Thesis 17

17. THESIS.

Besides all the proofs in the Old Testament of Magistrates power de facto in matters of Religion, with commands given to them to look to see the true Religion settled in their Countries (which I have given in former Theses) there are many express commands given by God to the Magistrates to punish persons in their Territories for matters against the first Table, namely Idolaters, Blasphemers, false Prophets, Seducers, Witches and Wizards, Profaners of the Sabbath, as in Exodus 22:20. He that sacrifices to any God save to the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Deuteronomy 13:1, 2, 5, If there arise among you a Prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, saying, let us go after other Gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them: You shall not hearken to the words of that Prophet, &c. And that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust you out of the way which the Lord your God commanded you to walk in: So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you. Deuteronomy 17:2, 3, 4, 5. If there be found among you within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, man or woman that has wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his Covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the Sun or Moon, or any of the host of Heaven, which I have not commanded; and it be told you and you have heard of it, and inquired diligently, and behold it be true, and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought in Israel: then shall you bring forth that man or that woman (which have committed that wicked thing) to the gates, even that man or that woman and shall stone them with stones until they die. Verse 12, 13. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the Priest (that stands to minister there before the Lord your God) or to the Judge, even that man shall die, and you shall put away evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously. Leviticus 24:16. And he that blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the Congregation shall certainly stone him: As well the stranger, as he that is born in the Land, when he blasphemes the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Verse 23. And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the Camp, and stone him with stones: and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses. Leviticus 20:2, 3, 4. And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Again you shall say to the children of Israel, whoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel that gives any of his seed to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27. You shall not suffer a Witch to live. A man also or woman that has a familiar spirit, or that is a Wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. You shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy to you: every one that defiles it, shall surely be put to death: for whoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Deuteronomy 18:20, 22. But the Prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that Prophet shall die. When a Prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken, but the Prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him, that is, afraid to put him to death, either for his threatening words, or for his signs, or for his shows of holiness, or because he has the name of a Prophet of the Lord, and speaks in the name of the Lord, or is indeed a Prophet, as that old Prophet was (1 Kings 13:11, 18, 20, 21, 30). Ainsworth upon this place, says, the Hebrews explain it, saying whoever withdraws himself from killing a false Prophet, because of his dignity, for that he walks in the ways of Prophecy, behold he transgresses against this prohibition, you shall not be afraid of him. And so he that withdraws himself from teaching concerning him what he is guilty of; or that dreads and fears for his words, &c. Now in all these commands, as their subject matter consists of things forbidden in the ten Commandments, as Blasphemy, Apostasy, Witchcraft, Profanation of the Sabbath, &c. so that the commands for punishing such (for the substance of them) are moral too of common reason and equity given to all Nations, and for all ages, as to the Jews and their times, I shall prove by these following Reasons; and for the most material things brought of old or of late by the grand Patrons of Toleration Minus Celsus Senensis, Acontius, Bloody Tenet, M. S. Hagiomastix to make void these places of Scripture, (as that these commands either are abrogated by Christ, the things commanded in those laws belonging to the Jews only, but not the Gentiles nor Christians, or if they be any way moral, yet they extend not to Heretics and false-teachers, but concern only Apostates, Blasphemers, such false Prophets who endeavoured to persuade men to the worship of a false God; and that by affirming that they spoke by the inspiration of some deity) to them also I shall return a satisfying Answer.

For the first, let the Reader lay together these particulars. 1. that it is evident some of these commands, as against offering their children to Molech, as against dealing and contracting with a familiar Spirit deserve punishing among Christians and under the Gospel now, as well as under the Law, and if these, why not the other of Blasphemy, Idolatry, false-prophecy, &c? These latter are of moral things as well as the other; the first and these are delivered both by Moses in the same books, time, propounded after the same tenor and way, upon the same grounds and reasons. No difference at all, unless that these latter concerning Apostasy, Idolatry, false prophecy, be more strictly commanded and further enlarged, which the Reader by comparing the texts shall observe. But if it be said those commands against offering their seed to Molech and of witches, are therefore punished by the Magistrate, because they offend against lives and estates of mankind, in killing the children, in cattle being killed, and men's bodies being hurt by Witches and Wizards, which is not in the other of Apostasy, Blasphemy, &c. I reply, it is to be observed that in all those places where the commands are given by God to the Magistrate about these, there's not one jot or tittle expressed about offending against the second Table in life or goods, but all the reason formally declared, is, because against God immediately, and the commands of the first Table. For giving the seed to Molech (Leviticus 18:21) this is the reason alleged by God against it, You shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. Leviticus 20:3, the reason given against it, is the defiling of God's Sanctuary, and profaning his holy name, both which spoke in reference to the worship of God only and matters of religion, as Ainsworth in his Notes upon both these Texts, fully and excellently shows, as also the late Annotations of our English Divines. It is further proved by those two Texts (Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5-6) where God speaking against the Jews offering up their children to Molech, lays open their sins in these expressions, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind, in which words God answers to what was in their heart, namely that they did it as a worship to God, a thing commanded by him, and so out of conscience, but God tells them, and that in these reiterated expressions it was never commanded by him; among all the duties of his worship he never spoke a word of any such matter. And among all the places in Moses' Books, Prophets, the Books of Kings, Chronicles, where it is spoken of, we shall never find this condemned as murder, but still spoken against as Idolatry, a corruption of God's worship, and so recorded among such transgressions. Besides, according to God's own rule and way of acquitting some men of murder, by providing Cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19) in some cases for men that had slain their brethren, upon that ground, because they hated them not in time past, twice expressed verse 4, 6, the givers of their children to Molech will be found to be adjudged to death for their Idolatry rather than the killing their children. For it cannot be supposed that the worshippers of Molech hated their children in time past, or at present, and out of that hatred offered them up in sacrifice, but out of their blind zeal and strong delusion, thinking therein they should do a high and extraordinary service. Rabbi Bechai says, that the Parents were persuaded that by this sacrifice the rest of their children should be delivered from death, and that they themselves should prosper for it all the days of their life. For there's no question but these Idolaters loved their children and had affections to them as might be proved by several reasons, among others by the great noise made by beating upon Drums in the time of sacrificing to drown the cries of the children, lest their cries working on their Fathers' natural affections should make the Fathers spare them; whereupon the place of sacrificing was called Tophet of Toph, which is a Tabor or Drum. For the commands given to Magistrates against Witches, they are set down either without any reasons at all of them, or else in those places where any reasons are assigned they relate wholly to God as a breach of the first Table, nothing at all as to men, as these Scriptures show (Leviticus 20:6-7, 26-27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). And our English Divines in their late Annotations upon Exodus 22:18 write thus, Witchcraft is forbidden, and that upon pain of death. Some have thought Witches should not die unless they had taken away the life of mankind; but they are mistaken, (the proof of which the Reader may find set down there). But why then must the Witch be put to death? Answer, Because of the league and confederacy with the Devil, which is high treason against God, because he is God's chiefest enemy, and therefore though no [illegible] ensue this contract at all, the Witch deserves present and certain death for the contract itself. Secondly, these commands to the Magistrate concerning Idolaters, Blasphemers, &c. were not for the punishing of Israelites, the Jewish people only, but of all strangers in their Land, both of Proselytes that dwelt among them, and of others that only travelled through, or were there a while upon trading or such like occasions, as these Scriptures show. Leviticus 20, verse 2: Whoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourns in Israel, that gives any of his seed to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 24, verse 16: He that blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the Land. Upon which places of Scripture and others, as the fourth Commandment, &c., besides many reasons that might be given why stranger is to be taken in the largest sense, even for all strangers coming among them though not Proselytes, it is the judgment of many learned men as Rabbins who were best skilled in the customs of the Jews, Maimonides with others, as modern writers Zanchius, Rivetus, our English Divines in their late Annotations on Leviticus 20, verse 1, and above all Master Selden in that learned Book De Jure Naturali & Gentium lib. 2, cap. 3, clearly shows, it is understood of all Gentiles coming among them by accident, as those workmen of other Countries, Tyrians, Phoenicians, &c. sent by Kings to King Solomon for the building of the Temple, or those who passed from place to place for traffic's sake, or any who passed through the Country. Master Selden in that Book of his also shows, that when the Israelites were Sui Juris in their own Country, had power over the Nations, and were in a flourishing estate under David, Solomon and other such Kings, they denied all dwelling and habitation to the Idolatrous Heathen, or so much as to lodge them by way of Travellers or Guests, till they had given their names to the seven Precepts Juris Noachidarum seu Naturalis (as they are called) among which Idolatry and Blasphemy De Cultu extraneo, De maledictione Nominis sanctissimi seu Numinis, were the first. Yes, further he proves that every Gentile which had not received those seven Precepts was to be punished with death if he stayed in the Jews' Territories, and particularly in divers places of that Book shows that Idolatry and Blasphemy were punished by death upon all that lived in the Jewish Commonwealth, though they were not Proselyte Justitiae. And on those words (Leviticus 24) And he that blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, writes thus, Id est sive fuerit Proselytus seu peregrinus, sive indigena aut civis, ex eo quod blasphemaverit nomen Domini morte plectendus est. Yes, he says that the Gentiles or Proselytes Domicilii, were punished more severely than the Jews in this case of Blasphemy, not only for blaspheming the proper name of God, but the Cognomen. All which shows clearly these punishments were not inflicted upon the Jews qua Jews, and qua a typical people in a typical Land, &c., but upon them as the nature of such crimes calling for such punishments, and that it is the Magistrate's duty to restrain in Jews or Gentiles in all under their jurisdiction, Idolatry, blasphemy, &c.

Thirdly, the reasons and grounds of these laws and commands with the use and end of them upon which they are enforced, are of common reason and equity that concern us under the New Testament as well as the Jews. I do not find one ceremonial or properly judicial reason given of any one, but all of them are laid down either absolutely and simply without any reasons at all, or else upon such reasons as are moral and perpetual; and I judge that in all commands which are not typical and ceremonial, and so some other thing appointed to come in upon the abolishment to make good their perpetual end and use assigned, that rule of Divines holds universally true, Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile, which by the way may serve to answer the evasions of Minus Gelsus Senensis, and of Hagiomastix bringing instances in Circumcision and such like, which the Scriptures declare expressly to be abolished, having substituted Baptism and other ordinances in their room, but have not said one word in the like kind of the commands in question; besides that Christ the substance of those shadows is come, and so they are of no further use at all. And indeed Acontius though a great Libertine does confess that law in the 13th of Deuteronomy of the stoning of the false Prophet and Seducer is not confined only to the time before Christ having no place at all under the Gospel, and to the ground and conjecture (as Acontius calls it) of that opinion, he says that the reason set down in the same is against it, namely All Israel shall bear and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you, which reason certainly abides always, so that although this law had expired, yet notwithstanding by virtue of it the Magistrate has a right and power of making another like it, as he has of making laws against Murderers, Adulterers and other flagitious persons.

Fourthly, before these laws in Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 17 for punishing Idolaters were given by Moses, yes before Moses' time, or any Commonwealth among the Jews was erected, in other countries remote from the Land of Canaan, idolatry in worshipping creatures deserved punishing by the Magistrate as I have showed already fully in page 13, 14 of this Book. Yes, the particular kind of idolatry instanced in (Deuteronomy 17:3) of worshipping the Sun, or Moon, which among the Israelites was to be punished by death, if it had been found in Job in the Land of Uz he had been worthy of punishment from the Judges for it (Job 31:26, 27, 28). And other Princes not Jews, as Artaxerxes, Nebuchadnezzar, &c. made laws and edicts for punishing those that blasphemed the God of heaven, and transgressed his laws as the Scriptures testify. Now the laws properly judicial that were the Jews' civil laws simply belonging to them as such a people in such a country, were in use only among themselves, and not practised by other nations and countries; but such laws and customs used among them that were observed universally among all nations, or by divers nations (though not of all) strictly speaking were not judicial laws, but the laws of nature and nations though according to the discipline of the Jews, that is, what was received in the Church and Commonwealth of the Jews, and accordingly accounted by them as the law of the world of all men and ages, or the law of many nations common to them with those nations, of all which the Reader may be further satisfied in that learned piece of Mr. Selden's, De jure Naturali, & Gentium juxta disciplinam Ebraeorum; and particularly in the Preface of that Book, (where he shows the reason of that title, and gives the sum of his work and undertaking) and in his first Book. And among the laws of natural right, as distinguished from the civil laws of the Jews, or simply Israelitical, those commands of punishing for strange worship, and blasphemy, are reckoned by the Jews themselves, as the Reader may find in the first book de Jure Naturali & Gentium, cap. 10, 2 book, cap. 1, 12, 3 book, cap. 1.

Fifthly, the Spirit of God under the New Testament (Hebrews 10:28, 29) speaking according to the common equity and justice of the matter, and not according to a political law peculiar to one nation, says of the despisers of Moses' law that died without mercy under two or three witnesses, that they were worthy of it; as appears by the comparative, Of how much sorer punishment suppose you, shall he be thought worthy? Every comparative implying a positive: the sorer punishment that he is worthy of, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, supposes the other worthy of the sore punishment inflicted upon them by Moses' law for despising it. Now by Moses' law in this place, the breach whereof deserved capital punishment, must needs be meant sins against the first Table rather than against the second; and that because the scope of the Apostle is to warn the Hebrews against apostasy and falling off from the Christian religion, for which end he brings these words among others; and therefore would speak ad idem. Beza upon [illegible] place, says, that the Apostle speaks not of the transgression of any one command, but of the apostasy and total defection from the true religion, of which Moses in (Deuteronomy 17:2) had spoken. So Calvin upon this text: the law under Moses did not punish with death all sins or transgressions committed, but apostasy. The Apostle had an eye to that of (Deuteronomy 17:2) of stoning him that served strange gods. And Pareus upon (Hebrews 10:28, 29) shows, that temporal death from the Magistrate, (for of that he speaks, not of God's judgements) was justly inflicted by Moses' law upon capital transgressions, as blasphemy, apostasy; and thereupon infers from the less, that much greater punishment must abide apostates who despise the Gospel. Infert à minori, tanto gravius supplicium manere defectores illos. Si legis contemptoribus supplicium mortis, quo nihil est in hoc mundo acerbius, justè irrogabitur, utique supplicium quovis morte atrocius Apostatae Evangelii contemptores incurrent? And (2 Hebrews 2) in those words For if the word spoken by Angels was firm, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward the Apostle shows that the law of Moses given by Angels (Galatians 3:19; Acts 7:30) had the breach and transgression of it justly punished mediately by the Magistrates, to whom the execution of the laws was committed by God, which just punishment is there chiefly understood of transgressions against the first Table.

Sixthly, granting that 13. of Deuteronomy with the other texts of Scripture named, to be judicial political laws of the Jews, yet they may bind the Christian Magistrate under the Gospel. Indeed the ceremonial law being given for certain uses, and for a certain time, till the coming of Christ, upon the arising of this Sun, all these shadows vanished away, as being but of one time. But now the judicial laws, however delivered to one nation, yet were not of one time, never tied to one time only: so that had the commonwealth of the Jews continued until this day, excepting a few things belonging to the vindication of the ceremonies (which would have ceased with the ceremonies) they would have used their political laws still, in regard the Gospel neither changed nor took away any of them, as Beza observes in his Tractate de Haereticis à Magistratu puniendis, p. 154. And for the better understanding and proving that the judicial laws under the Old Testament are still in force, I shall lay down two or three distinctions. 1. The judicial law may be considered, so far as concerns the distinction of the Jews from the Gentiles, and the typical signification of the kingdom of Christ; or only so much as belongs to the form of civil government. Now the judicial law, according to the first acception, is absolutely and simply abrogated; but, secundum quid, in part and some kind only, in the latter: that is, whatever was in the judicial law of particular proper right peculiarly concerning the Jews, as of inheritances not to be transferred from one tribe to another; of the tribe of Levi having no inheritance among the other tribes (Numbers 18:20, 24); of the emancipation of a Hebrew servant or handmaid in the seventh year; a man's marrying his brother's wife, and raising up seed to his brother; the forgiving of debts at the Jubilee; marrying with one of the same tribe, with other such like, all of this kind is ceased. But what was of common right, common to other nations with them, according to the common law of nature; of which sort are laws concerning the punishment of moral transgressions, and other such; that all remains, and is in force. Of which distinction the reader may find more in Piscator's Appendix to his Observations upon the 21, 22, 23, chap. of Exodus; Bullinger; and in Altingius his common places, par. 1. loc. 7. de lege Dei, p. 112. Lex judicialis simpliciter abrogata est quoad distinctionem Judaeorum à Gentibus, & typicam regni Christi significationem; secundum quid verò, quantum attinet formae gubernationis civilis. Nam quod juris in ea fuit particularis, Judaeos peculiariter concernans, qualis fuit lex de officio Levitarum, item alia de haereditatibus de tribu in tribum non transferendis, id omne cessavit. Quod autem juris suit communis, secundum legem naturae omnibus communem sancitum, cujusmodi sunt leges de paenis scelerum, aliaeque id totum manet. 2. The judicial laws may be considered according to their substance and equity, or according to many accessories, circumstances, forms, and manner of them. Now though the Magistrate under the Gospel is not bound to these laws simply, that is, to every circumstance and particular of them for form, manner, time and place; as for example, not to the same kinds and formality of punishments set down in those laws; for those forms are accessions of the law; and therefore out of the nature of persons, times, places, and constitution of commonwealths, mutable: yet he is bound to the substance and equity of them, so as not to derogate from the right of those laws. Of this distinction the reader may find much said by Cartwright, in his 2. Reply to Doctor Whitgift, p. 98, 99. Beza de Haereticis â Magistratu puniendis, p. 154, 155. Tremellius and Junius, in their Preface before the five books of Moses. Thirdly, these laws may be looked upon as containing doctrine from God of punishment, that is, that those who seduce, blaspheme God, etc. be restrained, yes and by death in several cases, or else as in their latter according to the great rigor and severity expressed in them, as in Deuteronomy 13, etc. by smiting the inhabitants of the city with the sword, destroying it utterly and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof with the edge of the sword, and by gathering all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and burning with fire the city, and all the spoil of it every whit; in not sparing them though they should have truly repented, in enjoining the son, the wife of a man's bosom, to bring forth the father, husband, and to stone them with stones. Now though to the degrees and measures of punishment, the severity and utmost rigor the Magistrate is not now tied, yet to the thing in cases of idolatry, seduction, false prophesying, speaking lies in the name of the Lord he is bound, and in some cases of gross and high idolatry and blasphemy committed presumptuously, to inflict capital punishment: of this distinction also let the reader consult these authors. And of this question that the judicial laws of Moses in the sense now given, do yet last and are in force, besides the resolution of many great divines in the case, Beza, Calvin, Cartwright, Tremellius and Junius, Bullinger, Zinchius, Peter Martyr, Henricus Altingius, and more especially Piscator, who by eight arguments proves the question in controversy, besides answering two and twenty arguments brought against it; I shall desire the reader to observe these few reasons. 1. The judicial law differs from the Decalogue, the law of the ten Commandments, in this, that whereas the Decalogue comprehends in a few words all righteousness and equity, in all kind of duties to God and man, the judicial explains only that part of righteousness and equity which stands in those things of which judgements are appointed; and therefore seeing the judicials prescribe the equity of judgements which is a part of the Decalogue we must be bound to that as we are to the rest of the Decalogue, namely so far as they contain a general equity though we are not tied to the forms of the Mosaic polity. Now Christ says (Matthew 5:17) he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it; which words are comprehensive of the judicial law as for the substance a part of the moral law, (the judicial being indeed an appendix and a more particular explication of that part of the moral law concerning matters of justice and judgement) and therefore must be understood by Christ to be established. 2. Though there be many pregnant proofs in the New Testament for abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we nowhere read in the New Testament of making void the judicial law concerning the punishing of sins against the moral law, in the number of which are idolatry, heresy, blasphemy. Now these judicial laws being the laws of God and by his revealed will once settled, they must needs so far forth remain as they appear not by his will to be repealed. They who hold the Magistrate under the Gospel is not bound to punish for such sins, must prove from the Scripture those laws of God revoked and cancelled, which none of the patrons of toleration have ever yet done. 3. The substance and equity of the judicial law remains in that Christ and his Apostles make use of, transfer and prove by some judicial laws divers things under the New Testament. Christ makes use of a judicial law concerning punishment (Matthew 5:38, 39), an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, namely that of poena talionis (Exodus 21:24), and frees it from the false gloss and interpretation of the Pharisees, in which he teaches the judicial laws of Moses understood in their right sense are to be observed in the New Testament. For if Christ in that Sermon, of which this is a part, would teach the Decalogue belonged to Christians, by his vindicating it from the false interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees; then it follows he meant to teach the judicial laws of Moses concerning the punishment of moral transgressions belonged to them also, because he vindicated also one of them, of which particular with the proof of the consequence the reader may find more in Piscator's Appendix to Exodus. The Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18) among other proofs brought by him from similitudes fetched from the common use of men, that the minister of the Gospel ought to be maintained of the churches' charge, whereas they might object those were but human reasons, he alleges as the eternal law of God one of the judicial laws of Moses, which was, that a man should not muzzle the mouth of the ox which treads out the corn: where 'tis manifest he doubts not to bind the conscience of the churches to the equity of that law which was judicial, likewise from the 13. verse, of those that minister about holy things, and wait at the altar, living of the things of the temple, and being partakers of the altar he concludes that they which preach the Gospel should live of it. Now this maintenance of the priests albeit in the manner of provision it be held by many ceremonial, yet as it was a reward of their service due by men (as the punishments also if they failed in their duties) was merely judicial. So the equity of that judicial law (Exodus 22:2) of the smiting of a thief in the night that he die, is approved by Christ (Matthew 24:43). So Christ and Paul both transfer that judicial law of having two or three witnesses in judgement (Deuteronomy 19:15) to bind Christians in their ecclesiastical censures and judgements (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19). By which instances and some other particulars that might be given 'tis evident that in those judicials to all the circumstances whereof we are not bound, we are notwithstanding bound to the equity, of which the reader may read more in Cartwright's second Reply to Doctor Whitgift's second Answer, pag. 98, 99, 100. 4. That God appointed under the Law, blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, prophesying lies in the name of the Lord to be punished by the Magistrate, proceeded from God's holiness, justice, infinite hatred of such sins, and from their nature, being so contrary to his nature, so derogatory to his honor and glory, high treason against the Supreme Majesty, so destructive to the precious souls of men, so dangerous to commonwealths and kingdoms, as the Scriptures in divers places where these laws of punishing are set down, assigns these causes and reasons. Now I would know of the patrons of toleration whether under the Gospel these sins of blasphemy, apostasy, etc. be not as much against God's holiness, justice, glory, as pernicious and damnable as they were under the Law? Yes, and in some respects more, as being against the declarations of the Son of God (Hebrews 2:2, 3) and a treading under foot the Son of God, and counting the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, which being granted, punishment by the Magistrate must needs continue. The rule of just and unjust in God and in his law is always the same and immutable. It is as equally just to punish evil things as to forbid evil things, and therefore the right and law of punishments is also immutable. Where and of what things the causes are perpetual, there also the right is eternal and immutable, but the grounds and causes why such offences were punished, as God's justice, holiness, glory, etc. are perpetual and eternal. God is always like to himself, the moral transgressions of men do alike at all times displease him, no good reason can be given why the Majesty of God should be of less account with us than heretofore among the Jews, and therefore by the like reason to be punished now as well as then. But the further proof of this the reader may find in some learned divines, Beza de Haereticis à Magistratu punie[…] 155. and in Tremellius and Juni[…] Preface before the books of Moses. 5. The judicial law concerning the punishments of [i]lledness, for the substance, namely that it should be punished remains under the Gospel, because it comes within the nature of the moral law, and was prescribed to the Jews, not quae Jews or a people peculiarly taken into Covenant, but qua men subject to the law of nature as other nations were. For the proof of which besides the judgement of divers learned divines, Philip Melanct[on], Peter Martyr, Zanchius, A[l]tingius, the reason of common right, from the proper peculiar right of the Jews is known and distinguished by these following particulars. 1. If the same things have been also found to be concluded, and by civil sanction established by other law-givers from the light of nature. 2. If found to make for the defence and preservation of the obedience of the Decalogue. 3. If appear as useful and necessary now for the glory of God, the salvation of men's souls, the peace and safety of the Church and State as then. Now all these do most clearly appear in punishments of sins immediately against God, as apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy, etc. For first, these commands are of the light of nature, that he who is in place and power should forbid and punish the speaking evil of God. This sentence (as Melancton writes) is preached to all men, yes, to all reasonable creatures, every one in his place ought to forbid and hinder the manifest reproaches and dishonors of God. And therefore Magistrates ought to forbid and punish Epicurean speeches, worships of idols, profession of wicked doctrines. Many commonwealths among the heathens have made laws against Epicures and Atheists, who have openly held there was no God, or that there was no providence of God. Peter Martyr in his Common Places, that heathen princes used to care for religion, and have punished men even to death for the matters of religion. Thus Socrates was condemned at Athens for no other cause but for teaching of new gods, and for withdrawing the youth from their old worship of the gods. Zanchius on the fourth Commandment writes, that by the law of nature all princes among the heathen judged that the care of religion belonged to them. The Athenians judged so, the Romans also, and thereupon made laws and punished for violation of religion. Beza gives three instances of punishments inflicted by heathen Magistrates upon three chief philosophers for matters of religion, Socrates, Theodorus, Protagoras, the last of which was by the Athenians banished out of their territories, and his books burnt for writing contemptuously of the gods in these words, De diis neque ut sint, neque ut non sint habeo dicere. Musculus in his Common Places speaking of Magistrates having the care of religion, says, the wise men among the heathen acknowledged it, and that the truth of this opinion was so manifest as that it could not lie hid from the heathen, it was jus gentium, dictated by the light of nature, and therefore ought to be much more acknowledged and embraced by us, who in the knowledge of God go far beyond, not only the Gentiles, but the Jews. Master Selden in divers places of that learned book De Jure Naturali & Gentium proves that those commands De Cultu Extraneo and De Maledictione Nominis sanctissimi seu Numinis, were Jus Naturalis, common to all men, were indeed the chief and first heads of the law of nature, and that in those precepts, namely for the negative part, all the Gentiles who lived or but passed through the land of Judea were punished by the Magistrate for idolatry and blasphemy as well as the Jews, and that from laws common to the Jews with the Gentiles, though the kinds of the punishments, namely this or that, as whether stoning, etc. were not of the same nature, but more proper to the Jews. Yes, he shows it was an opinion held by some learned men, that it was not lawful for any Gentile to speak evil of and blaspheme his god which he worshipped as the god of his country; and says it was founded upon those words (Leviticus 24:15), 'Whoever curses his god shall bear his sin,' (the blaspheming the name of the Lord being spoken of after in the 16. verse, as if it were distinct from that in the 15. verse) in which form of speech divers learned men both Rabbins, Fathers and others would have forbidden to all the sons of men not only speaking evil of the most holy and only God, but also the speaking of those gods which they had chosen to themselves: so as none of the Gentiles might blaspheme their false god, which yet they had not renounced, without the violation of that law, 'Whoever curses his god shall bear his sin.'

Master Burroughs in his Irenicum, though he be for a Toleration in a great measure, as in things controversial and doubtful among godly and peaceable men, and that with a liberty of declaration of difference of judgment, and some different practice, page 55, yes brings such arguments for that Toleration, that if they prove any thing, they prove a general Toleration, yet confesses page 23. of that book, 'Tis the dictate of nature, that Magistrates should have some power in matters of religion. The generality of all people have ever thought it equal. It has ever been challenged of all nations and commonwealths. The heathens would never suffer their gods to be blasphemed, but punished such as were guilty thereof by the power of the Magistrate. Socrates was put to death for blaspheming their multiplicity of gods. And Master Burroughs in page 19. of the same book affirms, that principle, that Magistrates have nothing to do with matters of religion is abhorring to nature. Is it not an abhorring thing to any man's heart in the world, that men suffer that God to be blasphemed whom they honor? And that nothing should be done for the restraining any, but to ask them why they do so, and persuade them to do otherwise? There has ever been as great a contestation among people about religion, as about any thing. Exodus 8:25, 26. Pharaoh bade Moses sacrifice in the land: but Moses said it is not meet so to do, for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us? Though they had leave of the king, yet the people would not endure it. By which place of Scripture 'tis evident that the Egyptians who were heathens, by the light of nature would not endure the dishonor of their gods to see those creatures they worshipped for gods to be killed, as oxen and sheep the principal sacrifices of the Hebrews, but they would kill the Israelites for so doing. And lastly, Master Prynne in that late book of his, The Sword of Christian Magistrates Supported, does largely and excellently show that by the light of nature in all ages heathen Magistrates have made laws against, and punished such whom they esteemed atheists, heretics, blasphemers of their gods, or oppugners of their established religion, and that with no less than capital punishments, to which book from page 14. to 19. I refer the reader, where he shall find many examples of heathen kings and nations recited, and shall conclude this with that saying of Seneca, De Benefic. lib. 3. cap. 6. Violatarum Religionum aliubi atque aliubi diversa p[illegible]na est; Sed ubique Aliqua; as well as of homicide, parricide, poisoning. Secondly, the Magistrate's sword in matters of religion in punishing blasphemies, idolatries, heresies, has been found by good experience in all ages to make greatly for the defence and preservation of the first table, to stir men up to obedience and deter them from the contempt and violation thereof, whereas on the contrary, for the want of this, all blasphemies, heresies and errors have abounded, of which I could give many instances, but shall refer them to the more proper place of handling, namely to the reasons for Magistrates punishing men for idolatries, blasphemies, heresies, schisms; only for the present shall hint, that God himself says twice, once in Deuteronomy 13:11. the other Deuteronomy 17:13. the Magistrates punishing in such a case shall cause all the people to hear, fear, and to do no more presumptuously: the Lord gives this blessing to the punishment of such offenders, that others not only which see, but hear of them, have the bridle of fear put upon them whereby kept from the like. Thirdly and lastly, this coercive power of the Magistrate will be found every whit as useful and necessary now for the glory of God, salvation of men's souls, peace of church and state as it was then, yes and in some respects more necessary, there being in our days not only the same reasons and causes for that power of the Magistrate, but others also. Were there under the Law many incorrigible presumptuous offenders against God and his worship, that could not be otherwise reclaimed, and are there not such now? Were there then many gross ways of false worship and religion destroying foundations, broached among the people? Were they then infectious drawing away and seducing many souls? Were they then provoking the wrath of God causing it to wax hot against his people? Ought the glory and name of God to be then dear to Magistrates? Why, behold under the Gospel there are as incorrigible desperate persons broaching all kind of damnable heresies, making it their work to lay waste all religion, whom no admonitions, church censures can do any good upon: heresies and errors now are as infectious, spreading, subverting whole houses, eating as a gangrene, and so in the rest. Master Burroughs in his Irenicum page 23. confesses there is a necessity of the Magistrate's power in matters of religion [illegible] truth now, as there was then, and shows though we cannot argue the being of spiritual ordinances from our need of them, but from their institution, yet in natural and civil things this way of arguing is strong enough; there is need of such a help, and therefore we should seek to have it. And the necessity of the Magistrate's coercive power under the Gospel he sets down as follows. Now sure the need we have of such a power is exceeding great, we were in a most miserable condition if we had no external civil power to restrain from any kind of blasphemies and seducements. The condition of the Jews, O how happy was it in comparison of ours, if this were denied us! For if any of theirs did blaspheme God, or seek to seduce any from him, they knew what to do with him besides persuading of him to the contrary; but if any should seek to seduce the wives of our bosoms, children of our bodies, friends as dear to us as our own lives into those ways that we think in our consciences will undo their souls to all eternity, yet we must only desire them they would not do so, we must only admonish or seek to convince them or remove them, but restrain them we cannot. If the deliverance of us from the pedagogy of the Law has brought us into this condition, our burden is greater in this thing than any that the Law laid upon our forefathers. Has Christ delivered us from one burden to lay a greater upon us? Must we now see those who are dearest to us drawn into the way of eternal destruction, and stand and look on, but no way left to help them or our selves, unless we can persuade to the contrary? Surely our condition is very sad. Have we not cause to say, Lord let any burden of the ceremonial Law be laid upon our necks, rather than this. If there were a company of mad men running up and down the streets with knives and swords in their hands, endeavoring to mischief and kill all they meet with, and we must do nothing to restrain them; if we could persuade them to do otherwise well and good: but that is all we can do for help; what a dangerous thing were this? The case is the same, when those who are mad with damnable heresies, run from place to place, seeking to draw all they can from the truth. If we have no means of help but [illegible], it is ill with us; surely God has not put his people into such a sad condition as this is, he has provided better for his people than thus. And I appeal to the consciences and experience of men, whether this power of the Magistrate of punishing blasphemies and heresies be not found to be useful and necessary both for the honor of God, the safety of other men's souls, the peace of church and state? And whether all other means without this (when this might have been had) have made good these ends? Or whether this coming upon other means, as admonitions, instructions, synods, church censures, has not suppressed heresies, schisms, vindicated the honor and truth of God, recovered many souls, settled the peace of churches and states, as among the Donatists of old, and the Arminians in Holland of late. Any man's reason, yes sense may tell him, that in this sinful corrupted condition of man there is in coercive power a naturalness and suitableness to work upon the outward man for the furtherance of spiritual good, and that when no other means can, this power removes outward things that hindered, keeps from outward evils, applies outward means. And yet further, besides the same reasons and grounds now of the necessity of the Magistrate's coercive power, as well as under the Old Testament, there seems to be new reasons under the Gospel over and above that plead for the necessity of this power. As that under the Gospel so many outward visible judgments are not inflicted by God upon offenders as were under the Law, whereupon Master Cartwright speaks, certainly if ever there had been any time wherein the Magistrate's sword might have rested in the sheath, the time of the Law had of all been fittest when the Lord did so visibly sit in his judgment seat, and himself in proper person held the Assize and Gaol delivery. For as the Lord does not now by outward blessings give so plentiful testimony to the obedience of the Gospel as the Law, so does he not with so many and so severe punishments revenge the breach of it as in the time of the Law, for in these outward punishments the dispensation of God under the Law is diverse from that under the Gospel, in that he did more terribly revenge disobedience, and therefore God not striking now so often immediately blasphemers, seducers, false prophets, schismatics as under the Law, the Magistrates have the more need not to bear the sword in vain, lest heretics and false teachers go on the more desperately, corrupting and destroying all, but of these reasons I intend to speak more in the next thesis.

Seventhly, supposing all these commands simply judicial, given to the Jews only (which yet I have proved not to be so) there are other commands and examples recorded in the Old Testament distinct from the judicial, which cannot be counted judicial, but are moral and perpetual, as the fourth Commandment (one of the ten Commandments) given to the Magistrate, that by his authority true religion be preserved, take place, and all false religion suppressed (the proof of which is laid down in the 15. Thesis) as that command (Psalms 2:10, 11) given to Kings and Judges, which cannot be judicial nor ceremonial for several reasons, neither have the Patrons of Toleration ever said so of it (of which place I shall speak fully in the 19. Thesis) as those examples of Abraham and Jacob, not suffering those under their power and command to commit idolatry, which were long before those commands in the 13. and 17. chapter of Deuteronomy said to be judicial, and that these examples were not judicial, besides what the Reader shall find in the ninth and 12. Theses, Musculus in his Common Places De Abrogatione Mosaicae Legis, even in that Common Place where his Authority is most urged by the Patrons of Toleration for the abrogation of all Mosaical laws, affirms that as a Christian is not under the Mastership of Moses; so likewise Abraham was not under the Pedagogie of Moses. And so much for the first particular, that the commands for punishing idolaters, blasphemers, false prophets, etc. were of common reason and equity given for the times of the Gospel.

Secondly, as to the grounds brought by the Patrons of Toleration, Minus Celsus Senensis, Hagiomastix, &c. that these commands do not bind now because they were Moses' Laws, Jewish and abrogated by Christ, that we may by these commands as well prove the man Moses is now alive, because he was alive under the Old Testament, that if the commands be in force for inflicting of death, they be in force in all other particulars commanded by the same Authority with this, as that the offenders must be put to death with stones only, as that the whole City must be put to death, as the cattle must be slain as well as the inhabitants, as that the City must be a heap for ever and never built again, that there's clear particular reasons why the Old Testament Law for putting false Prophets, Blasphemers and Seducers to Idolatry to death should not now be in force because the Jews to whom this Law was given in all difficult cases about matters of Religion had the opportunity of immediate consultation with God himself, who could and did from time to time infallibly declare what his own mind and pleasure was in them, because that corporal punishment was a Type and pre-significative of spiritual punishments, cutting off then, of casting out now, as also of eternal damnation: to these with divers such like I give these following answers, which I desire the Reader to observe. First, besides the Reasons already given that Moses' Laws (in the sense expressed) for the punishment of Apostates, Blasphemers, &c. are not abrogated by Christ, let's consider that Christ by his coming has not abolished that Law which contains the love of God, his glory and honor, and the love of our neighbor, and therefore neither those things which do necessarily belong to and make for the love of God and our neighbor; nor secondly those Laws in the Old Testament, which the New Testament for the times of it approves of; not lastly, those commands which are of the light of nature and the Law of nature dictates, all which because they are so clear and generally confessed, I shall forbear adding the proofs, and refer the Reader for further satisfaction to Zanchius De Magistratu Quest. secunda. An Magistratui Christiano liceat capitales [illegible] de haereticis sumere, page 170. Bullinger's Histor. advers. Anabaptist. liv. 5. cap. 5. pag. 176. Musculus Common Places de Magistratibus, pag. 627. Mr. Burrough Irenicum page 23. But now the Magistrates restraining and punishing false Prophets, Apostates, Blasphemers, &c. is an act of the love of God and his glory, of love to their brethren's souls, of safety and good to Commonwealths, is very useful and necessary for vindicating the glory of God, and good of the Church (the glory of God, and the salvation of our neighbor being by that means preserved) is approved of also in the New Testament for the times of the Gospel, and is the dictate of nature. For the proof of this Assumption I shall make it evident in all the three parts of it. For the first that it is an act of the love of God and his glory and of love to our neighbor, besides the assertion of many great Divines, as Zanchius, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Amesius, &c. 'tis apparent thus, Because in the commands given by God (Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 17) for the Magistrates punishing false Prophets, Idolaters, and those who would not hearken to the Priest, the reasons of his so doing and the ends of those punishments imply as much, and have reference all along to the honor of God, the vindicating his name, and keeping others from doing the like, as these phrases show, That Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God to thrust you out of the way which the Lord your God commanded you to walk in. And you shall stone him with stones that he die: because he has sought to thrust you away from the Lord your God, And all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If there be found among you man or woman that has wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his Covenant, and has gone and served other gods, then shall you bring that man or that woman (which have committed that wicked thing) to your gates, and shalt stone them with stones till they die: So you shall put away the evil from among you. And the man that will die presumptuously, and will not hearken to the Priest, &c. even that man shall die, and you shall put away evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously, which passages fully hold out the Magistrates punishing Blasphemers, Idolaters, &c. to be an act of love to God: and the people, yes of zeal to his glory and the salvation of the people: that sentence, so you shall put the evil away from among you, says Peter Martyr, is in the Law of Moses the fountain of all punishments of wickednesses against the second Table, as of transgressions against the first; and therefore if the Magistrates punishing of Murder, Theft, Adultery, &c. for the taking away of the evil from among the people, be an act of love to God and man, a vindication of the glory of God, then the punishing of Blasphemy, Idolatry, and such like for the taking away of the evil is an act of love to God and our neighbor. The punishing of members of the Church under the Gospel by excommunication is held an act of zeal to the glory of God, and love to the Church: the Reasons why such a censure ought to be in the Church, are referred to those heads by Divines, yes by the Separatists and Independents themselves, as Mr. Robinson and others, and those very reasons and ends spoken of in Deuteronomy of putting away the evil from among you, as the people shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously, are in the New Testament by Paul given as the reasons of Excommunication (1 Corinthians 5:2, 13; 1 Timothy 5:20; 1 Timothy 1:20) (those very phrases there used by Paul being alluded to, and taken from those in Deuteronomy) and therefore if love to God and men stands in these sentences under the Gospel borrowed from the Law, of putting away the evil, of others fearing and doing no more so, then certainly love to God and men is contained in those reasons and ends under the Law, the original and fountain from where the Gospel took them. No, yet further, excommunication (which I have showed is founded on the reasons expressed in Deuteronomy 13:17) is made by Christ an act of brotherly love (Matthew 18:15, 16, 17) compared with Leviticus 19:17. Secondly, because those Kings, Magistrates and Persons recorded in Scripture above others for loving God and the people, for being most zealous of God's honor and glory used most this coercive power against Idolaters, Seducers, Blasphemers, &c. of all others, and more especially at such times when they were at best for grace and goodness and commended by the spirit of God for their zeal and forwardness, as Moses in the business of the golden Calf, as the children of Israel in the case of the two Tribes and a half building an Altar, as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, then spoken of especially for zeal, courage, perfect hearts, when they most exercised the power of the sword against Idolatry, Apostasy and all Will-worship: When Jehu and Jehoash were at best, had most zeal, they destroyed Baal and his worshippers; Manasses upon his conversion in his first love and zeal commanded Judah to serve the Lord God of Israel, and took away the strange gods and all the Altars, and cast them out of the City: Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, upon their hearts affected by the sight of the great works of God make Laws for God's honor against Blasphemy, &c. Christ out of his zeal of his Father's House and love to his glory, used coercive power upon those who made his Father's House a house of Merchandise (though he never used it in matters of the second Table but declined it) (John 2:15, 16, 17) compared with Psalms 69:9, of which I shall speak more in the 20. Thesis. Paul out of love and zeal to the glory of God, and the salvation of the Galatians prays for corporal capital punishment upon false Teachers (Galatians 5:12), which place that it is so to be understood, I shall prove it in the 20. Thesis. And I desire the Patrons of Toleration to answer this question, whether in their consciences they think not those godly Magistrates under the Old Testament, as Moses, Josiah, &c. punished Idolaters, &c. out of love to God and their Brethren, whether love and zeal set them not awork? Which if they did, certainly they were to continue under the Gospel: for I would willingly know what good reason can be given that Magistrates under the Gospel should not have as much zeal and love to God and the public, as they had under the Law, and if under the Law it made them restrain Blasphemers, Idolaters, &c. if their zeal and love worked so, why not now also when the glory of God and the safety of the Church requires it, the Magistrate after other remedies used in vain, should draw the sword against Heretics, Apostates and Blasphemers. Ames. Casus Consc. lib. 4. cap. 4. do Haeresi.

Thirdly, the Magistrates punishing with the sword traitors, murderers, thieves, adulterers, that so God may not be dishonored by those sins, nor the commonwealth and our neighbors hurt, is an act of love to God and men as is evident by the office (Romans 13:3, 4 compared with 8, 9, 10) and by other reasons that might be given if it were needful. Bullinger in his fifth Book, chapter 6, page 177, against the Anabaptists, shows that the punishing of offenders is according to Christian love, that the Magistrates' punishing is not only profitable for one man, but for the whole commonwealth, the punishment of one guilty person preserving many alive, and that just punishment is not against love, neither does true love abrogate punishments. Zanchi in his Tractate De Magistrat, Quaest. secunda, writes to this effect, that to punish offenders who are injurious to God and our neighbor, is a work of charity, which requires that we should defend the glory of God and the safety of our neighbor by all means that may be; as when thieves, robbers, murderers, are by the Magistrate taken away, lest the city and our neighbor should be hurt, this certainly is a work of charity: so doubtless those obstinate heretics who go on to blaspheme the name of God, who overthrow religion and piety, who corrupt the true and sound doctrine, who disturb the peace of the churches, who steal from their neighbors the members of the church not their estates neither kill their bodies, but endeavor to destroy their souls, do most of all wrong God and their neighbor, therefore to punish them is the greatest work of love to God and their neighbor. Now if the restraining of those who spoil men of their goods, temporal lives, outward dignities, that corrupt and debase coin be a work of love to God and man, then to hinder blasphemies, treasons immediately against the supreme majesty of God and his kingdom, the ruining of immortal souls and the eternal lives of men, the adulterating the truth of God and the faith once delivered to the saints is an act of higher love to God's glory and our brethren, in as much as such offences immediately against God transcend any treason against earthly kings, and the killing of souls is a greater evil than the killing of bodies, and the corrupting the truth more dangerous than counterfeiting or mixing baser metals with gold or silver. Wolphius in Deuteronomy 13: Si quis human at Tabulas depravatet magnum est: quid de Divinis. In a city if any one seek to draw away persons from the Prince and government, and to draw men to their side, they are punished, and should they escape unpunished for drawing men away from the King of Kings? As also because those reasons and ends appointed for punishments of the second Table, as to take away the evil, as that others shall hear and fear, &c. (which shows punishments are acts of love) are given for a ground of punishing idolatry, false prophesying, &c., yes set down more expressly in those commands than in the others, with other reasons too, as of turning that away from the Lord your God, which implies also love to God and our brethren. What follows hence then? Therefore those precepts which God has given Magistrates of punishing offenders, heretics, subverters of religion are not abrogated by the coming of Christ, because by that means the glory of God and the safety of our neighbor are preserved. Commands to Magistrates for punishing in matters of religion, being no more against Christian charity than punishment of traitors, seditious persons, thieves, &c. and therefore as they are not abrogated by the coming of Christ, so neither are these. The old Anabaptists (as Bullinger shows at large in that excellent book of his) who were against Magistrates punishing in matters of religion, and that all those commands in Deuteronomy 13, &c. were merely Mosaic and abrogated, held as well those commands for punishing murderers, thieves, &c. to be abrogated, and that among Christians no offences should be punished with prisons, mulcts, death, but only excommunication, and among other reasons they gave this, because it was against brotherly love, which they urged equally against bodily punishments for transgressions against the second Table as they did for punishments against the first. And indeed Lucas Osiander with others who write against Anabaptists for denying that Christians may be punished with outward punishments for any offences, show they bring the same arguments, as that in Matthew 13 of the tares, &c. which the patrons of toleration do now against the Magistrates' coercive power in matters of religion, but Bullinger shows very well at large, that those commands given in Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus of punishing capitally in some transgressions against the first and second Table, were according to the law of love, and that by the same reason by which the punishing by the Magistrate in matters of religion, is against Christian charity, the punishing of thieves, seditious and flagitious persons will be so too. And Bullinger asks the question whether it had not been more agreeable to love, if in the beginning of the tumult of Münster in Westphalia, a few seditious knaves had been put into prison, and according to their demerit punished, than that while no man is punished for his conscience, such a horrible slaughter of many should follow, and the Anabaptists should far and wide destroy all with fire and sword. Secondly, that the Magistrates' punishing of apostates and false prophets is approved of for the times of the Gospel, I shall speak to it fully in the 19th and 20th theses, and therefore will not anticipate myself, only say this, that in Zechariah 13:2, 3, a prophecy of the times of the Gospel, we find the same thing, almost the same words which are in Deuteronomy 13:6.

Thirdly, tis the dictate of nature, tis of the law of nature and of all nations to punish men for violations in religion as well as for matters of life and goods. I will not here enter into a large discussion of that question what's requisite, and how many ingredients go to make a thing of the law of nature, and how Jus Naturale and Jus positivum differ. I shall referre the reader in this question to many learned tractates and discourses of it by the Schoolmen and Casuists, to Popish and Protestant divines, particularly to Amisius Cases of Conscience, Book 5. first Chapter De Jure, Voetius Theses De vecat. Gentium part. secund. De Jure & Justitia Dei. Master Seldens De Jure Naturali & Gentium first book throughout, especially the third and eight chapters. Master Burges Vindiciae Legis 6. 7. and 8. Lectures. Master Cawd. Master Palm. Sabbatum Redivivum cap. 1. pag. 11, 12, &c. I will build only upon that which all learned men who have written of the law of nature grant, namely, that to hold there is a God, and that that God is to be adored and worshipped is of the law of nature, yes it is principium juris naturalis. Musculus in his Common Places, de lege nature, p. 36. and de legib. pag. 139. shows tis of the law of nature to have a sense of a Deity, and that this Deity is to be worshipped and feared. So that from the beginning among all men some religion has always been received. So Purchas Pilhrimage chap. 6. p. 26, 27. Among all the lessons which nature has taught, this is deepliest indented religion: the falshoods and variety of religions are evidences of this truth, seeing men will rather worship a beast, stock or basest creature, then professe no religion at all. It is manifest then that the image of God was by the fall depraved, but not utterly extinct; among other sparks this also being raked up in the ruins of our decayed nature, some science of the Godhead, some conscience of religion.

Now all those nations whom the law of nature instructed to believe and worship a Deity, it instructed also not to suffer their God and the religion they embraced to be openly blasphemed and spoken against; and I doe not believe any instance can be given of any nation or body of people among the Heathen formed into a commonwealth who punished not atheists and blasphemers of their Gods. The best writers and historians among Heathens, and of Heathens, as Cicero, Seneca, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Livie, Justin, Diogenes Laertius, Caelius Rhodiginus, Diodorus Siculus, Herodotus, Xenophon, assure us of laws and punishments enacted by princes and states in matters of religion; and other historians who write histories of the world, of all ages and times, as Sir Walter Rawleigh, Purchas, &c. give us many instances in this kind among all sorts of religions and people. From where 'tis that so many learned men, Zanchius, Musculus, Peter Martyr, Beza, with divers others finding laws and punishments of this nature so common and general among commonwealths and kingdoms, and that in so many examples recorded in the old and new Testament and in other authors, make punishments by magistrates for violation of religion to be of the light of nature as they doe the knowledge of a God, and that he is to be feared and worshipped. Bullinger in his fifth book against the Anabaptists fifth chapter, in answer to the Anabaptists affirming the commands of punishing in matters of religion belong to Moses sword, are mosaical from which Christians are now freed, says that this coercive power was not by Moses then instituted as being never before, and as a ceremonial law which should cease in the time of Christ, but from the beginning this law as natural and necessary was appointed by God. For all the old magistrates before Moses, from this command of God used this sword. And this law therefore God inserted in the Israelitical laws, which is not now taken away by Christ's coming as a mosaical coaction, because Christ abrogated not the polity and law of nature. Musculus in his common places De Magistratibus shewing the magistrate's coercive power in matters of religion to be so manifest a truth as that the heathen could not be ignorant of it, concludes tis to be much more acknowledged by Christians, neither is it that any man should say its not for us Christians to hearken in points of religion what the light of our nature dictates to us, but what the Scripture speaks to us of which are given for that end, that we may be instructed to every good work. For although in those things which concern the mysteries of our faith, the law of nature is not to be consulted with, but rather the Scriptures, yet also those things ought not to be contemned which by God are written in our hearts by nature, as is that law of nature whose direction both the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, commend to us. Is not that power which fathers have over their children of the law of nature which the Scripture also confirms. And who will deny that it specially belongs to parents to bring up their children in true religion and the fear of God? In Abraham this was praised (Genesis 18). Now if we consider the magistrate, what is he otherwise to be accounted of, then the supreme father of all his subjects, whose power is much greater, then of a father over children, and therefore it belongs more to him then to a father, that he should take upon him the care of religion and among his subjects set it up. As for Musculus authority which is so much urged by Minus Celsus Senenfis Sect tertia page 183. that all the judicial laws are by the Gospel wholly antiquated, and therefore those of Deuteronomy 13. Deuteronomy 17. &c. concerning the killing of false prophets, blasphemers: I answer, tis evident that is not Musculus meaning that under the Gospel magistrates may not make laws or punish for points of religion. For in many of his writings he pleads for this coercive power, as in the second Psalm verse 11. Serve the Lord with fear. Let them note this place who deny kingly and secular power that the magistrate has to doe in the cause of religion. The Spirit of God admonishes kings and judges of the earth to serve the Lord. But he understands it of that service which is due to the Son of God. Let them answer here in what thing, princes ought to serve Christ if in religion there be nothing at all which ought to be done by them. When therefore princes by their power doe care that the doctrine of God's word be kept in the Church, idolatry and false worships taken away, ministers conveniently provided for, and adversaries suppressed, forbidding also that the name of God be blasphemed, and caring that those who live godly may be safe, but the wicked and turbulent may be punished, do they not serve Christ then?

So in his commentaries on the fifth of the Galatians, verse 12, he is for cutting off false teachers by the Christian magistrate, which Mr. Goodwin, page 74 of his Hagiomastix, confesses of him. So in his Common Places De Magistratibus and De Haeresi he pleads at large for the coercive power of the magistrates in matters of religion, and particularly of restraining and imprisoning heretics, yes, in case they be blasphemous against God, of cutting them off by death. For says he, the law of God does not suffer a blasphemer to live. By which testimonies of Musculus and divers others that might be taken out of his writings, it is apparent whatever his meaning was of the abrogation of the whole judicial law, it could not be that all the commands concerning the magistrates' coercive power against heretics, false prophets, blasphemers, were by the coming of Christ wholly taken away. For whereas Musculus his express judgment is (though against the magistrates cutting off by death a simple heretic) for putting to death blasphemous heretics, his proof is, the law of God does not suffer a blasphemer to live, which law was given by Moses as well as those in the 13th and 17th chapter of Deuteronomy, and I find no law spoken of, or example recorded in the New Testament for putting blasphemers to death, but what has immediate reference to that law in Leviticus 24:16, or was founded on the law of nature common to all nations. Now for that abrogation of the Mosaic law in Musculus' Common Places De Legibus spoken of by Minus Celsus Senensis, it is not of the abrogation of the judicial law only but of the moral also, which is equally pleaded by Musculus in that chapter; and yet it is well known that Musculus was no Antinomian. So that however he differed in the way of his expressions from other great divines about the manner how the moral law in the ten commandments binds us Christians, namely, not as delivered by Moses legally to the Israelites, but as agreeing with the law of nature, justice and equity, commanding good, just, and holy things, so far tying all men to observance. Musculus explains his own meaning, that the observation of the Decalogue did not belong simply to the Israelites alone, but secundum quid in some respects as given by Moses upon Mount Sinai, and as it contained the tables of a covenant made by God with Israel. So far it binds not heathens nor Christians but only Israelites. But the things contained in the Decalogue, the matter of it, concerns all. The Decalogue so far as to be under Moses and his pedagogy does not bind Christians, but as it contains things agreeable or contrary to righteousness and the law of Christ, it is in force, and therefore commands the one and forbids the other. Musculus says he is so far from condemning the use of the ten commandments in the Church of God, that he greatly praises their study and diligence, who first brought that in for a part of the catechism of the Church. So that notwithstanding anything Musculus has of the abrogation of the Mosaic law, Moses' laws for punishing idolaters, false prophets, and blasphemers are in force now for the general equity and reason of them as containing matter agreeable to the rules of reason and justice as well as the Decalogue; and indeed considering what Musculus in his Tractate De Legibus writes of the judicial laws — that they are appendixes of the moral commands, inserted here and there in Moses' writings and added for exposition of the Decalogue — as also what he says De Magistratibus, that the magistrates' power in matters of religion is of the light of nature, nature dictates it, and that the law is still in force against blasphemers, then we cannot understand the abrogation of these laws of Moses of punishing in matters of the first table to be any otherwise meant by Musculus than in his sense of the abrogation of the Decalogue formerly expressed.

The reasons of those commands expressed in the 13th and 17th chapters of Deuteronomy concerning putting to death false prophets, apostates, etc., whether taken from the nature of the things themselves to which drawn, or the nature of the persons guilty, seducers, or the common condition of the sons of men — shall fear and do no more so, etc. — or the end of punishments, putting away evil, to which of them soever we look, they have been, were, and are still the same, always of a like nature and force both before the commands were given by Moses, in Moses' time, and now under the Gospel, and therefore the reasons of those laws being perpetual and universal, not abrogated by Christ, neither are the laws themselves (of which though I gave a touch of it in page 50) yet I shall here further clear it. It is a rule given by many divines in such sentences as these: Tale praeceptum qualis ratio praecepti; Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile; Ubi ratio legis redditur moralis, ibi lex ipsa est moralis; Officia illa omnia sunt moralia et immutabilia, quae rationes morales et immutabiles habent sibi annexas. Now though this rule is liable to exceptions and holds not universally — as in Leviticus 11:44, some special determination may be confirmed by a general reason, and the immutable nature of the law-giver has its place and virtue in appointing mutable commands — yet where the reasons of a law ex natura rei and not merely ex instituto are perpetual and universal, and the duties following from those reasons founded thereon, the special inward and proper reason of such a command being moral and perpetual, there always it follows that law is moral and perpetual, of which the reader may be further satisfied in Ames' Cases of Conscience, book 5, chapter 1, question 9, and his Medulla, book 2, chapter 12.

Now the speciall inward and proper reason of that command (Deuteronomy 13) so shall you put the evill away from the midst of you, is juris moralis & naturalis, and therefore so is the command itselfe. For a conclusion of this that these lawes of punishing Idolaters, false Prophets, &c. were not properly judiciall lawes, nor abrogated by Christs comming, lets take notice that that distinction of the judiciall law from the morall, namely the morall law was given of God publikly declared by his voice twice writ in tables of stone, but the judiciall was afterwards delivered to Moses, and by Moses to the people without any such solemnity, is no exact nor perfect one. For many of the laws not expressed in the Decalogue, but delivered afterwards among the judiciall, as about restoring the pledge, of weights and just measures, of giving the hire to the laborour, and many other such like, are no more judiciall or lesse morall then you shall not steal, yes such commands are transferred to the times of the Gospel, as that of (Leviticus 19:17) to (Matthew 18:15) and (Luke 17:3) and therefore though these commands of punishing Blasphemers, Apostates, false Prophets, &c. bee not expressed in the Decalogue, but added after, yet they may bee no more judiciall then the third and fourth Commandement. And therefore the most accurate distinction that is given by Divines between judiciall lawes properly so called, and those lawes numbred among the judiciall, is this, those were properly judiciall lawes which had a singular respect to the people of the Jewes, so as the reason cause and foundation of them was placed in some peculiar condition of that people: But those lawes which were wont to be reckoned among the judicials, and yet in their reason had no singular respect or relation to the condition of the Jewes more then to other people, all those are of morall naturall right common to all people, of which distinction with some other particulars about the nature of the judiciall law, and how farr it binds Christians under the Gospel I referre the Reader to Ames. Cases of conscience the fifth Book, chapt. 1. De Jure and to Zepperus explanation of the mosaicall lawes, chap. 5. who shewes two extreams of men in that point, one in the excesse holding all the judiciall lawes promiscuously in force, others in the defect holding them all and wholly abolished, but holds the middle way between both, namely whatever in the mosaicall lawes has an immutable and perpetuall reason and nature by common right, immutably and alwayes as by an adamantine chaine binds all men in all times and places: But whatever has an implied reason and condition of change, does no longer bind the consciences of Christians. Zepperus also in his first Book chapt. 12. of the mosaicall lawes, answers at large the places brought by Minus Celsus Senens. and others, out of Musculus, Luther, Calvin. Zanchius and others, for the abrogation of these lawes, showing they are understood only of those things that peculiarly belonged to the commonwealth of the Jewes, and as given by Moses to the Israelites, and not of such judicialls which either in the law of nature or Decalogue have their reason founded. Now of this latter sort, are all those commands for the substance of them, for punishing the false Prophet, Apostate, &c. as appears in the nature of those laws and the reasons of them: for what singular respect or relation to the condition of the Jews, has taking the evill away, fearing and doing no more so, turning away from the Lord their God, more, then to the condition of Christians.

Thirdly, as to Hagiomastix's affirmation page 43 that to prove by the law of God in the old Testament (Deuteronomy 13, etc.) that false prophets, blasphemers, etc. may be bodily punished under the New Testament is all one as if a man should go about to prove that the man Moses is now alive, by this argument, namely, because he was alive under the old Testament, I answer: 1. Moses is alive under the New Testament, as God said in the bush to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, so God is the God of Moses as well as of Abraham, etc. Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living (Matthew 22:32, compared with Mark 12:26, 27). 2. Though Moses' body be dead and buried by God in a sepulcher that no man knows of, yet his doctrine may be alive; it is a gross non sequitur that their doctrine must be dead and buried whose bodies are dead, for then David's doctrine in the Psalms, the prophets' doctrine, yes the Evangelists' and Apostles' doctrine should be dead, they being now all dead as well as Moses, and so all proofs brought for any doctrine from David's Psalms, the prophets, the New Testament may be thus evaded, by saying, we may go about to prove David, the prophets, Evangelists and Apostles are now alive by this argument, because they were alive some of them thousands, and others of them many hundred years ago. Thirdly, besides this false consequence, it is evident upon many grounds that doctrines are alive, do bind when the publishers and writers of them are dead; yes they are written for that end, that they may teach and be a rule when the men who wrote them are dead, that being dead, by these they may yet speak, as the Apostle (Romans 15:4) tells us; yes many things are spoken and written to be a rule of direction to the Church, intended to take place rather after their death than in their lifetime, as the prophecies of the prophets, and some prophecies also of the Apostles, so that it may be said as Zechariah chapter 1, verse 6: Your fathers, where are they, and the prophets, do they live for ever? But my words and my statutes which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers? Though pen-men and writers of Scripture die, yet their words and doctrine take hold and place when they are dead. Fourthly, by this reason of holding Moses is now alive, if the law of God in the old Testament binds, it will follow that all Moses' doctrine, the ten commandments and all he wrote in the Pentateuch, Genesis, etc. are void as well as these commands about punishing false prophets, etc., for they were made known and written by Moses when he was alive, and to be found in his books together with these laws termed judicial: so that the Antinomian may as well say the same against the moral law under the Gospel, when the ten Commandments are pressed, and the Socinian and Anabaptist against those commands to put to death murderers, which now Master John Goodwin does against these laws in Deuteronomy 13, etc. that men may as well prove the man Moses is now alive, by these commands, because he was alive under the old Testament, as bring those places of Scripture written by Moses to prove the moral law in force, and those commands, who so sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Fifthly, whatever Hagiomastix by way of scoff has spoken thus of proving as well Moses may be now alive, it is evident, besides the New Testament's confirmation in many places of the Evangelists and Epistles, of the old Testament being in force in the days of the Gospel (of which I shall speak in the 18. THESIS and so will spare the reader here), it by name particularly ratifies the doctrine and authority of Moses' writings, and proves and urges several things upon men under the Gospel from texts taken out of the five books of Moses, as these places in the New Testament unanswerably show: Matthew 23:2, 3; Matthew 28:29, 31, 32; Mark 12:26; Luke 16:29, 30, 31; Luke 24:27; John 1:45; Acts 3:22; Acts 26:22; Acts 28:23; Romans 9:7, 9, 15, 16, 17; Romans 10:6, 8; Romans 13:8, 9; Ephesians 6:2, 3; yes several particulars of the judicial laws are brought to prove duties required in the New Testament, as pages 56, 57, 60 of this book show. And lastly, Moses' authority and writings are of such sacred account under the New Testament, that in the Revelation — the book that concludes and shuts up the canon of the New Testament, the book that speaks of things that shall be in the Church of the New Testament till the end of the world — Moses his name and writing are joined with the Lamb, and that to be made use of by the most eminent and faithful servants of God, that have gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, these standing on the sea of glass having the harp of God, sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, great and marvellous are your works, Lord God Almighty, etc. So that all these things being laid together, I suppose by this time every ingenuous reader must needs see, that by this answer to Deuteronomy 13, etc., Hagiomastix intended rather to spread a table of mirth for himself and his Church to feast on, than to give any satisfaction to the Reverend Author of the Vindication of the printed paper entitled an Ordinance for the Preventing of Heresies, etc., and the rest of the Presbyterians.

Fourthly, as to that answer of Hagiomastix p. 48. 49. they that will have the ancient law for putting blasphemers and idolaters to death to be now in force, must consequently hold it is in force not simply only as to the inflicting of death upon the offenders, but in all other particulars commanded by the same authority, as not be killed after any manner, nor with any kind of death, but with stones, not only the seducer but the seduced themselves, though whole cities, not only the inhabitants, but the cattle also, with divers other particulars named in that of Deuteronomy 13. For if men will urge this law as being still in force, they make themselves debtors to urge the execution of the whole in all the particularities and circumstances thereunto belonging. For who has any power to make an election or reprobation among the commandments of God, where God himself has made none. I reply, it follows not: it is no good consequence that all circumstances, accessories, particularities must bind because the substance of a command binds; or that the substance and sum of a command must be taken away, because some circumstances, forms and particularities are not in force.

To argue a thing itself abolished, because the modus of it binds not always, or that the substance and essentials must cease, because divers accessories, circumstantials and forms wherewith it was clothed most suitable to such a time, country condition of such a people, are ceased, is a fallacie a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, which all logicians know is no good reasoning. If I, or any other Presbyterian had argued thus, such a man's bond binds not now, or this is not such a man, he is dead, because his apparel, hair, place of abode, with some other such accessories are changed and antiquity altered, we should certainly have spread a table of mirth for the Independents, and therefore I judge, for Hagiomastix thus to reason shows no great strength, and I do desire Mr. John Goodwin, but to rub up his old logic of the nature and difference of substance, and accidents, and then I know he will confess (though for him to confess any thing as manifest as the light wherein he is mistaken in writing, is as rare as a black swan) that accidents may be varied and taken away salva substantia. And that I may show the weakness of this reasoning, that this 13th of Deuteronomy is therefore not in force because then the manner of punishing with stones, and the person tempted to idolatry, though never so dear, stoning him, with divers other particulars must still bind, I shall give instances in the old and new Testament of moral and evangelical commands, and examples, that the things themselves are in force, and yet many accessories, accidentals, circumstantials accompanying them at such a time in such places, and such a condition of the Church, not binding. And certainly if commands and rules confessed to be moral and evangelical had such accessories, accidentals, circumstantials, forms and manner of expressions accompanying them, to which we are not now tied though we are to the commands and duties themselves, then the commands called judicial in Deuteronomy 13:17, because consisting in judgments and matters of punishing offences, may easily be conceived upon several reasons, to have for the manner and form of proceeding with the kinds and extent of punishments, many accessories and accidentals to which the Church of the new Testament is no ways bound, although not free from the substance of the commands, or those laws as containing such a doctrine that in their general nature and proportion of equity give us the best determination naturalis juris, as Amesius speaks. The Decalogue is in force and binding for the matter and substance of the commands of all Christians under the New Testament as is confessed even by them that hold the judicial laws totally abrogated, and yet many of them plead that in divers respects, and in several particular things, namely accessories and appendixes attending that time and that people, the Jews, as under such considerations, that law binds not us. Now though the judgment of the generality of orthodox divines goes not along with them all their expressions about the manner of the abrogation, yet all confess that even in the Decalogue there are some things, accessories accommodated to that time and condition of that people the Jews, which have the nature of ceremonials and judicials, as that clause in the preface which brought you out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, upon which the ten commandments are enforced to the Jews, as that clause in the fifth command that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you, was specially meant and had particular relation to the Land of Canaan, though in the general equity it was meant of a good and long life upon earth, as is evident by (Ephesians 6:3) where the Apostle changes it from days being long in the land which the Lord your God gives, to this, that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth, as something in the fourth commandment, which that (Colossians 2:16, 17) shows, and so some other phrases might be instanced in, which bind not. And yet from hence to reason against the Decalogue's binding Christians under the new Testament, as Hagiomastix in page 48, 49. against that command in Deuteronomy 13, and to say as he does were frivolous and absurd. Now if it be so in the matter of the Decalogue, then the same reason holds more in Deuteronomy 13.

The government, discipline, and order of the visible Church laid down in the new Testament for the essentials and substantials binds all Churches to the end of the world, as the Reformed Churches hold, and divers ministers of that way as Gersom Bucerus, Parker, Danaeus, Cartwright, &c have written, and yet they do not hold all accessories, circumstantials, occasionals, &c of discipline spoken of in the new Testament to bind, but distinguish of things, showing what's immutable and perpetual, and what not, of which the reader may consult Parker, De Politia Ecclesiastica, Danaeus on the first of Timothy, who shows in divers places of that book that the fundamentals, essentials and substantials of ecclesiastical discipline cannot be increased nor diminished by any new constitutions of men: but for accessories and accidentals they may be diminished, increased and moderated according to the various circumstances of places, things, persons and times. For discipline being as a comely garment fitted to things, persons and times, as these may be changed namely times, &c so discipline also in accessories and lighter things may be altered, and if out of a foolish zeal of observing all things practised in the Apostles times men will imitate all things then done without considering a difference of times, places and state of things, they must needs do that which will be to the great evil of the Church and detriment of consciences. Independents themselves though they hold the substantials of Church government and order ought to be the same in our times, that they were in the Apostles, yet they do not in all circumstantials nor accidentals judge discipline now binds; and I suppose if Hagiomastix had thus reasoned against their Independent government and order, that if that tied us in these days, then we are bound to all circumstances and accessories, as to the number of seven Deacons, &c as to widows just of such an age, &c or else the office of Deacons and widows are ceased in the Church, they would have laughed at him for his folly, and yet this is the way of the man's reasoning against the command of God (Deuteronomy 13:17), the command itself must be wholly abrogated, or else all accessories and formalities accompanying it Christians are tied to. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, preaching of the word to speak properly are not points of government and order, but the worship of God: love, humility, hospitality, are graces and moral duties commanded under the Gospel, and yet all these with many others of the like kind that I could instance in, had in the Apostles days those primitive times, some accessories and appendixes, ways of manifestations of them which are now ceased, as the feasts of love, the kiss of love, washing the saints' feet, &c. in which humility, brotherly love, kindness to strangers were expressed, as proper and peculiar to that condition the Church was then in, and the customs of those countries, &c. Now if any Seeker should reason with Hagiomastix that these ordinances were all antiquated, or any Antinomian that these graces were not to be exercised by us now, because these accessories and appendixes were laid aside, or would inforce from the practice of them a necessity of washing feet, the kiss of love, and all other things proper and peculiar to the state of the Apostles, I suppose he would laugh at them, and in his answer jeer them to purpose. Now therefore if in evangelical ordinances and commands, in points of worship and graces under the time of the new Testament, where there is still one and the same manner of administration of the Covenant of grace, there may be such a non-obligation in respect of accessories and accidentals, though yet the ordinances and graces themselves remain in full force and vigor, we may then easily conceive in commands concerning punishments of sin against the first Table, how under the new Testament being a diverse manner of administration from the old (though the same in substance) there may well be a great change of accessories, accidentals, forms, and manner of proceeding, which nevertheless give no ground for the taking away things and commands themselves, but only clearly show there may be a cessation of all such forms, accessories, manner of proceeding, which were peculiar to that time and people. And if we do but observe and consider the composition of most of the Mosaical laws, how they are mixed of moral, judicial, and ceremonial, how laws judicial have something moral, and something ceremonial in them, and ceremonials have something judicial and moral in them, and how that those things which in their nature are moral and perpetual, have yet somewhat judicial and ceremonial annexed to them, of all which we may be further satisfied in Zepperus his explanation of the Mosaical laws, we may easily conceive how in these Mosaical laws, a command the thing itself may be binding for the substance, and yet several particulars accompanying as being properly judicial and ceremonial may cease, among which now the form and kinds of punishments, the extent with rigor and severity of punishing to the cattle, the making the city a heap for ever, &c may be reckoned; and that these are but accessories and appendixes of these laws for punishing idolaters, false prophets, which therefore may not bind, though the commands for the substance be still in force, may appear thus, because inflicting death simply upon apostates, false prophets, &c is commanded without any of these accessories of destroying the cattle, and making the city a heap, &c as these places (Exodus 23:20; Deuteronomy 17:2, 5, 6; and Deuteronomy 18:20) show, which is worthy to be taken notice of; besides in the commands to punish those who offer up their children to Molech, and that blaspheme God (Leviticus 20:2; Leviticus 24:16), the inflicting of death upon them is required, but none of those particulars mentioned Deuteronomy 13:15, 16, 17. In the new Testament also, though the punishing by death according to Moses' law of apostates be approved of, as in pages 52, 53 of this book I have shown, and several judicial laws for the substance ratified pages 56, 57, yet the formalities, accessories, with all particularities of such laws never are spoken of; and lastly, though severe punishment by the magistrate the substance of that command in Deuteronomy 13 be both before Moses' laws as in Job's time, and after Moses' times by Artaxerxes, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius in cases of apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy, approved of; yet there is not a word spoken of destroying cattle, the whole cities, &c. And to stop Hagiomastix's mouth for ever, I wish him to consider this, that by virtue of commands under the old Testament, apostates, false prophets, idolaters, may be now put to death, and yet the magistrates under the Gospel not bound to destroy whole cities, cattle, nor fulfill the rest of his inferences: for it will appear by many instances in the old Testament, even in that time of administration of the Covenant, wherein the 13th of Deuteronomy was written, that the magistrates held not themselves bound to all those particulars of destroying all the inhabitants, cattle, &c. though they inflicted punishments, yes death upon some idolaters, and apostates, as these instances fully show, namely in Moses (Exodus 32) commanding in the worship of the Golden Calf three thousand to be slain, not all the people, nor the cattle; (Numbers 25:2, 3, 4, 5) commanding for the bowing down to the gods of Moab, the heads of the people to be hanged up, not all the people, neither the cattle to be killed; in Elijah killing the prophets of Baal only (1 Kings 18), not the people; in Asa, entering into covenant that whoever would not serve the Lord the God of Israel should be put to death, and in deposing Maachah, his mother for making an idol in a grove (2 Chronicles 15), but not entering into covenant to destroy all the cattle and the cities where such persons lived; in Josiah sacrificing all the priests of the high places in Samaria that were there upon the altars (2 Kings 23), but not sacrificing the people nor the cattle; and so in others which might be given. And therefore if magistrates under the old Testament, though all thought it their duty to punish idolaters and apostates, were not tied to all the particulars in Deuteronomy 13, then certainly the magistrates under the new are less tied to those accessories and formalities of that law, by all which it is apparent those things laid down in Deuteronomy 13:15, 16, 17 are only accessories and accidentals of that command of punishing with death those that go after other gods, and not of the nature and essence of it; yes holding only in some particular cases, time, but not general to the Jews themselves, which in what cases and how, I shall forbear speaking of now for fear of enlarging this part beyond its proportion intended.

And for a conclusion of this; the consideration of this mixture and composition of the laws of God under the old Testament is exceeding useful for this purpose, namely, that thereby we may judge more easily of the mutability or immutability of them, whether they be temporary or perpetual, and so whether they bind all men, or only some. In commands alleged out of the old Testament, this is to be carefully looked into whether they be merely and purely moral or ceremonial or judicial; or whether mixed and compounded, and how, of what laws mixed. If the command be pure and simple the thing is evident, where moral is binds, where ceremonial or judicial it binds not. But if it be mixed of judicial, ceremonial and moral, or of ceremonial and moral, the moral remains and is in force: by all which we may see the weakness of Hagiomastix's inference, that if that command in Deuteronomy 13 does at all bind Christians, it must bind in every particular there spoken of: for what's moral in Deuteronomy 13 abides, and yet what's properly judicial and ceremonial is taken away: look as that were no good argument against the fifth commandment being in force under the new Testament, because then what was judicial and ceremonial in it as containing the promise of the Land of Canaan, and a blessing in it &c. must remain under the Gospel, so neither is this of Hagiomast. For as a command moral may have somewhat judicial mixed with it, so may a command judicial have much of moral in it; but now what judicial laws and how mixed are temporary and changeable, and upon what rules and grounds, and what judicial laws are immutable and perpetual, and how to be known, I refer the Reader for satisfaction to Zepperus' explanation of the Mosaical laws, Book 1, chapters 7, 8, 9, 12. And as for those commands in question of magistrates punishing in cases of apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy, they are upon all occasions reckoned by learned divines among the immutable and perpetual, as by Zanchius De Magistratu Quaest. Secunda p. 170, 171, Beza De Haereticis a Magistratu puniendis, p. 152, 154, 155, and by Zepperus in his explanation of the Mosaical judicial laws, first Book c. 10, page 72, and Book 4, chapter 2, p. 243, where he makes the laws against the false prophet teaching publicly, the private seducer, the public defection of the whole city, &c. to be appendixes of the first command and of common right, and particularly in the third chapter of that fourth Book proves by several reasons the punishing of false teachers, heretics, blasphemers, ought to be perpetual, which learned authors notwithstanding, grant the kinds of punishments, the particular forms of those laws, and as they were given of Moses to be constitutive of the Jews' policy, to be changeable and not binding. The kinds of punishments are taken away, Christ would not have the Gentile magistrate to be bound to those laws for the kind of punishments which were given to the Jewish magistrates, but notwithstanding punishments in general are not taken away, but commanded. In the constituting the kind of punishment, there seems a peculiar reason to have been had of that nation. There were certain peculiar things in those laws that do not now belong to us which particulars being taken away, there are two things by virtue of those laws remain. First, that defection from the true religion, and seducing to that defection should be punished by the magistrate now. Secondly, that capital punishment should be inflicted according to the greatness of the blasphemy and wickedness upon factious and seditious apostates. For of such account ought the majesty of God to be among all men in all ages of the world, that whoever shall despise and mock at that, be who speaks evil of the Author of life, is most worthy to have his life taken away. So Zanchius De Magistratu Quaest. Secunda page 170, 171, 172, and Beza De Haereticis a Magistratu puniendis page 154, 155, speak and therefore according to that three-fold distinction laid down page 53, 54, 55, of this Treatise, this law in Deuteronomy 13 may be in force, 1. according to the substance and equity of it, according as there is a common right in it, common to other nations with the Jews, and secondly, as it contains a doctrine made known by God for punishing such offences (though we Christians are not tied to the particular forms of that command according to the Mosaical law or polity, nor as it was given by Moses to one people, nor to the utmost vigor and severity of it expressed in every particular) which being in force under the Gospel but in this sense and thus far, fully makes good that which it is brought for the magistrate's coercive power under the new Testament to punish false prophets, apostates, &c. Neither does the abating somewhat of the rigor of the law suitable to the Mosaical Paidagogy, or the releasing of the particular forms of that law the kind and manner of punishing, abrogate all punishment and restraint: for we may easily conceive and we often see it in experience, the rigor and utmost severity of a law in regard of some circumstances abated, and yet not all punishment, neither the substance of it taken away. And indeed if we consider what the judicial law concerning punishing in criminal matters is, as it is laid down by divers learned men — Beza, Zepperus, Amesius — namely, that law which does peculiarly explicate that part of righteousness and equity concerning executing justice and judgment, or the most accurate determination and fit application of the natural right according to the special and singular condition of that people, it must needs follow that though those circumstances which were proper to that special estate of the Jews are ceased, as of necessity they must, the state of the Jews being changed, yet the things themselves as abstracted from their relation to the Jewish Church and state, cannot be abolished, as being naturalis juris, which still do hold forth to us the best determination of natural right as Amesius speaks, as the changing of the fashion, form and proportion of a man's clothing and apparel cannot alter a man's substance and person, so neither can the forms and manner of the judicial law by which it was fitted for the Jews' condition as a garment is to a man's body, take away the law itself; so that judicia being nothing else but naturals and morals clothed for a time after such a manner to fit the nature and manners of such a people, that time and people being passed away, the substance, namely, what's natural and moral must needs remain.

Fifthly, as to those other inferences added by Hagiomastix page 50, 51, 52, to the former, that if the obligation of the Mosaic Law for putting blasphemers, idolaters, &c to death, was intended by God to continue under the new Testament, why was the Apostle Paul so far from enjoining a believing brother to detect, or to put to death his idolatrous wife, that he does not permit him so much as to put her away from him? If the Law in question was to continue in force under the Gospel, then was every person in an idolatrous state and kingdom while it remained idolatrous, bound to seek the death one of another, yes to destroy one another with their own hands. Yes the civil magistrate was bound to sentence all his subjects that practiced idolatry to death without exception, and to make a bloody desolation throughout all his dominions: then were believers in idolatrous states and kingdoms upon their respective conversions to the Christian faith, bound to accuse their neighbours, being idolaters and blasphemers, round about them before the magistrate, especially if he were a Christian, and to require the execution of this Law of God upon them to have them put to death. I answer M. Goodwin's Ifs and Thens proceed either out of the gross ignorance of the state of the question of toleration, and scope of Deuteronomy 13, or else from a design to delude and abuse the people with a show of some reason, which though he knows in his conscience very well has no weight at all, yet he thinks will serve to mislead his followers who takes shadows for men. For whereas the question about punishing men with death, or other severe punishments in cases of idolatry and false doctrine is understood by all divines who write of the controversy, in case of apostasy and defection, meant of those who have once known and received the Christian faith, and not of Jews, Turks, and pagans; of magistrates also in their own jurisdiction and territories, not others; and when it may be with the safety, and for the good of a nation and kingdom, and not to the manifest destruction and ruin of a kingdom, as he may find in the writings of many learned men who have writ upon the question — Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Bullinger, Danaeus, Musculus, Gerardus, Baldwin's cases of conscience, Zepperus, Videlius, Voetius, Master Rutherfurd, &c — and is evident by the state of the question laid down in the Prolegomena, as also Deuteronomy 13 is understood of apostates who having professed the Law are fallen from it, and of persons in the territories and power of the Jews, not that they should do so to all neighbouring nations round about them, as these phrases imply, If there arise among you a Prophet, If your brother, or your Son, or your Daughter, entice you secretly, saying, let's go serve other Gods. If you shall hear say in one of your cities, which the Lord your God has given you to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city. Deuteronomy 17:2, If there be found among you within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, man or woman that has wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his Covenant; If it be true that such abomination is wrought in Israel, then shall you bring forth that man or that woman to your gates, and stone them with stones till they die. On which place Calvin observes in his handling that question whether it be lawful for Christian judges to punish heretics, that the punishment of stoning in Deuteronomy 13 was not commanded to be inflicted upon foreign nations, but upon apostates from the Jewish religion who had perfidiously fallen from it: by which, says he, is answered that objection made by some, who ask whether Jews, Turks, and the like are by the sword to be forced to the faith of Christ? Neither does God command the sword to be drawn promiscuously against all, but apostates who have wickedly withdrawn themselves from the true worship and have endeavoured to draw others to the like defection, he has subjected to just punishment. Yet for all this Hagiomastix makes ifs and ands, brings instances of suppositions in heathens, and of states wholly idolatrous, nothing at all to the question in hand; for the Apostle speaks in 1 Corinthians and the seventh chapter, of a heathen and infidel that never received the faith of Christ, but being born and brought up in heathenism continues so, however one of the married persons, husband or wife was converted to the Christian faith. Besides, that question put by Hagiomastix, why was the Apostle Paul so far from enjoining a believing brother to detect, or to put to death his infidel or idolatrous wife that he does not permit him so much as to put her away from him, is absurd and ridiculous, and a man would wonder that such a great champion as Cretensis would be taken for, that dares challenge all Presbyterians in England, Scotland, and France, assembled and not assembled, and so cried up and deified by the sectaries in divers pamphlets, should bring such weak poor stuff. For the Corinthian state and magistracy being then heathenish and infidel, as the Apostle in the chapter going before (1 Corinthians 6:2) shows, only many particular private persons living in Corinth being converted who were not the civil government, it had been to no end for Paul to direct the believing husband to complain to the magistrate of his idolatrous wife; that had been the way for himself to have been punished, that had been all one as to have complained to the civil magistrates of themselves. And certainly the Apostle that blamed the believing Corinthians for going to law one with another before their magistrates who were unbelievers, though he would not, if they had been Christian magistrates, had no reason to stir up Christians to complain to unbelievers in matters of religion and Christianity. Master Goodwin might with as much reason have asked why the Apostle Paul did not enjoin the unbelieving wife or husband to complain of the believing wife and husband, as why he did not enjoin the believing wife to detect her idolatrous husband; and might as well, no rather better, reason it unlawful for Christians to go to law now under Christian judges, because they might not under heathens, as to argue against Christians complaining and detecting of Christians that turn apostates, heretics, idolaters, &c because Christians did not complain in Paul's time to heathen magistrates of heathens. Yes, this is so unreasonable a question to build an argument upon against an express command of God, and that with a triumph in the close of it, saying, Certainly this doctrine of the Apostle holds no tolerable correspondence with the opinion of our severe inquisitors, about the non-abrogation of the Law for putting idolaters to death, that though I read in ecclesiastical histories of Christians complaining to some heathen emperors favorers of Christian religion, of Christians when they turned heretics, as to Aurelianus of Paulus Samosatenus the heretic, and of heathens seeking to heathen princes, against priests that were very wicked under the show of religion, being guilty of sacrilege and corrupting the chastity of matrons; yet I never read of any complaining of and desiring princes to punish heathens of the same religion with themselves. So that by all this the reader may easily perceive, besides the dissimilitude in the instance of 1 Corinthians 7 from that of Deuteronomy 13 — the one speaking of a heathen idolater, the other of a Jewish apostate — there was very great reason why the Apostle enjoined not the believing wife to seek to take away the life of her unbelieving husband; for in so doing she might have hazarded her own, but could have done no good to the hindering of his idol worship. But however Paul enjoins nothing to the believing husband and wife about detecting their unbelieving yoke-fellows upon the grounds already given, yet I make no question had Paul lived in a time wherein the Corinthian magistrates had received the faith, he would have given both them and believing husbands in their places, injunctions to have demolished idol temples and their worships, not to suffer blasphemies against Christ, but on the contrary to have sent preachers among them, and to countenance and honor those who received the faith; of which in the practices of Constantine, Theodosius and other emperors, I might give many instances — De inhibitis paganorum sacrificiis, and of the shutting up, yes pulling down the temples of the heathen gods, of their removing from offices and places those who were not Christians. There is no question but Paul who dehorted so earnestly the believing Corinthians from going to the idols' feasts in the idols' temples, and from eating of the sacrifices in their temples (1 Corinthians 10; 2 Corinthians 6), would if the state of Corinth had been Christian have exhorted them to put down the idol temples, to forbid those idolatrous sacrifices, to suppress their priests; as also Christian husbands in case their wives would have gone after idolatrous priests, worshipped images brought to them, they would have desired their magistrates' help against such seducers and corrupters. And for conclusion of my answer to this fifth head, if I would give liberty to my pen to write fully against every particular passage in the 39th and 40th section of Hagiomastix, as I have done of some of them, I should make his folly and weakness manifest to all, but having hinted already his mistakes, and the utter dissimilitude between that command in Deuteronomy 13 and all his instances of an idolatrous state, and a magistrate bound to make a bloody desolation throughout all his dominions, &c., I say no more but here is a great cry and a little wool, and so come to the sixth head to give answer to something that seems more material.

Sixthly, to that Hagiomastix says page 46. There is this clear reason why that old Testament law for putting of false Prophets, Blasphemers and Seducers to Idolatry to death, should not now be in force upon any such terms as it was when and where it was given; because in all difficult cases that happened about matters of Religion, the Jews to whom this Law was given, had the opportunity of immediate consultation with the mouth of God himself, who could and did from time to time, infallibly declare what his own mind and pleasure was in them. So that except those that were to give sentence in cases of Religion had been desperately wicked, and set upon blood and despised that glorious ordinance of the Oracle of God among them, they could not do injustice, God being always at hand to declare to them, what kind of Blasphemer and what kind of Idolater it was that he by this Law intended should be put to death. Whereas now the best Oracles that Magistrates and Judges have to direct them in doubtful cases about matters of Religion are men of very fallible judgments, and every way obnoxious to error and mistake. Yes, confident I am, that the wisest and most learned of them are not able clearly or demonstratively to inform the Magistrate what Blasphemy or what Idolatry it was which was by God sentenced to death under the Law: Therefore the going about to prove that the Law for putting Blasphemers and Seducers to Idolatry to death, is now, or among us in force, because it was once given to the Jews, is as I should prove that a man may safely without danger walk among bogs, precipices and ditches, at midnight because he may well do it at noon day. I answer in the general, this Section is full of many unsound and dangerous passages, very prejudicial to the perspicuity, perfection and certainty of the Scriptures, very derogatory to the state of the Church under the new Testament, preferring the old before it for clearness and light as much as noon day before midnight (which is contrary to many Prophecies in Scripture of the times under the Gospel and to divers texts in the new Testament (2 Corinthians 3:8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6)) and tending to bring in with a high hand, Scepticism and Pyrronian uncertainty in all points of Religion into the Church of God, passages becoming a Jesuit and an Atheist, but altogether unbecoming a Protestant Minister and one who would be accounted to have laboured more abundantly in vindicating the Authority of the Scriptures and building men on a rock than all other men. Whoever does but compare the Jesuits and Papists writings, Stapleton, Bellar. Turnebull, Fisher, &c with learned Whittaker, Chamier, Rivet, Cameron, Doctor White, Baron, Willet and other Protestant Divines who have written of the authority, perspicuity, perfection, &c of the Scriptures against the Papists, and then look but upon this Section, he must needs say Hagiomastix writes as one brought up in the Schools of the Jesuits, and had sucked their breasts; as also he that reads but Minus Celsus Senenses, and the Socinians with the Netherland Arminians will confess these lines are the very breathings and actings of that Spirit which dwells in that generation of men. I could out of the writings of our Orthodox Divines written against Papists, Socinians, Arminians, upon those heads of the authority, perfection, perspicuity, certainty of the Scriptures and points of Christian faith at large confute him, but these belong not properly to this controversy about Toleration, and therefore I shall not insist on them. And further I desire the Reader to observe what follows, that this clear reason (as Hagiomastix terms it) may be resolved in that common evasion of Socinians and Arminians and all our Sectaries of Infallibility and Fallibility. Whoever well weighs that 36th Section of Hagiomastix with that part of the 107th Section page 130, fifth Answer, will find the sum and substance of all that discourse to be nothing else but the usual plea of the patrons of Toleration, in their late Libertine Pamphlets, as Bloudy Tenet, Storming of Antichrist, Compassionate Samaritane, Justification of Toleration, Quaeres upon the Ordinance for preventing of Heresies, &c. that there is no infallible Judge now, all men are fallible, subject to error or mistake, and therefore the proper place of speaking to this, will be in answering their grounds for Toleration and pretended liberty of conscience, where I hope by the grace of God to speak so fully to that particular of Infallibility and Fallibility, that I doubt not to promise the Reader such ample satisfaction to that grand Argument, as by the blessing of God all men who have not sold themselves to Libertinism will never again after that object it. Yet however for the present I shall hint these things by way of Reply.

1. This very point of Infallibility and Fallibility was the main rise and cause of setting the Pope in his chair, of making one that must be an infallible judge in the Church, and so is the groundwork of the Pope's Authority and Tyranny over the Church, which all who understand the controversies between the Papists and the Reformed Churches De Papa do well know. And on the other hand it is made the foundation of bringing in all Anarchy and Libertinism into the Church to overthrow all power of Magistrates, and of Synods and Councils in matters of Religion. So that as on the one hand it has exalted the Pope and given him an unjust Domination and usurpation, so on the other it casts down the use of all civil and ecclesiastical power for the good of the Church, so that the same thing that set up the Pope and made Antichrist, sets up a Toleration and universal liberty of conscience, which is a new and worse Pope. But as the want of infallibility was no good ground for setting up the Pope (as I suppose Hagiomastix and all the Sectaries will grant) so will it be found no good argument for a general Toleration of all Religions, a far greater evil than a Pope.

Secondly, I deny that which Hagiomastix takes for granted, the reason it self upon which he founds why the old Testament law for the putting of false Prophets, Blasphemers, and Seducers to Idolatry to death, should not now be in force; I desire him to prove the Vrim and Thummim of the Lords holy One, the glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God among the Jews by which they inquired and consulted immediately and received sentences and answers immediately and infallibly from the mouth of God, to be appointed of God, or ever made use of by the Priest upon the desire of the Magistrates and Elders in cases of resolving doubts whether this or that was blasphemy, Idolatry, false prophesying, and thereupon putting to death Blasphemers, false Prophets, Seducers to Idolatry. Hagiomastix gives no place of Scripture at all for proof, and upon serious perusal of all places of this kind both of commands and examples for punishing false Prophets, Idolaters, &c I do never find the Magistrates were commanded in those cases to enquire by Vrim or ever practised it. Let Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 17, Leviticus 20:2, 3, 4, 5, Deuteronomy 18:20, 21, 22, Leviticus 24:16 with the examples of Asa, Josiah and others be looked into, and we shall not find a word spoken of concerning the deciding who were or who were not or killing false Prophets, and Idolaters upon receiving an answer from God by Vrim and Thummim, but still the grounds expressed of proceeding against them are upon the Law of God, the nature of the sins, and other reasons of a common nature, and among the signs and marks by which false Prophets are to be known, this discovery by the glorious Oracle is none of them, but the thing following not, nor coming to pass which was spoken in the name of the Lord, their prophesying in Baal and causing the people to err, their strengthening the hands of evil doers that none returns from wickedness, their saying to them that despise God, You shall have peace, and to every one that walks after the imagination of his own heart, no evil shall come upon you, with divers such like as is evident by Deuteronomy 18:22, Jeremiah 23:13, 14, 17 and many places out of Moses and the Prophets. In Joshua 22, when the children of Israel heard of the two tribes and a half building an Altar, they did not before they gathered themselves to go up to war, enquire by Vrim and Thummim whether it was Idolatry or not; and when an answer was given to Phinehas and the ten Princes that they had not built an Altar to turn from following the Lord, but only for a witness between them and the rest of the Tribes, that it might not be said to their children in time to come, you have no part in the Lord, Phinehas the Priest, and the Princes of the congregation did not consult the Oracle spoken of to be resolved in this controversy. Thus Asa's and the People's entering into Covenant to put to death men or women for matters of religion, was not founded on an answer by Vrim and Thummim, but upon whoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, and for Asa's putting down Maachah his Mother from being Queen, because she made an Idol in a grove, there is not the least hint expressed of his consultation beforehand with that glorious Ordinance of the Oracle of God, whether she was such a kind of Idolater and her Idolatry of such a nature, as she was to be punished with that punishment of being removed from being Queen. Josiah in all the exercise of his coercive power upon the Violators of the first Table, 2 Kings chapter 23, in sacrificing some of them upon Altars and burning their bones, in putting down others, &c never enquired by Vrim whether those he killed were such kind of Idolaters as God by the Law intended should be put to death, and whether the others were not such. So the Priests, Prophets, and People in taking Jeremiah and saying he shall surely die, and that he is worthy to die, they pretend not to pass sentence upon enquiring by Vrim, but upon his prophesying in the name of the Lord, This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate without an inhabitant (Jeremiah 26:8, 9, 11), which they judged a prophesying falsely upon misunderstanding some Scriptures, as appears plainly by those words, why have you prophesied in the name of the Lord, saying, This House shall be like Shiloh, and this City shall be desolate without an inhabitant. For because of God's promise concerning the Temple, that he would abide ever there (Psalm 132:14), they presumed that it could never perish, and accounted all preaching that looked that way, blasphemous (Matthew 26:61; Acts 6:13), of which see more in the late Annotations of our English Divines upon the 9th verse. And Jeremiah in his judicial defence to the Court and Council (for so it appears it was a Court, by verse 10, 16, 17, speaking of certain Elders of the Land rising up and speaking to the Assembly of the People) pleading his immediate call from God to prophesy against the City as his answer against their accusation and in all the contestation and controversy that was between the Princes and certain of the Elders and the Priests, Prophets, and People concerning Jeremiah's being worthy to die, neither Jeremiah, nor the Priests, Elders, and People that were for his being put to death, or against it, once offer for deciding this difficult case and doubtful matter to propound the enquiring by Vrim and Thummim, but both sides plead the case upon Scripture grounds and examples, as he who reads the chapter may easily see. And certainly if enquiring by Vrim and Thummim had been appointed of God, and practised by the Church as the Oracle to which in all difficult cases about matters of religion the Jews were to repair, by which to judge whether such things were blasphemy, Idolatry, prophesying falsely, yes or no, and whether the persons were such kind of Blasphemers, false Prophets, Idolaters, as the Law intended should be put to death, it is strange that in all this sharp contest and great controversy about accusing Jeremiah for prophesying falsely and arraigning him upon his life, neither himself, nor his enemies, none of the Priests, Princes, Elders, People, nor Jeremiah should once move to enquire immediately from the mouth of God by Vrim and Thummim the infallible resolution of this question whether Jeremiah prophesied falsely in the name of the Lord, and deserved to die. And therefore from this and all the premises, yes upon serious searching into all places of Scripture that speak of Vrim and Thummim and of those who enquired of the Lord in that way, and comparing them together with the help of many judicious and learned Interpreters, besides consulting Divines who have written of Vrim and Thummim, I cannot find the least ground that the Jews either were commanded, or ever made use of enquiring by Vrim to be satisfied in judicial proceedings, whether this or that was Idolatry, or blasphemy, or this man an Idolater, or false Prophet, or no, but they proceeded in those things by the Law of God given to them, and in difficult cases too hard they were enjoined to go to the Priests by way of consultation to be informed of the true sense and meaning of God's law; and the Priests, as the great Lawyers among the People, practised in the meaning of God's Law according to which judgement was to be given, gave them resolutions out of the Law, and never in those cases upon consulting by Vrim, as many Scriptures show. The resolution of the Priests upon enquiring of them in hard matters was to be according to the sentence of the Law (Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 10, 11; Jeremiah 18:18), the Law shall not perish from the Priest, the meaning is (though falsely applied against Jeremiah) that the Priests keeping to the Law are the Oracles of truth, and therefore Jeremiah is a false Prophet, seeing they who have authority in the Church, and understanding of the Law contradict him. Malachi 2:7: For the Priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth; the Priest's lips keeping knowledge, and seeking the Law at his mouth, not new immediate Revelations from the mouth of God, are here set down to be looked after. In questions about moral things, sins and duties, the Priests are to give answer from the Law. As for that judgement of Urim spoken of in Numbers 27:21, which was by way of Oracle, the high Priest having Vrim and Thummim about him giving answers in God's name, which were of infallible truth, and made a supreme determination, that was for the resolution of doubtful and difficult businesses and enterprises in matters of events and successes of things, for direction and counsel from God what course to take in distresses and such and such cases as about going to war, &c, for discovery and revelation of hidden and secret causes of judgements; but never was upon occasion of questions of things forbidden in the moral Law, and for determination of who or what was an Idolater or Idolatry, a false Prophet, or prophesying falsely, a Blasphemer, or blasphemy; and if we consult the Scriptures where the judgement of Vrim is spoken of, we shall find as much, which I desire the Reader well to observe. All the places I have taken notice of that speak of enquiring of God by Vrim are these following: Exodus 28:15, 30; Numbers 27:21; Joshua 9:14; Judges 1:1 and 20:18, and 20; 1 Samuel 23:9, 10, 11, 12; 28:6; 30:7, 8; 2 Samuel 21:1, all which speak only of enquiring of God in the cases aforementioned, and not in the least of controversies arising upon moral transgressions against the first Table, and of what punishments shall be inflicted upon men for them. To which, considering the judgement of divers learned men in their Commentaries upon most of these places of Scripture concerning the enquiring by Vrim, and others in their writings going this way, of enquiring in cases of war, distresses and for public persons enquiring not hereby for a common man, but either for the King, or for him on whom the affairs of the Congregation lay, but not giving any one instance in matters of Idolatry, blasphemy, prophesying falsely, or any other corruption in Religion, I confess I am much confirmed that the judgement of Vrim was not appointed for that use to resolve what violations of Religion were, and what were not punishable by death. Now that the judgement of Vrim was of any such use to enquire of God by the Priest in points of Idolatry, blasphemy, &c I see not the least color for it, unless in these places of Scripture Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 12 (which place is urged by Hagiomastix p. 130, the sentence of the Priest against which he that should do presumptuously in not hearkening to it was to be put to death, was only such a sentence, which the Priest did upon inquiry by Vrim and Thummim receive immediately from the mouth of God himself), Deuteronomy 21:5, Deuteronomy 19:16, 17, 18, and in those examples of him that blasphemed the name of the Lord, being put in ward that the mind of the Lord might be showed him (Leviticus 24:11, 12) and of him that gathered sticks, put in ward till the Lord should declare what shall be done to him. But for answer, in none of these places or examples is there any thing spoken of consulting by Vrim. For the first place, only urged by Master Goodwin, to say nothing that these verses are quite another thing from that command in the beginning of the chapter about putting to death for serving other gods, and worshipping the Sun and Moon, there being in that case not a word tending that way (which yet is the point in question) of going to the Priest and enquiring of him, and upon this judgement putting to death, besides this command being of things of another nature as verse 8 shows, here is no direction in this place to enquire by Vrim, but the matters here spoken of being difficult, counsel is given to go to the Priests skilled in the meaning of the Law, and in answering of doubts arising, to be informed by them of the meaning of the Law, many passages in those verses show as much (and whereas in the case of enquiring by Vrim in all places) expressions are used of enquiring of the Lord, the Lord's answering and such like, here still all is put upon the Priest or Judge, and upon the sentence and judgement that they shall show, and they shall tell. And that this place cannot be meant of the judgement of Vrim is evident thus, because that Vrim and Thummim belonged only to the Priesthood (Deuteronomy 33:8) and particularly to the high Priest (Numbers 27:21; Exodus 28:30). Now he who would have God to be inquired of concerning some great business, did come to the Priest and the Priest putting on the Ephod to which the breast Plate of Vrim and Thummim was fastened (verse 28) stood before the Ark of God, and so God gave answers which were of infallible truth (of which, with a more particular relation of the manner of inquiry, and the way of answer by Vrim and Thummim, the Reader may see more in Ainsworth's Annotations on Exodus 28:30 and Numbers 27:21, Diodati's Annotations on Exodus 28:15, 30, Numbers 27:21, 1 Samuel 23:6, 28:6, the Annotations of our English Divines on Exodus 28:15, 30, 1 Samuel 23:6, Peter Martyr's common places and Weems' Christian Synagogue), but never was the judgement of Vrim by a Judge and Magistrate who was a person distinct from the Priest. Now it is evident (Deuteronomy 17:9, 12) that the Priest and the Judge are distinct and divers persons there, and the man that will not hearken to the Judge, even that man shall die, as well as he that will not hearken to the Priest, which fully shows that what Hagiomastix writes (pages 46, 47 and 130) of death inflicted only upon such who would not hearken to the Priest enquiring by Vrim, to be an untruth. Secondly, the sense and meaning of this place from verse 3 to the 13 is that inferior Courts and Assemblies in cases too hard and difficult for them, are commanded to go higher to some superior Court and Assembly, as those words clearly show, you shall arise, and get you up into the place which the Lord your God shall choose. This place afterwards was Jerusalem as it is said (Psalm 122:5), there were set thrones of judgement, and in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests, and the chief of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies (2 Chronicles 19:8, 9, 10). Ainsworth upon the place writes, that by the Judge that shall be in those days, is understood the high Council and Senate of Judges which were of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, as they who are called Priests verse 9 are called verse 12 Priest, so many Judges are called Judge; only as among the Priests one was chief, so among the Judges one was Prince (2 Chronicles 19:11). The Hebrew records say, when any doubt arose in any case to any one of Israel, he asked of the judgement Hall that was in his City; if they knew they told it him: if not, then he that enquired, together with the Synedrion or with the messengers thereof went up to Jerusalem, and inquired of the Synedrion that was in the Mountain of the Temple; if they knew they told it them; if not, then they all came to the Synedrion that was at the door of the Court yard of the Temple: if they knew they told it them; and if not, they all came to the chamber of hewn stone to the great Synedrion and enquired. And Interpreters generally understand these verses of Judicatures and Courts in Israel, and of the lower Courts going to the highest, the great and high Synedrion. Now I find no command nor example recorded in Scripture of any of the Jewish Courts ecclesiastical or civil enquiring by Vrim of moral transgressions of what sort they were, and what punishments the committers of such sins should have, but still they determined according to the Law and judgements (Ezekiel 44:24). I never read of the high Synedrion either in Scripture or any other writers of it, that they were wont to give their answer by Vrim and Thummim. If we observe those instances in Scripture of enquiring by Vrim, we shall see they are inquiries made of particular persons, by the Priest, not by a Court, and of the high Priest not as sitting in Court, nor as always at Jerusalem, nor of criminal cases, but of going in and out to war and such like, and whoever does but consult with the Annotations of Ainsworth, Diodati, and Luther's English Divines, the Commentaries of Lyra, Piscator, and others on this place, will confess it is quite another thing that is here spoken of than the judgement of Vrim. 3. Amesius in his Cases of Conscience in his answer to that question, whether that Law, Deuteronomy 17:12, of putting him to death who would not hearken to the Judge and the Priest was just, resolves it was, and says the equity of that Law will easily appear; and among other reasons gives this because that place speaks of disobedience in those things which out of the Law of God are clearly and manifestly determined (verse 11), so that we see Ames' judgement in the resolution of that case, is, that the answer of the Judge, or Priest was made out of the Law of God, and not by Vrim, and it seems that learned men never dreamt of any such thing in this Deuteronomy 17, for among all his reasons he mentions no such thing. And certainly if that were the meaning of the place which Hagiomastix puts upon it, that had been such a strong reason for the equity of putting those to death who would not hearken to the Priest, giving them counsel immediately and infallibly from God, as that Doctor Ames could not have omitted it. For if Mr. Goodwin who is so kind and charitable to all Atheists, Antiscripturists, Blasphemers, Idolaters, &c in his Queries upon the printed Paper entitled an Ordinance against Heresies, and his Hagiomastix, as that he would have no coercive power made use of against them, does yet grant there was an equity in that Law, that sentence of death should pass on such that would not hearken to the Priest speaking immediately and infallibly from God, and says that for his part if the Inquisitors now can give any satisfying account of any sentence awarded against Blasphemers, Heretics that comes by infallible Revelation from God, he shall think it equal and meet that he that shall do presumptuously and not hearken to it should be put to death, then Doctor Ames who was fully for the Magistrate's coercive power in matters of Religion, and for putting blasphemous Heretics to death, could not have forgotten this reason. Fourthly, on Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 10, 11, 12 is founded by the judgement of many great Divines, that which is called the Council, the great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, the Seventy. Spanhemius in his third part Dubiorum Evangelicorum pages 800, 801, shows, that by the command of the Law this very place (Deuteronomy 17:8, 9) to this supreme Tribunal of the Synedrion were referred all things whatever that could not be determined of the inferior Courts, or were doubtful, and had tried the several judgements of the inferior judges. Gersom Bucerus in his Dissertat. de Gubernat. Ecclesiae page 62, quotes this (Deuteronomy 17:8, 9) for the general Convention at Jerusalem to which the hardest things were brought, which could not be determined in the lower judicatories. Walaeus in his Tractate de Discrimine muneris politici & Ecclesiastici brings this place to prove the Synedrion or College at Jerusalem, that if among the Judges or Priests in the lesser Cities and Towns there fell out some things of greater moment; or if any one would not rest in their sentence, the cause was devolved to higher Judges, who after David's time had their Synedrion at Jerusalem as the chief Metropolis of Judah. Mr. Gillespie in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming Book 1, chapter 3, writes thus. It is agreed upon both by Jewish and Christian Expositors, that this place holds forth a supreme civil Court of Judges, and the authority of the civil Sanhedrim is mainly grounded on this very text. And as the high civil Synedria is founded here, so many Divines show a supreme ecclesiastical Sanhedrim, distinct from the civil, is held forth in this very place, to which the People of God were bound as to the supreme ecclesiastical Court to bring all the difficult ecclesiastical causes, which could not be determined in the lower Assemblies, in which Court they were determined without any other appeal, of which the Reader may find more in Walaeus, Gerson Bucerus, Apollonii, jus Magistratus circa sacra, first part, page 374 and second part second chapter, page 48, and above all others in Mr. Gillespie his Aaron's Rod Blossoming Book 1, chapter 3, who at large handles this point, that the Jews had an ecclesiastical Sanhedrin distinct from the civil, and among other grounds from this of Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 10, 11, 12. But none of these learned men nor any (but Papists) that ever I met with, give the least hint of any judgement by Vrim to be meant in this place, neither do I find in all the authors that I have read concerning the way of passing sentence in the highest Synedrion at Jerusalem, and determining the difficulties about the Law brought to them, whether the ecclesiastical of which the high Priest was president, or the civil, that ever for the satisfaction of the parties, and giving the true sense of the Law thus controverted, and so putting an end to all controversies, they were wont in that Court to enquire by Vrim. No, there are several things written in the Scriptures, and by learned men who write of the customs of the Jews and proceedings in that Court, which show the contrary, as those words imply as much (Deuteronomy 17), the Priest and the Judge that shall be in those days: from where the Hebrews gather, that if the high Synedrion had judged and determined of a matter, as seemed right in their eyes, and after them another Synedrion rose up, which upon reasons seeming good to them, disannulled the former sentence, then it was disannulled, and judgement passed according as it seemed good to these latter; you are not bound to walk save after the Synedrion that are in your generation. Now if it were a sentence by Vrim immediate and infallible from God, no following Synedrion might have disannulled it. So those words according to the sentence which they shall teach you, shows the sentence was to be according to the Law, the word written, and not by a voice from heaven; as also that instance of Jeremiah being condemned to die by the supreme Court at Jerusalem, the Court of the Priests doing their part judging him a false Prophet and worthy to die, the Court of the Princes acquitting him as a true Prophet, of which see more in Aaron's Rod Blossoming, pages 18, 19, both of them going upon Scripture grounds, as I have shown, page 99, but in this great controversy, never appealing to the judgement of Vrim. And so in their way of trying false Prophets, they went not by the Priests putting on the Ephod to enquire of the Lord, but therein, all (say the Jews) was this: if he had threatened a judgement to come, although it came not, yet he was not a false Prophet for that; God (say they) is gracious, as he was to the Ninevites, and to Hezekiah. But if he promised a good thing, and it came not to pass, then he was a liar. For every good thing which God promises, he performs, so Jeremiah tried Ananias to be a false Prophet, because he promised a good thing to Zedekiah, and it came not to pass.

Fifthly, the current of the Scripture both in the Law and Prophets still speaks of going to the Law and according to that, making that the last resolution of practice and controversies in all moral things, both of duties and sins, and that for private and public persons (Isaiah 8:20). To the Law, and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Deuteronomy 30:10–14). The Jews must hearken to the commandment written in the Book of the Law, it is not hidden neither is it far off, it is not dark that it cannot be attained to, it is not in heaven, that it should be said, who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh, &c. Deuteronomy 17:18: the Law of God is to be for the direction of the King and of the Priests, and Levites. The Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses (2 Chronicles 34:15, 19, 30, 31, compared with 2 Kings 22:8, 11; 23:2, 3) was that by which Josiah made his reformation both in the removing of persons and things, not once inquiring by Urim whether he should slay idolatrous Priests, put down others, keep such a solemn passover, &c. And it is observable that the King commanded Hilkiah the high Priest and Shaphan the Scribe, &c. to go and inquire of the Lord for him and for the people concerning the words of this Book, what judgment hung over their heads and when it was like to fall, and whether there were any means, or whether it was not too late to appease his wrath, and accordingly they went to Huldah the Prophetess. Yet he commanded not Hilkiah to inquire by Urim, neither did Hilkiah the high Priest put on the Ephod, but went to the Prophetess; which is to me a great argument, that the judgment of Urim was only in some particular set cases, as going in and out to war, and such like, but not for inquiry in cases of the Law, what reformation to be made, or what transgressions of the Law to be punished by death. As for those other two places (Deuteronomy 19:17, 18, 21, and 5), I shall not spend many lines in clearing them, as being not brought to prove the glorious ordinance of the Oracle, lest I should be charged by Hagiomastix to show my valor in fighting with men of clouts of my own setting up. For the first, it is understood of a single witness accusing one for seducing to apostasy and revolt, so Junius reads it ad testificandum in [illegible] Apostasiam, and Ainsworth to testify revolt against him, not civil wrong, as the English translation seems to carry it. And the meaning is this: although in all other causes two witnesses at least are required by the Law, yet in the business of religion one witness is sufficient to make a question of the party; by which God shows he would have the preservation of doctrine commended to the Magistrate, for this is an appendix of that Law which is spoken of (Deuteronomy 17:2). So Junius, Diodate also on the place writes thus: in case of a secret seducement from God's true service; he that had been solicited, though he were alone, ought to detect the Seducer (Deuteronomy 13:6, 8). And the Judges ought to proceed therein, as upon an advice and denunciation; not as upon a formal accusation which had required two witnesses. And if the calumny was made to appear to them they were to observe this Law, if it were truth, that of Deuteronomy 13:9. So then this place holds forth no more than what Deuteronomy 17:8, 9 does, which has nothing to do with the judgment of Urim, as I have already shown at large. And yet if this place had anything in it more for inquiring by Urim than the former, it could do Hagiomastix no good, nor is it to the point at all brought by him, because this inquiring by Urim is not to know from the Lord what kind of idolatry and idolater this is, whether that for which death is to be inflicted, but whether this be a false or a true witness, as the words clearly show. The question is not about matter of Law, whether such a thing be idolatry, or not, what kind of idolatry, but of matter of fact, whether the party did commit such a thing or no, of which he is accused. And the Judges shall make diligent inquisition: and behold if the witness be a false witness and testifies falsely against his brother: then shall you do to him, as he had thought to have done to his brother: so shall you put the evil away from among you. As for that place (Deuteronomy 21:5), the coherence and scope of the place shows it cannot be meant of the judgment by Urim, but those verses from the second to the tenth contain a direction from God, of what course is to be taken for the expiation of an unknown murder. And among other things that are to be done for the putting away the guilt of innocent blood from the land, as the Elders and Judges must do according to verses 2, 3, 4, so the fifth verse shows what the Priests are to do for the freeing the people of Israel from innocent blood being laid to their charge, namely in the audience of the people to pray for atonement and expiation, that prayer in verse 8. The Elders were to wash their hands and say: Our hands have not shed this blood, and the Priests said, Be merciful O Lord, and lay not innocent blood to your people Israel's charge. And if anything else were to be decided about that business, by the words of the Priests, as expounders of God's Law, it should be determined; not that they had any absolute or arbitrary power of themselves, but by their word, meaning the word of God which they should show, as Deuteronomy 17:11. The subject matter of this Scripture is not to inquire of the Priests whether this were a casual or a willful murder, and for them to tell who were the murderers that had slain this man (the resolution of which questions by the Priests might indeed imply some color for the Priests by inquiring by Urim); these things are not once named, but all the matter is, what is to be done to expiate the blood of a man slain in the land, it being not known who has slain him; that is supposed, and is the case upon which all the direction both for Elders, Priests and people is built. Lastly, as to those examples in Leviticus 24:11, 12, 13 and that of Numbers 15:33, 34, 35, of the Blasphemer and Sabbath-breaker put into ward that Moses might receive an answer immediately from God what to do with them, and accordingly the Lord spoke to Moses that they should be stoned, I answer: First, the Law concerning blasphemy was not yet given publicly to the Jews, the mind of God declared what should be done to them that blasphemed the name of the Lord, and therefore no wonder the Blasphemer was put in ward, that the Lord might be consulted with, what kind of punishment should be inflicted upon him. By the light of nature and the Law of the Decalogue, the people of the Jews knew he was to be punished for it, though the particular kind and form was not yet made known by God; and therefore bring him to the supreme Magistrate Moses, and make him fast, till the mind of God for the particular kind of punishment should be made known. Upon which occasion God does not only declare what shall be done to that particular man, but gives them a Law concerning all blasphemers in verse 16, taking an occasion from this as he did from other transgressions committed, and his people's ill manners, to publish judicial laws, the appendixes of the moral Law in matters of justice and judgment. But though God was immediately consulted with before there was a law (for that is the case here) of which there was all the reason in the world, how does it follow that after an express Law is given, and ordinary means and ways appointed by God, for the full knowing and executing of that Law, now persons must immediately upon all occasions have immediate answers from God whether and how they may punish upon that Law? And indeed to what end were express laws written and made known, and knowing able men in those laws deputed by God to judge according to them, if immediate and infallible answers were to be sought from God upon all occasions, and persons not to be judged by those laws? And for the Sabbath Breaker in Numbers 15, however the Law had said the breaker of the Sabbath should die (Exodus 31:14), yet it was not declared by what kind of death he should die, as Ainsworth, Diodate, and our English Divines in their Annotations upon the place observe, saying, though there were a Law to put to death a Sabbath breaker, yet it was not declared what manner of death he should die. And of that the question being proposed, the answer is made by declaring the kind of death he must suffer which is set down in the next verse. Solo. Jarchi says it was not declared what manner of death the Sabbath Breaker should die; but they knew he that profaned the Sabbath was to die. Now the Israelites were to receive directions from God, as well for the manner and kind of their laws and punishments as for the punishments themselves, and some of them being not declared, no wonder that Moses stayed till he inquired of God. But what is all this to make good Hagiomastix's assertion that because Moses who was to receive laws from God both for matter and form for that people, did wait upon God by special immediate inquiring in cases of some transgressions that accordingly all things might be done, therefore after God had given all laws both for matter and form in cases of idolatry, blasphemy, prophesying falsely, as in Deuteronomy 13; Deuteronomy 17:2; Leviticus 24:16, the Judges and Magistrates following must do so too.

Secondly, in both these instances alleadged, the men were put into ward, not to enquire of God, concerning their sins committed whether they were Blasphemie, and Sabbath-breaking, there was no question in that kind, both the people and Moses were satisfied in that, as appeares by the stories and by putting them in ward, but only in what manner they should be proceeded against, God not having before declared his mind particularly in those cases, so that these instances helpe Hagiomastix nothing at all, as not speaking to the matter in hand: For whereas Hagiomastix makes this ground of the Iews putting to death Blasphemers, Idolaters, their enquiring and Gods declaring by Vrim what kind of Blasphemer, and so what kind of Idolater particularly it was, that be by his Law intended should be put to death, Moses and the people neither inquired any such thing, what kind of Blasphemie it was, nor did God speake to Moses in that kind; but, bring forth him that has cursed in the campe, and let all that heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the Congregation stone him.

Thirdly, the declaration of the mind of the Lord in these two examples, was no Answer by Vrim; for besides that there is no mention in the text of the high Priest being spoken to put on the Ephod to enquire by Vrim, neither doe any Interpreters, understand it so, both the texts are against it in those words, And the Lord spake to Moses, saying, bring forth him that has cursed; And the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely bee put to death, the declaration of Gods mind being to Moses immediately; whereas in the judgement of Vrim, it was to the Priest immediately, so that these Answers of God were the Answers of a Law-giver, giving Lawes and Penalties by the hand of Moses, but not any new Interpretations and declarations of the meaning of the Law upon controversies and doubts arising. Besides Gods way of answering Moses, and answering by Vrim were different things, as the Rabbins and other learned men who write of those things show, Gods answering Moses and giving him Lawes and Commandements being by voice, but answering by Vrim being in an other way by beholding the Breast-Plate, and seeing therein by the Vision or Inspiration, as these Scriptures (Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; Exodus 28:30) with Ainsworths Annotations expresse. As for the immediatenesse of these Answers from God to Moses, though not by the judgement of Vrim, there were speciall reasons thereof, God in an immediate way, communicating to Moses all his Laws morall and judiciall (Exodus 25:22), and Moses being such a Prophet whom the Lord knew face to face, and such an extraordinary man in severall respects as there was none like to him (Numbers 12:6, 7, 8; Exodus 33:11; Deuteronomy 34:10, 11). But for the Magistrates and Iudges that came after Moses, to whom the morall Law and the Appendix of it the judiciall Law was given and delivered, they were to proceed according to the written Law, and there were in hard matters higher Courts, consisting of a greater number & more able to go to to determine what the lower could not; & then the highest of all the Synedrion at Jerusalem who were in all their judgements aboue morall transgressions, to goe according to the Law of Moses, as many Scriptures testifie (Deuteronomy 17:11) &c. But no such Grounds after the whole Law, morall, ceremoniall and judiciall, was published, of immediatenesse of Answers from God to any of their Courts, no not to the high Synedrion as to Moses who was to receive all for the first constituting of their policie, according to which all Courts and Iudicatures higher and lower were bound to goe.

Fourthly, in these great and weighty cases of the Blasphemer and Sabbath-Breaker, Moses did not presently pass sentence, but made delays, put them in prison, till he knew the mind of the Lord, and as for other reasons before alleged, so for these following: 1 to teach judges in matters of great weight of life and death not to be too sudden and hasty, 2 in causes that are very hard to ask counsel and to use all means to be well satisfied before they do any thing. In Ainsworth's Annotations upon Numbers 15:34, the reader may find the Chaldee paraphrasing thus: "This judgment was one of the four judgments that came before Moses the Prophet, which he judged according to the word of God: Some of them were judgments of lesser moment and some of them judgments of life and death. In the judgments of lesser moment (of pecuniary matters) Moses was ready; but in judgments of life and death he made delays. And both in the one and in the other, Moses said, I have not heard, [namely what God would have done] for to teach the heads (or chief) of the Syndrions (or Assizes) that should rise up after him, that they should be ready to dispatch inferior causes (or money matters) but not hasty in matters of life and death. And that they should not be ashamed to inquire, in causes that are too hard for them; seeing Moses who was the Master of Israel, had need to say I have not heard, therefore he imprisoned him, because as yet it was not declared what sentence should pass upon him." Babington in his comfort: Notes on Leviticus 24 writes, Moses although such a man, yet will do nothing hastily in judgment, and especially touching life, but he will be advised by God, who then spoke from between the Cherubims (Exodus 25 and Numbers 7). But it follows not because judges and courts of justice were to learn to be cautious and careful in matters of religion for what they punish especially with death, that therefore they may punish no violations in religion, though expressly and directly against the word of God, unless God do immediately from heaven declare them blasphemies, &c, and such kind of blasphemies, which the law intends death to. And for a conclusion of my answer to this evasion of Master Goodwin of the judgment by Urim in the cases of blasphemy, idolatry, prophesying falsely, the clear reason why then they were punished with death but may not be so now that being ceased under the New Testament: I shall say no more but this, I challenge him among all the examples recorded in Scripture of punishing men with death, imprisonment or banishment, &c for blasphemy, idolatry, prophesying falsely, profaning of the Sabbath, marrying idolatrous wives and other transgressions of God's worship, to produce any one instance that by the judges, or by the high Sanhedrin God was inquired by Urim, whether such and such facts were blasphemy, idolatry, &c, and of that kind and nature intended by the law as punishable with death, or among all classical authors, Rabbins and others who have written of the customs of the Jews, of Urim and Thummim, of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, to cite me out of them any passages that affirm the judges, or the high council of seventy at Jerusalem, or the high priest for them were wont in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, &c. to inquire by Urim, and to pass sentence upon persons according to that answer, and not according to the law; which if he cannot do as I am confident upon serious search, he cannot, then the reader may easily see what poor shifts this great champion of the Sectaries is put to, to uphold his damned cursed cause of toleration of all religions, and to elude the commands of God fore-named for punishing blasphemers, apostates, idolaters and false prophets.

Now among all who have written of the high priest, and of Deuteronomy 17:11, 12, I find only some Papists going Hagiomastix's way, as Tostatus, Lorinus, who from all places of Scripture of the high priest drawing matter to the Pope for establishing his authority, do from this place also that they may establish his authority above the Scriptures, and appeals to him in cases of controversy as the sole infallible judge, speak of the high priest in matters of moral transgressions giving answers by Urim, and not by the sentence of the law. So Lorinus upon the 11th verse, according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach you, says, that by the name of the law in this place is neither necessarily understood the Mosaic law, nor the holy Scripture, but the sentence itself of the judge as the pronoun [illegible] insinuates: the heretics would have it to be a conditional command of hearkening to the priests according to the law, that they might take away the authority of traditions, and appeal to the Scripture alone. Luther long since writing upon this place observed as much of the Papists, and the Papists with a great deal of endeavour have drawn this place to their idol, that they might set up the Papacy: so that by this it seems the Papists and Sectaries are agreed upon the same mediums to set up the Pope, and his infallibility, and a toleration and dispensation to believe and profess whatever men please.

Thirdly, this clear reason of Master Goodwin in his 36th Section of Hagiomastix against the old Testament Law being now in force for putting of false Prophets, Blasphemers and Seducers to Idolatry to death, upon which he vapors and triumphs so exceedingly over the Anti Quaerists, certain striplings of the Assembly (as he by way of scorn terms them) is so far from fighting against the Magistrates punishing (even by virtue of that old law) for matters of Religion, where he is sure and certain the things he punishes for, are Apostasies, Idolatries, Heresies, Blasphemies and that he is not mistaken, as that in all such cases of certainty and infallibility, it establishes the Magistrates coercive power in matters of the first Table, and is indeed a strong reason for it. For if that were the formal cause and reason why Magistrates might then punish Idolatry, false Prophesying, &c. because they might infallibly know, such a thing was Idolatry, &c. and so be out of danger of fighting against God, then what things may be as certainly known under the Gospel to be Idolatry, false Prophesying, Apostasy, &c, the Magistrate may as well restrain. I shall not need to prove the consequence, because, besides its own evidence that it necessarily follows, Master Goodwin in express terms grant and confesses page 130. that for his part he shall think it equal and meet, he that shall do presumptuously, and not hearken to what is by infallible Revelation from God should be put to death, and the only ground brought by him in this 36th Section of denying this power to Magistrates now, is their uncertainty in matters of Religion, the best Oracles that Magistrates and Judges have to direct them in doubtful cases about matters of Religion being men of very fallible judgments, and every way obnoxious to error and mistake, and therefore to go about to prove that the old Law is now in force, because it was once given to the Jews, is as if one should prove that a man may safely and without danger walk among bogs and precipices at midnight, because he may well do it at noon day. So that by Hagiomastix's own confession, what is certainly and infallibly known to be Error, Idolatry, Blasphemy, Heresy, may and ought to be punished by the Magistrate under the new Testament, which is indeed a yielding the question that Magistrates may punish under the Gospel in matters of Religion, for that is not the question what is truth and what is Error, what is Heresy, and what is Idolatry, and whether anything can be known certainly under the Gospel to be truth or no? And how the Magistrates come to know it, and who shall tell them which is truth, that is quite another question, but the question in hand about Toleration and the Magistrates coercive power in points of Religion, is, supposing and granting there are many things certain in Religion, which he certainly knows and believes, whether then the Magistrate may punish? Which upon this very question, whether Princes have full power to command for truth, was well observed by Bishop Bilson long since in his answer to a Jesuit, making this objection, Yea, but who shall tell Magistrates which is truth? That is not this question: when we reason whether Princes may command for truth, and punish error, you must not cavil about the means to know truth from error, but suppose that truth were confessed and agreed on, and in that case what may Princes do for truth. If I should ask you whether Princes may revenge murders and punish thefts, were this an answer to say, but how shall they know what murder is, and who be thieves? No more when we demand what duty Princes owe to God and his truth, should you stand quarreling what truth is or how truth may be known? The Princes' duty to God is one question which we now handle; the way to discern truth from error is another, which anon shall ensue when once this is ended; but first let us have your direct answer whether Princes may command for truth or no? And then the Jesuit answering, for truth they may: but if they take quid pro quo they both hazard themselves and their whole realms, Bilson replies, you slide to the second question again before the first be finished, stay for that till this be tried. Now then to bring this point to a head and issue, Hagiomastix's clear reason grants that in cases about matters of Religion sure and certain, the Magistrate may punish in the times of the Gospel, which directly overthrows that universal Toleration so much pleaded for in divers of his Books. So that Master Goodwin by his own clear reason is forced upon this dilemma, either to hold no points in matters of Religion and doctrine of faith can be certainly and infallibly known under the Gospel, or if they can, then the violations of such may by the Magistrate be lawfully censured. And here in this matter I do appeal from Master Goodwin's wanton wit, great applause among his seduced members, and from all others his engagements to the Sectarian party, to his conscience (if so be in this point of pretended liberty of conscience, he has any conscience at all left) to resolve me this question, whether Christian Magistrates under the Gospel may not by the Scriptures and other means that God has given and appointed in his Church infallibly and certainly know that there is a God, that this God is but one, that the Scriptures are the word and mind of this God, that this God is holy, just, good, wise, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, merciful, perfect, that this one God though but one in essence, is three in persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, that the Son was manifested in the flesh became man, that he died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, shall come to judge the world, that there is a Hell and eternal death for all wicked impenitent persons, and a Heaven, and eternal life for the Elect and true believers, that for a Christian to worship and serve the Sun, Moon, and stars, or four-footed beasts and creeping things is Apostasy and Idolatry, that to revile, scoff at and speak reproachfully of God is to blaspheme God, that for a man to say God revealed to him the day of judgment should be on such a day, or such and such things should come to pass at such a time, when the contrary is manifested to all, be not to prophesy falsely, and so I might instance in many more. To which question, if Master Goodwin answers affirmatively that Magistrates may in these and some other points of Religion infallibly and certainly know the truth, then the universal Toleration pleaded for by him in M. S. Some modest and humble Quaeries concerning a printed Paper entituled an ordinance for the preventing of the growing and spreading of Heresies, &c. Hagiomastix, Appendix [illegible] Hagiomastix and other his pamphlets falls to the ground, and the Ordinance presented to the Honorable House of Commons for preventing Heresies and Blasphemies, may take place, and the inflicters of heavy censures upon such who broach doctrines contrary to these, namely, that there is a God, that he is perfectly holy, eternal, that he is one in three persons, &c. may infallibly know such opinions are not the sacred truths of God and the clear reason of Hagiomastix in this 36th Section against the old Testament Law for putting false Prophets, &c. to death now, is of no force at all. For in these principles of religion named, and divers others, as the resurrection of the dead, that Christ is God, that Christ according to his human nature was born without sin, &c. Christian Magistrates walk no more at midnight, but at noon day, then the Jewish Magistrates in cases of Blasphemy, Apostasy, Idolatry, prophesying falsely, &c. are as certain and sure as they who received answers under the old Law in matters of Religion of Idolatry, Blasphemy (supposing there had been any such) from the Priests by the judgment of Urim. But now if Master Goodwin dare answer negatively, that there is no infallible certain knowledge in any point of Religion under the new Testament, no man infallibly and certainly knows that there is a God, or that this God is holy, perfect, eternal, that there is a Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose again from the dead, that there is a resurrection of men's bodies, and a day of judgment, &c., it is all opinion and probability, the contrary may be the sacred truths of God, and therefore there may be no punishing by death or other bodily punishment for holding any doctrines or opinions in Religion, suppose contrary to admonition, which for ought the said inflicters know, except they make themselves infallible, may be the sacred truths of God, I say, and am ready to prove it against him, that he overthrows the Scriptures, all Christian Religion, all faith, yes all the comfort and salvation of Christians, he is a Sceptic, an Antiscripturist, a neutral in religion and an Atheist. He justifies the worst of the Papists in all they have written against the Scriptures, calling it a nose of wax, a dumb judge, inky Divinity, &c. for to hold nothing can be known certainly and infallibly by the Scriptures, is to make them a nose of wax, an imperfect weak rule, a doubtful Oracle, like that of Apollo's. For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise, except the Spirit of God have by the holy penmen uttered words that may be understood, how shall it be known what is written? For this would make the Scriptures be as a speaking into the air. But as concerning that point of the Church under the new Testament knowing infallibly and certainly the Christian Religion, and matters necessary to salvation both in faith and worship, as the Church under the old by Urim, I shall speak fully to it in the seventh answer to this Reason. Only for a conclusion of this third Answer, I add, I much wonder seeing under the new Testament according to Hagiomastix's doctrine, no Magistrates nor Synods can be certain in doubtful cases about matters of Religion, but the best Oracles Magistrates have to consult with, are every way obnoxious to error and mistake, and that the wisest and most learned of them are not able clearly or demonstratively to inform the Magistrate what blasphemy, or what idolatry it was which was by God sentenced to death under the Law (though by the way I must check Master Goodwin's confidence, for I who am the least of all the Ministers of Christ and not to be named with the wisest and most learned of them, am able clearly and demonstratively out of (Deuteronomy 17:2-5) to inform the Magistrate and Master Goodwin too, if he will be informed, what Idolatry it was which was by God sentenced to death under the Law, namely for a Jew to go serve and worship the Sun or Moon) how Master Goodwin and divers members of his Church come to be in many controverted points, doubtful cases about matters of Religion, so confident and certain as they make themselves, certain that Presbyterian government is not Jure Divino, certain that Christian Magistrates may not exercise their coercive power in any matters of Religion, no, not to the restraining of Blasphemy, Idolatry, Heresy, Schism, most certain that [illegible] faith in a proper sense is imputed to justification, and not Christ's righteousness, certain that the way of the Congregation is the truth, and so I might instance in divers other points. To be confident, as confidence itself can make a man, to be as sure as twice two makes four, to have abundant satisfaction from God for what a man holds in pregnant, strong, clear and rational demonstrations on the one hand, and distinct clear and home answers to all objections to the contrary on the other hand, that if light be light, reason reason, sense sense, Scriptures Scriptures, then such a doctrine is truth, that though the whole world should rise up as one man to oppose, yet that should not shake nor unsettle a man in it, is to attain to a high measure of certainty and infallibility. Now whoever has but read with due consideration Mr. Goodwin's writings cannot but take notice in them of many high strains and professed solemn declarations of his absolute certainty, and full demonstrative knowledge of many points of Religion, yes of some more doubtful controverted, as of Church-government and the way of the Congregation, and yet I suppose he has no better Oracles to consult with, than Christian Magistrates have. There is no Priest with Urim for him to inquire by, unless the Sectaries have set him up as their Oracle to consult with instead of the Scriptures; and I think he will not yet plead revelations and visions for fear of his fate, who said it was revealed to him the day of judgment should be on such a day in April last, now long since past.

Fourthly, upon the same clear reason and ground why the old Testament law for punishing false prophets &c. should not now be in force, because the Jews in all difficult cases about religion might have immediate and infallible answers from God, it follows necessarily that all scriptures brought out of the new Testament for magistrates punishing in cases of heresy, idolatry, blasphemy, or for church officers censuring by deposition, excommunication in points of error, should not bind now, and so whatever is brought out of the Scriptures for punishing errors and heresies, whether by civil punishments or ecclesiastical censures shall be all evaded. For the same thing may be said, and is said against the places of the new Testament, that in the time when the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Epistles were written, the churches had apostles and prophets who were immediately inspired and infallible, and could in all difficult cases that happened about matters of religion declare infallibly from God, what was heresy and schism, and what was not; and therefore a heretic after the first and second admonition might be rejected, and Hymenaeus and Alexander delivered to Satan, and Jezebel for seducing censured, because Christ was always at hand by apostles or prophets to declare to them infallibly who were heretics and seducers, whereas now since the apostles and prophets are ceased, and all extraordinary ways, the best oracles ministers and people have to direct them in doubtful cases about matters of religion, are men of very fallible judgments, and every way obnoxious to error and mistake, the best synods and councils being not infallible. And so whatever Hagiomastix speaks of the old law, another may say the same of the new, as to this effect; I am confident that the wisest and most learned of the ministers are not able clearly or demonstratively to inform the magistrate what heresy or what schism it was, or what kind of holding the resurrection past already it was for which the apostles censured Hymenaeus, and commanded to reject and avoid heretics and schismatics; and therefore to go about to prove those commands in the new Testament against false prophets, heretics, schismatics, troublers of the church, to be in our days in force, because they were given in the apostles' days and practised by them, is as if one should prove that a man may safely and without danger walk among bogs, precipices and ditches at midnight, because he may well do it at noon day. The Socinians upon this very ground plead against excommunication, and all church censures in matters of doctrine, now however in use in the primitive churches, and answer to the commands and examples alleged out of the new Testament after this manner, For there's much difference between heretics now, and those heretics in the apostles' days. For grant them who now err in matters of faith, were set before that venerable company of apostles and their equals; suppose them to be admonished and convinced; and yet nevertheless to persist obstinately though but in a light error, who would not detest their malice? In this case a light error is turned into the nature of a great wickedness; therefore you will say? Because they dare to resist the Spirit speaking by the apostles, and when they have no cause of doubting of the doctrine and faith of that council, yet they would not believe nor obey. But now although we are vehemently persuaded of the certainty of our faith, who can in such a name assure us, or certify that we cannot err? What council can we now persuade ourselves so uncorrupt, as that of the apostles or primitive church? Those who deny excommunication of heretics say, bring not arguments and reasons out of the new Testament, but that power of the Spirit with which the apostles being endowed, delivered up to Satan and killed hypocrites with a word: If you want this powerful efficacy of the Spirit, acknowledge your rashness and iniquity in condemning those, to whom you cannot demonstrate your interpretation of Scripture: Neither is the Spirit now so weak, but that he is able to give testimonies of the divine authority, and his presence in his ministers now against his enemies. It follows not because many things were not tolerated in the infancy of the church in the primitive times, therefore they ought not to be tolerated now in the old age of the church: They deceive and are deceived who would bring our times to the example of that flourishing age. When the church was healthful and strong in that first flower of its age, and while the company of the apostles were living, the using of violent remedies in respect of the church's vigor was meet and agreeable. Now the church with diseases and old age being weakened and spent, it now almost falls down under its prevailing sickness: neither is it any time more in danger, than when it falls into the hands of cruel physicians. In time past its first vigor admitted of opening of veins and loss of blood; now if after strength exhausted by so many evils there remain any vital juice and moisture, it cannot but by letting blood be poured out with the life and Spirit, and therefore this remedy of the punishment of heretics for the preservation of the church ought to be omitted now, when it will bring more hurt and danger, than profit to the church. So some of our sectaries in a late pamphlet, put forth upon occasion of their indignation at the late solemn fast of the tenth of March against heresies, plead that the schism spoken against in the new Testament is only of separating from those primitive apostolic churches, planted immediately by the apostles and by infallible direction, but has no reference at all to the churches of these times. No, further upon this clear reason why that old Testament law about false prophets, &c. should not now bind, all the laws and commands written in the old Testament, yes and in the new concerning the whole will of God may be as well not in force; and men may say for anything pressed upon them out of the Scriptures of the old or new Testament, that they concern them not, because in all difficult cases that happened about matters of religion, in doctrine, worship, government, &c., the Jews to whom those commands were given, and the churches in the apostles' days to whom the Epistles were written had the opportunity of immediate and infallible direction from God himself by the high priest, prophets and apostles, who could and did in all doubts from time to time infallibly declare and resolve what was God's mind and pleasure, what was schism, what was heresy, what use the law was of, how often Christians should pray, hear God's word &c., whereas now the best oracles Christians have to direct them about matters of religion, are men of very fallible judgments, and every way obnoxious to error and mistake. Yes, the wisest and most learned of them are not able clearly or demonstratively to inform now what the government of the church was in the apostles' days, what the duties of a minister are to the people, as how often he must preach, so that upon Hagiomastix's clear reason in his 36th section against the old Testament law for magistrates punishing blasphemers, idolaters, &c. whatever can be brought out of the old or new Testament in matters of duty, may be evaded, and it may be said this or that was commanded or forbidden, because then they had the high priests, prophets, and apostles, who were infallible and could determine all difficulties.

In a word if some dissimilitude that may be shown either under the old Testament or the new, in the times, or state of things there, when those Commands and Rules were given, from the times and state of things now, may be a sufficient reason of the Rules and Commands themselves being now not in force, then it will follow that all moral duties laid down both in the Law and the Gospel bind not us, because the same dissimilitude, or as great may be shown in whatever duty upon any Ordinance of Christ or relation among men is propounded. Upon this ground the Sacrament of Baptism shall not be perpetual nor universal in the Church, because of some differences between that time when Christ instituted it, and the times now, as Socinus thereupon held Baptism an indifferent thing belonging only to the infancy of the Church, in which out of a rude people and accustomed to ceremonies, a Church was gathered to Christ. So neither an outward calling and ordination of ministers shall be perpetual, because then there were Apostles and other extraordinary men, who in ordaining them could confer the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and had the gift of discerning of spirits. So all the commands given by Paul and Peter of servants obeying their masters, and being subject to their masters with all fear, may be evaded, and they may say they concern not us, because the servants in those times were their slaves, bought with their money, at their dispose, but we are born free as well as our masters; and then those servants in any commands doubtful had Apostles or other infallible men, to go to to be resolved, which we have not, they being long since ceased, and so I might go over all examples and commands both in the old or new Testament.

Fifthly, this clear reason of Hagiomastix in his 36. Section and 130. page why Magistrates under the old Law might exercise coercive power, upon false Prophets, Blasphemers, &c because in all difficult cases of Religion the Jews to whom this Law was given, had the opportunity of enquiring by Urim and Thummim, of immediate consultation with the mouth of God himself by the high Priest, seems not to be any reason upon these grounds. First, that reason is never expressed in those commands or examples for putting to death false Prophets, Blasphemers, Idolaters, &c. but other reasons are alleged, namely from the nature of the sins, drawing away from God, the putting away of the evil, and that others may fear and do no more so, with other such like, all reasons of a common nature to the times now as well as then. Secondly, before there was a high Priest, and holy garments made for him, particularly the breastplate of judgment, the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:15, 30), the Law was given for putting to death Idolaters (Exodus 22:20), and in Job's time long before the high Priest, and in a land where the high Priest was not enquired by, Idolatry was an iniquity worthy to be punished by the Judges. 3. Those who were heathen strangers in the land of Judea, that believed not in the God of Israel, nor understood not what the judgment of Urim was, and the sentence thereof, yet the Jewish Magistrates would not suffer such while staying among them, to blaspheme God, to worship strange Gods, or to offer their children to Molech, as appears in Leviticus 20:2. and in page 49. 50. of this Treatise. Fourthly, the Magistrates exercised their coercive power in matters of Religion, as freely after Urim and Thummim were lost, and that judgment ceased, as they did before, which clearly shows the enquiring by Urim under the old Law, was not the cause of those laws concerning punishing Idolaters, and false Prophets, being in force. It is the judgment of most of the learned writers both Rabbins and others, that the oracular consultation with the Breastplate continued no longer than to the captivity of Babylon, Urim and Thummim being lost at the captivity of Babylon, and wanting at the people's return, as these Scriptures show (Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65), neither do we find that ever God gave answer by them any more. Divers learned men who write of the Jewish Church and State, and of the first and second Temple, of Haggai 1:8, Haggai 2:9, "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former," show the want of five things in the second Temple which had been in the first: 1. The Ark with the mercy seat and Cherubims. Secondly, the fire from Heaven. Thirdly, the Majesty, or divine presence. Fourthly, the Holy Ghost. Fifthly, the Urim and Thummim, of which the reader may see fully in Ainsworth's Annotations on Exodus 28:30. Now that after the captivity of Babylon, Princes and Magistrates used a coercive power for offences against the first Table, is plain by those instances (Ezra 10:7, 8) of making proclamation that all who had taken strange wives of the people of the land, should come to Jerusalem for the putting them away, and such as were born of them, and that whoever would not come within three days according to the council of the Princes and the Elders, all his substance should be forfeited, &c. Nehemiah 9:38, Nehemiah 10. and 13. chapters, Nehemiah and other Rulers entering into covenant for reformation in the matter of the Sabbath, strange wives, maintenance for the service of the house of God, and Nehemiah commanding and contending to have matters reformed in the worship and house of God, yes restraining and hindering the profanation of the Sabbath, and smiting some for marrying wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab. Yes, the want of a Priest standing up with Urim and Thummim, by whom the Magistrates might enquire, was so far from hindering Magistrates in punishing about matters of Religion, that the quite contrary is expressed both in Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra 2:63, Nehemiah 7:65, some Priests being put from the Priesthood and forbidden by the Governor to eat of the most holy things till there stood up a Priest with Urim and with Thummim, that is for want of Urim and Thummim by which God might be consulted with and his mind known herein; Zerubbabel (the Tirshatha is commonly said to be Zerubbabel) would not let the Priests that knew not their genealogies eat of the most holy things, so that some privileges are denied for want of Urim and Thummim, in a case of genealogy, and birth after a confusion and mixture of marriages for the space of about 70 years, being a matter of fact, of what genealogy (verse 62), not a matter of law, but no restraints of punishments upon profaners of the Sabbath, and those who married strange wives &c for want of Urim and Thummim. And long after the loss of Urim and Thummim we find Artaxerxes, Darius, the King of Nineveh and Nebuchadnezzar making laws for punishing men in cases of Blasphemy, and other matters of the first Table, and the places of Scripture relating such edicts and laws, speak of them by way of approbation, as I have shown before in the 15. and 16. pages of this Treatise, whereunto I refer the reader, and shall only add one passage out of Calvin upon that edict of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:29). For this edict Daniel celebrates and sets forth, in which capital punishment is denounced against any man that shall speak amiss of the God of Israel. Truly it is no common honor that is given to a cruel Tyrant when God assigns his Prophet as the preacher to publish the laws he made, and puts those laws among his acts, and numbers them among his holy Oracles. What? whether is Nebuchadnezzar praised by the testimonial of the Holy Spirit, and of the Prophet for taking upon him according to his power and authority the defense of the glory of the true God, that holy Magistrates should bear with the wicked profanation of his glory, and does not the Lord rather under the person of a profane King show what becomes them to do? And certainly what is more preposterous than in the bosom of the Church to foster unpunished wicked contumelies against God, which was in Babylon enacted to be punished with capital punishment? Fifthly, this clear reason of God's immediate and infallible declaring his own mind and pleasure under the old Testament, even according to Hagiomastix's principles, is so far from being any reason why Magistrates might then punish Blasphemers, Idolaters, false Prophets, &c but not now, as that the contrary seems more reasonable: for in cases of immediate and infallible answers from Heaven, God declaring who was an Idolater, and what was Idolatry, &c convincing men so powerfully as leaving them without all subterfuges, one would think there should need the Magistrates' power a great deal less, than in a time when there are no such immediate answers from God, nor discoveries of men from heaven. For it cannot be thought but that very bad men, when they certainly knew, that if they prophesied falsely, enticed persons to Idolatry, &c could not upon any pretenses whatever escape from being convicted, but should by God himself from heaven be judged Idolaters, false Prophets, and thereupon be put to death, they would either wholly forbear the outward acts, or if committed any such, they would confess them, repent, and do no more so; whereas when men know there is no such way of finding them out, of God from heaven naming persons and things, this is the man, and this is Idolatry, Blasphemy, &c they would be encouraged both to do such things and to maintain them when they have done, to bring Scripture against Scripture, and reason against reason, as knowing all immediate answers and discoveries to be ceased. To which if that be added, that under the old Testament God himself inflicted more outward bodily punishments upon persons for Idolatry, will-worship, Schism, &c, than he does now under the new (the judgments under the Gospel being more spiritual as many examples in the old Testament show, being a more immediate Judge, and inflicted of bodily punishments on the Jews, as he was to them a more immediate Legislator of which I have spoken before in page 64. of this book), there appears less reason for those coercive commands being in force under the old Testament, than now, there being in both these respects now named without the Magistrates' coercive power, greater means for awing and restraining violators of the first Table, namely God's immediate discovering, and inflicting of punishment, than in our times. And for illustrating this we may observe that in the primitive times when there were extraordinary gifts in the Church, of Miracles, &c, and immediate answers and revelations by Apostles and Prophets, then the Church needed not so much the help of the Magistrates and the civil sword, God giving no Christian Magistrate all that time, but the Magistrates that were in those days were persecutors and enemies of the Christians, but after the planting of the Gospel and watering it, and the extraordinary gifts and offices in the Church ceasing, then God gave Kings and Princes to be nursing Fathers, to defend the Church and the truth by their laws and power, and has continued such ever since, as a great help to the Church, as a wall to the weak vine. So when under the old Testament there was according to this reason of Master Goodwin, such immediate and infallible answers from the mouth of God himself in all difficult cases of Religion, and such immediate visible judgments by the immediate hand of God upon Idolaters, false Prophets, especially upon despisers of the glorious ordinance of the Oracle of God among them, except men had been desperately and outrageously wicked, and had with a high hand despised God himself speaking and presently striking dead in case of disobedience, they could not have been obstinate seducers to Idolatry, false Prophets, Blasphemers, should neither so much have needed Magistrates armed with commission from God to execute those commands of the 13. and 17. chapters of Deuteronomy &c, as in these days we do, wherein both these are wanting according to Hagiomastix's own confession, and so much for the fifth answer. Sixthly, if this be a clear reason why that old Testament law for the putting of false Prophets, Blasphemers, &c to death should not be now in force, because in all difficult cases that happened about matters of Religion, the Jews to whom this law was given, had the opportunity of immediate consultation with the mouth of God himself, who could and did from time to time infallibly declare what his own mind and pleasure was in them, so that except those that were to give sentence in cases of Religion, had been desperately wicked and set upon blood, and had despised that glorious ordinance of the Oracle of God among them, they could not do injustice, because God himself was always at hand to declare to them what was meet to be done; whereas now the best oracles that Magistrates and Judges have to direct them in doubtful cases about matters of Religion, are men of very fallible judgments, and every way obnoxious to error and mistake: then it is as clear a reason why the old Testament law, for punishing murderers and other malefactors for offences against the second Table, should not be in force now. And whatever is said by Hagiomastix in this reason against all bodily and civil punishment for transgressions of the first Table, holds in all respects as strongly against the Magistrates' punishing for killing, stealing, &c, and the Anabaptists, Socinians and other heretics, who wholly deny the Christian Magistrate's sword, or at least the use of it in point of death under the New Testament against any transgression, namely Treason, Murder, adultery, &c, as well as Blasphemy, Idolatry, may say the same for themselves, and among all other arguments brought by them against the Christian Magistrate's killing, or punishing Murder, Theft, Adultery, &c they may add this new one of Master Goodwin's, There is this clear reason why the old Testament law for punishing of Murderers, Thieves, Adulterers, &c should not now be in force upon any such terms as it was, when, and where it was given; because in all difficult cases that happened about matters of the Second Table, the Jews to whom this law was given, had the opportunity of immediate consultation with the mouth of God himself, who could and did from time to time infallibly declare what his own mind and pleasure was in them: So that except those that were to give sentence in cases of blood, theft, &c had been desperately wicked, and set upon blood, and had despised that glorious ordinance of the Oracle among them, they could not do injustice, because God himself was always at hand, to declare to them what was meet to be done; and what kind of man-slayer was to be put to death, and whether the person killed the man casually or wilfully, &c, whereas now, the best oracles that Magistrates and Judges have to direct them in doubtful cases about matters of life, estate, &c, are men of very fallible judgments, and the laws they are to proceed by, of doubtful interpretation in many cases; and therefore to go about to prove that the law for punishing Murderers, Thieves, &c is now, or among us in force, because it was once given to the Jews, is, as if men should prove that a man may safely and without danger walk among [illegible], precipices, and ditches at midnight, because he may well do it at noon day. I will undertake to make it good against Master Goodwin, that whatever he says in this his clear reason for the Magistrates' punishing in matters of Religion under the old Testament, but against it now, to show it was the same in matters of justice and right among men, then, and is as strong against Magistrates' coercive power now in those things, as in matters of Religion; yes upon that head of difficult and doubtful cases, and danger of Magistrates erring and mistaking in judgment thereupon, to give several reasons of the danger of Magistrates mistaking rather in difficult cases of the second, than of the first Table. Whoever has but read and observed the Scriptures, yes but the five books of Moses, must acknowledge there were many difficult and doubtful cases under the old law, upon the commandments of the second Table as well as of the first, and therefore superior and higher courts, divers one above another were appointed by God under the law to which in hard matters concerning the second Table, as of the first, they might resort for advice and resolution. Whoever does but consider the many questions and cases handled, and written upon, by the Schoolmen, Casuists, Canonists, Civilians upon matters of the second Table, as well as of the first, together with the errors and diversity of opinions that have been in the Church from the Apostles' days down to this time upon every one of the commandments of the second Table, as about Magistracy, Polygamy, Community of Wives, and Community of Goods, about Christians being Magistrates, the lawfulness of Christians going to war, about the lawfulness of lying, dissimulation, and equivocation in divers cases &c, must confess there are many controversies and doubts about the contents of the second Table.

That place in Deuteronomy 17, from the eighth verse to the twelfth, brought by Master Goodwin for the judgement of Vrim in difficult cases about matters of religion, and so made the ground of magistrates punishing for religion then, but not now, speaks, as well of hard matters in civil things between man and man, as in the things of God. There are some divines who understand the place wholly or principally of hard matters and controversies about the second Table, so Luther upon the place laboring to free it from the corrupt interpretation and sense put upon it by the Papists, says, Moses does here deal not concerning the word or doctrine, or, as they speak, of the questions of faith which they would have referred to the Pope, but of the sentence of public and profane crimes. So A[illegible]sworth and our English divines on the place, by blood and blood understand murder, of which the judges may be doubtful and unable to find out whether it were willful which deserved death, or unwilling for which exile into the cities of refuge was appointed; by plea and plea, pleading for, and against in the same cause, some accusing, some denying, as in 1 Kings 3:16, 17, 18; by stroke and stroke, may be also meant strokes and wounds that one man gave to another whether of malignity or casualty. And Hagiomastix in section 107, in answer to the Vindication of the Ordinance against Heresies, which brought Deuteronomy 17:12 for a proof of God making controverted points in religion a matter of death or imprisonment, carries his first and second answers so, as if that place were understood wholly or principally of controversies about the second Table, between blood and blood, between stroke and stroke, plea and plea. And if he meant not so, those answers are nothing to the position of the Vindicator, affirming that God in the Old Testament gave authority to make a controverted point in religion (for of religion he speaks) a matter of death or imprisonment. But all divines generally who write upon the place by way of exposition, or who have written of the judicatories among the Jews, and of appeals from lower courts to higher, and of the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical courts, do understand the hard matters in judgment, and the matters of controversy within the gates, to be meant of criminal matters in civil things, belonging to the second Table as sixth and eighth commandment, as well as of ecclesiastical things. The matter too hard between blood and blood, between plea and plea, is interpreted by learned J[illegible]nius in his Analysis upon Deuteronomy, of slaughter and killing, and of contention in civil causes about such things as belong to the accommodations of life; as between stroke and stroke is of diseases as of the plague of leprosy, which was in an ecclesiastical and ceremonial way according to the Law to be distinguished, and therefore in this place the argument that is handled is political or ecclesiastical. The political is criminal or civil, but the ecclesiastical is ceremonial. So Lyra understands between blood and blood, when one part of the judges say that this shedding of blood is to be punished with death as being voluntary murder, the other part says no, it is but casual. Master Gillespie in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Book 1, chapter 3, shows it is agreed upon both by Jewish and Christian expositors that this place holds forth a supreme civil court of judges, and that this text holds forth two sorts of causes, some forensical, between blood and blood; some ceremonial, between stroke and stroke. Now this Scripture speaking how that man shall die that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the judge, as well as he that will not hearken to the priest, and speaking of matters of the second Table as well as of the first, and the sentence of death here spoken of, if immediate and infallible by Vrim, extending equally to difficult cases in civil matters as in matters of religion, or rather more, there being divers particular instances in Scripture of answers in civil matters, as of war and foretelling of some events in civil affairs, but none in matters of religion — if then the magistrate because of his immediateness of consultation with God might punish in matters of religion, but not now, that immediateness being ceased, it will also follow he might then punish for blood, etc., because by Vrim he might certainly know whether it was willful or voluntary, but now he may not, because it is possible and probable in doubtful and difficult cases about man's life, meum and tuum, he may run into errors and mistake.

Sixthly, this clear reason of Hagiomastix's making infallibility the ground of coercive power, and fallibility a being subject to error and mistake, the ground of the denial of such a power, is a fundamental falsity, and a grand mistake, overthrowing equally all spiritual censures and punishments in cases of false doctrines and heretics, and all bodily outward punishments in criminal civil matters, and so at once making void all the civil power of the magistrate, and all the ecclesiastical power of the Church. For the magistrate is not infallible, absolutely free from all possibility of error and mistake in his judgement in matters of the second Table: many magistrates in those matters have and do daily grossly mistake, many innocent persons have suffered, and do daily, and many guilty persons have and do escape. Who does not see in civil matters what mistakes there are, and may be both in point of law and matter of fact, how lawyers and judges are divided in their opinions, what controversies and difficulties arise upon cases, what doubts and scruples grow upon witnesses testifying quite contrary, and other circumstances, so that what judge can say he is infallible and certain that he is not mistaken, that he saw such a fact committed, that the accusers and witnesses have deposed nothing but truth. I could instance in a hundred particulars both in regard of the law-makers, the laws, the jury, witnesses, the accused party, the judges themselves, etc. wherein magistrates are as fallible and as obnoxious to error in matters of the second Table as in the first, yes, and in divers respects more — but I must refer this to the second part of this subject, where the grounds for toleration, particularly that of no man being infallible in our days, is to be answered. (Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 10, 11, 12) shows us there are difficult cases and controversies in matters of the second Table, between blood and blood, etc. and that among the judges themselves, so that higher courts are appointed to go to, and the highest of all the council of seventy at Jerusalem. Who sees not in kingdoms about their laws and civil rights as high and great controversies and contestations as in matters of religion, each party having great lawyers and able men on their side. So the Church with the best councils and synods are not infallible, but may mistake and err and in some things have mistaken, as many learned Protestants have shown against the Papists upon that question whether the Church may err. And therefore by this clear reason of Master Goodwin it should not be only unlawful for the magistrates to punish for idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, schism, but for murder, theft, polygamy, adultery, etc. Yes, as unlawful for the Church to admonish and excommunicate for idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, etc. as for the magistrates to punish corporally. But now M. S. Hagiomastix, Ancient Bounds or Liberty of Conscience Stated, with divers of our sectaries who write of this question yield the magistrates' power in matters of the second Table, answering that of (Romans 13:4) to be understood in things concerning the second Table, and the churches' power in censuring for heresies, evading that of (Revelation 2:20) to be meant of ministers, not magistrates, and of spiritual censures not civil, who yet are alike fallible and subject to error and mistake, the magistrates in civil judgements, and ministers in spiritual, as they are in punishing corporally in matters of idolatry, heresy, and indeed considering the state of the question of magistrates' coercive power in matters of religion, as I have laid it down in the Prolegomena, and so is to be understood, namely that the magistrate is to do it upon advice and after advice in all difficult doubtful cases with the ablest, godliest ministers in the Church, by the advice of synods, with solemn prayers, after means of instruction and conviction used to the parties, which means and helps being not in civil causes nor in the censures of particular churches, are more liable to error and mistake than magistrates. So that if magistrates and churches may punish, the one corporally in matters of the second Table, the other spiritually in cases of both (as is confessed by our grand patrons of toleration) notwithstanding their fallibility and possibility of mistake, then in difficult doubtful cases magistrates may punish in matters of the first Table, notwithstanding they are men of very fallible judgements. Or in case the want of the magistrate's infallibility puts a supersedeas to his coercive power in matters of religion, the same want deprives him of power in civil things, and ministers in ecclesiastical, because of their possibility of erring in both. By all which the reader may see it is a very rotten foundation both to build upon, or to take away the power of censuring evil and erroneous persons upon the infallibility or fallibility of those who have authority from God. No, certainly, this power and duty of those who are in place both in Church and State, are founded on the ordinance and institution of God, in appointing such offices, and in the nature of the crimes and offences, and on the ends of vindicating God's glory and name, and preserving others from being ruined, etc., but never on that, that the persons who should exercise it were infallible and not subject to error, which that it is so, may be demonstrated by these following reasons. First, in the churches of the New Testament in the Apostles' days when they had men among them immediately inspired, who could dictate the mind of Christ infallibly, and tell them the certain meaning of any Scripture, notwithstanding all that infallibility and immediateness of inspiration, such persons' tenets and practices (though erroneous and mistaken) as by the rules of faith and love could and might be tolerated and suffered, were tolerated, and the Apostles in those things so far from giving any directions to the churches for withdrawing or excommunicating, that they give commands to the contrary, namely to receive, bear with, please such, and not ourselves, follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another, and whereto we have already attained to walk by the same rule, as these Scriptures (Romans 14:1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 19; Romans 15:1, 2, 3; Philippians 3:15, 16) with divers of the like kind show. The holding the day of Christ to be at hand, was an error, and Paul writes pathetically to dissuade the Thessalonians from it (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2, 3), yet for all that he accounts them brethren, and so I might instance in other such particulars. Whereas on the contrary in damnable heresies, schisms, and such like, as denying the resurrection of the dead, holding circumcision necessary to justification, in denying Jesus Christ to be come in the flesh, in teaching the doctrines of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, in separating themselves and going out from the Church, the Apostles are against all suffering, bearing with, receiving of, and for rejecting, delivering up to Satan and cutting off all such, as these Scriptures testify (1 Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10; Galatians 1:8, 9; Galatians 5:12; the second Epistle of John 7, 9, 10; Jude 19, 23; Revelation 2:14, 15, 20) with many more. Now in the tenets, opinions and practices of the first sort, the Apostles could have resolved the Romans, Philippians as infallibly, who held the truth, and who were in the error in those particulars, as in the latter of heresies. This is acknowledged by Master Burroughs himself in pages 59–61 of his Heart Divisions, even where he pleads for a toleration in all points doubtful and controverted among godly men, who writes thus, all these people spoken of in Romans 14 were not in the right, for a man not to eat flesh out of conscience when the thing was not forbidden, certainly was a sin, or to make conscience of a holy day which God required not, was a sin: Now the Apostle did not come with his authority, and say, I will make you leave off keeping such days, or you shall eat, or to abstain thus as you do is evil, and it must not be suffered in you. No, the Apostle lays no apostolical authority upon them, but tells them, That every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind in what he does; and who are you that judges another man's servant? The Lord has received him. And yet the governors of the Church in the primitive times might upon much stronger grounds have stood upon such a principle, than any governors of the Church now can; there was less reason why they should suffer any difference in opinion or practice among them, than why we should suffer differences among us; for they had men among them immediately inspired, who could dictate the mind of Christ infallibly, they could tell them the certain meaning of any Scripture. And yet we see plainly, the Apostle applies himself both in the Romans and Philippians rather to press mutual forbearance, and keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, using all arguments of that kind, as God has received him, he that regards a day regards it to the Lord; and he that regards not the day to the Lord, he does not regard it, he that eats, eats to the Lord, etc. Nevertheless whereunto we have attained let us walk by the same rule; and if in any thing you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this to you, then from God immediately and infallibly to declare who were in the right and truth in those particulars wherein they differed, and thereupon to command the others to be of their mind and practice in all the particulars, or else upon such an infallible resolution to declare they ought to be cast out of the Church, and no communion hold with them. By all which it is evident, that infallibility and opportunity of immediateness of consultation with God is not the formal ground of censure, but the nature of the things themselves, being destructive to faith, godliness, and edifying. For if the power of punishing had been founded on infallibility, seeing the Apostles were as able and infallible to give certain resolutions in the matter of days, meat, and drinks and such like, as in matters of faith, they would have given other manner of rules than they did in (Romans 14; Philippians 3). And indeed if Hagiomastix's infallibility were good, what reason can be given why the Apostles did not proceed with all errors and all persons, as with Hymenaeus, Alexander, and the woman Jezebel, which clearly shows the lawfulness of censures lay not in the infallible knowledge of the governors of the Church but the Apostles, in persons and things themselves, the one sort weak, peaceable Christians holding the head, and communion with the body, the other turbulent, willful, holding doctrines subverting in the foundation, the precious souls of men and godliness. And certainly if infallibility were not the just ground and formal reason of censuring, but some other thing, then fallibility, a possibility of mistaking in some things, cannot be a just cause of taking away all power of punishing from governors, and that in all points though never so destructive to God's glory and the souls of men. Secondly, in the New Testament there are many commands given, and many rules laid down both for those times wherein they were written, and for all times till the coming of Christ, to persons, who were not infallible nor immediately inspired, concerning heresies and heretics, schisms and schismatics, to beware of false prophets, and false teachers, to avoid, reject, and turn away from them, not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they are of God, not to receive into house, neither to bid God speed those that transgress and abide not in the doctrine of Christ, not to suffer those who teach false doctrine, and seduce the servants of God, to contend earnestly the faith, to hold fast the truth and sound doctrine, as these Scriptures show to whole churches and particular persons, both private Christians, and pastors, and teachers, not Apostles and prophets, the extraordinary officers (Romans 1:16, 17, 18; Philippians 3:2; 1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Peter 3:17; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 9, 10; Jude 3; Revelation 2:14, 20; Revelation 3). Now however the Apostles and prophets in those primitive times were infallible and immediately inspired (of whose immediate infallibility how far, and in what way, whether only in penning the holy Scriptures, or how else, whether ex habituali assistentia Spiritus or only de particulari assistantia Spiritus I shall speak at large in the second part of my Anti-Toleration, in answering that objection, we have now no external infallible judge) yet all those they wrote to in their epistles, every particular believer, man and woman were not, neither are infallible, not the elect lady and her children, not all the believing Romans, nor all those Christians to whom the general epistle of John and Jude were written, nor those angels of the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira, nor Christians in our times to whom those commands and rules are written and given by the Apostles, as well as those who then lived (for the epistles did not concern the times and the particular churches and persons only to whom they were written as some wickedly affirm), and yet these are commanded to stand fast in the faith, to avoid those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which they have learned, to prove all things, are reproved and found fault with by the Spirit of God for not censuring of heresy, false doctrine, etc. which fully proves true doctrine may be known from false, false teachers may be discovered and censured by persons not infallible, and so the judging of what is heresy, schism, and who is a heretic or a schismatic, and the punishing, or not punishing of them depends not upon infallibility or fallibility of spirit, infallibility is not the ground of censure, nor fallibility of non-censure. Thirdly, the Apostles who were infallibly and immediately inspired, yet in cases of controversy arising in the Church, and in censures and determinations thereupon, did not act from infallibility and immediateness of answers from God, but from Scripture grounds by way of reasoning and disputation deduced, and in a synodical way by the joint common resolution of elders as well as themselves, as is evident by (Acts 15; Acts 21:18, 19, 20, 21). In that dissension that Paul and Barnabas had with certain men that came down from Judea about circumcision, Paul and Barnabas were able to have determined it without their and others going up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and elders. Paul by his apostolical infallible spirit, could have determined as in (Galatians 5:2), Behold, I Paul say to you that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; but the whole business is debated, decreed, and the decrees sent forth by synodical authority determined according to the word of God, and not by extraordinary immediate infallible inspiration of the Spirit, the proof of which seeing the reader may find so fully and largely in many learned authors I shall spare to write anything of it. So upon Paul's coming to Jerusalem (Acts 21) and the offence that many thousands of the Jews which believed and were zealous of the law took at him, Paul went not upon his own infallibility of spirit or immediate revelation, but upon the joint counsel and direction of James and all the elders (verse 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26). Now if the Apostles in judging of false doctrine and schism, censuring the authors of these and imposing upon the churches their decrees to be kept (all which are spoken of in Acts 15) proceeded not in the way of infallible immediate revelation from God, laid it aside as it were, but in an ordinary way, by Scripture, reason, experience upon and after much debate, as is apparent from verse 6 to verse 30, then it is evident that immediateness of revelation, with infallibility of spirit is not the sole judge of heresies and errors, and the only just reason of inflicting punishments upon heretics and schismatics.

Seventhly, besides the other false suppositions laid down by Hagiomastix in his 36. Sect. as the enquiring by Urim and Thummim in cases of idolatry, blasphemy, as that infallibility is the ground of coercive power, &c, this also is false that he supposes under the new Testament, there is no infallibility nor certainty to be had in difficult, doubtful matters of religion, but that in those things we walk at midnight, in comparison of those under the old Law who walked at noon day, which assertion of the uncertainty and darkness of the Church in points of religion under the new Testament compared with the old, is contrary to these grounds. First, to many prophecies of the state of the Church after Christ's coming, which speak that then the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the Sea, and the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun, and the light of the Sun shall be seven fold as the light of seven days, and to the manner of the administration of the Covenant of Grace under the new Testament, which however for substance was but one and the same under the Law, and the Gospel, yet for manner of dispensation and application differed and is various, as many divines show, and one of the main differences between them in manner of administration stands in this, that the Covenant of Grace under the new differs from the old in clearness and evidence, in that the doctrine of grace and salvation by Christ, and of faith in him together with the appendixes is more distinct and express than before it was, not being now under a veil, but beheld with open face (2 Corinthians 3:12, 13, 17, 18). Secondly, then the Church of Christ under the new Testament should be in a far worse condition than the Jews were under the old; for whereas they were sure and certain in their religion, and had an infallible way of being resolved in all doubts, Christians now should be in continual doubts and uncertainties in matters of faith, not knowing what to do, or where to turn themselves, which must needs be a most miserable condition, and the Jews' case in the time before Christ's coming in the flesh, was to be much preferred before ours; for the burden of being under the pedagogy of the Law, with a certainty and infallibility of knowing what to hold and believe, is a light burden in comparison of being freed from the ceremonial Law, and in the mean time to be without all certainty and assurance in points of faith and worship. Who would not choose rather to undergo some burden with an infallibility and certainty of religion, than to enjoy a liberty from a yoke with an uncertainty and continual fears? Is not the bondage of fear worse than a bondage of ceremonies and many outward legal observations? If the deliverance of us from the pedagogy of the Law has brought us into this condition, our burden is greater in this thing than any that the Law laid upon the Jews. Has Christ delivered us from one burden to lay a greater upon us? Have we not cause to say, Lord let any burden of the ceremonial Law be laid upon our necks rather than this? Thirdly, to the end of Christian religion, and the knowledge of it as it is written in the Scriptures, particularly of the new Testament, which is that Christians may have consolation and hope in life and death (Romans 15:4; 1 Epistle of John 1:4). Now there can be no solid comfort, without certainty and assurance of the truth of the thing, in itself at least, which we profess; but in doubts, fears, uncertainties, the soul must needs be in perplexities, anxieties, as upon the rack, fear has torment (1 John 4:18). But secondly the infallibility and certainty under the old Testament by Urim and Thummim of the Priest, so much spoken of and magnified by Hagiomastix, above that under the new, was as much liable to questioning and doubts by cavilling, and contentious spirits as the way under the new, and many exceptions might be made and controversies to arise, whether those who were to give sentence in cases of religion, upon the answer by Urim did according as they received it from God, or according to their own corrupt affection and interest, which considering what many of the Priests were under the old Testament, corrupt and partial and the silent manner of God's answer by Urim, might give occasion of questioning. Yes, Hagiomastix himself supposes and implies in some cases a possibility of a wrong answer and doing injustice after consultation with the glorious ordinance of the Oracle of God, as these words show, So that except those that were to give sentence in cases of religion had been desperately wicked, and set upon blood, and had despised the glorious ordinance of the Oracle of God among them, they could not do injustice. Now it is evident there were high Priests among them and such who had power of sentence in cases of religion that were desperately wicked, who either might pass sentence without enquiring by Urim, or else not go according to God's answer by Urim, but according to the lusts of their own hearts. Whoever does but consider these examples following recorded in Scripture both of the Priests and other men, going flat contrary to the mind of God, and immediate answers from him, will not wonder but be satisfied. The Priests in Jeremiah's time were desperately wicked and set upon blood, even upon having Jeremiah's blood, pronouncing sentence upon him, This man is worthy to die, and You shall surely die (Jeremiah 26:8, 11). And there were many complaints by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other Prophets, of the Priests, and chief Priests being out of the way through strong drink, erring in vision, and stumbling in judgement, saying to a stock, You are my Father, and to a stone, You have brought me forth, &c offering violence to the Law and profaning of holy things, putting no difference between the holy and profane, hiding their eyes from the Sabbaths: the chief of the Priests, transgressing very much and polluting the house of the Lord, which he had hallowed in Jerusalem (Isaiah 28:7; Jeremiah 2:27; Ezekiel 22:26; 2 Chronicles 36:14). Now if the Priests would do all this when they degenerated, offer violence to the Law, say to a stock you are my Father, pollute the house of the Lord, and much more that is recorded in the Scripture of them, then there is no question to be made, but they might pervert the sentence by Urim and give an answer quite contrary to what they received immediately and infallibly from God, thereby condemning the innocent and clearing the guilty, making that prophesying falsely as in Jeremiah's case which was prophesying truly, making that blasphemy which was none. Yes, they are particularly taxed for erring in vision, and stumbling in judgement, which words probably may be meant of their judgement by Urim, the Priests' answers in that way being called the judgement of Urim and judgement in divers places of Scripture as (Numbers 27:21; Exodus 28:15, 29, 30). So that for all Hagiomastix's clear reason, if the Priests were corrupt and partial under the Law, as some good Priests in some particular cases might be, and were, as Aaron in the golden calf, Eli in the matter of his sons Hophni and Phinehas, and wicked ones would certainly be, the Jews might be in danger in matters of religion to be punished unjustly then in those days, notwithstanding their Priests had immediate and infallible answers from God, as well as Christians now under the new Testament. Besides, if we consider what the way of answering by Urim was and that as distinguished by Rabbins and other divines from some other ways of God's answers, not by a loud voice that all who came to enquire might hear the answer as well as the Priest, but in a silent way and manner, revealed only to the Priest either by inspiration, or by looking into his breast-plate upon the darkness or brightness of his jewels by which he knew, or by some letters in the breast-plate in which he read the will of God, and so by the Priest communicated to the judges, and standers by, but if the Priests would pretend other answers from God than he gave, how should the Jews disprove them, and what more certainty had those who in difficult doubtful cases came to the high Priest to enquire by Urim (seeing they received the answers not from God immediately but from the high Priest, and the Priest might possibly deceive them in cases falling out about their own children or near blood showing partiality and affection) than may be had by us now in these times. No, going according to Master Goodwin's principles, that the sentence of the high Priest was by Urim and not by the Law, the judgement of Urim from the Priest was the supreme and last judge, in case the Priests would be false, as in some particular cases they might, the Jews were in a more uncertain and worse condition, than if to be judged by the Law, or we in these days, who if our magistrates and judges should degenerate might appeal to the Scriptures and urge them to them whereby to convince them, but so could not the Jews according to Hagiomastix's doctrine, the Priest by Urim being appealed to in cases where they suppose the Law could not help. And lastly, if we consider how Prophets under the old Testament, who were as immediately and infallibly inspired, as the high Priest by Urim, yet in all their answers and dictates were not without all possibility of mistake, as is evident by Nathan's answer to David (2 Samuel 7:4, 5. &c), nor without all danger of deceiving those they spoke to, as is to be seen in that example of the old Prophet in Bethel (1 Kings 13:11, 17, 18, 21) and divers other places of Scripture speaking of Prophets, we may easily conceive how magistrates and judges then might be liable to error as well as now, especially if they took all the Priests and Prophets said without comparing and examining those things by the Law. So that by all this and a great deal more that might be spoken to this effect, as the magistrates and Priests combining together, &c. the Jews to whom the Law was given for putting false Prophets, Blasphemers, to death for all the opportunity of immediate consultation with the mouth of God himself by Urim, and by Prophets might in many cases have been deceived, mistaken, and in as great uncertainty every way as Hagiomastix supposes the Church to be in under the new Testament. Thirdly, supposing and granting there had been such a certainty and infallibility in the matters of religion under the old Law as is contended for by Hagiomastix, and that free of all the exceptions now spoken of, yet I affirm there is an infallibility and certainty under the new also in the doctrines of faith and worship, and Christian magistrates may infallibly and certainly know such and such doctrines to be false, and such true, such practices and speeches to be idolatrous, blasphemous as well as the Jewish magistrates did, and supposing that true which Hagiomastix says, that the Jewish magistrates had a certainty of knowledge in all difficult cases of religion by the judgement of Urim which Christian magistrates have not, yet in another way and by other means they may have a certainty and infallibility that these and these doctrines are of God, and other doctrines are not of God. When there are three or four ways to come to the certain knowledge of a thing, a man may be sure and certain in one or two, though he have not all the ways. A judge who has three or four honest witnesses and many circumstances, with the party's own confession may be certain though he might not see the fact committed, nor have all ways of knowledge that possibly may be, and so may magistrates now in this case of religion though they should want some one way the magistrates under the new Testament had. And for the certainty and infallibility in matters of religion under the new Testament, it may appear thus. 1. Hagiomastix must confess upon his own principles, that during the Apostles' times (which was under the new Testament) in all difficult cases that happened about matters of religion, Christian magistrates might have had the same opportunities of immediate and infallible answers as under the old, Apostles, Prophets then having as infallible immediate revelations from God as the high Priests, and therefore in case there had been Christian magistrates in the Apostles' days they might by this reason have exercised coercive power on apostates, heretics, and blasphemers, as well as the Jewish magistrates, by which it is apparent those laws about false Prophets and Blasphemers were not only old Testament laws proper for Moses' pedagogy, but new Testament laws, and that for the prime flourishing state of the new Testament, the Apostles' times. Secondly, the Independents and Sectaries in many of their books, sermons and discourses tell us of a time at hand wherein there will be a new and marvelous light, when we shall clearly and certainly know the truth of these things now so much doubted of and controverted, of the nature of a visible Church, of the government of the Church, and such like. Now then upon Master Goodwin's clear reason, the old Testament law for the putting of false Prophets, &c to death, should be in force under the new Testament as well as under the old, because then in all difficult cases in worship, doctrine, &c, the Christians that live in those times may infallibly and certainly know the mind and pleasure of God in them. Master Goodwin in his Postscript or Appendix to Hagiomastix (the scope of which discourse is to make invalid that Zechariah 13:3 from being any ground for civil coercive power against false Prophets) among other evasions interprets the place to relate to those times of refreshing to the Jewish Church and Nation, the time when God intends to build up the Jews again into a Church of far more inward grace and holiness; into a Nation of far more outward beauty strength and glory, than ever was their portion since they first became a Church or Nation to this day, either in the one kind or in the other. Now of that particular time and day of the new Testament it is especially prophesied, that outward coercive power shall be exercised upon false Prophets, And it shall come to pass that when any shall yet prophesy, then his Father and his Mother that begat him shall say to him, You shall not live: for you speak lies in the name of the Lord, and his Father and his Mother that begat him, shall thrust him through when he prophesies. As for Hagiomastix's figurative sense put upon these words against the literal and proper, and other his glosses to corrupt the text, I shall speak to them in the 19. Thesis, where I shall prove that Zechariah 13:3 to be a good proof of the magistrate's coercive power under the Gospel. Thirdly, for that time and those days under the new Testament, between the primitive apostolical Churches, and the calling of the Jews, into which we fall and among which our times are to be numbered, there is an infallibility and certainty to be had in doctrines of faith and Christian religion, and the best oracles magistrates have to direct them in matters of religion now, are not fallible and every way obnoxious to error and mistake. The Scriptures are an infallible and certain rule, the voice and word of God himself, God speaking by them as by Urim and Thummim. Learned Bishop Davenant in his Disputation *De judice ac norma fidei & Cultus Christiani*, in answering that objection of the Papists, if general councils could err, there should be no firm judgement in the Church to compose controversies, answers, If the Papists speak of a human judgement we acknowledge none so firm and infallible to which all men may safely and securely commit their faith without trial. But if they speak of a divine judgement, we affirm there is a firm and perpetual judgement in the Church of all the doctrines of faith, namely the judgement of God speaking in the Scriptures: for he is not to be confuted with arguments, but to be reckoned among Atheists who denies in the Scriptures in the things of faith that there is a sentence pronounced by God himself, and that intelligible, firm and infallible. Were those answers by divine inspiration and immediate revelation? So are the Scriptures of divine inspiration and immediate revelation also (2 Timothy 3:16). All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Peter 1:20, 21). No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Were those answers sure and certain the Oracles of God among them? So are the Scriptures sure and certain (Psalm 19:7; Luke 1:3, 4) that Gospel was written that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed (Colossians 2:2); there is a full assurance of understanding to know the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. The Scriptures are called the Oracles of God (Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; 1 Peter 4:11), as well as the judgement by Urim, to show they are infallible and certain. Master Goodwin in his *Anapologesiates* page 103 says of some doctrines that he holds, For my part I have the grounds of God, I mean the Scripture. I would fain know of Hagiomastix what made the answer by Urim to be infallible, and to be believed and rested in by those who came to enquire, but that God who was true and infallible said so, and revealed it, and is there not the same in the doctrines contained in the Scriptures? Has not God who is truth, and infallible revealed and declared them in Scriptures and thereupon propounded them to be believed. The doctrines of faith must be laid down certainly and infallibly in Scriptures, both from the nature of faith which in respect of the matter to be believed must have certain, infallible, and undoubted truth, and not that which is false or doubtful, and from the formal reason and ground of believing which is the authority of God who is true and infallible revealing his mind, and not the testimony of the Church; as also from the end and use of the Scriptures to be the canon and rule of faith. Now the canon of a thing, especially the supreme and chief by which all other are to be tried and judged of, had need be certain and known, and not doubtful, and unknown. Learned Rivet and other Protestant divines writing of that question against the Papists, of the Scriptures being the canon and rule of faith, speak thus, the canon and rule of faith must be certain and known. The best Protestant divines writing against the Papists of the canon of the Scripture show that it is one principal requisite to make a canon and rule that it should be certain and infallible. The metaphor itself from where the name is borrowed, namely not from any private measure, but the public and allowed according to which by the Law all other are to be measured, demonstrates the certainty and infallibility of a canon and rule. That which in itself is uncertain and variable cannot be the canon or rule of any doctrine much less of faith. Yes, * Bellarmine himself disputing for the Scriptures against Enthusiasts proves the rule of the Catholic faith must be certain and known, for if it be not known it cannot be a rule, and if it be not certain neither shall it be a rule. Whoever is but versed in the writings of Protestant divines upon that head of the Scriptures against Papists on the one hand, and Anabaptists on the other, or who so will consult them as Whitaker, Chamier, Rivet, Amesius, Bishop Davenant, White's *Way to the True Church*, Gerardus, Robertus Baronius, Maccovius, Willet's *Synopsis*, Spanhemius, Cloppenburgius, shall find the infallibility and certainty of the Scriptures and of the doctrines of faith contained in them under the new Testament abundantly cleared and made good, and the cavils about the interpretations of Scripture, the need of a visible infallible judge, of every man's private spirit being judge, &c fully answered, and therefore I shall not enlarge further on it. Only I shall briefly add, that God in these times of the new Testament has left this threefold way, and means of infallible certainty in doctrines of faith and worship. First, the Scriptures, and more especially since the canon has been sealed and completed, contains and holds forth all things necessary to salvation, and out of them they may be certainly and infallibly known. The word of God written is an inflexible golden rule (not leaden nor to be bent) for all matters of faith and manners, and there is such a certainty of the doctrines of faith laid down in the Scriptures, that 1. all points of faith necessary to salvation are plainly therein set forth, so that all men who have spiritual ears and eyes may understand their meaning, which position besides that it is held generally by our most learned divines against the Papists, may be demonstrated by these places of Scripture and reasons, as (Psalm 19:7, 8) enlightening the eyes, making wise the simple, (Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:20) compared to a candle, and a light to our feet and paths, to a light shining in a dark place, (Deuteronomy 30:11) the commandment is not hidden, all which show the clearness and plainness of the Scriptures. The Scripture in evident places calls us to search it and seek to it as (John 5:39; Isaiah 8:20. &c), which had been to no purpose if they could not be understood. Again, the end of the Scripture is for our learning (Romans 15:4), but now obscurity and things not to be understood directly oppose learning. Lastly, I might produce a multitude of pregnant quotations out of the Fathers, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, Austin, Clemens Alexandrinus, Isidorus Pelusiota, Gregorius, &c speaking of God's fitting the Scriptures even to the capacity of babes and sucklings, of the Scriptures being a river wherein the lamb may walk and the elephant may swim, of being a common light that shines to all men, of being easy to be understood by the plowman, the artificer, the widow woman, and him that is most unlearned, but I remember I am handling the question of toleration, and not that of the perspicuity of the Scriptures, and do therefore conclude, affirming things necessary to salvation, to be so clearly laid down in the Scriptures, that no man who can understand the words need doubt of the sense. 2. There is not only a certainty and assurance to be had from the Scriptures of things more plainly laid down therein, the matters of faith absolutely necessary to salvation, but from the Scriptures, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, considering of circumstances, by just consequences, and such like, many hard doubtful points in religion which to one man alone, or to weak unlearned men are very uncertain and doubtful, yet by the help of many learned men in Synods and Councils going God's way may from the Scriptures be made clear and certain. That place of Scripture (Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 10, 11, 12) shows us that hard matters and matters of controversy, too hard for a few Priests the lower courts, may by the help of the higher courts be so certainly and clearly resolved from the sentence of the Law, the written word in that time, that they who will not hearken in that case deserve to die. And so in the new Testament some things in Paul's Epistles hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction, learned men well settled in the faith may understand and believe certainly, and not be led away with their error to fall from their steadfastness as that place in (2 Peter 3:16, 17) implies. That controversy in Acts 15 about keeping the Law of Moses and circumcision was hard and difficult considering that time and state of the Church, as appears by many passages in that chapter; and yet from the Scriptures by the means of a Synod after much disputation and debate the truth was certainly resolved on, and so received by the Churches, who when they heard it rejoiced in it (Acts 15:21).

Secondly, the Spirit of God in and by the Scriptures does infallibly and certainly assure and persuade the heart of the truth of the doctrines of faith; it is a good saying of Luther: The holy Spirit is no Skeptic, neither does it write doubts or opinions in our hearts, but assertions more certain and firm than life itself and all experience. The illumination, inward teaching, and persuasion of the Spirit certainly assures us of the truth of the doctrines of faith (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; 1 John 2:20, 27; 1 John 5:6). The Spirit of truth guides into all truth; it is the Spirit that bears witness because the Spirit is truth, which Spirit as it seals and confirms in our consciences the truth of all the doctrines of faith and salvation, so also it certainly persuades us those books to be canonical, from where all those doctrines of faith are drawn. But concerning these points of the Scriptures being the infallible inflexible rule, and the Spirit of God speaking in and by the Scripture being the supreme infallible judge in controversies of religion, and of the Plerophorie wrought in the minds of the faithful concerning the Scriptures and the doctrines of faith therein contained by the illumination and inward persuasion of the Spirit, and that every man's private Spirit is not thereby made the judge of controversies, I refer the reader for full satisfaction to the learned writings of Whitaker against the Papists upon that controversy of the Scriptures, De Scripturae Authoritate, perspicuitate, & Interpretatione, of Rivet in his Catholicus, Orthodoxus, first Tract. Question 8. 17. and his Isagoge ad sacram Scripturam cap. 19. 20, 21. of Davenant, De Judice ac norma Fidei, cap. 13. 30, 32, 33. and Cameron de ecclesiae constantia in retinenda veritate, 291. 292. 3. Besides the certainty and infallibility by the Scriptures and the Spirit of God, there is a certainty in points of religion, even points controverted, for Christian magistrates to attain to, by means of the ministry of the word in the preaching of pastors, and the advice and resolutions of synods and councils; for next after the absolute supreme judgment of the Scriptures and the Spirit in questions of faith, God has appointed a public ministerial judgment of pastors and synods who have a delegated power from the supreme judge, that what the law has defined in general, they should according to the rule of the law apply to particular cases, controversies and persons. Now however, these ministerial judges are subject to error and mistake, synods and councils may err, as the most learned Protestants hold against the Papists, yet for all that they may certainly and infallibly judge in matters of faith, yes and have. A man may certainly know some things, and yet not be infallible in all things. A physician is not infallible in judging of the nature of all drugs, herbs, &c., yet he may certainly know the nature of some drugs, and that such a thing is rank poison, of which the reader may find more in the Vindication of the Ordinance against Heresy, Blasphemy &c., to which Hagiomastix answers never a word in his pretended answer. It is one thing to be subject to error, posse errare, and another thing actually to err, de facto errare. It follows not because ministers and synods may err, that therefore in all particular articles of faith propounded by them they do err. It is a known axiom in the schools, A posse ad esse non valet consequentia. And therefore ministers and synods in their interpretations and decisions going according to the word of God, which is infallible, judge infallibly, and may be said to be infallible in their determinations in those points. He that is directed by an infallible truth in his determinations, he determines infallibly, although he be a man of a fallible judgment. Thus many orthodox councils and synods in great controversies and main points of faith have determined the truth certainly and infallibly, and so propounded them to the churches to be certainly believed, not that they thought their judgment to be infallible, but that they knew the word of God according to which they judged to be infallible. Doctor Davenant in his learned tractate De judice ac norma Fidei, in answering the arguments of the Papists that general councils cannot err, and among others this, that if all general councils can err, then it certainly follows that all councils have admitted intolerable error, answers: It is one thing posse errare, another thing de facto errare; every particular pastor may err, as also every particular council, yet therefore they do not admit intolerable error as often as they propound to the people that which is drawn from the word of God, where he further shows how a man may be said to judge infallibly, that yet is fallible. And for conclusion of this I desire the reader to observe two things. First, that synods and councils however in themselves fallible and subject to err, yet being lawful quoad id quod requiritur intrinsecus, and going according to the Scripture, their results and determinations are from the holy Ghost, and so infallibly and certainly true, as that of Acts 15:28 demonstrates: It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, which words a synod having like clear evidence of Scripture, may without presumption use as well as that council at Jerusalem did. For proof of which kind of infallibility, besides what I have already said p. 140, 141, of this book, I shall add the judgment of learned Whittaker upon the words: Other lawful councils may in like manner assert their decrees to be the decrees of the holy Ghost, if they shall be like to this council, and shall keep the same rule, which in this council the Apostles did keep and follow: For if they shall decree and determine nothing but from Scripture (which was done in this council) and if they shall examine all questions by the Scriptures, and shall follow the voice of the Scriptures in all their decrees, then they may assert that the holy Ghost so decreed. Of learned Cameron in his tractate De Infallibilitate Ecclesiae: We do easily grant lawful councils, lawful, in respect of what is inwardly required in them, that is councils truly gathered together without all fallacy and deceit in the name of Christ cannot err in those things which are of any great moment: For we truly willingly confess many councils not to have erred, yes we confess lawful churches (as in the sense above is explained by us) that are truly gathered in the name of Christ, not to err in necessary things. And of Baron, in that acute and learned reply of his to Turnebull the Jesuit: We do not simply and absolutely condemn that which the doctors of Paris do teach of the infallibility of councils. For it may be piously and probably believed that councils truly general and lawful, that is lawfully gathered, and proceeding, to be so governed and directed by the holy Spirit, that they may not err in fundamental points. I say this may be believed, because it is certain such councils have never hitherto erred in doctrines fundamental. Secondly, although the authority and power of synods and councils is not of itself infallible, neither appointed of God that it should be the supreme and principal rule of our faith; and therefore cannot by itself and of its own authority bind the faithful to believe whatever is determined in a synod or council, yet there is in them the supreme ecclesiastical power of judging and determining controversies of faith; and that appointed by God to avoid confusion and rents in the church. Hence the authority of lawful councils has a special force and singular efficacy before many other motives of faith, to beget a persuasion in the minds of men of the truth of the doctrine agreed on in the council. And because in our times the best synods and councils are rejected and slighted, and every private person takes upon them a boundless liberty of contradicting all synodical decrees, I shall therefore lay down briefly out of divers learned authors, what preeminence there is in synods and councils towards the compounding of controversies and doubts in religion, above what is in private Christians or single particular ministers. 1. There is an authority given them by God, they are an ordinance of Jesus Christ to judge of, and determine controversies of faith, which no man of a sound mind affirms of private Christians or particular ministers. Secondly, they have a power of subjecting those to excommunication and other ecclesiastical censures, who openly contradict their decrees. Thirdly, they have a more peculiar assistance of the Spirit, and so greater than that which particular ministers judging apart have. Fourthly, they have surer means of finding out the truth, namely the prayers, fastings, disputations, &c. of the chiefest pastors of the whole church. For as Cameron speaks, In a council, if there be present pious and learned men, they open things, which before were shut, by their mutual disquisition, which cannot be so easily done of particular men apart. Fifthly, a better ground of knowing what is the judgment of the whole church, concerning any question in controversy, and what the churches have observed in such cases. Sixthly, a more easy way of reducing the decrees and determinations of the church to practice. Seventhly, greater reverence, respect and obedience is owing to the determinations and decrees of synods and councils, than of particular persons or churches. The authority of synods in their place and degree is so to be looked upon, that particular ministers or private Christians should not lightly or easily for every probable reason, or conjecture reject their determinations. Hence Cameron speaking of councils well observes: So oft as any thing is decreed by an assembly of men, who are put into authority in the church, that should be a ground that such a thing should not rashly nor without a great deal of accurate and serious observation be rejected. For first of all, we owe reverence to a synod, even then, when we judge it decrees false things. A pious son of the church does not vainly insult over her, but with a kind of reverential shamefacedness departs from her. Secondly, we owe outward obedience unless we do evidently perceive the synod to prescribe and determine false and wicked things; for it is not lawful upon light and probable reasons to oppose the judgment of the pastors of the church; the certain manifest authority of God commands us to obey the decrees of the church; and when we have only uncertain conjectures and probable reasons, then that common rule is to be followed: Hold that which is certain, leave the uncertain. And therefore they who doubt of the truth of the decrees of a synod, or upon light and probable reasons think their opinion false, but do not certainly know it to be such, are bound by the synodical decrees to perform such an obedience as is agreeable to order, comeliness and peace, which obedience is nothing else but the observance of Christian humility and modesty, by which the faithful in such cases abstain both from a public open profession of their opinion, and a condemning and confuting of the synod's opinion, and in the mean time by diligent searching of the Scripture do enquire out the truth and pray to God to manifest his truth to men, and to discover the errors of the synod, that so they being known, contrary doctrine may be established in another council. Of which seven particulars, and divers others of synods, whoever would see more, let them read Baron against Turnebull, Tract. 5. De Authorit. Ecclesiae cap. 17. Cameron's Praelect. De Eccles. Infallibilitate 292. 293. Apollon. Jus Magist. circ. sacra first part cap. 4. 247. 248, 249. Fourthly, there is a greater degree of infallibility and certainty in matters of faith and religion to be attained by means of the Scriptures, than was by the high priests' answers by Urim, or than is to be had by miracles, by one arising from the dead and coming to us, than by an Apostle or an Angel from heaven, yes or from a voice coming from heaven, of each of which I will speak something briefly. 1. There was more certainty even under the old Testament in the word written in the law, than in the high priest's answer, which appears thus, because the law was made by God himself the chief rule and measure of the high priest's answer, and in difficult cases wherein the Jews were commanded to come to the high priest for resolution, the last reference is made to the law. That very place (Deuteronomy 17:9, 10, 11, 12) brought by Hagiomastix page 130 to prove the sentence there spoken of, only such a sentence which the priest did upon enquiry by Urim and Thummim receive immediately, or however infallibly from the mouth of God himself, and by the Jesuits Bellarmine, Lorinus, Bailius, &c. brought to prove the Pope the supreme infallible judge of controversies, and not the Scriptures, shows clearly whatever answers the high priest gave in matters of judgment, they are limited expressly to the word of God, and that is made the supreme judge. The Jews were not simply to rest in the judgment of the high priests whatever they pronounced, but as it was according to the law. There is an express limitation in the text, in verses 10, 11: you shall do according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach you. In the Hebrew text it is twice written juxta os legis, according to the mouth of the law, and the ordinary gloss upon that place notes that it is not said to them you shall obey, unless they teach according to the law. These words according to the sentence of the law do signify a condition, not a promise, as if God did promise the priests they should never depart from the law, which our divines observe against Bellarmine and other Papists. Yes, Master Goodwin himself Sect. 107 of his Hagiomastix speaking of this place to be meant only of such a sentence which the priest did upon enquiry by Urim receive immediately or however infallibly, from the mouth of God himself, grants it and puts in the same section this sentence of the high priest under the law, and says the command in that Scripture is with that caution and limitation of going according to the sentence of the law. For proof of which I shall quote his own words verbatim: Thirdly, nor does God in this passage of Scripture (speaking of Deuteronomy 17:12) expressly command without caution and limitation that even in this controversy itself, he that would not stand to the sentence of the judge, or high priest, should be put to death; but only then, when the priests, the Levites, and the judge, should give sentence or inform them according to the sentence of the law. And for the reader's further satisfaction of the scope and meaning of Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 10, 11, 12, to free it from Master Goodwin's sense of only such a sentence which the priest did upon enquiry by Urim receive immediately, by which he would evade all punishment from the magistrate in matters of religion (though I have said much upon the place already) I refer him to the first tractate, eight question page 127. 128, 129 of Rivet's Catholicus Orthodoxus. 2. Than by miracles: it is a saying of Chrysostome, God has left us the Scriptures, more firm than any miracle; where the word of God is for such a thing, that thing is most true and certain, the word of God stands and abides for ever. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. It is impossible for God to lie. Miracles accompanying doctrines are not always infallible proofs of the truth of them; for false prophets, teaching false doctrines may do miracles, and come with signs and wonders. Deuteronomy 13:1, 2, 3 shows that false prophets who say, let us go after other Gods, may give signs and wonders, and the sign or wonder may come to pass. Matthew 7:22, 23 — Christ tells us that many who prophesied in his name, plead they have cast out devils, and done many wonderful works; were workers of iniquity, upon which place Maldonate (though a Jesuit) confesses those false prophets of which Christ speaks wrought true miracles, truly prophesied, truly cast out devils. Neither does Christ answer them that they lied, but that he knew them not although they had done such miracles; and thereupon he grants there can be no necessary argument taken from true miracles to prove the truth of doctrine. So Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:13, 14 fully set forth how false prophets and Antichrist shall do great miracles, by means of which they shall deceive many. In Augustine's time the Donatists would allege miracles done by them to prove the truth of their church and doctrine, and so do the Papists now against the Protestants, making the glory of miracles a note of their church. But Augustine against the Donatists of his time, and learned Protestants against the Papists upon that question of the notes of the church, do prove the word of God a surer note and argument of the true church and faith, than miracles, as whoever consults the writings of Augustine, Whitaker, Cameron, Rivet, Ames, Willet, White's Way to the Church, and especially of learned Gerard shall find. 3. The proof of doctrine by the Scripture, is more infallible than the testimony of one coming from the dead (Luke 16:29, 30, 31). Moses and the Prophets for persuading to believe are preferred before one arising from the dead. They who elude and wrest the Scriptures, interpreting them according to their own lust, if one should arise from the dead, they would not believe him in what he said against their opinions, but would put off all one way or other. Experience has taught that as Maldonate observes: Christ raised up Lazarus from the grave, who (as it is to be thought) told the Scribes and Priests many things agreeable to those which Christ taught them, and yet they were so far from believing him that they would have killed him (John 12:9, 10). So the Scribes and Pharisees after Christ's resurrection from the dead believed him never a whit more than before. 4. Than an Apostle, for the Apostles notwithstanding the prerogative of infallibility, their certain and infallible knowledge of the Gospel by the immediate inspiration of the holy Ghost, being infallible in their writings to the churches, and in those doctrines of faith they preached to those to whom they were sent, were in some things at some times subject to mistakes or errors. Peter that great Apostle of the circumcision, after the holy Ghost was given (Acts 2), erred and mistook in accounting the Gentiles at that time common and unclean, as Acts 10:13, 14, 15, 18, 24 compared together fully shows, and in the doctrine of Christian liberty, compelling the Gentiles to live as the Jews, and not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, for which Paul withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Galatians 2:11, 12, 13, 14). But the Scriptures err not at all, are all fine gold without any dross, cannot deceive, are perfect and glorious. The Apostles themselves in their preachings and writings appealed to the Scriptures, made them the chief rules of their doctrines (Acts 3:21; Acts 4:25, 26; Acts 17:2, 3; Acts 26:22, 23; Acts 28:23, 24, 25, 26, 27; Romans 1:2; Romans 3:4) with many other places to the same purpose. The [Bereans] are commended for that when Paul the Apostle preached to them, they searched the Scriptures whether those things were so. John the Baptist was sent from God (1 John 6) immediately inspired by the holy Ghost as well as the Apostles, and yet Christ prefers the witness of the Scriptures before the testimony of John (John 5:34, 36, 39). The testimony of the Scriptures is greater than the record of John, of which see Willet's Synops. first general Controvers. concerning the Scriptures, quest. fourth. 5. Than an Angel (Galatians 1:8): But though we or an Angel from heaven, &c. Paul prefers the Scriptures before Apostles, yes Angels, and anathematizes them, if they bring any other Gospel than what the Apostles had preached, which in many places he declares was according to the Scriptures. Chrysostome says that the Scripture is to be preferred before the Angels in the matters of faith. The word of God is the chief and highest rule of faith, for as learned Chamier writes, The word of God is God speaking, therefore look what is the authority of God speaking, the same is of the word of God, and therefore above Angels. And by the way I desire the reader to observe against Hagiomastix who makes such a do of infallibility, that not whatever is infallible is the supreme rule of faith, for that is a grand mistake to make every thing that is infallible the ground of believing, or the chief rule of it. But this is the ground of being the supreme rule of faith, that it be summae suaeque authoritatis — of supreme authority, of itself, and not from another, which is apparent, because Angels are infallible, the Apostles also were ex particulari assistentia Spiritus, and yet neither of them are, nor have been the supreme rule of the church. This Paul has taught us in Galatians 1:8, how Apostles and Angels are to be anathematized if they bring any other Gospel. But these things are unworthy to be affirmed of the rule of faith, and especially of the supreme rule, which ought not to be so resembled to any thing that by that it should be corrected and ordered, for then it ceases to be a rule, but rather that by the rule, especially the highest, all things else are to be judged. Therefore, besides infallibility there is something else necessary to a thing that it should become a rule; namely [illegible], that is, that it be of chief, and of its own authority, not of a subordinate and borrowed authority from another. But whoever would be further satisfied in this point, let him read learned Chamier. 6. Than God's own voice from heaven: the Apostle Peter tells us (2 Peter 1:17, 18, 19) of that voice of God from heaven which came to Jesus Christ: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, which Peter, James, and John heard when they were with Christ in the holy mount (Matthew 17:5, 6), and yet Peter speaking of the Scriptures and comparing them with this voice from the excellent glory writes thus: We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. Upon which words interpreters on the place, and other learned men show however that voice from heaven being from God as the written prophecies were, was in itself as sure, yet the word [illegible] is taken either for a most sure, or very sure word, a comparative for a superlative, so used in other places of Scripture, and so setting forth to us the Scriptures being founded on the firmest and greatest authority; or more sure, or more firm (so the word in the Greek properly signifies) to the Christian Jews to whom the Epistle was written, which by long use and experience were more settled in their hearts, and so sooner believed, than the voice from heaven, although that were sure also. Christ in John 5, from verse 31 to the 40, speaking of the many testimonies concerning him, as his own, John's testimony, the testimony of his works, instances in the voice from heaven, witnessing to him (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5), and then Christ goes to the Scriptures as the highest and chiefest: Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me. We may observe the gradation of the witnesses: Christ's works greater than the testimony of John, the Father's witnessing from heaven above that of his works, and the Scriptures testifying of him the last and greatest of all. And for a conclusion of this, God's speaking to his church under the new Testament, especially since the canon was sealed and confirmed (as divines speak), that is by his Son making known the whole evangelical doctrine and will of God concerning man's salvation, is by the holy Ghost preferred far before the divers manners and ways of God's making known his will before, as that of dreams, visions, Urim and Thummim, voice from heaven, Angels, &c., as is evident by Hebrews 1:1, 2, 3 compared with the second of Hebrews 1:2, 3, 4. In a word, they who are so wicked to wrest and pervert manifest plain places of Scripture, would not (if they had lived in those days) have rested satisfied in the sentences of the high priest by Urim, in one coming from the dead, in the doctrine of an Apostle or Angel, or in a voice from heaven, but would have made cavils, and found pretences to have eluded and evaded all, or any of those as well as the Scriptures, in all which I might give particular instances, but for present I shall instance only in the voice from heaven, of which voice from heaven (John 12:28, 29, 30) though it was so plain and distinct, testifying Christ to be sent of God and the Messiah, yet it is perverted and misinterpreted as much as the Scriptures. Of which voice from heaven how perverted, I refer the reader to learned Rollock, Calvin, and other interpreters on that place of Scripture, and so much for this seventh answer.

Eighthly, supposing all Hagiomastix says in page 46, 47, and 130, to be true that that sentence of the priest or judge against which he that would do presumptuously was to be put to death, was only a sentence upon enquiry by Urim and Thummim, and that the Jews' opportunity of immediateness of consultation with the mouth of God himself, was a clear reason why that old Testament law for putting of false prophets, &c to death was given to them, yet it follows not these laws cannot be in force now, unless that can be made appearance to have been the only reason and ground of the magistrate's punishing, for if there were other reasons as well under the old Testament of those laws, and that by God formally and particularly declared and expressed (as it is evident there were, and I have proved page 70, 76, and divers other pages of this Treatise) then they being in force still, the laws bind though one particular reason, or more proper to that time be ceased. I might instance in many moral things commanded under the old Testament that unquestionably (I suppose in Master Goodwin's judgment) are in force under the new, of which among other reasons given, there was some one particular reason proper to the Jews, that holds not now, but for this I refer the reader to page 83 of this book. And to put an end to these eight answers to the sixth evasion of Hagiomastix page 46, 47, 130, I shall only mind him of that known axiom, A particulari ad universale non valet consequentia, and therefore though that particular reason be ceased (although I have fully shown that never was any reason of those laws under the old Testament for punishing of false prophets, but a mere device, and a fancy) it is no good consequence, all the other reasons, yes, and the commands themselves should cease also.

Seventhly to that Hagiomastix says, that the punishments enjoined by God then under the Law to be inflicted in his Church upon delinquents, were more bodily and afflictive to the outward man, than the punishments enjoined under the Gospel, and consequently were not only carnal or bodily, but typical also, and presignificative of those greater and more spiritual under the Gospel, cutting off from his people then, as of casting out from his people now, cutting off under the Gospel being no where found to be used but in a metaphorical and allusive sense, also to what Minus Celsus Senensis writes that that corporal punishment in Deuteronomy 13 was a type of eternal damnation, and therefore that Law with all the rest given for the future signification of things by the coming of Christ ceased, I answer as follows. First, I deny the punishments enjoined by God under the Law to be inflicted in his Church upon delinquents to be bodily or afflictive at all to the outward man, as by confiscation of goods, or by death, but they were spiritual and inflicted upon the souls by suspension, excommunication, and such like spiritual censures, as well as now under the Gospel. It is true, there were bodily outward punishments in the civil judicatories inflicted then on the bodies of false prophets, idolaters, &c, but by the magistrates, the civil governors, and not by the priests, the ecclesiastical governors in the Church of the Jews. For under the Law the Jewish Church and Commonwealth, the civil government and ecclesiastical, the censures and punishments of Church and State were formally distinct, as Master Gillespie has fully and excellently proved in his Aarons Rod Blossoming in many places, particularly Book 1, chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, and the Church of the Jews proceeded then against false prophets, only with the sword of the Spirit, and spiritual weapons, and the State with the material sword, and bodily punishments. Which truth is fully acknowledged also by Master Cotton (however differing from Presbyterians about a national Church) in his Answer to Master Williams Bloudy Tenet, saying, I should think mine eye not only obscured, but the sight of it utterly put out, if I should conceive as he does, that the national Church State of the Jews did necessarily call for such weapons (a speaking of a sword of iron or steel) to punish heretics more than the congregational State of particular Churches does call for the same now in the days of the new Testament. For was not the national Church of the Jews as completely furnished with spiritual armor to defend itself, and to offend men and devils as the particular Churches of the new Testament be? Had they not power to convince false prophets as Elijah did the prophets of Baal? Had they not power to separate all evil doers from the fellowship of the congregation? What power have our particular Churches now, which their national Church wanted? Or what efficacy is there found in the exercise of our power which was wanting to them. It is therefore a sophistical imagination of man's brain to make oneself, or the world believe that the national Church State of the Jews required a civil sword, whereas the particular State of the Gospel needs no such help. And was not the national Church of Israel as powerfully able by the same spirit to do the same? Surely it was both spoken and meant of the national Church of the Jews, not by might nor by power, but my Spirit says the Lord of Hosts (Zechariah 4:6). So that by what I have already said Hagiomastix must either (I suppose) recall what he has written of carnal bodily punishments enjoined by God then to be inflicted, in his Church upon delinquents, or else must join with the Erastians in holding the Jewish Church and Commonwealth, their government and censures all one and the same. Secondly, the foundation upon which Hagiomastix rears this building of outward punishments under the old Testament being typical of spiritual under the new (namely the Land of Canaan with the external happiness and peace there being typical, and therefore reasons a comparatis and from the analogy) is sandy and unsound. For the Land of Canaan with the external happiness and long life in it, whatever it was typical of, was from what God had put into the Land, being a land healthful, pleasant, flowing with milk and honey, abounding in excellent precious fruits, the immediate blessings of God upon it, and not from what came to it by the magistrates' laws and their good government. For further satisfaction of which I wish Master Goodwin to resolve me this question, whether the Land of Canaan were not typical as well in times of wars and troubles and under bad princes, as in days of peace, and under good princes and so to reason a comparatis (to use his own phrase and adidem,) if temporal threatenings and bodily punishments inflicted upon delinquents under the old Testament, were typical and presignificative of greater under the Gospel, they must be threatenings and bodily punishments inflicted from God upon false prophets, &c, not those executed by the magistrates on them. Thirdly, granting both Hagiomastix's foundation and the building reared upon it to be good, yet they no whit prove bodily and outward punishments to be wholly taken away under the new Testament. For suppose the temporal happiness and the temporal punishments had typified more spiritual happiness, and less of the earth, more spiritual judgements, and less of outward or bodily sufferings under the Gospel, yet it follows not, they take away all outward happiness and blessings, and all outward bodily punishments. There may be greater or lesser degrees of things under the old and new Testament suitable to some difference in the manner of administration between the old and the new, and yet not the substance of the things taken away. These are known axioms, Gradus non tollunt substantiam, Magis & Minus non variant speciem. It is apparent by sense and experience that how much soever spiritual blessings, and spiritual judgements in the days of the Gospel abound above the times under the Law, yet they take not away all temporal outward blessings, nor all temporal outward judgements, but God for all that gives many outward blessings, and sends many temporal judgements on the earth. So supposing God should inflict more spiritual judgements on the souls of men under the new Testament, and the Church greater spiritual censures than under the old, it no way follows the magistrates may inflict none at all, especially when all spiritual judgements on the soul are slighted, and with a high hand contemned. Fourthly, whereas punishment by the magistrate and cutting off by death under the old Testament, in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, &c, is made a ceremony and type of excommunication under the new Testament, cutting off of casting out, and of eternal damnation, I may truly answer this is gratis dictum, said, but not proved, and therefore might deny it without giving any reason, and bid the patrons of toleration prove it, but that the civil magistrates' punishing delinquents under the old Testament, was no ceremony nor type, I shall give these reasons. 1. Ceremonies, shadows, typical things under the old Law, were either of things past, or things to come, the remembrances of things already done, or the presignifications of future things, but ceremonies and types were not the signification of things present and existent. Now excommunication and eternal damnation were at that time under the old Law when those commands of punishing with death the apostate, false prophet, &c, were given and in use. That excommunication and cutting off from the Church were in the Church of the Jews in the times of the good kings and magistrates punishing idolaters, &c with the civil sword, let the reader consult Aarons Rod Blossoming Book 1, chapters 4, 5, 6, 7. That there was Hell and eternal damnation under the old Law, as well as the new, both before those commands in Deuteronomy 13:17 were given, and all along after, many places of Scripture show, as Isaiah 30:33, 2 Peter 4, Jude 5:6, 7, that mention Hell for the evil angels, Sodomites, the unbelieving Israelites that came out of Egypt, and the wicked kings of Israel and Judah. And therefore that which Hagiomastix says, that cutting off from his people under the Law, it exchanged for casting out from his people under the Gospel, is very false, for there was casting out from the Church as well then as now. Yes, cutting off spoken of in the old Testament in many places, means nothing else but casting out of the Church by excommunication, for full proof of which I refer the reader to Aarons Rod Blossoming Book 1, chapter 5, pages 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. As also that passage is not true, that the expression of cutting off, wherever it is found in the Gospel, is metaphorical and allusive only, for cutting off is used in the new Testament for cutting off by bodily death, as in Galatians 5:12, and elsewhere: the proof of which I refer to the 20th Thesis where I shall handle it fully. Secondly, the same things may be said with as much reason against bodily outward punishments for breaches of the second Table, adultery, murder, theft, as against outward punishing for apostasy, &c, and if they hold not good against the second Table, neither do they against the first. Thirdly, the civil magistrates' punishing for moral transgressions is no ceremony nor type, acts of moral justice, though they may sometimes be extraordinary, yet they never were accounted typical or figurative, but by such as would transform all the Scriptures into an allegory. And Master Cotton answering such a like evasion in the Bloudy Tenet, says, Did ever any Apostle or Evangelist make the judicial laws of Moses concerning life and death, ceremonial and typical? Time was when human inventions in God's worship were accounted superstition; but now human inventions in doctrine may pass for current evangelical divinity. And in another place, To make a judicial law a figure without some light from some Scripture, is to make oneself wise above that which is written. Fifthly, the making these express commands of God concerning punishing idolaters, false prophets, blasphemers, types and figures of spiritual and eternal punishments, of excommunication, damnation, &c is, by turning the Scriptures into an allegory, and forsaking their literal sense against the rules of interpretation given by the most orthodox divines as Augustine and others, a making them utterly void, and as opening a wide door to all errors and foolish conceits, that as often as men know not how to answer the Scriptures that cross their opinions and lusts, and yet have a mind to keep their opinions, they may still fly to this, and say, This Scripture is not to be taken literally, but mystically and allegorically. Beza in that judicious tractate of his De Haereticis a Magistratu puniendis, in answer to Montfortius a grand patron of toleration in those times, who in many places of his writings, made use of this invention, that corporal punishment under the old Law, as stoning, was no figure of any bodily punishment to be now inflicted, but of eternal, to which we ought to leave heretics, or else of that punishment which is inflicted not by a corporal sword, but a spiritual, the lively word of God, writes thus, For this was the special subtlety of Satan of old, which yet not one almost of the ancient Fathers observed, that when he could not cast the Scripture out of the Church wholly, yet by vain allegories, he made the whole Scripture unprofitable and fabulous, so as truly there was not one piece of Scripture left free of being contaminated with these allegories, which very course also the Anabaptists, and Libertines take at this day. But this I would that they should at length show us, out of what place of Scripture they have learned that invention and device of the shadows and figures of the judicial laws. In ceremonies and so in some histories from the authority of Scripture I acknowledge these things: but of judicial laws, or corporal idolatry, which might shadow out spiritual, I remember not that I have ever read any thing. But for further satisfaction in this particular, I refer the reader to the tractate of Beza pages 156, 167. Sixthly, supposing all Hagiomastix says were true, that those bodily punishments commanded by God under the old Law to be inflicted upon false prophets, idolaters, seducers, blasphemers, had been in some sense typical and presignificative of those greater and more spiritual under the Gospel, yet it follows not that they are ceased now, and may not be lawfully practised, for they may remain and be made use of, though the other sense intended be fulfilled too. There is a compound sense of some places of Scripture literal and historical, figurative and spiritual, as Weems in his Christian Synagogue second Book, pages 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 shows, in which cases when the spiritual is fulfilled eminently, the literal is not abolished, of which I might give many instances, but shall only name one, namely that of Deuteronomy 25:4, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox which treads out the corn. Now though the spiritual sense of that place, be the not muzzling the mouth of the ministers who labor in the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:9), yet the literal sense holds still that a man should forbear to muzzle the mouth of the ox which treads out the corn, or at least it is not unlawful to forbear. Besides by the same reason, the Decalogue the whole ten commandments are overthrown too, for both in Moses his giving the moral Law, and in the commands themselves with the preface from the second verse of the 20th of Exodus to verse 18, there are divers particulars typical and figurative of things under the Gospel, temporal corporal things of spiritual and heavenly, of which I having spoken before in this Book, pages 24, 25, 83, 85, and many learned divines giving instances in this kind, as Zepperus, Rivitus, Master Burgesse, I shall enlarge no further, but refer the reader to those books.

Having laid down divers reasons to prove the commands under the old Law for Magistrates punishing false Prophets, Apostates, Blasphemers, to be of common reason and equity given to all Nations, and for all Ages, and having answered the most material grounds brought by the Patrons of Toleration to make void those commands, as not binding under the new Testament, I come in the third place to answer those evasions and shifts brought by Jacobus Acontius, Minus Celsus Senensis, and Hagiomastix, that if it should be granted that all and every the Laws contested about, as well that for putting to death the false Prophet, as those for inflicting punishment upon the Idolater and Blasphemer were moral, and still in force under the Gospel, yet these could not reach to Heretics, and false Teachers among us, at not being those false Prophets, Idolaters, Blasphemers, spoken of in the old Law. If it can be proved that Heretics are those Blasphemers, false Prophets, Apostates, which Moses commands to be killed, then it shall be acknowledged Heretics are to be killed; but there is a large difference between a Heretic and such a false Prophet or Apostate, as the Presbyterians in their own definition of Heretics make. A Heretic does not deny God the Creator of heaven and earth, neither does he teach that other gods are to be worshipped; a Heretic does not deny the name of Christ; a Heretic does not deny the word of God which an Apostate does: so that the word of God may be used as a weapon against Heretics, which against an Apostate, cannot. A Heretic therefore is not mentioned nor touched in any one word of these Laws: but if any will go about to draw these Laws to a Heretic, that cannot be done by the proper force of the words, but (as the Lawyers speak) per extensionem latamque interpretationem, by stretching of them and far fetched interpretation. And it would first be well considered of, whether every Law does admit of such extensions, and if not every one, which of them then does admit, and therefore? And whether in this Law there are those things for which an extension is to be made. By the false Prophet who was commanded to be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:5) was not meant every Heretic or erroneous person, nor yet those who taught or published any false doctrine though of dangerous consequence; but only those who endeavored to persuade men to the worship of a false god; and that by affirming that they spoke by the inspiration of some deity, and that their sayings were to be esteemed Oracles. What doctrine it was which made the Prophet or Teacher of it guilty of death, is expressly determined in the Law itself, and asserted to be this; Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them. And that the Law of God made against false Prophets and worshippers of false Gods, was not intended against those who otherwise held that the Law of God was to be kept, but were infected with some other error, is sufficiently evident from hence, because in former times among the Jews, who were affected with a vehement love and zeal towards their law, Heretics notwithstanding were tolerated, and particularly the Sadducees. These although the greatest part of the people, and the Rulers believed them to err exceedingly, nevertheless they were not expelled the city, neither exempted from being Magistrates, or bearing any other civil office: yes, they were not hindered from coming to the Temple or the Synagogues. The Scribes and Pharisees also both held and taught many most dangerous and erroneous doctrines; yet were they also in great honor and esteem in this church and state. And though our Savior upon occasion reasoned against, yes and reproved them all for holding and teaching these errors, and gave warning to take heed of them; yet did he never charge this church or state, or those that bore office in either, with sin, or unfaithfulness in their places for not proceeding against them in regard of their errors, either by imprisonment or death. And yet we know that the zeal of his Father's House did eat him up, and that he attempted a reformation among them; yes, Christ did teach and press upon men, all, and all manner of duties from judgment, mercy, and faith, even to the paying tithe of Mint, Anise, and Cummin.

Now to these and other such like, besides some hints I have already given upon the 14. Thesis, which may serve in part for satisfaction to some of these evasions, I desire the Reader to mind these following Answers.

First, there are other places of Scripture both of commands, or else examples approved by God, concerning the punishing with death or restraining by Civil power, (the last of which makes good the point in hand against Hagiomastix and other Libertines, as well as that of death) for other faults in matters of Religion, besides Blasphemie, Apostasie, and false Prophecying in the sense now alledged by Hagiomastix and his Compeers, which these following instances prove. First in Deuteronomy 13:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, that very chapter verse 5. brought by Hagiomastix to prove only those were to be put to death, who endeavoured to perswade men to the worship of a false God; and that by affirming, that they spake by the inspiration of some deitie, and that their sayings were to be esteemed by Oracles, the Holy Ghost layes downe the contrary, giving a distinct Precept and command from that of the false Prophet, or dreamer of dreams, who publickly and openly sollicites to Apostasie, concerning the killing of such who in a hidden and clancular way seduce. Tis observed by learned Junius in his Analytical explication on Deuteronomy 13. that there are two sorts of Seducers to Apostasie commanded to be put to death, the one of such who publickly and boldly sollicite, who are spoken of in the 5 first verses, the other of such who secretly intice in verse 6. and the five following. Now however the false Prophet or dreamer of dreames might pretend to speak by the inspiration of some deitie, for which the 5 verse of the 13. is quoted by Hagiomastix, yet the private enticers to Apostasie, as the daughter, the wife of the bosome, the Son, besides that they are made a different sort from the Prophet and dreamer of dreams, and those six verses from the sixt to the twelfth containe a distinct command from the five first verses about false Prophets, neither doe they give out signs or wonders to confirme their calling, the parties instanced in the text, being of daughters to Fathers, Wifes to Husbands, &c, were not likely so much as to pretend to them the name of Prophets speaking by inspiration of some deitie, but rather drawing by their neernesse of relation, intimatenesse of affection, opportunities of private and constant converse (which many phrases in those verses, the wife of the bosome, your friend which is as your owne soule, entise you secretly, you shall not censent to him, neither shall your eye pity, and such like imply) and yet these are commanded to be put to death, as well as those Prophets who openly and bodily gave out signs and wonders to confirme their being Prophets, of which the Reader may be further satisfied, by reading Junius his Analytical explication on Deuteronomy 13. And as Moses in that former part of the chapter showes plainly, contrary to the affirmation of Hagiomastix and other Libertines, that others who perswade men to the worship of a false god besides those who pretend themselves Prophets, are to be killed, so in the latter part of this chapter from v. 13. he layes downe how they are to be put to death also that are guilty of Apostasie, that have suffered themselves to be drawn away from the true worship of God to other gods, who are so far from comming under the notion of false Prophets, endeavouring to perswade men to the worship of a false God, and that by affirming they spake by the inspiration of some deitie, as that they fal not under the Title of Seducers at all, but the seduced. And therefore Junius writing upon this Deuteronomy 13. analyzes the whole chap. concerning Apostasies into two, First, the Authors entising to Apostasie in the first 11. verses. Secondly those who are guilty of Apostasie, who suffer themselves to be withdrawn from the worship of God, in the latter part of the chapter, and he showes this is another part of the chap. in which Moses speaks not of those seducing false Prophets, nor the clandestine Seducers, but of those who yielded to their Seducements, particularly of those who publickly to the view of all are Seduced, and being in public Order as a City, rest in that Apostasie, by the public authoritie of men falling from God, and openly defending that impietie. So Deuteronomy 17. from verse 2. to verse 8. sets downe a Law for putting to death those who are Idolaters and Apostates simply, though they never went about to entice others. Junius upon this 17. c. observes that this Law differs from that in the 13 chapt. the eleven first verses, because there Moses speaks of Apostates who are Dogmatists and enticers to Apostasie; but here of Idolaters simply. In Deuteronomy 17. from verse 8. to verse 13. there is a Law that in ecclesiastical cases in matters of Religion, as well as Civil, upon going from the lower Iudicatories to the supreme to the high Priest with the Colledge of Priests, the man that would doe presumptuously and would not hearken to the Priest, even that man should die, which was in other cases then Blasphemie, Apostasie, Prophecying falsly. For it appears by the scope of that place and the stream of all interpreters, that in too hard matters for inferior Courts, they should goe to the High Ecclesiastical Synedrion, and whoever presumptuously disobeyed their sentence according to the Law, though in other things then the forenamed Blasphemie, &c as appears by this place verse 11. 12. speaking of the Law indefinitely with that (2 Chronicles 19:8, 9, 10, 11) compared together, mentioning what cause soever shal come to you of your brethren that dwell in their Cities between Law and commandement, statutes and judgements, should be put to death, the ground of which putting to death here commanded, was not only from the nature of these sins against the first Table of the highest forme as Apostasie Blasphemie and such like, but for other sinnes in points of Religion, though lesser, when the sentence and resolution of the high Priest with his Colledges was presumptuously disobeyed, so that the punishing of wilful scorneful contempt of supreme Ecclesiasticall Government, determining doubts and Controversies according to the word of God, though in other cases, then Apostasie, Blasphemie, Prophecying falsly, is here commanded. But having spoken so much of this Deuteronomy 17. already in p. 101. 102, 103, 104, 105, 135, 159, 160. I shal not enlarge further, only I shal take my leave of this Scripture by adding a passage out of Master Cottons late Book against Mr. Williams in way of answer to an evasion of his, that the capital punishment prescribed against the presumptuous rejection of the sentence of the highest Court in Israel, was a figure of excommunication in the Church of Christ. To which Master Cotton replyes, That Law is of moral equity in all Nations and in all Ages. Hee that shall presumptuously appeale from, or rise up against the cheifest or highest Court in a free state, is guilty, laesae Majestatis publicae, and therefore as a capital offender to be censured in any free common-wealth. And certainly if that part of the Law in Deuteronomy 17. of presumptuously appealing from, or rising against the sentence of the cheifest and highest Court in a free State being punished with death, be of universal and perpetual equitie, then punishing so far at least, as to restraine those who presumptuously rise up and contemn the sentence of the highest Ecclesiastical Iudicature in a Church going according to the word of God, is of universall and perpetual equitie too, and the command of God in that text for punishing, is against the man that will not hearken to the Priest, as well as he that will not hearken to the Judge. Deuteronomy 18:20. sets downe a Law, that the Prophet which shal presume to speake a word in God's name, which he commanded him not to speak, shal die, as well as hee that shall speake in the name of other gods: which place of Scripture proves expresly against Hagiomastix that other Prophets, besides those that came in the name of false gods, and with other false Doctrine then that, let us goe after other gods which you have not known and let us serve them, were to be put to death. The command is indefinite concerning speaking any word in God's name which he commanded not to speak, which must needs extend further then a Prophet prophecying only of turning to another God: for there were many false Doctrines and false worships against the Jewish Religion, besides that of Apostasie to other gods. Again the scope of the words and several phrases, as if the thing follow not nor come to passe, you shall not be afraid of him, show tis meant of other Doctrine then saying, let us goe after other gods, namely of Doctrine foretelling of some things to come; whereas enticing to goe and serve other gods is de praesenti. Learned Junius writing on this place, showes that the Prophecies here spoken of are different from those in Deuteronomy 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 5. they being of faith, but these of facts and events, which are not foretold particularly from the Canon of the Scripture, but only from the speciall revelation of God. Ainsworth in his Annotations upon the Place showes v. 22. the Prophet there speaking of things, is meant of praedictions foretelling things to come, as also he reckons up severall sorts of false Prophets, others then the false Prophet spoken of Deuteronomy 13:1, 5. The false Prophet is to be strangled to death, although he Prophecie in the name of the Lord, and neither addeth nor diminisheth, whether he Prophecieth that which he has not heard by propheticall vision, or who so has heard the words of his fellow Prophet and says that his word was said to him, and he prophecieth thereby; hee is a false Prophet, and is to be strangled to death. And tis evident by Jeremiah 26:8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16. in the Priests and Prophets proceeding against Jeremiah pretending him to be a false Prophet, and therefore to be put to death, for saying this house shall bee like Shiloh, and this City shall be desolate without an inhabitant; Whereas Jeremiah still makes his defence, The Lord sent me to prophecie against this house, and against this City all the words that you have heard, that other false Prophets were to be put to death, then those who taught men to worship other gods, upon which law they would have put Jeremiah to death, against whom they never so much as suggested that he caught revolt from the Lord, and worshipping strange Gods. Deuteronomy 19:16, 17, 18, 19. gives a ground in case of private seducing to revolt, upon proofe, to punish with death, or in case of perjurie, testifying falsly upon oath against one for seducing, a sinne against the first Table too, to doe the like, both which showes other persons for matters of Religion may be punished, then the false Prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 13:1, 5. namely private Seducers to Apostasie and perjured persons, of which place of Scripture, let the Reader see what I have said before in this Tractate, page 108. and further consult Junius in his Analytical explication of Deuteronomy 19. where we shall find that both wayes the matter here spoken of, is belonging to the first Table and Religion. If the accusation be true, tis enticing secretly to Apostasie; if false tis matter of Religion because the oath of God is set to it, especially in the cause of Apostasie, and therefore the Priests in that an oath is a point of Religion, are commanded to be present, and to take cognizance of it. And by the way least this place may be thought to favor the Priests enquiring by Vrim, for the resolving of the controversie, because tis said, Then both the men between whom the controversie is, shall stand before the Lord, before the Priests and the Iudges, I shall to what I have already answered to this place pag. 108. adde a passage out of Junius to show the contrary. The parties between whom the controversie is, are commanded in these words to stand before Jehovah, that is not before the Temple of the Lord, but before Iudges given of the Lord, before whom when men appeare they are said to stand before the Lord, and whom consulting with they are said to consult the Lord (Exodus 18, Deuteronomy 1). The verse also next following showes it cannot be meant of the judgement of Vrim, for the resolution of it depends upon the Iudges making diligent inquision verse 18. that is their questioning and searching into the parties and all circumstances, whereas if it had been by Vrim, it would have been attributed to the Priests, rather then the Judges, and it would have come from God, without that diligent inquisition and exact enquiring of men, as the words imply. So Junius on the place says: But the knowledge and judgement of this thing properly belongs to the Judges, and therefore to the Judges only the diligent enquiring, and thorough searching out is principally commanded. Lastly, Zechariah 13:2, 3. God by the Prophet showes that in the dayes of the Gospel prophecying falsly as distinct from Idolatrie (for so tis made and also I wil cause the Prophets) is to be punished bodily (which text that tis both meant of the time under the Gospel, and to be understood litterally of civil outward punishment by those in Power and Authoritie, and not figuratively and spiritually, that I may not anticipate my selfe, nor create trouble to the Reader to read the same thing twice, I shall by the grace of God prove in the 19. Thesis, where I shall at large speak of that Scripture and take of Hagiomastix's evasions, and whither I refer the Reader). Now by Prophets there and those who prophecie and speak lies in the name of the Lord are not meant only Prophets whose doctrine is to go & worship false gods, but al sorts of false phets. 1. Illiterate mechanick men, who run but are not sent and that whether they preach true or false, which that they are included the fift verse showes, because when the false Prophets spoken of shall repent and be ashamed, among the rest one is brought in, saying, I am no Prophet: I am an Husbandman, for man taught me to keep cattell from my youth. 2. Prophets who take upon them in the name of the Lord, as by revelation from God to foretell things to come, such Prophets as are spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:20; Ezekiel 13:6, 7; Jeremiah 14:14, 15. 3. Such who preach false Doctrines and Heresies wresting the Scriptures to maintaine them, though they doe not formally teach another God and Christ, neither pretend to speak by the inspiration of some deitie, but only by perverting the Scriptures, which is a speaking lyes in the name of the Lord. Now that Heretieks and false Teachers are understood in this place of Scripture as well as Apostates, besides the judgement of many learned and Orthodox Interpreters, as Calvin, Arias Montanus, Gualther, Fabritius, Diodate, Annotations of English Divines, there are these Reasons. 1. All such are meant who speak lyes in the name of the Lord, and that is made formalis ratio why not live, and to be thrust thorow, for you speakest lies in the name of the Lord. Now false Doctrines and Heresies are speaking lyes, cald lyes in many places of Scriptures (1 Timothy 4:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11; Revelation 2:2) and fables (2 Timothy 4:4) and when men pretend God has revealed them to them by inspiration, or urge the Scriptures to make them good, this is to speake lyes in the name of the Lord. Hence Calvin upon this place gives this reason that tis cleere the Prophet Zacharie speaks altogether of false Teachers, because of those words, for you speakest lyes in the name of the Lord. 2. The word in this text used, namely Nebüm, and translated Prophets, does not only signifie Prophets as Arias Montanus observes upon that place, but foolish speakers and vaine talkers; such namely who are the cunning devisers of vaine discourses, and by the subtil illusious of words doe catch the people; such as Peter speaks of (2 Peter 2) false Teachers among the people who with fained words deceive, & among others such especially who when they are confuted by learned men by plain places of Scripture being destitute of all abilitie and means by which to defend them errors, that they may delude weak people, insolently hoast they have the Spirit, all their discourses being full of the boasting of the Spirit, their prayers, disputations, speeches to the People all full of that, for which they thinke they should be more beleeved then for all reason, testimonies, imitating therein Mahomet that Prince of Hereticks, who when be could not prove the things he taught, then he fled to the authoritie of the Spirit, saying the Spirit revealed those things to him. Now all sorts of Hereticks and false Teachers besides those Prophets who say let us goe after other Gods, are vain talkers and deceivers as they of the circumcision and others (Titus 1:10). 3. In this place is understood Hereticks and false Teachers, as well as false Prophets who teach the following after other Gods, from the effects that follow upon the thrusting thorow in the 4. 5. 6. verses. So Gualther upon the place says, that it ought to be understood of false Teachers, out of what followes it shall be manifest, as from saying, I am no Prophet, I am an husbandman, for man taught me to keep cattell from my youth, &c. That is they shall ingenuously confessé their ignorance that they ought to be sent to the Plaw-taile, and to keep cattel rather then to continue any longer in the Ministrie of the Church: And this is fulfilled in our age in many Papists, who have left many fat Livings, and preferments to embrace the pure Doctrine of the Gospel, and [illegible] in the Church of Christ by the labor of their hands to get their living, then in the tents of Anti-Christ to enjoy the greatest means. Now Papists and such others however they are false Teachers & ven[illegible] corrupt unsound Doctrine, yet they are not of those who deny the true God and Christ, and perswade to serve strange Gods. So that by all these places of Scripture opened, wee may see fully proved, against Hagiomastix's assertion, by warrant of Scripture, many corruptions in matters of Religion, besides false Prophets publickly teaching Apostasie to false Gods, outwardly and bodily punished, as private Seducers (though they pretend not to be Prophets) as persons seduced not seducing, as those who would not hearken to, but contemne the sentence of the supreme Ecclesiasticall Assembly, as Hereticks and false Teachers; and whoever would see more of these instances of Magistrates punishing for corruptions of religion in points of wil-worship, Sabboth breaking, &c, let them look back to page 27. 28, 29 of this present Tractate.

Secondly, supposing there had been no other commands nor examples for magistrates under the old Testament putting to death for matters of religion, then those named by Hagiomast. of false prophets, apostates, blasphemers, which is not true (as I have now shown in this first answer and page 28 of this present book) yet these were sufficient grounds to justify the magistrates punishing in like cases, and that upon these reasons. 1. In all laws and commands for the better knowing their nature what they require and would have, it is good looking into the causes and reasons of them, why such laws were given by God: from the cause of making the law, the mind of the law-giver is to be understood. It is a known maxim, Ratio legis est mens legis, the reason of the law is the mind of the law. Now the reasons and causes of both those commands, both against false prophets as also private seducers in Deuteronomy 13 from verse 1 to the 12 are: 1. the seeking to turn men away from the Lord their God, and thrusting them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walk in; 2. the putting away the evil from the midst of them, that others may hear and fear and do no more any such wickedness among them. These are the spirit and substance of these commands, that those are to be punished who when they fall from God themselves, tempt others to the like defection, and therefore are to be made examples, that others may not do the like. And therefore whoever seeks to turn men away from the Lord God, and thrust them out of the way which the Lord has commanded them to walk in, they come within the compass of these commandments although they do not tempt to go after the false gods of that time, and those countries, which the false prophets then enticed them to. For the reason of the law is expressed in a universal form against those who seek to turn men away from the Lord their God, and to thrust them out of the way which the Lord commanded them to walk in, as Beza observes, and therefore to be in force against those in general who do fall from the true religion, and enticers also, which is done other ways than by falling to the strange gods in those times that Moses writ in. Yes, the command itself verse 5, in the letter, mentions as speaking to turn men away from the Lord their God, so to thrust out of the way, which the Lord their God commanded them to walk in, which certainly in the Scripture sense and acceptation includes other apostasy and idolatry, than of other gods. And I ask whether Israel's worshipping the golden calf, and the ten tribes worshipping the golden calf at Dan and Bethel, though they worshipped Jehovah in and by them, were not a going out of their way which the Lord their God commanded them to walk in. Secondly, it is common and usual, that in the commands concerning the worship of God and in other places of Scripture where the worship of God is spoken of, there are synecdochical speeches, intending and containing many other things of like kind and nature although not formally and literally expressed. Elijah when he complained of the whole covenant of God violated by the Israelites, expresses it by a part, thrown down your altars and slain your prophets. The prophet Isaiah prophesying of Egypt's embracing the true religion, says, Egypt shall swear to the Lord of hosts, under that expressing the whole worship of God. The commands of God are exceeding large and broad, comprehending many things under one. Rivet in his explication of the Decalogue among other rules he gives for understanding of the commandments, has this, that in all the precepts of the Decalogue we must acknowledge a synecdoche, in which one kind being propounded, all under the same genus are understood. But that that synecdoche may be rightly explained, before all things the scope of the law-giver in every precept is to be enquired after: namely, what he signifies pleases and displeases him; for then we shall aim rightly and refer all things to their true end. Now in these commands (Deuteronomy 13, from verse 1 to the 12), if we do but well observe the scope and end of the law-giver, namely how teaching defection from the Lord God highly displeases him, we shall plainly see the synecdoche in these commands, under that turning away by those false gods, other turning away by false gods of another sort, and false worships of the true God by images and idols, highly provoking him. Of defection from God there are many dangerous and damnable ways, diverse public testimonies of it, of which though one or two principal of the times and places then may be only particularly named in the laws, yet such that are worse, and other as bad must needs be meant too, especially when the reason of the law speaking of defection is delivered in a general way, as it is in this instance of Deuteronomy 13. But of this the reader may see more in page 31 and 32 of this treatise.

Thirdly, under the old Testament laws, commanding magistrates to punish false prophets, idolaters, blasphemers, are contained false teachers and heretics, who preach doctrines destroying the foundation, and blasphemers against the glory of Christ, although they be not such false prophets and apostates as wholly deny God and Christ, and fall to the gods of the heathens, which besides the judgment of many learned divines, as Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Philip Melancton, Junius, Zepperus, with divers others upon that question, still quoting those texts to prove that heretics and false teachers ought to be punished by the civil magistrate, appears further thus. 1. Among the Jews a false prophet used to signify every false teacher as Bergius shows, and I have already shown out of Calvin, Arias Monianus and others that by the false prophets in Zacharie are meant false teachers, and that the word in the Hebrew Nebiim signifies foolish and vain talkers, that with feigned words make merchandise of people, as well as prophets; and some divines show that the name of prophet in the general signification was taken not only for them that foretold things to come, but for such who professed themselves interpreters of the Law and word of God, though falsely. 2. There is a great agreement and analogy made by the Holy Ghost, between the false prophets under the old Testament, and the false teachers and heretics under the new; between the heathenish apostasy and idolatry of strange gods under the old, and Christian idolatry, the worshipping of the true God, by images, saints, and the believing of false doctrines destructive to the faith, as these places of Scripture show (2 Peter 1:1): But there were false prophets also among the people, even [◊] there shall be false teachers among you, where Peter resembles them together, making the false teachers under the new such men as the false prophets under the old; hence in many places of the new Testament, heretics and false teachers who broached strange doctrines in Christian religion, still professing to hold Christ, are called by the name of false prophets, and Popish teachers who hold Christ, the Scriptures, &c, called false prophets, as Matthew 7:15, the false prophets there must needs be meant false teachers, who do not deny God and Christ, and not Master Goodwin's false prophets, as their sheep's clothing spoken of in the text shows. So Matthew 24:11, 24, the false prophets were such men in pretences, insomuch that if it were possible they would deceive the very elect. So (1 John 4:1) Christians are called upon to try doctrines, because many false prophets are gone out into the world, that is, false teachers broaching strange doctrines, and thus the Anti-Christian faction is called the false prophets in divers places of the Revelation of Saint John, hence called dreamers (Jude 8), as those in (Deuteronomy 13:1) compared to Jannes and Jambres, to Balaam that false prophet and such like (2 Timothy 3:8; 2 Peter 2:15; Jude 11), and thus Rome after turned Christian, but worshipping the true God after a false manner, being corrupt in the faith of Christ, is called by the same name and the same things affirmed of it for worshipping devils and for plagues, as of heathenish Babylon that worshipped false gods, as many places in the Revelation of Saint John show. 3. Heretics and false teachers who yet profess to believe in God Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, to hold also the Scriptures the word of God, may yet teach such doctrines that they may be justly styled false prophets, apostates, idolaters, blasphemers, as divers of the ancient heretics, Menandrians, Gnostics, Manichees, with others, and sundry of the later sort, Papists, the Libertines against whom Calvin writes, Socinians, Familists. The Apostles in many places of their writings speaking of heretics and false teachers in their times, and prophesying of those in after times, both the Popish faction and the Sectarian, speak of them as apostates, Anti-Christs, false prophets, seducers, deceivers, idolaters, blasphemers, and their doctrines and ways as apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy, worshipping of devils, seducing and such like, as these and many other such like places of Scripture show: 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:17, 18; 1 Timothy 1:19, 20; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:18, 19, 22, 23, 26; 1 John 4:1, 2, 3; 2 Epistle of John 7, 9, 10; Jude verse 4; Revelation 2:20; Revelation 9:20; Revelation 13:5, 6; Revelation 16:13, 14; Revelation 13:3, 5; Revelation 18:4, 9; Revelation 19:20. It were easy for me to show how many of the heretics in the three first centuries that professed the name of Christ, and therefore not called infidels, might justly be termed apostates, false prophets, idolaters, blasphemers. Junius observes upon Deuteronomy 13 that heretics are distinguished divers ways: heresy is either total as that of the Menandrians, Gnostics, &c, or partial departing only in part from the doctrine of faith. Now I suppose total heresy will easily be acknowledged apostasy; but I will only instance in some heretics and false teachers of the latter times, Papists, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Anabaptists. Are not Papists gross idolaters in several particulars, as our divines have unanswerably shown in their writings against them? Are not Socinians also apostates, gross idolaters, who make the Christian faith in the object of faith and worship not to be distinguished from the faith and worship of heathens, Jews, and Mahometans, and besides one God maker of all things, worship Christ with divine worship whom yet they hold to be but a mere man: out of the apostasy, impiety, and base idolatry of the Socinians, in what respects apostates overthrowing all fundamentals of faith, and agreeing with Jews, Turks, and the old heretics Paul[illegible]ni and others, by Epiphanius called [in non-Latin alphabet]; worse than Papists and their idolatry more evident and gross than the Papists, I refer the reader to the Theses of learned Voetius De necessitate & utilitate Dogmatis de sa[illegible]st[illegible] Trinitate, who fully and excellently proves all these particulars. In the ancient constitutions of Gratian, Valentinian, Theodosius, Martian, Justinian, Antitrinitarians are said Jewishly and apostatically to contradict the Trinity and the name of Christians is denied them. Are not Antitrinitarians, as Paul Best that has belched out so many reproachful speeches against Christ and the Holy Ghost, blasphemers in a high measure? Are not they who do not only speak evil of the Trinity, but teach others so to do greater blasphemers than those spoken of in (Leviticus 24:16)? Are not divers Anabaptists who have broached false doctrines, and foretold divers things to come as the day of judgment to be on such a day, such a city or country to be destroyed on such a day, such a city or kingdom to be given them of God, and that by affirming they spoke by revelation and immediate inspiration of God, false prophets as well as those in (Deuteronomy 13:2; Deuteronomy 18:20, 22)? In a word I shall conclude this with a passage out of Beza De Haereticis a Magistratu puniendis, brought by way of answer to a like objection against Deuteronomy 13 &c: Those laws are not now in force, because there is no man now a false prophet, according to Moses' definition, that is, who foretells any thing to come and teaches to worship other gods. I answer that the mind of the law-giver is to be understood from the cause of making the law, because he has spoken to turn away from the Lord your God. Now there are divers public declarations of this defection, of which although the principal only, and those which most commonly fall out be named in the laws, yet the very reason of the law is expressed in a universal form, and therefore in the general ought to be in force against those who do fall from the true religion and solicit others to defection, whom in a general word we call now heretics, not false prophets or dreamers of dreams, or sacrificers to other gods, because that those outward ceremonies and those gifts of prophecy are ceased. But though they be ceased, notwithstanding neither defection, nor the punishment of it is ceased. Moreover I say, those who interpret the holy Scripture wrongfully, withdraw men from the true worship of God, and so persuade them to the worship of other gods. For it is necessary that all doctrine which speaks of the worship of God, if it be not of God it proceeds from the Devil; therefore he that receives it entertains the Devil, and he that persuades the receiving it draws away from God; for Paul calls the doctrines of forbidding meats and marriage the doctrines of devils.

Fourthly, in the commands given by God either against such and such sins, or for punishing in such and such sins, without any stretching of the commands at all, or interpretations at large, many things not named must necessarily be contained, as under generals the particulars, as under one kind other kinds of a higher nature, or of the like nature, as under the male, the female also, and other such, or else many common received rules given by divines for interpretation of the Decalogue and Scripture are to be rejected. Yes, many things that are evil and abominable are not forbidden in the Law of God. There are many things may be instanced in out of the New Testament of which God shows his dislike, which yet in the letter and particularly by name are not forbidden in any of the commands of the Old Testament, as (Romans 1:26) with divers others that might be named; and there are many abominations that have been, are, and may be committed even of things against the light of nature that are neither in the Old Testament, nor New forbidden particularly; and yet certainly these things are forbidden directly and properly in the commandments, and the commandments are not stretched, nor wire-drawn by those who allege such commands against such practices. If the Scriptures must set down particularly by name all the kinds and degrees of evils, with the particular manner and way of doing them, which the corrupt nature of man is capable of committing, and all particulars of all kinds and manner of duties, with all particular cases about punishments, and all kinds and degrees of punishment belonging to all kind of offences that may fall out, and that both in civil and ecclesiastical censures, with the particular way and manner of proceeding in them all, I suppose some hundreds of great volumes would not contain them all, but that it might be said in this case as it is John 21, the last verse of the things which Jesus did, that if they should be written every one the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. And if there must not be an extension and interpretation of commands, so as to hold such commands and places of Scripture, forbid or enjoin some things not particularly named, how will Hagiom. prove many things practised by Papists and Prelatical men to be against the second command or against any command, as the making crosses for religion, holy water, saints, relics, bowing at the name of Jesus, holy days, surplices, altar cloths, with a hundred other ceremonies and inventions of men in the worship of God — are these literally and by name forbidden in the second command or any other? And may not the Papists and Prelates in all the texts of Scripture brought against their will-worship, and inventions of men, say the very same to Hagiomastix and his fellows, that crosses, holy days, bowing at the name of Jesus, etc., are not mentioned nor touched in any one word of those laws under the Old Testament given against idolatry: but if any one will go about to draw these words to their crosses, etc., that cannot be done by the proper force of the words, but as lawyers speak per extensionem latamque interpretationem. And it would be first well considered of, whether every law does admit of such extensions, and if not every one, which of them then does admit, and therefore, and whether in the second commandment there are those things for which an extension is to be made? Again, I desire Hagiomastix and his compeers to resolve me these questions, seeing there must be no extension of that command in (Deuteronomy 13:1, 5), nothing else commanded but what is in the letter of the law, whether a false prophetess that should arise and endeavour to persuade to the worship of a false God; and that by affirming she spoke by the inspiration of some deity, and that her sayings were to be esteemed oracles, were not to be put to death by virtue of this command, as well as the false prophet? and yet a prophetess is not in the text. Whether that command (Exodus 21:33, 34) of the owner of the pit into which his neighbour's ox or ass fell, making good the ox or ass and giving money to the owner of them, did not bind as much if a horse or a sheep fell into it? and yet the words of the law are only the ox or the ass, and not a horse or sheep. Whether that command concerning the putting to death those children that did curse or strike their parents, though it expressed not in the letter death for killing of them, did not include much more death upon those who killed their parents? And so I might instance in many more particulars; but for a conclusion of this fourth answer, I shall end with a passage out of Maccovius in a disputation of his De Lege judiciali, that the perfection of the judicial laws require, that we should hold no case can fall out, which cannot from the analogy of the law (for of like there is the same judgement) be determined. From the analogy and similitude of things it is easy to understand, that the same law and right is to be observed, referring the reader for more satisfaction to page 31, 32, 33 of this present tractate.

Fifthly, as to that brought by Hagiomastix and the rest, that the Law of God made against false Prophets and worshippers of false Gods was not intended against those who otherwise held the Law of God was to be kept, but were infected with some error, because in former times among the Jews who were affected with a vehement love and zeal towards their Law, Heretics notwithstanding were tolerated, and particularly the Sadducees, these were not exempted from being Magistrates: the Scribes and Pharisees also that taught many dangerous errors, yet were in great honor in this Church and State, I answer, 1. Hagiomastix's foundation upon which he raises this argument is unsound, for the Scribes, Pharisees and others in place, in the time of tolerating the Sadducees, Herodians and other Heretics (which was in Christ's time) were not zealous of the Law of God, as is evident by many of Christ's Sermons reproving them for want of love and zeal to the Law, and the true worship of God (Matthew 5:19 to the end of the chapter, Matthew 15:3–10, Matthew 23:3–29). They were zealous indeed of the traditions of the Elders, and of their own superstitions and devices, but not of the Law of God; they corrupted and transgressed the Laws of God by their traditions and hypocrisies, but had no true love nor zeal to the Law nor the Jewish religion, and therefore no wonder they tolerated Sadducees, Herodians, etc., but of this point how religion was then mightily corrupted and all things out of order, I have spoken before in p. 30. of this Treatise, and so will not tautologize. 2. Can Hagiomastix upon second thoughts think the practice of the Rulers of the Jews and the people that followed them in a time so desperately corrupt as that was, when Church and State hastened to destruction, and all things were amiss, a safe ground for Christian Magistrates to walk by, and not rather judge they did amiss in that as well as in other things, and that their practice is not a probable rule to be followed? I shall mind him of one particular instanced in by himself, namely, their not hindering the Sadducees and other Heretics from coming to the Temple or the Synagogues, which if it were well done, it is by this argument as unlawful for the Church to censure her members with Ecclesiastical censures for any heretical tenets, as for the Civil Magistrate to punish, and so all Church censures for heresies and false doctrines are overthrown as well as civil; whereas I took it for granted, Church censures in matters of religion had been lawful, namely, a spiritual weapon suitable, by their own confession, for a spiritual evil — heresy — and M. S. a good friend of Hagiomastix's in answer to that argument against Toleration (Revelation 2:20) yields it, saying, that is meant of Church censures, but not of bodily outward punishment by the Magistrate. And therefore I think the practice of the people and their Rulers suffering Sadducees and all other Heretics to be no better argument for justification of a Toleration, than their practice of crucifying Christ a justification of that. 3. Besides, that all may see what you and your party aim at in speaking of the Pharisees and Sadducees being in honor in the Jewish State, Magistrates and bearing civil offices, not a bare Toleration of your consciences, but that you may be in places of honor, government and profit: this gives us a clear reason of the Toleration of errors in those times, namely that Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees were in places of power and government, had a great interest in Church and State, and therefore no wonder if they would tolerate themselves and their own opinions. Can you think it a good argument that adulterers and thieves ought to be tolerated, because adulterers and thieves having power, suffer such to go unpunished? Or can you think it reason to say many Papists, Anabaptists, being in places of government suffered Papists, Anabaptists, therefore it is the duty of the godly Magistrate to suffer them and all other Heretics? Pray, Master Hagiomastix, resolve me this question: seeing Scribes, Pharisees, and such like were Magistrates and in places of power and honor, who should punish Pharisees and Sadducees for their errors and dangerous opinions?

Sixthly, as to that last clause that Christ did never charge this Church or State, or those that bore office in either with sin or unfaithfulness for not proceeding against the Sadducees, Pharisees, &c. in regard of their errors, either by imprisonment or death, and yet Christ did teach and press upon men all and all manner of duties. I answer, First, how is that proved he never did: can the Patrons of Toleration Minus Celsus Senensis, Hagiomastix, &c. make it follow by saying tis no where written in the Gospels, and therefore he never reproved them, can they reason from the Scriptures negatively in matters of fact, such things never were, because they are not spoken of? What think they of that Axiom, Non dicto ad non facto non valet consequentia, were not there many things that Christ did which were not written (John 21, the last verse)? But if they will reply, yes in some things, but not in matters of judgment, righteousness such a weighty matter as this is made to be; I rejoin that in many weighty matters of the Law and justice, Christ either spoke not particularly of them, or if he did, they are not written, neither can be found in the Gospels more than this of punishing Sadducees and other Heretics in matter of religion. I might instance in many things unquestionably forbidden or commanded by God in the Moral Law, that are not particularly spoken of in the Gospels, which yet from hence to reason against them were very bad divinity. What instances can be given of Christ's giving any commands to those in place to punish for murder, adultery, theft, more than for idolatry, blasphemy, heresy? 2. Hagiomastix brings in the Church again, as well as the State, surely he is for a Toleration of all heresies, blasphemies, &c, in the Church as well as the State, to have no man punished for his religion with any censure of admonition, excommunication, or non-communion. In his M. S. he was for spiritual censures, but in these 3 years last past the man is well improved (belike) to reason against any Church censure as well as State punishment. And by the way I desire the Reader to observe whatever reason in the wisdom of God there might be, that nothing is set down in the Gospels of Christ's charging the State with sin for not proceeding against the Sadducees, &c, that cannot be the reason to show the unlawfulness of Magistrates punishing Heretics, because Hagiomastix confesses the same of the Church, that Christ charged not the Church nor the Officers with sin, for not proceeding against the Sadducees, and yet I suppose Hagiomastix will not openly profess tis a good argument that no Church censures may be used against any Heretic. However I am sure many of his compeers in handling the question distinguish of a Toleration and censures, granting ecclesiastical censures though denying civil, and I am sure if Christ's never charging the Church nor those that bore office in her with sin, for not proceeding against the Sadducees, be no good argument to take away all Church censures, neither is it to lay waste all Magistrates' punishing in such cases. 3. Christ did to the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees speak and reason against their errors, yes reproved and threatened them for those errors, which also is granted by Hagiomastix, in doing of which he did equivalently and really press upon them the suppressing and punishing of heresies in persons under their power, while he spoke to men in authority and denounced the judgments of God because of them. He that preaches to a Prince against idolatry and shows the evils that will come upon a King and his Kingdom for it, preaches to him to restrain idolatry, though he does not particularly in express words call upon him not to suffer any man to practice idolatry. And therefore Christ speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees, the Rulers and Elders, that knew the Laws of God, how Magistrates in Israel were to punish false Teachers, in speaking so against false Prophets, Heretics and Sectaries, as Sadducees, &c, that was a charging them (such a thing being spoken to such men) to do their duties against them, which by the Law was more than if private persons, and being spoken to such, as Scribes, &c, was a commanding them according to their places to proceed against them. For tis a rule among Divines that in many things recorded in Scriptures, which are delivered only in common and in general, they are to be taken by every one according to their relations and places, by the Magistrates according to their relation, the Ministers according to theirs, and the People according to their sphere, of which many instances may be given in the New Testament. 4. Supposing it could be proved, Christ never reproved the Jewish Church and State for suffering the Sadducees, &c, yet it follows not Magistrates therefore should tolerate Heretics, and Sectaries, and that both, because God's declaration of his mind in other parts of Scripture, though not in the Gospel is a sufficient reason, as also because there might be some particular reasons proper to the Jewish State, as that Christ saw the Jewish State and Magistracy itself that then was to be leavened and corrupted with those errors and opinions, to be either Sadducees, Pharisees, Scribes, Herodians, and such like, so that to have spoken against Toleration, and for punishing Sadducees, &c had been to have spoken to the State, not to have suffered itself, as if one should preach to the Parliament now, not to tolerate but to punish themselves. So was it for Christ to have urged those commands in Deuteronomy 13, &c, and those examples of Josiah, Nehemiah, &c upon the Jewish State then. 2. That in the times of Christ's preaching, the Civil Power of the Commonwealth of the Jews, was much weakened, if not wholly taken away from them by the Romans, of which I have spoken something before page 30, and do now add, that the Jews had no power at all of capital punishments then, and therefore to what end should Christ charge them with those Laws of putting false Prophets &c, to death, for full proof of which I refer the Reader to Master Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Book 1, chapter 3, page 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, who learnedly proves that point both from Scripture and the testimonies of many learned writers, who have written of the Jewish antiquities and customs, and answers the contrary objections. 3. Christ knew that Church and Commonwealth were to be certainly shortly dissolved, the Christian Church to be set up, and though he warned the People of those errors and ways, and denounced the judgments of God against them, yet because he knew the purpose of God was to destroy the Jewish Commonwealth, he might not speak for that and the other reasons forenamed to the Magistrates, as otherwise he would, of which the Reader may read more in page 30 of this present book.

And now for putting a period to this 17. Thesis, and to all the answers given by me to those evasions brought against those old Testament laws, of Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 17, and the rest, I shall briefly add 3 things. First, to clear a little further some passages of Deuteronomy 13. Secondly, show the slightness and weakness of Hagiomast. exceptions against those old Testament laws. Thirdly, show the excessive pride and folly of the man in boasting and glorying in such poor and weak things as he brings against the Vindicator of the Ordinance for preventing the growth and spreading of heresies, in Sect. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.

First, as I shall add two places more out of Moses' law before omitted in the beginning of the 17. Thesis, to prove the magistrate's power of punishing in matters of the first Table, namely Deuteronomy 19:16, 17, 18, 19, and Numbers 15:30, 31, the former in case of apostasy, the latter in case of blaspheming God, so to all I have said of Deuteronomy 13, I desire the reader to observe that God having in the former chapter commanded the worshipping of the true God, and forbidden that of idols (which unquestionably is moral), this 13th chapter is fitly added to it as an appendix, in which God gives direction for removing the impediments opposite to his worship commanded, particularly he commands the authors of apostasy, not to be hearkened to nor tolerated, but to be punished with death; and for that end that such who are obstinate and will not be amended, nor regard their own salvation, may be hindered at least from being an impediment to the salvation of others, and the common grace of God, which removal of impediments with the end laid down, cannot but be moral also. Junius in his Analysis upon this chapter shows it is an appendix to the worship of God, and Zepperus in his tractate of the Mosaic laws, says, that this of defection by false prophets is an appendix of the first commandment. Now as the chapter itself clears it, and divers learned divines writing upon the chapter shows this 13th chapter is not all one commandment but there are three distinct commands in this chapter: the first of the false prophet publicly teaching apostasy in the five first verses, the second of the clandestine seducer, in the six verses following, the third of a public defection of a whole city. Which being observed and well considered, besides what I have said already to Hagiomastix's answer that the command in Deuteronomy 13 concerning the putting of false prophets and seducers to death, cannot bind, because then whole cities must be destroyed, cattle, etc., fully answers all he speaks in this kind, because that latter part of the chapter upon which he vapors so, is a distinct command quite another thing, from that in the first verse to the 5th, as also from that of the 6th to the 12th. So that it is a mere fallacy to confound laws which are distinct, to speak all along of that 13th chapter as one law and command (for so he does, pages 47, 48, make them all one) — the fallacia compositionis is easily discovered by dividing and distinguishing the commands which God has made distinct; and therefore the one command may be in force, and we neither add, nor diminish anything from it, although the other which is no part of it may not, but be more proper to the Jews, and only in some particular cases (of which I shall speak more presently). And among many differences that might be observed between the two former commands in the first 11 verses and this about a city, this is plainly one: whereas these are commands founded expressly upon general reasons common to all, because he has spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, etc., this is not spoken of at all in the case of the city, but it is grounded upon a reason peculiar to the Jews, as some learned men observe from verse 12, 'If you shall hear say in one of your cities which the Lord your God has given you to dwell there,' the foundation of that command being ceremonial, because it has a particular respect to that land the Lord gave them to dwell in, God being in a certain singular kind of manner the Lord of that land. Upon which place of Scripture Junius writing, shows the destroying of the city utterly, with the devoting of all things therein to destruction, to be ceremonial and so not to take place now; yes, it was not of force among the Jews themselves, but only in one particular case, when a city openly by public authority defended and maintained apostasy from God. And therefore though in a city there had been hundreds of apostates whether public or private seducers, which all were to have suffered by virtue of the former laws of the first 11 verses of this chapter, yet so long as openly by public authority of that city these were not defended nor maintained, although these particular apostates were commanded to be put to death, all the inhabitants among whom they lived were not commanded to be put to death, much less the cattle and all things within it to be burnt with fire. And the reader for his further satisfaction herein, besides what I have written of this in pages 85, 86, 87, may consult with Junius in his Analyt. explication on Deuteronomy 13:543, 544, who resolves the question and case thus: that in this chapter there are three things that concur, the moral right, the ceremonial, and the political. That which is of moral right, that according to the substance remains, and therefore it follows that whoever is guilty of so great wickedness and obstinacy as Moses describes in this chapter ought to receive the reward and punishment of his [illegible], and that by the law of God and nature, whose minister and helper the judicial and political law is. But that which is ceremonial and is in the last part of this chapter, where God commands to destroy the city, and devote all things in it to a curse, has no place now, because the foundation of this command is ceremonial. For the political and judicial law, which has its foundation partly in the divine and natural law and partly in the ceremonial, it follows from there whatever in the judicial law simply belongs to the preservation of the natural and moral law ought according to the substance to be observed. But whatever things are of ceremonial right, to them the magistrate is not bound, but the public safety and prevention of so great evils, laying aside ceremonies, according to natural and moral right ought to be procured and sought for by him.

Secondly, I might manifest the flightiness and weakness of Hagiomastix's evasions of those old Testament laws, by drawing them briefly into one, and showing the several fallacies and paralogisms one after another, as arguing Falsa Suppositione, Adicto secundum quid, A particulari ad vniversale, Fallacia compositionis et divisionis, &c. As also had I wanted matter, I could have run out in flourishing words, and at the end of every reply to his evasions have stood triumphing over him, as he does over the authors of the Vindication, saying, O Independents and Sectaries, if your teachers, yes your great Rabbi and Oracle bring such poor and weak stuff for their tenets and way, you had need to take heed and beware of them, lest the blind lead the blind, and both fall into the ditch. But I consider I am handling a great controversy in divinity, a point about conscience, and that it is not comely to speak of it in a light and scoffing way, and therefore shall not offer to contend with Master John Goodwin in that way, contenting myself to have aimed at hard arguments and firm words.

Thirdly, I might take occasion to set out the folly and horrible pride of the man in boasting and glorying in such poor weak stuff, and that stolen out of Minus [illegible], behaving himself like a gloriosus miles. I might annex and fasten each of his vapouring insolent insultations over his three supposed adversaries to each answer, by which his folly and vanity would be made manifest to all in excessive boasting when he has performed so little. But I will forbear to deal with him in that way, and shall conclude this 17. Thesis, and all my answers to his evasions in speaking sadly to his conscience (though I much fear in this argument of liberty of conscience, he has little conscience left, or is capable of any conviction, this being his sanctuary and protection to safeguard him from the trouble and danger of all his other wicked opinions). M. Goodwin, what answer will you make to God for these pretences brought against Scripture? Can you think against such express texts, such poor shifts will serve, or will hold water in the day of judgment? What if these then prove but Adam's fig-leaves, mere shifts and tricks of wit to put off the word, and be not real? What will you then do for all the dishonor of God, ruin of precious souls occasioned by your means? Will not God's wrath sweep away these cobwebs? I say no more — think upon it, Master Goodwin, and be not deceived: God is not mocked.