TWo things there be which have bin ever found work­ing much mischief to the church of God, and the advancement of truth; force on the one side restraining, and hire on the other side corrupting the teachers thereof. Few ages have bin since the ascension of our Sa­viour, wherin the one of these two, or both together have not prevaild. It can be at no time therfore unseasonable to speak of these things; since by them the church is either in continual de­triment [Page 2] and oppression, or in con­tinual danger. The former shall be at this time my argument; the latter as I shall finde God dispo­sing me, and opportunity inviting. What I argue, shall be drawn from the scripture only; and therin from true fundamental principles of the gospel; to all knowing Christians undeniable. And if the governors of this common­wealth since the rooting out of prelats have made least use of force in religion, and most have favord Christian liberty of any in this Iland before them since the first preaching of the gospel, for which we are not to forget our thanks to God, and their due praise, they may, I doubt not, in this treatise finde that which not only will confirm them to defend still the Christian liberty which [Page 3] we enjoy, but will incite them also to enlarge it, if in aught they yet straiten it. To them who perhaps herafter, less experienc'd in re­ligion, may come to govern or give us laws, this or other such, if they please, may be a timely in­struction: however to the truth it will be at all times no unneed­full testimonie; at least some dis­charge of that general dutie which no Christian but according to what he hath receivd, knows is requir'd of him if he have aught more conducing to the advance­ment of religion then what is usually endeavourd, freely to im­part it.

It will require no great labor of exposition to unfold what is here meant by matters of religi­on; being as soon apprehended as defin'd, such things as belong [Page 4] chiefly to the knowledge and ser­vice of God: and are either above the reach and light of nature with­out revelation from above, and therfore liable to be variously un­derstood by humane reason, or such things as are enjoind or for­bidden by divine precept, which els by the light of reason would seem indifferent to be don or not don; and so likewise must needs appeer to everie man as the pre­cept is understood. Whence I here mean by conscience or re­ligion, that full perswasion where­by we are assur'd that our beleef and practise, as far as we are able to apprehend and probably make appeer, is according to the will of God & his Holy Spirit within us, which we ought to follow much rather then any law of man, as not only his word every where bids [Page 5] us, but the very dictate of reason tells us. Act. 4.19. whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken to you more then to God, judge ye. That for beleef or practise in re­ligion according to this consci­entious perswasion no man ought be punishd or molested by any outward force on earth whatso­ever, I distrust not, through Gods implor'd assistance, to make plane by these following arguments.

First it cannot be deni'd, being the main foundation of our pro­testant religion, that we of these ages, having no other divine rule or autoritie from without us war­rantable to one another as a com­mon ground but the holy scri­pture, and no other within us but the illumination of the Holy Spirit so interpreting that scripture as warrantable only to our selves and [Page 6] to such whose consciences we can so perswade, can have no other ground in matters of religion but only from the scriptures. And these being not possible to be un­derstood without this divine illu­mination, which no man can know at all times to be in himself, much less to be at any time for certain in any other, it follows cleerly, that no man or body of men in these times can be the infallible judges or determiners in matters of religion to any other mens consciences but thir own. And therfore those Beroeans are com­mended, Act. 17.11, who after the preaching even of S. Paul, searchd the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Nor did they more then what God himself in many places commands us by the same apostle, to search, to try, to judge [Page 7] of these things our selves: And gives us reason also, Gal. 6.4, 5. let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another: for every man shall bear his own bur­den. If then we count it so igno­rant and irreligious in the papist to think himself dischargd in Gods account, beleeving only as the church beleevs, how much greater condemnation will it be to the protestant his condemner, to think himself justified, beleev­ing only as the state beleevs? With good cause therfore it is the general consent of all sound protestant writers, that neither traditions, councels nor canons of any visibie church, much less edicts of any magistrate or civil session, but the scripture only can be the final judge or rule in mat­ters [Page 8] of religion, and that only in the conscience of every Christian to himself. Which protestation made by the first publick reform­ers of our religion against the im­perial edicts of Charls the fifth, im­posing church-traditions without scripture, gave first beginning to the name of Protestant; and with that name hath ever bin receivd this doctrine, which preferrs the scripture before the church, and acknowledges none but the Scri­pture sole interpreter of it self to the conscience. For if the church be not sufficient to be implicitly beleevd, as we hold it is not, what can there els be nam'd of more autoritie then the church but the conscience; then which God only is greater, 1 Ioh. 3.20? But if any man shall pretend, that the scri­pture judges to his conscience for [Page 9] other men, he makes himself great­er not only then the church, but also then the scripture, then the consciences of other men; a pre­sumption too high for any mortal; since every true Christian able to give a reason of his faith, hath the word of God before him, the pro­misd Holy Spirit, and the minde of Christ within him, 1 Cor. 2.16; a much better and safer guide of conscience, which as far as con­cerns himself he may far more cer­tainly know then any outward rule impos'd upon him by others whom he inwardly neither knows nor can know; at least knows nothing of them more sure then this one thing, that they cannot be his judges in religion. 1 Cor. 2.15. the spiritual man judgeth all things, but he himself is judgd of no man. Chiefly for this cause do all true [Page 10] protestants account the pope an­tichrist, for that he assumes to him­self this infallibilitie over both the conscience and the scripture; sit­ing in the temple of God, as it were opposite to God, and exalting him­self above all that is called god, or is worshipd, 2 Thess. 2.4. That is to say not only above all judges and magistrates, who though they be calld gods, are far beneath infal­lible, but also above God himself, by giving law both to the scri­pture, to the conscience, and to the spirit it self of God within us. When as we finde, Iames 4.12, there is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? That Christ is the only lawgiver of his church and that it is here meant in reli­gious matters, no well grounded Christian will deny. Thus also [Page 11] S. Paul, Rom. 14.4. who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own Lord he standeth or falleth: but he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand. As therfore of one beyond expression bold and pre­sumptuous, both these apostles demand, who art thou that pre­sum'st to impose other law or judgment in religion then the only lawgiver and judge Christ, who only can save and can destroy, gives to the conscience? And the forecited place to the Thessalonians by compar'd effects resolvs us, that be he or they who or wher­ever they be or can be, they are of far less autoritie then the church, whom in these things as prote­stants they receive not, and yet no less antichrist in this main point of antichristianism, no less a pope or popedom then he at Rome, if [Page 12] not much more; by setting up supream interpreters of scripture either those doctors whom they follow, or, which is far worse, themselves as a civil papacie as­suming unaccountable supremacie to themselves not in civil only but ecclesiastical causes. Seeing then that in matters of religion, as hath been prov'd, none can judge or determin here on earth, no not church-governors them­selves against the consciences of other beleevers, my inference is, or rather not mine but our Savi­ours own, that in those matters they neither can command nor use constraint; lest they run rashly on a pernicious consequence, fore­warnd in that parable Mat. 13. from the 26 to the 31 verse: least while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let [Page 13] both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares &c. whereby he declares that this work neither his own ministers nor any els can discern­ingly anough or judgingly per­form without his own immediat direction, in his own fit season; and that they ought till then not to attempt it. Which is further confirmd 2 Cor. 1.24. not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy. If apostles had no dominion or constraining pow­er over faith or conscience, much less have ordinary ministers. 1 Pet. 5.2, 3. feed the flock of God not by constraint &c. neither as being lords over Gods heritage. But some will object, that this overthrows all church-discipline, all censure of errors, if no man can determin. [Page 14] My answer is, that what they hear is plane scripture; which forbids not church-sentence or determi­ning, but as it ends in violence upon the conscience unconvinc'd. Let who so will interpret or de­termin, so it be according to true church-discipline; which is exer­cis'd on them only who have wil­lingly joind themselves in that covnant of union, and proceeds only to a separation from the rest, proceeds never to any corporal inforcement or forfeture of mo­nie; which in spiritual things are the two arms of Antichrist, not of the true church; the one being an inquisition, the other no better then a temporal indulgence of sin for monie, whether by the church exacted or by the magistrate; both the one and the other a temporal satisfaction for what Christ hath [Page 15] satisfied eternally; a popish com­muting of penaltie, corporal for spiritual; a satisfaction to man especially to the magistrate, for what and to whom we owe none: these and more are the injustices of force and fining in religion, besides what I most insist on, the violation of Gods express com­mandment in the gospel, as hath bin shewn. Thus then if church-governors cannot use force in re­ligion, though but for this reason, because they cannot infallibly de­termin to the conscience without convincement, much less have civil magistrates autoritie to use force where they can much less judge; unless they mean only to be the civil executioners of them who have no civil power to give them such commission, no nor yet ecclesiastical to any force or [Page 16] violence in religion. To summe up all in brief, if we must beleeve as the magistrate appoints, why not rather as the church? if not as either without convincement, how can force be lawfull? But some are ready to cry out, what shall then be don to blasphemie? Them I would first exhort not thus to terrifie and pose the people with a Greek word: but to teach them better what it is; being a most usual and common word in that language to signifie any slan­der, any malitious or evil speak­ing, whether against God or man or any thing to good belonging: blasphemie or evil speaking against God malitiously, is far from con­science in religion; according to that of Marc 9.39. there is none who doth a powerfull work in my name, and can likely speak evil of [Page 17] me. If this suffice not, I referre them to that prudent and well deliberated act August 9. 1650; where the Parlament defines blas­phemie against God, as far as it is a crime belonging to civil judi­cature, pleniùs ac meliùs Chrysippo & Crantore; in plane English more warily, more judiciously, more orthodoxally then twice thir number of divines have don in many a prolix volume: although in all likelihood they whose whole studie and profession these things are should be most intelligent and authentic therin, as they are for the most part, yet neither they nor these unnerring always or in­fallible. But we shall not carrie it thus; another Greek apparition stands in our way, heresie and here­tic; in like manner also rail'd at to the people as in a tongue un­known. [Page 18] They should first inter­pret to them, that heresie, by what it signifies in that language, is no word of evil note; meaning only the choise or following of any opinion good or bad in religion or any other learning: and thus not only in heathen authors, but in the New testament it self with­out censure or blame. Acts 15.5. certain of the heresie of the Pharises which beleevd. and 26.5. after the exactest heresie of our religion I livd a Pharise. In which sense Presby­terian or Independent may with­out reproach be calld a heresie. Where it is mentiond with blame, it seems to differ little from schism 1 Cor. 11.18, 19. I hear that there be schisms among you &c. for there must also heresies be among you though some who write of heresie after their own heads, would make [Page 19] it far worse then schism; when as on the contrarie, schism signifies division, and in the worst sense; heresie, choise only of one opinion before another, which may bee without discord. In apostolic times therfore ere the scripture was written, heresie was a do­ctrin maintaind against the do­ctrin by them deliverd: which in these times can be no otherwise defin'd then a doctrin maintaind against the light, which we now only have, of the scripture. See­ing therfore that no man, no sy­nod, no session of men, though calld the church, can judge defi­nitively the sense of scripture to another mans conscience, which is well known to be a general ma­xim of the Protestant religion, it follows planely, that he who holds in religion that beleef or those [Page 20] opinions which to his conscience and utmost understanding appeer with most evidence or probabilitie in the scripture, though to others he seem erroneous, can no more be justly censur'd for a heretic then his censurers; who do but the same thing themselves while they censure him for so doing. For ask them, or any Protestant, which hath most autoritie, the church or the scripture? they will answer, doubtless, that the scripture: and what hath most autoritie, that no doubt but they will confess is to be followd. He then who to his best apprehension follows the scri­pture, though against any point of doctrine by the whole church re­ceivd, is not the heretic; but he who follows the church against his conscience and perswasion ground­ed on the scripture. To make this [Page 21] yet more undeniable, I shall only borrow a plane similie, the same which our own writers, when they would demonstrate planest that we rightly preferre the scripture before the church, use frequently against the Papist in this manner. As the Samaritans beleevd Christ, first for the womans word, but next and much rather for his own, so we the scripture; first on the churches word, but afterwards and much more for its own, as the word of God; yea the church it self we beleeve then for the scri­pture. The inference of it self follows: if by the Protestant do­ctrine we beleeve the scripture not for the churches saying, but for its own as the word of God, then ought we to beleeve what in our conscience we apprehend the scri­pture to say, though the visible [Page 22] church with all her doctors gain­say; and being taught to beleeve them only for the scripture, they who so do are not heretics, but the best protestants: and by their o­pinions, whatever they be, can hurt no protestant, whose rule is not to receive them but from the scripture: which to interpret con­vincingly to his own conscience none is able but himself guided by the Holy Spirit; and not so guided, none then he to himself can be a worse deceiver. To pro­testants therfore whose common rule and touchstone is the scri­pture, nothing can with more conscience, more equitie, nothing more protestantly can be permit­ted then a free and lawful debate at all times by writing, confe­rence or disputation of what opi­nion soever, disputable by scri­pture: [Page 23] concluding, that no man in religion is properly a heretic at this day, but he who maintains traditions or opinions not proba­ble by scripture; who, for aught I know, is the papist only; he the only heretic, who counts all here­tics but himself. Such as these, indeed, were capitally punishd by the law of Moses, as the only true heretics, idolaters, plane and open deserters of God and his known law: but in the gospel such are punishd by excommunion only. Tit. 3.10. an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. But they who think not this heavie anough and understand not that dreadfull aw and spiritual efficacie which the apostle hath expressd so highly to be in church-discipline, 2 Cor. 10. of which anon, and think weakly that the church of God [Page 24] cannot long subsist but in a bodilie fear, for want of other prooff will needs wrest that place of S. Paul Rom. 13. to set up civil inquisition, and give power to the magistrate both of civil judgment and punish­ment in causes ecclesiastical. But let us see with what strength of argu­ment. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. First, how prove they that the apostle means other pow­ers then such as they to whom he writes were then under; who medld not at all in ecclesiastical causes, unless as tyrants and per­secuters; and from them, I hope, they will not derive either the right of magistrates to judge in spiritual things, or the dutie of such our obedience. How prove they next, that he intitles them here to spiritual causes, from whom he witheld, as much as in him lay, [Page 25] the judging of civil; 1 Cor. 6.1, &c. If he himself appeald to Cesar, it was to judge his innocence, not his religion. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. then are they not a terror to con­science, which is the rule or judge of good works grounded on the scripture. But heresie, they say, is reck'nd among evil works Gal. 5.20: as if all evil works were to be punishd by the magistrate; wherof this place, thir own citati­on, reck'ns up besides heresie a sufficient number to confute them; uncleanness, wantonness, enmitie, strife, emulations, animosities, con­tentions, envyings; all which are far more manifest to be judgd by him then heresie, as they define it; and yet I suppose they will not subject these evil works nor many more such like to his cognisance [Page 26] and punishment. Wilt thou then not be affraid of the power? do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same. This shews that religious matters are not here meant; wherin from the power here spoken of they could have no praise. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. true; but in that office and to that end and by those means which in this place must be cleerly found, if from this place they intend to argue. And how for thy good by forcing, op­pressing and insnaring thy consci­ence? Many are the ministers of God, and thir offices no less dif­ferent then many; none more different then state and church-government. Who seeks to go­vern both must needs be worse then any lord prelat or church-pluralist: for he in his own fa­cultie [Page 27] and profession, the other not in his own and for the most part not throughly understood makes himself supream lord or pope of the church as far as his civil jurisdiction stretches, and all the ministers of God therin, his ministers, or his curates ra­ther in the function onely, not in the government: while he him­self assumes to rule by civil power things to be rul'd only by spiri­tual: when as this very chapter v. 6 appointing him his peculiar office, which requires utmost at­tendance, forbids him this worse then church-plurality from that full and waightie charge, wherin alone he is the minister of God, attending continually on this very thing. To little purpose will they here instance Moses, who did all by immediate divine direction, [Page 28] no nor yet Asa, Iehosaphat, or Io­sia, who both might when they pleasd receive answer from God, and had a commonwealth by him deliverd them, incorporated with a national church exercis'd more in bodily then in spiritual wor­ship, so as that the church might be calld a commonwealth and the whole commonwealth a church: nothing of which can be said of Christianitie, deliverd without the help of magistrates, yea in the midst of thir opposition; how little then with any reference to them or mention of them, save onely of our obedience to thir civil laws, as they countnance good and deterr evil: which is the proper work of the magi­strate, following in the same verse, and shews distinctly wherin he is the minister of God, a revenger [Page 29] to execute wrath on him that doth evil. But we must first know who it is that doth evil: the heretic they say among the first. Let it be known then certainly who is a heretic: and that he who holds opinions in religion professdly from tradition or his own inven­tions and not from Scipture but rather against it, is the only he­retic; and yet though such, not alwaies punishable by the magi­strate, unless he do evil against a a civil Law, properly so calld, hath been already prov'd without need of repetition. But if thou do that which is evil, be affraid. To do by scripture and the gospel according to conscience is not to do evil; if we therof ought not to be affraid, he ought not by his judging to give cause. causes therfore of Religion are not here [Page 30] meant. For he beareth not the sword in vain. Yes altogether in vain, if it smite he knows not what; if that for heresie which not the church it self, much less he, can determine absolutely to be so; if truth for error, being himself so often fallible, he bears the sword not in vain only, but unjustly and to evil. Be subject not only for wrath, but for conscience sake: how for conscience sake against conscience? By all these reasons it appeers planely that the apostle in this place gives no judgment or coercive power to magistrates, neither to those then nor these now in matters of religi­on; and exhorts us no otherwise then he exhorted those Romans. It hath now twice befaln me to assert, through Gods assistance, this most wrested and vexd place [Page 31] of scripture; heretofore against Salmasius and regal tyranie over the state; now against Erastus and state-tyranie over the church. If from such uncertain or rather such improbable grounds as these they endue magistracie with spiritual judgment, they may as well invest him in the same spiritual kinde with power of utmost punishment, excommunication; and then turn spiritual into corporal, as no worse authors did then Chrysostom, Ierom and Austin, whom Erasmus and others in thir notes on the New Testament have cited to interpret that cutting off which S. Paul wishd to them who had brought back the Galatians to circumcision, no less then the amercement of thir whole virilitie; and Grotius addes that this concising punishment of circumcisers became a penal law [Page 32] therupon among the Visigothes: a dangerous example of beginning in the spirit to end so in the flesh: wheras that cutting off much like­lier seems meant a cutting off from the church, not unusually so termd in scripture, and a zealous impre­cation, not a command. But I have mentiond this passage to shew how absurd they often prove who have not learnd to distinguish rightly between civil power and ecclesi­astical. How many persecutions then, imprisonments, banishments, penalties and stripes; how much bloodshed have the forcers of con­science to answer for, and prote­stants rather then papists! For the papist, judging by his principles, punishes them who beleeve not as the church beleevs though against the scripture: but the protestant, teaching every one to beleeve [Page 33] the scripture though against the church, counts heretical and per­secutes, against his own principles, them who in any particular so beleeve as he in general teaches them; them who most honor and beleeve divine scripture, but not against it any humane interpreta­tion though universal; them who interpret scripture only to them­selves, which by his own position none but they to themselves can interpret; them who use the scri­pture no otherwise by his own do­ctrine to thir edification, then he himself uses it to thir punishing: and so whom his doctrine acknow­ledges a true beleever, his disci­pline persecutes as a heretic. The papist exacts our beleef as to the church due above scripture; and by the church, which is the whole people of God, understands the [Page 34] pope, the general councels prelati­cal only and the surnam'd fathers: but the forcing protestant though he deny such beleef to any church whatsoever, yet takes it to himself and his teachers, of far less auto­ritie then to be calld the church and above scripture beleevd: which renders his practise both contrarie to his beleef, and far worse then that beleef which he condemns in the papist. By all which well con­siderd, the more he professes to be a true protestant, the more he hath to answer for his persecuting then a papist. No protestant therfore of what sect soever following scri­pture only, which is the common sect wherin they all agree, and the granted rule of everie mans con­science to himself, ought, by the common doctrine of protestants, to be forc'd or molested for religi­on. [Page 35] But as for poperie and idola­trie, why they also may not hence plead to be tolerated, I have much less to say. Their religion the more considerd, the less can be acknowledgd a religion; but a Roman principalitie rather, en­devouring to keep up her old uni­versal dominion under a new name and meer shaddow of a catholic religion; being indeed more right­ly nam'd a catholic heresie against the scripture; supported mainly by a civil, and, except in Rome, by a forein power: justly therfore to be suspected, not tolerated by the magistrate of another countrey. Besides, of an implicit faith, which they profess, the conscience also becoms implicit; and so by vo­luntarie servitude to mans law, forfets her Christian libertie. Who then can plead for such a consci­ence, [Page 36] as being implicitly enthrald to man instead of God, almost be­coms no conscience, as the will not free, becoms no will. Never­theless if they ought not to be to­lerated, it is for just reason of state more then of religion; which they who force, though professing to be protestants, deserve as little to be tolerated themselves, being no less guiltie of poperie in the most popish point. Lastly, for idolatrie, who knows it not to be evidently against all scripture both of the Old and New Testament, and therfore a true heresie, or rather an impietie; wherin a right con­science can have naught to do; and the works therof so manifest, that a magistrate can hardly err in prohibiting and quite removing at least the publick and scandalous use therof.

[Page 37]From the riddance of these ob­jections I proceed yet to another reason why it is unlawfull for the civil magistrate to use force in matters of religion; which is, because to judge in those things, though we should grant him able, which is prov'd he is not, yet as a civil magistrate he hath no right. Christ hath a government of his own, sufficient of it self to all his ends and purposes in governing his church; but much different from that of the civil magistrate; and the difference in this verie thing principally consists, that it governs not by outward force, and that for two reasons. First be­cause it deals only with the inward man and his actions, which are all spiritual and to outward force not lyable: secondly to shew us the divine excellence of his spiritual [Page 38] kingdom, able without worldly force to subdue all the powers and kingdoms of this world, which are upheld by outward force only. That the inward man is nothing els but the inward part of man, his understanding and his will, and that his actions thence proceeding, yet not simply thence but from the work of divine grace upon them, are the whole matter of religion under the gospel, will ap­peer planely by considering what that religion is; whence we shall perceive yet more planely that it cannot be forc'd. What euangelic religion is, is told in two words, faith and charitie; or beleef and practise. That both these flow ei­ther the one from the understand­ing, the other from the will, or both jointly from both, once in­deed naturally free, but now only [Page 39] as they are regenerat and wrought on by divine grace, is. in part evi­dent to common sense and princi­ples unquestiond, the rest by scri­pture: concerning our beleef, Mat. 16.17. flesh and blood hath not re­veald it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven: concerning our practise, as it is religious and not meerly civil, Gal. 5.22, 23 and other places declare it to be the fruit of the spirit only. Nay our whole practical dutie in religi­on is containd in charitie, or the love of God and our neighbour, no way to be forc'd, yet the ful­filling of the whole law; that is to say, our whole practise in reli­gion. If then both our beleef and practise, which comprehend our whole religion, flow from the faculties of the inward man, free and un­constrainable of themselves by [Page 40] nature, and our practise not only from faculties endu'd with free­dom, but from love and charitie besides, incapable of force, and all these things by transgression lost, but renewd and regenerated in us by the power and gift of God a­lone, how can such religion as this admit of force from man, or force be any way appli'd to such reli­gion, especially under the free offer of grace in the gospel, but it must forthwith frustrate and make of no effect both the religion and the gospel? And that to compell outward profession, which they will say perhaps ought to be com­pelld though inward religion can­not, is to compell hypocrisie not to advance religion, shall yet, though of it self cleer anough, be ere the conclusion further mani­fest. The other reason why Christ [Page 41] rejects outward force in the go­verment of his church, is, as I said before, to shew us the divine excellence of his spiritual king­dom, able without worldly force to subdue all the powers and king­doms of this world, which are up­held by outward force only: by which to uphold religion other­wise then to defend the religious from outward violence, is no ser­vice to Christ or his kingdom, but rather a disparagement, and degrades it from a divine and spi­ritual kingdom to a kingdom of this world: which he denies it to be, because it needs not force to confirm it: Ioh. 18.36. if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be deliverd to the Iewes. This proves the kingdom of Christ not governd by outward force; as [Page 42] being none of this world, whose kingdoms are maintaind all by force onely: and yet disproves not that a Christian common­wealth may defend it self against outward force in the cause of re­ligion as well as in any other; though Christ himself, coming purposely to dye for us, would not be so defended. 1 Cor. 1.27. God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. Then surely he hath not chosen the force of this world to subdue con­science and conscientious men, who in this world are counted weakest; but rather conscience, as being weakest, to subdue and regulate force, his adversarie, not his aide or instrument in govern­ing the church. 2 Cor. 10.3, 4, 5, 6. for though we walk in the flesh, [Page 43] we do not warre after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not car­nal; but mightie through God to the pulling down of strong holds; cast­ing down imaginations and everie high thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God; and bring­ing into captivitie everie thought to the obedience of Christ: and having in a readiness to aveng all disobedi­ence. It is evident by the first and second verses of this chapter, that the apostle here speaks of that spiritual power by which Christ governs his church, how all suffi­cient it is, how powerful to reach the conscience and the inward man with whom it chiefly deals and whom no power els can deal with. In comparison of which as it is here thus magnificently de­scrib'd, how uneffectual and weak is outward force with all her boi­strous [Page 44] tooles, to the shame of those Christians and especially those churchmen, who to the ex­ercising of church discipline never cease calling on the civil magi­strate to interpose his fleshlie force; an argument that all true ministerial and spiritual power is dead within them: who think the gospel, which both began and spread over the whole world for above three hundred years under heathen and persecuting empe­rors, cannot stand or continue, supported by the same divine pre­sence and protection to the worlds end, much easier under the defen­sive favor onely of a Christian magistrate, unless it be enacted and settled, as they call it, by the state, a statute or a state-religion: and understand not that the church it self cannot, much less the state, [Page 45] settle or impose one tittle of re­ligion upon our obedience impli­cit, but can only recommend or propound it to our free and con­scientious examination: unless they mean to set the state higher then the church in religion, and with a grosse contradiction give to the state in thir settling petition that command of our implicit be­leef, which they deny in thir set­led confession both to the state and to the church. Let them cease then to importune and in­terrupt the magistrate from at­tending to his own charge in civil and moral things, the settling of things just, things honest, the de­fence of things religious settled by the churches within them­selves; and the repressing of thir contraries determinable by the common light of nature; which [Page 46] is not to constrain or to repress religion, probable by scripture, but the violaters and persecuters therof: of all which things he hath anough and more then a­nough to do, left yet undon; for which the land groans and justice goes to wrack the while: let him also forbear force where he hath no right to judge; for the con­science is not his province: least a worse woe arrive him, for worse offending, then was denounc'd by our Saviour Matt. 23.23. against the Pharises: ye have forc'd the conscience, which was not to be forc'd; but judgment and mercy ye have not executed: this ye should have don, and the other let alone. And since it is the councel and set purpose of God in the go­spel by spiritual means which are counted weak, to overcom all [Page 47] power which resists him; let them not go about to do that by world­ly strength which he hath decreed to do by those means which the world counts weakness, least they be again obnoxious to that saying which in another place is also writ­ten of the Pharises, Luke 7.30. that they frustrated the councel of God. The main plea is, and urgd with much vehemence to thir imi­tation, that the kings of Iuda, as I touchd before, and especially Iosia both judgd and us'd force in religion. 2 Chr. 34.33. he made all that were present in Israel to serve the Lord thir God: an argu­ment, if it be well weighed, worse then that us'd by the false prophet Shemaia to the high priest, that in imitation of Iehojada he ought to put Ieremie in the stocks, Ier. 29.24, 26, &c. for which he receivd [Page 48] his due denouncement from God. But to this besides I return a three-fold answer: first, that the state of religion under the gospel is far differing from what it was under the law: then was the state of ri­gor, childhood, bondage and works, to all which force was not unbefitting; now is the state of grace, manhood, freedom and faith; to all which belongs wil­lingness and reason, not force: the law was then written on tables of stone, and to be performd ac­cording to the letter, willingly or unwillingly; (the gospel, our new covnant, upon the heart of every beleever, to be interpreted only by the sense of charitie and inward perswasion: the law had no di­stinct government or governors of church and commonwealth, but the Priests and Levites judg'd in [Page 49] all causes not ecclesiastical only but civil, Deut. 17.8, &c. which under the gospel is forbidden to all church-ministers, as a thing which Christ thir master in his ministerie disclam'd Luke 12.14; as a thing beneathe them 1 Cor. 6.4; and by many of our statutes, as to them who have a peculiar and far differing government of thir own. If not, why different the governors? why not church-ministers in state-affairs, as well as state-ministers in church-affairs? If church and state shall be made one flesh again as under the law, let it be withall considerd, that God who then joind them hath now severd them; that which, he so ordaining, was then a lawfull conjunction, to such on either side as join again what he hath severd, would be nothing now but thir [Page 50] own presumptuous fornication. Secondly, the kings of Iuda and those magistrates under the law might have recours, as I said be­fore, to divine inspiration; which our magistrates under the gospel have not, more then to the same spirit, which those whom they force have oft times in greater measure then themselves: and so, instead of forcing the Christian, they force the Holy Ghost; and, against that wise forewarning of Gamaliel, fight against God. Thirdly, those kings and magi­strates us'd force in such things only as were undoubtedly known and forbidden in the law of Moses, idolatrie and direct apostacie from that national and strict enjoind worship of God; wherof the cor­poral punishment was by himself expressly set down: but magi­strates [Page 51] under the gospel, our free, elective and rational worship, are most commonly busiest to force those things which in the gospel are either left free, nay somtimes abolishd when by them compelld, or els controverted equally by writers on both sides, and som­times with odds on that side which is against them. By which means they either punish that which they ought to favor and protect, or that with corporal punishment and of thir own inventing, which not they but the church hath receivd com­mand to chastise with a spiritual rod only. Yet some are so eager in thir zeal of forcing, that they refuse not to descend at length to the utmost shift of that parabolical prooff Luke 14.16, &c. compell them to come in. therfore magi­strates may compell in religion. [Page 52] As if a parable were to be straind through every word or phrase, and not expounded by the general scope therof: which is no other here then the earnest expression of Gods displeasure on those recu­sant Jewes, and his purpose to preferre the gentiles on any terms before them; expressd here by the word compell. But how com­pells he? doubtless no otherwise then he draws, without which no man can come to him, Ioh. 6.44: and that is by the inward perswa­sive motions of his spirit and by his ministers; not by the outward compulsions of a magistrate or his officers. The true people of Christ, as is foretold Psal. 110.3, are a willing people in the day of his power. then much more now when he rules all things by outward weakness, that both his inward [Page 53] power and their sinceritie may the more appeer. God loveth a chear­full giver: then certainly is not pleasd with an unchearfull wor­shiper; as the verie words declare of his euangelical invitations. Esa. 55.1. ho, everie one that thirsteth, come. Ioh. 7.37. if any man thirst. Rev. 3.18. I counsel thee. and 22.17. whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. And in that grand commission of preaching to invite all nations Marc 16.16, as the reward of them who come, so the penaltie of them who come not is only spiritual. But they bring now some reason with thir force, which must not pass unan­swerd; that the church of Thya­tira was blam'd Rev. 2.20 for suffering the false prophetess to teach and to seduce. I answer, that seducement is to be hinderd by [Page 54] fit and proper means ordaind in church-discipline; by instant and powerfull demonstration to the contrarie; by opposing truth to error, no unequal match; truth the strong to error the weak though slie and shifting. Force is no honest confutation; but unef­fectual, and for the most part un­successfull, oft times fatal to them who use it: sound doctrine dili­gently and duely taught, is of herself both sufficient, and of herself (if some secret judg­ment of God hinder not) alwaies prevalent against seducers. This the Thyatirians had neglected, suffering, against Church-disci­pline, that woman to teach and seduce among them: civil force they had not then in thir pow­er; being the Christian part only of that citie, and then especi­ally [Page 55] under one of those ten great persecutions, wherof this the second was raisd by Domitian: force therfore in these matters could not be requir'd of them, who were then under force them­selves.

I have shewn that the civil power hath neither right nor can do right by forcing religious things: I will now shew the wrong it doth; by violating the funda­mental privilege of the gospel, the new-birthright of everie true beleever, Christian libertie. 2 Cor. 3.17. where the spirit of the Lord is, there is libertie. Gal. 4.26. Ieru­salem which is above, is free; which is the mother of us all. and 31. we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. It will be sufficient in this place to say no more of Christian libertie, then that it sets [Page 56] us free not only from the bondage of those ceremonies, but also from the forcible imposition of those circumstances, place and time in the worship of God: which though by him commanded in the old law, yet in respect of that veritie and freedom which is euangelical, S. Paul comprehends both kindes alike, that is to say, both ceremo­nie and circumstance, under one and the same contemtuous name of weak and beggarly rudiments, Gal. 4.3.9, 10. Col. 2.8. with 16: conformable to what our Saviour himself taught Iohn 4.21, 23. neither in this mountain nor yet at Ierusalem. In spirit and in truth: for the father seeketh such to worship him. that is to say, not only sin­cere of heart, for such he sought ever, but also, as the words here chiefly import, not compelld to [Page 57] place, and by the same reason, not to any set time; as his apostle by the same spirit hath taught us Rom. 14.6, &c. one man esteemeth one day above another, another &c. Gal. 4.10. Ye observe dayes, and moonths &c. Coloss. 2.16. These and other such places of scripture the best and learnedest reformed writers have thought evident a­nough to instruct us in our free­dom not only from ceremonies but from those circumstances also, though impos'd with a confident perswasion of moralitie in them, which they hold impossible to be in place or time. By what warrant then our opinions and practises herin are of late turnd quite against all other Protestants, and that which is to them orthodoxal, to us become scandalous and punish­able by statute, I wish were once [Page 58] again better considerd; if we mean not to proclame a schism in this point from the best and most re­formed churches abroad. They who would seem more knowing, confess that these things are in­different, but for that very cause by the magistrate may be com­manded. As if God of his special grace in the gospel had to this end freed us from his own command­ments in these things, that our freedom should subject us to a more greevous yoke, the com­mandments of men. As well may the magistrate call that common or unclean which God hath cleansd, forbidden to S. Peter Acts 10.15; as well may he loos'n that which God hath strait'nd, or strait'n that which God hath loos'nd, as he may injoin those things in religion which God hath [Page 59] left free, and lay on that yoke which God hath taken off. For he hath not only given us this gift as a special privilege and ex­cellence of the free gospel above the servile law, but strictly, also hath commanded us to keep it and enjoy it. Gal. 5.13. you are calld to libertie. 1 Cor. 7.23. be not made the servants of men. Gal. 5.14. stand fast therfore in the li­bertie wherwith Christ hath made us free; and be not intangl'd again with the yoke of bondage. Neither is this a meer command, but for the most part in these forecited places accompanied with the verie waightiest and inmost reasons of Christian religion: Rom. 14.9, 10. for to this end Christ both dy'd and rose and reviv'd, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? [Page 60] &c. how presum'st thou to be his lord, to be whose only Lord, at least in these things, Christ both dy'd and rose and livd again? We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. why then dost thou not only judge, but persecute in these things for which we are to be accountable to the tribunal of Christ only, our Lord and law­giver? 1 Cor. 7.23. ye are bought with a price; be not made the ser­vants of men. some trivial price belike, and for some frivolous pretences paid in their opinion, if bought and by him redeemd who is God from what was once the service of God, we shall be enthrald again and forc'd by men to what now is but the service of men. Gal. 4.31, with 5.1. we are not children of the bondwoman &c. stand fast therfore &c. Col. 2.8. [Page 61] beware least any man spoil you, &c. after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Solid reasons wherof are continu'd through the whole chapter. v. 10. ye are com­plete in him, which is the head of all principalitie and power. not com­pleted therfore or made the more religious by those ordinances of civil power, from which Christ thi [...] head hath dischargd us; blot­ting out the handwriting of ordi­nances, that was against us, which was contrarie to us; and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross, v. 14: blotting out ordinances written by God himself, much more those so boldly written over again by men. ordinances which were against us, that is, against our frailtie, much more those which are against our conscience. Let no man therfore judge you in [Page 62] respect of &c. v. 16. Gal. 4.3, &c. even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his son &c. to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons &c. Wherfore thou art no more a servant, but a son &c. But now &c. how turn ye a­gain to the weak and beggarly rudi­ments, wherunto ye desire again to be in bondage? ye observe dayes &c. Hence it planely appeers, that if we be not free we are not sons, but still servants unadopted; and if we turn again to those weak and beggarly rudiments, we are not free; yea though willingly and with a misguided conscience we desire to be in bondage to them; how much more then if unwillingly and against our con­science? [Page 63] Ill was our condition chang'd from legal to euangelical, and small advantage gotten by the gospel, if for the spirit of adoption to freedom, promisd us, we receive again the spirit of bondage to fear; if our fear which was then servile towards God only, must be now servile in re­ligion towards men: strange al­so and preposterous fear, if when and wherin it hath attaind by the redemption of our Saviour to be filial only towards God, it must be now servile towards the magi­strate. Who by subjecting us to his punishment in these things, brings back into religion that law of terror and satisfaction, belong­ing now only to civil crimes; and thereby in effect abolishes the gospel by establishing again the law to a far worse yoke of servi­tude [Page 64] upon us then before. It will therfore not misbecome the mean­est Christian to put in minde Christian magistrates, and so much the more freely by how much the more they desire to be thought Christian (for they will be thereby, as they ought to be in these things, the more our bre­thren and the less our lords) that they meddle not rashly with Chri­stian libertie, the birthright and outward testimonie of our adopti­on: least while they little think it, nay think they do God service, they themselves like the sons of that bondwoman be found perse­cuting them who are freeborne of the spirit; and by a sacrilege of not the least aggravation be­reaving them of that sacred liber­tie which our Saviour with his own blood purchas'd for them.

[Page 65]A fourth reason why the magi­strate ought not to use force in re­ligion, I bring from the conside­ration of all those ends which he can likely pretend to the interpo­sing of his force therin: and those hardly can be other then first the glorie of God; next either the spiritual good of them whom he forces, or the temporal punish­ment of their scandal to others. As for the promoting of Gods glo­ry, none, I think, will say that his glorie ought to be promoted in religious things by unwarranta­ble means, much less by means contrarie to what he hath com­manded. That outward force is such, and that Gods glory in the whole administration of the go­spel according to his own will and councel ought to be fulfilld by weakness, at least so refuted, not [Page 66] by force; or if by force, inward and spiritual, not outward and corporeal, is already prov'd at large. That outward force cannot tend to the good of him who is forc'd in religion, is unquestion­able. For in religion whatever we do under the gospel, we ought to be therof perswaded without scruple; and are justified by the faith we have, not by the work we do. Rom. 14.5. Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind. The other reason which follows ne­cessarily, is obvious Gal. 2.16, and in many other places of St. Paul, as the groundwork and founda­tion of the whole gospel, that we are justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. if not by the works of Gods law, how then by the injunctions of mans law? Surely force cannot [Page 67] work perswasion, which is faith; cannot therfore justifie nor pacifie the conscience; and that which justifies not in the gospel, con­demns; is not only not good, but sinfull to do. Rom. 14.23. What­soever is not of faith, is sin. It con­cerns the magistrate then to take heed how he forces in religion con­scientious men [...] least by compel­ling them to do that wherof they cannot be perswaded, that wher­in they cannot finde themselves justified, but by thir own con­sciences condemnd, instead of aiming at thir spiritual good, he force them to do evil; and while he thinks himself Asa, Iosia, Ne­hemia, he be found Ieroboam, who causd Israel to sin; and thereby draw upon his own head all those sins and shipwracks of implicit faith and conformitie, which he [Page 68] hath forc'd, and all the wounds given to those little ones, whom to offend he will finde worse one day then that violent drowning mentioned Matt. 18.6. Lastly as a preface to force, it is the usual pretence, That although tender consciences shall be tolerated, yet scandals thereby given shall not be unpunishd, prophane and licenti­ous men shall not be encourag'd to neglect the performance of religi­ous and holy duties by color of any law giving libertie to tender consciences. By which contrivance the way lies ready open to them heerafter who may be so minded, to take away by little and little, that liberty which Christ and his gospel, not any magistrate, hath right to give: though this kinde of his giving be but to give with one hand and take away with the o­ther, [Page 69] which is a deluding not a giving. As for scandals, if any man be offended at the conscien­tious liberty of another, it is a taken scandal not a given. To heal one conscience we must not wound another: and men must be exhorted to beware of scandals in Christian libertie, not forc'd by the magistrate; least while he goes about to take away the scan­dal, which is uncertain whether given or taken, he take away our liberty, which is the certain and the sacred gift of God, neither to be touchd by him, nor to be parted with by us. None more cautious of giving scandal then St. Paul. Yet while he made himself servant to all, that he might gain the more, he made himself so of his own ac­cord, was not made so by outward force, testifying at the same time [Page 70] that he was free from all men, 1 Cor. 9.19: and therafter exhorts us also Gal. 5.13. ye were calld to liber­tie &c. but by love serve one another: then not by force. As for that fear least prophane and licentious men should be encourag'd to omit the performance of religious and holy duties, how can that care belong to the civil magistrate, especially to his force? For if prophane and licentious persons must not neg­lect the performance of religious and holy duties, it implies, that such duties they can perform; which no Protestant will affirm. They who mean the outward per­formance, may so explane it; and it will then appeer yet more plane­ly, that such performance of reli­gious and holy duties especialy by prophane and licentious persons, is a dishonoring rather then a [Page 71] worshiping of God; and not only by him not requir'd but detested: Prov. 21.27. the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more when he bringeth it with a wicked minde? To compell ther­fore the prophane to things holy in his prophaneness, is all one under the gospel, as to have com­pelld the unclean to sacrifise in his uncleanness under the law. And I adde withall, that to compell the licentious in his licentiousness, and the conscientious against his conscience, coms all to one; tends not to the honor of God, but to the multiplying and the aggra­vating of sin to them both. We read not that Christ ever exer­cis'd force but once; and that was to drive prophane ones out of his temple, not to force them in: and if thir beeing there was an of­fence, [Page 72] we finde by many other scriptures that thir praying there was an abomination: and yet to the Jewish law that nation, as a servant, was oblig'd; but to the gospel each person is left volun­tarie, calld only, as a son, by the preaching of the word; not to be driven in by edicts and force of arms. For if by the apostle, Rom. 12.1, we are beseechd as brethren by the mercies of God to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, ac­ceptable to God, which is our reason­able service or worship, then is no man to be forc'd by the compul­sive laws of men to present his body a dead sacrifice, and so under the gospel most unholy and un­acceptable, because it is his unrea­sonable service, that is to say, not only unwilling but unconscion­able, But if prophane and licenti­ous [Page 73] persons may not omit the per­formance of holy duties, why may they not partake of holy things? why are they prohibited the Lords supper; since both the one and the other action may be outward; and outward performance of dutie may attain at least an outward par­ticipation of benefit? The church denying them that communion of grace and thanksgiving, as it justly doth, why doth the magistrate compell them to the union of per­forming that which they neither truly can, being themselves un­holy, and to do seemingly is both hatefull to God, and perhaps no less dangerous to perform holie duties irreligiously then to receive holy signes or sacraments unwor­thily. All prophane and licentious men, so known, can be considerd but either so without the church [Page 74] as never yet within it, or departed thence of thir own accord, or ex­communicate: if never yet within the church, whom the apostle, and so consequently the church have naught to do to judge, as he pro­fesses 1 Cor. 5.12, them by what autoritie doth the magistrate judge, or, which is worse, compell in relation to the church? if de­parted of his own accord, like that lost sheep Luke 15.4, &c. the true church either with her own or any borrowd force worries him not in again, but rather in all charitable manner sends after him; and if she finde him, layes him gently on her shoulders; bears him, yea bears his burdens; his errors, his infir­mities any way tolerable, so ful­filling the law of Christ, Gal. 6.2: if excommunicate, whom the church hath bid go out, in whose [Page 75] name doth the magistrate compell to go in? The church indeed hinders none from hearing in her publick congregation, for the doors are open to all: nor ex­communicates to destruction, but, as much as in her lies, to a final saving. Her meaning therfore must needs bee, that as her driving out brings on no outward penaltie, so no outward force or penaltie of an improper and only a destructive power should drive in again her infectious sheep; therfore sent out because infectious, and not driven in but with the danger not only of the whole and sound, but also of his own utter perishing. Since force neither instructs in religion nor begets repentance or amendment of life, but, on the contrarie, hard­ness of heart, formalitie, hypocri­sie, and, as I said before, everie way [Page 76] increase of sin; more and more alienates the minde from a violent religion expelling out and com­pelling in, and reduces it to a con­dition like that which the Britains complain of in our storie, driven to and fro between the Picts and the sea. If after excommunion he be found intractable, incurable, and will not hear the church, he be­coms as one never yet within her pale, a heathen or a publican, Mat. 18.17; not further to be judgd, no not by the magistrate, unless for civil causes; but left to the final sentence of that judge, whose coming shall be in flames of fire; that Maran athaà, 1 Cor. 16.22; then which to him so left nothing can be more dreadful and ofttimes to him particularly nothing more speedie, that is to say, the Lord cometh: In the mean while de­liverd [Page 77] up to Satan, 1 Cor. 5.5. 1 Tim. 1.20. that is, from the fould of Christ and kingdom of grace to the world again which is the kingdom of Satan; and as he was receivd from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God Acts 26.18, so now deliverd up again from light to darkness, and from God to the power of Satan; yet so as is in both places mani­fested, to the intent of saving him, brought sooner to contrition by spiritual then by any corporal se­veritie. But grant it belonging any way to the magistrate, that prophane and licentious persons omit not the performance of holy duties, which in them were odious to God even under the law, much more now under the gospel, yet ought his care both as a magistrate and a Christian, to be much more [Page 78] that conscience be not inwardly violated, then that licence in these things be made outwardly con­formable: since his part is un­doubtedly as a Christian, which puts him upon this office much more then as a magistrate, in all respects to have more care of the conscientious then of the pro­phane; and not for their sakes to take away (while they ptetend to give) or to diminish the right­full libertie of religious consci­ences.

On these four scriptural reasons as on a firm square this truth, the right of Christian and euangelic liberty, will stand immoveable a­gainst all those pretended conse­quences of license and confusion, which for the most part men most licentious and confus'd them­selves, or such as whose severitie [Page 79] would be wiser then divine wis­dom, are ever aptest to object a­gainst the waies of God: as if God without them when he gave us this libertie, knew not of the worst which these men in thir ar­rogance pretend will follow: yet knowing all their worst, he gave us this liberty as by him judgd best. As to those magistrates who think it their work to settle reli­gion, and those ministers or o­thers, who so oft call upon them to do so, I trust, that having well considerd what hath bin here ar­gu'd, neither they will continue in that intention, nor these in that expectation from them: when they shall finde that the settlement of religion belongs only to each par­ticular church by perswasive and spiritual means within it self, and that the defence only of the church [Page 80] belongs to the magistrate. Had he once learnt not further to con­cern himself with church affairs, half his labor might be spar'd, and the commonwealth better tended. To which end, that which I pre­mis'd in the beginning, and in due place treated of more at large, I desire now concluding, that they would consider seriously what reli­gion is: and they will find it to be in summe, both our beleef and our practise depending upon God only. That there can be no place then left for the magistrate or his force in the settlement of religion, by appointing either what we shall beleeve in divine things or practise in religious (neither of which things are in the power of man either to perform himself or to en­able others) I perswade me in the Christian ingenuitie of all religi­ous [Page 81] men, the more they examin seriously, the more they will finde cleerly to be true: and finde how false and deceivable that common saying is, which is so much reli'd upon, that the Christian Magi­strate is custos utriusque tabulae, keeper of both tables; unless is meant by keeper the defender only: neither can that maxim be maintaind by any prooff or argu­ment which hath not in this dis­cours first or last bin refuted. For the two tables, or ten commande­ments, teach our dutie to God and our neighbour from the love of both; (give magistrates no au­toritie to force either: they seek that from the judicial law; though on false grounds, especially in the first table, as I have shewn; and both in first and second execute that autoritie for the most part [Page 82] not according to Gods judicial laws but thir own. As for civil crimes and of the outward man, which all are not, no not of those against the second table, as that of coveting; in them what power they have, they had from the be­ginning, long before Moses or the two tables were in being. And whether they be not now as little in being to be kept by any Chri­stian as they are two legal tables, remanes yet as undecided, as it is sure they never were yet deli­verd to the keeping of any Chri­stian magistrate. But of these things perhaps more some other time; what may serve the pre­sent hath bin above discourst suf­ficiently out of the scriptures: and to those produc'd might be added testimonies, examples, ex­periences of all succeeding ages to [Page 83] these times asserting this doctrine: but having herin the scripture so copious and so plane, we have all that can be properly calld true strength and nerve; the rest would be but pomp and incumbrance. Pomp and ostentation of reading is admir'd among the vulgar: but doubtless in matters of religion he is learnedest who is planest. The brevitie I use, not exceeding a small manual, will not therfore, I suppose, be thought the less con­siderable, unless with them per­haps who think that great books only can determin great matters. I rather chose the common rule, not to make much ado where less may serve. Which in controver­sies and those especially of religi­on, would make them less tedious, and by consequence read ofter, by many more, and with more benefit.