BEfore I come to debate this Controversie, I shall say something by way of distinction, to the sta­ting of the question.

1. For the Title of the Booke, it might very well passe, in a right sense, as applyed to the distempers of the Times. If he mean it of them, to whom he speakes, as he seemes to doe in that Dedication, A word to the Armie, viz. That it is an Abusing of the Martiall Sword, to take upon them to determine of matters of Religion, or to take power to themselves to limit or extend the Libertie thereof: Wee should easily agree with him, to assert it a very great Abuse, for them, a Parliament sitting, (from whom they have their Commission onely for Martiall Affaires) to intermedle in matters of Religion, as beyond their Spheare, as he speakes. But if he meane,pag. 3. (as he expressely dis­covers himselfe, pag. 15.) That the Supreme Magistrate, bear­ing [Page 2] the Civill Sword, hath nothing to doe, about matters of Religion, he abuses his Reader and his owne Reason, to under­take to assert it; as shall appeare in the sequell.

2. W [...]e distinguish of Temple-worke, (as his Title Page calls it:) If he meane it thus, That the Sword is an uselesse Toole (his owne phrase) for the first Erecting or Constituting Members of a Church, gathered out from Heathens, that is, for the Conversion of men to the Christian Faith; its readily granted: For Christs subjects, must be all volunteers, a willing people. But if he meane, that in a constituted Church, the Christian Magistrate hath nothing to doe, to restraine men from the violation of Christian Truths, or the Rules of Reli­gious worship, in the externall Profession and exercises there­of; he shall find himselfe miserably mistaken. Conversion of Soules belongs primarily to Christ, by the operation of his Spirit; instrumentally to the Ministers of Christ: But when men are converted to the faith and profession of the Gospell, and have embraced the Truths and worship of it, if then they shall blaspheme or corrupt those Truths, or prophane that worship, the Magistrate, (wee thinke) hath power to restraine, yea, and to punish them for that violation.

3. Conversion it selfe, is two wayes considerable; either with respect to the Conscience, which wee may call the inter­nall reall Conversion to the Faiths being made thereby true beleevers; and this is the worke of Christs Propheticall and Kingly Office; or else with respect to the outward Profession of the Faith: This latter is the object of the Magistrates power, in regard of regulation of it, according to the Rules of the word; for he is made the Keeper of both Tables, in regard of the externall acts and exercises thereof.

4. Its one thing for the Magistrate to prescribe a Rule of Faith (as the Pope presumes) or a forme of worship of God; a­nother to look to the preservation of both (prescribed by Christ) from the corruption of Seducers and False Teachers, or the violation of prophane men:As he, pag. 4. ‘The ordering of the visible worship of God, as he speaks, and the ordaining of the Rule of Faith, whereunto all are alike subject, &c. belongs entire­ly and solely to Jesus Christ.’

[Page 3]5. Wee note one notable fallacie all along this Disputers Pamphlet; that is, Petitio principii, that he seemes to insinuate it as granted, (which many others of his way doe) That there is no Rule of Faith or Worship determined, or held forth in the word; but all is now Skepticall: (Sure wee are, there is scarcely one Truth but it is questioned in this Age.) For if there be any one Fundamentall Principle of Truth, or Rule of Worship, held forth clearely in the Scripture; the Blasphe­ming of that Truth, and teaching men so; the Prophaning of that Worship, and practising so, may be restrained by the Magistrate; yea, and punished too, as wee think: And yet this very Restraint or punishment is decryed and beaten downe by the force of this mans Arguments; which what strength they have, shall now be considered.

‘First, he sayes; His capacitie cannot discerne the distin­ction betwixt the Compulsive and Restrictive Power; being fully perswaded, the former is sufficiently included in the latter; And he who hath power for the latter, shall by fre­quent restraining, upon every frivolous occasion, make mee restlesse till I read his pleasure: That I worship as he wor­ships, and so I feele his power to the former, &c.’

To which I answer: First, Surely then his capacitie is very narrow and shallow, the distinction is so cleare and evident. An instance is readie in Nehem. 13. concerning the fourth Commadement, one of the first Table, and a part of wor­ship: Nehemiah did not compell the Heathen Merchants to keepe the Sabbath in the prescribed manner, yet did he re­straine them from polluting of it. Secondly, It is so farre from Truth, that the fromer is included in the latter, as that in­stance and many more demonstrate, that it is rather true back­ward; that the latter Restriction is included in the former Compulsion, not Compulsion in Restriction. Thirdly, The Jewish Magistrates did restraine Heathens from the Pro­phanation of the Sabbath, and other Services, yet never did, nor might compell them to the observation of them till they voluntarily Proselyted: And this Restraint was thus farre be­neficiall, that it prevailed to bring them to Proselyte to the [Page 4] Jewish Religion, that they might enjoy the Priviledges of it: And if Restraint of Seducers and false-Worshippers have the same effect upon them, to bring them to embrace the true Faith and right Worship of God, I know no hurt they have by it. A Stranger (said the Law) shall not eat of the Passeover, nor enter into the Temple till circumcised; And this difference in partaking of many priviledges, was a mercie to the Gentiles, to win them to come in, for the priviledge sake. There are many such Lawes of Restraint in all States, which yet never come to Compulsion; as he cannot but know. But,

‘Though the Restrictive may be different, yet it ever cen­tet'd in the Compulsive; and the most cruell of Tyrants have first appeared in the Restrictive, &c.’ But this, if it be not a contradiction, is contrary to what he said afore: There he said, Compulsion was included in Restriction: Now Re­striction centers in Compulsion. Secondly, That word (Ever) is false, and contrary to manifold experience, as afore. And marke the Logick of these men; they commonly con­clude a generall, from one or two particulars. Tyrants, (as the Pharifees and Jewes) have sometimes appeared in the Re­strictive, before the Compulsive; no Restriction ever centers in Compulsion. Thirdly, Nor is the Restraint, to force them that obey it not, to the contrarie practise: Nor does Compul­sion come as the consequent thereof: If any punishment fol­low, it is for disobedience to the Law of Restraint, E. G. Nehe­miah restraines the Heathens for selling wares on the Sabbath dayes; and threatens to lay them in durance, if they did trans­gresse that Prohibition: but he never intended by the Re­straint or punishment, to compell them to observe the Sabbath, as the Jewes did, in Religious Sanctification of it. Lastly, To prevent this consequent Compulsion, let it be made a Law, that no man, shall openly Blaspheme the Truth of God, or Prophane the worship of God; and if he doe not, he shall not be compelled to beleeve as the Magistrate beleeves, or worship as the Magistrate worships: And as this may suffice for his securitie against Compulsion, so it clearely puts a diffe­rence between Restriction and Compulsion: Consider the next.

Secondly, Hereby (sayes he) ‘I make the Civill Magistrate Judge of Christianitie, which as none can assume without sinne, 2 Cor. 1.24. So none can consent to, without being guiltie of strong endeavours to dethrone the Lord Jesus to whom alone this judgement is committed, and whose Scep­ter onely can sway the Conscience, &c.’

1. Let him apply this to the state of the Jewes, and see how in consequent it is. The Magistrate then had power to judge of the Rule of Worship, without sinne; else, how could he Restraine men (or punish them) for transgressing the Rule? And if the Rule of Christian Truth, and Worship, be as clear­ly prescribed in the new Testament (as it is) why may not the Christian Magistrate, be as competent a Judge of Christianity, and Restraine from the violation of it?

2. It is equivocall, the word (Judge) and so he deludes us: It is one thing to be a Law-maker, which is (as his Text hath it) to have Dominion over their Faith, by prescribing a Rule of Faith, or Worship: Another to be a Judge of the Violati­on of that prescribed Rule: The Apostle Paul himselfe was a competent Judge of the Rule of Faith, and so of the Violati­on of it; though he was not the Lord of their Faith, to come new Articles of Faith, without command from Christ: Say the same of the prescribed Worship: Nor is this to consent to the dethroning of Jesus Christ, nor to take upon them to Sway the Conscience: For wee suppose the Rule of Worship prescribed, and the Magistrate to have power only upon the ex­ternall man, to preserve from the violation of that worship; not to Compell or Sway Consciences or Hearts, to worship God a right with internall worship. Therefore this Disputer, (whether ignorantly or fallaciously, I know not) deceives his disciples with a double false supposition: First, That there is no certaine,He cannot expect a con­currence of a­ny partie con­siderable in the Nation, in Principles of Christianitie, pag. 8. determin'd, cleare Rule of Faith or Worship, in the Scriptures, but all is doubtfull and uncertaine, without Revelation: Secondly, That the Magistrate by this Restricti­on, intends Compulsion, and that of Conscience, to beleeve or practise, what it doth not beleeve, to be the Rule of Faith or Worship: And withall, that those that grant him this power [Page 6] of Restraint, give him a Power to Sway Conscience, so to be­leeve or practise; which wee disclaime as much as himselfe. Nor doth the Magistrate by this Restraint of Seducers or Ido­laters, take upon him to convert Soules, (the worke of Jesus Christ alone) but to keepe them from infecting others, by false Doctrine or false Worship; and in the end, to reduce the Erro­neous to the right wayes of God.

3. The instance of Pauls Restrictive Power on Mars-hill, is quite beside the question: He was a Minister, not a Magistrate; and the worke being Conversion of Heathens to the Faith: for the Constitution of a Church, not in a Church Constitu­ted: For I demand, If after Paul had setled a Church, and given them the Rule of Faith and Worship, any Professour thereof should have Apostated from both, or either; whether he would not by his Apostolicall power, have restrained him, by Church censures? If so, his Texts and proofes falls as hea­vily upon the Ecclesiasticall power, as upon the Civill: and all his absurdities pretended here, fall upon S. Paul: ‘He makes himselfe a Judge of Christianitie, and consents to the de­throning of Christ; takes upon him to Sway the Conscience, and convert hearts, which is peculiar to the Scepter of Christ, &c.’ But this Doctrine, tends evidently to nothing but Skepticisme, and Prophanesse; that every man may not onely beleeve, but publish and practise Errours and Idolatry, without controle, either of Magistrate or Minister. And thi­ther wee see it inclines apace, and there wee feare it will end, if not betimes prevented. But further,

‘He gives a caution: That if Christ send a Servant, say­ing, What I have revealed to you in secret, preach you on the house tops. Goe to the publique Synagoge in this Season of their assembling, which otherwise you cannot procure; Goe, I say, and reason with them, for they are in all things too Superstitious: Doe not you runne the hazard of restrai­ning in this case, under pretence of disturbance: If their publique way be according to the way of Christ, the privi­ledge of Disputing is according to the Directory of Christ, 1 Cor. 14, 22. If not, &c.’

To this wee say, First, This man seemes to be a meere Skep­tick, and (as was said afore) to suppose there is no Rule of Truth or Worship prescribed; and the times to be, as in the Apostles dayes, before the New Testament was written: And withall, he seemes to be a Familist, expecting Revelations, which he insinuates in those words, ‘[What I have revealed to you in secert] And yet afore, he calls the Armie to direct them­selves [by Christs proclaimed Law as their Line; at least for the worke of his owne worship and Temple, pag. 3.] and to measure their proceedings herein by the pattern of his Scrip­tures.]’ But it is no new thing for Errours to interfere and contradict themselves. For, if there be any certaine Rule of Truth or Worship, what reason is there, that any man, under pretence of New Light, should have libertie to dispute it? Is not this a plaine disturbance of the Church? Suppose the publique way be the Way of Christ, why should any man dis­pute it over and over againe? What need he goe and reason with them, who are in nothing Erroneous or Superstitious, but observant of the way of Christ? Will Christ send men to disturbe his Setled Truths and Worship? And yet, if every man, that will pretend a new Revelation, may have liberty to dispute the old wayes of Christ, and by a subtile wrangling Jesuiticall wit, puzzle weake Christians with new Skepticismes, nothing will more disturbe the Peace of the Church, as was evident once in the Church of Galatia; and is in Ours at this day. I would they were cut off, that thus Trouble it; The privi­ledge of Disputing, which he pleads from 1 Cor. 14. was before the Rule was written, when there was an extraordinarie gift of Prophesying, and new Revelations were discovered con­cerning the Truths of the Gospell: But the same Apostle cen­sures this libertie after the Truth and Rule thereof was clear­ly delivered, 1 Tim. 6.3, 4, 5. ‘[If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the Doctrine which is accord­ing to Godlinesse: He is proud, knowing nothing, doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof commeth En­vie, Strife, Raylings, evill Surmisings, (and mark that) per­verse [Page 8] Disputings, of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the Truth: from such withdraw thy selfe: Where the Apo­stle meets just with the practises of our Times;]’ Supposing, that when once the Forme of sound words (as its call [...]d, 2 Tim. 1.13.) is delivered to the Church, and the Doctrine according to Godlinesse is once Setled, no man may have the libertie to Dispute them: And if he doe, he is proud, doting (or sick) and di­sturbes the Peace of the Church. ‘He that thus troubles the Church, shall beare hi [...] [...]udgement, who ever he be, Gal. 5.9.’ But wee proceed.

Thirdly, ‘The conviction of the understanding being the foundation of Conversion, and that a facultie that cannot be forced, nor satisfied without an over-comming Reason; A powerfull Argument, would soone subdue that noble part, when civill Restraint would encrease prejudice, and confirme obscuritie: Therefore the way of God is rather, Come, let us reason together, &c.’

But this man dreames of such a Restraint, as never came in­to any rationall mans head. Was ever Restraint used as an ar­gument to convince or convert men? to make a man beleeve this or that without reason? No: The man shall be informed by the strength of Scripture-Reason; and Light held forth to him, if he be able or willing to receive it: And if after all the best information, he cannot, or will not see that Light, he shall not be forced to beleeve or practise what he understands not to be the way of Christ. Onely, if he be in an Errour, in Doctrine or Worship (as wee suppose him to be, in this Dis­pute) he shall be restrain'd, not from beleeving or practising secretly, his owne Erroneous way; but from venting his Error, or practising openly his Idolatrous worship, to the Infection of others; and this was ever Gods way: The Leaper, (suppose he did thinke himselfe cleane) was not restrained to make him beleeve himselfe a Leaper, but to prevent others infection: The same God that said, Come, let us reason together; said also, Thou shalt not suffer Seducers or Idolaters, or Sabbath-breakers, within thy gates: The same Apostle, which said, ‘[I beseech you brethren, by the mercies of God, &c.]’ said [Page 9] also of False Teachers, ‘[whose mouths must be stopped, who subvere whole houses, &c. and I would they were cut off that trouble you.]’

Oh (but sayes he) A noble Spirit, a carnall Sword can never restraine! who attempts it, partakes of other mens Hypocrisie: But this supposes that noble Spirit to be in the right way, and the Magistrate to be in the wrong: Whereas we suppose (in this dispute) the man to be in the wrong, and the Magistrate in the right. Secondly, It is not Restraint (of which wee speake) that makes Hypocrites; but compulsion to make men beleeve or practise what they beleeve, not to be the wayes of Christ; which is not now the question.

4. ‘Humane restriction, is inconsistent with the very name and nature of the Gospell, that a man cannot mention such a thing, without including himselfe amongst the enemies thereof; It imparts nothing but a proffer of Peace, Love, &c. even to the poorest Captives, flat Idolaters, &c.’

Here wee must distinguish, (what this Disputer, ignorantly or Jesuitically confounds) For the Conversion or first gathe­ring of a man or people, to make a Church, the Gospell knowes nothing but Peace, &c. But when a Church is Consti­tuted, it hath a Rod of Censures for the Immorigerous, Apo­states, or Seducers: If he say, that's nothing to the Magistrate, but belongs to the Ministers: I answer, let him looke to that; For his Argument strikes at all Restriction, as well as Civill: (and so do all his Arguments.) The Gospell imports (sayes he) nothing but proffers of Peace, &c. which in a constituted Church, is utterly false: But if the Civill Magistrate, being a Christian, should not interpose by a civill Restriction, to re­straine Seducers, Idolaters, &c. they would little regard the Ecclesiasticall, to the great, not onely disturbance of the Peace, but utter subversion of the Church.

But sayes he; ‘If your President be from the Law (wherein indeed, such restriction would better suit with litterall ser­vice, especially the Restrainers, being as well Typicall, as the Sacrifices) you are debter to the whole Law to doe it: and Christ shall profit you nothing.’

This is first an Antinomian fancie, as may easily be observed, or a conceit of one, that denyes the authoritie of the Old Te­stament: For, though the Ceremoniall and Judiciall Lawes were Typicall, and so farre voyd; yet the Morall Lawes (by which the Magistrates power is established) is still in force; as is abundantly proved by others: The fourth Commandement gives Superiours power to restraine Sabbath-breakers; and more then that, to punish them, if Jewes, or Christians; And the fifth Commandment gives Magistrates power to restraine, (and punish) all wicked practises: Sayes not the Gospell the same? Rom. 13.4. ‘[He is the Minister of God, a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill] who shall distin­guish where the Law distinguishes not; and say, it respects wickednesses of the second Table, not of the first?’

2. He would insinuate, That the Services of the Old Testa­ment were onely litterally, and so Typicall; whereas they had Morall services also, and in them the power of the Magi­strate apparently did interpose, upon the Prophanation of them.

And, 3. He would have his Reader beleeve, The Restrai­ners were also Typicall (as their Sacrifices were) and only Ty­picall, and in nothing Morall: whereas they had Moral Lawes, and exercised their Morall power, in Restraining or punishing offenders accordingly, as shall appeare. It is therefore a Scan­dalous wicked Censure, to say [The desire after Civill Power to restraine, &c. is the character of men not yet reformed by the power of the Gospell] when both Law and Gospell con­firme that power.

But he hath Scripture proofe, which cannot easily be eva­ded, Mat. 13.28. ‘[You shall perceive a zealous servant for the honour of Christ, discerning clearely the enemies of Christ, and told they were such, Idolaters, for they were the visible children of the Divell, compared to Tares, &c. Well, the servant desires to destroy them; No, saith Christ, least you pluck up the Wheat likewise: but might he not restrain them? No, let them grow: whence may be clearely and safely concluded, That men may not pluck up the ene­mies [Page 11] of Christ, or restraine them by an humane pow­er, &c.]’

This is the great place, and grand Argument of all Sedu­cers to plead their own Libertie and Toleration; I shall there­fore digresse a little, and take into consideration what another subtile (if not Jesuited) Author argues in this point, for Li­bertie of Prophesying; The booke is very plausible, and very taking (as I perceive) with some of good parts, and great place, especially in this particular: I thinke it not amisse to set downe the summe of his discourse also upon this Text, and to Antidote (if possible) the Poyson of both. Thus hee pro­ceeds:

‘The difficultie of Exposition of this Text, Mat. 12.24.D. Taylor, Li­bertie of Pro­phesying, p. 194. &c. is reducible to these two questions.’

‘1. What is meant, by (Gather not;) that is, what kind of Sword is forbidden; For the Spirituall Sword, that is not forbidden to any sort of criminalls, for that would de­stroy the power of Excommunication. It lyes therefore a­gainst the Temporall Sword, in cutting off some per­sons.’

‘2. What is meant by Tares, or who those persons be. They are either persons of ill lives, in re practicâ, or else faultie in re intellectuali, (in opinion) there is no third. The former is not meant, because it would destroy all bodies po­litique, which cannot consist without a compulsorie power of the Sword. It must then be meant of the latter sort in opinions, commonly called Heresies. And the reason here given confirme this; least you pluck up also the Wheat.’

‘For, 1. Heresie is of so nice a consideration, that by our mistakes wee may root up Truths, when wee thinke to root up Heresies.’

‘2. When a revolution of humane affaires, sets contrary opinions in the Throne or Chaire, they should root up and persecute Truths, as they were persecuted before.]’ This is the summe and strength of his discourse.

I shall first joyne issue with the Doctor, and shew you how [Page 12] farre hee agrees with our Author, and how farre hee disagrees with the Truth it selfe.

1. The Doctor, (and so our Author) mistakes the scope of the Parable, (beyond which it is not Argumentative, as Schol­lers say) For that is onely this,Beza in Loc. and others. ["That there shall be a mix­ture of good and bad in the Church, to the end of the world] Not to shew what censures are to be inflicted, or what persons are to be censured or tolerated.

2. Our Saviour himselfe tells us who the tares are, vers. 38. The children of the wicked; and vers. 41. All things that offend and doe iniquitie: So that its apparently meant of ill livers, as well as of ill opinioners.

3. Of evill-livers, it cannot be meant of open wicked men, that they should be tolerated, for that would destroy, not onely Civill Government, but the State it selfe and Common­wealth; but of secret Hypocrites, who are so like the Wheat, that wee may easily mistake, and root up one for another.

4. It cannot be meant of all offenders, in re intellectuali, in opinion: for some Heretiques are so grosse, and so destructive of Religion, Pietie, and Government, that the Doctor himselfe elsewhere grants, yea, proves they may, and must be rooted up; yet if his reason be of any force, it pleads for toleration of all Heresies; For the Text doth not so nicely distinguish as he does; but speakes indefinitely, if not universally, of all tares, ever clearly discovered so to be, (as our Author sayes) and yet bids the servant not pluck them up, nor restraine them; but let them grow. Therefore one of their glosses, (if not both) is false, and corrupts the Text, instead of interpret­ing it.

5. His second Reason from the Revolution of humane af­faires, revolves upon his owne head: For he grants, yea, affirmes, ‘That those Heresies which destroyes Fundamentals, or undermine Pietie, or overthrow Government, may be prosecu­ted, (prosecuted he sayes, improperly.)’ Now, if those Here­tiques of those destructive opinions, get into the Throne or Chaire, no doubt but they will persecute the Orthodox, (as [Page 13] the Arrians did, and Papists doe.) Therefore by this reason, the most grosse and heterodox Heresies must be tolerated, least wee pluck up the Wheat: that is, give them occasion when Times turne, to persecute the Orthodox: This is new Divini­tie, which the Jesuits themselves will scarcely owne, I am sure, where they have power, they doe not practise.

And now I returne to my Author: First, observe his Lo­gick, who would conclude a Theologicall Proposition from a Parable, not considering, that it proves nothing besides the scope of it, which is, as I have said, ‘[That there shall be in the purest Churches, a mixture of bad and good, till the great day of Discrimination, the day of Judgement.]’ The rest is but as the Lace or Trimmings of the Garment.

2. Let him, (or let the Reader) take notice, that this Inter­pretation of his, utterly destroyes all Civill Goverment, and Ecclesiasticall too; Civill, in that hee acknowledges these Tares to be wicked livers, Idolaters, children of the Divill, visibly discovered; and yet allowes neither plucking up, nor restraining: which besides, must needs be the destruction of Common-wealths: Ecclesiasticall, in as much as the Text hath no distinction of Power, Civill, or Ecclesiasticall, (though speaking of the Church intentionally, it rather re­spects the Ecclesiasticall then the Civill) and saith indefinite­ly, That none must pluck them up, nor restraine them; which not onely destroyes the Censure of Excommunication, (as the Doctor afore said) but the Church it selfe; which, though Wolves and Foxes over-runne and wast it, hath no power so much as to restraine them, ‘[without trespasse (as this man sayes) against the expresse command of Christ, who hath reserved that worke to his harvest.]’ Is not this brave Di­vinitie?

3. To give him (or the Reader) further satisfaction, take the Parable in those particulars, as Argumentative; wee di­stinguish of the persons, who may challenge the power of Restraining. They are either private or publique: A private person, a servant, (as he was that asked the question, whether [Page 14] he might pluck up, or restraine the Tares) hath not such power to punish or restraine Idolaters, or wicked livers: But if he say, A publique person, Civill, or Ecclesiasticall, hath not such power, he begs the question, and besides, discovers an Anabaptisticall Spirit, denying Magistracie and Ministry: To which he speakes very Suspiciously, pag. 7. in prosecution of this in the next Argument, when he sayes, [The Magistrate, (so called) marke, so called; as if there were none.

4. One thing more; even the letter of the Parable, though it allow not plucking up the Tares; yet in common practise, the Husband-men doe restraine and keepe them downe, by weeding Hooks, least they over-grow the Wheat: So, (which is our question) there is allowed a Restraining of Idolaters, and Heretiques, from Spreading their Infection; to the de­struction of the Church. And now wee come to his last Ar­gument.

‘5. It is the most usuall thing for Christians indeed, to be plucked up and restrained, though under other notions; and that perhaps might be the Reason why Christ refused to suffer any restraining president, though by a Tare-dis­cerning servant: Nothing is more common, then to put a Christian into a Beares skinne, when men intend to bait him.’

This was in part the Doctors feare and reason: If Here­tiques get power, they will persecute the Orthodox Govern­ment: the Orthodox having power, must not prosecute Here­tiques, but suffer them to range and ravine, and destroy Soules: Put it in second Table wickednesses; and see the ab­surdities: If Theeves and Traytors get power, they will per­secute and destroy the just Magistrates Government: the Ma­gistrate may neither punish nor restraine Theeves, &c. for feare of Retaliation: Againe, There is nothing more usuall than for Tyrants and wicked Persecutors, to pluck up and destroy godly Christians under other notions then are true Govern­ment; godly Magistrates may not prosecute, (persecution is for Truth and the Gospels sake) damnable Heretiques, under their owne true Notions.

[Page 15]2. This Doctrine, well learn'd and practised, would prevent any Persecution at all; and so evacuate all those Prophesies of persecution; all that will live godly shall suffer persecuti­on, &c. and all those promises made to the persecuted, and all preparations to it, by suffering graces, &c. For if there be no prosecution for the vilest Heresies, not so much as a Re­straint; but a Toleration of all Opinions: I hope poore Truth shall have a Toleration granted her, as well as others; and then there will be no persecution by the publique Magistrate: which yet is especially fore-told, as the worst piece of perse­cution. ‘[Yee shall be brought before Kings and Rulers for my names sake; Scourged in Synagogues, &c.]’ Had his Doctrine beene practised in the Primitive times, it might have prevented much of persecution; Had the Christians but said, Wee will not prosecute you for your Idolatries, or damnable Opinions, if wee get into place and Power of Government; doe not you persecute us; Tolerate you us, and wee will tole­rate you: If God call men to suffer under Tyrants and Per­secutors, under what notion soever, he knowes how to deliver, support, crowne them for all their sufferings. And men must not cry downe the Truths of God, for feare, that if Tyrants get the Throne, they will make Christians suffer under other the vilest notions, even in Beares skins.

After he hath done with his five Arguments against the question stated at first; He starts an Objection which no wise man would make; and gives an answer (nothing to the pre­sent businesse) meerly to give himselfe an occasion, to let fall some drops of other poysonous Opinions, and to discover the corruption of his judgement.

1. He seemes to plead for Blasphemie, &c. when he cen­sures the Parliament as an ‘[Oppressing Power; for their Or­dinance lately renewed, for the restraining and punishing of men, as Blasphemers, and Sectaries, for many Points conso­nant with sound Christianitie.’

2. He shewes himselfe againe a Skeptick, when he sayes: ‘[So confused is the judgement of the universall, that we [Page 16] cannot expect a concurrence of any partie considerable in the Nation, in Principles of Christianitie.]’

3. He places all Power of Government in the people, which is the next way to Anarchie; when he sayes: ‘[I hope here's none that aspire to any power but what the people shall invest them with, and may repeale, as they shall see such their servants proceedings conduce to, or against their common safetie, which by Nature all men are enabled to determine.]’

4. He Slanders Presbyterians, under the name of Smectim­nuus; as Persecutors, ‘[as in their arbitrarily vestrie power, having used violence, not onely to their fellow sufferers, but towards even those who waited themselves to effect their freedome,]’ whereas its evident to all the world, Pres­byterians have had no Power, (and, never used violence to any) and that Sectaries have had the greatest libertie, or licen­tiousnesse rather, to vent their Errours; and have offered the greatest Persecutions by Tongue and Pen, in the most opprobri­ous, reproachfull Language that Hell it selfe could lend them; witnesse all those Scurrillous Pamphlets that have flowne a­broad these three or foure last yeares; The Lord lay it not to their charge.

This being done, he comes againe to dispute in many pla­ces of Scripture more, and then to answer some Objections. The place is 2 Tim. 2.24. ‘[The Servant of the Lord must not strive (for his Master did it not) but be gentle; (gentle­nesse, it seemes, best befits a Christian, and restraines the rebellious) unto all men who oppose themselves (poore Na­turalists, Heathens, Idolaters, &c.) and this simple way, is the Lord Christs way of restraining. Though it confound the wisedome of the wise, and be accounted an in-let to all manner of Libertinisme, &c. He will have no unwilling wor­shippers, no civill restrainings, &c.]’

The Gentleman, it seemes, is well pleased with this Argu­ment that he repeats it againe (though in other tearmes) for he said the same in his fourth Argument above, onely with some varietie and additions here: Wee might send him back [Page 17] thither for his answer. But we adde: Note First, The mis-appli­cation, or mis-interpretation of that Text: Wee are speaking of the Magistrates Power, and the Text speakes of the Quali­fication of a Minister, that hath to doe with Conversion of Infidells and Heathens: Secondly, If he will needs apply it to the Magistrate; ‘That he must not strive, but be gentle unto all men that oppose themselves:’ He directly destroyes all Govern­ment, and denyes power to restraine the most wicked Theeves and Murtherers, &c. (for they must be dealt with as gently as others, to convert them) and how ever, opens a doore to Li­bertinisme in Church and State: Thirdly, And this he does expressely, when he sayes, ["Christ will have no civill restraining] Surely herein, either he speakes against his conscience, or he knowes not what he sayes.

And now againe he makes an excursion to abuse the Parlia­ment, by whose Commission, he was once a Souldier, and to animate his fellowes in destructive wayes, wherein I purpose not to follow him; but consider what he sayes to some Obje­ctions against himselfe, and his owne Opinion.

Obj. 1. The Jewish Magistrates restrained Idolaters of old, and that as being against the light of naturall Government, they may doe so now.

‘In answer to this; Let us examine the ground of Idola­ters being punished; wee find it in these three things.’

1. ‘That they never punished them till they were comman­ded from Heaven to doe it, Exod. 22.20.’

But wee Reply; If that Commandement be according to the light of nature, it bound them before, though they knew it not, or practised it not: There are other Commandements there specified, which are according to the light of nature, the transgression whereof was punishable; though perhaps, not punished, till there were a setled Common-wealth: Now all Nations punished or restrained those that blsaphemed their Gods: It being a principle of nature, that God must be wor­shipped alone, and that with his owne worship. And may be said of some transgressions of the Commandements of the [Page 18] second Table, which are according to the light of nature, that they did not punish them, till they were commanded from Heaven to doe it.

2. ‘The people, as well as the Magistrate, had an hand in punishing the Idolater, Deut. 13.9.’

Repl. The hand of the people was in it; either as accusers; Thou shalt not conceale him, vers. 8. or as witnesses, as Deut. 17.7. or as executioners, in helping to put him to death; but the man was brought to the gates, the place of Judgement, vers. 5. and so the condemning and Judging power was in the Magistrate.

3. ‘The punishment is exactly there described, and so wee must not mangle it, if wee make that our Rule. Death even to wives, or neerest relations, was here commanded.’

Repl. There is a distinction to be made, betweene the Mo­rall and Judiciall part of a Commandement in the Old Testa­ment: When the substance of a Commandement is Morall, it binds ever; though the circumstances which are Judiciall, may be varied. It were easie to instance in severall Comman­dements, if it were needfull. But he goes on.

‘All which indeed did lively represent, in every of these particulars the power of Christ, and the Spirituall order of his Church in the Gospell, &c. and therefore in order to that worke, his servants are to converse with Idolaters, and may have civill societie with them also, 1 Cor. 5.10. &c.’

This is the common evasion, to make all Typicall in the Old Testament: And thereupon some have quite dis-a-vow­ed any proofe from the Old Testament, and in time have come to cast off the New also, and are turned Anti-Scripturists. But I pray, may wee not (as Anabaptists doe) as well cast off the power of the Migistrate in punishing wickednesses of the se­cond Table, and say, The Magistrates and their Acts of Pow­er were all Typicall; and represented the power of Christ, and the Spirituall Order of his Church in the Gospell? For the rest of his answer, he seemes to distinguish betweene Con­verse, and having civill societie with Idolaters: If he take them [Page 19] for both one; its granted, and his Text allowes it; Neces­sitie of conversing, or having civill societie with them, espe­cially in those times, when they were most Heathens, exe­cuted their societie; and may doe so now in the like cases: yea, Christians may Converse with them, to convert them in their owne Countries. But what's this to the point in hand, whether Magistrates Christian may restraine Idolaters in their owne Land, from exercising their Idolatrie openly, to the seducing of others, as well as the publique dishonour of God? Till this be proved, let him know, It is an unchristian slander, to say, ‘[That the Civill Sword in Spirituall Affaires, is (in its owne nature) a Supporter of the Beast;]’ It hath beene so, by accident abused, the Magistrates themselves being Anti­christian; But if the Magistrate be Christian and Godly, no­thing is more destructive of the Beasts power, as experience hath proved; and nothing which the Beast doth more oppose, then the Magistrates power in Spirituall Affaires; as that which hath and doth, and will at last utterly destroy his Usur­ped Kingdome, Rev. 17.16. Christs weapons are very good, and alone powerfull to make true Christians, but the Ma­gistrates Sword is also usefull, to regulate them, when so made.

Obj. 2. But would you have Idolaters to dwell amongst us? men may then live as they list. To this he answers:

‘I would indeed have all Jewes or Heathens, or what ever Ignorants are native, as freely to Converse as Commerce with you, without restraint upon Religious Causes; and that you would consider, your selves might never have beene Converted, if you should not so have beene freely suffered, &c.’

Repl. 1. What ever this man would have, I am sure the A­postle would not have Christians freely to Converse (which imports familiaritie, intimacie) with Idolaters, no not in Ci­vill Affaires, 2 Cor. 6.14. [Be not unequally yoked together (in Marriage; he meanes) with Infidells or Ʋnbeleevers; And vers. 17. Summon all Christians, to come out from among [Page 20] them, and bee Separate; and touch not the uncleane things.

2. When he addes, ‘[without Restraint upon Religious Causes]’ it may be meant there; First, That they shall have free liber­tie to come to our Assemblies to heare the Word; and that wee may discourse with them, as occasion is offered, to con­vert them; or, Secondly, That they shall have libertie to Erect Synagogues, or build Temples to Exercise their Idolatries, in Christian Kingdomes, and ours be permitted freely to goe to their meetings, where great danger of corruption of ours, (our nature being made prone to Heresie and Idolatrie, as fruits of the flesh) than hope of our Conversion of them: If in the former sense he meane it, wee grant it; for otherwise, wee, or rather our fathers, had never beene Converted: They may come to us, as Heathens of old might Proselyte to the Jewes. If in the latter sense; it is (wee thinke) clearely a­gainst Scripture side and the Saints practise: Wee may not goe to them to their Idolatrous Temple, nor make marriage with them, &c. nor yet suffer ours to be Seduced by them: And here comes in the Restraint wee speake of, by Superiours, Fathers, Masters, Magistrates especially; for the reason being the same, and perpetually Morall, it concernes the Christian Magistrate in the Gospell, as well as the Jewish Magistrate. Nor does this reprove Christ for providing no other meanes to restraine from Idolatry (which he inferres.) For Christ hath provided other meanes, even this power of Superiours in the sense aforesaid. And I pray, did this man never heare of whole Churches, subverted by Heretiques and Idolaters? What thinks he of the seven Churches of Asia, and the Ro­man Church it selfe, which he acknowledges and calls Anti­christian? Have not Seducers and Idolaters, by degrees, ut­terly subverted them? Yet they, whose names are written in the Booke of Life, shall be preserved unto Heaven, when the rest shall perish by his Toleration.

Obj. 3. But allow this, and wee may quickly have our Civill State subverted? He answers.

‘To this the experience of other Nations might bee a sufficient answer: the Hollanders flourishing ever since they suffered every man to worship according to his conscience, even Jewes themselves, &c.’

Repl. That prosperitie and flourishing should bee made a Marke of the Goodnesse of a State or Church, (by any but a Je­suit) is to me very strange. More, that the Hollanders should be made a patterne of a true Reformed State. And he may re­member, that if the Arminian Errours had prevailed in Hol­land, but for a Toleration; It was feared they had ere long subverted the State, and reduced it into the King of Spains hand againe. As for other States, even the Roman it selfe, conside­red either as Heathen Idolaters, when they had a Pantheon of Gods, and every one suffered [to worship according to his Consci­ence: or as Antichristian Idolaters; since they worshipped the Host and Images, they flourished in both Estates: And pros­peritie is rather a Marke of a false, than a true Church: Yea, when Rome it selfe began to be Antichristian, all Histories tell us, how the State of the Empire, was subverted and taken from the Emperours, and given to the Pope.

‘But (sayes he) observe, that whilest every man enjoyes his libertie, it is his proper Interest, to endeavour the preser­vation of that Common-wealth; for in that he preserves himselfe, &c.’

But (say I) this is Athiesticall, prophane Policie. Indeed, if there were no God, or nothing to be respected but mens own Quiet and Interest, this were a fine way: All Errours will reasonably well agree together (as the Devills doe in Hell.) But if men have any conscience of their owne dutie, in a zea­lous promoting of Gods glory, in an earnest contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, Jud. v. 3. or in a charitable care over the Soules of other men, this Interest would be quickly layd aside. Is it not the dutie of every Superiour, Father, Ma­ster, Magistrate, to advance the glory of God, and to secure the Soules of their Inferiours as well as their bodies? Concernes it not every faithfull Minister, Yea Christian, to maintain the [Page 22] Truth, and oppose Error? This man speakes of a Matchla­vilian politique Religion, without any zeale for God, any charitie to mens soules, where selfe-love, and selfe-quiet, &c. onely predominates. And if it be the dutie of every one, (as it is) to contend earnestly for the Faith, will not this meet with much opposition, by hereticall Spirits? And will not that cause the most mortall divisions, and so procure ruine to the Church first, and then to the State? Truth must oppose Errours: and Errours will oppose Truth: And if there be but one Truth, and many Errours, will not all Errours oppose that one Truth, though they tolerate one another? The reason is, Errours are but Diversa, Divers (for the most part) amongst themselves; but Truth and Errours are Contraria, Contra­ries, and can no more be reconciled, than Light and Dark­nesse. I shall give him but one instance; at Rome it selfe; where almost all Errours and Sects are tolerated, onely Pro­testants are not tolerated; because Protestant Truths oppose all Errours, Romish as well as others.

Now marke what will be the issue of such a Toleration as the Gentleman pleads for, viz. a Subversion and utter Suppression of Truth, by the joynt opposition of all Errours at once] And I am con­fident, this is the last and most desperate Designe of Antichrist, and his Agitators the Jesuits, to destroy this Church and State, and to subdue it unto Antichrist. They have tryed all wayes by fraud and violence, to effect this: nothing (blessed be God, will yet doe it. Now their last refuge is, a Toleration of all Religions; and Poperie, its hoped, shall have a place amongst them. Which if it be granted, I dare be a Prophet, that Pope­rie shall swallow up all the other Errours, and bring them all to it selfe; but poore Truth onely shall be denyed a Tolerati­on. For whereas before, wee had onely or chiefly Poperie to oppose, now all the Sects and Errours will joyntly fight a­gainst us. And besides, All the Sects in some things agree with Papists alreadie: All the Arminian Points (which are blanch­ed Poperie) having beene kept out at the fore-doore, are crept in at the back-doore of Connivence, and Preached and main­tained [Page 23] by most of the Sectaries, and new Jesuiticall Seducers. How easie then is it, for Papists and them to be reconciled in the rest, by a Jesuiticall subtile wit? So in the last ruine, Poperie will be predominant. Yea, those very men, that now cry up Toleration, when once they have gotten power, will cry downe Toleration, not onely of true Portestant Religion, but also of any Sect, unlesse it comply with their ends, as ex­perience tells us, in their owne Countries. They that now cry out of Persecution of their Errours, will be the greatest Perse­cutors of the Truth. Oh the Stupiditie, shall I say, or giddi­nesse of the people of this Nation! who are bewitched with Jesuiticall Counsells, to hasten their owne and our ruine. Oh that the honest men in the Armie, would but see how they do, not onely the Cavaliers worke in the State, but the Jesuits worke also in the Church, to the destruction of both. The Lord a­waken and open their eyes betimes, to see the things that be­long to their and our Peace, before it be too late, and they be hid from their eyes.

‘Yet further: A State (sayes he) cannot be subverted, but either by force, or by a generall consent. The force is easily prevented, when the first thirtie men, meeting in Armes, for such an end, are by the Law Traytors, and may be proceeded against accordingly: And no man can ima­gine it possible to subvert the State by a generall consent, when there will be such varietie of judgements, and every man is free, and in feare of a change, least he be a loser by it.’

In answer, wee say, First, a State may be subverted by fraud and subtiltie, and that's the way now in Agitation: But se­condly, I am glad to heare him say, ‘[Force may easily, (marke that, easily) be prevented, when the first thirtie men meeting in Armes, are by the Law Traytors, and may be proceeded against accordingly.]’ I feare the Armie will give him little thankes for this Discoverie. For what is the great pretence for all the irregular motions of the Armie, but an impossibilitie to prevent the Force of the contrarie partie, had [Page 24] the Treatie gone on effectually? And this friend of theirs, sayes plainly and honestly; Force may easily be prevented by such a Law. Such a Law there is not yet established, but such a Law was intended in the Propositions to the King; and if this might easily prevent Force; all pretences of Impossibili­tie are hereby made voyd. Let all the people heare this. Thus God catches the wise in their owne craftinesse, and makes them betray themselves: Thirdly, But may not a State be sub­verted by consent? No: ‘[because there will be varietie of judge­ments, &c.]’ There may be varietie of judgements, and all differing from the Truth; but who knowes not that Errours agree in the root; and most of them bordering upon Popery, (which is naturall in many points to all men, as might be proved) how easie then is it to reconcile them all against the Truth, to the subversion of the Church first, and the State next. Nor need they feare a change, or to be losers by it; for all Sects (its observable enough) propound one common end to themselves, Libertie; and Poperie is a Religion of Libertie enough: and so no losers by it.

Obj. 4. There is one Objection more come lately to his knowledge, and that is this: How can it be called an Agree­ment of the people, when many thousands (otherwise faith­full) in conscience cannot subscribe to it; if you dis-allow of this Civill Restrictive power, &c. He sayes,

‘That the Title of (Agreement) imports nothing without Relation to the Substance following, which is, for the foundation of Future Peace and Freedome: and he that layes a foundation of slaverie, to please Oppressours, when he proclaims out Freedom, shall not answer that Agreement, but the carnall heart of a deceitfull Tyrant. Nor deserves he to be accounted faithfull, but deprives himselfe of prof­fered Priviledge and Freedome, that cannot subscribe or agree thereto, except he may make all others his slaves, &c.’

This is plaine dealing indeed; Here he tells us, First, That Rest [...]itive power, is Oppressive, Tyrannicall; Antichristian; which yet is proved, to be the very ordinance of God; unlesse [Page 25] he will say, That Restrictive power in the Jewish Magistrates, was Oppressive, Tyrannicall, Antichristian: The Consciences of those Times, ought no more to be restrained or complled, than now under the Gospell. Secondly, He tells you what you must trust to, be you otherwise never so Faithfull; If you cannot in conscience subscribe that Agreement, you must not be accounted Faithfull, nor may you expect any Priviledge or Freedome; So that the more Faithfull and Consciencious a man is, the more he deprives himselfe of the proffered Freedome, (which is by another discovered to be present Slaverie. M. Ashurst, his Reasons, &c.) And the more false and loose a man is, the more benefit shall he have by that Agreement, a Libertie of Conscience to professe what Errours he will, and a Licentiousnesse of life to doe what he list, being himselfe made a Judge of his subscribed Agreement. Besides, he seemes to contradict here what he granted above, a Libertie to every man, pag. 14. to worship God according to his Conscience. Which, if it must be granted to all; (as by his Doctrine it must) why shall not those that have beene Faithfull, who cannot in Conscience, consent or subscribe to that Agreement, have their Libertie of Conscience as well as others? But I pray, Christians, take notice what you shall ex­pect from these Jesuiticall Designes. You shall be tolerated so long as you agree with them, in their Destructive Principles, and when they have gotten you into such a snare, that you can in Conscience proceed no further, farewell your Priviledges and Freedome. You shall then be made the vilest slaves to Jesuiti­call Lusts, and your pretended Toleration end in Intollerable slaverie, and bitterest persecution. Consider what I have said, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.