The Scriptures Please for Magistrates, Text

The Scriptures Please for Magistrates · Text

THE SCRIPTVRES PLEA FOR MAGISTRATES. VVHEREIN Is ſhewed the unlawfulneſſe of reſiſting the lawfull MAGISTRATE, under colour of RELIGION.

ROM. 13.2.

Whoſoever therefore reſiſteth the power, reſiſteth the Ordinance of God: and they that reſiſt, ſhall receive to themſelves damnation.

OXFORD, Printed by Leonard Lichfield, 1643.

p. 1Of reſiſting the lawfull Magiſtrate upon colour of Religion.

IN this propoſall of the point for debate, there are onelyonly two words will need an account to be given of them: 1. What is meant by Reſiſting. 2. Why the word Colour is put in. For the firſt, Reſiſting, here ſignifies violent, forcible, offenſive reſiſtance, fighting againſt, as Heſychius the beſt Scripture-gloſſary explaines it, (foreign & foreign all one, and foreign) and the Apoſtle in like manner, Rom. 13.2. uſing foreign & foreign promiſcuouſly for the ſame, and ſo in other places, although it is true, it is uſed ſometimes in a wider ſence. But that will not here be materiall, when we here ſet downe before-hand what we meane by it. For the ſecond, the word [colour] is in the Title added, onelyonly for this reaſon, (not to prejudge the Religion, which is fought for, to be onelyonly a colour, but) becauſe it is poſſible for a man to fight for Religion, and yet not upon colour of Religion, to wit, in caſe the Religion for which he fights be eſtabliſht by the Law of the Land, for then his colour for fighting may be the preſervation of Law, which the Magiſtrate is bound by oath to maintaine, and though he fight for Religion, yet it is under that other colour: whereas he that fights upon colour of Religion making that his onelyonly pretence of fighting, is ipſo facto ſuppoſed to fight for a Religion diſtant or contrary to that which is eſtabliſhed by Law, and ſo all pretence or colour of Law excluded, yea, and all ſuppoſition of failing in the Magiſtrate, he ſtanding for the Law preſent, not againſt it; which I deſire may be the ſetting of the caſe, to exclude the fallacy, plurium interrogationum, and to diſtinguiſh the quarrell of Religion from that other of Law, and ſo to meddle at this time onelyonly with that which is fully within the Divines Spheare, and leave the other to ſome body elſe.

Thoſe two termes being thus explained, and ſo the ſtate of the queſtion ſet, the lawfull Magiſtrate, and the eſtabliſht Law of the Kingdome on one ſide, and ſome perſon or perſons inferiour to him, upon colour of Religion, i. for ſome Religion p. 2not yet eſtabliſhed by Law, on t'other ſide, that it ſhould be lawfull to them to take up armes againſts him would ſeem not very reaſonable, if he were but a private man, abſtracted from Regall power, (which …ure doth not make it more lawfull to reſiſt him then any body elſe) having broken no eſtabliſhed Law (as is ſuppoſed in the caſe) for what legall accuſation can lie againſt him in a point wherein he hath not broken the Law? But then this will be more unreaſonable, if moreover it be conſidered, that colour of Religion is ſo wide and unlimited a thing, that no man, that is never ſo much in the wrong in any opinion, but thinkes himſelfe in the right (for otherwiſe he would not continue in that error) and ſo that colour will be plea equally good to all ſorts of errours as well as truths: and beſides, he that hath not ſo much Religion as to be in an errour, may yet have ſo much wit as to make uſe of that Apology for his ſedition, (to wit, colour of Religion) and plead it as legally as the moſt zealous profeſſor▪ and conſequently, if that will ſerve turne, who ever ſhall but pretend to beleeve contrary to the Religion eſtabliſhed in any Kingdome, ſhall be ipſo facto abſolved from all bend of Allegiance in f…ro humano, and if he will adventure the hazzard of the judgement to come, ſhall have no reſtrain layd on him by any earthly Tribunall; and ſo by this meanes already the grounds of the diſſolution of any government are laid by this one unpoliticke principle, and the World given up to be ruled onelyonly by the religion (which is in effect, the will) of every man; whereas before, there was a peace as well as a Church, Policy as well as Religion, … power in the Magiſtrates hand, beſides that in every mans owne breft or conſcience; and yet more particularly, a reſtraint for hypocrites as well as any elſe, … for pretenders of Religion, who, if this ground would hold, were left unlimited. Where if it be interpoſed that ſuch an one that thus falliciouſly pretends Religion, though by this diſgu…ſe he eſcape here, yet ſhall ſurely pay for it hereafter; and that that is ſufficient, becauſe there is no other Court, but of that ſearcher of hearts, to which the hypocrite can be bound over: I anſwer, that although that be true, yet is it not ſufficient, becauſe, although there be a judgement to come for all crimes, yet it is no withſtanding thought neceſſary to have preſent iudicatures alſo, not to leave all offenders to terrors at ſuch a diſtance, and indeed for the continuance of the peace of communities to provide ſome violent reſtraint at the preſent for thoſe whom thoſe greater but future determents cannot ſufficiently worke on. This every man knowes is the originall of humane Lawes, yea, and of Dominion it ſelfe, a proviſion that all men will not doe their duties for love or feare of God, (it is apparent, the Jewes would not under their foreign) and therefore for good mens ſakes, and for peace ſake, and for the maintaining of Communities, thoſe ſuperadditions have beene thought neceſſary, as ſome thornes in the hedge of Gods Law, that may pierce the hands and ſides of him that ſhall attempt to breake over or thorough it. From whence the concluſion will be evident, that the Rules for the preſerving of government muſt be ſuch as ſhall have force to reſtraine the Atheiſt or the hypocrite as well as the good Chriſtian (which ſure will leſſe need thoſe reſtraints) or elſe they are utterly unſufficient to the attaining of their end, i. to the preſerving of government, peace, community, or protecting any that lives under it: which being ſuppoſed, it will alſo follow, that nothing muſt be indulged upon any colour of Religion, p. 3(be his Religion never ſo true, and himſelfe never ſo ſincere in it;) which will open this gap or outlet to others, that may make the …ll uſe of it. For this will be utterly deſtructive of the end of government (which is, that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, 1 Tim. 2.2.) yea, and of government it ſelfe.

This argument being thus proſecuted and cleared, might be ſufficient to determine this whole buſineſſe, were it not for one rejoynder which is ordinarily made, the force of which is taken from that ſupreame care that every man ought to have of his owne ſoule, and conſequently of the maintaining of his Religion on which (to abſtract from all poſſible diſputes concerning the particular truth of it, he being perhaps not acute or artiſt enough to uphold it againſt all objecters) he is fully convinc't, the health and ſalvation of that wholly depends. For the maintaining of which againſt all the humane power in the World, if he may not take up Armes or doe any thing, he cannot ſee what can be fit for him to fight for, (nothing ſure being more precious then that;) or conſequently, why he may not take up that opinion of the Beyond Sea-Anabaptiſts, That it is not lawfull to fight at all, which if it ſhould be yeelded to, although for the preſent it would produce peace, yet it would be little for the advantage of Magiſtrates in the iſſue. To this I ſhall anſwer, by conceſſion of theſe foure things: 1. That Religion is to be every mans Supreame care, the prime Jewell in his Cabinet. 2. That it cannot, at leaſt in humane conſideration, be expected that any man ſhould be leſſe carefull of his falſe Religion (if he be really perſwaded of the truth of it) then any other is of the true. Nay 3. that if he do not uſe any lawfull meanes to defend that falſe (whilſt he is convinc't it is the true) Religion; this is a ſinne of lukewarmneſſe in him, though indeed through prepoſſeſſion not to open his eyes to greater light and revelation of the truth offered to him, and perhaps thorough ſluggliſhneſſe not to ſeeke that light, be yet a farre greater ſinne in him. For though no man ought to defend the contrary to what he takes to be truth, yet ought he to be moſt ready to depoſit his errour, not onelyonly when it doth, but alſo when it may appeare to him to be ſo, and to ſeeke to thoſe helpes that may be inſtrumentall to that end. 4. That in ſome caſes the uſe of Armes is not unlawfull. But then all this being thus granted, and ſo in effect that all lawfull meanes may be uſed for the maintaining of Religion, we muſt yet ſecondly deny the inference of the Objection; upon this onelyonly ground, becauſe though Armes may lawfully be uſed in ſome caſes, and Religion be maintained by all lawfull meanes, yet Armes are not a lawfull meanes for this end, and ſo may not be uſed in this caſe, that is by Subjects againſt the lawful Magiſtrate in caſe of Religion, at leaſt when ſome other Religion is by Law eſtabliſhed in that Kingdome. Which aſſertion I ſhall confirme onelyonly by foure Arguments: 1. Taken from the nature of Religion. 2. From examples of Chriſt and Chriſtians. 3. From the very making of Chriſtianity, and particularly of the Proteſtant doctrine. 4. From the Conſtitution of Kingdomes, which being ſubordinate to the other three may deſerve conſideration, as far as it agrees with them.

1. From the nature of Religion, which is an act of the ſoule, which cannot be forced or conſtrained by outward violence, and therefore, 'tis apparant, needs no outward defence for the maintaining of it, much leſſe, invaſion of others. A man may be as truly religious under all the tyranny and ſlavery in the world, as in the moſt triumphant proſperous eſtate. They that have power to kill the body, p. 4are not able to commit the leaſt rape upon the ſoule; they may rob me of my life, they cannot of my Religion; the weakeſt creeple in the Hoſpitall may defie the whole Armie of the Philiſtines in this matter. But you will ask, Is not the outward profeſſion and publike exerciſe of Religion ſome part of it, and that to be thus maintained, where any attempt to hinder it? To which I anſwer, That the firſt of this, the outward Profeſſion, can no more be hindred then the former act of the ſoul, but rather may be moſt illuſtrious in time of depreſſion. I may confeſſe Chriſt in the den of lions, in the furnace, on the rack, on the gridiron, and when my tongue is cut out, by patient, conſtant ſuffering in that cauſe. Religion is not ſo truly profeſſed by endeavouring to kill others, as by being killed patiently our ſelves rather then we will renounce it. When I fight, it may be malice, revenge▪ ſome hope of gaine, or impunity at leaſt by the preſent ſervice, any one of a hundred worldly intereſts that may help to whe… my ſword for me, of moſt cleerly a hope I may kill and not be killed: and ſo all this while here is no act of confeſſion of Chriſt in thus venturing my life, although I do affirme I do this for my Religion, becauſe though I ſo affirme, men are not bound to beleeve me, there being ſo much oddes againſt me that I doe it for ſomewhat elſe. But when I lay down my life patiently, the ſacrifice of my God, reſigne up all my poſſible worldly intereſts for the retaining of my one ſpirituall truſt, this is to the eye of man a profeſſion capable of no reaſonable ſuſpicion of inſincerity, and indeed none ſo, but this.

As for the ſecond, the publike exerciſe of the true Religion, it were by all men heartily to be wiſht that it might be enjoyed at all times, for the advancing of Gods glory, increaſe of charity, converſion of others, &c. But if it may not be had by the uſe of lawfull means, it will not be required of us by God; without whoſe ſpeciall providence it is not, that he permitteth us to be forbidden that exerciſe, till the ſame providence be pleaſed to remove ſuch hinderance, and open to us a lawfull way of obtaining it. The primitive Chriſtians ſecret meetings will firſt be imitable to us, and if …hos;e be obſtructed alſo, their ſolitudes next; and however that deſigne of obtaining free exerciſe of our Religion, will never make any practice lawfull to be uſed in order to that, that before was utterly unlawfull.

But are we not to take care of our children and poſterity as well as of our ſelves? If our Religion be now ſuppreſt, our poor children and progenie to the end of the world may in all probability be kept in blindneſſe and ignorance, and ſo left to the place of darkneſſe irrecoverably. This objection ſtands ſomewhat pathetically, and is apt to affect our bowels more then our reaſon; moves out compaſſion firſt, and thorow thoſe ſpectacles is then repreſented with improvement to our judgement. But for anſwer to it, though the doctrine of election of particular men, as well and as abſolutely to the meanes as to the end, might be (to him that acknowledges it) a ſufficient amulet againſt this fear, and ſo no need of that their jealous care for their poſterity, any farther then it is in their power to contribute toward them (which ſure is no more then to doe what is lawfull for them to doe) yet the anſwer will be more ſatisfactory to all that acknowledge Gods providence, however opinioned concerning decrees, that whoſoever conſiders himſelfe as a man, much more as a father of a poſterity, muſt have many things to truſt God with, and onelyonly God, and among thoſe nothing more p. 5then the future eſtate of thoſe which are to come from him. Yet if he be imfortunate and ſtill unſatisfied, unleſſe he himſelfe contribute ſomewhat to the ſecuring of his poſterity in this matter, let me tell him there is nothing (after his prayers to God and paternall bleſſing on them) ſo likely to entaile his Religion upon them at his ſealing it by his ſufferings. This ſure will be a more probable way to recommend his Religion to them (when they ſhall hear and be aſſured by that teſtimony, that their fathers thus hoped in God) then by that other ſo diſtant that they died in a rebellion againſt the King, or that this Religion had been in their time turned out of the land, had not they done ſomething ſo unlawfull to protect it. Beſides, the greateſt prejudice which that poſteritie (of which we pretend ſuch care) can ſuffer by my non-reſiſtance, is onelyonly to be brought up in a contrary Religion, to hear that way firſt, but ſure not to have their ears deafed againſt all others when they ſhall be repreſented, nor to bring the guilt of non-repreſentation upon them if they be not. And if I bring forth reaſonable creatures, I hope they will, by the grace of God, make uſe of their reaſon and his grace, to finde out that truth that their ſouls are ſo much concerned …in; and if (through no default perſonall of theirs) they ſhould miſſe of it, I hope the invincibleneſſe of their ignorance, and their ſincere repentance for all their ſinnes and errours knowne and unknown, and their readineſſe to receive the truth, if it were or might be repreſented to them▪ would be antidote ſufficient by Gods mercy in Chriſt to preſerve them from that poiſon, ſo they were carefull according to their meanes of knowledge to eſcape all other dangers. And all this upon ſuppoſition, but not conceſſion, that the Religion of him that would fight for it were the truth and onelyonly truth; whereas indeed there is not a more ſuſpicious mark of a falſe Religion, then that it is faine to propagate it ſelfe by violence. The Turkes and the Papiſts being the onelyonly notable examples hitherto of that practice, till ſome others, directly upon Popiſh principles a little varied in the application, have faln upon the ſame concluſion▪

Now ſecondly for the examples of Chriſt and Chriſtians, but firſt of Chriſt: his example (as to this purpoſe) is evident in three paſſages (beſides that grand tranſcendent copy propoſed from the aggregate of all his life and death, Matth. 11.29. learn of me, for I am meek and lowly.) The firſt is Luke 9.54. the inhabitants of a Samaritan village would not receive Chriſt, verſ. 53. upon that James and John remembring what Elias had done in the like kinde, 1 King. 18. and 2 King. 1. ask't his judgement of it, whether he would be pleaſed that they ſhould command fire to come down from heaven and conſume them, as Elias did, that is, in effect whether they ſhould not do well to uſe whatever power they had (and be confident that God would aſſiſt them in it) to the deſtroying of thoſe whoever they were (and yet that they were not their Magiſtrates it is cle…r) which affronted them in the exerciſe of their Religion, or indeed which would not receive Chriſt. To this Chriſt anſwers ſternely, the words are emphaticall, he turned (as to Peter when he gave him that check, Matth 16.23.) and rebuked them,foreign. and ſaid, Ye know not what manner ſpirit you are of… that is, Elias was a Zel…t, 1 Mac. 2.58. (the full importance of which will belong to another diſquiſition) & jure zelotarum, might do ſome what againſt B…ls prophets, which will not agree with that diſtant calling or profeſſion of a diſciple of Chriſt or Chriſtian, they are miſtaken if they think they may do as Elias did. From whence by the way is p. 6a prohibition fully legall put in againſt all examples of the old Teſtament (… any ſuch there were) from being pleadable amongſt Chriſtians, upon this ground of Joſephus his obſerving that the Jews were governed by a …, God being as it were their King on earth for along time, preſiding immediatly, and interpoſing by his Oracle, and other particular directions as well as ſtanding Law, as in that caſe of Phinees and Elias, &c. by which thoſe acts of theirs, though authorized by no ſetled or ordinary Law, were yet as legall as whatever in any other common-wealth were done by authority legally deſcending from the ſupreme Magiſtrate. Which whoſoever ſhall now apply to Chriſtians, beſides, that he profeſſes himſelfe an aſſerter of Enthuſiaſmes, will meet with Chriſts check … the Boanerges, You know not what spirit you are of: I have not authorized you to pretend to the Spirit of Elias, or to doe what a Zelo… among the Jewes might doe.

The ſecond exemplary paſſage to this purpoſe in the ſtory of Chriſt is, …a…. 26.51. when Chriſt was apprehended by thoſe tumultuous perſons, at the … but ſervants of the chiefe Prieſts and Elders (not again by any power of lawfull Magiſtrate) Peter drew the ſword and ſmote off one of thoſe ſervants eares, upon that Chriſts Anſwer is the thing to be obſerved, verſ. 52. then ſaid Jeſus unto him, Put up again thy ſword into …is place, for all they that take the ſword ſhall periſh with the ſword: The ſpeech particular to Peter, a prime Diſciple or Chriſtian, that he having drawn the ſword in defence of Chriſt, and in him of Chriſtianity it ſelfe (a more juſtifiable courſe then ever any man ſince undertook under the colour of Religion) moſt put it up again; but the reaſon added of an unlimited univerſall obligingneſſe to all Chriſtians▪ For all they that take the ſword (… Peter did, in defence of Chriſt, &c. or elſe the citation had not been pertinent to him) ſhall periſh by the ….) And the two parallel places which are noted i… the margent of our Engliſh Bibles are ſomewhat conſiderable, the firſt Gen. 9.6. where that Law was given to the ſonnes of Noah ▪ foreign concerning the effuſion of blood, which ſure was not any prohibition to legall, though capitall puniſhments of Malefactors (but rather the inveſting the Magiſtrate with that power of the ſword) and yet is by Chriſt urged as a prohibition to Saint Peter, ſignifying that effuſion of blood by him in that caſe to be utterly illegall, and againſt the intention of that old Law not abrogated, it ſeemeth by Chriſt. The other parallel place is, Revel. 13.10 where immediately upon the repeating of thoſe words, He that killeth with the ſword ſhall be killed with the ſword, is ſubjoyned, Here is the patience and faith of the Saints: 1. Chriſtian Martyrs, verſ. 7. whoſe faith it ſeems and patience muſt goe together, which ſure is moſt irreconcileable with forcible reſiſtance.

The third exemplary paſſage of Chriſt was in his ſuffering, wherein many particular circumſtances might be obſerved, eſpecially his anſwer to Pilate, Jo… 19.11. in acknowledgement of his legall power given him from above. Be all that I ſhall obſerve is onelyonly in the generall, That he that had ſo many legions of Angels, certainly ſufficient to defend him and invade his enemies (whatſoever will be thought of the Chriſtians ſtrength in Tertullians time to have done ſo too, of which more anon) did yet without the leaſt reſiſtance give himſelfe up to ſuffer death. And if it ſhould be objected, that this was to accompliſh what God had decreed (ought not Chriſt to ſuffer theſe things, and thus it p. 7is written, and thus it behoved Chriſt to ſuffer) and in obedience to that decree, not as matter of example to us, or of intimation, that it had not been lawfull for him to have done otherwiſe. To this I anſwer, That as Chriſt was decreed to that death, and non-reſiſtance, ſo are Chriſtians (if Saint Paul may be beleeved) predeſtinated to be conformable to the Image of his Sonne, Rom. 8. that is, to that patern of his in ſuffering, not fighting for Religion; and that revelation of Gods will in that decree being ſuppoſed, it will follow, That though Chriſt might have lawfully done otherwiſe, yet we Chriſtians now may not, eſpecially being commanded to learn of him particularly his meekneſſe; i. eſpecially that Lamb-like qualitie of the Lambe of God in his ſufferings, Iſai. 53.7. So much for the examples of Chriſt.

Now for the like of Chriſtians, it will be needleſſe to mention any other then thoſe of whom Tertullian and Saint Cyprian ſpeak, being ſo perfectly home to the purpoſe, Tertul. in Apol. c. 37. and his book, ad Scapulam, wholly to this purpoſe: and Saint Cyprian in his book againſt Demetrianus, &c. the ſumme of which is this, That the Chriſtians of that age had ſtrength ſufficient either to have reſiſted or avenged themſelves upon their …eathen perſecuting Governours, but in obedience to the Laws of Chriſt, choſe rather to die then doe ſo. The ſeverall teſtimonies (of which this is the Abſtract) being ſo fully produced by many and known by all, it will bee more to purpoſe to vindicate them from all exceptions, and intercept all evaſions which the wit of this laſt yeere (beyond all that any former age pretended to) hath invented to evacuate thoſe teſtimonies, witneſſe Goodwins Amicaval…eri…, p. 230 &c. and this I ſhall take leave to do at large, becauſe it is ſaid, many have been ſatisfied in the lawfulneſſe of their preſent courſe by thoſe Anſwers and Objections which that book hath helpt them to.

1. It is objected, the father (Tertullian… mig… … miſtaken in making the estimate of the ſtrength of Chriſtians in … ſtrength of them that were to oppoſe them. This is in civill termes, to … Tertullians wrote he knew not what, or at the ſofteſt, he might be ignorant of what he affirmeth he knew, and I am confident was more likely to know, living thing their the objecter now, ſeeing or conjecturing at the diſtance of ſo many hundred yeers, who hath not the leaſt authority (which muſt be the Judge in matter of fact) on his ſide againſt ſo diſtinct and cleare affirmation, not onelyonly of Tertullian in ſeverall places (and that in an apologie againſt the Gentiles, who could and would certainly have tript him in ſo manifeſt a falſhood, if it had been ſuch; and though the negative Argument be not fully convincing, that they did not thus trip him, becauſe we do not hear or read they did, yet will this be of as much force as any he hath to the contrary: This certainly, the writing it to the Gentiles, will be able to conclude, that Tertullian had beene very imprudent and treacherous to his own cauſe to have affirmed a thing in defence of it, which his adverſaries could ſo manifeſtly have proved a falſity, if it were not ſo as he affirmed) but of Cyprian alſo, who lived about the ſame time, and no writer of that age or ſince produced (I doubt not but I may ſay, producible) to the contrary.

Of the proofs that are offered to make it appeare poſſible and probable that Tertullian ſhould be ſo miſtaken, the firſt is, Becauſe his was no point of faith, &c. … therefore a devout father might fall under … miſpriſion herein. I grant he might, p. 8but that doth not prove he did, no nor that it is probable he ſhould be a more incompetent judge in ſuch a matter, then he that now undertakes to controll him: Nay ſure, leſſe reaſon is there to deny the authority of the ancients in matters of fact (which if they were not evident to them, muſt needs be much leſſe evident to us, who have no means to know any thing of them but their relations, no… cauſe to ſuſpect ſuch relations, but either by ſome impoſſibility in the things themſelves which is not here pretended, or by ſome other, as authentick relation contradicting it, which is as little pretended) then of faith, the ground of which being onelyonly the written word of God, is common with them to us, and therefore may enable us to judge whether that which they affirm to be matter of faith be ſo indeed, to be found really in that ſacred Writ from whence they pretend to fetch it.

And whereas it is farther added, That no rule of charity or reaſon bindes us to beleeve another in any thing which belongs to the art or profeſſion of another, and wherein himſelf is little verſed or exerciſed. I anſwer, that this ſaying thus applied will take away the authority of a very great part of thoſe Hiſtories which no body yet hath queſtioned. If it were ſpoken of Doctrines, it might hold, and ſure to that belongs the axiom quoted, Ʋnicuique in arte ſuâ credendum eſt; but in narrations it is the unreaſonableſt thing in the world to require the Narrator to be of that profeſſion of which he relates the fact, for then no man muſt adventure to write a Kings life but a King; and if Mr. M. Mr. A. or Mr. S. being Miniſters of the Word, ſhall write their …tters concerning the Parliaments victory at Keinton, and relate the number of the ſtain on that ſide ſo far inferiour to thoſe on the Kings, we muſt now upon this admonition retract that beleefe we then allowed them, and begin now (though too late) to queſtion whether it were indeed a victory or no, which cauſed ſuch ſolemn thankſgiving in this City. But then ſecondly, why this Relation ſhould ſo wholly belong to the profeſſion of another: i. not to Tertullians, I cannot yet diſcerne. For the maine of Tertullians teſtimony was, That the Chriſtians choſe rather to ſuffer then to reſiſt, though they were able, becauſe Chriſtian Religion taught the one, & forbad the other: and this ſure was not without the ſphere of the divine: but for their ſtrength to reſiſt, depending on the number of Chriſtians, not as even ballancing the heathens in the Empire, but as very conſiderable and able to raiſe an army, if they would make head. I doubt not but Tertullian, a Presbyter, that now laboured in converting and conforming Chriſtians, and was not alwayes in his ſtudy, nay, who had lately been a Lawyer, and ſo not unacquainted with the publike, might know and relate with far better authority then any who hath dared now to contradict him. For, for the art of ballancing the power of parties in a Kingdom, and grounds of preciſe determination of ſuch differences (which as the Objecter denies Tertullian, ſo he is unwilling to yeeld to the States-man himſelf; you ſhall ſee anon that we have no need to make Tertullian maſter of it, his relation will ſtand unmoved without it.

The ſecond proofe to blaſt Tertullians relation, is the ordinary one in faſhion now adayes, if any man differs in opinion from us, preſently to examine his whole life, and if eve… he did or ſpoke any thing unjuſtifiable, lay that vehemently to his charge, and by that defame him, and then we may ſpare the pains of anſwering his reaſons, diſproving his aſſertion, he once lied or ſinned, and therefore p. 9it is ridiculous to expect any truth from him. The Argument is this, He might miſtake and miſcarry in this, for not long after he miſcarried ſo grievouſly, as to turn Montaniſt, who called himſelfe the holy Ghoſt, &c. Juſt as if I ſhould reſolve to beleeve no relation of any Miniſter (preſent in either of the Armies) of the ſtrength of that Army, untill I had examined, and were aſſured that he were not a Chiliaſt, an Arian, nor guilty of any other Hereſie condemned by the Church: Yea and more, till I had ſome degree of aſſurance that he never would be ſuch. Or as if I ſhould reſolve this man knew no Logick, becauſe in this period he offends ſo much againſt Grammar in theſe words [to turne Montaniſt, who called himſelfe the holy Ghoſt] where the relative [who] hath certainly no antecedent. Tertullian cannot, for he called not himſelfe the holy Ghoſt (but onelyonly cited that ſtile ſo ordinary now adayes [nos ſpirituales] and all others [animales pſychici] and Montaniſt cannot, unleſſe as once Areopagi ſignified the Areopagites,Surect. ſo now by way of compenſation, Montaniſt muſt paſſe for Montanus, for he it was that called himſelfe the holy Ghoſt, not all or any of his followers. This way of concluding, from a ſlip in Grammar, an ignorance in Logick, eſpecially being backt with the ſuffrage of ſo many concluding Arguments) will be as faire Logicall proceeding, as to infer, becauſe Tertullian, an afterward turned Montaniſt, therefore then he ſpake he knew not what. But then Saint Cyprian was no Montaniſt, and yet he affirmed the ſame that Tertullian doth, contra Demetrian: As for the approving of dreames and furious fancies for true prophecies (which is added to be revenged on Tertullian for contradicting this Objecter) I confeſſe I excuſe not him, but wiſh we might learne any thing of him rather then that. But I hope the narration we have now in hand was neither Maximilla's nor Priſca's dreams. If it was a fancie, it was quite contrary to a furious one. And for the cloſe of this Argument, wherein the w…ning … given as it were from Heaven, how unſafe and dangerous it is to build on the authority of men, as I deſire the Reader may take it home with him, and from thence reſolve to beleeve no longer any thing upon this Objecters authoritie, ſo denudats of all reaſon: ſo I do not yet ſee, why he that once erred muſt never be allowed to ſpeak truth, the making of true narrations being competible with the greateſt hereſie in the world.

The third Argument againſt Tertullians teſtimony, is an obſervation of foreign that there is a proneneſſe of inclination in much devotion in perſons devoutly given to over-value the workes and piety of other men. To which my onelyonly anſwer ſhall be, that yet I hope it is not obſerved that devout men are ſo ſtrongly inclined to tell plaine lies, to this end that they may make themſelves over-valued by others. This muſt be Tertullians infirmity (if the objecter gueſſe aright) being a Chriſtian himſelfe, and in his apology labouring to raiſe an high opinion of Chriſtians in the Gentiles to whom he writes, to which purpoſe if he ſhould forge falſities, I muſt confeſſe it were a ſhrewd weakeneſſe, very ill becomming devotion, whatever the practice of later times may ſay in excuſe of it.

The fourth proofe is from a ſecond obſervation, that in the pious and orthodox Fathers themſelves there are ſome touches, and ſtreines, ſome fibrae of the root of bitternes which afterwards grow ranke in the times of popery, &c. The Anſw. All that I can collect from hence toward the concluſion deſigned, is that this objecters ſence is, that, for Tertullian to ſay there were Chriſtians enough in the Roman Empire to worke revenge on their oppreſſors, was a ſpice of popery; and ſo there is one new p. 10piece of popery more added, to the many which this age hath concluded under that title above the inventory of the Trent catechiſme. And ſo now to debate this any further, or profeſſe my ſelfe to opine as Tertullian did, is to acknowledge my ſelfe popiſh, and that is as bad as praelaticall: and ſo from henceforth all my arguments will but paſſe for temptations, which none but carnall men muſt ſubmit to, be they never ſo demonſtrative. Yet muſt I have leave to wonder how in the cloſe of this Section theſe words [the ſounder and more conſiderate knowledge of theſe latter times] can have any reference to the point in hand. For certainly, for the ſtrength of the then Chriſtian party, our knowledge in theſe latter times cannot be ſounder or more conſiderate then theirs that then lived amongſt them; or if it be, the words [latter times] will be improper, for ſure it will be affirmed onelyonly of that time wherein Mr. J.G. wrote this part of this book▪ for I am confident he was the firſt that ever revealed this act of more conſiderate knowledge to the world.

The fifth and laſt proofe is, That whatever their number was, yet it is no wayes likely they ſhould be ſuffered to have any armes, &c. To which, and to all the prudentiall ſtate motives whereon it is grounded, (and ſo to all that Section) I ſhall return no anſwer, but the very words of Tertullian, which if all put together they do not defend their author from all their aſſaults, neither will I beleeve the Chriſtians ſtrength was ſufficient to buckle with their adverſaries. His words are plain: firſt, if we would hoſtes exerto… agere, deale like profeſt enemies, deſiiſſet nobis vis numerorum & copiarum? ſhould we have wanted force of numbers? (i. men) or armed ſouldiers (for ſo ſure copiae ſignifies.) Secondly, he ſaith as plainly, Caſtella veſtra, caſtra …p…e vimus, we have filled your Caſtles and Camps (there ſure they were armed; and ſo the Thebaean Legion, which yeelded themſelves to the Emperours butchery, wanted neither number nor Arms to have reſiſted.) Thirdly, he ſaith, Cui bell… … idonei? what war had we not been fit for? (etiam impares copi…, though we had not had ſo many armed men as they) qui tam libenter trucidam…r. Their deſpiſing of death, (nay, gladneſſe to die) might have put them upon any hazard unarmed, and he profeſſes the onelyonly thing that kept them from reſiſting, was the Doctrine which they had learnt, that it was more lawfull to be kild then to kill. Fourthly, he ſaith, They had a way of revenge without Armes, to wit, by departing from them, by that ſeceſſion to have brought envie upon them (as for example upon diſlike of the preſent ſtate, to have gone to New England, &c. to raiſe an odium upon the Old) but this they would not be ſo malicious is to do neither: nay, beſides amiſſio tot civium ip…â deſtitutione puniiſſet, the loſſe of ſo many Citizens would have beene a puniſhment by making them leſſe able to reſiſt other enemies; plures hoſtes quam cives uſque remanſi…ent, there would have been a greater number of enemies, then there would have been Citizens remaining. Fifthly, to put all beyond exception, he puts them in minde how one night with a few firebrands they might have wrought their revenge, if it were lawfull for them to repay evill with evill. This one laſt particular being conſidered, is ſo full a demonſtration of the truth now in debate, that ſuppoſing there were but one Chriſtian at liberty to uſe that one firebrand, there can be longer doubt but that there was ſufficient ſtrength to worke their revenge, if their Religion would have permitted them to do ſo. And if their Religion (as was ſaid out of him) were the onelyonly reſtraint, then certainly, p. 11their weaknes was not. Nay, though they ſhould after all this (by a morally impoſſible ſuppoſition) be ſuppoſed weak▪ yet if their Religion did truly reſtrain them, as he profeſſes it did, this were abundantly ſufficient to decide the controverſie betwixt us and the Objecter.

Having proceeded thus far in anſwer to the ſeverall exceptions againſt the truth of Tertullians aſſertion concerning the ſtrength of thoſe Chriſtians, I am invited farther by a ſecond proffer of the Objecter to make appeare, that although Tertullians aſſertion ſhould be ſuppoſed true, yet it were unſufficient, it would not reach the queſtion or caſe in hand. This certainly is ſtrange at firſt ſight, the caſe in hand being, Whether the reaſon of their non-reſiſtance were their want of ſtrength. Which in all reaſon muſt be determined negatively, when once theſe two things are ſuppoſed; firſt, that they had ſtrength; ſecondly, that the command of Chriſt, or making of Chriſtianity was the cauſe of their non-reſiſtance, and not want of ſtrength. But there is no truth ſo evident, but the cunning of ſuch a craftſ-maſter will be able to transforme, both from evidence and truth, and therefore (though in all juſtice a man might vow never to have commerce with ſuch a man more, that ſhould undertake thus to maſter his underſtanding, that he ſhould beleeve and not beleeve the ſame thing, yeeld the want of ſtrength to bee the cauſe, at the very time when hee acknowledges or ſuppoſes, firſt, no want of ſtrength, ſecondly, ſomewhat elſe, to wit, the command of Chriſt to bee the cauſe) yet I ſhall (to exerciſe that Chriſtian meekneſſe which I deſire to aſſert by my actions as well as words) wait on this great artificer to the ſecond part of his anſwer. The ſumme of which, as he firſt ſets it is this, that ſuppoſing the Father ſpake truth concerning their ſtrength▪ yet on ſome conſiderations he mentions, It had been in thoſe that were called to ſuffer both want of wiſdom in reſpect of themſelves, and of charity in reſpect of others, if they ſhould have made the leaſt reſiſtance. To which my onelyonly anſwer ſhall be to beſeech him to conſider, that this is part of Tertullians teſtimony, that the thing that reſtrained them was (not this wiſdome but) the doctrine of their Chriſt; concluding it more lawfull to be kild then to kill, and utterly unlawfull to repay evill for evill. And as for charity to others, I humbly wiſh that were, or may yet bee conſidered, how much burden, &c. this reſiſtance (of which he is the profeſt abetter) hath brought on others who are not parties on either ſide, nor, I hope, ill Chriſtians, if their onelyonly puniſhable crime be, making conſcience of non-reſiſtance.

To the next Section, in anſwer to a ſuppoſed reply, where he ſaith, That it is not probable they had any ſufficiency of ſtrength. I anſwer, that I cannot be ſo tame as thus to be caught, or ſo wild as to imagine that improbable, at a time when Tertullians teſtimony is ſuppoſed to be true (as now it is ſuppoſed) the ſpeciall part of which teſtimony is yeelded to be that they had ſufficient ſtrength. And where he addes 2. that twas not neceſſary they ſhould be of one mind and judgement touching this ſufficiency, &c. I anſwer, that we doe not aſſert any ſuch neceſſity, nor doth our cauſe any way incline us to it, or want that refuge. For ſure we affirme not that they did actually reſiſt (to which onelyonly▪ that concurrence would have been neceſſary) but onelyonly that they would not though they were able, and to the evidencing of that, the concurrence of judgement you ſpeake of, is not materiall, for if they that did ſo thinke of their ſtrength, were upon grounds of Chriſtian patience and obedience, as farre from doing or attempting it, as any other; theſe p. 12men would certainely have continued in the ſame obedience, though all the world had concurred with them in the opinion of their ſufficiency. For, to profeſſe Chriſtian meekneſſe firſt, and then upon any ſupervenient occurrence to be ready for reſiſtance, though it might be a character of the temporary (that I ſay not hypocriticall) ſubjection of our daies, yet muſt not we be ſo groundleſly uncharitable as to affix it on thoſe Chriſtians; and though the objecter ſhould renounce his preſent ſuppoſition, and againe contend that Tertullian lied, and ſo diveſt him of all authority as a father, of common honeſty as a relater, yet ſure he will not be ſo ſevere to deny him ſo much of an ordinary rhetor, as to make that an ingredient in his Apology for Chriſtians, which were the higheſt piece of an accuſation. Grant but Tertullian to have any skill in any of his profeſſions, ſuppoſe him but Orator, if not a Divine, a tolerable pleader, if not a tolerable man, allow him but skill at the Deske, (his firſt Trade, before he was a Chriſtian) the reputation of a little el…quence, though no ſincerity, and his very pleadings will be argumentative, though his words may not.

But tis added in the third place, that having no invitation, countenance, or command from any authority, &c. their … was differing from ours. To which I anſwer againe, 1: That it was not ſtill the want of ſuch command or invitation, that reſtrained them, but the contrary command of Chriſt as hath beene cleare; but then ſecondly, I pray let me aske a queſtion as of one which I will in reaſon ſuppoſe not to be unacquainted with the ſence of Ju…ius Brutus, and Buchanan, and it is odely this whether, if all temporall Magiſtrates neglect the worke of reformation, the Miniſters may not and ought not to attempt it, if they can hope to prevaile. If ſo, then though the caſe be not juſt the ſame now and then, yet the difference is not materiall or …, for then ſure Miniſters there would have beene to invite, if that had … the Chriſtian way.

But when it is added within there line…, that we are invited, &c. by as great and as lawfull an authority as this State hath any. I muſt confeſſe I had thought that the King and hath Houſes had beene a greater authority; …nleſſe the meaning be not ſimply, but ad hoc, or great and as lawfull an authority as this State hath any, to doe what is now do…, and then ſure it ſhall be granted by me, who profeſſe my ſelfe to ſuppoſe it impoſſible that any command given to this purpoſe ſhould be lawfull, or able to ſecure any from that ſentence of S. Pauls, They that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation. Yet once more, it is poſſible that the Authour, by this State may meane a republique, which though it be a word of ſome ſignification in ſome other Countreys, yet that our Lawes acknowledge any ſuch here▪ I have not yet been taught, nor ſure can any part of this Kingdome, without the King be capeable of this Title, till we have moulded a new forme of government, and … lawes, as the modell of that; for undoubtedly the old ones are not acquinted with any ſuch. But that I will hope is not the meaning, becauſe it is added that inferiour Magiſtrates, &c. which ſeemeth to acknowledge that the Parliament without the King are but inferiour Magiſtrates. Of the agreeableneſſe of that Title of Magiſtrates and Rulers, to that body without the head, I purpoſe not to ſpeake; onelyonly to that which is added, that they ſhould be obeyed as well as Kings, I anſwer, without canvaſing of the place in S. Peter, which others have done) that if they are to be obeyed, but as well as Kings, then, 1. The King that cōmands not to do it, is to be obeyd as well as they. 2. Not they againſt p. 13the King, for that the inferiority implies. An inferior Magiſtrate, in that that it lawfull, and within his Commiſſion, and not thwarted by a ſuperiour, is to be obeyed as well as if he were ſuperiour in that, or as well as the ſuperiour in any thing elſe, but ſure not to the deſpiſing of the ſuperiours lawfull commands, when they doe interpoſe, for that were more then as well. When the King commands that which God and the Law doth not forbid, it may be ſaid, that his commands are to be obeyd as well as Gods, which the Apoſtle intimates, when he ſaith, you muſt be ſubject for conſcience ſake; and the ground of this truth is, becauſe indeed God the ſupreame, commands that ſubjection to the King in ſuch matters. But ſure for all this the King is not to be obeyd againſt God, or where any countermand of his hath intervened, for this were in S. Peters phraſe to obey men (not aſwell, but rather than God. Thus is it in that other caſe, the inferiour is to be obeyed as well as the ſuperiour (in things lawfull and not contradictory to the Superiours commands) upon that ground of neceſſity of obedience to the Superiour, from whom he hath his Commiſſion, and as Saint Peter ſaith, foreign, is ſent of him, foreign of, on by that foreign ſupereminent perſon, the King; but ſure this holds not againſt the ſuperiour, a… in the other caſe it did not. 3. Not they when they command to take up Armes againſt him whom S. Paul bids me not reſiſt upon of damnation, and by my oath of Allegiance (if it were otherwiſe lawfull) I have bound my ſelfe that I will not. Whereupon it is obſervable, that the aſſ… of this warre, are now brought to undertake, that damnation, or … ſhall not ſignifie damnation (poore men, what a weake thred doth the …, that is juſt over their ſoules? and what a ſad condition would it be, … that dies a confident Martyr in this warre, damnation at the day of … prove to ſignifie damnation?) but ſome temporary mulct; and yet withall that this warre is not againſt the King (when yet that other againſt the Earle of Eſſex his Army, is not doubted to be againſt the Parliament) which two ſo …, and yet diſtant holde (for if it be not againſt the King, what need of … other evaſion, from the damnation that belongs to reſiſters, or if reſiſter… ſtill … it away ſo eaſily, why may not War be avowd againſt the King, by any that will adventure his wrath? doe ſure ſignifie mens conſciences to be ſtrangely grounded, and themſelves very groundleſly confident, which are ſatisfied upon no better principles, and whoſe practiſes are capeable of no better ſecurity.

Upon theſe grounds thus layd, of obedience due to inferiours as well as ſuperiours (ſupreame it ſhould be, for ſo foreign muſt here ſignifie, and I hope that our King amongſt us is ſuch) Magiſtrates, the objecter puts a caſe, that the inferiour Governour requires that which is onelyonly fineſt, &c. as to doe our beſt to defend our ſelves againſt thoſe that contrary to law and conſcience aſſault us, the ſuperiour that which is contrary to both, viz. to fit ſtill, &c. In this caſe he reſolves it is moſt cleare on his ſide, for (whether the lawfulneſſe or neceſſity he intimates not of) reſiſtance against the ſuperiour. To this I anſwer, that it is hard to beleeve that the objecter did not purpoſely intend to deceive his Reader by that phraſe [onelyonly honeſt, &c.] For that is a very doubtfull ſence, it may ſignifie, that nothing elſe were honeſt, and then it is in that ſence apparently falſe, for if it were honeſt to take up Armes againſt a King, yet ſure may not taking up Armes be honeſt too; for (whatever that crime of neutrality ſignifie in theſe daies) it may be lawfull p. 14for a man to ſuffer injury, to ſuffer himſelfe to be defrauded (and that by a King as well as by an equall) 1 Cor. 6.7. I hope reſiſtance, though it have lately commenced, and taken upon it the degree of vertue, yet hath not turned Projector, got the monopolie of vertue and honeſty into its hand, that it ſhould engroſſe and encloſe that title, and there be no other vertue or honeſty beſides this; yet would the affirmations of ſome out of no meaner place then the Pulpit, [that all … that are for the King at this time are Atheiſts or Papiſts] conclude and perſwade thus much. But I would faine beleeve that the meaning of the phraſe [onelyonly honeſt, &c.] is, [no more then honeſt] i. not neceſſary. But if that be it, then ſure the ſuperiour Governour may deſerve to be obeyed in forbidding it, as well as the inferior in commanding: For it will not follow in that caſe that the King commands ſomewhat contrary to the Law of God and nature, but onelyonly ſomewhat contrary to ſomething which was agreeable, i. not againſt the Law of God and nature, i. prohibits a thing lawfull not neceſſary, as the other is ſuppoſed to command a thing lawfull, not neceſſary: which ſure were as free for him to doe, as for the inferiour, ſuppoſing, as the objecter ſuppoſes, that the command of God indifferently extends it for obedience to either, in things that are lawfull. Hence it appeares that in the caſe here put, the command of the Superiour is falſely affirmed to be an unlawfull command▪ (for them the matter of the inferiours command muſt be ſuppoſed not onelyonly honeſt but neceſſary) and if it be a lawfull one, it may and will then make voyd that obligation for that particular, which is ſuppoſed by the Law of God to lie on us, to obey the inferiour in that which is lawfull. The ſhort is, if that which is here ſpoken of, be in it ſelfe neceſſary, we muſt do it, as in ſpight of all countermands of the ſuperiour, ſo without all commands or invitations of the inferiour Magiſtrate; but if it be not neceſſary in it ſelfe, neither will the commands of … inferiour make it neceſſary to any who ſtands prohibited by a ſuperiour.

In the fourth Section the object… offers at a reaſon, why thoſe ancient Chriſtians (ſuppoſing ſtrength in them) ſhould rather patiently ſuffer, becauſe before their converſion they had conſented to the Emperours power, whereby thoſe Edicts were made for the murthering of Chriſtians, &c. To which I anſwer, that it is ridiculous to ſeeke out or impoſe upon the Reader probable or poſſible reaſons for their non-reſiſtance, when Tertullian in their name ſpecifies the true onelyonly reaſon, the Goſpell doctrine of Chriſtian patience and obedience. But for the particular of their conſent, much might be added, to ſhew the vanity of that plea, if that were tanti, or pertinent. I ſhall only ſay, that if the Emperour legally murthered Chriſtians, then their conſent to that Law or to the power of the Emperour who made it would not bind or diſpenſe with them to commit any thing neceſſary or otherwiſe commanded by any greater power; for if I ſweare to doe ſo I muſt breake my oath, non-obſ…an…e what is concluded from Pſ. 15▪ 4. And if it were not otherwiſe neceſſary or commanded by greater power, then neither is reſiſtance now. And then the Kings prohibition will as much reſtrain me in any thing not neceſſary, as their heatheniſh conſent could be ſuppoſed to reſtraine them then. Nay he that makes that conſent a nullity (as this objecter in fine doth) what reaſon can he …ender why he that gave that conſent, might not plead that nullity, for ſuch (though carnall) advantages as life is, if it could make good his pleading, and no other reſtraint lie on him, but onelyonly that null-conſent?

p. 15For the fifth Section, How that may be lawfull [for an entire body to do which may not be lawfull for a part] and ſo for us now though not for thee? I anſwer, That if the phraſe [entire body] ſignifie the head and members too, then the period is true; if not, then the whole Section is fallacious: for it follows not, that though the repreſentative body without the head is more, then a party in the Empire, without the repreſentation of the reſt, therefore the firſt may reſiſt forcibly, though the ſecond ſhould not: for he that from Saint PAVL denies reſiſtance of ſubjects indefinitely to Kings, will not be moved from that hold▪ by diſcerning ſome other ſlight differences between ſubjects, unleſſe they may appear ſuch that on one ſide they may authorize reſiſtance. But then ſecondly, If the Doctrine of Chriſtian patience, &c. were the cauſe of Non-reſiſtance, then ſure was not this other conſideration wherein they differ from us, the cauſe of it.

Well, having gone thus far, in attendance on this Objecter, and to exerciſe that patience, which we ſo much deſire to perſwade: there is yet the greateſt fort behinde unvanquiſhed, erected in the ſixth Section, and reſcued from all ſuppoſed aſſailants in ſix particulars following, ſet up like ſo many fortreſſes about it. The ſumme of it is (for I would not be bound to recite what every one may read in the printed Book) that if thoſe Primitive Chriſtians had ſtrength, and might lawfully have reſiſted, (by the way Tertullian onelyonly affirms the firſt, and is ſo far from ſuppoſing, that he abſolutely denies the ſecond) yet might God hide this liberty from them; and ſo his after diſpenſations did require that be ſhould hide it from them, and yet manifeſt it to us: and theſe diſpenſations he ſpecifies to be Gods counſell of Antichriſts comming into the world then, and of his being deſtroyed and caſt out now. The hiding of this truth of ſubjects power and right to reſiſt their Superiours, being neceſſary to help Antichriſt up to his throne. And the commonalty of Chriſtians doing contrary to the will of their Superiours, being the men that muſt have the principall hand in executing Gods judgements upon the Whore▪ Revel. 18.4.5.6.9. that is, in the pulling him down.

To this whole Diſcourſe (the firſt I am confident that ever was written on this Subject) I muſt anſwer by degrees, (that I may not omit any thing that is added for proofe or explication by the Authour) and firſt, I muſt deſire the word …ay or might [may hide] may be changed into plain intelligible ſenſe. Say, did God hide the liberty of reſiſtance from thoſe Primitive Chriſtians or no? If he did not, then away with this whole Section, and particularly that affirmation, Pag. …0. that Gods diſpenſations did r…quire that it ſhould be hid from them: but if God did indeed hide it: then firſt, this is more then a ſuppoſition, it is a plain conceſſion that thoſe Chriſtians Tertullian ſpeaks of might not lawfully have re…iſted, though they had had ſtrength (which was ſo long denied) for the light be…ng hidden, they muſt have done it without faith, or againſt conſcience, yea, and …gainſt Gods determinate counſell, (who, the Objecter ſaith, had great cauſes …o hide it, of which one ſure muſt be, that it ſhould not be uſed. 2. Here is a …reat ſecret of new Divinity, that God hides truths (not as Chriſt ſpake in para…les, becauſe they ſeeing ſee not, Mat. 13.13. but) on purpoſe to help Antichriſt …o his throne. (of which more anon) As for that inſtance of thoſe that eat …erbs, I pray conſider, whether that be pertinent to prove that God purpoſely p. 14duplicate page p. 15duplicate page p. 16hides truths from us, or particularly this truth in hand. For ſure that liberty God had from none in the Apoſtles time; for the preaching of the Goſpel manifeſted the lawfulneſſe of meats as well as herbs, onelyonly ſome ſaw not, or conſidered not that that was manifeſted, and thinking ſome old legall obligation (as others did circumciſion) to lie ſtill on them, ſubmitted to it out of piety. Now apply this to the point in hand. Certainly the liberty of forcible reſiſtance againſt Superiours (though it ſhould be granted) would never be found of this kinde, a liberty brought into the world by Chriſt, which before had not beene there. If he ſhall affirm it was, (as he muſt if that inſtance of eating be pertinent) though by the conceſſion of the latter part, he muſt diſclaim all his former old Teſtam. pleas for reſiſtance, from the people about Ionathan, from David, and from E…iſha, yet wil he never give any probable appearance for the affirmation in the firſt part, that Chriſt gave any ſuch new before-unrevealed liberty: but rather, if any ſuch liberty before there were, it was undoubtedly taken away by Chriſt, from whoſe example and precepts it was that thoſe Primitive Chriſtians, and we alſo, dare not make uſe of that ſuppoſed liberty. The onelyonly thing I can imagine poſſible to be replyed, is that, though the compariſon hold not exactly, yet it may hold in this, that as that liberty of eating was hid to ſome (it matters not by whom, or how) ſo this of reſiſting to others. To which I return, that then it is confeſt that this inſtance doth onelyonly illuſtrate the Objecters meaning, but not ſo much as probably confirm his aſſertion: and then I am ſorry I have conſidered it ſo long, and therefore to bring the point to an iſſue, I muſt thirdly ask, Where this liberty, or the authority for this liberty was, when it was thus hid. Was it in the old Teſtament? Though it ſhould be there, as it is not, yet it might be taken away in the New, (as thoſe things which in the old Teſtament, or the law of nature, are neereſt to giving of that liberty, are abſolutely reformed by Chriſts Doctrine and practice) and then that were good for nothing. Was it in the new? Then deale plainly, ſhew the place in the new Teſtament which gives that liberty, and is now found out by poſterity, though hidden to them. Sure we have found out no new Scripture, to them unknown (the Nazarites Goſpel though it rehearſe ſome ſpeeches of Chriſt no… in our Canon, yet is not produced for any of this nature: that famous one which it fathers on our Saviour, Nunquam laeti ſitis n…ſi cùm fratr…m in charitate vid…ritis, is of another ſtamp, I would to God this Apocryphall Precept might be canonicall among us) and for any place of the known Canon miſunderſtood by them, and now clearly unclouded and revealed to us in a right underſtanding, which inforces this, I muſt be ſo charitable to the Objecter, as to think that if he had diſcerned any ſuch, he would not have failed to have ſhewed it us, (as well as his interpretations of Rom 13. and Revel 17.17.) if it were but to leave us unex…uſable for not being his Proſelytes. Beyond theſe ſeverall wayes of revelation, if poſterity have had any other (or indeed any but that of underſtanding of Scripture, by Scripture light, or aſſiſtance of Gods Spirit, which was not before underſtood) from whence to fetch a liberty which is not in the old Bible, or is denied in the New, this is it which we deſire ſo to warne men of under the name of Enthuſiaſme, which is hardly ever diſtinguiſhable from a demure frenſie, and I muſt call it now the dreame of the dreamers, Jude 8. that deſpiſe dominion, ſpeak evill of p. 17dignities, but far from divine revelation. And yet that this is the thing that this Objecter hath an eye to, (and not the underſtanding of Scripture more clearly then before) may appeare, in that he affirms this truth hid from their teachers, (though not from all without exception) who yet if it were hid in the Scripture, were of all others moſt unlikely not to finde it. As for that offer of proofe, that this truth might lie hid, becauſe there was no occaſion of ſtudying it: I anſwer, that in Tertul. daies when there was occaſion to ſtudy it, (as great as ever can ariſe any, becauſe the perſecutions then, were as heavie perſecutions) we may by that argument think they would have ſearcht into it, at leſt the light then would not in ordinary account have proved more dim, as he ſaith it did, if the Scripture were the candleſtick where this light was held out. That which he adds in the next place, of the ſpirit of courage, patience & conſtancie which was by God powred out on the Church in thoſe dayes, and ſo made mar…yrdome ſeem a deſirable thing to them, is more like a reaſon indeed of their not inquiring into this liberty: and herein, I muſt acknowledge the ingenuity of the Objecter, or the power of truth which extorted this reaſon from him, ſo little to the advantage of his cauſe, and ſo much of ours. For this is certainly the bottome of the buſineſſe, the want of Chriſtian courage, patience, &c. (for that kinde of courage is not in fighting, but ſuffering) hath helpt us of this laſt age to that [dream, not] revelation of liberty, which was never heard of among the ancients. But by the way, it ſeems by the Objecter that now martyrdome is no deſirable thing, nor taking up Chriſts Croſſe, nor following of him. We are reſolved to have no more to do with martyrdome, think that the thouſand yeeres for the Saints to reigne on earth are now at hand, and ſo ſuffering, or conformity to the image of Chriſt, no longer the thing we are predeſtin'd to, we muſt ſet up a new trade of fighting, deſtroying, reſiſting, rebelling, leave enduring to thoſe Chriſtians which were furniſhed with extraordinary ſtrength from heaven. Which are the Objecters words of the Primitive Chriſtians, which, ſaith he, kept them from ſtudying caſes and queſtions about lawfulneſſe of eſcaping, (which word meere ſhame had put in, …u…erly impertinently, in ſtead of reſiſting) I confeſſe, I had thought that our Q. Mary Martyes had had this ſtrength from heaven too; and that it was not like miracles, an extraordinary gift onelyonly for the infancie of the Church: but now it ſeemes we muſt expect to ſee no more Martyrs, till we can remove mountains again: This Objecter, it is cleare, is ſo reſolved againſt it at this time, and that his actions, as well as writings, will be ready to teſtifie. For my own part, I truſt I ſhall be as ready to oppoſe the one, as I am to con…u…e the other, and to thinke nothing more Chriſtian ſtill, then to be crucified with my Chriſt, and if I might chuſe the Article of Chriſtian Doctrine which I ſhould moſt deſire to ſeale with my blood, I thinke it would be that of meekneſſe, patience, non reſiſtance, peaceableneſſe, charity, which I conceive Chriſt hath beene ſo p…ſſionately earneſt to recommend unto me, as moſt diametrically oppoſite to the moſt unchriſtian damning ſins of pride, ambition, malice, rebellion, unquietneſſe, uncontentedneſſ…, &c.

Fourthly, For that whole diſcourſe about Antichriſt there muſt many things be returned. 1. That it is not tolerable in a Chriſtian to affirme that God purpoſely hid truths, that Antichriſt might come into the world; this ſo harſh ſence the objector firſt diſguiſes in another phraſe, that God by ſpeciall diſpenſation ſuffered p. 18him to make many truths his footſtoole, but indeed that reaches not home to the buſineſſe undertaken to be proved, for it follows not thence, that this of reſiſting ſuperiors was one of thoſe tru…hs, if it were, then God ſuffered him to make uſe of it, which he could not but by its being made known, whereas he ſuppoſes it was then hid, if he mean Antichriſt hid it, and ſo made the holding it, his footſtool. Then 1. it was not God that hid it, as before he ſaid, but Antichriſt 2. It had then been manifeſt before, uſe then began to be hid, when there was moſt occaſion to uſe it, which before he made improbable. If I were put upon the rack I could not give a rationall account of thoſe words of the objector laſt recited, or ſuch as may but be conſonant to his preſent undertakings: that which followes is more clear that God cauſed a dead ſleep to fall upon thoſe truths: If he did, I wonder who firſt raiſed them out of that dead ſleep Jun. Brutus or Buchan. or M Goodwin? but ſtill it ſeems God did on purpoſe hide truths in favour & aſiſtance to Antichriſt to help him into the world, and this, not like the Spirit of ſlumber ſent on men for their puniſhment, but on divine truths which ſure had not deſerved it, yet more particularly that the doctrine of liberty to reſiſt ſuperiors ſhould be ſo oppoſite in a ſpeciall maner to Antichriſt, that it was fain to be laid aſleep to give him paſſage into his throne, ſeemeth very ſtrange to me. 1. Becauſe one piece of Antichriſts pride is to exalt himſelf above all that is called God which is moſtly interpreted Kings, and if rightly, then they that do ſo enhaunce the power of the people; as to make the King Singulis minorem, & looſe the rains of obedience ſo far as to permit reſiſtance: wil I fear diſcern ſome part of the mark of the Beaſt upon their own breſts. 2. Becauſe the foreign, 2 Theſ. 2▪ 6. and foreign, v. 7. that hindred, or let Antichriſt, and was like to do ſo ſtill, till he were taken out of the way, was by the Fathers commonly reſolved to be the Roman empire or imperiall Soveraignty of Rome, ſee Tert. Dere ſee 24. Ambr. com. in 2. Theſ. Hier. qu. 11. ad Algas▪ Chryſ. in 2 Theſ. Cry. Hier. catech. i e. Aug. de civ. Dei, l. 20. c. 19. Lact l▪ 7. c. 25 Oecum. in …oc. & ib. S…ver. & Gen. and therefore on the ſacking of Rome by Alaricus the Goth S. Ierom preſently expected that Antichriſt ſhould come, and in his book ad Ageruchiam de mon…gam: wonders that any one would think of marrying at that time, hence, have learned men obſerved, was that cuſtome in the moſt ancient times to pray in their Lyturgies for the laſting of the Roman empire, that ſo Antichriſt might be long a coming, Tert. Apol. c. 33. ad Scap. c. 2. From whence though nothing elſe can be demonſtratively inferred yet this certainly may: that in thoſe many Fathers opinion the power of Kings continuing intire, was not like to help Antichriſt in, nor conſequently the bringing down that power by the revelation of the doctrine of reſiſtance, like to cauſe an abortion in Antichriſts birth, or now tend to the caſting him out of the world.

As for the evidence of that Revelation rule that the communality in oppoſition to their Kings, muſt have the great ſtroke in executing Gods judgement on Antichriſt proved Revel. 18.4.6.9. I muſt anſwer, 5. That I ſhall never wonder enough at the power of Prejudice evidenced in this Objecter, by what he hath put together to this purpoſe page 32. To prove that the people contrary to their Kings ſhall deſtroy Antichriſt, this is thought by him ſufficient evidence, that the people are commanded to go out of her, verſ. 4. when verſ. 9. it followes that the Kings of the earth ſhall bewail her, and lament for her: The concludingneſſe of the p. 19argument I ſhall not inſiſt on, but onelyonly look forward to another place which he cites immediately Revel. 17.17. Where the ten Kings are ſaid to hate the whore and make her deſolate. Now the word Kings in this laſt place ſignifies, ſaith the Objecter, not the perſons of Kings but their ſtates and Kingdomes, and to this purpoſe proofes are produced, but 1. I beſeech him to deal ingenuouſly: doth the word King ever ſignifie the kingdome oppoſed to the King, 1. Any part of the Kingdom excluding the King; but then 2. See the myſtery of prejudice which I mentioned where it is for the Objecters turne Revel. 18. The Kings of the earth muſt ſignifie their perſons in oppoſition to their people, but where it is not for his turne Revel. 17. There the word Kings muſt ſignifie the people or any but the King: Would not the ſpirit of meekneſſe have eaſily compounded this buſineſſe, and have given the word (Kings) leave in both places to ſignifie both their perſons and their Realmes, and ſo have reconciled the places that ſome Kings with their Kingdomes ſhould bewail her, and ſome again hate her, they bewail her, that continued with her till her deſtruction, when they ſee the ſmoak of her burning 18.9. and others hate her who had once taſted of her filthineſſe, and repented and left her before, this were very agreeable to thoſe texts, if we had not peremptorily reſolved to fetch ſome other ſence out of them. 3. That firſt place alone by it ſelf concludes onelyonly thus much that good men come (or are exhorted to come) out from Antichriſt, and avenge the whore, and earthly men that have love to her, bewail her, but not that either the firſt are all common people (for ſure Kings may be called Gods people, or be in that number) or the ſecond none but Kings, as for the proof that thoſe people, verſ. 4. are the ſubjects of thoſe kings verſe 9. Becauſe they are ſuch as come out of Babylon, ſure that is very weak, for Babylon being the province of the whore, there may be kings as well as ſubjects there, and thoſe Kings come out too, as well as thoſe ſubjects. For ſuppoſe King and people of England all popiſh, why might they not all reform together? It ſeemes Antichriſt muſt never be caſt out of a Kingdom till the people do it in ſpight of the King, and therefore it is concluded that it was not done here in the dayes of King Edward nor Queen Elizabeth nor King Iames, and now ſince the new Revelation have aſſured men that Antichriſt muſt now be caſt out utterly from among us, it is become neceſſary that our Soveraign ſhould be a papiſt, and as much zeal and as ſolid arguments uſed to perſwade our friends that indeed he is ſo, (though his conſtant word and actions now evidence the contrary) as are produced to maintaine any other article of our new Saints belief: one of the moſt ſuſpected and hated hereſies of theſe dayes, is to doubt of the popiſh affections of our ſuperiors eſpecially the King: Well by this doctrine, if the King ſhould chance not to be a papiſt, he muſt turne to be one, or elſe popery cannot be caſt out in his time. If ſo he ſhould do, turne papiſt on purpoſe to prepare, or diſpoſe his kingdom to turne Antichriſt out, this might be but anſwerable to Gods hiding of truths to that end to help Antichriſt in. But ſhould his Majeſty be ſo malicious as to proove Proteſtant in earneſt, then what would become of that ſure word of prophecy that ſo many have bin perſwaded to depend on, that Antichriſt muſt now be caſt out of this Kingdome, which faith the Objecter cannot be, unleſſe the people do it while the King bewailes. I hope I have ſaid enough of this.

p. 20As for the connexion of this obſervation with the concluſion in hand (though it matter little now the obſervation is proved ſo falſe, yet) I ſhall adde that if the people were to do that great feat of caſting out Antichriſt, yet it appears no… how liberty of forcible reſiſting their Kings ſhould be a neceſſary requiſite to the work, unleſſe the lawfull King be the Antichriſt in every country, for otherwiſe it is very poſſible that though they obey their kings they may reſiſt Antichriſt, though they love and revere their lawfull ſuperior they may hate and abjure their unlawfull: Once more, whereas it is again repeated that the knowledge of the ſuppoſed ſubjects liberty would have kept Antichriſt from his throne, I repeat again, that if it would, God ſure would have revealed it to them of all others, unleſſe it appear that God was more angry with the ſins of Chriſtians in Tertullians age, and ſo more fought againſt them, then he doth in ours againſt us, for though God may of mercy undeſerved throw down Antichriſt, yet that he ſhould ſo immediately and illuſtriouſly labour to ſet him up, unleſſe out of deſerved indignation to a people, is not eaſily reſolved, yet if this may appear de facto to be ſo, I ſhall yeeld, till then foreign.

The laſt blot laid on Tertullian to obliterate all whatſoever can be fetcht from himlis, that the authority of Tertullian and the ſubmiſſion of the Chriſtians being both Apocryphall is too light to weigh againſt the practice of the great Prophet Eliſha &c. To which I anſwer, that that being ſuppoſed, yet the grounds on which Tertullian ſaith the Chriſtians of his time did ſo patiently ſuffer, viz. the doctrine of Chriſtian patience and meekneſſe, are not Apocryphall, nor inferiour to that of Eliſha, though it were ſuppoſed to be argumentive, or concluding for reſiſtance. For any thing elſe added by the objector in this buſineſſe as the diſproving of Tertullians relations on grounds of Chriſtian doctrine, from the contrary practice of David and Eliſha though I might anſwer in one word, that Chriſtians are reſtrained from ſome things which were practiced without fault in the old Teſtament, yet becauſe thoſe old Teſtament-examples have been fully cleared by many others of our writers, & indeed are not pertinent to the d…ſcourſe I was upon, when this Objecter firſt …et me in the way, and led me this wilde goeſe …ha…e after him, I ſhal not be ſo impertinent as to adde any thing, but conceive my ſelf to have vindicated the teſtimonies of thoſe Fathers from all poſſible objections, and ſo to have joyned the practiſe of Chriſtians, (thoſe ancient primitive ones) and proved them correſpondent to the example of Chriſt, and ſo to have made good my ſecond argument propoſed from the example of Chriſt and Chriſtians.

My third is from the very making of Chriſtianity, and particularly of the Proteſtant Doctrine. And … Of Chriſtianity, which as it differs from the Lawes both of Moſes and Nature, ſo it conſtantly reformes and perfects thoſe (diſſolves not any thing that was morall in them, nor promiſes impunity for non-performance, but upon repentance and reformation) elevates and raiſes them to an higher pitch, at leaſt th… Jew… or naturall men had conceived or underſtood themſelves obliged to, which the ancient …athers generally reſolve to be the meaning of his foreign, Mat. 5.17. to fill up all va…u…ties in thoſe former Lawes, and adde unto them that perfection which ſhould be proportionable to that greater meaſure of grace now afforded under the Goſpel. Thus in that Sermon p. 21upon the mount, that foreign, that top of practicall Divinity, (ſet down by way of particular inſtance of Chriſts purpoſe, foreign) beſides the third proaemi…ll beatitude, Bleſſed are the meek, which certainly though it may containe more, yet excludes not, but principally notes the meek, obedient ſubjects under government, the non…reſiſters, and therefore hath the ſame promiſe annext which the Law had given in the fifth Commandement (twas there, That thy dayes may be long in the Land; tis here, They ſhall poſſeſſe the earth, foreign, which Pſal. 37.11. whence it is cited, referres clearly to the land of Canaan, though improved into an higher ſenſe now in the Goſpel.) And again, beſides the ſeventh beatitude of the peacemakers, or peaceable (foreign and foreign, being equivalent in the Scripture ſtile, vid. Iam. 3.18.) and the eighth, of thoſe that are perſecuted for righteouſneſſe ſake, (whence ſure is not excluded the cauſe of Religion and Chriſtianity it ſelfe) which ſure are oppoſi…e enough to forcible reſiſting of lawfull Magiſtrates, eſpecially for Religion: beſides all theſe, I ſay, in the introduction to that Sermon, there is in the body of the Sermon it ſelfe, an foreign, which ſure prohibits all forcible reſiſting or violence even to the foreign, the injurious or foreign from foreign troubleſome perſon which if it ſhould chance to be our King, would not certainly be more lawfully or Chriſtianly reſiſted then any body elſe; eſpecially, when it is our religion which is invaded, which of all other things a whole army of plunderers cannot rob us of, (as they may of the cloak verſ. 40.) and therefore needs not our violence to retain it; nor is ever injured, but more illuſtrated by our ſuffering. To this may be added the conſideration of the depoſitum left by Chriſt with his diſciples, pacem peace Iohn 14.27. (which it ſeemes onelyonly the beloved diſciple had recorded) Peace I leave with you, externall peace for the pacem meam, my peace followes after as a gift perhaps peculi…r to them that priſed and kept this legacy, and if it be objected that Chriſt came not to ſend peace, but a ſword, Matth. 10.34. that ſure refers not to Chriſts prime counſell or purpoſe, but to the event; what he foreſaw it would be, not what he had determined it ought (which manner of ſpeech is very ordinary in all authours) for the precept is punctuall to Peter againſt the uſe of the ſwor… and to all the diſciples for preſerving of peace Mar. 9.50. and to that it is thought the mention of ſalt belongs in that place, which among other qualities is foreign unitive, have ſalt in your ſelves, and have peace one with another. On theſe texts many effectuall emphaticall deſcants are added by the Apoſtles, Rom. 12.18. If it be poſſible, as much as in you lieth, live peaceably with all men: and Heb. 1….14▪ follow peace with all men foreign an agoniſticall word to run for it as for a prize or foreign, and 1 Theſſal. 4.11. foreign, we render it ſtudy (it is, be emulous, contend, ſtrive, make it your ambition) to be quiet, to which I ſhall onelyonly adde two places more, Iames 3.17.18. The w…ſdome which cometh from above is firſt pure, then peaceable &c. which before ver. 13. he had called meekneſſe of wiſdom, then 1 Pet. 3.3. where after direction for the foreign obedience of wives … husbands (and we know the kingdoms relat…on to the King is beſides others, that of a wife to an husband who is therefore eſpouſed to it with the ring at his Coronation) it is added, foreign, that her bravery conſiſts p. 22in the ſincerity (I think it ſhould be rendred) of a meek and quiet ſpirit, which is in the ſight of God of great price. If it be objected, that theſe many places of peace are but generall wide illations againſt reſiſtance, or however, no more pertinent to the caſe about reſiſting of Magiſtrates, then of any other private man: I anſwer, that though I might thus argue, à minori, (and alſo aſſume that no other reſiſtance is neere ſo deſtructive of peace as that reſiſting of the Supreame power, that being indeed the ſh…king of government it ſelf, which is the band of peace, and the diſſolving of which, returns … to the ſtate of common hoſtility, leaves us a wilderneſſe of Beares or Tygers, not a ſociety of men) yet I ſhall confeſſe, that I intended not to lay any more weight on this part of the Argument, then any man will acknowledge it able to beare, and that therefore before I inferre my concluſion of non-reſiſtance from the making of Chriſtianity, I muſt adde to theſe places ſo paſſionate for peace, another ſort of places concerning obedience, of which (without naming the places being ſo known already) I ſhall venture this obſervation, that in the new Teſtament eſpecially the Epiſtles of the Apoſtles (which were all written in time of the re…gn of wicked heathen bloody adverſaries of Chriſtianity, and can referre to none but thoſe) there is no one Chriſtian vertue, or article of faith more cleerly delivered more effectually inforced upon our underſtandings and affections to be acknowledged by the one (againſt all pretence of Chriſtian liberty to the contrary) and ſubmitted to by the other, then that of obedience to Kings, &c. It were moſt eaſie to vindicate thoſe places from all the gloſſes and ſcholia's that the writers of this year Maſter Goodwin in …ntican. Maſter Bur. Maſter Bridges, &c. have invented to free themſelves and others from the obedience moſt ſtrictly required there, but would not again trouble any ingenious man with ſuch extravagant diſcourſes as even now I learnt by experience would be neceſſary to anſwer ſuch exceptions, which mens wit or ſomewhat worſe hath produced, beſides, thoſe places have been by others vindicated already. I ſhall onelyonly ſay whoſoever can without coloured ſpectacles finde ground for the preſent reſiſtance in thoſe places of Scripture Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2.13.18. &c. So far as to ſettle and quiet a conſcience, I ſhall not conceive my underſtanding fit to duel with his, any more then I would wreſtle with a friend, or combat with the fire, which Pythagoras tels me would avail little: he that can be ſure that damnation Rom 13.2. ſignifies not damnation, but ſome temporary mulct onelyonly (if the King ſhould prove able to inflict it) when, v. 5. It is added we muſt needs be ſubject not onelyonly for wrath (i. Fear of temporary puniſhment) but alſo for conſcience ſake, (which when it accuſes, bindes over to eternall wrath, or damnation) I profeſſe I know not what camel he may not ſwallow▪ I ſhall onelyonly in the bowels of Chriſt deſire him to conſider, what a ſad condition it would prove, if being on this confidence engaged, and by Gods h…nd taken away in this war he ſhould at Gods tribunall hear Saint Paul avouch that by foreign or damnation in that place, he did meane no l…ſſe then eternall damnation without repentance: O how would his countenance change, his thoughts trouble him, the joynts of his loins be looſed, and his knees ſmite one againſt another, one generall foreign poſſeſſe all his faculties, and Maſter Bridg… &c. be unable to ſettle him or give him confidence any longer, when the Tekel ſhall come out of the wall over againſt that interpretation p. 23of his, that it is weighed in the ballances (of truth & judgement) and found wanting, of this word foreign I deſigne another diſquiſition: only I could not defer to forewarn the Reader of his danger in this place, and now I ſhall not doubt from the making of Chriſtianity to inferre my concluſion of non-reſiſtance, not doubting but the premiſſes will bear it.

For the other part of this third argument from the making of the Proteſtant Doctrine, I would fain be very brief by way of compenſation for my former importunity, and therefore ſhall engage myſelf not to trouble the Reader with citations or names, which yet might be brought by hundreds of reformed Writers for every Iunius Br…ius, Butherius, and Buthanan that hath appeared for the contrary ſince the reformation. Though the truth is, ſuch as theſe if they muſt be called Proteſtants, are yet in this ſomewhat more then that title ever imported, I may ſay perfect Jeſuits in their principles, and reſolutions concerning Kings (no Papiſt of any other order hath gone ſo far) although they differ ſome what in the ſeat of that power of making ſuch reſiſtance. That which I deſigned to ſay on this point is only, This that the doctrine of Allegiance to Kings, and of their ſupremacy in all cauſes, hath alwayes been counted a principall head of difference between the Proteſtants and the worſt of Papiſts, and a ſpeciall evidence which moſt men have uſed, to conclude the Papacy to be foreign the antichriſt, is this that the Pope exalteth himſelf above all that is called God: 1. The Kings of the earth, that he in caſe the King be not a Catholick, abſolves ſubjects from their Allegiance to him, that he pretends power over them in ſpirituall things, and in temporall in ordine ad ſpiritualis. It is not unknown to any that the Oath of Supremacy if not of Allegience among us is principally deſigned to diſcerne and and diſcover Papiſts, of whom, one of the prayers appointed for the fifth of November affirmes, that their religion is rebellion, that ſure is, that one main difference betwixt Romiſh and Engliſh, Popiſh and Proteſtant doctrine is that of liberty to Rebell in ſome caſes, particularly in that of Religion: In oppoſition to all which doctrines or inſinuations of theirs, there is no Church that ever expreſt their ſence in any article more fully and largely, then ours hath in this particular, witneſſe the ſeverall parts of the homily of diſobedience and rebellion, printed in Queen Elizabeths time. And if herein all other parts of the reformed Church have not gone as far as we, yet ſhall I not retract my aſſerting this doctrine purely Proteſtant, 1. becauſe this Kingdom hath alwayes been eſteemed a prime part of the Reformation, wherein the Papacy was legally caſt out, not by violence or tumults of the people, and ſo nothing rejected but what in ſobriety was neceſſary to be rejected, and therefore our Church hath generally been the Norma or rule by which others have deſired to compoſe themſelves, and never yet any other ſo preferred before us, as that our anceſtours could think fit to conforme to them, 2. becauſe in many other countries the government is not regall or Monarchical as here it is, Bodin. l. 2. c. 5. de rep. can finde none of this nature in Europe, but France and Spaine, and England and Scotland (I conceive Ireland he conteined under the word Auglia… ) in which, ſaith he, Regis ſine controverſia jur… …nia majeſtatis habeant per ſe: Singulis civi…us nec univerſit …as eſt (it ſeems Maſter Dale our Embaſſadour from whom he had received his advertiſements of the ſtate of this kingdome had not then heard that our King though Singulis major is … verſis p. 24minor, which certainly had diveſted him of all Soveraignty it being impoſſible that the Soveraign or ſupream of all ſhould be Minor then any (Sumni prinsipis vitam fama… …ut fortunas in diſcrimen vocare, ſeu viſen judicio conſtituto id fiat, &c. As for the Emperour of Germany Charles the fifth by name, he ſaith plainly, Tyrannide cives ad rempublicam oppreſſit cùm iura maieſtatis non haboret, which if it be true will be ſome excuſe to the Germane Princes in what they did at that time in taking up armes for Religion, though it is moſt certain what he affirmes, that when thoſe princes conſulted Martin Luther about it num id …ure divino liceret, whether it were lawfull in the ſight of God, Ille negavit he reſolved it utterly unlawfull: this anſwer ſaith Bodin, Luther gave Perinde atqua ſi Carolus ſummam imperit ſolus haberes, and therefore much more muſt it be given when the caſe is of a Monarch indeed, as he concludes, and though he acknowledge that diſtinction which it ſeemes Luther did not betwixt that Emperour and true Monarchs, yet is he faine to paſſe a ſad obſervation upon the fact of thoſe Princes in taking up armes for Religion, againſt Luthers advice Ita funeſtum bellum reique publica calami toſum ſuſcepi…s eſt, cum in gentiprincipurs ac civi… ſtrage, quia iuſta cauſa …llowideri poteſt adverſus patriam arma ſumendi. I would to God thoſe words were Engliſht in every of our hearts: a direfull and calamitous war with the ſlaughter of all ſorts, becauſe (though it were for Religion) yet no cauſe can be counted juſt, of taking up armes againſt ones country. The truth is, what was done there though, 1. very unhappily and 2. againſt no Monarch, hath been thought imitable by Knox and Buchanan in Scotland, and from thence infuſed into ſome few into England a… Penry, &c. But by Gods providence hath formerly been timouſly reſtrained, and not broken out to the defaming of our Proteſtant profeſſion. It ſeemes now our ſins are ripe for ſuch a judgement, the land divided into two extream ſinfull parts; one by their ſins fitted to ſuffer under this doctrine, others ſi…full enough to be permitted to broach and proſecute it. I meekly thank God, that though my ſins are ſtrangely great, yet he hath not given me up to that latter judgement. I conceive I have alſo given ſome hints at leaſt of proving my poſition from the making of the Proteſtant Doctrine.

Now for the laſt Topick, taken from the conſtitution of this kingdome. Though that be the Lawyers task, very proſperouſly undertaken by others, yet one generall notion there is of our Laws, which from my childhood I have imbibed, and therefore conceive common to all others with me; and it is this, That the Laws of this kingdom put no man (no Papiſts I am ſure) to death for religion. When Jeſuites, and Seminary Prieſts have ſuffered, every man is ſo perfect in the Law, as to know that it is for treaſon, by a Statute that makes it ſuch for them to come into this kingdome. The truth of this, and the conſtant pleading of it againſt all Objecters, hath made me ſwallow it as a principle of our Law, that even Popery ſtrictly taken (and not onelyonly as now this laſt yeere it hath learnt to enlarge its importance) is no capitall crime. From whence, I profeſſe, I know no impediment to forbid me to conclude, that in the conſtitution of our ſtate no war for Religion is accounted a lawfull war; for that it ſhould be lawfull to kill whole multitudes without any enditement, yo…, and by attempting it, to endanger, at leaſt, our own. 1. Many good Proteſtants lives, for that, which if it were proved againſt any ſingle man, would not touch his life in the leaſt p. 25degree, is, I muſt acknowledge, one of the Artaria belli which I cannot ſee into. And therefore Sleidan tels us of M. Luther, that he would not allow a war, though but defenſive, with the Turk himſelf, com. li. 14. pag. 403. and though after he had mitigated his opinion upon a new ſtate of the queſtion, and perſwaded the Emperour to it, yet it was with this limitation, M…do nec vindictae, nec gloria, nec emolumenti caur… ſub…, (three things that are very rarely kept out of war) ſed tantum ut ſpur…iſſimum l…tronem, non ex religionis, ſed …urti & injuriarum actione aggradiantur. It ſeems the cauſe of Religion, although it were of Chriſtianity againſt Mahometiſme, was not to him a ſufficient warrant for a defenſive w… But then 2. For this war to be waged againſt the Prince, (or by any one but the Prince, in a Monarchie, as this is) who whatſoever he hath not, hath certainly the power of the ſword immediatly from God (or elſe muſt be acknowledged not to have it at all, for this power cannot be in any people originally, or any where but in God, and therefore it may be moſt truly ſaid, that though the regall power were confeſt to be firſt given by the people, yet the power of the ſword, where with regality is endowed, would be a ſuperaddition of Gods, never belonging to regall or whatever other power, till God annext it in Gen. 9.6. which alſo … to be out of all diſpute in this kingdome, even at this time, where the univerſall body of the cōmonalty, even by thoſe that would have the regal power originally in them, is not yet affirmed to have any aggregate power, any farther then every man ſingle out of government was preſumed to have over himſelf, which ſure was not power of his owne life: for even in nature there is Felonia deſ…, and therefore the repreſentative body of the Commons, is ſo far from being a judicature in capitall matters, that it cannot adminiſter an oath) and therefore is not juſtly invaſible by any ſubject or community of ſubjects, who certainly have not that power, nor pretend to have it, and when they take it, think it neceſſary to excuſe that fact by pretence of neceſſity, which every body knowes, is the colour for thoſe things which have no ordinary means of juſtifying them: like that which Divines ſay of ſaving of children and ideots, &c. by ſome extraordinary way.) Nay, 3. For this war to be waged, not againſt Popery, truly ſo called, but againſt the onelyonly true Proteſtant Religion, as it ſtands (and by attempting to make new laws is acknowledged as yet to ſtand) eſtabliſht by the old Laws of the land, and therefore is fain to be called Popiſh (and our Martyr reformers notable, by thoſe fiery chariots of theirs, to get out of the confines of Babylon) that it may be fit to be deſtroyed; juſt as the Primitive Chriſtians were by the perſecuters put in wilde beaſts skins that in thoſe ſhapes they might be devoured: this I confeſſe is to me a complication of riddles (and therefore put by ſome Artiſts under that deepe, dark phraſe, and title of fundamentall Laws of the kingdome) to which certainly no liberty or right of the ſubject in Magna charta, no nor legiſlative power, will enable any man to give any intelligible, much leſſe legall name: At which I profeſſe I am not ill pleaſed, becauſe this I hope will keep it from being recorded to poſterity.

I have done with my fourth Argument, and am heartily ſorry I have kept my Reader ſo long from his prayers, which muſt ſet an end to this controverſie, for ſure Arguments are too blunt to do it; I beſeech God to direct all our hearts to a conſtant uſe of thoſe meanes (together with faſting and abſtinence, at leaſt p. 26from father provoking ſins) and exerci…e that evill ſpirit that hath divided his titles (of foreign, and now at length, foreign & foreign) among us, and by thoſe means infuſed his mortiferous poiſon into the very veines of this whole kingdom. [I create the fruit of the lips peace, peace to him that is far off, &c. and I will heal him. Thou haſt moved the land, and divided it, heal the fores thereof, for it ſhaketh.]

The word foreign, according to its origination ſignifies Cenſure, Judgement, and in its making hath no intimation, either of the quality of the offence to which that judgement belongs, or of the Judge who inflicts it: that it belongs to humane judgements, or ſentences of temporall puniſhments ſometimes, is apparent by Luke 23.40. where one thief ſaith to the other, foreign, making, it ſeems, the ſame ſentence of death, or capitall puniſhment, called foreign, c. 24.20. judgement of death temporall; and that at other times it ſignifies alſo divine judgement, is as apparent Act. 24.26. foreign, judgement to come, that is, certainly at the end of this world, at that day of doome, So Rom. 2.…. foreign, the judgement of God, and ſo again verſ. 3. which v. 5. is explained to be …rath or puniſhment againſt the day of wrath, &c. ſo Heb. 6.2. reſurrection of the dead, and eternall judgement. The truth is in this ſenſe, it is moſt what … this Book, ſee Mat. 23.…4. Mat. 12.40. Luke 20.47. Rom. 3.8. and therefore He…, the beſt Gloſſary for the new Teſtament, renders it foreign ▪ Gods retribution or payment, or rendering according to works. It will not be …th while to ſurvey and conſider every place where the word is uſed, he that ſhall do ſo, will perhaps reſolve with me to accept of that gloſſary, and underſtand it conſtantly of Gods judgement; unleſſe, when the circumſtances of the … ſhall enforce the contrary, as they do in the places firſt mentioned, and 1 Cor. 6.7. But then when the context rather leades to the ſecond ſenſe, there will be great danger for any man to apply it to humane judgements, for by ſo doing, he may flatter himſelf or others in ſome ſin, and run into that foreign, as it ſignifies eternall judgement, when by that miſ-underſtanding he doth not conceive himſelf in any danger of it. Of places which without all controverſie thus interpret themſelves, I will mention two, 2 Pet. 2.3. foreign, to render it, whoſe judgement of a long time lingereth not: which that it belongs to eternall vengeance, appears by the next words, foreign, we render it, Their damnation, it is literally, Their deſtruction ſleepeth not. The ſecond place is, 1 Tim. 3.6. foreign, fall into the condemnation of the devill; that is, ſure into that ſentence that fell upon Lucifer for his pride (being caſt out of heaven, and reſerved to chains of eternall darkneſſe) for the perſon ſpoken of here, is the Novice, or new Convert, lifted up with pride, juſt parallel to the Angels newly created, lifted up with pride alſo, the crimes and the perſons parallel, and ſo ſure the puniſhment alſo. Now three places more there are which appear to me by the ſame means of evidence, or rule of interpreting, to belong to the ſame ſenſe, though I cannot ſay of them as I did before, [without controverſie.] For I ſee it is not only doubted by ſome, whether they do belong to this ſenſe or no, but that it is reſolved they p. 27do not: which reſolution ſure muſt be obnoxious to ſome danger, that I ſay no worſe of it. The firſt of theſe places it, Rom. 13.2. foreign: we render it, They that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation: But ſay others, it muſt be rendered judgement, as that ſignifies ſome temporary puniſhment which the higher powers may inflict, and nothing elſe: and this they labour to make appear by the words following: For rulers are a terrour to evill works, and he beareth not the ſword in vain, &c. To which I anſwer, That there is no doubt made by me or any, but that rulers are to puniſh men for evill works, particularly that of reſiſtance againſt them, and not onelyonly that, but alſo crimes againſt our brethren, and God; and in that reſpect it is added, v. 4. foreign, the miniſter or officer of God he is, and executioner for wrath, that is, puniſhment temporall to him (indefinitely) that doth evill. But doth it follow from hence, that either he that makes forcible reſiſtance againſt the ſuperiour or ſupreme power, or that commits any other ſin (which the ſupreme power is ſet to avenge or puniſh temporally) ſhall incurre no eternall puniſhment? If this new Divinity ſhould be entertained, it muſt be priviledge and protection to other ſins as well as reſiſtance and rebellion, even to all that any judiciall lawes have power to puniſh, for in theſe alſo he is the Miniſter of God: foreign, an avenger, or executioner for puniſhment, and there is no avoiding it; but this muſt be extended indefinitely, or univerſally, foreign, to any malefactour puniſhable by that power, or that comes under this cogniſance; and ſo by this Logick, he that is hanged, may not be damned, what ever his crime be, an execution on earth ſhall be as good as a Purgatory to excuſe him from any other puniſhment. But then ſecondly, ſuppoſe a rebell eſcape the hand of juſtice here below, by flight, &c. nay, that he proſper in his rebellion, and get the better of it, that the King be not able to puniſh him, nay, yet farther, that he proceed higher, depoſe the King, and get into his place; What foreign is he like to receive, if that ſignifie onelyonly the Kings wrath, or temporall puniſhment? Sure this proſperouſneſſe of the crime muſt make it ceaſe to be a crime, make it commence vertue, as the Turks on their principles are wont to reſolve it, ſaith Buſbequius, Ep 4. —Ex opinione quae Turcis inſedit ut res quocunque conſilio inſtitutas, ſi bene cadunt, ad Deum Authorem referant, &c. Or elſe give it, (though it be a ſin never ſo great, and unrepented of) perfect impunity both in this world, and in another; and certainly this is no jeſt. For he that obſerves the behaviours of many men, (the no manner of regrets or reluctancies in their courſe of forcible reſiſtance, ſave onelyonly when they conceive it goes not on ſo proſperouſly as it was wont, and the great weekly induſtry that is uſed to perſwade all men of the continued proſperity of the ſide, as being conceived far more uſefull and inſtrumentall to their ends, then the demonſtration of the juſtice of it, mens conſciences being reſolved more by the Diurnall then the Bible, by the Intelligencer then the Divine, unleſſe he turn Intelligencer alſo (I would we had not ſo many of thoſe pluraliſts.) Will have reaſon to reſolve that this Divinity is the principle by which they move; which if it be not yet brought to abſurdities enough, then look a little forward to the concluſion, deduced and infer'd, v. 5. Wherefore ye muſt be ſubject, not onelyonly for wrath, but alſo for conſcience ſake. Words by Prophetick Spirit added p. 28by the Apoſtle, as it were on purpoſe to contradict in terminis that new interpretation. Wrath ſignifies that temporall puniſhment, v. 4. which if it were the all that is meant by foreign, then how can it be true, that we muſt be ſubject not only for wrath? Certainly he that reſiſts is not ſubject (foreign, is all one with foreign, and both directly contrary to foreign, the word uſed both in the third and fifth verſe) and therfore if we muſt be ſubject not only for wrath, as that ſignifies temporall puniſhment, then he that reſiſts, ſhall receive more then wrath, as that ſignifies temporall puniſhment. viz. foreign, in our rendering, condemnation, if he do not prevent it timouſly by repentance: which ſure is the importance of the foreign, but alſo for conſcience ſake; that if he do it not, it will be ſin to him, wound his conſcience, binde him over to that puniſhment which belongs to an accuſing conſcience, (which ſure is more then a temporall mulct) which is farther clear from the firſt verſe of that chapter, the command of ſubjection. For ſure every Divine or Apoſtolicall command entred into the Canon of Scripture, doth binde conſcience, and the breach of it known and deliberate, is no leſſe then a damning ſin, even under the Goſpel, mortiferous and deſtructive without repentance, which is juſt equivalent to the foreign, he ſhall receive damnation in our way of interpreting it. So much for that firſt place.

The ſecond is 1 Cor. 11.29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or as our margent judgement) to himſelf, &c. This place I finde avouched for the confirming of the former interpretation Rom. 13. That foreign ſignifies onelyonly Temporall puniſhment and thus, it is known the Socinians commonly interpret this place, per foreign non ſempiternam damnationem nominatim, ſed ſuppliciū in genere intelligendum eſſe. Volk…lius l. 9. de ver. rel. l. 4. c. 22. That which is uſed to perſwade this to be probable is that which followes ver. 30. for this cauſe many are weak and ſickly among you, and many ſleep, which belonging onelyonly to Temporall puniſhments, is conceived to be a periphraſis of the foreign judgement, which ſhould ſeeme conſequently to be ſo alſo: and indeed, Volkelius hath added other proofs: 1. Becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaks of any one ſingle act of this ſinne of unworthy receiving (not of any habit or cuſtome) which he conceives not actually damning now under the ſecond covenant, 2. Becauſe it is ſaid ver. 32. and when we are judged, we are chaſtened of the Lord that we ſhould not be condemned &c. To theſe three (and I know not that there are produced any more) probabilities, I conceive clear ſatisfaction maybe given by thoſe who affirm foreign to contain in it eternall puniſhment; Though if it were onelyonly Temporall puniſhment, yet being ſickneſſe, &c. Which are not inflicted by the magiſtrate, but by the hand of God it will not come home to that which was by Maſter Br. affirmed of the word in Rom. 13. For this muſt be promiſed that we do not conceive it to ſignifie eternall puniſhments excluſive or ſo as to exclude temporall, but eternall and ſometimes Temporall too (for ſo ſure he that for his Rebellion receives damnation, hereafter, is not ſecured from being hang'd drawn and quarterd heere) or elſe eternall if be repent not, and perhaps Temporall though he do by foreign, as I ſaid, I underſtand with Heſychius foreign Gods vengeance whether here, or in another world, but I ſay in this place both of them, (and ſo ordinarily in the former alſo. This being premiſed, the word foreign may ſtill contain p. 29in it eternall puniſhments, ver. 29. though many for this cauſe of unworthy receiving did fall ſick and die, ver. 30. for 1. they might both die and be damned too, or if, as Volkelius ſaith the word foreign, o…do…miſcunt, ſleep, be never uſed in the N. T. of thoſe that are deſtined to eternall deſtruction, then ſtill may this be very reconcilable without interpretation that many for this cauſe are weak and ſickly, and many others ſleep, God chaſtiſing ſome by diſeaſes to reform them, and puniſhing others, who as Volkelius acknowledges, were guilty onelyonly of ſome ſingle act of the ſin onelyonly with death temporall or ſhortning their dayes: which certainly hinders not but that God might puniſh others that did cuſtomarily commit this ſin (and perhaps with greater aggravations) with no leſſe then eternall death, how ever that it were juſt for him to do ſo, what ever he did it is plain by ver. 27. which is parallel to the 29. whoſoever ſhall eat and drink unworthily ſhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, that is in Volkelius his own words Ipſum Chriſti corpus ac ſanguin…m contemnere & ignominiâ afficere ac quantam in ipſis eſt profanare proculcareque cenſendi ſunt, ſhall be thought to contemne and diſgrace, and as much as in them lies to profane, and tread under feet the body and blood of Chriſt, which what is it but to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, Heb. 10.29. Which yet there is uſed as a main aggravation of that ſin, for which, ſaith the Apoſtle there remaines no more ſacrifice, ver. 26. It is apparent that the phraſe foreign guilty of the body, &c. Is paralled to the Latine Reus Maieſtatis uſed for a Traitour, and ſure ſignifies no leſſe then a guilt of a great injury to Chriſt, which how any man can affirme to be a ſin to which no damnation belongs (ſuppoſing no antidote of invincible ignorance or weakneſſe, nor recovery by repentance nor gracious pardon of God in not imputing ſome ſingle act of it) I profeſſe my ſelf not to diſcerne, though I think I have weighed impartially all that is ſaid of it. This ſure will keep the firſt proof from being any longer probable, and for the ſecond, (or firſt of Volkelius) it is already in effect anſwered too, for though he that is guilty onelyonly of ſome one act of this ſinne found mercy, yet ſure they that are guilty of the cuſtomary ſin, may ſpeed worſe, and indeed of all indefinitly the Apoſtle ſpeaks according to the merit of the ſin, as when he ſaith the drunkard and adulterer ſhall not inherit the kingdome of God. Where yet perhaps he that is guilty onelyonly of one ſuch act may finde mercy. For the laſt proofe, I conceive it ſo far from being a probable one againſt me, that I ſhall reſolve it a convincing one on my ſide, for if thoſe that were ſick, &c. Were chaſtened of the Lord, that they ſhould not be condemned, then ſure if they had not been ſo chaſtened, nor reformed by that chaſtening, they ſhould have been condemned with the world▪ and ſo their temporall judgements may be a means through the mercy of God in Chriſt to free them from their eternall, but not an argument that eternall was not due to them, but a perfect intimation, that it was.

The third place (which is not indeed of much importance in it ſelf, but onelyonly is uſed to give countenance to the interpretation in the two former places) is 1 Pet. 4.17. the time is come that judgement muſt begin at the houſe of God. Here, ſay they foreign judgement is that that befalls the houſe of God, the godly therefore but temporall judgements.

To which I anſwer in a word, that here is a miſtake in oppoſing judgement p. 30in its latitude to the houſe of God, when only it is affirmed by S. Peter of the foreign, or foreign, the beginning or firſt part of judgement: for of the foreign or judgement in this verſe, there are ſpecified two parts, foreign, the firſt part, and foreign the end (or elſe the word foreign ſeemes to ſound in our Engliſh, the tail) of it, as Pſal. 75.8. the cup of Gods diſpleaſure, or punitive juſtice, is ſuppoſed to conſiſt of two parts, 1. red wine (or foreign) and 2. mixture of Myrrhe and other poyſonous bitter ſpices, called foreign, Apocal. 4.10. & foreign, Matth. 24.17. and both together, foreign myrrhato, wine, Mark 15.25. Now this cup is powred out, and taſted of indefinite by the godly ſome part of it, but the dregs thereof, i. the myrrh bitter part, that goes to the bottome, is left for the wicked to wring out and drinke: ſo that onelyonly the tolerable, ſupportable, eaſie part of the judgement belongs unto the godly, but the end, the dregs, the unſupportable part, to thoſe that obey not the Goſpel of God. Or yet a little further, the beginning or firſt part, foreign of the judgement, is foreign, from the godly (and ſo it was foreign) intimating that the judgement doth not ſtay upon them, but onelyonly take riſe from them; but the foreign, the ſecond ſadder part of it, is foreign of them, (or belongs to them) that obey not, &c. So that ſtill in this place alſo foreign ſignifies Gods judgement of this life and another both; not of this life onelyonly, to the excluding of the other, but one part in this life, another in that other; and though the godly had their part in it, yet there was ſome what in the foreign that the godly never …aſted of, but only the foreign, they that diſobeyed the Goſpel of God, and this is apparant by the 18. verſ. 18. For if the righteous foreign, we read it ſcarcely be ſaved. It ſignifies (by comparing that place with Prov. 11.31. where in ſtead of recompenced on the earth, the Greek tranſlation reads, foreign) bee rendred unto, or recompenced, i. puniſhed in the earth, then where ſhall the ungodly and ſinners appeare? There are again the two parts of foreign, one foreign, Gods retribution to ſin here, wherein the godly have their part, and the other his rendring to the wicked hereafter, and ſo neither of them the puniſhment of the Magiſtrate in this life, as Mr. Bridg. out of Piſcator, contends to have it. Rom. 13. and as it muſt be here alſo, if others ſpeak pertinently, who uſe it to avoid that interpretation, which I confeſſe Mr. Br. doth not.

They that are unlearned and unſtable wreſt the Scriptures to their own deſtruction, yee therefore beloved, ſeeing ye know thoſe things before, beware leſt you alſo being led away with the error of the wicked fall from your own ſtedfaſtneſſe,

2 Pet. 3.16.17.

FINIS.

End of the text · Henry Hammond, The Scriptures Please for Magistrates (1643)