Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Chriſts not rebuking tolleration and the …aw, Deut. 13. vindicated.
CHriſts no when reproving Church and State for not puniſhing Sadduces and Hereticks denying the reſurrection is,… not expreſſe rebukin…, of the Magiſtrates, tolerating of Hereſies makes not for Chriſts ap…oing of toleration of Hereſies more then of tolerating, the abſolving of a murtherer at the time of the feaſt, or other crimes againſt the ſecond Table. 1. A poore argument to prove the lawfulneſſe of tolerating them, 1. The Sadduces were cheife Rulers themſelves; Act. 23. 6. And he that reproves a Judge for murther, muſt in that ſame; reprove him for tolerating murthers. He that ſaid the guide leading, & the blind led, ſhould fal in the ditch, he reproved the miſ-government and wicked toleration of the Rulers. Nor read we that Elias reproved Achab for not killing Baals prieſts, ergo, Achab tranſgreſſed not the Law, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. Deut. 17. 1, 2, 3. in tolerating falſe teachers? Nor doth God Deut. 32. 6, 7, 8. reprove the Rulers for not puniſhing the worſhiping of the golden calf, or the making of it for worſhip, becauſe Aaron and the Rulers under Moſes were guilty of it; will it follow that the Rulers and the ſonnes of Levi ſhould tolerate it? ſince the Lord commanded the contrary. Nor does the man of God reprove Jeroboam for tollerating the people to worſhip the golden calves, or becauſe he ſuffered the loweſt of the people to intrude themſelves in the prieſts office againſt the word and law of the Lord, becauſe the leſſe ſin was ſwallowed up in the greater, but it followes not, that Jeroboam did the duty of a Magiſtrate in ſuffering the people to go to Dan and Bethel to ſuch abominable Idolatry, or in ſuffering the baſeſt of the people to take on…them the Prieſts Office, but the Prophets reproving Jeroboam's commanding of that Idolatrous worſhip, and Prieſts, which is a greater ſinne, muſt by conſequence condemne his not puniſhing of it, which is a leſſe ſin, ſo David ſinned as a Magiſtrate in ſuffering Bathſhe…a to commit adultery, and to wrong her husband, and to violate Gods Law, and ſhould not onelyonly as a Magiſtate have hindered her, but ſhould have put her to death for adultery, he being the ſupreme Magiſtrate, and there being an expreſſe Law of God that the adulterer, man or woman, ſhould dye the death, Levit. 20. 10. which David knew well; yet the Prophet Nathan does not in expreſſe tearms condemne David for not putting Bathſheba to death, though he faithfully reproved David, becauſe Nathan reproving David for the adultery it ſelfe committed in his owne perſon as the greater ſinne, muſt by conſequence condemne Davids tollerating of Bathſheba an adultereſſe to live, which was a leſſer ſinne, and it will not follow that David a King ſhould tollerate knowne adultery in Bathſheba a ſubject, becauſe Nathan does no where in direct tearms (nor any Scripture elſewhere that we read) condemne David for not puniſhing with the ſword the adultery of Bathſheba; ſo Nathan, G…d and other Prophets no where reprove David ſparing the life of Joab a murtherer. When Chriſt reproved the Sadduces, for denying the reſurrection, he reproves, by conſequence, both Church and State for tollerating the denying of the Reſurrection, and ſuppoſeth the tolleration of it to be againſt the law of God.
2. It is no argument at all from 1. A negative fact. 2. In ſuch a particular Scripture, to prove the lawfulneſſe of tolleration. Let then anſwer this, Chriſt that was a faithfull Preacher to State and Church, no where reproveth in the Goſpell, the tolleration of the extortion of Publicans, Sodomie, murther, the abſolving of a murtherer at the feaſt, a bloody tolleration, denying of God, blaſphemy; ergo, it was lawfull for the Church and State to ſuffer all theſe.
3. This anſwer inferreth that the Church ſhould tollerate all falſe doctrines, and the denying of the reſurrection, and that there ſhould be no Church cenſure, contrary to Mat. 18 yea Chriſt does no where rebuke the Phariſees, Scribes and Prieſts, becauſe they did not, by preaching, admoniſh and convince their fellows the Sadduces of that hereticall doctrine that the dead ſhall not riſe, and by this there ſhould be not onelyonly a Phyſicall tolleration, and a non puniſhing by the Magiſtrate of all hereſies, but a morall forbearing, and a no-rebuking, no preaching againſt falſe wayes, and ſo not onelyonly Church-cenſures are taken away contrary to Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. Revel. 2. 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 20. But it is not lawfull for Miniſters or teachers to write or teach againſt Iezabel, and theſe that hold the doctrine of Balaam, by this reaſon of the Libertines. Nor does Chriſt command the Rulers of the people to puniſh the falſe witneſſes that roſe againſt him. Nor does he rebuke Church or State for tollerating the Publicans to extort the people, nor Caeſar and Pilate, for oppreſſing the people, nor the Scribes and Phariſees for not preaching againſt Herods beheading of Iohn Baptiſt, or Pilates mixing the Gallileans blood with the ſacrifice, Luke 13. ergo, Miniſters are to tollerate bloody Magiſtrates, and not to preach againſt them.
The ſixth Anſwer to elude theſe Lawes is, Anſw. 6.If theſe Lawes binde us in the New Teſtament, then muſt you not adde nor diminiſh from the Law, Deut. 13. and ſo muſt the whole City, inhabitants and cattle, be put to the edge of the ſword, and devoted to a curſe, v. 14, 15, 16, 17. which ye cannot ſay beares any truth under the New Teſtament, except we ſay that Papiſts and their babies ſhould be put to the edge of the ſword, and their houſes and land they dwell in execrable.
Anſw. The Lawes, Deut. …3. three in number explicated, the firſt two were morall, the third ceremoniall for the moſt part.There are three different Lawes, Deut. 13. one againſt the ſeducing falſe Prophet, to v. 5. a ſecond againſt any ſeducing perſon, if it were brother or wife, to v. 12. a third, to the end of the Chapter, of a City, State or ſociety, that will defend a falſe teacher. Now we argue not from the third Law; but there is no warrant to puniſh the ſonne of a falſe Prophet, Idolater, Heatheniſh or Popiſh, or of wife, or brother that tempt us to Apoſtacy, and to follow falſe Gods, yea, or to hurt land, houſe, or cattle that belongs to them, the ſonne ſhall not beare the ſinne of the father, except God by a poſitive Law command it.
But the third Law, upon which we build not our arguments, at leaſt, as touching any ceremoniall part of it, belongs not much to us, for to gather the ſpoyle of ſuch a City, and to burne it every whit, for the Lord, as a curſed and devoted thing or place, is clearly ceremoniall and typicall, becauſe now every creature of God is clean, Rom. 14. 14▪ and ſo are all the victualls or meats of Heathens, or Papiſts now, and good and ſanctified, 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4. and what God hath cleanſed, we are not to eſteem common or prophane, Act. 10. 14. and the like muſt we ſay of places, 1 Tim. 2. 8. Ioh. 4. 21. Zach. 14. 21. and by proportion, of all creatures, the creatures cannot now be typically curſed, and execrable as then, Deut. 13. 16. 18. For the holy Land, and every City was made by the Lord typically and ceremonially holy, and a pledge of a Heaven, when therefore a Seducer fled to any City from the Judge, if that City would partake with him in his ſinne, and ſave him from the hand of Juſtice, that City forfeited its typicall holineſſe, and it, and all things in it, the ſpoyle, cattle and goods, made accurſed, and to bee burnt with fire, and all the inhabitants young and old, put to the edge of the ſword, and that not under the no…ion of falſe teachers, but as open Rebells againſt God, his holy law; and the Judge, the Miniſter of God, was to avenge that blaſphemy, and the morall part is this; If the Army now on foot in England will againſt the Laws of God and man protect blaſphemers and falſe teachers, and ſave them from the hand of Juſtice, and will reward, countenance, and promote Seducers of ſoules, our humble opinion is, that they render themſelves obnoxious to the ſword of the Magiſtrate. But the puniſhing of infants, and burning of the ſpoyle was a meer temporary typical law that doth not aboliſh us in the New Teſtament. Now Libertines bring this as an argument. We cannot put to death falſe teachers by Deut. 13. for then ſhould we by that Law kill their children and cattle, which conſequence we deny as falſe and vaine. For our Divines ſtrongly argue from the morall equity, and the Law of nature …ar…anting Joſhua to make warre with the Canaanites in the Old Teſtament, to prove the lawfulneſſe of warres under the New Teſtament upon the ſame morall equity, as …oſh. 1…. 19, 20. Thoſe that refuſed to make peace with Iſ…l, and came againſt Iſrael in battle, againſt thoſe Iſrael might raiſe warre,The wars in the Old Teſtament warrant wars in the New, according to the naturall equity in them, but they binde not according to the ceremoniall & temporary typicalneſſe annexed to them. by the Law of nature in their owne defence. But ſuch were all the Canaanites except thoſe of Gib…on, Joſh. 11. v. 19. 20. And this argument holds ſtrongly in the New Teſtament, if any, as ſome Anabaptiſts doe inferre, this is no good argument, becauſe if the major propoſition were true, then ſhould we alſo kill the women and ſucking children, as the Lord commanded Saul, touching the Amalekites, 1 Sam. 15. and then ſhould we deſtroy the cattle and burne the ſpoyle with fire, for Joſhua and Iſrael made ſuch a war with Iericho, &c. and the reſt of thoſe Cities, yea Iſrael deſtroyed them utterly, and ſhewed them no favour, Joſh. 11. 20. We with good ground deny the conſequence, becauſe the warre with theſe ſeven Nations was warranted by the Law of nature, but the warre, tali modo, to deſtroy utterly young and old, cattle, and all they had, was from a ceremoniall and temporall law peculiar to the Jewes, becauſe God would have his Church neither inriched by their goods, nor to make Covenants, and marriages with them, or to live in one ſociety with them, nor to ſee their groves, leſt they ſhould bee inſnared to follow their Religion and ſtrange Gods.