inclinations in him, as often as he diligently consults his own thoughts, is the reason of our subjection to Magistracy, as well as that other of wrath and dangers likely to ensue, upon any disobedience. Rom. 13. v. 2.5.  
As to the several kinds of Magistracy [no● Higher and Subordinate, but Supreme, viz. Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy] they likewise are commonly God's ordinance by the former claim of his disposing men's hearts and other extrinsque and internal circumstances, so as they embrace this or that form. That the East is generally affected to and ruled by an absolute Monarchy whilst the West and North admit only of a Republic or such a mixture, as however their Governors may be called Kings, yet are they not Monarches. Sometimes God more immediately constituteth this or that particular form of Government; as first a Commonwealth in Israel, and after that (●s his wrath) a Monarchy. God hath no where in his word determined what is the power of the Magistrate how far it extends itself: what will be the practice of Kings [and so certainly their practice, that they challenge it for their right] we may read 1 Sam. 8. v. 11. etc. But their Duty may equitably be drawn from Deuter. 17.19. He whom God should choose, and the people set over them, was to rule according to Nationall Laws; now Laws cannot be universal, but must be through the prudence of the Legislator accommodated to the particular circumstances in which any people is.  
Where the word of a King is there is power: and who may say unto him what dost thou? These and such like Texts oblige not but such as are under Monarches: The justitia of Arragon may, notwithstanding them, resist the King of Spain and our Parliaments control his Majesty.  
The People are the Efficient cause of Magistracy, and from them is all true power derived: God himself when he gave a King to Israel, he did but propose, the People did set him over them. Magistracy is not a paternal right, nor consequent thereof either in Scripture, or Nature. But suppose Adam Monarch of the whole Earth, and that Monarchy was instituted when yet there were but two in the world. Gen. 3.16. where God tells the woman that her Husband should rule over her. I would feign know whither Adam had this Dominion as Father, (which is not proved from the text) or as being the first man created in a world devoid of Landlords, and so falling to the first that should possess it. If the latter (to wave that question so much debated, whither in New found Lands more accrue to the first comer and discoverer than he takes Seisin of?) Then we ought to employ Sr. Tho. urchard, to search out one universal Monarch Successor to Adam, or it must be proved that our present division of Lands and Kingdoms under Magistrates is of his approbation. But both Adam's Successor, and his will are impossible to be found out; and so that rearch is at an end. If he had that Dominion as Father, than all Fathers have the like power, so Adam's Monarchy determines with his life, and all Magistracy will be at least resolved into the People, when many Families and Fatherless Persons unite into one estate. If he had that Dominion as the first Father from whose Loins all mankind issued, I would feign know to whom he did bequeath that power? Wither it did Naturally descend to his Eldest Son? or might be conferred or communicated to other his Children arbitrarily? But the right of primogeniture cannot be evinced out of Scripture, whilst the stories of Esau, Reuben, Manasseth, David Succeeding to the prejudice of saul's Sons, Adonijahs being displaced by Solomon, Je●oahas the son Josiah his preceding his Elder Brother Jehoiakin in the succession, as the Jews note, and out of them Mr. Selden, are preserved: nor can it be deduced from the customs of Nations (the only interpreter of Nature) which vary in that point: and if the claim of the firstborn doth not conclude necessarily, (as it doth not, neither in ancient or modern Practice) the pretences of other Children are less valid. 
Aristotle saith that succession in Kings by way of primogeniture, was the custom of Barbarians: & that in the time of the Heroes men did rule otherwise. Polit. l. 3.  If all might be conferred or imparted arbitrarily, let such Grantees produce their title from Seths pillars, or elsewhere, and we shall consider their plea. In the mean while since neither the descendants of Cain, nor any other appear to challenge any such rights as mercenary divines and Lawyers have ascribed to Kings (for no King or Magistrate, I ever read of, avowed such his right, nor was it thought on either at the founding of the Commonwealth of Israel, or the Election of Saul, etc.) I cannot find any Magistracy in the world but what is derived from the People more or less consenting and impowering thereunto. And thus if one Apostle call Magistracy the ordinance of God (for of that he speaks abstractively) Rom. 13. v. 2. Yet Magistrates (or Magistracy in the concrete) are of humane constitution, and the creatures of men. 1 Pet. 2. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Be thou subject unto every humane creature [or creature of man; for so the word signify, and not Ordinance, no more then Marc. 16.15. preach to every creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King etc.  
To the making a Creature it is necessary that its production be out of nothing, or at least out of no matter predisposed for such a form, (thus Adam was created) and this is the Physical sense of the word: In a Moral sense then to the Creation of a Magistrate it is to be supposed that he neither is already vested with such a power, nor in such a capacity as without the accessional of man's creation to grow up thereunto. And indeed if all men are equal before they embody by cohabitation, the voisinage gives no man superiority over another.  
There are some which fancy that Power is indeed from the People only as Electing to it; not as conferring it: that they have only the presentation to that authority which God immediately gives. This opinion seems to enterfere with that Text which represents the Magistrate as a creature of man: but because in Scripture propriety of speech is not too rigorously to be insisted on, and makes the case only probable, not certain: I further say that this is but the resuery of men whose imagination rather than judgement is extraordinary, who must place the strength of their cause in Assertions that are only so far disproveable in that they cannot be proved. The People never owned such their suffrage in the most solemn elections of Saul, David, etc. nor did God declare his power to be such, though both parties did there severally interpose. It cannot be evidenced out of God's word; Nature and Reason teach us no such thing; the Relations of our King (no less than those of other Nations) hold forth the contrary: and it were absolute folly for us, upon slender probabilities and no greater evidence than a quick wit may give to the most despicable untruths, to renounce the professions and practice of all Nations in all Ages, which render our Opinion more than probable. In fine, it lays us open to all the whimsies imaginable, that any bold assertour can impose upon the Almighty in hopes of not being refuted till doomsday. The Papists will thus defend their Transubstantiation, and prove that to be really the Body and Blood of Christ, which we see to be Bread. The same persons say that in Ordination a Character is imprinted upon the soul of the Priest ordained: The English Bishops breathed upon their Creatures, saying receive the Holy Ghost. A thousand such cheats may be imposed upon the unwary, if we admit of these suppositions, and quit our sense for that which is nonsense. I would feign know, what is the Nature of the power thus invisibly collated? what is the Tenor of this celestial charter? Is it arbitrary? or Limited? If Limited how far? These things are necessary for the people to know, that they may not transgress what they are as yet invincibly ignorant of. This is a course which renders all King's Absolute, yea and all inferior Magistrates too, for the text distinguishes not of the one's being more from God than the other: and it makes the People's misfortunes infinite, and irrelievable, since they are subjected to one upon they know not what terms, by one to whom they can make no appeal but by Prayers and Tears. This plea doth unsettle all the Governments in the civilised world, making all Concessions' null (or at least in their origine unlawful) that were extorted from tyrants, or granted by such Magistrates as are not satisfied with that plenitude of power which God invests them with, whether they can diminish it: what we say now is their duty will be but an Act of grace, and all our rights will be changed into privileges.  
It is then clear that the People are the Efficient cause of Magistracy, and that all true power is derived from them. Who those People are, I must refer you for brevity sake, to a consideration of the Erection of the Commonwealth in Israel.  
There is no Government now but hath its original from the consent of some people: which people if they were before ligued with any other number besides themselves, are tied by their mutual promises and compacts to them and their common Magistrate, so as not to erect any new one in opposition to him; unless there be a violation of fundamental agreements, and all satisfaction for what is past, together with real security for the future be denied, or to be despaired of. If the Magistrate alone injure them, they may with the common (or, in case that cannot be had through the circumstances of affairs, which is the default of the Governors, not governed with an interpretative) Consent call him to an account. If the others dissent and defend him, then are they free from all precedent obligations not only towards their Magistrate, but one another: Since in conditional pacts, if the one party fail, the other is at liberty.  
If their quondam Magistrate with his partisans invade them, then are they free to defend themselves, or prevent such dangers as are threatened any way from him, or them; yea and so to manage their own safety (which is the only cause of a just war, and the End of Government in general) that they may at Length totally subdue and subject them.  
To all that are by conquest thus subjected the new erected Magistrate of the conquering people is not properly a Magistrate, but a provincial Governor: And if they gave just cause of fear to the conquerors at first, their Conquest is just; if otherwise, than not: And so long their subjecting is legitimate, whilst that security is gained which the conquerors designed in the beginning, and expect as the product of war.  
This Magistrate hath no absolute power over the conquered, but such as is derived from them, in whose strength and for whose safety he doth act: and to them he is accountable for such his demeanour as is not founded upon the Rule of Self-preservation.  
As in the Commonwealth of Israel, when they were to choose a King, that King was obliged to have a book of the fundamental laws written in his own hand, and to read herein all the days of his life, that he might observe the said statutes and do them, that so his heart might not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he should not turn from the commandment to the right hand, or to the left. Deut. 17. v. 18.20. So it behoves such a people as empowers any for Magistracy, upon several cases to make them recognise their Authority, from whom they have it, and for whose sake it is that they rule, not only over them, but over new accquests: they ought also to be very cautious of mixing their government with that of the provincials, and such as do not close with them in their original Constitutions of their Magistrate; for their proper interest may be eaten out, and their Magistrate become established upon the base of such articles as the conquered will assent unto for the bettering of their present condition, no less than ruin of their conquerors. Several Kingdoms in Spain having permitted their Kings by marriage to unite different Kingdoms, retaining different loves, and qualified with discrepant principles of Government, have now lost their privileges and fundamental rights, each contributing to the others overthrow by the subtle counsels of their Magistrate.  
If the People Are the Authors of Magistracy, and he their creature; Then it will follow, that He is erected and established for the compassing of their good: and that this is the End for which he was set up. For since man in his actings is supposed to act voluntarily, and the object of his will is some good either real, or apparently so; it must likewise be supposed that in the constituting of Magistracy all did aim at something that might be an universal good: it being not imagined how all should conspire for the procuring of any good of a particular man, or number of men, to their own detriment and disadvantage: self-love is not only the dictate of Nature, but recommended by our Saviour as the rule and measure of such love as we are to bear towards our neighbour.  
The Ends of Nations in the erecting several fabrics of Government, are as different as they themselves: there being no thing universally good, or universally approved of: And as their intendments are discrepant, so they disagree in the ways for attaining their purposes: which variety arises from the various prejudices and capacities they are born and educated to in different climates, with difference of natural tempers, difference of diet, and customs etc.  
The most obvious and universal end is the upholding society and intercourse by securing each in their property, and manage of commerce betwixt one another for mutual supply of things necessary. After that the World grew populous, and that men began to straiten in their plantations, they form several petit Governments, each Town being a principality, upon the end specified That they did not erect them for, nor empower them to determine of the word or worship of God seems manifest from Scripture; Before Enos there were Cities and communityes, for Cain built one Gen. 4. v. 17. yet the Text saith positively, after Enos was born unto Seth; Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. Gen. 4. v. 26. After that, when Abraham travailed up and down, into Egypt, the land of Gerar, etc. he erected an altar at bethel, and worshipped his God, who was not the acknowledged God of the nations amongst which he sojourned, without a plea for toleration: in sum, the whole story of the Saints under the old Testament seems to evidence this truth, that their Magistrates were purely civil, and that though they might have a Nationall religion as in Egypt, and possibly Salem, yet did they not intermeddle with the particular religion of their subjects, or them that sojourned amongst them. It was Haman's counsel to King Ahasuerus to destroy the Jews for that their laws were different from all people, neither kept they the King's laws viz. concerning Religion; [for if they had been otherwise criminal, they could not have escaped unpunished.] Esther 3. v. 8. It is the Opinion of Bellarmine in his book de Laicis, that the Heathens did grant an universal liberty in the worship of God; which assertion is for the most part true, for though they had peculiar Gods for their nations, yet privately and publicly they which worshipped a God (whosoever, or whatsoever it was) were permitted, though Diagoras and Protagoras, the one doubting of, the other denying any God, were not tolerated in Grece. But at Rome I find a law out of the twelve tables, Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos, sed nec advenas, nisi publicè adscitos privatim colunto. Let none have any particular Gods to himself, nor let any worship privately either new or foreign Gods; but upon a public reception of them. But notwithstanding this law a great latitude of religions was allowed at Rome, as History tells us; But the religion of these times consisted rather in outward ceremonies, then inward opinions about God, more than that he was, and that he was a rewarder of well or ill-doers according to their demerits: which too was in part denied by Epicurus who had a numerous company of followers in Greece and Rome. The Jews had a toleration every where amongst the Heathen, as Mr. Selden observes, yet were they not idle, but endeavoured to imbue others with their principles, and to draw them over to the law of Moses, terming such proselitos justitiae. This others, and Rutilius in his Itinerary takes notice of, wishing Jury had never been subdued, so many did they convert to their religion.  
Atque utinam nunquam Judaea victa fuisset  
Pompeii bellis, imperióque Titi.  
Latiùs excisae pestes contagia Serpunt,  
Victorésque suos ratio victa premit.  
From whence we may observe that it was the sense of Nations, that is, nature itself, 
Humani juris & naturalis potesea 'tis est unicuique quod putaverit, colere; nec alii obest, aut prodest alterius religio. Sed nec religionis ese cogere religionem, quae sponte suscipi debet non vi. Tertullian ad Scapul.  how the civil Magistrate had nothing to do in matters of Religion in those days; and whatever their laws were upon some occasions in an uncontrolled practice, they did allow of this principle: It is true there are recorded in Sacred Writ examples of Kings amongst the Jews and other Nations that did intermeddle in religious worship; which I shall a little instance in, because, if what was of old written, was written for our instruction, certainly those transactions seem registered that we might not be ignorant of the deplorable and detestable effects of an Absolute Monarchy. 
I would feign know of Mr. Wren whether these Monarches did proceed so deliberately as he imagines they must in all reason do. Monarch. assert. p. 11. and whether a thousand such like cappuches may not be instanced in out of absolute Monarchies which may show that a single person doth not put on that excellent temper and frame of spirit in enacting laws which he talks of?  One day Darius makes a Law, and establisheth a royal statute that for thirty day's none should make any request or prayer except to the King, upon penalty of being cast into the Lion's den: and in compliance with this Law [of the supreme judge of true and false religion!] Daniel is cast into the Lion's den: he being not devoured, his accusers [with their innocent wives and children!] are cast in to be devoured: then is a decree made unto all people, Nations and Languages that dwelled in all the Earth, that they fear the God of Daniel. Dan. 6. The same Daniel had not only felt, but seen before the capricios of an Absolute Monarch in Nebuchadnessor, who made a Golden Image and ordained that all people should at the sound of Music fall down and worship it, or be burned in the fiery furnace. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego regarded not him, nor served his Gods, nor worshipped the Image. But they being miraculously delivered out of the fire; then he blessed the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and makes a decree that every Nation, People and Language, which spoke any thing amiss against their God should be cut in pieces, and their houses be made a dunghill, because no other God could deliver in that sort. Dan. 3. These are inconveniences of this Arbitrary Magistrate, visible not only amongst the Gentiles but people of God, who chose a King to judge them, like all the Nations. Jeroboam made Israel to sin by an irrevocable idolatry: Manasseh ensnared High-places; Asa left the latter, and removed only the former. So did Jehohash in the time of Jehojada, he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, but the High-places were not taken away, the people still sacrificed & did burn incense thereon. In the Roman Empire Caligula no sooner ●nacted that himself should be worshipped as God, but as Philo tells us, All the world [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] all adored him, except the Jews. How things stood during Christian Kings and Emperors. I shall give some account anon: give me leave now to tell you, that I will not dispute here what power was of old attributed to Kings, nor of their absolute exemption either from Law or Punishment; nor will I enlarge upon the power they exercised in matters religious, nor debate whither they could confer rationally such a power as made their Elect Emperor possessor of more than their Enemies would take from them: I shall limit my discourse to the present posture of our affairs, and omitting what might serve for ostentation, I shall inquire into what is of particular concern to the good people of our Nation.  
I have showed how all power now is from the people as it's efficient: I have showed that the general end men aim at in the erecting Magistracy is the preserving Society: and that Magistrates are constituted for their good, and not they for the advantages of Magistrates. Whether they may give absolutely themselves up to his Will, upon their own accord, as in Tartary, or upon some contract, as the Egyptians did to Pharaoh for Victuals, I shall not at present handle: Where there is no such peremptory resignation, there the People are Supreme, the Trust is fiduciary, and limited, so as where the Magistrate hath no authority to command, if the circumstances correspond, it is no sin to disobey. Which saying, I think, will be valid amongst our Northern men, until a generation arise that shall say it is just and prudential, that those whom God hath made men should render themselves brutes; that God did ill to endow us with reason, which ought to have no further use in us, than that we quit it in its principal exercise, and only practise it in purchasing Rattles and Hobby-Horses.  
I am not now to speak of people qualified with resembling endowments, nor whose Religion is only Nature, without the Accessional of extraordinary Revelation, who having not the Law were a Law unto themselves; and not to be judged by that Light in which we walk. I come now to speak of Jacob unto whom God hath showed his word: and of Israel, to whom he hath declared his statutes and his judgements. He hath not dealt so with any Nation of those I have instanced in. We are now as it were come out of Egypt, disfranchised from the yoke of Pharaoh, delivered from a Government established upon no other right tha● Ahabs posterity might have pretended for Naboths Vineyard, their Ancestors got i● unjustly, and they had possession thereof Where a Total Conquest is made by a general subduing of the land to the will of the Victor, the claim arising thence is no better than that of an Highway man to the purse of him whom he hath rob: and whatever subjection is paid upon that account, if it be due out of a Religious, and not Civil conscience on the part of the vanquished, yet it cannot be received by the Usurper, if a Christian; he being rather to make a manifold compensation for injuries offered, than to continue them: If the Conquest be but partial, and an entrance only made by the sword: But the people either because of the Right claimed by the Invader; or their unwillingness to suffer the miseries of War; or their apparent inability to stand out in a way of Besitance, or some other consideration, submit to a composition, and contract of subjection to the Invader: in this latter it is evident, the Magistrates power is from the people's consent; and the Government is such as the contract and fundamental agreement makes it to be, if it be the first Agreement, and the Pretender hath no former Title which remains in force, for then this latter is invalid, if it include not, and amount to a relinquishing and disannulling of the old. Being vindicated to our Natural Liberty, and acquitted from all Moral subjection that might be due upon such contracts as the violation whereof on the other side had nullified on ours; 
It is the acknowledgement which one of the greatest Patrons of Monarchy doth make, that he who takes an oath unto another (as our Kings did unto the people) is thereby confessed to be the inferior. Jusiurandum ceriè reverent●am, cul●um, & bonorem prae se sert ejus cui praestatur. Quo fit ut non Clienti Dominus, sed Domino Cliens (quanquam inter virumque officiorum mutua quaedam obligatio est) sac amenti religi●ne fid●m & obsequ●um a ●stringat. Quod si rex populo jurat in leges & majorum instituta, populum cer●e s●periorem, i●o dominnm agnoscit, cui non sacienda fugien aeque praes●●bat, sed a quo sure legem accipiat. Jusiurandum enim avetoramentum est obsequii, quod ab homine tenuioris fortunae superiori de●etur. Blackvod●us Apolog. pro reg. C. 25.  it being already shown that power, all just power is derived from the assent of the people, that their safety is the end aimed at in the institution of Magistracy; and that the Magistrate hath no other, nor farther power than the people do confer upon him; I shall as briefly as I can discuss that Question.  
Whether any Magistrate erected and constituted by such as have asserted themselves into freedom, or such as may be constituted by them, can now or hereafter, be supposed to have power in spiritual Affairs and Concerns?  
For the decision hereof it is necessary you remember, that the case is not now concerning an outside Religion, as the form of God's Worship, nor concerning such a Religion, as the speculative part whereof extends no farther than the acknowledgement of an Eternal power and Godhead: the latter of which was clearly manifested unto all, so that they are without excuse; Rom. 1. v. 20. And the former, being not to be deduced from common Principles, nor having been declared by express Revelation, might vary according to the different reasons, or fancies of sundry Nations: and there being no infallible rule for to determine of the right, no worship could be censured as wrong. That which we are to seek after, is a Religion consisting in a multitude of Propositions [especially as it is now managed by some, that make the greatest noise in our age] not to be proved by natural reason and common principles, but pure Revelation, which is delivered in the Scripture, in Tongues disused, and a phrase peculiar thereunto, and for the explanation whereof Tradition is no way conducible; but only the Spirit guiding those that are not reprobate unto all knowledge. And as to the manner of the worship which we are to use towards God, the regulation thereof only depends upon universal rules, such as are, Neither in this mount, nor in Jerusalem, but in Spirit and in Truth: Let all things be done with order and decency; to the glory of God; to edification, etc. That our Magistrate should intermeddle authoritatively in such spiritual affairs, by virtue of any power derived from his creators, the People, is to me morally impossible, as well as unlawful.  
Consider the quality of persons interested in the New Government; they are not all under one dispensation, nor do they walk all in one light: But with variety of gifts, sundry divisions of the Spirit, and several Talent-distributions. Christ in the Gospel-Parable, Matth. 25. v. 14 saith, The kingdom of heaven is as a man travailing into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered them his goods; and unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to several ability, and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received five talents, went and traded with them, and made them other five talents; and likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that received one, went and digged in the earth and hid his Lord's money. This Parable is not to be understood of the Spiritual Kingdom of Heaven, in which though there be diversity of gifts, yet is there none idle; none that bury their talon in the earth for ever, until the coming of their Lord and Master. But it is understood of that Oeconomy whereby God rules the World in general, and it is that Method of Government, by which the pillars of the earth are upheld. So that however a Parable may be but an evil ground for a rational discourse, in itself; yet since the experience of all ages under the Gospel doth attest thereunto, I shall take it for an unquestionable Truth.  
That there is not only a great variety amongst the sons of men as to natural abilities, but also spiritual endowments, and that in such discr pancy as is the proportion betwixt one, two, and five talents.  
That according to these Talents, gifts and endowments men do act: that is, Men deport themselves according to the understanding [upon which necssarily doth depend the will] which they have and not according to what they have not.  
That it is not possible for them of lower gifts and abilities to attain unto the measure of those perfections which are resplendent in men of greater gifts. It is with those soul-embellishments as with the eye in seeing, the  cannot discern those things which are conspicuous enough to quicker eyes. The natural [or animal] manasses receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither CAN he know them, because they are SPIRITV ALLY discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things. 1. Cor. 2.14, 15. so it is said of the believers, whom God makes partakers of an higher dispensation, they were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Joh. 1.13.  
That God requires it not of them that they should all equally advantage themselves: but that he should gain much who hath received much. Thus in the parable aforesaid, After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them, And so he that had received five talents, came and trought other five talents, saying, Lord thou deliveredst unto me five talents, behold I have gained besides them five talents moe. His Lord said unto him, well done, thou good and faithful servant, thou hast been FAITHIULL over a few things, I will make the ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord, And he who had received two talents, and therewith gained other two, even he received the same elegy of a good and faithful servant. But he who had received only one, when he brought it without usury proportionate, is called wicked and slothful. and unprofitable Matth. 2●. v. 19 etc.  
These several sorts of men may be differenced into men of a natural, Legal and evangelical conscience, or into Carnal, Animal [or natural, as our English reads it, 1 Cor. 2.14.] and spiritual. To any of which it may be said, what hast thou that thou didst not receive? And all these are legitimate inhabitants of the earth, and have a right to possess it, and to institute goverments and Magistrates, and so to dispose of their liberty. Not the one, nor the other is to be extirpated: The earth hath he given to the children of men Ps 125. v. 16. and 1. Cor. 5. v. 9, 10. etc. I wrote unto you in an Epistle, not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters: for than must ye needs go out of the World. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a BROTHER be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat, For what have I to do to judge them that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without, God judgeth. Therefore put away from among YOUR SELVES that wicked person. For them which are without the Church of God, with them he tells the Corinthians they are not to keep a perfect society, yet are they not altogether to decline their company: not that upon this ground Christians might exterminate them; but because such a subterfuge of their company is not consistent with the ordinary posture of affairs in the World. To effect that, the Christians not the Heathens, (though fornicators, extortioners, and idolaters) must go out of the World. And the reason is added, because Christians, the most spiritual-minded and discerning Christians, even Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead, he hath nothing to do to judge them that are without. Put it any man hath associated himself unto any particular Church, submitted himself to Church-walking, such a one may be put out from amongst the brotherhood, not banished a city or nation, or imprisoned, though he be a fornicator, covetous, or idolater, etc. for such his deportment not Christianity, but the light of nature is a rule to condemn him, and the laws established by consent must punish him. These men thus differenced in qualifications having all a Right to provide for their own safety, and having been so far from prejudicing that they have assisted each other in the defence of their natural liberty, yea, and the two of meaner endowments have promised and declared to protect the third and highest degree of the Kingdom of Christ in their spiritual walkings, and faith in our Lord Jesus, can no way be supposed to forfeit their share in the constituting of our governors, or being protected by them in those ways unto which the light that enlighteneth all that come into the World in a greater or less measure, shall direct them. Men embody under Magistrates for upholding civil commerce, but they gather into Churches to maintain a spiritual communion. These all agreeing in the one-talent distribution, which leads them to civil government with punishments for such as offend against it, and to the acknowledgement of one God, that he is, that that he is a rewarder of such as diligently seek him, may set up a Magi●irate, to all ends and purposes which have a subserviency to their common good according to that general way wherein they all agree. But as to their particular sentiments arising from different illuminations, and prejudices from education, etc. in reference to them they cannot assent further than a mutual Toleration. The things agitated are of a spiritual nature, and spiritually to be discerned; so that the animal or natural man cannot receive them under any other esteem than that of Folly. 1 Cor. 2.14. what entertainment then will their proposal find with them who are fleshly-minded? John 3. v. 27. A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from Heaven, So Matth. 13. v. 11. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given. And John 6. v. 65. No man can come to me, except it were given to him of my Father. If then two parts of three cannot receive, understand, nor judge of Spiritual things; (or if they do, their judgement is of no more validity, than what men of distempered organs say about sensual objects) How is it possible for them to confer a power on their Magistrate, to countenance, promote and uphold they know not what, or what they (in their apprehensions) know to be foolishness. How can any such act be expected, or desired at their hands, since he that hath no conscience but to promote an unknown Truth, will have none to condemn a known one; They who can imagine such a collated power, must suppose such men to be most of them fools in Actions of the greatest and most public import.  
Nor is it only Morally impossible, but unlawful for men so qualifyed to empower any Man or Men unto a Magistracy to judge of Spiritual matters, and punish those who descent from him, and such as are not of his mind by death, banishment, fires, imprisonment, or incapacity for public charges. For such power cannot be collated in faith; now whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom. 14.23. It were ridiculous to think they can ever agree that should be enacted and pressed as a Savour of life unto life, which is to them hidden, and unsavoury, or a savour of death unto death. How can the practical judgement of man determine of such a thing that it ought to be done, when in its previous acts it looketh upon it under all the disobliging circumstances possible? If a man were  and another of more piercing eyes should assure him he did at a distance (which the other could not discover) perceive men, should the other aver positively that they were men which seemed to him like Trees? Nay ought he to venture his soul and eternity upon the uncertain and Fallible experiences of another.  
It is then evident that the men of one or two talents cannot consent to the collation of such a power to their Magistrate, or if they did, it were null, and to be recalled as being sinful in the first grant. It is no less clear, that Men of greater illuminations cannot empower any Magistrate unto such an end. For to commit such a Trust unto a man whose breath is in his nostrils, whose Election is not in their vote, (they being the little flock and a minority) and whose heart is deceitful above all things, and not to be known by them, whither he either be really what he pretends, or whether he will continue so, is to put either their life and fortunes, or their religion to such an hazard, as is inconsistent with prudence and common reason. It is to put all to man's day, which ought to be remitted to the tribunal of God. The frequent changes in Judah before the captivity, and the vicissitude of Darius and Nabuchodonosor's actings of old, besides the changes of religion in the times of Christianity from Heathenism to the Gospel, and from the Gospel to Heathenism, from Arrianisme to what is now Orthodox, and back again. These are such precedents, and so apt to recurre through the condition of humane frailty, as may justly deter them from running into such snares, who are taught to pray that they be not lead into temptation. Themistius [an Heathen] in his Oration to the Emperor. Jovianus who succeeded Julian the Apostate, tells him that there had through the example and compulsion of Emperors been such variableness in point of religion, that mankind was become ridiculous, and seemed to worship the imperial robe and diadem, rather than any deity. Alterations in religion had been more frequent than the Ebbing and flowing of Euripus; the fickleness of one Theramenes formerly occasioned the proverb; but in his time changeableness was not the weakness of one but the practice of all: the same persons one while assisted at the sacrifices of the Heathens at their Altars, and another while participated of the table of the Lord Jesus.  
However, if they could better rely upon the understanding and stability of another in reference to those truths wherewith they experiment themselves to be no less acquainted, than their elect Magistrate pretends to be: and if that power were to be derived solely from them, which is the contribution of all in general; yet could not they lawfully empower him so in order to the captivating of others unto the profession of such religion, as they themselves are possessed with, in the spiritual part thereof, and in as high a manner as themselves. Mr. Baxter pretends to physic; if he deal with his patients in this sort, that he make not the rule of health he intends, to be the natural constitution of their bodies, but an ideated exquisite temperament; it is not to be doubted, but such as are in their original temper phlegmatic, choleric, etc. will be destroyed by him, and one indisposition cured by the introduction of another. It is so in the case of the soul; the Master called not his servant to an account for five talents, where he gave but two: no, he was good and faithful who had improved only them, as well as he that had traded with five. As for those as pretend no higher than a bare steward-ship not accompanied with omnisciency, I think it very great rashness in them to call to this or that person for the improvement of two talents, of whom they are not certain that they have received more than one: so fare ought they to be from punishing all for the non-improvement of five.  
Moreover, it is not lawful for Christians to commit that power to their Magistrate, which they cannot exercise themselves: But force and compulsion towards them that are without, are actions so unsuitable to the propagation of Christianity, so disagreeable unto the precepts thereof, as nothing can be more. It is the way that Mahomet established his fables, and not Christ his truths: the former having no force raised armies to subdue the souls as well as bodies of his enemies: but Christ though he could have called down fire from Heaven, reproved those designs in his Apostles, telling them they knew not of what spirit they were: (which shows they were not of his) and being able to entreat Legions of Angels from his Father, 
Matth. 25.53.  he chose all the day long to stretch out his hands to a gainsaying generation rather than employ such means: Means! which God made use of to destroy the Sodomites or host of Sennacherib (and with which he will destroy at last the World, and for ever torment the wicked) not convert the Nations to righteousness, Means! that may reduce men under the Spirit of bondage, to fear but not endow them with the spirit of Adoption, whereby they may cry Abba, Father. Means! that neither being Glory to God in the highest, nor on earth peace, nor goodwill towards men: and consequently as unsuitable to the forming of Christ within us, as they are dissonant from the song of the Angels at the incarnation of Christ at Bethlehem, Luc. 2. v. 14. Means! that gain Proselytes with no better success then of old the Pharisees had, who compassed sea and Land to make a proselyte, and after all rendered him seven times more the child of wrath than he was before, Matth. 23.15. Force, and Terror may bring men to an outward compliance but not alter their judgements: it doth not abate their wickedness, but heighter it with the aggravation of hypocrisy, a sin so odious as nothing is more detested in Scripture, nothing more abominable unto the Lord, and for which he will spew them out, who are by those endeavours brought in. The new-Christians in Spain confirm this truth: had arms, and discouragements been fit instruments to bring souls to Christ, that land had not groaned now under an inquisition, erected there for the discovery of such as dissembled their conversion. The like issue attended Emanuel King of Portugal, when he enforced the Jews either to become Slaves, or profess Christianity, and at this day the general opinion is that half that Kingdom consists of dissembling Jews. I cannot omit the censure which Osorius a Popish Bishop in that country passed upon that Action: This indeed was done, but neither according to the laws of God, nor Men, What? will you undertake to force the stubborn and rebelliously-minded to believe those things which they hate and reject? will you take upon you to rule in the heart and affections of man, to infringe the will in its liberty, and determine of its choice; This is an attempt, no less impossible in itself, then displeasing to Christ. For he desires that the people should be willing in the day of his power, their hearts must be made a voluntary, and not enforced oblation: nor doth he command that the minds of men should be compelled, but that they should be invited, persuaded and convicted of the truth. Besides, what flesh and blood dare be so presumptuous as to attempt that, which only the Spirit of God effects in those who die not in final impenitency? He alone it is who enlightens, persuades, draws,— yet, saith he, the King's intentions were good, and several men both religious and learned possessed him with the lawfulness of the Act, representing and recommending unto him the examples of other Christian Princes. Thus there never have been, nor will be wanting such men as well suit their discourses to the inclinations of their Kings. Osor. de reb. Eman lib. 1. It were therefore to be desired from our hasty Zelots, that when they vest any Magistrate with such a power, they would farther qualify him so, as that as many as he layeth violent hands on may receive the holy Spirit: and that they would instruct them with the time when the Holy Ghost bloweth, and the place where, for otherwise their force will be successelesse, they may knock and yet not their hearts or ears open: yea, they may lay a stumbling block in his way, and destroy him as much as in them lieth, for whom Christ died, and whom he will bring in in his good time. Is it not lawful to destroy him by meat, for whom Christ died [Rom. 14. v. 15.] which is a sca●●● taken, not given; and may we destroy him by violence and forcible means, giving him occasion to speak evil of the good ways of God, into which he shall at last be brought, when it shall please him who goeth out at several hours of the day to call in the labourers to his vineyard, and who converts some at one age, and some at another, and sanctifies those means unto Paul at Damascus, which had been uneffectuall unto him at Jerusalem, when Stephen was stoned. At the first Sermon of Peter (Act. 2. v. 41.) about three thousand souls were converted; after that two thousand more were added Act. 4.4. to which (it is probable) the former teachings of the Apostles had been uneffectuall upon these considerations me thinks the decree of Justinian that all should embrace the Orthodox religion, or go into banishment, was as ridiculous, as if he had decreed such or such winds determinately should blow at an appointed time, God at the first creation said, Let there be light, and there was light. So in the new creature, he but speaks by his Apostle, and as many believe as are ordained unto everlasting life. God then, and Christ when he bade the lame take up his bed, and walk, had been ridiculous, unless his word had been powerful to effect as well as signify his will. I would fain see an Act of Parliament that the blind should receive sight, that the lame should walk, that the Sun should arise at midnight, or that darkness should no more overspread the face of the Earth: such commands would be as effectual, as others more spiritual, since faith is the gift of God, and no man comes unto the son but whom the Father draws. If any demoniac or possessed by an unclean spirit, should be served by such an Arrest, think you the messenger would be better treated then the sons of Scevas Act. 19.14. And will you think he will be outed from his spiritual breastworkes and strong-holds by some such like Ordinance; you may as well imagine with King Henry the Eighth's target to quench the fiery darts of Satan, as by his sword to plant true religion.  
As for Gospel-precepts, what can be more remote or inconsistent with them, than that any Mortal should presume to have dominion over our faith, whereas the Apostles could only be helpers of our joy? 2 Cor. 2.24. Did Christ give his Disciples a command, Go and teach, not compel, and if any one receive you not shake off the dust of your feet? Matth 10.14. Did Paul and Barnabas shake off the dust of their feet at Antioch, against the unbelieving Jews, Acts 13. v. 51. That those who are neither Paul nor Barnabas, should now trample upon men as dust under their feet? It is said, The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men; apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness instructing those that are minded, if God peradventure will give them repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will, 2 Tim. 2. v. 24. Are these instructions personal? or do they not oblige the Ministry (if bottomed upon their own pretences) not to deliver men over to the secular Magistrate to be punished, since thereby they are Authors of all his actions, according to that old rule, What a man does by another, he does by himself? So 1 Cor. 7.12. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away: and the woman that hath an husband that believeth not, and he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him, but if the unbelieving depart, let him departed; a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases, but God hath called us to peace: for what knowest thou, O wife, whither thou shalt save thy husband? and what knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? As GOD HATH DISTRIBUTED to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all Churches. Shall Justinian be impowered to banish all Infidels, and yet hereby be obliged to retain an Heretical Eutychion for his wife? To send them into exile, and yet caresse her in his bosom? may one without danger and sin (which are the motives for suppressing discrepant Religions) hug and embrace a wife of different principles and persuasion, and yet not allow a neighbour common civility without hazard? may we not argue, What knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy Neighbour? (having the experience of all ages, that the Gospel hath been so propagated.) And, in fine, is it not usual in Scripture, from particular cases, to make diffuse and general conclusions. AS GOD HATH DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY MAN, AS THE LORD HATH CALLED EVERY ONE, SO LET HIM WALK, AND SO ORDAIN I IN ALL CHURCHES. But besides the obligations to Meekness, to Charity, to become all things to all, that we may gain some to Christ, (Ties from which no Magistrate can be exempted,) what will become of those other precepts, To try the Spirits, 1 John 4. v. 1. To prove all things, 1 Thess. 5. v. 21. Take heed that none deceive you, Matth. 24. v. 4. What needs all this trouble and curiosity, if we may not hold fast that which we find to be best? if after our most serious and deliberate Election, we shall be affrightned out of our consciences by penalties? 
Ad vana & inutilia nec lex dei nec hominis prudentis cogit.  To what purpose is there so much liberty permitted as may beget our torture, and not permit us to rest where we find satisfaction? Either prohibit to search at all, or let us be sensible of some benefit by searching; To believe, what appears untrue, seems to me impossible: To profess, what we believe untrue, I am sure, is damnable.  
Are there not now as many occasions for us to try the Spirits as formerly? Are there not now as many errors broached, as then? And is the true Doctrine delivered infallibly by the Apostles, and attested unto by miracles and wonders, as of old? Nay is it not foretold that the last times shall be more perilous for seduction, and that the faith of the very elect (if possible) should be endangered? That many false Christ's should come, and though any [the Magistrate not excepted] should say, lo here, or lo there is Christ, are we not forbid to believe them? was that a temporal injunction, That every man should be persuaded in his own mind? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 14.5. Must we under the Reformation only vary the Object of our implicit Faith, not renounce the thing itself? Surely Moses who left an High Priest with Vrim and Thummim [light and perfection] to resolve doubts, and to preserve knowledge, together with perspicuous Laws for Government Spiritual: Surely, I say, he was more faithful than Christ and his Apostles, since they left the world no infallible Judge to expound Scripture, so as men might adhere unto their decisions, because they were theirs. The Spirit of God in each Saint is the sole Authentic Expositor of Scripture unto him that hath it, the public Spirit of the Church imaginary, or Catholic hath been sufficiently exploded: nor do I doubt but a Believer may safely acquiesce in his Explications, upon whose Authority alone he receives the Text, and in whom we all place the sure hopes of our Eternal welfare, The Spirit bearing witness with our spirits that we are the sons of God, Rom. 8.16. Yet this testimony of the private Spirit in the breast of a Saint, however it be so clear and convincing, that his Faith becomes the very substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11. v. 1. yet is it like unto the white stone, and the new name which no man knows but he that hath it, Revel. 2.17. it obligeth not others purely to a belief, who have not received the like satisfaction: What is Revelation to one, is but Tradition to another, and he who will believe every man that saith he is sent of Heaven, may himself, (unless chance be as prevalent as choice in soul concerns) go himself too Hell. Thus pilate's wife was obliged to believe God speaking to her. He was not bound to believe a woman speaking to him. Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. He might think, she might be willing to deceive, out of a natural compassion strong in that Sex; or might be deceived herself, calling that inspiration, which was fancy.  
This unsupplyable defect of common evidence in the delivery of Spiritual matters, is of that nature, as it alone would suffice to the enforcing a Toleration. For though it be a confessed principle that whatsoever the prime verity doth say is an  truth, yet the course whereby he discovers himself, in divers ways, and after divers manners unto the sons of men, is followed with so much ambiguity, [waving that Soul-satisfying testimony of the Spirit,] as inquisitive men, and sober, if destitute of the highest gifts may upon a rational ground (if that way of arguing unto which we are bred up be true and sound) suspect the sincerity the Revelation in the word, and if he assent thereunto strongly and firmly, he is rather to be accounted resolved, then certain. And it is judiciously said, All voluntary opinion (that is grounded not in the understanding, but will only) is vicious. A sentence famous amongst the old philosophers, and confirmed by Austin, that to give a direct assent to what you know to be uneertain, is Turpe, that is (in our ordinary locution) Sin in all propositions, where we see no more than probability, it is our part to withhold our assent, till evidence or certainty deserve it. The reason is clear, for if a man do strain his stomach with meat or drink, his arms with pulling, or walks himself off on his feet, we blame him because he uses his body otherwise then is fitting, or out of proportion to his dispositions, and therefore wrongs it, disappointing the end and use to which nature designed it. Since than our understanding is our principal and most noble part, fare less ought it to be strained against its nature, and which increases the unworthiness of the Act, this cannot be done to the understanding, but by an inferior, whose [end is good, not truth and so no fit motive for faith, and] to obey or be ruled by its dictates. Nor is this any derogation; to God's word but a charge upon the weakness of man, not being able to comprehend things certain in themselves, and evident to some, upon other accounts. I shall not debate this matter any further it having been learnedly and unanswerably handled by Dr. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying. I now come to show that where there is wanting an infallible Expositor of the mind of God (which being to be accepted upon Revelation, is not to be discussed by Reason) there is not only cause for a Toleration, (for why should any be forced from what he holds to be true, 
It is not ma●criall but formal certainty that obliges to belief.  unto that which another can not evidence but it may be false?) but sufficient ground from former practices and usages to re-establish the like forbearance. Under the Jewish Kings before the captivity though they had an infallible direction by Vrim and Thummim for cases emergent, and positive orders to recurre unto the Highpriest for resolution, yet such was the power given, or arrogated by their Kings, these so intermeddled with religion (which then mostly consisted in outward ceremonies and types, with a very slender explicit faith) that all the forementioned circumstances were not a sufficient bar to keep the people from idolatry, who seemed so compliant as if they were absolute vassals to their Sovereigns, and only rebellious towards God: so dismal is that power when entrusted with the Magistrate: and can we think a select Clergy founded upon Tithes (that have no other right than what the Hands may take away which gave them) not endowed with any substitute for the Vrim and Thummim, but dictionary-learned, Pasorians, not assisted with extraordinary prophets, as of old, should bear up against a corrupt inclination of the Magistrate at any time, that so the people be not enslaved to delusions? But even that power in Israel, which rendered the nation a priestly Kingdom, is not granted by the Rabbins to have been the usage or due prerogative of all the Kings, but a specialty of them which descended from David. Others say there entrenching upon the High-priests power in reforming of religion, was done by them as they were prophets all: But that being not verifiable in all of them, that I know of, 
P. Curens de rep. Hebreor. l. 1. c. 14.  a third opinion says they did it by virtue of a sacred unction which gave them an extraordinary reverence and authority above others their successors. This ointment Moses was commanded to make, and the Talmudists say: it was used at the initiation of their Kings until the time of Josiah, who understanding that the Assyrians should destroy the Temple, buried that sacred oil, the Ark, Aaron's rod, the Vrim and Thummim with the remaining Manna in a private place of the Temple which could never be found again after their return out of captivity so that they were fain to make others in their stead, not that they had the former virtue, 
Id. l. 2. c. 2.  but that the priest might be completely vested. And Maimonides and others acknowledge that God withdrew his extraordinary presence from the second Temple, and the Highpriest ceased to give oracles. Under the second temple, when their infallible interpretations failed (so infallibly given out, that they could not be rejected without rejecting God and falling to Jdolatry, a thing so frequent before the captivity) then began the law which before was in a few hands, and read to the people by the Levites only, without interprerations and commentaries, to be read more frequently, and publicly expounded in Caldee. Nehem. 8. v. 7, 8. Jeshuah and Bani etc. and the Levites caused the people to understand the Law,— so they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. From these expositions arose the multiplicity of Sects which are mentioned in the time of our Saviour and neither condemned nor cried out against by him or his Apostles, as others of the same judgement are now a days by men of more fervour, and less holiness. 
Besides there were Herodians, which believed Herod to have been the Messiah.  The principal sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes', whose opinions I shall instance in briefly to show what Toleration was allowed then, by men of as great severity, pretending to sanctity and zeal, and such as wanted neither wanted power to suppess, nor the written word to convince gainsayers.  
The Pharisees believed all things to be governed by fate, and absolute necessity, 
Drusus advers. Serr.  yet so as that man acted freely, and that he did what he would, though his will was disposed of by a superior planet. They held the Soul to be immortal, yet so as that the souls of the wicked should be in perpetual torments, but the souls of the just should pass from one body into another, by a Pythagorical Metempsychosis. This last opinion is taken notice of in Scripture, Matth. 16. v. 14. Some said of Christ that he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets. Even the Disciples of Christ seem to have outgone the Pharisees as holding a transmigration of the souls of the wicked, when they asked, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was borne blind? John 9 v. 2. They admitted of good and bad Angels. As to Justification, they held no man to be absolutely just before God, but yet that he would repute them so who broke the fewest of his commandments. And concerning the Resurrection, they either thought it appertained only to the just, or that some wicked only should share in it; yet did some extend it universally. They exalted their traditions to the prejudice of the Scripture: their fasting, praying, not eating with sinners, exact tithing, elusions of respect to parents, etc. these are sundry times reflected on in the Gospel. And yet what eulogies are bestowed upon these men in Scripture? are they not so commendable that he who should afford half so much to one of the like judgement now, would be deeply censured.  
The Sadducees they adhered to the letter of the Text, rejecting all Traditions. Hence they were called also Caraei, or Caraim, because they assented to the Scriptures in their own private sense [juxta sensum intellectûs sui] nor did they regard the Traditions of the wise: so the Pharisees were termed, notwithstanding their opinions aforesaid. They further denied the Resurrection, existence of Angels or Spirits. So that immortality of the Soul, rewards and punishments after this Life, etc. were denied in those days by the Textuaries, Act. 23.6.8. they thought the Soul to be nothing else but the temperament of heterogeneous parts, constituting the body. They denied that God exercised his providence or took any knowledge of evil in this world. They advanced freewill to the destruction of antecedent necessity and fate: Nay it is said they were totally Epicureans, denying all manner of providence, and so were called in the Jewish writers. The existence of the Holy Ghosts person was indubitably denied by them, if not by all the Jews under such a notion; as in the controversy betwixt the Greeks and Latins, the former did avow three subsistences, tres hypostases, but denied the Trinity of Persons, which the Latins avow. It is generally taught also, that the received only the books of Moses and rejected the Prophets, (of which Daniel is at this day not accounted Canonical, but only as a Sacred writer, 
I leave it as dubious, whether they admitted more than the Penta●uch. He that shall with P●tavius upon Epiphanius (p. 28) prove they rejected the other parts of the B ble will much enlarge Toleration.  Hagiographus amongst the Jews) but this is not related of them by the Jewish writers, nor by Luke in the Acts: Though Jerome, Zacharias, Chrisopolitanus, and Tertullian record it of them; and that upon this score Christ proved the Resurrection to them out of the Books of Moses. Scaliger against Serrarius proves by sundry reasons that they did admit of the other Books besides them of Moses. And thinks that the Highpriest was a Sadducee, Act. 5. v. 17. For they who were followers of him and about him were Sadducees, which if he had not been a Sadducee he would not have permitted, such an enmity was betwixt the Pharisees and Sadducees. Casaubon against Baronius observes out of Josephus that the Richer sort were Sadducees, and the multitude Pharisees. Casaub. exercit. 1. §. 9 Montague out of the same Author assures us that all the High-Priests of Assamonaei where Pharisees till Hircanus the Grandchild of Judas Maccabeus fell off to the Saducees being disobliged through the insolency of Eleazar a Pharisee: after him Alexander Aristobulus, etc. were all Saducees. Montag. exercit. 3. §. 1. The Pharisees and Sadducees both frequented the same Assemblies, and Synagogues, and offered sacrfiices in the same temple at Jerusalem.  
The Essenes', they admitted providence to govern all things; and professed the immortality of the Soul. They sent gifts to the temple, but did not Sacrifice there, but privately amongst themselves, as making use of different Ceremonies thereat, and so being excluded the public Temple. Their other customs, and course of life, as well as petite opinions in matters religious, represent them to have been of unspotted life, grave, reservedly superstitious, and in a word, the Quakers of their Age.  
All these were tolerated in those days, besides the multiplicity of Nations recounted Act. 2. v. 9 etc. which were neither Jews nor Jewish Proselytes in any kind viz. who will believe the Romans did not retain their Religion then in Judea. After the settlement of the Church of Christ by his Apostles, there is not a word of persecution and suppressing dissenters, Heretics beginning (as Hegesippus tells us) after the Apostles death; till then the Church was an immaculate Virgin, whilst infallible expositors of the will of God revealed in his word were alive: 
Of this see what I say, and prove in the close of my discourse of the Toleration under Constantine, following.  After that they lived together, Christianity, being a profession of a compass much narrower than it is now, even that Creed called the Apostles, being shorter than it is now represented. They which by a voluntary submission to Church-discipline democratically administered, were joined unto the people of God, such upon defaults they excommunicated from their society: over them that were without they exercised no power: and over them that were within there highest process was unto an Anathema, which did not signify any curse, but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a place, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a removal from such a place, 
Salmas. ad Solin.  or an excommunication. So that, If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha. 1. Cor. 16.22. denotes only, for the height of impiety, for the denial of our Lord Jesus (for that I suppose is meant by not loving him) the Apostles determination is, let him be outed the Church or assembly of God; and for further punishment, The Lord will come. [Maranatha] that is, God will punish him, or judge him. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Them that are without God shall judge. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Here is not a word of the civil Magistrate, that he should judge them, or punish them. So Matth. 18. v. 17. if a brother after sundry private admonitions refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, and a publican. So that the highest process in Church censures doth not put a man into a worse condition than Heathens and publicans, who yet were tolerated amongst the Jews, and it was the Pharisee that blamed Christ for accompanying with them. The Heathen were not to be excluded civil society, since to them a Jew might put out money to use, which he might not do to another Jew: yea, there might be a stranger within their houses: as I have already said in reference to their proselyti domicilii. How the Christians were persecuted under Heathen Emperors all our Martyrologyes tell us; but I know not any that say they did well therein, though if it be his duty to be a Nursing Father unto Truth, it is meant not of what is materially and in itself so, but of what is so formally and unto him such: so that they may be pitied for their mistakes in judgement, but not blamed for their miscarryage in such their practice. They punished them not as Christians and professing a doctrine revealed from Heaven by Christ the Author and finisher of their Salvation: but as Atheists, downright Atheists, such accusation is laid to their charge, and even so they are called by Julian the Apostate in his works: besides, they were punished as factious and seditious, and such as intended the overthrow of the Roman Empire, by a personal reign of Christ in an earthly Kingdom and glory, which was the general opinion of the primitive Christians, in so much as Justin Martyr will not allow him to be orthodox (if I may so render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) who did not embrace that opinion. Yea, in their Acts and Monuments we find such passages, B. Marcus Evangelista, primus Christi Martyr, etc. imperante Claudio Nerone Caesare: nobis autem Christianis imperante domino nostro Jesu Christo. And Martyrio coronatus est S. Christi Sabinus 3. idus Martii, regnante impio Diocletiano, imò verò domino nostro Jesu Christo: many more of the like nature might be alleged out of blondel de formulâ regnante Christo. And Eusebius Histor. l. 3. c. 15. cireth it out of Hegesippus that Domitian ceased his persecution against the Christians, when he heard that the Kingdom of Christ was to be in Heaven, and not on earth.  
I come now to speak of the Christian Emperors, 〈◊〉 they demeaned themselves after that the power was come into their hands. Take one proof in general of what Toleration men had until the middle almost of Justinian's reign; who ruled about the Year 530. Procopius a diligent writer and observer of transactions in those times, in which he lived, recordeth it in his secret History, [p. 51.] That in the Roman empire there were many Heresies & Sects of Christians; As the Montanists, Sabbatians: and others: And that the Arians lived in such splendour and pomp, that their temples were so rich, as nothing in all the Roman Dominions might compare therewith, NO EMPEROR HAVING EVER MOLESTED THEM [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] There were also Samaritans, Jews and Gentiles [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] or Heathens in great numbers: as the same Procopius, Jo. Mallela, etc. And Dr. Rives writing against Alemannus the publisher of that Procopius, granting that there were in those days Manichees, Samaritans, Arians, etc. addeth, that All they had public temples every where, and those too richly adorned. erant quidem, Alemanne, fateor, & illud addo eas fuisse [haereses] quae non in Ecclesiae ritibus, non in praeceptis hominum, non in decretis Pontificum vel tollendis, vel minuendis, laborabant: sed quae Jesu Christi personam, hoc est fidei & salutis nostrae fundamentum, aliae aliis, sed omnes nefandis rationibus subruere & tollere cogitabant. S●● tamen TEMPLA & FANA UBIQVE locorum possidebant: Illa vero, presertim quae Arianorum furori serviebant, auro & argento gemmisque & pretiosis lapidibus, omni denique Divitiarum & opum genere abundabant. So Zosimus a learned, but Pagan writer, who in the time of Honorius the Emperor lived and attained (notwithstanding his religion) to the dignity of being Comes & Exadvocatus fisci, relateth it, how that Theodosius was the first that put down the public Temples and sacrifices of the Heathen, which were till then maintained at the public charge of the Roman Emperors, though Christians: And the Senate (being all Heathens) opposed him. Zosim. hist. l. 4. Gratian, who shared the Empire with Theodosius, refused at his inauguration to be created Pontifex max. by the heathen Romish Priests, it being till his days a constant custom, that however the Emperors were Christians, yet did they receive the sacerdotal habit and title of Pontifex maximus from the priests aforesaid, Zosim histor. l. 4. yet even the coins of Gratian are to be seen (as well as of Constantine the great, Valentinianus, Valens) with a Pontifical habit, and this inscription Pont. max.  
chrysostom who lived (as himself saith, in the time of Julian) until the time of Honorius; in his book against the Gentiles, and concerning S Babylos; having contemned the multiplicity of books written by the Heathen Sophisters and Philosophers against the truth, (which now men are so afraid of, that they will not venture the Gospel amongst them) as being ridiculous, rather than dangerous, even to the least child, or woman: He tells the Gentiles further. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  None [of us] ever made war against you; for it is not lawful for Christians to overthrow error by force and violence, but by persuasion, reason, and meekness to gain men over to Salvation. Wherefore no Emperor believing in Christ did ever make such edicts against you, as Pagan-Emperours have done against us. Yet notwithstanding so much tranquillity, none molesting it at any time, yet hath not the superstition and error of the Heathen been able to subsist, it fell of itself, and so became extinct; like corrupt bodies after long putrefaction, they perish of themselves, no outward force contributing thereunto. These are not hasty words, but spoken in an age, and to Persons [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that could and would have disproved his assertion, if it had been false. But to evince it, that this was no empty flourish of his, he repeateth the same thing in his commendation of the Martyr Drosis. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Since the coming of Christ there have been Infidels Emperors, and there have been Christians: but of the Infidels most of them did persecute the faithful, Slaying, Hanging, Burning, Drowning, Tearing with Wild-beasts, and using sundry other Torments, and Punishments to make them renounce their faith; but they prevailed not, they were laughed at by the Martyred Christians, who did not lessen thereby, but augmented their number. As for the Christians, NO GODLY Emperor ever yet did choose to punish or afflict any infidel that he might force him to renounce his error, and yet gentilism of itself decays and ceaseth; that you may learn the strength of truth, and the weakness of Error: the last falls away of itself, none molesting it; this infinitely rises and advanceth when it is most depressed.  
But to come to particulars; Constantine did allow an Universal To ration. Euseb de. vit Constant. l 2. c. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Let them that are in an error enjoy the same peace & tranquillity with the faithful: for a restauration of commerce may do much to reclaim them unto the right way. Let no man molest another: but let every one act what his soul listeth. Let those that have a true opinion concerning God be persuaded, that such only as regulate their lives by the rule of God's Laws, do lead a most holy and upright life. But those that will not be conformable thereunto, let them, if they will, erect Temples and consecrate Groves to vanity. And chap. 59 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But let no man in that which it is clear he is convinced of, give any offence [or damage] to another: wherein any man hath made any discovery, therein, if it be possible, let him benefit his neighbour; but if he cannot, let him be given over: for it is one thing for a man willingly to contend for immortality, and another to be compelled for fear of punishment. These are the words of Constantine, wherein he professeth that he is the larger, because he would give an account and not conceal the Truth, as also to refute those who should say (and such speeches he observes to have been then given out) how he had abolished the Heathenish rites and customs, ibid. ch. 59  
There is another edict of his to the people that were Heathen, 
Qui v●ro id vobis existimatis conducere, adite aras publicas, adque delubra: & consuetudinis v●strae elebrate sollemnia● n●c enim prohibemus praeteritae usurpationis officia l●bera luce tractari. Dat: id● Maii. Constantino A V & Licinnio Cons.  enacting free liberty of religion, you that think it best, go to the public Altars and Temples; and celebrate, your accustomed rites: for we do not forbid the ancient practice to be continued by daylight. God: Theod. lib. 9 tit 16. l. 2. ad populum.  
Scipio Ammiratus in his politic dissertations against Machiavelli, saith, It is most certain that after Constantine had turned Christian, 
Compertissimum est, postquam Constantin ●●b●ptismatis lavacro regeneratus ●bristiano● sovisse● Eccl●sia, exedific●sset persecutiones sustulisset, privilegia & immunitates Christianis largitus esset, nihilominus gentilium templ● ab eo min ne desiructa, imo permissum fuisse, ut unusquisque suo arbitratu, quam v●llet religionem co●eret: quod Eusebius clare docet, ad●● ut nullus dubitationi locus relinquatur. Quod si in ●hoenicia in civitate Constantiae Deorum statuae d●rutae fucrunt, tesiatur idem Eusebius hoc ab illis populis, qui verae salutis cognitionem susceperant, & inania idola rejeccrant, sponte factum fuisse. Scip. Ammirat. polit. dissert. 1 2 disc. 12.  built their Churches, given them immunities and privileges, yet did not be destroy the Temples of the Gentiles, nay he permitted, that every one should live in what religion he pleased: which Euseb. doth so clearly declare, that none can doubt it, And if in Constantia a City of Phenicia the statues of the Gods were destroyed, the same Eusebius tells us, that it was done voluntarily by those people themselves who had renounced Idolatry, and embraced the Truth in Christ. In Baronius we find a speech made to the Romans, Senate and people. The words are these: Inter divina & humana servitia h●c interest, quod humana servitia coacta sint, divina autem voluntaria comprobentur. Deus enim quia meate colitur, & sincero hominis veneratur affectu, spontanea ejus debet esse cultura. I ●hoc enim apparet, quia Deus verus est, quod per tanta secula contemporibus suis non iratus finem imposuit sed propitium se etiam, qui coli debeat, demonstravit, indulgendo crimina & salutem aminabus & corporibus conferendo. Sit ergo omnibus notum, non necessitate coactos, sed suo judicio liberos posse fieri Christianos: nec humanum metuentes impertum, ad Dei culturam accedere aliquos oportere, sed rationabili consideratione magis rogare, ut Christianorum numero applicentur ab iis, qui huic sacratissimae legi deserviunt. Justum enim verumque conspicimus, ut sicut petentibus culpa est si negetur, ita non petentibus si tradatur iniquum. Sed nec hoc aliqui metuant, quod a nostrâ gratiâ divellantur si Christiani esse noluer in't. Nostra enim clementia talis est, ut a bono opere non mutetur. The sum of which is. That Christianity is not to be enforced, that God requires the heart, and sincere affection, not outside worship. And that he should favour the Christians, but yet not any way disrespect them who should be ●otherwise minded. Baron. annal. Eccles. ad annum 324. § 81. In fine, the Roman Cardinal concludes, that it is evident how they are deceived who think Constantine did shut up the heathenish Temples, 
Eunapius in the life of Edesius saith, that when Constantine turned Christian, and built them Churches, one Sopator a Philosopher went to him, to reclaim him from those proceed, and did so far gain upon that Emperor, that he seated him at his right hand openly in places of solemn appearance: which was incredible for to be 〈◊〉, or related. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eunap. in vita Edesii p. 3●, 36.  and prohibited their rites; or made use of force in the propagation of Christianity. id. ibid. § 91, 92. And if any allegations to the contrary of what hath been avowed, can be produced, and find credit in an age so convinced of the many forgeries in cases of antiquity, which have so great a subserviency to the ambition and interest of a sort of men in our days; I must either say it was done upon a secular and politic account for preservation of the civil peace, when men began to opiniate it, and promote faction instead of religion, as the Jesuits in England now suffer for sedition in owning a foreign power paramount to what is amongst us, and able lawfully to dispose of our dominions and lands for dissenting from him, and not for their Religion. Or if it can be cleared that either the Heathens, or Heretics (which are in the same condition, and from whom God expects equally a willing heart, and unfeigned services) did suffer banishment (as four or five together with Arius, did) or death, or confiscations upon any other score, I think Constantine did not only swerve from his protestations in the East, and West, but from the truth, as far as the East is different from the West. However, if Constantine did banish Arius and a few others (which yet is controverted) the same man did exile Athanasius, nor need we doubt that the Arians (and Novatians) had a toleration under him, since under his Son, they over-ran the whole Empire, and it is credibly reported how they perverted him too before his Death.  
It is very observable which Sozomen relates l. 2. c. 30. That before Constantine's reign, whilst Christianity was under persecution, though there were a multitude of Sects and heresies, yet did men of all professions, as they suffered under one common name, so did they entertain a joint communion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true, some may say that this union of theirs was to be attributed according to Sozomen, not to any other cause than their common calamity, which made them unable to molest each other: which I confess is an exception which the very words seem to suggest, as I have represented them: but it is no less true, that he calls that molestation wherewith they could not disquiet each other, a pragmaticalness; and the sense may be, that being all sufferers upon one cause among the Gentiles, whatever they might otherwise have done upon the account of different judgements, yet upon the account of common afflictions they could not be overbusy to disquiet each other: not that they did not know each others differences, or that they would communicate when communion was sinful, (for who will ever believe such a thing of the Novatians and Cataphryges') but because they thought them to be real, which could suffer for the name of Christ, and agreeing to die in the profession of the Gospel, could not morally and in equity (for otherwise they might have been excommunicated) be molested for curiosities, such as busy-heads might find out. Upon this account it was that though they had their particular meetings or Churches into which they were associated, and wherein they did make their special confessions, notwithstanding those several-tyes of Assemblies, they did occasionally conserse with each other that owned the name of Christ, nor though they were never so small a number, did they separate from them, till humane policy began to mould a Catholic Church, and carnal prudence accommodated all to civil ends. And after that Constantine had made an Edict against all Heretics that they should unite to the public Churches, and have no private Assemblies of their own, 
Sozomon. l. 2. c. 30.  yet was not that law observed, or made with an intent that it should be observed (as I prove elsewhere) but the Novatians (differing from the Orthodox only as Puritans from Episcoparians as one may say) were tolerated at Constantinople in their free Assemblies, having their proper Bishops, as also at Alexandria and Rome, until the time of Honorius and Theodosius the younger, under them it was that the Novatians were at Rome suppressed, and their Churches (which were many) taken from them, and their Bishop together with the great multitude of his adherents forced into corners, But neither this, nor the like act at Alexandria, was done by Imperial Authority, but by the growing mystery of iniquity in Pope Celestinus (and cyril of Alexandria) who began to exercise a civil rather then Ecclesiastical power. Socrates is positive in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But in Constantinople they were not molested. Socrates lib. 7. cap. 7, & 11. Nor were the Novatians only tolerated in their Religion and way of Worship, but preferred unto Secular Honours. For Chrysanthus the son of Marcianus a Novatian Bishop, who was himself at last chosen Bishop of the Novatians, was at first a Commander under Theodosius the great, perfect of Italy [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and afterwards Vicegerent in the British Isles, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as Socrates relates it in the same Book, ch. 12. And this Socrates did live in those times whereof be writes. The Macedonian heretics of a deep dye, for they admitted not of the Nicene faith, had their Churches in Constantinople, Cyzicum and other places, under Theodosius II. and Valentinianus III. as Socrates tells us; l. 7. c. 31. And as for the Arians, their doctrine and differences were not only looked upon as pettite quarrels, for which the peace ought not to be broken in the judgement of Constantine: (see the Lord Faulkland of infallibility). But after the Council of Nice, and that Arius was anathematised, yea and Athanasius too banished to Triers for being factious, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Constantine saith, giving a reason why he would not recall him: Sozomen l. 2. c. 29.] However the Arian tenants were much debated in common discourse, yet was not the general Church communion disturbed or dissolved thereby unto the death of Constantine, as Sozomen asserts. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozomen. l. 2. c. 30.  
Both under Constantine and his Sons Constantius and Constans what toleration the Heathens had we may guests in that the Heathen-Sophisters and Philosophers did publicly teach, and Christians sent their Sons to be instructed by them: 
If all other proofs were wanting yet would this be evidentally proved out of Gregory Nazianzons oration containing the life of Bazil, whom the said Nanzianzen commends for that having learned their Rhetoric he was not corrupted with their manners. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] There he commends highly the learning of Athens, and the Academy which was therein; but he further informs you that when he, Bazil and Julian were there, men did not more advantage themselves in knowledge, than prejudice in piety and religion? that there was no place in Greece so addicted to Paganism, so full of Idols, such worshippers of Devils. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Nazianzen speaks of himself & Basil; sundry other passages thence might be alleged, but that this may suffice even the most scrupulous.  At Athens there was an University of Heathens whither all had recourse, there Bazill, and Nazianzen, as well as Libanius and others were educated. Libanius who under Constantius had the care and tuition of Julian, by Jovinian so made and by the Code termed Divus, but commonly the Apostate: Libanius who was invited to teach Rhetoric in sundry great Cities as Nicomedia, etc. whose panegyrics to Constantius and Constans is still to be read, and who received from the former of those Princes a thousand honourable and advantageous gifts. All which may be seen in his life, where it is no less evident that the Sophisters had public Salaries, besides what they received from the Parents, whose children they instructed; and particularly one Bemarchius who adhered to Constantius, and prayed him, though himself were an Heathen. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Maximus Tyrius the Philosopher was one of Julian's Teachers under Constantius, as Libanius in his Panegyric to Julian (together with his Scholiast, 
Sisynnius that learned Novatian was bred up under Maximus Tyrius too, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socrat. Scholast. l 5. c. 20.  and Eunapius tell us; nor were these instructions of a general and indifferent nature; no, Julian was by Maximus taught Heathenism, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Scholiast upon Libanius, and) Libanius himself confesseth as much, who when he had Nazianzen, Basil, 
Read the lives of Basil and Nazianzen. _____ ●banius was Chrysostoms' teacher too in Rhetoric; Nicephor Calist l 13. c. 2. (as was Androgatheus in Philosophy) and yet ●ibanius was at that time a known Heathen, as you ●ay gather out or that saying of his to chrysostom, related by chrysostom in his Homily ad vid. iun. Theodoro's and Maximus were Schoolfellows with chrysostom at Libanius', both which he after gains to Christianity, as Nicephorns tells us in the place forecited.  and Julian at once in his School, he did exercise the last in prolusions against Christianity. There did Nazianzen contract his first hatred against Julian; and there did Julian contract an esteem for Basil, which he always continued to the last, and wrote to him, and made use of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Jo. Mallela, and Chronicon Alexandrinum. Themistius the Philosopher was highly magnified by Constantius, and by him made one of the Senators, though an Heathen: that Emperor hath written a long Letter in his behalf, containing an infinity of his praises, that it was an honour to the Senate, 
Vid. Themistii orat. edit. Petavii, p. 417.  and to his Father Constantine to prefer such a worthy member: he saith further that their acquaintance was not newly commenced, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same Emperor in a Rescript of his, Cod. Theodos. l. 6. tit. 4. extols Themistius & entrusts him particularly with the Election of the Praetor. Yea, he erected unto him a statue of brass. I need not speak of Julian, every one will grant that he upheld a Toleration, and that so, as not to out the Christians from places of the greatest trust; 
Socrat hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 19  for Jovianus (or Jovinianus) was Comes Domesticorum, as Mallela tells us, and his whole Army, when they elected Jovianus Emperor, after that Julian was slain by a Persian, were Christians. Jovianus is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have granted an universal Toleration, and is commended thereupon by Themistius, in his Consular Oration. I have before alleged the passage concerning the changeableness of men in point of Religion, as often as their Emperors should enact any thing: Themistius having told jovian this, adds, But you, O most sacred Prince, being Emperor to all other ends and purposes, have decreed that each man be free in point of Religion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same Jovianus did highly honour and esteem the two Philosophers, Maximus and Priscus, friends of Julian, as is confessed by Baronius, and declared by Eunapius, who lived in those times. In sum Socrates plainly tells us of this Emperor, (whom he wisheth to have lived longer for the good of the public) that his resolution was to give a free Toleration to all of different beliefs, and to work upon them by persuasions only. 
Socrat. histor eccles. l. 3. c. 21.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words evince as a general sufferance of Heretics (as they are called) as doth that passage of Themistius for all universally.  
I come now to the Emperor's Valentinian and Valens, whereof the latter is said to have been an Arian, but the former Orthodox. Yet Valentinian in Ammianus Marcellinus l. 31. is commended for that he carried himself with a great deal of moderation towards the people, severally dissenting in Religious affairs: nor did he make any decrees for the establishing of this or that Religion, he compelled none to worship as himself did, but left each to his own sentiments. Postremò, hoc moderamine principatûs inclaruit, quod inter Religionum diversitates medius stetit, nec quenquam inquietavit, neque ut hoc coleretur imperavit aut illud: nec interdictis minacibus subjectorum cervicem ad id quod ipse coluit inclinabat, sed intemeratas has parts reliquit, VT REPERIT. This is the testimony of a man that lived in those days, and was himself an Heathen, and who had undergone great charges, (which I desire may be remembered as a farther proof of the Toleration in those times) under Constantius the son of Constantine, being one of his DOMESTICS. Upon that passage of Ammianus Marcellinus it is very considerable which is remarked by Valesius in his Annotations. 
When Valentinian and Valens began to reign, Maximus and Priscus, the two Philosophers, were impeached before them, and the former was fined and banished into Asia [for a Magician, not Pagan] and the latter was dismissed honourably. Eunap in vit. Maximi, p. 97. yet Kharchus, an Heathen, being Governor of Asia after, did free Maximus, and reconcile him to the Emperor, Ibid. p. 102.  Valentinian in the beginning of this reign being willing to suppress all Sorcery and Witchcraft, enacted, that no rites of sacred worship should be performed by night: which Law is recorded in the Code of Theodosius, Tit. de Malefic. cap. 7. but when Praetextatus Proconsul of Achaia had freely certified Valentinian, how that law would ensnare all of the Greek persuasion, that is, Pagans, and deprive them of their lives, if they should under so strict penalty be prohibited the practice of their most chaste rites and adorations: Valentinian did permit that the Greeks, (which is a common name for all Heathens) should retain the worship of their Ancestors, as Zosimus recordeth it in the beginning of his fourth book. Which Decree of his is not now to be found [which I desire may be observed in opposition to those who imagine that our Codes and collections of old Laws are more faithful, than the Volume of Decretals] but mention thereof is made Cod. Th. lege 9 de Malefic. for so the Emperor Valentinian writes to the Senate. I think [or judge] that Augury hath no affinity with Witchcraft: 
Haruspicinam ego nullum cum maleficiorum causis habere commercium in lico: neque ipsam, aut aliam praeterca concessam a maioribus RELIGIONEM, genus esse arb●tror CRIMINIS. Testes sunt leges a me in exordio imperii m●● datae, quibus VNICUIQVE quod animo imbibisset colendi libera facultas tributa eft. Cod. Theod. l. 9 tir. 16. l. 9  nor do I esteem of that, or any other RELIGION tolerated by my Ancestors, as criminal. Hereunto the Laws bear me witness, which I made in the beginning of my reign, whereby I gave liberty to every man to worship accordingly as he thinks meet. The same is recorded by Symmachus ep. l. 10. ep. 54. and Ambrose in his Oration concerning the death of Valentinian, as also in his 30 Letter to Valentinian concerning the Altar of Victory. It was to this [Orthodox] Valentinian [together with Theodosius and Arcadius] that Symmachus did write the Letter aforesaid in the behalf, if not of all, yet of a great part of the Roman Senate (as Ambrose confesses in his reply thereto) that they might continue in Paganism. I shall instance in some passages as show what a Toleration was then, and had been before allowed to different Religions. Speaking of the Emperors, he saith, 
Preximus corum ceremonias patrum coluit, recenti●r non removit.— Merito Divi Constantii factum diu non stetit. Omniavobis exempla vitanda sunt, quae mox remota didicistis— Accipiat aeternitas vestra alia ciusdem princ●pi● sacta, quae in usum diguius trabat. Nil ille decerpsit sacrarum Virginum privilegiis, decrevit nob l●bu● sacerd●tia, Romanis ceremoniis non negavit impensas, & per omnes vias aeternae u●bis laetum secutus Senatum, vidit plac●do ore delubra, legi● in cripta fastigns Deum nomina, percunctatus est Templorum origines, mira●us est conditores. Cumque alias religiones ipse sequeretur, has servavit imperio.  the former professed Heathenism, and the later did not abolish it. And speaking of the Emperor Constantius, how he removed the Altar of Victory from the Senate-House, he adds, That Act of Constantius was of no long continuance; such examples are not to be followed, as have been instantly abrogated.— There are other acts of his more presidential: he did not diminish the privileges of the Vestals, he preferred the Nobless to the Sacerdotal dignity, he did not refuse to defray the charges of the Roman solemnities, and going round the city with the Roman Senate, he was not displeased with the sight of the Temples and Statues, he read the inscriptions of the gods, enquired about them, and being himself of one religion, he allowed the Empire another. By the way I am to observe, that not only Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen, but the Orthodox Emperor Valentinian, were not baptised till they were much elder than is the custom in our time, (to say nothing of Constantine, who whether he were baptised or not is uncertain: so for Constantius:) the first was not baptised till he was to be made Bishop of Milan; the second not till he was pretty aged, 
Theod●sius was not baptised till after he was Emperor, although he were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozomen. hist. eceles. l. 7. c. 4.  and the last having sent for Ambrose to baptise him, died before he received that Sacrament; as Ambrose relates in his funeral Oration upon Valentinians death. Nor doth Ambrose in his reply deny the truth of such a Toleration being granted, but adds further, that at that very time in which he writ, That the Christian Clergy had not the privilege of common inheriting by the Laws in being, yet did not they complain, they were not capable of Legacies. Quod sacerdotibus phani legaverit Christiana vidua, valet: quod ministris Dei, non valet? quod ego non ut querar, sed ut sciant quid non querar, comprehendi. The same man grants, that though the lands were taken away from the Heathen Temples, they were still capable of gifts and Legacies. Nemo tamen do●aria delubris, & legata aruspicibus denegavit: sola sublata sunt praedia, etc. He grants they had Idols every where, he only desires the Senate, whither Christians were to resort might be free. Non illis satis sunt lavacra, non porticus, non plateae occupatae simulacris? So that it is evident in Valentinians time there was a free Toleration by his means, which extended to the dissenting Christians, Arians, etc. no less than Heathen. For Suidas tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He himself was a Christian and Orthodox, yet did not injure those that dissented from him. He made Valens his brother, (an Arian) his Colleague, and recalled the exiled Arians, as well as Orthodox. Cedrens. As for Valens, if he inclined to the Arians, he tolerated the Heathens. Richemenes was a Pagan (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) yet was he likely to be chosen Consul, saith Libanius in his own life, and Ammianas' Marcellinus saith he, was Comes Domesticorum to Valens, and both those writers did live in those times: He was also an assured friend of Theodosius the great. Zozim. lib. 4. It is of Valens that Themistius speaks in an Oration published in Latin by Dudithus; You have decreed that every one should follow his own judgement in matters of Religion; 
Sanxisti ut in colenda religione suo quisque uteretur judicio: neve vel authoritate cujusquam, vel minis ad aliam sententiam, quam non probaret, traduceretur. Intelligis enim non esse in principum potestate, subditos sibi populos ad omnia quae velint cogere: sed est quaedam, ad quae inviti nullâ ratione compelli possint. Quo in genere tum virtus esse, tum vero de cultu deorum sensus atque judicium. Nam neque bonum virum per vim queas efficere (est enim virtus habitus voluntarius) neque cogere possis, ut id ulla de re sentiam, quod sentire nolo. Quae labore vel ministerio corporis geruntur, ea imperari & per vim administrari possunt: mentis agitatio, quaeque ex ea pendent notiones & habitus animi, libera & soluta est.— An censes cum ad studium tui praesentis & in conspectu orbis terrarum positi, neminem invitum possis Pertrahere, te pietatem quam velis, & cultum Dei ab aspectu nostro semper oblitescentis, decretis jus●sque this in omnium ani●nis posse imprimere?  nor by any authority, or threats be forced to profess an opinion he could nor allow. You understand that all things are not in the Prince's power, but that there still remains whereto man cannot be compelled: such are virtuous inclinations and apprehensions concerning God and his worship. For you cannot make any man really good by force (virtue being a voluntary disposition and frame) nor can you compel me to think otherwise than I already do concerning any thing. Outward actions, and such whose effects are visible, they may be commanded and enforced: The affection, and mental acts, with our notions depending thereon, these are free & uncontrolled. Think you, that if you cannot force men to love you whom they daily see, and whom the world reveres, that you can by any Edicts or Commands make them piously to adore and worship that God whom they neither do nor can see? After Valens succeeded his son● Gratianus, of whom how he refused the title of Pontifex Maximus first of all the Emperors, and yet how his Coins picture him in that habit, and call him Pont. Max. He assoon as he came to the Empire, considering how his Father had banished the Orthodox party, and persecuted several of them (for whom Themistius did often intercede) upon a policical account, I suppose, since he tolerated others; Gratian is said to have recalled all from banishment that were exiled by him; and enacted, That every man should be of what religion, 
The same thing is recorded by Nicephorus Callistus, l. 12. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or Church he pleased, except the Manichees, Photinians and Eunomians. The Arians had then the most of the Eastern Churches in their possession: The Macedonian Heretics lived as friendly with them that followed the Nicene Council, as if they had been of one judgement: yea, saith Sozomen, from whom I have all this, (histor. Eccles. l. 7. c. 1, 2.) several of those that had been banished under Valens, being returned upon the law aforesaid, made by Gratian, did not affect any primacy over others, but preferred Concord before all other Emoluments; and desired the Arians that they would not foment divisions, nor create disturbances in a Church, which ought to be but one. Insomuch that Eulalius Bishop of Amasia in Pontus finding an Arian Bishop in his stead, desired he would continue the charge over a people, scarce fifty whereof did adhere unto him. I come now to Theodosius under whom I find Themistius to flourish no less than before: 
The temple of Serapis in Alexandrea was not demolished, nor the rites extinct until the days of Theodosius, Theophilus being Praefectus praetorio, and Eurymedon Governor of Egypt. Eunan in vit. Aedesti p. 73. And the Eleusinia sacra in Greece were continued with their solemnities in the time of Eunap us who was initiated therein. p. 87. in vita Maximi.  By him Themistius was made Praetor of Constantinople; by him he was entrusted with the education of Arcadius (who succeeded in the Empire) when he went into the West: as Themistius tells us in his sixth Oration. Under him I find Symmachus to be in great honour, and Governor of the City of Rome: Symmachus, who was not only Advocate for them that were Pagans, but drew over Claudian and Ausonius from Christianity to Paganism, as Giselinus proves out of Austin de civet. Dei. It will not be amiss to present the world an account of this Symmachus, who had been praefectus urbis in the time of Valentinian and Valens; and Consul in the time of Theodosius. Judge what preferments Christian Emperors granted to Heathens by this inscription.  
Lucio. Aurelio. Aviano. Symmacho. V C. Praefecto. Vrbi. Consuli. Pro. Praefectis. Praetorio. in. urbe. Româ. finitissimisque. provinciis. Praefecto. annonae. urbis. Romae. Pontifici. majori. Quindecimviro. S.F. multis. legationibus. pro. amplissimi. ordinis. desideriis. apud. divos. Principes. functo. qui. primus. in. Senatu. sententiam. rogari. solitus. authoritate. prudentia. atque. eloquentia. pro. dignitate. tanti. ordinis, magnitudinem. loci. ejus. impleverit. auro. illustrem statuam. quam. a. Dominis. Augustisque. nostris. Senatus. amplissimus. decretis. frequentibus. impetravit. iidem. triumphatores. principes. nostri. constitui adpositâ. oratione. jusserunt. quae. meritorum. ejus. ordinem. ac. seriem. contineret. quorum. perenne. judicium. tanto. muneri. hoc. quoque. addidit. ut. alteram. statuam. pari. splendore. etiam. apud. Constantinopolin. collocaret. dedicata. III. Kal. Maia's. D. N. Gratiano. FOUR &. Merobande. Coss.  
This Inscription is represented to us both in the passages premised to Symmachus his Letters, published by Juretus, as out of Muphrius; and by Jo. Weithrius in his notes upon the second Book of Prudentius against Symmachus. It is observable that Symmachus in that Inscription is called Pontifex major, and Quindecimvir, which shows that the Heathen Priesthood was then in being and repute: as indeed Onuprhius observes, how the Vestal virgins, Poutifices, Augurs, Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, fetiales, Salii, Septemviri Epulonum, and other priests were continued until Theodosius' time, who refused to defray their charges out of the Public, not upon a Religious account (for he waved that, being not able to prevail upon the Roman Senate) but because the Commonwealth being otherwise exhausted could not bear so great expenses. After which they began to decline, 
Onyphrius descr. civet. Rom. l. 2.  and at last finally ceased. Under the same, yea to the same Theodosius I find Libanius (being sent Ambassador to the Antiochians, 
Under Theodosius upon the third of January vows (after the usual custom) were made for the Emperor's safety in the Heathen temples with feasts in Asta: which Eunapius saw and was present at: the temple of Nemesis then standing. Eunap. in vit. Maximi. p. 107.  Sozim. l. 4.) making two Orations; one deprecatory for the Antiochians that had demolished his Statues in a tumult; and the other gratulatory, for having pardoned them that miscarriage: both which are exstant. In fine, Prudentius who lived in those times, saith to Symmachus,  
Aspice quàm pleno subsellia nostra Senatu  
Decernant infame Jovis pulvinar, 
L. 1. Coner. Symmach.  & omne  
Idolium longè purgatâ ex urbe fugandum.  
Quà voc at egregii sententia principis, illùe  
Libera cùm pedibus, tum corde frequentia transit.  
NEC LOCUS invidiae est, NULLUM vis aspera terret,  
Aute oculos sic velle patet; cunctique probatum,  
NON JUSSUM, solâ capti ratione sequuntur.  
Denique pro meritis terrestribus aequa rependens  
Munera, SACRICOLIS SUMMOS impertit HONOURS  
Dux bonus, & CERTARE sinit cum laude suorum;  
Nec PAGO implicitos per debita culmina mundi  
Ire viros prohibet: quoniam coelestia nunquam  
Terrenis solitum per iter gradientibus obstant.  
Ipse Magistratum tibi Consulis, 
About the same time I find one. justus of Rome made Governor for Asia; a Zealot for Paganism, sent from Constantinople thither, where he found another ruler in Sardes called Hilarius, who did sacrifice together, and erected as it were an Academy of Heathens, which they sent for from all parts, and Eunapius was there with them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Crysanthius, and Hellespontius Philosophers. Eunap. in vita Chrysanthii, p. 188, etc.  ipse Tribunal;  
Contulit, auratumque togae donavit amictum,  
Cujus Relligio tibi displicet, o pereuntûm  
Assertor Diuûm!—  
Nor is this true only of the Heathen that he tolerated them: the Sectarians found the same favour, viz. Arians, Novatians, Macedonians, and Eunomians, none of which Theodosius molested, Eunomius only excepted; whom the Emperor exiled, [not his followers, and that upon a breach of Civil obedience, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  viz.] because he raised Conventicles at his private house WITHIN Constantinople, recited such speeches as he had written with a Rhetorical ostentation, and infected many with his Doctrines. He disquieted not the rest, neither constrained them to his communion, but licenced every one of them to frequent several conventicles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  to embrace what opinion liked them best in Christian Religion. And as he gave leave to all other Sects to erect them Churches WITHOUT the walls in the Suburbs; so commanded that the Novatians maintaining together with him the faith of one substance, should freely without disturbance and molestation enjoy and recover their former Churches within the Cities. Socrat. Scholastic. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 20. And if he made any Laws against them, you may learn out of Sozomen how to understand them, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 12. This Emperor made a law, 
So Constantine the great made laws against Heretics rather for show and terror, then that he ever executed them. So Sozomen tells us how the Novatians suffered little prejudice by any laws of his, for saith he, I think the Emperor willingly did lax those decrees, as purposing rather to terrify, then damnify his subjects. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozomen l. 2. c. 30. And who were those of his subjects whom he was so tender of? The Novatians, Cataphryges', Valentians, Marcionists, Paucli●ns, and all other Heretics. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. id. ibid.  that the Sectarians should have no Assemblies, nor make any profession of their faith, nor ordain Bishops and Pastors; and that some of them should be banished city and country, others should be rendered infamous, and not any way be publicly preferred, as others were: and this he enacted with severe penalties, which nevertheless he did never inflict. For he did not ordain these things with an intention to punish, but to terrify his Subjects that they might better agree in Religion, and he used to commend those who were voluntarily converted. The learned Bodin in his book de Repub. lib. 4. giveth the like account of Theodosius, how at the beginning of his reign he found all the Empire full of Arians, who were grown to that height and power under the Arian Emperors, that they had strengthened their Doctrines by eight several Councils assembled at sundry times at Tyrus, Sardis, Sirmium, Milan, Seleucia, Nice, Tarsus and Arminium: in the last whereof there were assembled 600 Bishops [almost double the number of the first Council at Nice, in which the Arians were condemned, and the Nicene Creed made; and might as well be called, in the Language of those times, if not better, Ecumenical] who all unanimously avowed the doctrine of the Arians; yea, prosecuted the dissenters which punishments and proscriptions: yet did not Theodosius suppress the Arians by punishments, though he did hate them deadlily: he granted to both parties, Arians and Catholics, their several Churches, and in the Cities each of them had their Bishops: and though at the earnest solicitation of the Catholics, he did publish sundry edicts against them, yet did he not put them in execution; as his letters to Ambrose demonstrate in those words, resign unto the Arians the Church, for all is in my power.  
As for the Jews (to give an account of them once for all) I find them to have been persecuted under the heathen Emperors of Rome at the same time with the Cristians, who were by the Heathen too called Judaei: and it hath been a conjecture of mine, that their sufferings had not a greater affinity than [possibly] the causes inducing the Heathen to such rigour were resembling. I already told you how the Christians did believe the personal reign of Christ, their Messiah; The Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem did expect the coming of their Messiah, and that he should rule the World. Lest any danger to the Empire might arise from these opinions, which were divulged up and down by both parties, the Romans, I imagine, may [ading other motives and fictions against them] have persecuted them; especially having fresh in their memories, how amongst other encouragements that Vespasian had to assume the Empire, it was none of the meanest, that Josephus the Historian accommodated to him the Prophecy of the Messiah, telling him, Thou shalt be both Caesar, and Emperor, as also thy Son, thou art not only my Lord, but Lord of the Sea and Land, and of all Mankind. As he himself relates it, and Suetonius in the life of Vespasian, and Orosius who further thus words the Oracle given to Vespasian at mount Carmel, Sorts Carmel. portendisse exortos a Judaeâ rerum potituros. In which fullfilling of the prophecy since the Jews did not acquiesce, it was a remaining pretence for others to make use of, either out of flattery to strangers again, or out of interest for themselves, as they did under Barcochebas in the t●me of the Emperor Adrian. Under the Christian Emperors from the times of Honorius, Arcadius Theodosius Primus and so upwards, 
Selden. de jure naturali & gentium. l. 2. c. 9 p. 243 etc.  though they had lost their City and Temple, yet were they in a very flourishing condition. They had several famous Academyes, or rather Commonweals, such as the Soriana, Pombodithana, Nehardacensis, besides their multitude of Synagogues, and great immunityes through the particular indulgence of Princes. Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius, A A A. made the following Bescript unto Addaeus [Comes & Magister utriusque militiae] It is evident enough that the Sect of the Jews is not prohibited by any Law. 
C. Theod. sib. 16. tit. 8. l 9 & vide l. 12.25.  Wherefore we are very angry that their Assemblies should be interdicted any where. Your Excellency therefore having received these our commands, will repress with due severity the too great number of those, who under pretence of Christian religion commit all manner of licentiousness, destroying and robbing their Synagogues. Given at Constantiple 3º Kal. Octob. Theod. A. III. & Abundantio Cons. that is, in the Year of our Lord, 395. Three years after the former Rescript, Arcadius and Honorius A. A. decreed unto the Jews, 
ibid. l. 10.  that the Governors of Provinces should not impose upon them any Moderator or Prefident; and if any should assume or exercise any such power or charge over them, besides themselves and their Noblesse, then should the Governors of the Provinces punish him as an usurper, and one who retrenched upon the Rights of others. Yea, the same Emperors in the same years appointed Claudianus Comes Orientis, 
ibid. l. 11.  If any should dare to make contumelious or dishonourable mention openly of the ILLUSTRIOUS the Patriarches [o the Jews] he should be punished The year ensuing the said Emperors declare unto Caesarius Praefectus Praetorio, 
C. Theod. lib. 16. tit. 8. l. 13.  Let us imitate our predecessors in upholding the privileges of the Jews, by whose decrees it is enacted that the privileges of such as are under the illustrious the Patriarches [of the Jews] the Rulers of their Synagogues, Patriarches, Presbyters, and others which are of that Religion, by the consent of our Royal selves, continue the same, which with Reverence and sanctimony are paid to the principal of the Christian Clergy. For thus the holy Emperors, Constantinus, Constantius, Valentinianus and Valens by their Heavenly will and pleasure have ordained it. 
ibid. l. 20.  [There are many more Edicts in favour of them, That their Synagogues shall not be destroyed, or seized upon: and, That they be not obliged to any performances inconsistent with the observation of their Sabbath: 
ibid. l. 21.  That none should be any way wronged, or oppressed for being a Jew: and since many to avoid several accusations, curry favour, or supply their wants, did of Jews become Christians in pretence; and not effectually, it was ordered by the same Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, 
ibid. l. 23.  That if such were not real Converts, they might [without fear of punishment] return again to their former worship and religion: and this Reason is given, which shows how different their judgement was from that of men in our days, who acknowledging that Faith cannot be enforced, yet think an outside uniformity to be desirable and pious, and the contrary scandalous and offensive; viz. Quia magis Christianitati consulitur. BECAUSE IT IS FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF CHRISTIANITY, sc. that they be open Jews, than secretly such, and only Christians by Profession.] Thus by the great favour of the Emperors did they enjoy their liberty and freedom, which they were not to make use of to the injury of the Christians. 
ibid. l. 15.  Their Patriarches being called by the titles of Illustres and Spectabiles. Of all this that hath been said there are pretty probable grounds to be fetched out of Chrysostoms' Homilies against the Jews, wherein he doth inveigh against that familiarity which was between the Jews and Christians. In a little time after the Jews growing proud and insolent by reason of their great privileges and immunities, became burdensome to the Christians, and declined in the favour of the Emperors. First therefore Honorius and Theodosius II. being Emperors, they were excluded from Military employments, whereof they were formerly capable, and such as enjoyed any were deprived thereof. This happened 20 years after the Rescript unto Cesarius mentioned before, 
ibid. l. 24.  Honorius being the twelfth time and Theodosius the eighth time Consul. Yet even in that decree which deprives them of warlike charges, the Emperors seem tender of that Nation, and by a fair alleviation and temperament to secure their reputation, and other dignities. The words are these. Let none that adhere unto the Jewish worship and superstition have henceforward any opportunity of being a Soldier. 
inter Palatinos inter agentes in rebus.  Whosoever of them are employed in a military way, either in the Palace, or elsewhere abroad, we will permit them to finish the time they are to continue those their charges, rather pardoning their acting, then indulging it. But hereafter let not that be done, which for the present is an act of our grace. As for those who following the Jews in their pravity are convict to have ambitioned the bearing of arms, let them without any doubt, or demur lose their cingulum, or badge of the Soldatesque, no regard being had to their former demerits. We do not intent by this our mandate to exclude such Jews as being instructed in the liberal arts and Sciences, from being advocates, or getting other Court-offices, which is a liberty they may challenge by the prerogative of their birth and splendour of their families, 
L. 17. C. Justinian. de Judaeis & C. Th. l. 16. tit. 8. l. 29.  wherewith since they ought to be satisfied, they must not think it a disgrace that they are interdicted military Trust. We are sure they had their Sanhedrims in Palestine at that time: nor did they absolutely lose their splendour, dignity and privileges till about forty years after the Consulship of Eutropius, against whom Claudian wrote so bitterly. Then Theodos. II. 
C. Justin. tit de Iudaeis, l. 19  being Consul with Festus the 17th time, Val ntinian III. and the said Theodosius did wonderfully abate their privileges, and straighten their condition.  
And now, I think, 
In the time of Hon●rius lived the Philosopher Le●nt●●● ●t Athens; he was an Heathen yet made a legacy to his Sons, leaving very little to his fair daughter Athenais, which thereupon was forced to go and live at Constantinople with her Aunt; where Theodosius the younger married her, and she became a Christian, was called Eudoxia, and Empress. Mallela. fol 225,  I have given a fair account of what Toleration was allowed to the Gentiles, Jews and all manner of Heretics: I could enlarge my catalogue under Honorius, with recounting not only how much he favoured the Gentiles, and Donatists; (with both which he is notwithstanding reported by the instigation of Stilico to have dealt somewhat severely, so as that they rejoiced at his death) but by reckoning Eucherius the son of Stilico for one, 
Vid St. Claverium in m●scell. ad Claudian. cap. 9  of whom Orosius tells me, lib. 7. cap. 27. that he intended to gain the favour of the Pagans by erecting them Temples, and destroying Christian Churches: and for an Heathen is he reckoned. C. Th. leg. XIX. So his father Stilico (after whose death the Gentiles risen and murdered sundry Bishops, 
Stilico made Saul a Jew [barb●rus & paganus saith Orosius l. 7.38.] General of the Christian Army, which is acknowledged by Baronius.  as also did the Donatists) is by some reputed an Heathen: Orosius saith, that he [à privato pueroque] intended a persecution against the Christians; but since Baronius and Cleverius will allow neither the one nor the other to have been a Pagau; I shall so far assent unto the latter, as to think the insertion of Eucherius' name into the Law aforesaid to be an additional gloss●ma, foisted in by men of more zeal, than honesty or knowledge: the Emperor Honorius abrogated a law which had been made, prohibiting any Gentile to bear arms, or enjoy any preferment, or command [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and made Generidus an Heathen General of all his forces, granting to all, retaining their own opinions, liberty to command and serve in the wars: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] So Zosimus lib. 5. Baronius remarks upon this passage, that Honorius did it out of necessity: but the Author saith, he did not more our of necessity, then respect to Generidus, who was so brave a captain, and had underwent great dangers for the public, being ashamed that by such a Law Generidus should not wear a sword. Let it pass for clear which Dr. Rives avows in his book against Alemannus. 
Dixi enim, & saepius fortasse dicet●●, quo tempore ad im peri●habenas tractandas accissit Justinianus, illud ge●us [polytheorum] praecipuam quamque ●eipub curationem & dignitatem occupasse.  That when Justinian came to ruler, the chiefest dignities and employments were in the possession of the Heathen. Under the Emperor Justinian, I have in the beginning of this discourse told you what Religions were then in the Empire. The Samaritans, (who, besides other Tenants, denied all the Scripture, except the five Books of Moses) had their Synagogues, and were capable of civil Employments: to what end else was that constitution of Justinians against the Samaritans? Novel. 129. That there should be no more Synagogues of the Samaritans, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Citante ●lemanno in Procop. p. 57  and that they should be incapable of public office. So in another place, the said Justinian being consulted by john, Praefectus Praetoriorum, concerning some Samaritans, jews, and Montanists, or such like, whether they were to enjoy the dignity of Senators; replies, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That they shall not receive any benefit by such their places, but if there be any burden or trouble therein, that they should be liable to. Novel. 25. As for the jews they had their Synagogues and Governors (whether termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as appears from that Novel of justinian, concerning such jews as should use the Greek Bible in their Synagogues. We enact by our sacred will that those Jews be without let or molestation, who will in their Synagogues read the Bible in the Greek tongue. Novel. 146. The Arians and other Heretics [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] had their Churches [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as Procopius in his Secret History tells us. p. 51. The Heathens or Gentiles had all the great preferments, 
In●●nt. ad P●ocop. p. 59  and places of trust or dignity in their possession, and so continued them long; as Dr. Ryves confesses, whose words I have repeated; and Alemannus informs us how when he persecuted the Gentiles, the chiefest persons of his Court were found criminal; in which number, as Hesychius, Procopius, Theophanes, and Suidas relate, was Tribonianus Quaestor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Suidas. Thomas Magister officiorum, Johannes Praefectus Praetorio, (to whom he wrote concerning the Jews, Samaritans and Montanists, as aforesaid) and Phocas Patricius magister militum, all which were principal men in making of the Code. Theophanes doth add to this number, Asclepiodotus Praefectus Praetorio, Macedonius Referendarius, [as doth Io. Mallela too] and Pegasius Heliopolitanus Patricius. Yea, Procopius himself was an Heathen, yet was he made by justinian one of the Illustres, a Senator, Assessor to the great [Christian] Captain Belizarius, and after all Praefect of the City, than which charge that Empire scarce had a greater.  
Thus stood the Toleration in the time of justinian, until he by little and little overthrew it; not out of any Religious pretence, but mere covetousness, and to prey upon their Riches, as Procopius who lived in those times leaves us to conjecture. He commanded they should within three month's time relinquish their opinions, and become orthodox, or forfeit their goods and be banished. So Mallela, so Theophanes; yet did not his zeal extend to the principal of the Arians, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophanes citante Alemanno. p. 26.  called Hexacionitae, those he let alone. As for the Samaritans, whether his Law occasioned their revolt, or whether that revolt his Law, I know not; Procopius makes the Law to precede that Tumult; but Mallela speaks not of the Law, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 277. This was in the 29 year of justinian, and so after the Law, as Cyrillus Scythopolitanus saith in Alema●nus.  only how the Samaritans, Jews and Christians fell out and destroyed one another's Temples and Churches, and that the Emperor was angry with the Governor thereupon, and beheaded him. A●emannus makes out of Theophanes and the Alexandrian Chronicle two Seditions, the one, possibly, when the Law was first made, and thereupon remissely executed; the other, when they began to reinforce it: But what effect had his persecution? Men did not relinquish their Religion, but the Profession thereof; yea, saith the Alexandrian Annals, some having been Baptised to this day dissemble. 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●●ante Ale man●o. p 7  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Procop. Hist. Arc. p 5.  
V●d Procop Hist. Arc. p. 53. Iusti●●an made a law that no Pagan should b● capable of public trusts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mall●la. fol. ● 9 but this was enacted after the suppression of the Samaritans, 20000 of whom were slain, and as many children and maids sold by a Saracen commander in the Roman army to the Persians. id. fol. 288.   So Procopius relateth it, how some, seeing death and banishment before their eyes, counterfeited Christianity, whilst others offended at such a kind of conversion turned Manichees, and Polytheists. The like he saith of the Heathens, when Justinian be●an to persecute them with Confiscations and corporal punishments, [yea death, saith Jo. Mallela; for Asclepiodotus, Macedonius, etc. were slain] they renounced Heathenism to avoid the present danger, but not long after relapsed to their former sacrifices and Paganism. But if Covetousness, or Reason of State (the Arians in the Empire corresponding with the enemies thereof the Goths) be grounds for extirpating different Religions, Justinian may be acquitted, having first given an account why he lodged in his bosom an Eutychian for his Wife, who headed that party whilst he countenanced the Orthodox, yea, he himself was in part an Eutychian of the Aphthartodocitae: 
Justinian made an edict in the behalf of the Eateth ans apostle before he died, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophanes.  nor can the most favourable Historian tell what to make of him, whether he were ever real or not in his governing, setting up Anthinius, & then pulling him down aagin at the instance of Agapetus Bishop of Rome, whom, yet when he reproved him, he told, He was Emperor and might do what he pleased. All which is acknowledged by Jos. Simlerus in his Collection of those that wrote against Eutyches, fol. 8. The same Emperor hath abused the World vilely in his Collections of old Laws, for he left out many good ones, 
Vide Cont. lect. suoser. l. 1. c. 9  inserted many bad, and (notwithstanding Protestations to the contrary) imposed upon his predecessors such laws as they never made, yea the contrary whereof they enacted: and then decreed none should quote any of such laws, but out of his compilations, upon pain of being prosecuted as a falsifier of such imperial laws, as he had basely miscited, and they might disprove out of the Codex Gregorianus, Hermogenianus, and Theodosianus, of the two former Codes we have now so little knowledge, that we ignore whence they had their names; both are lost together with above half of the Code of Theodosius, none being willing to transcribe them, which they could not allege for their adantage, nor so curious in an age not too inquisitive, as to preserve them for mere antiquity-sake. And this is the reason why we have no more laws recorded, nor no better account of things than we have: yea so many falsifications of laws, (men being as good at that, as at scattering false Creeds and Gospels, and Epistles) that I shall not value what can be produced in opposition to what I have laid down, though some should publish more than Pamelius the Papist hath wrote against Toleration. Shall I trust him in the great affairs of Christianity, and self-interest, who cousins me de stillicidiis, etc. Shall I suppose him honest where he had the highest motives possible to cheat, and yet know his forgeries in cases of little or no moment? Ad populum phaleras! Besides it is considerable that no Emperor can be alleged for persecutions, who did not make his decrees as Authentic as the word of God, so that their Laws are called Oracles, Sacred decrees, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nostrae majestatis oracula, divales litterae nostrum numen, perennitas, divinitas, and a thousand such like eulogies do they assume, and Ecclesiastical writers give them: as may be seen in the Theodosian Code, Mallela, etc. On the other side I hope I shall not be troubled to give any character of the Emperors I have insisted on, out of the writers of those days: they areall called Divi or Saints, as you may see in Onuphrius' fasti. Constantine is called the Divine and Faithful, etc. Jovianus the most Christian: Valentinian the Orthodox, etc. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mallela. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mallela. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mallela. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id.  yea the most divine: the most just and most severe. (The latter whereof is his constant elegy in Mallela) so Valens the most Divine, though my Author confess him to have been an Arian [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Gratian the most pious; Theodosius the most Divine, and Religious. I could produce much more full testimonies in their behalf, if I thought any were so ignorant as to demand it. If any shall reply that those were but the compliances of Christians in a necessitous condition, and not being able to suppress the Heathen, they did permit them. I doubt not but they who are most ready to object thus will be no less forward to affirm that they ought not to engage into a sinful compliance, and such must this of theirs have been since the laws made are enforced with reasons, sundry of them; it was their declared judgement, both under persecution, and after, when they had gained the Superiority and Empire. I shall once again repeat the Testimony of Tertullian ad Scapulam. It is our property, humane equity, & natural right to allow each man to worship what he thinks fit: 
Tamen humani ●uris & naturalis potestatis unicuique quod pu●averit colere: nec al●i obest, aut prodesi alterius religio, sed nec religi●nis est cogere religionem, quae sp●nte suscipi debeat, non vi; cum & hostiae ab animo libenti ●ae os●ul●ntúr. Ita eis● nos compul ritis ad secrificandum, nihil prae●t bi●is diis vest●is: ab invi● 'tis enim Sacrificia non desiderabunt, nisi si contentiosi sunt; contentiosus autem Deus non est.  no man can receive benefit, or prejudice by the religion, of another. Besides, it is not consistent with Religion, to force men thereunto, since that aught to be embraced voluntarily, and not by compulsion: even sacrifices are not acceptable, if not tendered by a willing mind. Thus though you should compel us to Sacrifice to your Gods, yet will you do them no service, for they will not require Sacrifices from the unwilling, unless they be contentious, and if they are contentious, they are no Gods. Is this the language of a man who intends a bare compliance? Are these reasons suiting with the designs of one who would suppress the Heathen as soon as he should have power and opportunity. Were they Pagan-Gods only which required sincerity of heart and real affections with their oblations? Is it that religion only which excludes compulsion? Must those Deities only be destroyed, if they are contentious? Either what Tertullian said is to be understood absolutely and universally, or he did very ill in refusing to sacrifice to false Gods, and yet violating his obedience to the true one by such notorious prevarication. After that they came to the Sovereignty; and that those Christians who before (if we may believe Tertullians' rant) were in a posture to dispute their sufferings with them which persecuted them, had now gained Authority on their side, and a fair accessionall of strength; did they then merely comply when they might, and my adversaries will say aught to have suppressed the Pagans! surely Lactantius who lived to see the Christians afflicted under Diocletian, and flourishing under Constantine, to whose son Crispus he was Tutor, and to which Emperor he dedicated particularly his Book de justitiâ, in the twentieth chapter whereof (after you have observed with Xystus Betullius in his notes, that the Roman Pontifexes, seu minores, sou maxim flamines, augurs, item reges sacrificuli, 

Non est opus vi & in●uria, quia religio co●i non potes: v●rb●s poti us qu●m verberibus res agend● est ut s●● luntas.  
— Quid ergo saeviunt, ut stultitiam suam dum minuere velunt, augeant; long diversa sunt carnificina & p●●●as. nec potest ●ut veritas cum vi, aut justitia cum crudelitate conjungi.—   quique sunt sacerdotes & antistites religionum, that all these Pagan Priests were then in being) you may note how he directs his discourse in general against persecution for Religion. There needs no force, nor injurious compulsion, because Religion cannot be enforced: to make men willing; you must use [persuasive] words, and not stripes.— Why then do they rage's and persecute, that so they may increase instead of lessening their folly? [The Bible and the Gallows] Piety and cruelty are things of a quite defferent nature; nor can truth subsist with force, or justice with oppression.— Then he having objected in the behalf of the Heathens, that they ought to defend the public rites and religious worship: he commends them for their tenderness in the behalf of Religion, but reproves the ways whereby they would preserve it. Religion is to be defended not by slaying, but dying, 
Defendenda religio est non occidendo, sed moriendo; non saevitia, sed patientia, non scelere, sed fide. Illa enim malorum sunt, haec bonorum. Et necesse est bonum in rel gione versari, non malum. Nam si sagnine, si tormentis, si mala religione, defendere velis, jam non defendetur illa, sed polluetur atque violabitur. Nihil enim est tam voluntarium, quam religio: in qua si animus sacrificantis aversus est, jam sublata, iam n●lla est.  not by cruelty but patience, not by wickedness but faith, those are practices of the bad, but these of the good.— If you will defend religion with bloodshed, torments and oppressions, you will rather pollute and defile Religion thereby, then defend it. Nothing is, or aught to be so voluntary as Religion, which ceaseth to be such, if the Sacrificer worship with an unwilling mind.  
Many more sayings of the ancients might be produced for the further illustrating of this point, but in the relations which I have given of the Toleration allowed of old by the first Christian Emperor's, there is so much intermixed of their Judgement in reference to the case in hand, that I shall forbear till further opportunity, leaving the Reader to think that those Emperors had a Clergy living in those days (though not endowed with Titles) and that it may be presumed they did advise or concur to those decrees which Justinian did absolutely infringe, together with the Popes of Rome, who in the declining of the Greek Empire advanced themselves to a secular principality, I shall not insist upon the Toleration which hath been allowed and avowed under Protestants since the beginning of the Reformation; he must be a great stranger in the world that knows not with what vehemency they have condemned Popery, and the Popish inquisition.  
It is not to be denied that under Henry the fourth of France (as also now) in the same camp men of both religions fought for the same person, and that the Protestants offered the Papists a Toleration; and advised their King to it, and thought it not only necessary, but lawful, as again their King being turned Papist they sued for a Toleration and procured that Edict, by the benefit whereof they enjoy their present Liberty. In the German Diet at Spires 1626. the Germane Princes demanded an universal Toleration for Religion, and that upon these motives, 1. Because faith must be free and voluntary. 2. Because it is the gift of God. 3. Because Experience showeth how force doth nothing avail. 4. Because, the Christians have always tolerated the Jews. I desire the force and extent of these arguments may be weighed, and see if they will include the Heretics of our times. Is their Faith to be less free? Or less the gift of God? Or can they be more compelled to believe, than the Calvinists or Lutherans? Is that argument a majori ad minus, from the sufferance of the greater to the sufferance of the less, more invalidated in our days than of old? viz. If the Jews have always been tolerated, who deny our whole Religion, the Trinity, the Messiah, Justification, etc. the new Testament, and Daniel in the old; may we not tolerate such as differ from us in smaller cases? How far Toleration hath been extentended in Transylvania, Poland, Hungary, Austria, the Hans-towns, France, Holland, etc. I cannot at present enlarge on, nor recount the say of several Kings, or Divines to that purpose: but I will undertake to evince the lawfulness, and possibility, and manner of a firm Toleration out of the principles laid down in the reconciliatory discourses betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists. 
N.B. I am assured by Beza that the Lutherans are Nestorians and Eutichans; ubiquitatis dogma quod ad Christi naturas attimet prorsus Nestorianum, quod adearund●m idiomata spectat penitus E●tychianum est. Bez. ●p. ad Dudith.  And I appeal to all judicious persons whether therebe any greater difference betwixt the Heretics abroad (till Arminia nisme, Semipeligianisone Episcopacy, etc. be new-named by Presbytery, I shall so term them) and those in England, then that the one are removed from the other by the interposition of the Sea.  
But against this Toleration, in the utmost extent of it, it will be objected, That under the Law of Moses, Idolaters and Blasphemers were put to death. Exod. 22. v. 20. He that sacrificeth unto any God, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. and Deut. 13. If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder: and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, Let us go after other Gods (which thou hast not known) and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your Soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that Prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death (because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in) so shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. If thy Brother, the Son of thy Mother, or thy Son, or thy Daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own So●l, entice thee secretly, saying, let us go and serve other Gods which thou hast not known, thou nor thy Fathers, namely of the Gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth, even unto the other end of the earth: thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, nor shalt thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shall stone him with stones, that he die: because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy Cities which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men the Children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their City, saying, let us go, and serve other Gods which you have not known: then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently, and behold if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that City with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the Cattles thereof, with the edge of the sword, and thou shalt gather 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, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever, it shall not be built again, and there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing to thy hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers. And again in the same book ch. 17. v. 2. etc. If there be found among you within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, and hath gone and served other Gods, and worshipped them, either the Sun or Moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; and if it be told thee, & thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently and behold it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman (which have committed that wicked thing) unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die. Against the Blasphemer there is this law commanded. Levit. 24. v. 15, 16. Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin, and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is borne in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put to death.  
For the explanation of these texts I shall observe what is the opinion of the Jewish Rabbis, and what hath been the practice of that Nation. They divide the world into two parts, the sons of Noah and themselves: to themselves they say the Law promulgated in the Books of Moses was given; to the residue of mankind whom they call the sons of Noah, they say that they are not obliged to the law of Moses, but to seven precepts given to Noah, but whether such precepts were actually given, or only imprinted in the Souls of all men at their original, is disputed amongst them: Hereby they are said to have been commanded to have abstained from Idolatry; from blasphemy, or cursing the holy name [of God] from murder, from adultery and incest, from theft, and that they should erect a Polity or Magistracy for the keeping inviolably these precepts. The last (which they suppose to have been given to Noah, as the former were even to Adam) that they should not eat the members of any creature which had been cut off from it whilst it was yet living. These are commandments which they say were given to all man kind, and to the observation whereof they were so obliged hereunto, that they could nor without 〈◊〉 violate them. Yet however the Nations were obliged hereunto, yet did God establish no paramount judge over them, so that any true believers, or peculiar Nations or people should have it in charge to prohibit, or destroy them in their transgressions, or demolish their Idols. This is clear from the account we have of things from the beginning unto the erecting of the Israelitish polity: for Abraham in his pilgrimage conversed with Idolaters, and did not destroy them, or attempt it, or disoblige them in discourse or deportment; though what he might have done that way (especially in conjunction with Melchizedech King of Salem) be evident from his achievements in the behalf of Lot against the four Kings. Gen. 14. and from the respect paid him by the Sons of Heth (before whom he used much address, bowing himself) Hear us my Lord; thou art a mighty prince among us. or a Prince of God; things that excel being in an Hebrars● said to be of God) Gen. 23.6. So for Lot dwe●ing in Sodom, however God might destroy them, yet that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds. 2. Pet. 2.7, 8. Yet that he vexed them, or provoked them by embittering censures, etc. I find no mention in sacred writ. So Jacob lived with Laban an Idolater and married his daughter, being then, and continuing after an Idolatress; yet did not he molest Laban in his worship; as may be gathered from the Text, for if Laban so fiercely pursued him for those. Idols which Rachel had carried away; we may be certain that he would not have so friendly before agreed with him, if he had gone violently to demolish them. So the Children of Israel being in Egypt, and multiplying there, in a land full of Idolatry, I do not find any contest emerging about their different worships. After that the Israelites were come out of Egypt, and that God modelled that people into a Commonwealth, they had this law given them Exod. 22.20. He that sacrificeth to any God save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed; or become an Anathema: of which law the meaning is not universal, but to be understood of the Jews and amongst the Jews. For it was not ever extended to the Gentiles living separate from the Jews; for the Israelites were not hereby obliged to destroy all their Neighbours that were Idolaters, they never practised such a thing, nor is the omission thereof laid to their charge: They were to be left to the judgement of God, who in the event and final issue would cut them off and destroy them. The Law in its letter, and as far as man had power to execute it, was limited to the seven Nations, which God had given to the Children of Israel for a possession: Deut. 12.1. These are the statutes and the judgements which ye shall observe to do, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 
So Exod. 34.13. — They should destroy all monuments of Idolatry in those dominions: and this is the judgement of the Jewish Doctors, as Mr. Selden reports them the jur. nature. l. 2. c. 2. It is commanded us that we destroy all foreign worship out of our land; but beyond our precincts it is not commanded us that we should persecute and destroy it. In case they made any additional conquest, that law did not reach them; yet did they by an intervenient right (as Mr. Selden phraseth it) abolish and extripate Idolatry in such places, viz. lest it should become a snare unto them. Amongst the Jews there lived sundry other people called under the general name of Strangers, which as to matters of common equity, had one and the same law or justice which an Israelite had: such were the Gibeonites and the relics of the Canaanites that were undestroyed: such were those which joined with them when they came out of Egypt, such were the Prosclytes or Strangers in the gate who were not Jew's, but were all bound up (say the Jews) to the seven precepts of Noah: in such cases as an Israelite might be put to death, they also might suffer the like punishment; so that it being death for an Israelite to worship Idols, or tempt others thereunto, it was in like manner punishable for any Stranger to attempt the like. But it was also death for any Stranger, not becoming absolutely a Proselyte to the law of Moses, for to observe any part thereof as being his law: It is also remarkable, that the law of Noah regarding Idolatry was Negative, and only told them they were not to worship Idols, Angels, Sun and Moon, and such Gods as were not the Lord Jehovah, but as to the positive part we find nothing expressed that they were to do necessarily, though voluntarily, they might offer whole burnt-offerings by the Priest in the same Temple with the jews, and they might pay their vows, and had a particular place in the Temple to pray in. As for a City falling into Idolatry it was to be destroyed with the edge of the sword, the spoil to be burned, and all to be made an heap for ever. But in reference to this extirpating Idolatrous Cities, I observe that it is not only not extended beyond the limits of Israel, [if thou shalt hear say in one of the Cities, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to dwell there.—] but also that it doth seem not to have extended unto any City that should cast off the yoke of their government, and separate into a new reiglement: for I do not find any war made upon Jeroboam and the ten Tribes for their Apostasy and Idolatry, though they be reproved for the same; nor do I find that the Towns taken at any time from the ten Tribes by the two, were used according to the law in debate: But they seem as the Samaritans after them, to be left unto God for to be cut off. And indeed as to particular Idolatry to be practised within Judaea by the Strangers, that none should come thither who should not profess a subjection to the precepts of Noah, and so relinquish his Religion, or intermit, ●t doth hardly seem credible that it was performed, when Hirams Servants did work with Solomon's Servants, or came to congratulate him: 1 Kings 5. or when the Queen of Shebah came to Jerusalem with a very great train. 1 Kin. 10. Or as often as any Ambassadors came from foreign countries to the upright Kings of Judah after the Captivity and their return from thence; will any one think that Alexander the great, when he and his army came to jerusalem, that they became Proselytes to the commandments of Noah? or that the Romans did intermit their worship, which was to be performed daily, or particularly at the marching of the Army, all the while they were in jury? Or that all those Nations recounted in the Acts 2. v. 9, 10, 11. had renounced their native Religion. Yet is not that Toleration condemned by the Apostles, as neither had it been by Christ, who was able by a grant of Angelical legions to effect what possibly it may be replied the others could not.  
As for that other text respecting Blasphemy, Levit. 24. v. 15, 16. Any man, when be shall curse his God, than he shall bear his sin. And he that b●asphemeth the name of Jehovah shall surely be put to death; and all the congregation stoning shall stone him, as well the Stranger as the Home-born, when he blasphemeth the name shall be put to death. The Jews observe that it is not said in the Original he that blasphemeth, 
From hence the Jews became so superstitious as not to think it lawful to name the sacred name, therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo thus recordeth the law, Ei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. de vita Mosis. l. 3.  but he that nameth, and that not generally God, but the name Jehovah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they further remark that the Son of Selomith did curse the name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though they confess that the law against blasphemy comprise both jews and Strangers living amongst them (for it is not conceivable how it extended any further than their particular polity, so as to oblige the Jews at Alexandria to execute the law upon any gentile there, or in the captiutiy) yet the extent of the violation thereof was so little, that the blasphemer must have expressed the name Jehovah. The words of the Thalmudists are (as Mr. Selden citys them the jur. nature. l. 2. c. 12.) he is not to die, if he express not the sacred name: no not though he blaspheme or curse any sacred attribute. Reus (mortis) non est, nisi qui expresserit ipsum nomen: neutiquam veuò qui cognomini maledixerit. But notwithstanding this (and much more to this purpose, which is to be seen in Mr. Selden) it seems evident from the condemnation of our Saviour in the Gospel, that in his day's blasphemy was extended beyond the mention of that sacred name (of the true pronunciation whereof we are now totally ignorant, and so incapable of that blasphemy) unto the attributes of God. For Caiphas saith Matth. 26.63. &c, I adjure there by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus said untohim, thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, hereafter shall you see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the Highpriest rend his , saying, he hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold now ye have heard his blasphemy, what think ye? They answered and said, he is guilty of death. Or as Mark c. 14. v. 64. hath it, And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. In this trial there is no mention of the Tetragrammaton or sacred name, yet the whole assembly unanimously condemns our Saviour for blasphemy, against one of the Sacred attributes, which is manifestly expressed in the text in the words, Sitting at the right hand of power, 
Vid. Selden. loco citato.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being by the Jewish Rabbins a thousand times reckoned amongst the attributes of God. I am further to observe that the jews did not reckon material blasphemy, such as is wickedness of life, or the profession of a religion or way inconsistent with the truth, for to be the blasphemy that was to be punished with death. Thus the Blind man joh. 9 who avowed Christ to be no sinner, but a Prophet, and of God, was not impleaded or condemned as guilty of blasphemy, and so to die; but he was excommunicated, or excluded from the converse of the jews. And the Disciples in the Acts. ch. 4. & 5. though they preached that jesus was the Christ, and that Salvation was to be had only in his name, and that God had exalted him with his RIGHT HAND to be a prince and a Saviour, etc. yet were not they charged with blasphemy, or represented as guilty of death. So Paul in his declaration, whatever he lay down, it was not imputed to him as blasphemous: for then the people would have rend their , instead of casting them off, and have said, he was guilty of death, and not Away with such a fellow from the earth; it is not fit that he should live, Acts 22. v. 22, 23. from whence it may be gathered what opinion the jews had of the Messiah, that one might avow himself to be, or that another was such, yet not be guilty of blasphemy, or death: for such his assertion, yet as a sour of sedition such might be punished with stripes or imprisonment. Acts 4. v. 3. Acts 24. v. 5. for if they had taught openly that Christ did sit at the right hand of power, or glory (as Steven Acts 7. v. 55, 56, 57) or had said: he was the Son of God, they would not have spared the Disciples who condemned the Master upon that score, and told Pilate, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Joh. 19.7.  
It is very considerable how by the same law, whereby Christ was condemned for blasphemy by the jews in asserting his deity: by the same law are the Socinians condemned now for denying his deity. We ought then to be very tender in committing the interpretative power of such laws to any sort of men, least analogical blasphemy retrench upon the truth.  
Formal blasphemy or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, maledictio, seu execratio ejusdem, reproachful language or cursing of the Sacred name was counted blasphemy by them, and as such, prohibited. viz. When the Hol●ness, Power, Verity, 
Quando sanctitas, potesias, veritas, unitas, numinis aut convitio ultro ac diserte prosciaditur, aut ex professione, actuve aliquo palam ac procaciter negari consequenter deprehendi●ur. Selden. de jur. nature. l. 2. c. 11.  and Unity of God was either reviled wilfully and expressly, or by some action or declaration (in a way of consequence) openly and malepertly denied. Of the former sort was the blasphemy of Rabshekah 2. King. 8.30. Isai. 36.15. And of Shelomith's Son Levit. 24.13 and that of which Naboth was accused, 2 King. 21. v. 10.13. the Chaldee having it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which signifies to bless or curse according to the foregoing sense.  
Of the second sort, or consequential blasphemy (which was not to depend upon subtle consequences deduced from words or actions innocently spoken and performed, and without any evil intention, or through error; as any man may prove out of Mr. Selden de jur. nature. l. 2. c. 11.) it was accounted such, if any one without lapsing himself into idolatry, or embracing strange worships, (for that was comprised by the jews under the precept of Idolatry, & was also reputed a consequential blasphemy) did persuade others thereunto, or profess the lawfulness & equity thereof himself, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an high hand, 
Ex prot●rvia, n●n ex ignor●ntia seu disciplinae errore.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of malapertness, not ignorance, or mistake in judgement. Or if any Israelite did in such manner violate the Law of Moses, or a son of Noah, (living among the Jews under an established polity in Judaea) transgress the precepts of N●ah, not out of weakness, or hasty seductions of natural concupiscence or error, but because he peevishly and malepertly refuses to acknowledge his obligation to the contrary, or doth not reverence the Authority: Power, Unity, and Verity of God so commanding or prohibiting; that is, he denies it all in very deed, willingly, wilfully, and with an high hand, and despises it. This is the doctrine of the Jews, and to this doth that precept refer Numb. 15.30. The soul that shall do with an high hand, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, proudly and insolently, the Chaldee hath it, with an uncovered head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) whether he be home-born, or stranger, the same reproacheth (or blasphemeth) Jehovah: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.  
By all this that hath been alleged as the doctrine of the Jews, together with their practice in our Saviour's time, this Law of Blasphemy and Idolatry is particular to the Jews, living under their proper polity in the land God gave them, and extends coercively no farther; nor therein to any consequential or figurative remote Idolatry and blasphemy proceeding from probable reasons, or weakness of judgement, or the like; so that for aught I can see, since neither the Scripture nor Jewish Doctors inform us what a Supreme Magistrate over the sons of Noah ought to do in such cases, and since in dubious matters it is best to be cautious, I believe, notwithstanding all this Law, a Toleration must necessarily be granted.  
But to give a punctual answer to these Laws: It is evident that they are part of the Political Law of Moses, and not comprised in the Moral Law, I mean as to the punishment inflicted upon the Transgressor: for the Moral Law, 
It is the opinion of many jews, and also of Theodoret, that the first part of one text in controversy, viz. Levi●. 24.15. Whosoever curseth his God, shall bear his sin that by this text even Idolaters were prohibited to blaspheme their gods. Which interpretation, as it is highly probable, and conformable to reason and usage; so it shows that there may be a rule to evidence a transgression, yet not infer a temporal punishment: for none of them prove any punishment to have been inflicted thereupon, but that the offender should hear his sin. The like in stances may be brought from several Laws the breach whereof was punished with excision or cutting off.  or the Law of Nature may lead us to condemn what it doth not enjoin us to punish, at least not this or that particular way. This is evident, as to the case in hand, from the practice of sundry Nations: and even that commandment which taught the jew to keep the Sabbath, and to condemn its breakers, did not teach them what punishment they should inflict upon them. Thus he that had gathered sticks upon that day, was put in ward, because it was not declared what should be done unto him. 
Philo Judaeus de vita Mosis. lib. 3.  And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the Congregation shall stone him. Numb. 15.34, 35. So the Blasphemer, son of Shelomith, though he had sinned against the Law delivered in the Mount, Exod. 20.7. yet was he put in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be showed them: and God commanded he should be stoned, Levit. 24.12.16. Nor doth the example of God so punishing infer that we ought to do in the like manner: God by Moses punished Theft, (which is a breach of the Moral Law) with a  restitution amongst the jews, Exod. 22. v. 1. Luc. 19.8. Yet Mr. Selden shows how the strangers in Israel were punished for thievery with death; as also amongst us they are: Nor do I find the usage to be condemned, though every pettit transgression of the Sabbath we do not punish with death. This then being a Political Law, it cannot oblige us but upon the account of common equity, and not as a part of the jewish Polity, for then all the judicial Law would be introduced into Christianity: and since common equity, nor the example of God doth not determine necessarily of the greatness and manner of the punishment, I conceive a moderation requisite, lest for the uncertain satisfying of one Law we run the certain hazard of breaking another, which is that of committing no murder.  
This will much more appear, if we consider that the prohibition Exod. 22. v. 20. Is directly against Sacrificing, which he that shall expound to be any sort of worship which is commanded not to be appayed to other Gods but Jehovah, 
It is very hard measure, and a Zeal not according to knowledge, that because the law may without retrenching upon impossibility, be expounded so, therefore the man must die.  speaks more than is in the Text, or can be necessarily deduced from any other places of Scripture, wherein if it be sometimes used for worship in general, it doth not follow that it is always so used, and consequently that it must, but that it may be so here. The whole is a fallacious arguing from the punishment of one determinate species or kind of transgression with death, to the punishment of all that agree therewith in a more large and generical relation. Adultery may be (and is by our laws) punished more severely than fornication, yet are both forbidden by the same commandment. As for the place in Deut. c. 13. it is directed against prophets and dreamers, things not to be heard of in our days, in which those delusions as well as gifts are ceased, and that of Deut 17. v. 2. etc. is a punishment of corporal adorations and service paid to the Sun, Moon and host of Heaven: of which I know not, nor do I hear of any among us: However, since this text thus urged maketh against Paganism and its toleration, I desire that not only the practice of the Jews, but of the primitive Christian Emperors be considered, and it will be evident how they did not think themselves concluded thereby. It is no good argument which doth not weigh all circumstances; the opponent must prove that all Commonwealths must be (as to this point) like unto that of Israel, that their Magistrates have the same duty incumbent upon them (though, by the way, to destroy Idolaters, and seducers thereunto, 
Hebraeorum meribus, Hebraeus a Deo & Dei lege deficiens aut ducem se ad f●lsos cultus praeb●ns (Deut 13. ●.) illico a quovis homine poterat interfici. Judicium Z●l● id vocabant Hebraei quod a Phinea primo exercitum aiunt, Num. 25. & inde ablisse in morem. Sic Jud●um quendam Graecis se polluentem ritibus occidit Mathias (2 Maccab. 24.) Sic trecen●i alii Judaei a p●pularibus suis occisi reseruntur libro qui vulgo dicitur Maccabaeorum tertius. Nec alio obtentu instituta lapidatio in Stephanum (Act. 7.57.) & conjuratio in Paulum (Act. 23.13.) multaque alia exempla eiusmo●i extant & apud Philonem; & apud I osephum. Grotius de iur. bell. l. 2. c. 20. §. 8.  was no magistratical act; and what wonder is it if Jehu, Josiah and Elijah do that which any member of that political constitution might do?) And that the same power not only aught to be, but is actually enstated in them: And when they shall have proved this, we shall grant them liberty of extirpating their Idolatrous subjects. In the mean while I desire it may be observed, that though it be argued out of the Text Deut. 13. v. 10, 11. that the precept is urged with a perpetual reason, therefore its force is everlasting. [Cur ob eum finem perlata lex dicitur que perpetuò valere debet? Sic enim scribitur in extrema lege,  omnes Israelitae audiant & timeant, & nè deinceps rem adeò nefandam designent. Beza de pun. haeret.] Thou shalt stone him with stones that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God.— And all Israel shall hear and fear and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. The latter part of which words, however Beza would make them to be a reason for the Action, yet from the words I can gather no more, then that God, to whom nothing is hid, saith that by way of event, it shall happen that such exemplary punishments shall be attended with the consequent of Israel's obedience: nor will collation of texts help us to any more full, and also necessary deduction. And as for the former part, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, though I should grant the reason to be perpetual: yet doth not it therefore (in Scripture ratiocination) follow that the law is to be perpetual: 
Such is the case of abstaining from blood. Levit. 17. v. 10, 11, 13, 14.  not to instance in other laws, is not that of the Sabbath enforced with a perpetual reason as to the determinat day?, and yet do not Divines absolve us from the obligation thereof? Is it not now as true as ever, that in Six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth and rested the seventh day, wherefore he blessed the Seventh day and hallowed it.  
As for Mystical or Figurative Idolatry I understand not how this text can with any pretence be urged against it, unless they will find out some Analogical punishment: for as such Idolatry is not absolutely Idolatry, but in some proportion (for the extent whereof we have no warrant either in the customary interpretation of penal laws, which are not to be extended: nor in Scripture, which prohibits all addition to the text upon so severe a curse as one ought not upon probabilities to run the danger of it) nor they dreamers or false prophets, 
The Apostle Peter, Epist. 1. cha. 2. saith indeed, That as of old there were false prophets; so under the Gospel there should be false teachers, which should deny the Lord that bought them. Of these he saith, That their Judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their Damnation flumbereth not: (v. 3.) yet doth not be say, they ought to be murdered, or otherwise afflicted, as of old under the Law; but leaves them to God to be punished, as were those of Sodom: he reserves the unjust unto the Day of Judgement to be punished: (v. 9) and those false teachers bring upon themselves swift destruction: (va●) which neither was then, nor for some hundreds of years after inflicted on them by the Magistrate. In that place of Peter I further observe in the natural signification of the words, That Heresy (as it is elsewhere called a work of the flesh) is distinct from their denying of the Lord that bought them. So that pernicious Heresiae (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is not a spiritual thing, but a factiou or seditious joining and siding with some Opinionist.  but in some proportion, (the prophet and dreamer being expressly such as shall give a sign or wonder and seduce them to the worship of strange Gods, or Idols, of which kind he that would make every discrepant or false notion in Theology, must have recourse to other Glossaryes than I can admit of) why then is there no restriction upon the punishment? Or if it must stand for all Analogical Idolatry, I hope that before they be punished with death who are not termed Idolaters in Scripture, though they be termed Heretics and Schismatics; that they who are positively in Scripture so termed, shall be the first sufferers, and then the covetous will not scape free, nor they who are most vehement for persecution, since Covetousness is (a work of the flesh, as Heresy, 
It doth not appear from the text, Gal. 5.20. that Heresy is a work of the flesh as we do usually take the word, but it signifies th●re a sliding or factious b●andying.  and which the latter is not called but distinct from it, Gal. 5.20.) Idolatry. Coloss. 3.5. But to show the difference between Heretics and Idolaters? is it not sufficient that the old Law condemns them to death, and yet from Ezras' time, or not long after, Tolenrated these? and that the Apostle bids us only avoid, whom they say kill, fire, banish? Tit. 3.10▪ A man that is an Heretic after the first and second admonition reject [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excuse yourself unto: so Luc. 14.18.] knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Concerning Heresy, the word is not always taken in a bad sense: the Sadduces are called an Heresy Act. 5.17. and the Pharisees, Act. 15.5. and Christianity itself Act. 28.22. and as often as I hear it mentioned almost, me thinks I hear men speak as of a People that in a time of idleness and implicit faith dare inquire into the state of things, and employ their judgement. Surely the case is very hard, if they who having done all that was in their power to try all things, if they miss of the truth, and hold fast not which is good, but which seems so, either through invincible ignorance, or such as he that made us knows humane frailty to be liable unto; if they I say, shall not be in as good a condition as those who received the Truth without trial, and embraced it upon no better an account than custom, education, or interest. But however that I have no aversion upon this account for Heresy when it is named, yet I do not relish accordingly that of Heretic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For this latter denotes a person given to change, often choosing, or apt to do so; now I am advised by the wise man, Prov. 24.21. Not to meddle with those that are given to change: whereunto I may subjoin the Apostles reason prealledged, knowing that he, that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself▪ Questionless the fickle and unstable minded are subverted in their principle, and when they embraced that which is good, they do it upon such an account as a Christian hath little reason not to reject, or excuse himself to them: and they having such a sense of their own instability, that they are clouds carried with a temper, trees whose fr●it withereth, without fruit, mistake or offend, and condemn themselves in such their lapses, at least of a mutability not becoming the spirit of God. The converse which such, is like what the Apostle saith of Younger widows, refuse them [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word is the same in both places] For when they begin to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry: having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith, 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. But allowing the common notion of the word (if there be any common notion thereof, or certain definition, which I am ignorant of, as not knowing in this case what to profess, where the Spirit of God is silent) let there have been such a thing in Paul's time, when men could join to the Church of God, and yet condemn themselves in such their practice, whilst they embraced opinions different from what the Apostles (upon whom the Church was built, and who were as the Vrim and Thummim under the old Testament before the Captivity) did reveal and determine of: that such were to be declined after one or two admonitions, that such were subverted, that such did sin, and were self condemned, and might be known under the circumstances aforesaid for such, is to me undoubted. But why did not Paul (having here occasion to speak of Heresy, and what was to be done thereupon) ordain, or give some item that for the present they should only avoid them, but in after times, (when they should have less of the Spirit of God, and more of the arm of flesh to assist them) than they should hang, burn, imprison, and fine them. No: he was fare from that, as Christ was from saying to his Apostles, Go your ways; behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves for the present, 
Luc. 10.3.  but when you shall have got strength [not that strength which I put upon you, whereby Ananias and Saphira shall fall, and others shall be delivered to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, but saving the spirit: but] such strength as the Kings of this world will contribute unto you, then do you become wolves also, or if you retain your sheepish-nature, at least put on wolves clothing. In a word the Heretic here is subverted, is self-condemned, and known for such by him who is enjoined to avoid him: if there be any such Heretics in our days, he that can discern them, let him avoid them; but destroy them not till further orders. Thus I have done with the case of Idolatry, in the disquisition whereof I am not only at a loss in reference to the nature of Heresy, the Judge of Heresy, and the power to punish it, together with the punishment itself; but I am dissatisfied whether it be not commanded to be tolerated in the Parable of the Tares, Matth. 13. v. 24. By the Tares is not meant wicked and ungodly livers; for than had Christ abolished Magistracy, when he prohibited the extirpating such (v. 30.) to whom the Magistrate ought to be a terror, and not to bear the Sword, (as these their Sickles) in vain: nor is it meant of Heresies (as they are distinguished from Heathenism) it being no inoculation of trees, but a sowing of different feeds, which in the conclusion of the Parable are the Children of the wicked one, opposed to the Children of the Kingdom: in fine they are burned in the fire; whereas of most Heresies I dare only say that the professors of them shall escape, but as it were by fire.  
I come now to speak of Blasphemy and the Blasphemers, which who they are I see not how I may well determine. It is the general vogue of the Jews, that it extends in the penal part of the Law unto a bare pronunciation of the sacred name Jehovah, or to a reviling insolently the Unity, Verity, or Power of God: as hath been showed. Material blasphemy or the professing a Religion or worship which in effect repugns to the Truth, Unity, and Power of God, is not the thing prohibited or punished: hence was the Toleration of old amongst the Jews, and of Heathens amongst the Christians, as also of Arians, etc. who if they had been concluded under this Law, should be censured with death, and not slight or no penalties. To dispute against the greatest truths seems not to have been accounted condemnable blasphemy; for when Paul was at Ephesus, he disputed with others, and they with him concerning the things of the kingdom: he said they were no Gods that were made with hands, yet doth the Town-Clerk give Paul and his followers this testimony, that they were neither robbers of Churches, nor yet blasphemers of the Ephesian goddess, Act. 19.37. This text puts me in mind of a general opinion which Baronius doth avow, [Tom. 1. ad ann. 57] that the Jews and Christians did generally hold, that even the Heathen Gods were not to be reviled, or contumeliously spoken against. Josephus recounteth it for one of Moses his Laws, Let none blaspheme such as the other cities shall esteem as Gods, Antic. l. 4. c. 8. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The same Author in his second Book against Appian having interested the innocency and integrity of the Jews, declines all bitter discourses and declamations against the Gods of the Heathen, saying, It is our custom to observe our own laws, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not to accuse those of others. Our Lawgiver hath directly prohibited us to revile or blaspheme such as are reputed Gods by others, for of much as they bear the name of God. And Philo saith that Moses did not so much as permit the Proselytes of justice, or such as did entirely profess Judaisme to blaspheme the Gods they had renounced, lest it should give occasion to others to blaspheme the true God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo de Monarch, lib. 1. but of this I shall speak more in my proposals how to manage a Toleration, whereunto, though some light may be gathered from what I have here laid down, yet if it be found that I have proved the lawfulness and necessity thereof, I shall, according as God shall enable me with strength and opportunity, and as the public exigency of affairs (whereunto I think myself obliged to contribute all that I can) shall call for it at my hands, I shall endeavour to lay down such a method as thereby we may have that peace with all men, the possibility whereof I have already evinced by matter of fact, (and could much more, had I not tied myself to the Roman and Greek story) and the necessity whereof we may learn from that Apostolical precept, If it be possible, and as fare as lies in you, have peace with all men Rom. 12.18. Hebr. 12.14.  
Much more might be said of Heretics, and their punishment out of Austin. and how it is generally acknowledged how the Orthodox Christians did never implore the aid of the Magistrate for 400. Years (though the heretics did) and out of the same Father, I could answer the greatest inconveniences attending this Toleration; which was denied to the Donatists & Circumcellions, men outrageous in their ways, and the latter of which did use to kill with swords and maim the orthodox party, as also to put out their eyes with a mixture of lime and vinegar? And will any one think this an intermeddling of the Magistrate in Spiritual matters, if he suppress these? Did the Magistrate of old ever punish or fine the Pelagians and Jovinians, heretics. Quando Pelagianis & Jovinianis ex Caesarum edictis dicta est mulcta? Erasmus de inquisition. and Adversus Pelagium nunquam agitatum est de implorandâ Caesarum , quòd non perinde turbaret Reipub. tranquillitatem. id. de haeret. puniend. But I reserve these things for an Appendix to what hath been said, or for a second Edition, in which I shall faithfully represent all Objections that shall be made against this Treatise by private Letters, or which I shall find in Books, whom I shall as much consult then, as I have herein mine own thoughts.  
If any shall think it fitting, either by way of Letter privately, or in Print to oppose what I have said here; I desire he would explain the nature of Heresy out of Scripture, or else not to think that I will ever grant any necessary conclusions from thence. And that he would show me why Heretics of a greater or less allay, and Schismatics, should become of a worse condition than Pagans: since Dominion is noy founded in Grace? and Excommunication is not the privation of any proper or peculiar good, whereof the Transgressor of the Law was formerly possessed; but of those common benefits which he should have reaped from the Church, as of spiritual communion, and receiving the Sacraments, 
Medina in 1. secundae pag. 5●3. q. 96. art. 4.  as Medina words it out of Seto. Besides, let them show how it is that that we come to be within their jurisdiction. The Pope and most of the Papists do profess they have no power over them that are without; they say Moors, Jews, and Pagans ought not to be extirpated, or forced from their Religion: and that over them the Church hath no power. That her power over Heretics ariseth from their being Rebels, and from their deserting that profession which they have made of faith unto the Church. And their reason is, because every Republic ought to have power to punish offenders. But as to their argument, it is false that Christ hath any such Church organical, as they mean, and as I shall show (possibly) in a discourse concerning the personal reign of Christ. And if he had any such Chimarical Church, yet would not that be destitute of power to subdue and chastise offenders. For, saith the Apostle, though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ: And having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your disobedience is fulfilled. But since it is (or may be stated) that Baptism is no admission into a particular Church, nor an assent unto the Articles and Confession of a particular Church, but something else: and Babie-baptisme, as established upon the resembling practice of the Jews in their Proselytes of justice, was of no validity (though conferred) unless the child baptised, being come to years of discretion did own the act of the Church or Council: which if he did not, he was not looked upon as an Apostate, but as one that had always been a Gentile:) And I think if we inquire into the usage and judgement of the Ancients, the said Infant-baptisme will amount to no such obligation without the Additional of Confirmation. But let these things be true or false, Roffensis in his book against Luther, Art. 33. saith, that he denied both That the Pope could force men to return to the profession of that faith which they once embraced: or punish them for such their relinquishing thereof. Yet in this the Papists deal more ingenuously with those they persecute, than others do: for they show them a Catholic Church to which they have vowed obedience: They show them a Judge, and that an infallible authoritative one, so as they can neither dispute the power, nor the equity of the sentence: All which pretences, though they be vain and empty cozenages, yet is the procedure more fair and rational then if without these formalities and circumstances one should suffer.  
To conclude, I should here become an humble Suppliant for those of the Episcopal Divines, who understanding the principles of that Churchway which they profess, have learned in all conditions to be content: and in their prosperity were neither rash in defining, nor forward in persecuting soberly-tender Consciences. It is certain we own much to their learned defences of Protestancy against the Papists, and several other their labours: and may reap much more benefit thereby, if they may have a greater security (paying that respect which they ought to their Governors, and praying for them, that they may live peaceably under them) then at present they enjoy in their walkings. In like manner I should plead for such Catholics as adhere to the doctrine of Widdrington, or Preston and Blackwel, etc. denying the Pope's power any way in Temporals, to depose Magistrates, 
I hope I do not by this Declaration reflect upon what hath been publicly noted concerning Popery and Prelacy: it being (to me) inconceivable that by those terms any thing should be meant, but the Pope's power in temporals: and the Bishop's domineering in Parliament as Barons and spiritual Lords  to dispose of lands, or the civil obedience of subjects; such being ready to sacrifice their lives as well as fortunes for the defence of their Heretical Governors in secular lawful quarrels; since this is their judgement, (whatsoever Mr. Baxter ignorantly and foolishly charge the Papists in general with) I DO PROFESS UNTO THE WORLD, AND ACQUIT MYSELF OF ANY WAY CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR OPPRESSION.  
If I have evinced the Lawfulness, and necessity of an universal Toleration, and if it be the basis upon which our Commonwealth stands, and Principle which is owned; as neither of the aforesaid can suffer upon a Religious account, so neither ought they to be damnified upon a Civil.  
To vindicate the Widdringtonian Catholics now in England I shall not recite any particular testimony out of their writings; nor mention Mr. George Blackwell Arch-Presbyter of the English seminary Priests, nor others who upon several occasions have declared themselves; I shall only set down the testimony of thirteen Reverend and learned English Priests (with whom twice thirty others would have joined, 
These are all Widd ington: own word in h●● confutation of T. F part. 1 cap. 5.  if their protestation had not been made so suddenly) who to give assurance of their loyalty to the late Queen Elizabeth, did by a public instrument, written in parchment, thus declare themselves.  

WHereas it hath pleased our dread Sovereign Lady, to take some notice of the Faith and Loyalty of us, her natural born subjects, Secular Priests (as it appeareth in the late Proclamation) and of her Princelike Clentency, hath given a sufficient earnest of some merciful savour towards us (being all subject by the Laws of the Realm to death, by our return into the Country, after our taking the order of Priesthood since the first year of her Majesty's reign) and only demandeth of us a true profession of our allegiance, thereby to be assured of our fidelity to her Majesty's Person, Crown, Estate and Dignity, We whose names are underwritten, in most humble wise prostrate at her Majesty's feet, do acknowledge ourselves infinitely bound unto her Majesty therefore, and are most willing to give such Assurance and satisfaction in this point, as any Catholic Priests can or aught to give unto their Sovereigns.  
First therefore we acknowledge the Queen's Majesty to have as full authority, power & sovereignty over us, and over all the subjects of the Realm, 
Thus fare in English out of Widrington against T. F. what follows is translated out of his Latin copy published in append ad disp. Theolog. part. 2. Sect. 1. §. 6.  as any her Highness Predecessors ever had: Moreover we do acknowledge & profess, that we are of our own accord willing and ready in all occasions and emergencies to obey her commands, as fare as any Christian Priests either in this kingdom, or any other part of the world were ever obliged by the Law of God and Christianity to obey their temporal Princes, viz. to pay taxes, and other customs belonging to the Crown; to obey her Majesty's Laws, and Magistrates in all Civil cases: to pray to God that he would grant in his good pleasure unto her Majesty a quiet and peaceable reign in this life, and hereafter eternal happiness. And this our Recognition do we think to be so firmly grounded upon the word of God, that no Authority, Cause, or pretence of such can absolve us, more than any Protestant, (or aught to do so) from paying her Majesty all Civil and Temporal obedience.  
Secondly, Seeing that of late years there have been several plots and designs against her Majesty's Person and Realm, and several hostile attempts have been made upon new pretences and purposes for the restoring again of the Catholic Religion by force of Arms, (a thing promoted in other parts of the World, but more particularly against the Queen's Majesty and her dominions, than any other Protestant Prince) with which violent undertake, and practices, her Majesty, being otherwise gracious and mild in her behaviour towards her Subjects, being grievously provoked against the Catholics [who owning and obeying the Apostolic Sea in the guidance of their Faith and Religion were easily suspected to favour such contrivances and invasions) hath made more severe Laws, and executed them more rigorously than She would otherwise, in case such hostile attempts and wars had not intervened. We, that we may approve unto her Majesty our fidelity in this particular case, do sincerely profess, and by this our public deed do notify unto the whole Christian World, that in case of Conspiracies, and Plots against the life of Her Majesty, of invasions and hostile attempts made by any Foreign Prelate, Prince, or Potentate, either jointly, or singly, for the disturbance or destruction of her Majesty's person, or dominions upon design, or under pretence of restoring the Roman-Catholique Religion in England or Ireland, that we will defend her Majesty's Person, Realms, and Dominions from all such hostile attempts and injuries: And we do further profess that we will discover and reveal, as well as oppose and resist to our utmost endeavour, all Conspiracies and Designs of any Prelate, Prince, or Potentate, whatsoever, which shall tend any way to the destruction of her Majesty's person and subversion of her Dominions: and we will endeavour, as far as we shall be any way able, to persuade all Catholics into the like sentiments.  
Thirdly, if after any sentence of excommunication pronounced or to be pronounced against her Majesty, or precedaneously to any conspiracy, invasion or hostile attempt to be made, the Pope should declare her Majesty's native subjects to be excommunicated, unless they relinquish their allegiance and the defence of her; We in these and all such like cases profess that neither we ourselves, nor any Lay-Catholiques borne within her Majesty's dominions, should be obliged in Conscience by any such censure, so as to obey it. But notwithstanding any Authority, or sentence of excommunication pronounced or to be pronounced, as aforesaid, we will adhere unto and defend our Queen and Native Country, as we are bound in duty, and perform all due obedience unto her Majesty in temporals.  
Fourthly, because it is certain, that whilst we by a Christian and sincere profession, manifest to her Majesty our good affection and fidelity towards her, others will not be wanting to condemn such our deed, and misinterpret, and create odium unto us in all places, but especially with his holiness, to the great prejudice of our good names and persons, unless we timely prevent such their misreports: We humbly desire that her Majesty would be pleased, that as in this our recognition we render to her Grace what is due to Caesar, so for the stopping the mouths of all calumniators, we may have liberty in the like public manner to declare, that whilst we profess due allegiance to her Majesty, we do not intent to recede from that duty which we own our Supreme Spiritual Pastor.  
Wherefore we acknowledge and confess that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of S. Peter in that Sea, and that he hath not less, nor yet more Authority and jurisdiction over us, and all other Christians, than the said Apostle had enstated on him by command and concession of Christ our Saviour: and that we will obey his holiness as far as we are bounden by the Law of God, which we doubt not but it may consist very well with such our obedience, a we have above professed towards our Temporal Prince. For as we are ready to adventure our lives for the defence of her Majesty and our Naive Country, so we are resolved to become a sacrifice rather than violate or diminish the lawful Authority of the Catholic Church of Christ.  


William Bishop.  
John Colleton.  
John Much.  
Robert Charnocke.  
John Bossevile.  
Antony Hebborne.  
Roger Cadwallador.  
Robert Drury.  
Antony Champney.  
John sackson,  
Francis Barneby.  
Oswald Needham.  
Richard Button.     
I thought fit to publish this their declaration, that so all of that religion because of some Italianated or Hispaniolized Authors may not suffer: This hath been the general doctrine in France and England heretofore; nor do I doubt but our State might obtain the like declaration in these days from multitudes of the Romish Church; who thereupon might enjoy a Toleration moderated according to the conveniency of the Republic. But as for the Jesuits and such as shall not assent unto some such full, ample, and satisfactory declaration, I think all means are not only necessary but requisite against them, that may secure us from the abettors of a foreign power, unto which they would subject us: let them rejoice in a foolish Canonization at Rome, whilst they are executed at Tyburn for Traitors. I have been told that the great sufferance of Papists under the late Archbishop of Canterbury did extend no further than those I plead for: if so, I must do him the right to lament the condition of great and invidious favourites, whose best actions are liable to misconstructions, nor have they any defence against popular prejudices. It hath been declared by the Episcoparians, that they did not suffer for their Religion, Oh! let not us be inferior to them in goodly professions! Let not us give the one or other cause of being in a fort Martyrs, whilst we become persecutors.  James 3.17, 18. 
The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy, and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  
And the Fruit of righteousness is sown in peace, of them that make peace.  
FINIS.