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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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