THough it seem that this Que­stion may be easily decided out of a consideration of the very Terms themselves; things Civil and Spiritual being of a different nature, and not subordinate, so as he who is deputed to administer the former, is not thereby impowered to entermeddle with the latter any way: the Appellation of Civil Magistrate no less determines the Object and extent of his power, than the contrary Title of Spiritual Lord would restrain him that should be so constituted from any jurisdiction in Temporals: or a Commission for N. N. to be Admiral at Sea, limits his command, so as he hath no rule upon Land. But since the Implication of the Terms is not convincing enough with them who are either resolved, or interested other­wise: I shall make a brief inquiry into the [Page 2] rise and originall of Magistracy, and the limitation of such power.

Magistracy it is the exercise of a Morall power: one of these is the root and mea­sure of the other, which if it exceed it be­comes exorbitant, and is no longer Magi­stracy, but a corruption thereof.

Almighty God hath so ordered the af­faires of this world, that Man partly tho­rough his own inclinations, partly out of a sense of his necessityes not otherwise relieve­able then by mutuall assistance, is become naturally Sociable: and Society (as man is corrupted by Adams fall) cannot be up­held and preserved but by the deputation of some that may make it their principal bu­siness to attend unto the good of the com­munity, and securing of each individuall in such rights as they respectively shall a­gree upon towards each other; and for the executing of which trust they do mutu­ally promise amongst themselves and to their Governour or Governours that they will be assistant unto him or them with their utmost power.

From Gods having so disposed of things Magistracy is called Gods ordinance [ [...]] And the Conscience hereof [ [...]] or apprehension that man hath of such so­ciable inclinations in him, as often as he di­ligently consults his own thoughts, is the reason of our subjection to Magistracy, as well as that other of wrath and dangers likely to [Page 3]ensue, upon any disobedience. Rom. 13. v. 2.5.

As to the severall kinds of Magistracy [no [...] Higher and Subordinate, but Supream, viz. Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy] they likewise are commonly Gods ordinance by the former claim of his disposing mens hearts and other extrinsque and internall circumstances, so as they embrace this or that form. That the East is generally af­fected to and ruled by an absolute Monar­chy whilst the West and North admit only of a Republique or such a mixture, as however their Governours may be called Kings, yet are they not Monarchs. Sometimes God more immediately constituteth this or that particular forme of Government; as first a Common-wealth in Israel, and after that ( [...]s his wrath) a Monarchy. God hath no where in his word determined what is the power of the Magistrate how farr it extends it self: what will be the practise of Kings [and so certainly their practise, that they chal­lenge it for their right] we may read 1 Sam. 8. v. 11. &c. But their Duty may e­quitably be drawn from Deuter. 17.19. He whom God should choose, and the people set over them, was to rule according to Natio­nall Lawes; now Lawes cannot be univer­sall, but must be through the prudence of the Legislator accomodated to the particular circumstances in which any people is.

Where the word of a King is there is power: [Page 4]and who may say unto him what doest thou? These and such like Texts oblige not but such as are under Monarchs: The justitia of Arragon may, notwithstanding them, re­sist the King of Spain and our Parliaments controule his Majesty.

The People are the Efficient cause of Ma­gistracy, and from them is all true power derived: God himself when he gave a King to Israel, he did but propose, the Peo­ple did set him over them. Magistracy is not a paternall right, nor consequent there­of either in Scripture, or Nature. But sup­pose Adam Monarch of the whole Earth, and that Monarchy was instituted when yet there were but two in the world. Gen. 3.16. where God tells the woman that her Husband should rule over her. I would faine know whither Adam had this Dominion as Father, (which is not proved from the text) or as being the first man created in a world devoyd of Landlords, and so falling to the first that should possess it. If the latter (to wave that question so much debated, whi­ther in New found Lands more accrue to the first comer and discoverer then he takes Seisin of?) Then we ought to employ Sr. Tho. Ʋrchard, to search out one universall Monarch Successour to Adam, or it must be proved that our present division of Lands and Kingdomes under Magistrates is of his approbation. But both Adams Successour, and his will are impossible to be found out; [Page 5]and so that rearch is at an end. If he had that Dominion as Father, then all Fathers have the like power, so Adams Monarchy determines with his life, and all Magi­stracy will be at least resolved into the Peo­ple, when many Families and Fatherless Per­sons unite into one estate. If he had that Dominion as the first Father from whose Loynes all mankind issued, I would faine know to whom he did bequeath that power? Whither it did Naturally descend to his Eldest Son? or might be conferred or com­municated to other his Children arbitrarily? But the right of primogeniture cannot be evinced out of Scripture, whilst the stories of Esau, Reuben, Manasseth, David Succeed­ing to the prejudice of Sauls Sons, Adoni­jahs being displaced by Solomon, Je [...]oahas the son Josiah his preceeding his Elder Brother Jehoiakin in the succession, as the Jewes note, and out of them Mr. Selden, are preserved: nor can it be deduced from the customes of Nations (the only interpretor of Nature) which vary in that point: and if the claim of the first-born doth not con­clude necessarily, (as it doth not, neither in ancient or moderne Pra­ctise) the pretenses of other Children are less valid. Aristotle saith that suc­cession in Kings by way of primogeniture, was the custome of Barbarians: & that in the time of the Heroes men did rule o­therwise. Polit. l. 3. If all might be conferred or im­parted arbitrarily, let such Grantees produce their title from Seths pillars, or else­where, [Page 6]and we shall consider their plea. In the mean while since neither the descen­dants of Cain, nor any other appear to chal­lenge any such rights as mercenary divines and Lawyers have ascribed to Kings (for no King or Magistrate, I ever read of, avow­ed such his right, nor was it thought on ei­ther at the founding of the Common-wealth of Israel, or the Election of Saul, &c.) I cannot find any Magistracy in the world but what is derived from the People more or less consenting and impowering thereunto. And thus if one Apostle call Magistracy the ordi­nance of God (for of that he speaks abstra­ctively) Rom. 13. v. 2. Yet Magistrates (or Magistracy in the concrete) are of humane constitution, and the creatures of men. 1 Pet. 2. v. 12. [...], &c. Be thou subject unto e­very humane creature [or creature of man; for so the word signifyes, and not Ordi­nance, no more then Marc. 16.15. preach to every creature [...]] for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King &c.

To the making a Creature it is necessary that it's production be out of nothing, or at least out of no matter predisposed for such a forme, (thus Adam was created) and this is the Physicall sense of the word: In a Mo­rall sense then to the Creation of a Magi­strate it is to be supposed that he neither is already vested with such a power, nor in such a capacity as without the accessional of mans [Page 7]creation to grow up thereunto. And indeed if all men are equall before they embody by cohabitation, the voisinage gives no man su­periority over another.

There are some which phancy that Power is indeed from the People only as Electing to it; not as conferring it: that they have only the presentation to that authority which God immediately gives. This opinion seems to enterfere with that Text which represents the Magistrate as a creature of man: but be­cause in Scripture propriety of speech is not too rigorously to be insisted on, and makes the case only probable, not certain: I further say that this is but the resuery of men whose imagination rather then judge­ment is extraordinary, who must place the strength of their cause in Assertions that are only so farr disproveable in that they cannot be proved. The People never owned such their suffrage in the most solemn elections of Saul, David, &c. nor did God declare his power to be such, though both parties did there severally interpose. It cannot be evi­denced out of Gods word; Nature and Rea­son teach us no such thing; the Relations of our King (no less then those of other Nations) hold forth the contrary: and it were absolute folly for us, upon slender pro­babilities and no greater evidence then a quick wit may give to the most despicable untruths, to renounce the professions and practise of all Nations in all Ages, which ren­der [Page 8]our Opinion more then probable. In fine, it layes us open to all the whimseys imaginable, that any bold assertour can im­pose upon the Almighty in hopes of not be­ing refuted till doomesday. The Papists will thus defend their Transubstantiation, and prove that to be really the Body and Blood of Christ, which we see to be Bread. The same persons say that in Ordination a Chara­cter is imprinted upon the soul of the Priest or­dained: The English Bishops breathed upon their Creatures, saying receive the Holy Ghost. A thousand such cheats may be im­posed upon the unwary, if we admit of these suppositions, and quit our sense for that which is non-sense. I would faine know, what is the Nature of the power thus invisibly collated? what is the Tenour of this celesti­all charter? Is it arbitrary? or Limited? If Limited how farr? These things are ne­cessary for the people to know, that they may not transgresse what they are as yet in­vincibly ignorant of. This is a course which renders all Kings Absolute, yea and all in­feriour Magistrates too, for the text distin­guishes not of the ones being more from God then the other: and it makes the Peoples misfortunes infinite, and irrelievable, since they are subjected to one upon they know not what termes, by one to whom they can make no appeal but by Prayers and Tears. This plea doth unsettle all the Govern­ments in the civilized world, making all [Page 9] Concessions null (or at least in their origine unlawfull) that were extorted from tyrants, or granted by such Magistrates as are not sa­tisfied with that plenitude of power which God invests them with, whether they can diminish it: what we say now is their duty will be but an Act of grace, and all our rights will be changed into priviledges.

It is then clear that the People are the Efficient cause of Magistracy, and that all true power is derived from them. Who those People are, I must referr you for bre­vity sake, to a consideration of the Erection of the Common-wealth in Israel.

There is no Government now but hath its originall from the consent of some people: which people if they were before ligued with any other number besides themselves, are tyed by their mutuall promises and compacts to them and their common Magistrate, so as not to erect any new one in opposition to him; unlesse there be a violation of funda­mentall agreements, and all satisfaction for what is past, together with reall security for the future be denyed, or to be despayred of. If the Magistrate alone injure them, they may with the common (or, in case that cannot be had thorough the circumstances of af­fayres, which is the default of the Governors, not governed with an interpretative) Consent call him to an accompt. If the others dissent and defend him, then are they free from all precedent obligations not onely towards their [Page 10] Magistrate, but one another: Since in con­ditionall pacts, if the one party faile, the o­ther is at liberty.

If their quondam Magistrate with his par­tisans invade them, then are they free to defend themselves, or prevent such dan­gers as are threatned any way from him, or them; yea and so to manage their own safety (which is the onely cause of a just war, and the End of Government in general) that they may at Length totally subdue and sub­ject them.

To all that are by conquest thus subjected the new erected Magistrate of the conquering people is not properly a Magistrate, but a pro­vinciall Governour: And if they gave just cause of fear to the conquerours at first, their Conquest is just; if otherwise, then not: And so long their subjecting is legitimate, whilest that security is gained which the con­querours designed in the beginning, and ex­pect as the product of war.

This Magistrate hath no absolute power o­ver the conquered, but such as is derived from them, in whose strength and for whose safety he doth act: and to them he is ac­comptable for such his demeanour as is not founded upon the Rule of Self-preservation.

As in the Common-wealth of Israel, when they were to choose a King, that King was obliged to have a booke of the fundamental laws written in his own hand, and to read herein all the days of his life, that he might [Page 11] observe the said statutes and do them, that so his heart might not be lifted up above his bre­thren, and that he should not turne from the commandement to the right hand, or to the left. Deut. 17. v. 18.20. So it behoves such a people as impowers any for Magistracy, upon severall cases to make them recognise their Authority, from whom they have it, and for whose sake it is that they rule, not only over them, but over new accquests: they ought also to be very cautious of mixing their government with that of the provincials, and such as do not close with them in their originall Constitutions of their Magistrate; for their proper interest may be eaten out, and their Magistrate become established upon the base of such articles as the conquer­ed will assent unto for the bettering of their present condition, no lesse then ruine of their conquerours. Severall Kingdomes in Spain having permitted their Kings by marryage to unite different Kingdoms, re­taining different loves, and qualified with discrepant principles of Government, have now lost their priviledges and fundamentall rights, each contributing to the others o­verthrow by the subtill counsells of their Magistrate.

If the People Are the Authors of Magistra­cy, and he their creature; Then it will follow, that He is erected and established for the compassing of their good: and that this is the End for which he was set up. For since [Page 12] man in his actings is supposed to act volunta­rily, and the object of his will is some good either reall, or apparently so; it must likewise be supposed that in the constituting of Magistracy all did aime at something that might be an universall good: it being not imagined how all should conspire for the procuring of any good of a particular man, or number of men, to their own detriment and disadvantage: self-love is not onely the dictate of Nature, but recommended by our Saviour as the rule and measure of such love as we are to bear towards our neighbour.

The Ends of Nations in the erecting seve­rall fabricks of Government, are as dif­ferent as they themselves: there being no thing universally good, or universally ap­proved of: And as their intendments are discrepant, so they disagree in the ways for attaining their purposes: which vari­ety arises from the various prejudices and capacityes they are born and educated to in different climates, with difference of naturall tempers, difference of dyet, and customs &c.

The most obvious and universall end is the upholding society and entercourse by securing each in their property, and manage of com­merce betwixt one another for mutuall sup­ply of things necessary. After that the World grew populous, and that men began to straiten in their plantations, they formed severall petit Governments, each Town [Page 13]being a principality, upon the end specified That they did not erect them for, nor im­power them to determine of the word or worship of God seems manifest from Scri­pture; Before Enos there were Cityes and communityes, for Cain built one Gen. 4. v. 17. yet the Text saith positively, after E­nos was born unto Seth; Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. Gen. 4. v. 26. After that, when Abraham travailed up and down, into Egypt, the land of Gerar, &c. he erected an altar at Bethell, and wor­shipped his God, who was not the acknow­ledged God of the nations amongst which he sojourned, without a plea for toleration: in summe, the whole story of the Saints under the old Testament seems to evidence this truth, that their Magistrates were purely civill, and that though they might have a Nationall religion as in Egypt, and possibly Salem, yet did they not enter­meddle with the particular religion of their subjects, or them that sojourned amongst them. It was Haman's counsell to King Ahasuerus to destroy the Jews for that their laws were different from all people, neither kept they the Kings laws viz. concerning Religion; [for if they had been otherwise criminall, they could not have escaped un­punished.] Esther 3. v. 8. It is the Opinion of Bellarmine in his booke de Laicis, that the Heathens did grant an universall liberty in the worship of God; which assertion is [Page 14]for the most part true, for though they had peculiar Gods for their nations, yet private­ly and publiquely they which worshipped a God (whosoever, or whatsoever it was) were permitted, though Diagoras and Pro­tagoras, the one doubting of, the other de­nying any God, were not tolerated in Grece. But at Rome I find a law out of the twelve tables, Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos, sed nec advenas, nisi publicè ad­scitos privatim colunto. Let none have any particular Gods to himself, nor let any worship privately either new or forreign Gods; but upon a publique reception of them. But not­withstanding this law a great latitude of re­ligions was allowed at Rome, as History tells us; But the religion of these times consisted rather in outward ceremonies, then inward opinions about God, more then that he was, and that he was a reward­er of well or ill-doers according to their de­merits: which too was in part denyed by Epicurus who had a numerous company of followers in Greece and Rome. The Jews had a toleration every where amongst the Heathen, as Mr. Selden observes, yet were they not idle, but endeavoured to imbue others with their principles, and to draw them over to the law of Moses, terming such proselitos justitiae. This others, and Rutilius in his Itinerary takes notice of, wishing Jury had never bin subdued, so ma­ny did they convert to their religion.

From whence we may observe that it was the sense of Nations, that is, nature it self, Humani juris & naturalis potesea tis est unicuique quod putaverit, colere; nec alii obest, aut prodest alteri­us religio. Sed nec religio­nis ese cogere religionem, quae sponte suscipi debet non vi. Tertullian ad Scapul. how the civil Magistrate had nothing to do in matters of Religion in those dayes; and whatever their laws were upon some occasions in an uncontrolled practise, they did allow of this principle: It is true there are recorded in Sacred Writ examples of Kings amongst the Jews and other Nations that did en­termeddle in religious worship; which I shall a little instance in, because, if what was of old written, was written for our instruction, certain­ly those transactions seem registred that we might not be ignorant of the deplorable and detestable effects of an Absolute Monarchy. I would faine know of Mr. Wren whether these Monarchs did proceed so deliberately as he ima­gines they must in all rea­son do. Monarch. assert. p. 11. and whether a thou­sand such like cappuches may not be instanced in out of absolute Monarchyes which may show that a single person doth not put on that excellent temper and frame of spirit in en­acting laws which he talks of? One day Darius makes a Law, and establisheth a royall statute that for thirty dayes none should make any request or prayer except to the King, upon penalty of being cast in­to the Lyons den: and in complyance with this Law [of the supream judge of true and false religion!] Daniel is [Page 16]cast into the Lions den: he being not devour­ed, his accusers [with their innocent wifes and children!] are cast in to be devoured: then is a decree made unto all people, Nati­ons and Languages that dwelled in all the Earth, that they fear the God of Daniel. Dan. 6. The same Daniel had not only felt, but seen before the capricios of an Ab­solute Monarch in Nebuchadnessor, who made a Golden Image and ordained that all peo­ple should at the sound of Musique fall down and worship it, or be burned in the fiery furnace. Shadrach, Meshach and A­bednego regarded not him, nor served his Gods, nor worshipped the Image. But they being miraculously delivered out of the fire; then he blessed the God of Sha­drach, Meshach and Abednego, and makes a decree that every Nation, People and Lan­guage, which spake any thing amiss against their God should be cut in peeces, and their houses be made a dung-hill, because no other God could deliver in that sort. Dan. 3. These are inconveniences of this Arbitrary Magi­strate, visible not onely amongst the Gentiles but people of God, who chose a King to judge them, like all the Nations. Jeroboam made Israel to sin by an irrevocable idola­try: Manasseh ensnared High-places; Asa left the latter, and removed only the former. So did Jehohash in the time of Jehojada, he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, but the High-places were not taken away, the [Page 17]people stil sacrificed & did burn incense there­on. In the Roman Empire Caligula no soon­er [...]nacted that himself should be worshiped as God, but as Philo tells us, All the world [ [...]] all adored him, except the Jews. How things stood during Christian Kings and Emperours. I shall give some account anon: give me leave now to tell you, that I will not dispute here what power was of old attributed to Kings, nor of their absolute exemption either from Law or Punishment; nor will I enlarge upon the power they exercised in matters religious, nor debate whither they could conferre rationally such a power as made their Elect Emperour pos­sessour of more then their Enemies would take from them: I shall limit my discourse to the present posture of our affairs, and omitting what might serve for ostentation, I shall enquire into what is of particular concern to the good people of our Nation.

I have shewed how all power now is from the people as it's efficient: I have shewed that the general end men aim at in the erecting Magistracy is the preserving Society: and that Magistrates are constituted for their good, and not they for the advantages of Magistrates. Whether they may give abso­lutely themselves up to his Will, upon their own accord, as in Tartary, or upon some contract, as the Egyptians did to Pharaoh for Victuals, I shall not at present handle: [Page 18]Where there is no such peremptory resigna­tion, there the People are Supream, the Trust is fiduciary, and limited, so as where the Magistrate hath no authority to command, if the circumstances correspond, it is no sin to disobey. Which saying, I think, will be valid amongst our Northern men, until a generation arise that shall say it is just and prudential, that those whom God hath made men should render themselves brutes; that God did ill to endow us with reason, which ought to have no further use in us, than that we quit it in its principal exercise, and only practise it in purchasing Rattles and Hobby-Horses.

I am not now to speak of people qualified with resembling endowments, nor whose Religion is only Nature, without the Ac­cessional of extraordinary Revelation, who having not the Law were a Law unto them­selves; and not to be judged by that Light in which we walk. I come now to speak of Jacob unto whom God hath shewed his word: and of Israel, to whom he hath de­clared his statutes and his judgments. He hath not dealt so with any Nation of those I have instanced in. We are now as it were come out of Egypt, disfranchised from the yoke of Pharaoh, delivered from a Govern­ment established upon no other right tha [...] Ahabs posterity might have pretended for Naboths Vineyard, their Ancestours got i [...] unjustly, and they had possession thereof [Page 19]Where a Total Conquest is made by a gene­ral subduing of the land to the will of the Victor, the claim arising thence is no bet­ter than that of an High-way man to the purse of him whom he hath robbed: and whatever subjection is paid upon that ac­count, if it be due out of a Religious, and not Civil conscience on the part of the vanquished, yet it cannot be received by the Ʋsurper, if a Christian; he being ra­ther to make a manifold compensation for injuries offer'd, than to continue them: If the Conquest be but partial, and an entrance only made by the sword: But the people either because of the Right claimed by the Invader; or their unwillingness to suffer the miseries of War; or their apparent in­ability to stand out in a way of Besitance, or some other consideration, submit to a composition, and contract of subjection to the Invader: in this latter it is evident, the Magistrates power is from the peoples con­sent; and the Government is such as the con­tract and fundamental agreement makes it to be, if it be the first Agreement, and the Pretender hath no former Title which re­mains in force, for then this latter is in­valid, if it include not, and amount to a relinquishing and disanulling of the old. Being vindicated to our Natural Liberty, and acquitted from all Moral subjection that might be due upon such contracts as the vio­lation whereof on the other side had nulli­fied [Page 20]on ours; It is the acknowledg­ment which one of the greatest Patrons of Mo­narchy doth make, that he who takes an oath unto another (as our Kings did unto the peo­ple) is thereby confes­sed to be the inferiour. ‘ Jusiurandum ceriè re­verent [...]am, cul [...]um, & bonorem prae se sert ejus cui praestatur. Quo fit ut non Clienti Dominus, sed Domino Cliens (quanquam inter uirumque officiorum mutua quaedam obligatio est) sac amenti religi [...]ne fid [...]m & obsequ [...]um a [...]stringat. Quod si rex populo jurat in leges & majorum instituta, populum cer [...]e s [...]pe­riorem, i [...]o dominnm agnoscit, cui non sacienda fugien aeque prae­s [...]bat, sed a quo sure legem accipiat. Jusiurandum enim auetora­mentum est obsequii, quod ab homine tenuioris fortunae superiori de [...]etur.’ Blackvod [...]us Apolog. pro reg. C. 25. it being already shewed that power, all just pow­er is derived from the assent of the people, that their safety is the end aimed at in the institu­tion of Magistracy; and that the Magistrate hath no other, nor farther power than the peo­ple do conferre upon him; I shall as briefly as I can discuss that Question.

Whether any Magistrate erected and con­stituted by such as have asserted themselves into freedom, or such as may be constituted by them, can now or hereafter, be supposed to have power in spiritual Affairs and Concerns?

For the decision hereof it is necessary you remember, that the case is not now concerning an outside Religion, as the form of Gods Worship, nor concerning such a Religion, as the speculative part whereof extends no farther than the acknowledge­ment of an Eternal power and God-head: the latter of which was clearly manifested [Page 21]unto all, so that they are without excuse; Rom. 1. v. 20. And the former, being not to be deduced from common Principles, nor having been declared by express Revelation, might vary according to the different rea­sons, or fancies of sundry Nations: and there being no infallible rule for to deter­mine of the right, no worship could be censured as wrong. ‘That which we are to seek after, is a Religion consisting in a multitude of Propositions [especially as it is now managed by some, that make the greatest noise in our age] not to be proved by natural reason and common principles, but pure Revelation, which is delivered in the Scripture, in Tongues dis­used, and a phrase peculiar thereunto, and for the explanation whereof Tradition is no way conducible; but only the Spirit guiding those that are not reprobate unto all knowledge.’ And as to the manner of the worship which we are to use towards God, the regulation thereof only depends upon universal rules, such as are, Neither in this mount, nor in Jerusalem, but in Spi­rit and in Truth: Let all things be done with order and decency; to the glory of God; to edification, &c. That our Magistrate should entermeddle authoritatively in such spiri­tual affairs, by vertue of any power de­rived from his creators, the People, is to me morally impossible, as well as unlawful.

Consider the quality of persons inter­ested [Page 22]in the New Government; they are not all under one dispensation, nor do they walk all in one light: But with variety of gifts, sundry divisions of the Spirit, and several Talent-distributions. Christ in the Gospel-Parable, Matth. 25. v. 14 saith, The kingdom of heaven is as a man travailing in­to a far countrey, who called his own servants, and delivered them his goods; and unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to several ability, and straightway took his jour­ney. Then he that had received five talents, went and traded with them, and made them other five talents; and likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that received one, went and digged in the earth and hid his Lords money. This Pa­rable is not to be understood of the Spiri­tual Kingdom of Heaven, in which though there be diversity of gifts, yet is there none idle; none that bury their talent in the earth for ever, until the coming of their Lord and Master. But it is understood of that Oeconomy whereby God rules the World in general, and it is that Method of Govern­ment, by which the pillars of the earth are upheld. So that however a Parable may be but an evil ground for a rational discourse, in it self; yet since the experience of all ages under the Gospel doth attest there­unto, I shall take it for an unquestionable Truth.

These severall sorts of men may be diffe­renced into men of a naturall, Legall and evang [...]licall conscience, or into Carnall, Animall [or naturall, as our English reads it, 1 Cor. 2.14.] and spirituall. To any of which it may be said, what hast thou that thou didst not receive? And all these are le­gitimate inhabitants of the earth, and have a right to possesse it, and to institute gover­ments and Magistrates, and so to dispose of their liberty. Not the one, nor the other is to be extirpated: The earth hath he given to the children of men Ps 125. v. 16. and 1. Cor. 5. v. 9, 10. &c. I wrote unto you in an Epistle, not to company with fornicators: [Page 25]yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or ex­tortioners, or with idolaters: for then must ye needs go out of the World. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a BROTHER be a fornica­tor, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat, For what have I to do to judge them that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are with­out, God judgeth. Therefore put away from among YOƲR SELVES that wicked person. For them which are wi [...]hout the Church of God, with them he tells the Corinthians they are not to keep a perfect society, yet are they not altogether to decline their compa­ny: not that upon this ground Christians might exterminate them; but because such a subterfuge of their company is not con­sistent with the ordinary posture of affairs in the World. To effect that, the Christi­ans not the Heathens, (though fornicators, extortioners, and idolaters) must go out of the World. And the reason is added, be­cause Christians, the most spiritual-minded and discerning Christians, even Paul an A­postle, not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead, he hath nothing to do to judge them that are without. Put it any man hath associated himself unto any par­ticular Church, submitted himself to [Page 26]Church-walking, such a one may be put out from amongst the brotherhood, not ban­ished a city or nation, or imprisoned, though he be a fornicator, covetous, or idolater, &c. for such his deportment not Christiani­ty, but the light of nature is a rule to con­demn him, and the laws established by con­sent must punish him. These men thus differenced in qualifications having all a Right to provide for their own safety, and having been so far from prejudicing that they have assisted each other in the defense of their naturall liberty, yea, and the two of meaner endowments have promised and de­clared to protect the third and highest de­gree of the Kingdom of Christ in their spi­ritual walkings, and faith in our Lord Jesus, can no way be supposed to forfeit their share in the constituting of our governors, or being protected by them in those ways unto which the light that enlightneth all that come into the World in a greater or lesse measure, shall direct them. Men embody under Magistrates for upholding civill com­merce, but they gather into Churches to maintain a spirituall communion. These all agreeing in the one-talent distribution, which leads them to civil government with punishments for such as offend against it, and to the acknowledgement of one God, that he is, that that he is a rewarder of such as diligently seeke him, may set up a Ma­gi [...]irate, to all ends and purposes which [Page 27]have a subserviency to their common good according to that generall way wherein they all agree. But as to their particular sentiments arising from different illuminati­ons, and prejudices from education, &c. in reference to them they cannot assent fur­ther then a mutuall Toleration. The things agitated are of a spirituall nature, and spi­ritually to be discerned; so that the animall or naturall man cannot receive them under any other esteem than that of Folly. 1 Cor. 2.14. what entertainment then will their proposall finde with them who are fleshly­minded? John 3. v. 27. A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from Heaven, So Matth. 13. v. 11. To you it is given to know the mysteryes of the Kingdome of Heaven, but to them it is not given. And John 6. v. 65. No man can come to me, except it were given to him of my Father. If then two parts of three cannot receive, understand, nor judge of Spirituall things; (or if they do, their judgement is of no more validity, then what men of distempered organs say about sensuall objects) How is it possible for them to conferre a power on their Magistrate, to countenance, promote and uphold they know not what, or what they (in their apprehen­sions) know to be foolishness. How can any such act be expected, or desired at their hands, since he that hath no conscience but to promote an unknown Truth, will have none to condemn a known one; They [Page 28]who can imagine such a collated power, must suppose such men to be most of them fooles in Actions of the greatest and most publique import.

Nor is it onely Morally unpossible, but un­lawfull for men so qualifyed to impower a­ny Man or Men unto a Magistracy to judge of Spirituall matters, and punish those who dissent from him, and such as are not of his minde by death, banishment, fires, imprison­ment, or incapacity for publique charges. For such power cannot be collated in faith; now whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom. 14.23. It were ridiculous to think they can ever agree that should be enacted and pressed as a Savour of life unto life, which is to them hidden, and unsavoury, or a savour of death unto death. How can the practicall judge­ment of man determine of such a thing that it ought to be done, when in it's previous acts it looketh upon it under all the disobliging circumstances possible? If a man were short-sighted and another of more piercing eyes should assure him he did at a distance (which the other could not discover) per­ceive men, should the other averre posi­tively that they were men which seemed to him like Trees? Nay ought he to venture his soule and eternity upon the uncertain and Fallible experiences of another.

It is then evident that the men of one or two talents cannot consent to the collation of such a power to their Magistrate, or if [Page 29]they did, it were null, and to be recalled as being sinfull in the first grant. It is no lesse clear, that Men of greater illuminati­ons cannot impower any Magistrate unto such an end. For to commit such a Trust unto a man whose breath is in his nostrills, whose Election is not in their vote, (they being the little flock and a minority) and whose heart is deceitfull above all things, and not to be known by them, whither he either be really what he pretends, or whe­ther he will continue so, is to put either their life and fortunes, or their religion to such an hazard, as is inconsistent with prudence and common reason. It is to put all to man's day, which ought to be remit­ted to the tribunall of God. The frequent changes in Judah before the captivity, and the vicissitude of Darius and Nabuchodono­sor's actings of old, besides the changes of religion in the times of Christianity from Heathenisme to the Gospell, and from the Gospell to Heathenisme, from Arrianisme to what is now Orthodox, and back again. These are such presidents, and so apt to re­curre through the condition of humane frailty, as may justly deterre them from running into such snares, who are taught to pray that they be not lead into temptati­on. Themistius [an Heathen] in his Ora­tion to the Emperour. Jovianus who suc­ceeded Julian the Apostate, tells him that ‘there had through the example and com­pulsion [Page 30]of Emperours been such variable­ness in point of religion, that man-kinde was become ridiculous, and seemed to worship the imperiall robe and diadem, ra­ther then any deity. Alterations in re­ligion had been more frequent then the Ebbing and flowing of Euripus; the fickle­ness of one Theramenes formerly occasion'd the proverb; but in his time changeable­ness was not the weakness of one but the practise of all: the same persons one while assisted at the sacrifices of the Heathens at their Altars, and another while partici­pated of the table of the Lord Jesus.’

However, if they could better rely upon the understanding and stability of another in reference to those truths wherewith they experiment themselves to be no lesse ac­quainted, then their elect Magistrate pre­tends to be: and if that power were to be derived solely from them, which is the con­tribution of all in generall; yet could not they lawfully impower him so in order to the captivating of others unto the profession of such religion, as they themselves are possessed with, in the spirituall part there­of, and in as high a manner as themselves. Mr. Baxter pretends to physique; if he deal with his patients in this sort, that he make not the rule of health he intends, to be the naturall constitution of their bodyes, but an ideated exquisite temperament; it is not to be doubted, but such as are in their [Page 31]originall temper phlegmatique, cholerique, &c. will be destroyed by him, and one in­disposition cured by the introduction of ano­ther. It is so in the case of the soul; the Master called not his servant to an accompt for five talents, where he gave but two: no, he was good and faithfull who had im­proved onely them, as well as he that had traded with five. As for those as pretend no higher then a bare steward-ship not ac­companied with omnisciency, I think it very great rashness in them to call to this or that person for the improvement of two talents, of whom they are not certain that they have received more then one: so farre ought they to be from punishing all for the non­improvement of five.

Moreover, it is not lawfull for Christians to commit that power to their Magistrate, which they cannot exercise themselves: But force and compulsion towards them that are without, are actions so unsutable to the propagation of Christianity, so disagrea­ble unto the precepts thereof, as nothing can be more. It is the way that Mahomet established his fables, and not Christ his truths: the former having no force raised armies to subdue the souls as well as bodies of his enemies: but Christ though he could have called down fire from Heaven, reproved those designes in his Apostles, telling them they knew not of what spirit they were: (which shews they were not of his) and being able [Page 32]to entreat Legions of Angells from his Fa­ther, Matth. 25.53. he chose all the day long to stretch out his hands to a gain-saying generation rather then employ such means: Means! which God made use of to destroy the Sodomites or host of Sennacherib (and with which he will destroy at last the World, and for ever torment the wicked) not convert the Nations to righteousness, Means! that may reduce men under the Spirit of bondage, to feare but not endowe them with the spirit of A­doption, whereby they may cry Abba, Fa­ther. Means! that neither being Glory to God in the highest, nor on earth peace, nor good-will towards men: and consequently as unsuitable to the forming of Christ within us, as they are dissonant from the song of the Angells at the incarnation of Christ at Bethlehem, Luc. 2. v. 14. Means! that gain Proselytes with no better success then of old the Pharisees had, who compassed sea and Land to make a proselyte, and after all ren­dred him seven times more the childe of wrath then he was before, Matth. 23.15. Force, and Terrour may bring men to an outward complyance but not alter their judgements: it doth not abate their wickedness, but heighter it with the aggravation of hypocrisy, a sin so odious as nothing is more detested in Scripture, nothing more abominable unto the Lord, and for which he will spue them out, who are by those indeavours brought in. The new-Christians in Spain [Page 33]confirm this truth: had armes, and dis­couragements been fit instruments to bring souls to Christ, that land had not groaned now under an inquisition, erected there for the discovery of such as dissembled their conversion. The like issue attended Eman­uell King of Portugall, when he enforced the Jews either to become Slaves, or pro­fesse Christianity, and at this day the gene­rall opinion is that half that Kingdome consists of dissembling Jews. I cannot omit the censure which Osorius a Popish Bishop in that countrey passed upon that Acti­on: ‘This indeed was done, but neither according to the laws of God, nor Men, What? will you undertake to force the stubborne and rebelliously-minded to be­leive those things which they hate and reject? will you take upon you to rule in the heart and affections of man, to in­fringe the will in it's liberty, and deter­mine of it's choice; This is an attempt, no lesse impossible in it self, then dis­pleasing to Christ. For he desires that the people should be willing in the day of his power, their hearts must be made a voluntary, and not enforced oblation: nor doth he command that the mindes of men should be compelled, but that they should be invited, perswaded and convicted of the truth. Besides, what flesh and bloud dare be so presumptuous as to attempt that, which onely the Spi­rit [Page 34]of God effects in those who dye not in finall impenitency? He alone it is who enlightens, perswades, drawes,—yet, saith he, the Kings intentions were good, and severall men both religious and learn­ed possessed him with the lawfullnesse of the Act, representing and recommending unto him the examples of other Christian Princes. Thus there never have been, nor will be wanting such men as well suite their discourses to the inclinations of their Kings.’ Osor. de reb. Eman lib. 1. It were therefore to be desired from our hasty Ze­lots, that when they vest any Magistrate with such a power, they would farther qualifie him so, as that as many as he lay­eth violent hands on may receive the holy Spirit: and that they would instruct them with the time when the Holy Ghost blow­eth, and the place where, for otherwise their force will be successe-lesse, they may knock and yet not their hearts or ears open: yea, they may lay a stumbling block in his way, and destroy him as much as in them lyeth, for whom Christ died, and whom he will bring in in his good time. Is it not lawfull to destroy him by meat, for whom Christ dyed [ Rom. 14. v. 15.] which is a sca [...] taken, not given; and may we de­stroy him by violence and forcible meanes, giving him occasion to speak evill of the good ways of God, into which he shall at last be brought, when it shall please him [Page 35]who goeth out at severall hours of the day to call in the labourers to his vineyard, and who converts some at one age, and some at another, and sanctifies those meanes unto Paul at Damascus, which had been un­effectuall unto him at Jerusalem, when Stephen was stoned. At the first Sermon of Peter (Act. 2. v. 41.) about three thousand souls were converted; after that two thou­sand more were added Act. 4.4. to which (it is probable) the former teachings of the Apostles had been uneffectuall upon these considerations me thinks the decree of Justinian that all should embrace the Or­thodox religion, or go into banishment, was as ridiculous, as if he had decreed such or such windes determinately should blow at an appointed time, God at the first cre­ation said, Let there be light, and there was light. So in the new creature, he but speaks by his Apostle, and as many believe as are ordained unto everlasting life. God then, and Christ when he bade the lame take up his bed, and walke, had been ridiculous, unless his word had been powerfull to ef­fect as well as signifie his will. I would fain see an Act of Parliament that the blinde should receive sight, that the lame should walke, that the Sun should arise at mid­night, or that darkness should no more o­verspread the face of the Earth: such com­mands would be as effectuall, as others more spirituall, since faith is the gift of [Page 36]God, and no man comes unto the son but whom the Father drawes. If any demoniack or pos­sessed by an unclean spirit, should be ser­ved by such an Arrest, think you the mes­senger would be better treated then the sons of Scevas Act. 19.14. And will you think he will be outed from his spirituall breast-workes and strong-holds by some such like Ordinance; you may as well imagine with King Henry the Eighth's target to quench the fiery darts of Satan, as by his sword to plant true religion.

As for Gospel-precepts, what can be more remote or inconsistent with them, than that any Mortal should presume to have dominion over our faith, whereas the Apostles could only be helpers of our joy? 2 Cor. 2.24. Did Christ give his Disciples a command, Go and teach, not compel, and if any one receive you not shake off the dust of your feet? Matth 10.14. Did Paul and Barnabas shake off the dust of their feet at Antioch, against the unbelieving Jews, Acts 13. v. 51. That those who are neither Paul nor Barnabas, should now trample upon men as dust under their feet? It is said, The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men; apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness instructing those that are minded, if God per­adventure will give them repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the de­vil, who are taken captive by him at his will, [Page 37]2 Tim. 2. v. 24. Are these instructions per­sonal? or do they not oblige the Ministry (if bottomed upon their own pretences) not to deliver men over to the secular Ma­gistrate to be punish'd, since thereby they are Authors of all his actions, according to that old rule, What a man does by another, he does by himself? So 1 Cor. 7.12. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away: and the woman that hath an husband that believeth not, and he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him, but if the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases, but God hath called us to peace: for what knowest thou, O wife, whither thou shalt save thy husband? and what knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? As GOD HATH DISTRIBƲTED to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all Churches. Shall Justinian be impowered to banish all Infi­dels, and yet hereby be obliged to retain an Heretical Eutychion for his wife? To send them into exile, and yet caresse her in his bosome? may one without danger and sin (which are the motives for sup­pressing discrepant Religions) hugge and embrace a wife of different principles and perswasion, and yet not allow a neighbour common civility without hazard? may we not argue, What knowest thou, O man, whe­ther [Page 38]thou shalt save thy Neighbour? (having the experience of all ages, that the Gospel hath been so propagated.) And, in fine, is it not usual in Scripture, from particular cases, to make diffuse and general con­clusions. AS GOD HATH DISTRIBU­TED TO EVERY MAN, AS THE LORD HATH CALLED EVERY ONE, SO LET HIM WALK, AND SO ORDAIN I IN ALL CHURCHES. But besides the obli­gations to Meeknesse, to Charity, to be­come all things to all, that we may gain some to Christ, (Ties from which no Magistrate can be exempted,) what will become of those other precepts, To try the Spirits, 1 John 4. v. 1. To prove all things, 1 Thess. 5. v. 21. Take heed that none deceive you, Matth. 24. v. 4. What needs all this trouble and curiosity, if we may not hold fast that which we finde to be best? if after our most serious and deliberate Election, we shall be af­frightned out of our consciences by penal­ties? Ad vana & inutilia nec lex dei nec homi­nis pru­dentis co­git. To what purpose is there so much li­berty permitted as may beget our torture, and not permit us to rest where we finde satisfaction? Either prohibit to search at all, or let us be sensible of some benefit by searching; To believe, what appears un­true, seems to me impossible: To professe, what we believe untrue, I am sure, is dam­nable.

Are there not now as many occasions for us to try the Spirits as formerly? Are [Page 39]there not now as many errors broached, as then? And is the true Doctrine delivered infallibly by the Apostles, and attested un­to by miracles and wonders, as of old? Nay is it not foretold that the last times shall be more perillous for seduction, and that the faith of the very elect (if possible) should be indangered? That many false Christs should come, and though any [the Magistrate not excepted] should say, lo here, or lo there is Christ, are we not forbid to believe them? was that a temporal injunction, That eve­ry man should be perswaded in his own minde? [...]. Rom. 14.5. Must we under the Reformation only vary the Object of our implicit Faith, not re­nounce the thing it self? Surely Moses who left an High Priest with Ʋrim and Thum­mim [light and perfection] to resolve doubts, and to preserve knowledge, together with perspicuous Laws for Government Spiritual: Surely, I say, he was more faithful than Christ and his Apostles, since they left the world no infallible Judge to expound Scripture, so as men might ad­here unto their decisions, because they were theirs. The Spirit of God in each Saint is the sole Authentique Expositor of Scripture unto him that hath it, the pub­like Spirit of the Church imaginary, or Catholique hath been sufficiently explo­ded: nor do I doubt but a Believer may safely acquiesce in his Explications, upon [Page 40]whose Authority alone he receives the Text, and in whom we all place the sure hopes of our Eternal welfare, The Spirit bearing witnesse with our spirits that we are the sons of God, Rom. 8.16. Yet this testi­mony of the private Spirit in the breast of a Saint, however it be so clear and convin­cing, that his Faith becomes the very sub­stance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11. v. 1. yet is it like unto the white stone, and the new name which no man knows but he that hath it, Revel. 2.17. it obligeth not others purely to a belief, who have not received the like satisfaction: What is Revelation to one, is but Tradition to another, and he who will believe every man that saith he is sent of Heaven, may himself, (unless chance be as prevalent as choice in soul concerns) go himself to Hell. Thus Pilates wife was obliged to believe God speaking to her. He was not bound to believe a woman speaking to him. Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream be­cause of him. He might think, she might be willing to deceive, out of a natural com­passion strong in that Sex; or might be de­ceived her self, calling that inspiration, which was fancie.

This unsupplyable defect of common e­vidence in the delivery of Spirituall mat­ters, is of that nature, as it alone would suffice to the enforceing a Toleration. For [Page 41]though it be a confessed principle that whatsoever the prime verity doth say is an uncontroulable truth, yet the course where­by he discovers himself, in divers wayes, and after divers manners unto the sons of men, is followed with so much ambiguity, [waving that Soul-satisfying testimony of the Spirit,] as inquisitive men, and sober, if destitute of the highest gifts may upon a rationall ground (if that way of arguing unto which we are bred up be true and sound) suspect the sincerity the Revelati­on in the word, and if he assent thereunto strongly and firmely, he is rather to be ac­counted resolved, then certaine. And it is judiciously said, ‘All voluntary opinion (that is grounded not in the understand­ing, but will onely) is vitious. A sentence famous amongst the old phylosophers, and confirmed by Austin, that to give a direct assent to what you know to be un­eertain, is Turpe, that is (in our ordinary locution) Sin in all propositions, where we see no more then probability, it is our part to withhold our assent, till evidence or certainty deserve it. The reason is cleare, for if a man do strain his stomack with meat or drink, his armes with pulling, or walks himself off on his feet, we blame him because he uses his body otherwise then is fitting, or out of proportion to his dispositions, and therefore wrongs it, disappointing the end and use to which [Page 42]nature designed it. Since then our un­derstanding is our principall and most no­ble part, farre lesse ought it to be strained against it's nature, and which encreases the unworthiness of the Act, this cannot be done to the understanding, but by an inferiour, whose [end is good, not truth and so no fit motive for faith, and] to obey or be ruled by its dictates.’ Nor is this any derogation; to God's word but a charge upon the weakness of man, not being able to comprehend things certain in them­selves, and evident to some, upon other accompts. I shall not debate this matter any further it having been learnedly and unanswerably handled by Dr. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying. I now come to shew that where there is wanting an infallible Expositor of the minde of God (which being to be accepted upon Revelation, is not to be discussed by Reason) there is not onely cause for a Toleration, (for why should any be forced from what he holds to be true, It is not ma [...]criall but formal certainty that obli­ges to be­lief. unto that which another can not evidence but it may be false?) but sufficient ground from former practices and usages to reestablish the like forbearance. Under the Jewish Kings before the captivity though they had an infallible direction by Ʋrim and Thummim for cases emergent, and positive orders to recurre unto the High-Priest for resolution, yet such was the power given, or arrogated by their [Page 43] Kings, these so intermedled with religion (which then mostly consisted in outward ceremonies and types, with a very slender explicite faith) that all the forementioned circumstances were not a sufficient barre to keepe the people from idolatry, who seemed so complyant as if they were abso­lute vassalls to their Soveraignes, and one­ly rebellious towards God: so dismall is that power when entrusted with the Ma­gistrate: and can we think a select Clergy founded upon Tithes (that have no other right then what the Hands may take away which gave them) not endowed with any substitute for the Ʋrim and Thummim, but dictionary-learned, Pasorians, not assisted with extraordinary prophets, as of old, should bear up against a corrupt inclination of the Magistrate at any time, that so the people be not enslaved to delusions? But even that power in Israel, which rendred the nation a priestly Kingdom, is not granted by the Rabbines to have been the usage or due prerogative of all the Kings, but a specialty of them which descended from David. Others say there entrenching upon the High-priests power in reforming of religion, was done by them as they were prophets all: But that being not verifiable in all of them, that I know of, P. Curens de rep. Hebreor. l. 1. c. 14. a third o­pinion says they did it by vertue of a sacred unction which gave them an extraordinary reverence and authority above others their [Page 44]successors. This oyntment Moses was com­manded to make, and the Talmudists say: it was used at the initiation of their Kings untill the time of Josiah, who understand­ing that the Assyrians should destroy the Temple, buryed that sacred oyle, the Ark, Aaron's rod, the Ʋrim and Thummim with the remaining Manna in a private place of the Temple which could never be found again after their returne out of captivity so that they were fain to make others in their stead, not that they had the former vertue, Id. l. 2. c. 2. but that the priest might be com­pleatly vested. And Maimonides and others acknowledge that God withdrew his ex­traordinary presence from the second Tem­ple, and the High-priest ceased to give ora­cles. Under the second temple, when their infallible interpretations failed (so infallib­ly given out, that they could not be re­jected without rejecting God and falling to Jdolatry, a thing so frequent before the captivity) then began the law which be­fore was in a few hands, and read to the people by the Levites onely, without in­terprerations and commentaries, to be read more frequently, and publiquely expound­ed in Caldee. Nehem. 8. v. 7, 8. Jeshuah and Bani &c. and the Levites caused the people to understand the Law,—so they read in the booke of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. From these expositions arose [Page 45]the multiplicity of Sects which are mentio­ned in the time of our Saviour and neither condemned nor cryed out against by him or his Apostles, as others of the same judge­ment are now a days by men of more fer­vour, and lesse holiness. Besides there were Herodians, which be­lieved He­rod to have been the Messiah. The principal sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, whose opinions I shall instance in briefly to shew what Toleration was allowed then, by men of as great severity, pretending to sanctity and zeal, and such as wanted nei­ther wanted power to suppess, nor the writ­ten word to convince gainsayers.

‘The Pharisees believed all things to be governed by fate, and absolute necessity, Drusus ad­vers. Serr. yet so as that man acted freely, and that he did what he would, though his will was disposed of by a superiour planet. They held the Soul to be immortal, yet so as that the souls of the wicked should be in perpetual torments, but the souls of the just should pass from one body into another, by a Pytha­gorical Metempsychosis.’ This last opinion is taken notice of in Scripture, Matth. 16. v. 14. Some said of Christ that he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets. Even the Disciples of Christ seem to have outgone the Pharisees as holding a transmigration of the souls of the wicked, when they asked, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was borne blinde? John 9. v. 2. They admitted of good and bad Angels. As to Justification, [Page 46]they held no man to be absolutely just before God, but yet that he would repute them so who brake the fewest of his commandements. And concerning the Resurrection, they either thought it appertained only to the just, or that some wicked only should share in it; yet did some extend it universally. They exalt­ed their traditions to the prejudice of the Scripture: their fasting, praying, not eating with sinners, exact tithing, elusions of respect to parents, &c. these are sundry times reflected on in the Gospel. And yet what e­logies are bestowed upon these men in Scripture? are they not so commendable that he who should afford halfe so much to one of the like judgment now, would be deeply censured.

The Sadducees they adhered to the letter of the Text, rejecting all Traditions. Hence they were called also Caraei, or Caraim, be­cause they assented to the Scriptures in their own private sense [juxta sensum intellectûs sui] nor did they regard the Traditions of the wise: so the Pharisees were termed, not­withstanding their opinions aforesaid. They further denyed the Resurrection, existence of Angels or Spirits. So that immortality of the Soul, rewards and punishments after this Life, &c. were denyed in those dayes by the Textuaries, Act. 23.6.8. they thought the Soul to be nothing else but the tempera­ment of heterogeneous parts, constituting the body. They denyed that God exercised his [Page 47]providence or tooke any knowledge of evill in this world. They advanced free-will to the destruction of antecedent necessity and fate: Nay it is said they were totally Epicureans, denying all manner of providence, and so were called in the Jewish writers. The ex­istence of the Holy Ghosts person was indu­bitably denyed by them, if not by all the Jewes under such a notion; as in the con­troversy betwixt the Greeks and Latines, the former did avow three subsistences, tres hypostases, but denyed the Trinity of Persons, which the Latines avow. It is generally taught also, that the received only the books of Moses and rejected the Prophets, (of which Daniel is at this day not accounted Canoni­call, but only as a Sacred writer, I leave it as dubious, whether they admitted more then the Penta [...]uch. He that shall with P [...]tavi­us upon Epiphanius (p. 28) prove they rejected the other parts of the B ble will much enlarge Tolleration. Hagiographus amongst the Jews) but this is not re­lated of them by the Jewish writers, nor by Luke in the Acts: Though Jerome, Za­charias, Chrisopolitanus, and Tertullian record it of them; and that upon this score Christ proved the Resurrection to them out of the Books of Moses. Scaliger against Serrarius proves by sundry reasons that they did ad­mit of the other Books besides them of Mo­ses. And thinks that the High-Priest was a Sadducee, Act. 5. v. 17. For they who were followers of him and about him were Sad­ducees, which if he had not been a Sadducee [Page 48]he would not have permitted, such an en­mity was betwixt the Pharisees and Saddu­cees. Casaubon against Baronius observes out of Josephus that the Richer sort were Sadducees, and the multitude Pharisees. Ca­saub. exercit. 1. §. 9. Montague out of the same Author assures us that all the High-Priests of Assamonaei where Pharisees till Hircanus the Grand-child of Judas Mac­cabeus fell off to the Saducees being disobli­ged thorough the insolency of Eleazer a Pharisee: after him Alexander Aristobulus, &c. were all Saducees. Montag. exercit. 3. §. 1. The Pharisees and Sadducees both frequented the same Assemblies, and Syna­gogues, and offered sacrfiices in the same temple at Jerusalem.

The Essenes, they admitted providence to govern all things; and professed the im­mortality of the Soul. They sent gifts to the temple, but did not Sacrafice there, but privately amongst themselves, as makeing use of different Ceremonies thereat, and so being excluded the publique Temple. Their other customes, and course of life, as well as petite opinions in matters religious, represent them to have been of unspotted life, grave, reservedly superstitious, and in a word, the Quakers of their Age.

All these were tollerated in those dayes, besides the multiplicity of Nations recoun­ted Act. 2. v. 9. &c. which were neither Jewes nor Jewish Proselytes in any kind viz. [Page 49]who will believe the Romans did not retain their Religion then in Judea. After the settlement of the Church of Christ by his Apostles, there is not a word of persecution and suppressing dissenters, Heretiques be­ginning (as Hegesippus tells us) after the Apostles death; till then the Church was an immaculate Virgin, whilest infallible expositours of the will of God revealed in his word were alive: Of this see what I say, and prove in the close of my discourse of the Toleration under Con­stantine, following. After that they lived together, Christi­anity, being a profession of a compass much narrower then it is now, e­ven that Creed called the Apostles, being shorter then it is now represented. They which by a voluntary submission to Church-discipline democratically administred, were joyned unto the people of God, such upon defaults they excommunicated from their society: over them that were without they exercised no power: and over them that were within there highest processe was unto an Anathema, which did not signifie any curse, but as [...] signifies a place, so [...] a removall from such a place, Salmas. ad Solin. or an excommu­nication. So that, If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Marana­tha. 1. Cor. 16.22. denotes onely, for the height of impiety, for the denyall of our Lord Jesus (for that I suppose is meant by not loving him) the Apostles determination is, let him be outed the Church or assem­bly [Page 50]of God; and for further punishment, The Lord will come. [Maranatha] that is, God will punish him, or judge him. For what have I to do to judge them that are with­out? Them that are without God shall judge. Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person. Here is not a word of the civill Magistrate, that he should judge them, or punish them. So Matth. 18. v. 17. if a brother after sundry private admo­nitions refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, and a publi­can. So that the highest processe in Church censures doth not put a man into a worse condition then Heathens and publicans, who yet were tolerated amongst the Jews, and it was the Pharisee that blamed Christ for accompanying with them. The Hea­then were not to be excluded civill society, since to them a Jew might put out money to use, which he might not do to another Jew: yea, there might be a stranger with­in their houses: as I have already said in reference to their proselyti domicilii. How the Christians were persecuted under Heathen Emperours all our Martyrologyes tell us; but I know not any that say they did well therein, though if it be his duty to be a Nursing Father unto Truth, it is meant not of what is materially and in it self so, but of what is so formally and unto him such: so that they may be pittyed for their mistakes in judgment, but not blamed for [Page 51]their miscarryage in such their practise. They punished them not as Christians and professing a doctrine revealed from Heaven by Christ the Author and finisher of their Sal­vation: but as Atheists, down-right Atheists, such accusation is layed to their charge, and even so they are called by Julian the Apostate in his works: besides, they were punished as factious and seditious, and such as intended the overthrow of the Roman Empire, by a personall reign of Christ in an earthly Kingdome and glory, which was the generall opinion of the primitive Christi­ans, in so much as Justin Martyr will not allowe him to be orthodox (if I may so ren­der [...]) who did not imbrace that o­pinion. Yea, in their Acts and Monuments we find such passages, B. Marcus Evangelista, primus Christi Martyr, &c. imperante Claudio Nerone Caesare: nobis autem Christianis im­perante domino nostro Jesu Christo. And Martyrio coronatus est S. Christi Sabinus 3. idus Martii, regnante impio Diocletiano, imò verò domino nostro Jesu Christo: many more of the like nature might be alledged out of Blondell de formulâ regnante Christo. And Eusebius Histor. l. 3. c. 15. cireth it out of Hegesippus that Domitian ceased his perse­cution against the Christians, when he heard that the Kingdom of Christ was to be in Hea­ven, and not on earth.

I come now to speak of the Christian Em­perours, [...] they demeaned themselves af­ter [Page 52]that the power was come into their hands. Take one proof in generall of what Toleration men had untill the middle almost of Justinian's reign; who ruled about the Year 530. Procopius a diligent writer and observer of transactions in those times, in which he lived, recordeth it in his secret History, [p. 51.] That in the Roman empire there were many Heresies & Sects of Christi­ans; As the Montanists, Sabbatians: and o­thers: And that the Arians lived in such splendour and pompe, that their temples were so rich, as nothing in all the Roman Dominions might compare therewith, NO EMPEROUR HAVING EVER MOLES­TED THEM [ [...]] There were also Samari­tans, Jews and Gentiles [ [...]] or Hea­thens in great numbers: as the same Procopi­us, Jo. Mallela, &c. And Dr. Rives writing against Alemannus the publisher of that Pro­copius, granting that there were in those days Manichees, Samaritans, Arians, &c. ad­deth, that All they had publique temples every where, and those too richly adorned. ‘ erant quidem, Alemanne, fateor, & illud addo eas fuisse [haereses] quae non in Ecclesiae riti­bus, non in praeceptis hominum, non in de­cretis Pontificum vel tollendis, vel minuen­dis, laborabant: sed quae Jesu Christi perso­nam, hoc est fidei & salutis nostrae fundamen­tum, aliae aliis, sed omnes nefandis rationibus subruere & tollere cogitabant. S [...] tamen [Page 53]TEMPLA & FANA UBIQVE locorum possidebant: Illa vero, presertim quae Ari­anorum furori serviebant, auro & argento gemmisque & pretiosis lapidibus, omni deni­que Divitiarum & opum genere abundabant.’ So Zosimus a learned, but Pagan writer, who in the time of Honorius the Emperour lived and attained (notwithstanding his religion) to the dignity of being Comes & Exadvocatus fisci, relateth it, how that Theodosius was the first that put down the publique Temples and sacrifices of the Hea­then, which were till then maintained at the publique charge of the Roman Emperours, though Christians: And the Senate (being all Heathens) opposed him. Zosim. hist. l. 4. Gra­tian, who shared the Empire with Theodosius, refused at his inauguration to be created Pontifex max. by the heathen Romish Priests, it being till his dayes a constant custom, that however the Emperours were Christians, yet did they receive the sacerdotall habit and title of Pontifex maximus from the priests aforesaid, Zosim histor. l. 4. yet even the coynes of Gratian are to be seen (as well as of Constantine the great, Valentinia­nus, Valens) with a Pontificall habit, and this inscription Pont. max.

Chrysostome who lived (as himself saith, in the time of Julian) untill the time of Honorius; in his book against the Gentiles, and concerning S Babylos; having con­temned the multiplicity of books written [Page 54]by the Heathen Sophisters and Philosophers against the truth, (which now men are so affraid of, that they will not venture the Gospell amongst them) as being ridiculous, rather then dangerous, even to the least childe, or woman: He tells the Gentiles further. [...]. ‘ None [of us] ever made warre against you; for it is not lawfull for Christians to over­throw error by force and violence, but by perswasi­on, reason, and meekness to gain men over to Sal­vation. Wherfore no Em­peror believing in Christ did ever make such edicts against you, as Pagan-Emperours have done a­gainst us. Yet notwith­standing so much tranquillity, none molesting it at any time, yet hath not the superstition and errour of the Heathen been able to sub­sist, it fell of it self, and so became extinct; like corrupt bodies after long putrefaction, they perish of themselves, no outward force contributing thereunto.’ These are not hasty words, but spoken in an age, and to Persons [ [...]] that could and would have disproved his assertion, if it had been false. But to evince it, that this was no empty flourish of his, he repeateth the same thing in his commendation of the Martyr [Page 55]Drosis. [...]. ‘ Since the com­ing of Christ there have been Infidels Emperours, and there have been Christians: but of the Infidels most of them did persecute the faithfull, Slaying, Hanging, Burning, Drowning, Tearing with Wild-beasts, and using sundry other Torments, and Punish­ments to make them renounce their faith; but they prevailed not, they were laught at by the Martyred Christians, who did not lessen thereby, but augmented their number. As for the Christians, NO GODLY Emperour e­ver yet did choose to punish or afflict any infidell that he might force him to re­nounce his errour, and yet gentilisme of it self decayes and ceaseth; that you may learne the strength of truth, and the weaknesse of Errour: the last falls away of it self, none molesting it; this infinite­ly rises and advanceth when it is most de­pressed.’

But to come to particulars; Constantine did allow an Ʋniversall To ration. Euseb de. vit Constant. l 2. c. 55. [...] [Page 56] i. e. ‘Let them that are in an error enjoy the same peace & tranquillity with the faithful: for a restauration of com­merce may do much to reclaim them unto the right way. Let no man molest an­other: but let every one act what his soul listeth. Let those that have a true opinion concerning God be perswaded, that such only as regulate their lives by the rule of Gods Laws, do lead a most holy and upright life. But those that will not be con­formable thereunto, let them, if they will, erect Temples and consecrate Groves to vani­ty.’ And chap. 59. [...]. ‘But let no man in that which it is clear he is convinced of, give any offence [or da­mage] to another: wherein any man hath made any discovery, therein, if it be possible, let him benefit his neighbour; but if he cannot, let him be given over: for it is one thing for a man willingly to contend for immortality, and another to be compelled for fear of punishment.’ These are the words of Constantine, wherein he professeth that he is the larger, because he would give an account and not conceal the [Page 57] Truth, as also to refute those who should say (and such speeches he observes to have been then given out) how he had abolished the Heathenish rites and customs, ibid. ch. 59.

There is another edict of his to the peo­ple that were Heathen, Qui v [...]ro id vobis existimatis conducere, adite aras publi­cas, adque delubra: & consue­tudinis v [...]strae elebrate sollemni­a [...] n [...]c enim prohibemus praeteri­tae usurpationis officia l [...]bera luce tractari. Dat: id [...] Maii. Constantino A V. & Licinnio Cons. e­nacting free liberty of religion, you that think it best, go to the publique Al­tars and Temples; and ce­lebrate, your accustomed rites: for we doe not for­bid the ancient practise to be continued by day-light. God: Theod. lib. 9. tit 16. l. 2. ad popu­lum.

Scipio Ammiratus in his politique disser­tations against Machiavell, saith, It is most certain that after Constan­tine had turned Christian, Compertissimum est, postquam Constantin [...]b [...]ptismatis lava­cro regeneratus [...]bristiano [...] so­visse [...] Eccl [...]sia, exedific [...]sset per­secutiones sustulisset, privilegia & immunitates Christianis lar­gitus esset, nihilominus gentili­um templ [...] ab eo min ne de­siructa, imo permissum fuisse, ut unusquisque suo arbitratu, quam v [...]llet religionem co [...]eret: quod Eusebius clare docet, ad [...] ut nullus dubitationi locus re­linquatur. Quod si in [...]hoenicia in civitate Constantiae Deorum sta­tuae d [...]rutae fucrunt, tesiatur idem Eusebius hoc ab illis populis, qui verae salutis cognitionem susceperant, & inania idola rejeccrant, sponte factum fuisse. Scip. Ammirat. polit. dissert. 1 2 disc. 12. built their Churches, given them immunities and pri­viledges, yet did not be de­stroy the Temples of the Gentiles, nay he permitted, that every one should live in what religion he pleased: which Euseb. doth so clear­ly declare, that none can [Page 58]doubt it, And if in Constantia a City of Phenicia the statues of the Gods were de­stroyed, the same Eusebius tells us, that it was done voluntarily by those people themselves who had renounced Idolatry, and embraced the Truth in Christ. In Baronius we find a speech made to the Romans, Senate and people. The words are these: ‘ Inter divina & humana servitia h [...]c interest, quod humana servitia coacta sint, divina autem voluntaria com­probentur. Deus enim quia meate colitur, & sincero hominis veneratur affectu, spontanea ejus debet esse cultura. I [...]hoc enim apparet, quia Deus verus est, quod per tanta secula con­temporibus suis non iratus finem imposuit sed propitium se etiam, qui coli debeat, de­monstravit, indulgendo crimina & salutem aminabus & corporibus conferendo. Sit ergo omnibus notum, non necessitate coactos, sed suo judicio liberos posse fieri Christianos: nec humanum metuentes impertum, ad Dei cultu­ram accedere aliquos oportere, sed rationabili consideratione magis rogare, ut Christiano­rum numero applicentur ab iis, qui huic sa­cratissimae legi deserviunt. Justum enim verumque conspicimus, ut sicut petentibus culpa est si negetur, ita non petentibus si tra­datur iniquum. Sed nec hoc aliqui metuant, quod a nostrâ gratiâ divellantur si Christiani esse noluer int. Nostra enim clementia talis est, ut a bono opere non mutetur.’ The sum of which is. That Christianity is not to be enforced, that God requires the heart, and [Page 59]sincere affection, not outside worship. And that he should favour the Christians, but yet not any way disrespect them who should be [...]o­therwise minded. Baron. annal. Eccles. ad annum 324. § 81. In fine, the Roman Cardi­nal concludes, that it is evident how they are deceived who think Constantine did shut up the heathenish Temples, Eunapius in the life of Ede­sius saith, that when Constantine turned Christian, and built them Churches, one Sopator a Phi­losopher went to him, to re­claime him from those procee­dings, and did so farr gain upon that Emperour, that he seated him at his right hand openly in places of solemn appearance: which was incre­dible for to be [...], or re­lated. [...]— [...] Eunap. in vita Edesii p. 3 [...], 36. and prohibited their rites; or made use of force in the propagation of Christianity. id. ibid § 91, 92. And if any allegations to the contrary of what hath been avowed, can be pro­duced, and find credit in an age so convinced of the many forgeries in ca­ses of antiquity, which have so great a subservi­ency to the ambition and interest of a sort of men in our days; I must ei­ther say it was done upon a secular and politique account for pre­servation of the civil peace, when men be­gan to opiniate it, and promote faction instead of religion, as the Jesuits in England now suffer for sedition in owning a forreign power paramount to what is amongst us, and able lawfully to dispose of our domini­ons and lands for dissenting from him, and [Page 60]not for their Religion. Or if it can be clear­ed that either the Heathens, or Heretiques (which are in the same condition, and from whom God expects equally a willing heart, and unfeigned services) did suffer banishment (as four or five together with Arius, did) or death, or confiscations upon any other score, I think Constantine did not onely swerve from his protestations in the East, and West, but from the truth, as farr as the East is different from the West. However, if Constantine did banish Arius and a few others (which yet is contro­verted) the same man did exile Athanasius, nor need we doubt that the Arians (and Novatians) had a toleration under him, since under his Son, they over-ran the whole Empire, and it is credibly reported how they perverted him too before his Death.

It is very observable which Sozomen re­lates l. 2. c. 30. That before Constantines reign, whilest Christianity was under perse­cution, though there were a multitude of Sects and Heresyes, yet did men of all pro­fessions, as they suffered under one com­mon name, so did they entertain a joynt com­munion. [...] It is true, some may say that this union of theirs was to be attributed accord­ing [Page 61]to Sozomen, not to any other cause then their common calamity, which made them un­able to molest each other: which I confesse is an exception which the very words seem to suggest, as I have represented them: but it is no lesse true, that he calls that molesta­tion wherewith they could not disquiet each other, a pragmaticalness; and the sense may be, that being all sufferers upon one cause among the Gentiles, whatever they might otherwise have done upon the ac­compt of different judgments, yet upon the account of common afflictions they could not be over-busy to disquiet each other: not that they did not know each others differences, or that they would communicate when communion was sinfull, (for who will ever believe such a thing of the Novatians and Cataphryges) but because they thought them to be reall, which could suffer for the name of Christ, and agreeing to dye in the profession of the Gospel, could not moral­ly and in equity (for otherwise they might have been excommunicated) be molested for curiosities, such as busy-heads might finde out. Upon this account it was that though they had their particular meetings or Churches into which they were associated, and wherein they did make their speciall confessions, notwithstanding those several-tyes of Assemblies, they did occasionally conserse with each other that owned the name of Christ, nor though they were ne­ver [Page 62]so small a number, did they separate from them, till humane policy began to mould a Catholique Church, and carnall pru­dence accomodated all to civill ends. And after that Constantine had made an Edict a­gainst all Heretiques that they should unite to the publique Churches, and have no private Assemblyes of their own, Sozomon. l. 2. c. 30. yet was not that law observed, or made with an intent that it should be observed (as I prove elsewhere) but the Novatians (differing from the Or­thodox onely as Puritans from Episcoparians as one may say) were tolerated at Con­stantinople in their free Assemblies, having their proper Bishops, as also at Alexandria and Rome, untill the time of Honorius and Theodosius the younger, under them it was that the Novatians were at Rome suppres­sed, and their Churches (which were ma­ny) taken from them, and their Bishop to­gether with the great multitude of his ad­herents forced into corners, But neither this, nor the like act at Alexandria, was done by Imperiall Authority, but by the growing mystery of iniquity in Pope Cele­stinus (and Cyrill of Alexandria) who be­gan to exercise a civill rather then Ecclesi­asticall power. Socrates is positive in this [...]. But in Constantinople they were not molested. So­crates lib. 7. cap. 7, & 11. Nor were the Novatians only tolerated in their Religion [Page 63]and way of Worship, but preferred unto Secular Honours. For Chrysanthus the son of Marcianus a Novatian Bishop, who was himself at last chosen Bishop of the Novatians, was at first a Commander under Theodosius the great, prefect of Italy [ [...]] and afterwards Vi­cegerent in the Brittish Isles, [ [...]] as Socrates relates it in the same Book, ch. 12. And this Socrates did live in those times whereof be writes. The Ma­cedonian heretiques of a deep dye, for they admitted not of the Nicene faith, had their Churches in Constantinople, Cyzicum and other places, under Theodosius II. and Valentinianus III. as Socrates tells us; l. 7. c. 31. And as for the Arians, their do­ctrine and differences were not only looked upon as pettite quarrells, for which the peace ought not to be broken in the judg­ment of Constantine: (see the Lord Faulk­land of infalibility). But after the Coun­cil of Nice, and that Arius was anathema­tised, yea and Athanasius too banished to Triers for being factious, [ [...], as Constantine saith, giving a reason why he would not recall him: Sozomen l. 2. c. 29.] However the Arian tenents were much de­bated in common discourse, yet was not the generall Church communion disturbed or dissolved thereby unto the death of Constan­tine, as Sozomen asserts. [...] [Page 64] [...]. Sozomen. l. 2. c. 30.

Both under Constantine and his Sons Constantius and Constans what toleration the Heathens had we may guess in that the Heathen-Sophisters and Philosophers did pub­liquely teach, and Christians sent their Sons to be instructed by them: If all other proofs were wanting yet would this be evidentally proved out of Gregory Nazianzons oration containing the life of Bazil, whom the said Nanzianzen commends for that having learned their Rhetorique he was not corrupted with their manners. [ [...]] There he commends highly the learning of Athens, and the Ac [...]demy which was therein; but he further informes you that when he, Bazil and Julian were there, men did not more advantage themselves in knowledge, then prejudice in piety and religion? that there was no place in Greece so ad­dicted to Paganisme, so full of Idols, such worshippers of Devils. [...].— [...]. So Nazi­anzen speaks of himself & Basil; sundry other passages thence might be alleadged, but that this may suffice even the most scrupulous. At Athens there was an Ʋniversity of Hea­thens whither all had re­course, there Bazill, and Nazianzen, as well as Libanius and others were educated. Libanius who under Constantius had the care and tuition of Juli­an, by Jovinian so made and by the Code termed Divus, but commonly the Apostate: Libanius who was invited to teach Rhetorique in sun­dry great Cityes as Nico­media, &c. whose pane­gyrick [Page 65]to Constantius and Constans is stil to be read, and who received from the former of those Princes a thousand honourable and advantagious gifts. All which may be seen in his life, where it is no less evident that the Sophisters had publick Salaries, be­sides what they received from the Pa­rents, whose children they instructed; and particularly one Bemarchius who adhered to Constantius, and prayed him, though himself were an Heathen. [ [...]— [...]. So Maximus Tyrius the Philosopher was one of Julian's Teachers under Constantius, as Libanius in his Panegy­rick to Julian (together with his Scholiast, Sisynnius that learned Novati­an was bred up under Maxi­mus Tyrius too, [...]. Socrat. Scholast. l 5. c. 20. and Eunapius tell us; nor were these instructions of a general and indifferent nature; no, Julian was by Maximus taught Heathenisme, ( [...], saith the Scholiast up­on Libanius, and) Libanius himself confes­seth as much, who when he had Nazianzen, Basil, Read the lives of Basil and Na­zianzen. [...] [...]ba­nius was Chrysostoms teacher too in Rhetorick; Nicephor Ca­list l 13. c. 2. (as was Androgatheus in Philosophy) and yet [...]ibanius was at that time a known Heathen, as you [...]ay gather out or that saying of his to Chrysostome, related by Chrysostome in his Homily ad vid. iun. Theodoros and Maximus were School-fellows with Chrysostome at Libanius's, both which he after gaines to Christianity, as Nicephorns tells us in the place forecited. and Julian at once in his School, he did exercise [Page 66]the last in prolusions against Christianity. There did Nazianzen contract his first hatred against Julian; and there did Julian contract an esteem for Basil, which he al­wayes continued to the last, and wrote to him, and made use of him, [...], saith Jo. Mallela, and Chronicon Alexan­drinum. Themistius the Philosopher was highly magnified by Constantius, and by him made one of the Senatours, though an Heathen: that Emperour hath written a long Letter in his behalf, containing an infinity of his praises, that it was an honour to the Senate, Vid. The­mistii orat. edit. Peta­vii, p. 417. and to his Father Constan­tine to preferre such a worthy member: he saith further that their acquaintance was not newly commenced, [...]. The same Emperor in a Rescript of his, Cod. Theodos. l. 6. tit. 4. extolls The­mistius & entrusts him particularly with the Election of the Praetor. Yea, he erected unto him a statue of brasse. I need not speak of Julian, every one will grant that he upheld a Toleration, and that so, as not to out the Christians from places of the great­est trust; Socrat hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 19. for Jovianus (or Jovinianus) was Comes Domesticorum, as Mallela tells us, and his whole Army, when they elected Jovi­anus Emperour, after that Julian was slain by a Persian, were Christians. Jovianus is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have granted an universal Toleration, and is commended thereupon by Themistius, in his [Page 67] Consular Oration. I have before alleadged the passage concerning the changeableness of men in point of Religion, as often as their Emperors should enact any thing: Themisti­us having told Iovian this, addes, But you, O most sacred Prince, being Emperor to all other ends and purposes, have decreed that each man be free in point of Religion. [...]. The same Jovianus did highly honour and esteem the two Philosophers, Maximus and Priscus, friends of Julian, as is confes­sed by Baronius, and declared by Eunapius, who lived in those times. In summe Socra­tes plainly tells us of this Emperour, (whom he wisheth to have lived longer for the good of the publick) that his resolution was to give a free Toleration to all of diffe­rent beliefs, and to work upon them by per­swasions only. Socrat. hi­stor ec­cles. l. 3. c. 21. [...]. Which words evince as a general sufferance of Hereticks (as they are called) as doth that passage of Themistius for all universally.

I come now to the Emperours Valentini­an and Valens, whereof the latter is said to have been an Arian, but the former Or­thodox. Yet Valentinian in Ammianus Mar­cellinus l. 31. is commended for that he car­ried himself with a great deal of moderation [Page 68]towards the people, severally dissenting in Re­ligious affairs: nor did he make any decrees for the establishing of this or that Religion, he compelled none to worship as himself did, but left each to his own sentiments. Postremò, hoc moderamine principatûs inclaruit, quod inter Religionum diversitates medius stetit, nec quenquam inquietavit, neque ut hoc cole­retur imperavit aut illud: nec interdictis minacibus subjectorum cervicem ad id quod ipse coluit inclinabat, sed intemeratas has partes reliquit, ƲT REPERIT. This is the testimony of a man that lived in those dayes, and was himself an Heathen, and who had undergone great charges, (which I desire may be remembred as a farther proof of the Toleration in those times) un­der Constantius the son of Constantine, be­ing one of his DOMESTICKS. Upon that passage of Ammianus Marcellinus it is very confiderable which is remarked by Valesius in his Annotations. When Valentinian and Ʋalens began to reign, Maximus and Priscus, the two Philosophers, were impeached before them, and the former was fined and banished into Asia [for a Ma­gician, not Pagan] and the latter was dismissed honoura­bly. Eunap in vit. Maximi, p. 97. yet Kharchus, an Hea­then, being Governour of Asia after, did free Maximus, and reconcile him to the Emperor, Ibid. p. 102. ‘ Va­lentinian in the be­ginning of this reign being willing to sup­press all Sorcery and Witchcraft, enacted, that no rites of sa­cred worship should be performed by night: which Law is recorded in the Code of Theodosi­us, Tit. de Malefic. cap. 7. [Page 69]but when Praetextatus Pro-Consul of A­chaia had freely certified Valentinian, how that law would ensnare all of the Greek perswasion, that is, Pagans, and de­prive them of their lives, if they should under so strict penalty be prohibit­ed the practise of their most chaste rites and adorations: Valentinian did permit that the Greeks, (which is a common name for all Heathens) should retain the worship of their Ancestours, as Zosimus recordeth it in the beginning of his fourth book. Which Decree of his is not now to be found [which I desire may be observed in opposition to those who ima­gine that our Codes and collections of old Laws are more faithful, then the Volume of Decretals] but mention thereof is made Cod. Th. lege 9. de Malefic. for so the Em­perour Valentinian writes to the Se­nate.’ I think [or judge] that Augury hath no affi­nity with Witchcraft: Haruspicinam ego nullum cum maleficiorum causis habere com­mercium iu lico: neque ipsam, aut aliam praeterca concessam a maioribus RELIGIONEM, genus esse arb [...]tror CRIMINIS. Testes sunt leges a me in exordio imperii m [...] datae, quibus ƲNI­CUIQVE quod animo imbibis­set colendi libera facultas tribu­ta eft. Cod. Theod. l. 9. tir. 16. l. 9. nor do I esteem of that, or any other RELIGION tolerated by my Ance­stours, as criminal. Here­unto the Laws bear me wit­ness, which I made in the beginning of my reign, whereby I gave liberty to every man to worship ac­cordingly as he thinks meet. The same is re­corded [Page 70]by Symmachus ep. l. 10. ep. 54. and Ambrose in his Oration concerning the death of Valentinian, as also in his 30 Let­ter to Valentinian concerning the Altar of Victory. It was to this [Orthodox] Valenti­nian [together with Theodosius and Arca­dius] that Symmachus did write the Letter aforesaid in the behalf, if not of all, yet of a great part of the Romane Senate (as Am­brose confesses in his reply thereto) that they might continue in Paganism. I shall instance in some passages as shew what a Toleration was then, and had been before allowed to different Religions. Speaking of the Emperours, he saith, Preximus corum ceremonias pa­trum coluit, recenti [...]r non remo­vit. — Merito Divi Constantii factum diu non stetit. Omniavo­bis exempla vitanda sunt, quae mox remota didicistis — Accipi­at aeternitas vestra alia ciusdem princ [...]pi [...] sacta, quae in usum di­guius trabat. Nil ille decerpsit sacrarum Virginum privilegiis, decrevit nob l [...]bu [...] sacerd [...]tia, Ro­manis ceremoniis non negavit im­pensas, & per omnes vias aeternae u [...]bis laetum secutus Senatum, vidit plac [...]do ore delubra, legi [...] in cripta fastigns Deum nomina, percunctatus est Templorum ori­gines, mira [...]us est conditores. Cum (que) alias religiones ipse seque­retur, has servavit imperio. the former professed Heathenism, and the later did not abolish it. And speaking of the Emperor Constantius, how he re­moved the Altar of Vi­ctory from the Senate-House, he addes, That Act of Constantius was of no long continuance; such examples are not to be fol­lowed, as have been in­stantly abrogated.—There are other acts of his more presidential: he did not di­minish the priviledges of the Vestals, he preferred the Nobless to the Sacerdotal dignity, he did [Page 71]not refuse to defray the charges of the Roman solemnities, and going round the citie with the Romane Senate, he was not displeased with the sight of the Temples and Statues, he read the inscriptions of the gods, enquired about them, and being himself of one religion, he allowed the Empire another. By the way I am to ob­serve, that not only Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen, but the Orthodox Emperour Valentinian, were not baptized till they were much elder than is the custom in our time, (to say nothing of Constantine, who whether he were baptized or not is uncer­tain: so for Constantius:) the first was not baptized till he was to be made Bishop of Millain; the second not till he was pretty aged, Theod [...]sius was not baptized till after he was Emperour, al­though he were, [...]. Sozomen. hist. eceles. l. 7. c. 4. and the last having sent for Ambrose to baptize him, dyed before he re­ceived that Sacrament; as Ambrose relates in his funeral Oration upon Valentinians death. Nor doth Am­brose in his reply deny the truth of such a Toleration being granted, but addes fur­ther, that at that very time in which he writ, That the Christian Clergie had not the priviledge of common inheriting by the Laws in being, yet did not they complain, they were not capable of Legacies. Quod sacerdotibus phani legaverit Christiana vidua, valet: quod ministris Dei, non valet? quod ego non ut querar, sed ut sciant quid non querar, com­prehendi. [Page 72]The same man grants, that though the lands were taken away from the Heathen Temples, they were still capa­ble of gifts and Legacies. Nemo tamen do­ [...]aria delubris, & legata aruspicibus denega­vit: sola sublata sunt praedia, &c. He grants they had Idols every where, he only de­sires the Senate, whither Christians were to resort might be free. Non illis satis sunt lavacra, non porticus, non plateae occupatae si­mulacris? So that it is evident in Valenti­nians time there was a free Toleration by his means, which extended to the dissent­ing Christians, Arians, &c. no lesse then Heathen. For Suidas tells us, [...]. He himself was a Christian and Or­thodox, yet did not injure those that dissented from him. He made Valens his brother, (an Arian) his Colleague, and recalled the exiled Arians, as well as Orthodox. Cedren. As for Valens, if he inclined to the Arians, he tolerated the Heathens. Richemenes was a Pagan ( [...]) yet was he likely to be chosen Consul, saith Libanius in his own life, and Ammianas Marcellinus saith he, was Comes Domestico­rum to Valens, and both those writers did live in those times: He was also an assured friend of Theodosius the great. Zozim. lib. 4. It is of Valens that Themistius speaks in an Oration published in Latine by Dudi­thus; ‘You have decreed that every one [Page 73]should follow his own judgment in matters of Religion; Sanxisti ut in colenda re­ligione suo quisque utere­tur judicio: neve vel au­thoritate cujusquam, vel minis ad aliam sententi­am, quam non probaret, traduceretur. Intelligis enim non esse in principum potestate, subditos sibi po­pulos ad omnia quae velint cogere: sed est quaedam, ad quae inviti nullâ ratio­ne compelli possint. Quo in genere tum virtus esse, tum vero de cultu deorum sen­sus atque judicium. Nam neque bonum virum per vim queas efficere (est enim virtus habitus volun­tarius) neque cogere possis, ut id ulla de re sentiam, quod sentire nolo. Quae la­bore vel ministerio corporis geruntur, ea imperari & per vim administrari pos­sunt: mentis agitatio, quaeque ex ea pendent no­tiones & habitus animi, libera & soluta est. — An censes cum ad studium tui praesentis & in conspe­ctu orbis terrarum positi, neminem invitum possis Pertrahere, te pietatem quam velis, & cultum Dei ab aspectu nostro semper ob­litescentis, decretis jus­ [...]sque this in omnium ani­ [...]nis posse imprimere? nor by any authority, or threats be forced to profess an opinion he could nor allow. You understand that all things are not in the Princes power, but that there still re­mains whereto man cannot be compelled: such are vertuous in­clinations and appre­hensions concerning God and his worship. For you cannot make any man really good by force (vertue being a voluntary disposition and frame) nor can you compel me to think o­therwise than I already do concerning any thing. Outward acti­ons, and such whose ef­fects are visible, they may be commanded and enforced: The af­fection, and mental acts, with our notions de­pending thereon, these are free & uncontroll'd. [Page 74]Think you, that if you cannot force men to love you whom they daily see, and whom the world reveres, that you can by any Edicts or Commands make them piously to adore and worship that God whom they neither do nor can see?’ After Valens succeeded his son [...] Gratianus, of whom how he refused the title of Pontifex Maximus first of all the Emperours, and yet how his Coins picture him in that habit, and call him Pont. Max. He assoon as he came to the Empire, considering how his Father had banished the Orthodox party, and persecuted several of them (for whom Themistius did often intercede) upon a po­licical account, I suppose, since he tolerated others; Gratian is said to have recalled all from banishment that were exiled by him; and enacted, That every man should be of what re­ligion, The same thing is recorded by Nicephorus Callistus, l. 12. c. 1. [...]. or Church he pleas­ed, except the Manichees, Photinians and Eunomi­ans. The Arians had then the most of the Eastern Churches in their pos­session: The Macedonian Hereticks lived as friendly with them that followed the Nicene Council, as if they had been of one judgment: yea, saith Sozomen, [Page 75]from whom I have all this, ( histor. Eccles. l. 7. c. 1, 2.) several of those that had been banished under Valens, being returned up­on the law aforesaid, made by Gratian, did not affect any primacy over others, but preferred Concord before all other Emolu­ments; and defired the Arians that they would not foment divisions, nor create di­sturbances in a Church, which ought to be but one. Insomuch that Eulalius Bishop of Amasia in Pontus finding an Arian Bishop in his stead, desired he would continue the charge over a people, scarce fifty whereof did adhere unto him. I come now to Theo­dosius under whom I find Themistius to flourish no lesse than before: The temple of Serapis in A­lexandrea was not demol [...]shed, nor the rites extinct until the dayes of Theodosius, Theophilus being Praefectus praetorio, and Eurymedon Governour of E­gypt. Eunan in vit. Aedesti p. 73. And the Eleusinia sacra in Greece were continued with their solemnities in the time of Eunap us who was initiated therein. p. 87. in vita Maximi. By him Themistius was made Praetor of Constantinople; by him he was entrusted with the education of Arcadius (who succeeded in the Empire) when he went into the West: as Themistius tells us in his sixt Oration. Under him I finde Symmachus to be in great honour, and Governour of the Citie of Rome: Symmachus, who was not only Advocate for them that were Pagans, but drew over Claudian and Ausonius from Christianity to Paganism, as Giselinus proves out of Austin de civit. Dei. It will not be amisse to pre­sent [Page 76]the world an account of this Symma­chus, who had been praefectus urbis in the time of Valentinian and Valens; and Con­sul in the time of Theodosius. Judge what preferments Christian Emperours granted to Heathens by this inscription.

Lucio. Aurelio. Aviano. Symmacho. V. C. Praefecto. Ʋrbi. Consuli. Pro. Praefectis. Praeto­rio. in. urbe. Româ. finitissimisque. provinciis. Praefecto. annonae. urbis. Romae. Pontifici. ma­jori. Quindecimviro. S.F. multis. legationi­bus. pro. amplissimi. ordinis. desideriis. apud. divos. Principes. functo. qui. primus. in. Sena­tu. sententiam. rogari. solitus. authoritate. prudentia. atque. eloquentia. pro. dignitate. tanti. ordinis, magnitudinem. loci. ejus. im­pleverit. auro. illustrem statuam. quam. a. Do­minis. Augustisque. nostris. Senatus. amplissi­mus. decretis. frequentibus. impetravit. iidem. triumphatores. principes. nostri. constitui ad­positâ. oratione. jusserunt. quae. meritorum. ejus. ordinem. ac. seriem. contineret. quorum. per­enne. judicium. tanto. muneri. hoc. quoque. ad­didit. ut. alteram. statuam. pari. splendore. etiam. apud. Constantinopolin. collocaret. de­dicata. III. Kal. Maias. D. N. Gratiano. IIII. &. Merobande. Coss.

This Inscription is represented to us both in the passages premised to Symmachus his Letters, published by Juretus, as out of Muphrius; and by Jo. Weithrius in his notes upon the second Book of Prudentius against Symmachus. It is observable that [Page 77] Symmachus in that Inscription is called Pon­tifex major, and Quindecimvir, which shews that the Heathen Priesthood was then in being and repute: as indeed Onuprhius ob­serves, how the Vestal virgins, Poutifices, Augures, Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, fe­tiales, Salii, Septemviri Epulonum, and other priests were continued until Theodosius's time, who refused to defray their charges out of the Publick, not upon a Religious account (for he waved that, being not able to prevail upon the Romane Senate) but because the Common-wealth being other­wise exhausted could not bear so great ex­pences. After which they began to decline, Onyphrius descr. civit. Rom. l. 2. and at last finally ceased. Under the same, yea to the same Theodo­sius I finde Libanius (be­ing sent Embassadour to the Antiochians, Vnder Theodosius upon the third of January vows (after the usual custom) were made for the Emperours safety in the Heathen temples with feasts in Asta: which Eunapius saw and was present at: the temple of Nemesis then standing. Eunap. in vit. Maximi. p. 107. Sozim. l. 4.) making two Ora­tions; one deprecatory for the Antiochians that had demolished his Sta­tues in a tumult; and the other gratulatory, for having pardon­ed them that miscarriage: both which are exstant. In fine, Prudentius who lived in those times, saith to Symmachus,

Nor is this true only of the Heathen that he tolerated them: the Sectarians found the same favour, viz. Arians, Novatians, Macedonians, and Eunomians, none of which [Page 79] Theodosius molested, Eunomius only except­ed; whom the Emperour exiled, [not his followers, and that upon a breach of Civil obedience, [...]. viz.] because he raised Con­venticles at his private house WITHIN Constantinople, recited such speeches as he had written with a Rhetorical ostentation, and infected many with his Doctrines. He disquieted not the rest, neither constrained them to his communion, but licensed every one of them to frequent several conventicles, [...] — [...]— to embrace what opinion liked them best in Chri­stian Religion. And as he gave leave to all o­ther Sects to erect them Churches WITHOUT the walls in the Suburbs; so commanded that the Novatians maintaining together with him the faith of one substance, should freely without disturbance and molestation enjoy and recover their former Churches within the Cities. Socrat. Scholastic. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 20. And if he made any Laws against them, you may learn out of Sozomen how to under­stand them, [...]. Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 12. ‘This Em­peror [Page 80]made a law, So Constantine the great made laws against Hereticks rather for shew and terrour, then that he ever executed them. So Sozo­men tells us how the Novatians suffered little prejudice by any lawes of his, for saith he, I think the Emperour willingly did laxe those decrees, as purposing ra­ther to terrify, then damnify his subjects. [...] Sozo­men l. 2. c. 30. And who were those of his subjects whom he was so tender of? The Novatians, Ca­taphryges, Valentians, Marcio­nists, Paucli [...]ns, and all other He­retiques. [...]. id. ibid. that the Sectarians should have no Assemblies, nor make any profession of their faith, nor ordain Bishops and Pastours; and that some of them should be banished citie and countrey, others should be rendred infamous, and not any way be publikely preferred, as others were: and this he enacted with severe penalties, which nevertheless he did ne­ver inflict. For he did not ordain these things with an intention to punish, but to terrifie his Subjects that they might better agree in Religion, and he used to commend those who were voluntarily converted. The learned Bodin in his book de Repub. lib. 4. giveth the like account of Theodosius, how at the begin­ning of his reign he found all the Empire full of Arians, who were grown to that heighth and power under the Arian Em­perours, that they had strengthened their Doctrines by eight several Councils assem­bled at sundry times at Tyrus, Sardis, Sir­mium, Millain, Seleucia, Nice, Tarsus and Arminium: in the last whereof there were assembled 600 Bishops [almost double the [Page 81]number of the first Council at Nice, in which the Arians were condemned, and the Nicene Creed made; and might as well be called, in the Language of those times, if not better, Oecumenicall] who all una­nimously avowed the doctrine of the Ari­ans; yea, prosecuted the dissenters wich punishments and proscriptions: yet did not Theodosius suppresse the Arians by pu­nishments, though he did hate them dead­lily: he granted to both parties, Arians and Catholiques, their severall Churches, and in the Cityes each of them had their Bishops: and though at the earnest soli­citation of the Catholiques, he did pub­lish sundry edicts against them, yet did he not put them in execution; as his let­ters to Ambrose demonstrate in those words, resigne unto the Arians the Church, for all is in my power.’

As for the Jewes (to give an account of them once for all) I finde them to have been persecuted under the heathen Emperours of Rome at the same time with the Cristi­ans, who were by the Heathen too called Judaei: and it hath been a conjecture of mine, that their sufferings had not a grea­ter affinity then [possibly] the causes in­ducing the Heathen to such rigour were resembling. I allready told you how the Christians did believe the personall reign of Christ, their Messiah; The Jewes after the destruction of Jerusalem did expect the [Page 82]coming of their Messiah, and that he should rule the World. Least any danger to the Empire might arise from these opinions, which were divulged up and down by both parties, the Romans, I imagine, may [ad­ing other motives and fictions against them] have persecuted them; especially having fresh in their memories, how amongst other encouragements that Vespasian had to as­sume the Empire, it was none of the mean­est, that Josephus the Historian accomoda­ted to him the Prophecy of the Messiah, tel­ling him, Thou shalt be both Caesar, and Emperour, as also thy Son, thou art not only my Lord, but Lord of the Sea and Land, and of all Mankind. As he himself relates it, and Suetonius in the life of Vespasian, and Orosius who further thus wordes the Ora­cle given to Vespasian at mount Carmel, Sortes Carmel. portendisse exortos a Judaeâ rerum potituros. In which fullfilling of the prophesy since the Jewes did not acquiesce, it was a remaining pretense for others to make use of, either out of flattery to strangers again, or out of interest for them­selves, as they did under Barcochebas in the t [...]me of the Emperour Adrian. Under the Christian Emperours from the times of Honorius, Arcadius Theodosius Primus and so upwards, Selden. de jure natu­rali & gentium. l. 2. c. 9. p. 243 &c. though they had lost their City and Temple, yet were they in a very flou­rishing condition. ‘They had severall famous Academyes, or rather Common­weals, [Page 83]such as the Soriana, Pombodithana, Nehardacensis, besides their multitude of Synagogues, and great immunityes tho­rough the particular indulgence of Prin­ces. Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius, A A A. made the following Bescript unto Addaeus [Comes & Magister utriusque mili­tiae] It is evident enough that the Sect of the Jewes is not prohibited by any Law. C. Theod. sib. 16. tit. 8. l 9 & vide l. 12.25. Wherefore we are very angry that their As­semblies should be interdicted any where. Your Excellency therefore having received these our commands, will represse with due severity the too great number of those, who under pre­tense of Christian religion commit all manner of licentiousness, destroying and rob­bing their Synagogues. Given at Constanti­ple 3 ^o Kal. Octob. Theod. A. III. & Abun­dantio Cons. that is, in the Year of our Lord, 395. Three years after the former Rescript, Arcadius and Honorius A. A. decreed unto the Jews, ibid. l. 10. that the Governours of Provinces should not impose upon them any Moderator or Prefident; and if any should assume or exercise any such power or charge over them, besides themselves and their Noblesse, then should the Governours of the Provinces punish him as an usurper, and one who retrenched upon the Rights of o­thers. Yea, the same Emperours in the same years appointed Claudianus Comes Orientis, ibid. l. 11. If any should dare to make con­tumelious or dishonourable mention openly [Page 84]of the ILLƲSTRIOƲS the Patriarchs [o the Jews] he should be punished The year ensuing the said Emperours declare unto Caesarius Praefectus Praetorio, C. Theod. lib. 16. tit. 8. l. 13. Let us imitate our predecessours in upholding the priviledges of the Jews, by whose decrees it is enacted that the priviledges of such as are under the illustrious the Patriarchs [of the Jews] the Rulers of their Synagogues, Patriarchs, Pres­byters, and others which are of that Religi­on, by the consent of our Royal selves, con­tinue the same, which with Reverence and sanctimony are payed to the principal of the Christian Clergie. For thus the holy Empe­rours, Constantinus, Constantius, Valen­tinianus and Valens by their Heavenly will and pleasure have ordained it.’ ibid. l. 20. [There are many more Edicts in favour of them, That their Synagogues shall not be destroyed, or seized upon: and, That they be not obliged to any performances inconsistent with the observation of their Sabbath: ibid. l. 21. That none should be any way wronged, or oppressed for being a Jew: and since many to avoid se­veral accusations, curry favour, or supply their wants, did of Jews become Christians in pretense; and not effectually, it was or­dered by the same Emperours Honorius and Theodosius, ibid. l. 23. That if such were not real Con­verts, they might [without fear of punish­ment] return again to their former worship and religion: and this Reason is given, which shewes how different their judgment [Page 85]was from that of men in our dayes, who acknowledging that Faith cannot be enfor­ced, yet think an outside uniformity to be desirable and pious, and the contrary scan­dalous and offensive; viz. Quia magis Christianitati consulitur. BECAUSE IT IS FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF CHRI­STIANITY, sc. that they be open Jews, than secretly such, and only Christians by Profession.] ‘Thus by the great favour of the Emperours did they enjoy their liberty and freedom, which they were not to make use of to the injury of the Christi­ans. ibid. l. 15. Their Patriarchs being called by the titles of Illustres and Spectabiles. Of all this that hath been said there are pret­ty probable grounds to be fetched out of Chrysostoms Homilies against the Jews, wherein he doth inveigh against that fa­miliarity which was between the Jews and Christians. In a little time after the Jews growing proud and insolent by rea­son of their great priviledges and immu­nities, became burthensome to the Chri­stians, and declined in the favour of the Emperours. First therefore Honorius and Theodosius II. being Emperours, they were excluded from Military employ­ments, whereof they were formerly ca­pable, and such as enjoyed any were de­prived thereof. This hapned 20 years after the Rescript unto Cesarius mention­ed before, ibid. l. 24. Honorius being the twelfth time [Page 86]and Theodosius the eighth time Consul. Yet even in that decree which deprives them of warlike charges, the Emperours seem tender of that Nation, and by a faire alle­viation and temperament to secure their reputation, and other dignities. The words are these.’ Let none that adhere unto the Jewish worship and superstition have hence­forward any oportunity of being a Souldier. inter Pa­latinos inter a­gentes in rebus. Whosoever of them are employed in a military way, either in the Palace, or elsewhere abroad, we will permit them to finish the time they are to continue those their charges, rather par­doning their acting, then indulging it. But hereafter let not that be done, which for the present is an act of our grace. As for those who following the Jewes in their pravity are con­vict to have ambition'd the bearing of armes, let them without any doubt, or demurr loose their cingulum, or badge of the Soldatesque, no regard being had to their former demerits. ‘ We do not intend by this our mandate to ex­clude such Jewes as being instructed in the liberall arts and Sciences, from being advo­cates, or getting other Court-offices, which is a liberty they may challenge by the prerogative of their birth and splendour of their fami­lyes, L. 17. C. Justinian. de Judaeis & C. Th. l. 16. tit. 8. l. 29. wherewith since they ought to be satisfyed, they must not think it a disgrace that they are interdicted military Truste. We are sure they had their Sanhedrims in Palestine at that time: nor did they absolutely lose their splendour, dignity and priviledges [Page 87]till about fourty years after the Consul­ship of Eutropius, against whom Claudian wrote so bitterly. Then Theodos. II. C. Justin. tit de Iu­daeis, l. 19. being Consul with Festus the 17 ^th time, Val nti­nian III. and the said Theodosius did won­derfully abate their priviledges, and straighten their condition.’

And now, I think, In the time of Hon [...]rius lived the Ph [...]losopher Le [...]nt [...] [...]t A­thens; he was an Heathen yet made a legacy to his Sons, leav­ing very little to his fair daugh­ter Athenais, which thereupon was forced to go and live at Constantinople with her Aunt; where Theodosius the younger matryed her, and she became a Christian, was called Eudoxia, and Empresse. Mallela. fol 225, I have given a fair account of what Toleration was allowed to the Gentiles, Jews and all manner of Hereticks: I could en­large my catalogue un­der Honorius, with re­counting not only how much he favoured the Gentiles, and Donatists; (with both which he is notwithstanding reported by the instigation of Stilico to have dealt somewhat severely, so as that they rejoyced at his death) but by reckon­ing Eucherius the son of Stilico for one, Vid St. Claverium in m [...]scell. ad Claudi­an. cap. 9. of whom Orosius tells me, lib. 7. cap. 27. that he intended to gain the favour of the Pagans by erecting them Temples, and destroying Chri­stian Churches: and for an Heathen is he reckoned. C. Th. leg. XIX. So his father Stilico (after whose death the Gentiles rose and murdered sun­dry Bishops, Stilico made Saul a Jew [bar­b [...]rus & paganus saith Orosi­us l. 7.38.] General of the Christian Army, which is ac­knowledged by Baronius. as also did the Donatists) is by some reputed an Heathen: Orosius saith, that he [à [Page 88]privato pueroque] intended a persecution against the Christians; but since Baronius and Cleverius will allow neither the one nor the other to have been a Pagau; I shall so far assent unto the latter, as to think the insertion of Eucherius's name into the Law aforesaid to be an additional gloss [...]ma, foyst­ed in by men of more zeal, then honesty or knowledg: the Emperour Honorius abroga­ted a law which had been made, prohibiting any Gentile to bear arms, or enjoy any prefer­ment, or command [ [...]] and made Generidus an Heathen General of all his forces, granting to all, retain­ing their own opinions, liberty to command and serve in the wars: [ [...].] So Zosimus lib. 5. Baronius remarks upon this passage, that Honorius did it out of ne­cessity: but the Author saith, he did not more our of necessity, then respect to Ge­neridus, who was so brave a captain, and had underwent great dangers for the pub­like, being ashamed that by such a Law Generidus should not wear a sword. Let it pass for clear which Dr. Rives avowes in his book against Aleman­nus. Dixi enim, & saepius fortasse di­cet [...], quo tempore ad im peri [...]ha­benas tractandas accissit Justini­anus, illud ge [...]us [polytheorum] praecipuam quamque [...]eipub cu­rationem & dignitatem occupasse. That when Justinian came to ruler, the chief­est digniti [...] and employ­ments were in the possession of the Heathen. Under [Page 89]the Emperour Justinian, I have in the be­ginning of this discourse told you what Religions were then in the Empire. The Samaritans, (who, besides other Tenents, denyed all the Scripture, except the five Books of Moses) had their Synagogues, and were capable of civil Employments: to what end else was that constitution of Ju­stinians against the Samaritans? Novel. 129. ‘That there should be no more Synagogues of the Samaritans, [...]. Citante [...]lemanno in Pro­cop. p. 57. and that they should be in­capable of publike of­fice.’ So in another place, the said Justini­an being consulted by Iohn, Praefectus Praeto­riorum, concerning some Samaritanes, Iews, and Montanists, or such like, whether they were to enjoy the dignity of Senatours; replyes, [...] — [...]. ‘That they shall not receive any benefit by such their places, but if there be any burthen or trouble therein, that they should be lyable to.’ Novel. 25. As for the Iewes they had their Synagogues and Gover­nours (whether termed [...]) as appears from that Novel of Iustinian, concerning such Iewes as should use the Greek Bible in their Synagogues. ‘We enact by our sacred will that those Jews be without let or molestation, who [Page 90]will in their Synagogues read the Bible in the Greek tongue.’ Novel. 146. The Arians and other Hereticks [ [...]] had their Churches [ [...]] as Proco­pius in his Secret History tells us. p. 51. The Heathens or Gentiles had all the great pre­ferments, In [...]nt. ad P [...]ocop. p. 59. and places of trust or dignity in their possession, and so continued them long; as Dr. Ryves confesses, whose words I have repeated; and Alemannus informs us ‘how when he persecuted the Gentiles, the chiefest persons of his Court were found criminal; in which number, as He­sychius, Procopius, Theophanes, and Suidas relate, was Tribonianus Quaestor, [...], Suidas. Thomas Magister offici­orum, Johannes Praefectus Praetorio, (to whom he wrote concerning the Jews, Sa­maritans and Montanists, as aforesaid) and Phocas Patricius magister militum, all which were principal men in making of the Code. Theophanes doth adde to this num­ber, Asclepiodotus Praefectus Praetorio, Ma­cedonius Referendarius, [as doth Io. Mallela too] and Pegasius Heliopolitanus Patricius.’ Yea, Procopius himself was an Heathen, yet was he made by Iustinian one of the Illu­stres, a Senator, Assessor to the great [Chri­stian] Captain Belizarius, and after all Prae­fect of the Citie, then which charge that Empire scarce had a greater.

Thus stood the Toleration in the time of Iustinian, until he by little and little over­threw it; not out of any Religious pre­tense, but meer covetousness, and to prey upon their Riches, as Procopius who lived in those times leaves us to conjecture. He commanded they should within three mo­neths time relinquish their opinions, and become orthodox, or forfeit their goods and be banished. So Mallela, so Theophanes; yet did not his zeal ex­tend to the principal of the Arians, [...]. Theo­phanes citante Alemanno. p. 26. called Hexa­cionitae, those he let a­lone. As for the Sama­ritans, whether his Law occasioned their revolt, or whether that re­volt his Law, I know not; Procopius makes the Law to precede that Tumult; but Mal­lela speaks not of the Law, [...]. p. 277. This was in the 29 year of Iustinian, and so after the Law, as Cyril­lus Scythopolitanus saith in Ale­ma [...]nus. only how the Sa­maritans, Jews and Chri­stians fell out and de­stroyed one anothers Temples and Churches, and that the Emperour was angry with the Go­vernour thereupon, and beheaded him. A [...]emannus makes out of Theophanes and the Alexandrian Chronicle two Seditions, the one, possibly, when the Law was first made, and thereupon remissely executed; the other, when they began to reinforce it: [Page 92]But what effect had his persecution? Men did not relinquish their Religion, but the Profession thereof; yea, saith the Alexan­drian Annals, some having been Baptized to this day dissemble. [...]. [...]ante Ale man [...]o. p 7 [...]. Procop. Hist. Arc. p 5. V [...]d Procop Hist. Arc. p. 53. Iusti [...]an made a law that no Pagan should b [...] capable of publike trusts [...]. Mall [...]la. fol. [...] 9 but this was enacted after the suppression of the Samaritans, 20000 of whom were stain, and as many chil­dren and maids sold by a Sara­cen commander in the Roman army to the Persians. id. fol. 288. So Procopius relateth it, how some, seeing death and banishment before their eyes, counterfeit­ed Christianity, whilst o­thers offended at such a kinde of conversion turned Manichees, and Polytheists. The like he saith of the Heathens, when Justini­an be [...]an to persecute them with Confiscations and corporal punish­ments, [yea death, saith Jo. Mallela; for Ascle­piodotus, Macedonius, &c. were slain] they renoun­ced Heathenism to a­void the present danger, but not long after relapsed to their former sacrifices and Paganism. But if Covetous­nesse, or Reason of State (the Arians in the Empire corresponding with the ene­mies thereof the Gothes) be grounds for extirpating different Religions, Justinian may be acquitted, having first given an ac­count why he lodged in his bosom an Eu­tychian [Page 93]for his Wife, who headed that par­ty whilest he countenanced the Orthodox, yea, he himself was in part an Eutychian of the Aphthartodocitae: Justinian made an edict in the behalf of the Eat [...]h ans a [...]tle before he dyed, [...]. Theophanes. nor can the most favourable Historian tell what to make of him, whether he were ever real or not in his governing, setting up Anthinius, & then pulling him down aagin at the instance of Agapetus Bishop of Rome, whom, yet when he reproved him, he told, He was Emperour and might do what he pleased. All which is acknowledged by Jos. Simlerus in his Collection of those that wrote against Eutyches, fol. 8. The same Emperour hath abused the World vile­ly in his Collections of old Lawes, for he left out many good ones, Vide Cont. lect. suoser. l. 1. c. 9. inserted many bad, and (notwithstanding Protestations to the contrary) imposed upon his predeces­sours such lawes as they never made, yea the contrary whereof they enacted: and then decreed none should quote any of such lawes, but out of his compilations, upon pain of being prosecuted as a falsifier of such imperiall lawes, as he had basely miscited, and they might disprove out of the Codex Gregorianus, Hermogenianus, and Theodosi­anus, of the two former Codes we have now so little knowledg, that we ignore whence they had their names; both are lost toge­ther with above half of the Code of Theodosi­us, [Page 94]none being willing to transcribe them, which they could not alledg for their ad­antage, nor so curious in an age not too inquisitive, as to preserve them for meer antiquity-sake. And this is the reason why we have no more lawes recorded, nor no better account of things then we have: yea so many falsifications of lawes, (men being as good at that, as at scattering false Creeds and Gospels, and Epistles) that I shall not value what can be produced in opposition to what I have laid down, though some should publish more then Pamelius the Pa­pist hath wrote against Toleration. Shall I trust him in the great affaires of Christi­anity, and self-interest, who cosens me de stillicidiis, &c. Shall I suppose him honest where he had the highest motives possible to cheat, and yet know his forgeries in cases of little or no moment? Ad populum pha­leras! Besides it is considerable that no Em­perour can be alledged for persecutions, who did not make his decrees as Authen­tique as the word of God, so that their Lawes are called Oracles, Sacred de­crees, &c. [...], nostrae maje­statis oracula, divales litterae nostrum nu­men, perennitas, divinitas, and a thousand such like elogies do they assume, and Ec­clesiasticall writers give them: as may be seen in the Theodosian Code, Mallela, &c. On the other side I hope I shall not be troubled to give any character of the Em­perours [Page 95]I have insisted on, out of the wri­ters of those dayes: they areall called Divi or Saints, as you may see in Onuphrius's fa­sti. Constantine is called the Divine and Faithfull, &c. Jovianus the most Christian: Valentinian the Ortho­dox, &c. [...], Mallela. [...] Mallela. [...] Mallela. [...]. Id [...]. Id. [...]. Id. [...]. Id. [...]. Id. yea the most di­vine: the most just and most severe. (The latter whereof is his constant e­logie in Mallela) so Va­lens the most Divine, though my Author con­fesse him to have been an Arian [ [...]] Gratian the most pious; Theodosius the most Divine, and Religious. I could produce much more full testimonies in their behalf, if I thought any were so ignorant as to de­mand it. If any shall reply that those were but the complyances of Christians in a necessitous condition, and not being a­ble to suppresse the Heathen, they did per­mit them. I doubt not but they who are most ready to object thus will be no lesse forward to affirme that they ought not to engage into a sinfull complyance, and such must this of theirs have been since the laws made are enforced with reasons, sundry of them; it was their declared judgement, both under persecution, and after, when they had gained the Superiority and Em­pire. I shall once again repeat the Testimo­ny [Page 96]of Tertullian ad Scapulam. ‘ It is our property, humane equity, & naturall right to allowe each man to worship what he thinkes fit: Tamen humani [...]uris & naturalis potestatis unicuique quod pu [...]a­verit colere: nec al [...]i obest, aut prodesi alterius religio, sed nec re­ligi [...]nis est cogere religionem, quae sp [...]nte suscipi debeat, non vi; cum & hostiae ab animo libenti [...]ae os [...]ul [...]ntúr. Ita eis [...] nos com­pul ritis ad secrificandum, nihil prae [...]t bi [...]is diis vest [...]is: ab invi [...] tis enim Sacrificia non desidera­bunt, nisi si contentiosi sunt; contentiosus autem Deus non est. no man can receive benefit, or prejudice by the religion, of another. Besides, it is not consistent with Re­ligion, to force men there­unto, since that ought to be embraced voluntarily, and not by compulsion: e­ven sacrifices are not acceptable, if not ten­dered by a willing mind. Thus though you should compell us to Sacrifice to your Gods, yet will you do them no service, for they will not require Sacrifices from the unwilling, un­lesse they be contentious, and if they are con­tentious, they are no Gods.’ Is this the lan­guage of a man who intends a bare comply­ance? Are these reasons suiting with the designes of one who would suppresse the Heathen as soon as he should have power and opportunity. Were they Pagan-Gods onely which required sincerity of heart and reall affections with their oblations? Is it that religion only which excludes compul­sion? Must those Deities only be destroyed, if they are contentious? Either what Tertullian said is to be understood abso­lutely and universally, or he did very ill in refusing to sacrifice to false Gods, and [Page 97]yet violating his obedience to the true one by such notorious prevarication. After that they came to the Soveraignty; and that those Christians who before (if we may believe Tertullians's rant) were in a posture to dispute their sufferings with them which persecuted them, had now gained Authority on their side, and a fair accessionall of strength; did they then meer­ly comply when they might, and my ad­versaries will say ought to have suppressed the Pagans! surely Lactantius who lived to see the Christians afflicted under Diocletian, and flourishing under Constantine, to whose son Crispus he was Tutour, and to which Emperour he dedicated particularly his Book de justitiâ, in the twentieth chapter whereof (after you have observed with Xystus Betullius in his notes, that the Roman Pont [...]fices, seu minores, sou maxim flamines, augures, item reges sacrificuli, Non est o­pus vi & in [...]uria, quia religi­o co [...]i non potes: v [...]r­b [...]s poti us qu [...]m verberibus res agend [...] est ut s [...] luntas. — Quid ergo saeviunt, ut stul­titiam suam dum minuere velunt, augeant; longe diversa sunt car­nificina & p [...]as. nec potest [...]ut veritas cum vi, aut justitia cum crudelitate conjungi.— quique sunt sacerdotes & antistites religionum, that all these Pagan Priests were then in being) you may note how he directs his discourse in generall against persecution for Religion. ‘ There needs no force, nor injurious compul­sion, because Religion can­not be enforced: to make men willing; you must use [perswasive] words, and not stripes. — Why then do they rage and perse­cute, that so they may en­crease [Page 98]instead of lessening their folly? [The Bible and the Gallowes] Piety and cruelty are things of a quite defferent na­ture; nor can truth subsist with force, or justice with oppression.’— Then he having objected in the behalf of the Heathens, that they ought to defend the publique rites and religious worship: he commends them for their tenderness in the behalf of Religi­on, but reproves the wayes whereby they would preserve it. Religion is to be defen­ded not by slaying, but dy­ing, Defendenda religio est non oc­cidendo, sed moriendo; non saevi­tia, sed patientia, non scelere, sed fide. Illa enim malorum sunt, haec bonorum. Et necesse est bonum in rel gione versari, non malum. Nam si sagnine, si tormentis, si mala religione, defendere velis, jam non defendetur illa, sed pollu­etur atque violabitur. Nihil e­nim est tam voluntarium, quam religio: in qua si animus sacrifi­cantis aversus est, jam sublata, iam n [...]lla est. not by cruelty but pa­tience, not by wickedness but faith, those are practi­ces of the bad, but these of the good.—If you will de­fend religion with blood­shed, torments and oppres­sions, you will rather pol­lute and defile Religion thereby, then defend it. Nothing is, or ought to be so voluntary as Religion, which ceaseth to be such, if the Sacrificer wor­ship with an unwilling mind.

Many more sayings of the ancients might be produced for the further illustra­ting of this point, but in the relations which I have given of the Toleration allow­ed of old by the first Christian Emperours, there is so much intermixed of their Judg­ment in reference to the case in hand, that [Page 99]I shall forbear till further opportunity, leaving the Reader to think that those Em­perours had a Clergy living in those dayes (though not endowed with Titles) and that it may be presumed they did advise or concurr to those decrees which Justini­an did absolutely infringe, together with the Popes of Rome, who in the declining of the Greek Empire advanced themselves to a secular principality, I shall not insist up­on the Toleration which hath been allow­ed and avowed under Protestants since the beginning of the Reformation; he must be a great stranger in the world that knows not with what vehemency they have con­demned Popery, and the Popish inquisi­tion.

It is not to be denyed that under Henry the fourth of France (as also now) in the same campe men of both religions fought for the same person, and that the Prote­stants offered the Papists a Toleration; and advised their King to it, and thought it not only necessary, but lawfull, as again their King being turned Papist they sued for a Toleration and procured that Edict, by the benefit whereof they enjoy their present Liberty. In the Germane Diet at Spires 1626 the German Princes demanded an universall Toleration for Religion, and that upon these motives, 1. Because faith must be free and voluntary. 2. Because it is the gift of God. 3. Because Experience shew­eth [Page 100]how force doth nothing avail. 4. Because, the Christians have always tolerated the Jews. I desire the force and extent of these argu­ments may be weighed, and see if they will include the Heretiques of our times. Is their Faith to be lesse free? Or lesse the gift of God? Or can they be more compel­led to believe, then the Calvinists or Luthe­rans? Is that argument a majori ad minus, from the sufferance of the greater to the sufferance of the lesse, more invalidated in our dayes than of old? viz. If the Jewes have alwaies been tolerated, who deny our whole Religion, the Trinity, the Mes­siah, Justification, &c. the new Testa­ment, and Daniel in the old; may we not tolerate such as differ from us in smaller cases? How far Toleration hath been exten­tended in Transylvania, Poland, Hungary, Austria, the Hans-towns, France, Holland, &c. I cannot at present enlarge on, nor recount the sayings of severall Kings, or Divines to that purpose: but I will under­take to evince the Lawfullness, and possi­bility, and manner of a firme Toleration out of the principles laid down in the re­conciliatory discourses betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists. N.B. I am assured by Beza that the Lutherans are Nestori­ans and Eutichans; ubiquita­tis dogma quod ad Christi natu­ras attimet prorsus Nestorianum, quod adearund [...]m idiomata spe­ctat penitus E [...]tychianum est. Bez. [...]p. ad Dudith. And I appeal to all judicious persons whether therebe any greater difference betwixt the Heretiques [Page 101]abroad (till Arminia nisme, Semipeligianisone Episcopacy, &c. be new-named by Presbyte­ry, I shall so term them) and those in Eng­land, then that the one are removed from the other by the interposition of the Sea.

But against this Toleration, in the ut­most extent of it, it will be objected, That under the Law of Moses, Idolaters and Blasphemers were put to death. Exod. 22. v. 20. He that sacrificeth unto any God, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroy­ed. and Deut. 13. If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreames, and giveth thee a signe or a wonder: and the signe or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other Gods (which thou hast not known) and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your Soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandements, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that Prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death (because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in) so shalt thou put the evill away from the midst of thee. If thy [Page 102]Brother, the Son of thy Mother, or thy Son, or thy Daughter, or the wife of thy bosome, or thy friend which is as thine own So [...]l, entise thee secretly, saying, let us go and serve o­ther Gods which thou hast not known, thou nor thy Fathers, namely of the Gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or farr off from thee, from the one end of the earth, even unto the other end of the earth: thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pitty him, neither shalt thou spare, nor shalt thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shall stone him with stones, that he dye: because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israell shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy Cityes which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men the Children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their City, saying, let us go, and serve other Gods which you have not known: then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask dili­gently, and behold if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, thou shalt surely smite the inhabi­tants of that City with the edge of the sword, [Page 103]destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the Cattell thereof, with the edge of the sword, and thou shalt gather all the spoile of it, into the middest of the street thereof, and shalt burne with fire the City, and all the spoile thereof, every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever, it shall not be built again, and there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing to thy hand, that the Lord may turne from the fiercenesse of his an­ger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers. And again in the same book ch. 17. v. 2. &c. If there be found among you within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickednesse in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, and hath gone and served other Gods, and worshipped them, either the Sun or Moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; and if it be told thee, & thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently and behold it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israell: then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman (which have committed that wicked thing) unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they dye. Against the Blasphemer there is this law commanded. Levit. 24. v. 15, 16. Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin, and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the con­gregation [Page 104]shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is borne in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put to death.

For the explanation of these texts I shall observe what is the opinion of the Jewish Rabbies, and what hath been the practise of that Nation. They divide the world into two parts, the sons of Noah and them­selves: to themselves they say the Law promulgated in the Books of Moses was gi­ven; to the residue of man-kind whom they call the sons of Noah, they say that they are not obliged to the law of Moses, but to seven precepts given to Noah, but whether such precepts were actually given, or onely imprinted in the Souls of all men at their originall, is disputed amongst them: Hereby they are said to have been com­manded to have abstained from Idolatry; from blasphemy, or cursing the holy name [of God] from murther, from adultery and incest, from theft, and that they should e­rect a Polity or Magistracy for the keeping inviolably these precepts. The last (which they suppose to have been given to Noah, as the former were even to Adam) that they should not eat the members of any creature which had been cut off from it whilest it was yet living. These are com­mandements which they say were given to all man kind, and to the observation where­of they were so obliged hereunto, that they [Page 105]could nor without [...] violate them. Yet however the Nations were obliged here­unto, yet did God establish no paramount judge over them, so that any true be­lievers, or peculiar Nations or people should have it in charge to prohibit, or de­stroy them in their transgressions, or de­molish their Idolls. This is clear from the account we have of things from the be­ginning unto the erecting of the Israelitish polity: for Abraham in his pilgrimage con­versed with Idolaters, and did not destroy them, or attempt it, or disoblige them in discourse or deportment; though what he might have done that way (especially in conjunction with Melchizedech King of Sa­lem) be evident from his atchievements in the behalf of Lot against the four Kings. Gen. 14. and from the respect paid him by the Sons of Heth (before whom he used much addresse, bowing himself) Hear us my Lord; thou art a mighty prince among us. or a Prince of God; things that excell be­ing in an Hebrars [...] said to be of God) Gen. 23.6. So for Lot dwe [...]ing in Sodome, how­ever God might destroy them, yet that righteous man dwelling among them, in see­ing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawfull deeds. 2. Pet. 2.7, 8. Yet that he vexed them, or pro­voked them by imbittering censures, &c. I find no mention in sacred writ. So Jacob lived with Laban an Idolater and marryed [Page 106]his daughter, being then, and continuing after an Idolatresse; yet did not he molest Laban in his worship; as may be gathered from the Text, for if Laban so fiercely pursued him for those. Idols which Rachell had carried away; we may be certain that he would not have so friendly before a­greed with him, if he had gone violently to demolish them. So the Children of Is­rael being in Egypt, and multiplying there, in a land full of Idolatry, I do not find a­ny contest emerging about their different worships. After that the Israelites were come out of Egypt, and that God modelled that people into a Common-wealth, they had this law given them Exod. 22.20. He that sacrificeth to any God save unto the Lord onely, he shall be utterly destroyed; or be­come an Anathema: of which law the mean­ing is not universall, but to be understood of the Jewes and amongst the Jewes. For it was not ever extended to the Gentiles living separate from the Jews; for the Israe­lites were not hereby obliged to destroy all their Neighbours that were Idolaters, they never practised such a thing, nor is the o­mission thereof laid to their charge: They were to be left to the judgment of God, who in the event and finall issue would cut them off and destroy them. The Law in it's letter, and as farr as man had power to execute it, was limited to the seven Nati­ons, which God had given to the Children [Page 107]of Israell for a possession: Deut. 12.1. These are the statutes and the judgments which ye shall observe to do, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. So Exod. 34.13.—They should destroy all monuments of Idolatry in those domi­nions: and this is the judgment of the Jewish Doctors, as Mr. Selden reports them de jur. natur. l. 2. c. 2. It is commanded us that we destroy all forreign worship out of our land; but beyond our precincts it is not commanded us that we should persecute and destroy it. In case they made any additionall conquest, that law did not reach them; yet did they by an interve­nient right (as Mr. Selden phraseth it) a­bolish and extripate Idolatry in such pla­ces, viz. least it should become a snare un­to them. Amongst the Jewes there lived sundry other people called under the ge­nerall name of Strangers, which as to mat­ters of common equity, had one and the same law or justice which an Israelite had: such were the Gibeonites and the reliques of the Cananites that were undestroyed: such were those which joyned with them when they came out of Egypt, such were the Prosclytes or Strangers in the gate who were not Jewes, but were all bound up (say the Jewes) to the seven precepts of Noah: in such cases as an Israelite might be put to death, they also might suffer the like punishment; so that it being death for an Israelite to worship Idolls, or tempt o­thers [Page 108]thereunto, it was in like manner pu­nishable for any Stranger to attempt the like. But it was also death for any Stran­ger, not becoming absolutely a Proselyte to the law of Moses, for to observe any part thereof as being his law: It is also remark­able, that the law of Noah regarding Ido­latry was Negative, and onely told them they were not to worship Idols, Angels, Sun and Moon, and such Gods as were not the Lord Jehovah, but as to the positive part we find nothing expressed that they were to do necessarily, though voluntarily, they might offer whole burnt-offerings by the Priest in the same Temple with the Iewes, and they might pay their vowes, and had a particular place in the Temple to pray in. As for a City falling into Idolatry it was to be destroyed with the edge of the sword, the spoile to be burned, and all to be made an heap for ever. But in reference to this ex­tirpating Idolatrous Cityes, I observe that it is not onely not extended beyond the li­mits of Israel, [if thou shalt hear say in one of the Cityes, which Jehovah thy God gi­veth thee to dwell there.—] but also that it doth seem not to have extended unto any City that should cast off the yoak of their go­vernment, and separate into a new reigle­ment: for I do not find any war made up­on Jeroboam and the ten Tribes for their A­postacy and Idolatry, though they be re­proved for the same; nor do I find that [Page 109]the Townes taken at any time from the ten Tribes by the two, were used accord­ing to the law in debate: But they seem as the Samaritans after them, to be left unto God for to be cut off. And indeed as to particular Idolatry to be practised within Judaea by the Strangers, that none should come thither who should not professe a subjection to the precepts of Noah, and so relinquish his Religion, or intermit, [...]t doth hardly seem credible that it was per­formed, when Hiram's Servants did work with Solomons Servants, or came to con­gratulate him: 1 Kings 5. or when the Queen of Shebah came to Jerusalem with a very great train. 1 Kin. 10. Or as often as any Embassadours came from forreign coun­treys to the upright Kings of Judah after the Captivity and their return from thence; will any one think that Alexander the great, when he and his army came to Ieru­salem, that they became Proselytes to the commandements of Noah? or that the Ro­mans did intermit their worship, which was to be performed daily, or particular­ly at the marching of the Army, all the while they were in Iury? Or that all those Nations recounted in the Acts 2. v. 9, 10, 11. had renounced their native Religion. Yet is not that Toleration condemned by the Apostles, as neither had it been by Christ, who was able by a grant of Angelical legi­ons to effect what possibly it may be replyed the others could not.

As for that other text respecting Blasphe­my, Levit. 24. v. 15, 16. Any man, when be shall curse his God, then he shall bear his sin. And he that b [...]asphemeth the name of Jehovah shall surely be put to death; and all the con­gregation stoning shall stone him, as well the Stranger as the Home-borne, when he blasphe­meth the name shall be put to death. The Jewes observe that it is not said in the O­riginall he that blasphe­meth, From hence the Jewes became so superstitious as not to think it lawfull to name the sacred name, therefore called [...]. Philo thus recordeth the law, Ei [...]. de vita Mosis. l. 3. but he that nameth, and that not generally God, but the name Jeho­vah [...] and they further remark that the Son of Selomith did curse the name, [...] and though they confesse that the law against bla­sphemy comprise both Iewes and Strangers living amongst them (for it is not con­ceivable how it extended any further then their particular polity, so as to oblige the Jewes at Alexandria to execute the law up­on any gentile there, or in the captivtiy) yet the extent of the violation thereof was so little, that the blasphemer must have ex­pressed the name Jehovah. The words of the Thalmudists are (as Mr. Selden cites them de jur. natur. l. 2. c. 12.) he is not to dye, if he expresse not the sacred name: no not though he blaspheme or curse any sacred at­tribute. ‘ Reus (mortis) non est, nisi qui [Page 111]expresserit ipsum nomen: neutiquam vevò qui cognomini maledixerit.’ But notwithstanding this (and much more to this purpose, which is to be seen in Mr. Selden) it seems evi­dent from the condemnation of our Savi­our in the Gospell, that in his dayes blas­phemy was extended beyond the mention of that sacred name (of the true pronuncia­tion whereof we are now totally ignorant, and so incapable of that blasphemy) unto the attributes of God. For Caiphas saith Matth. 26.63. &c, I adjure ther by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus said untohim, thou hast said: neverthelesse I say unto you, hereafter shall you see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the cloudes of heaven. Then the High-Priest rent his cloathes, saying, he hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? be­hold now ye have heard his blasphemy, what think ye? They answered and said, he is guil­ty of death. Or as Marke c. 14. v. 64. hath it, And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. In this triall there is no mention of the Tetragrammaton or sacred name, yet the whole assembly unanimously condemns our Saviour for blasphemy, against one of the Sacred attributes, which is manifestly expressed in the text in the words, Sitting at the right hand of power, Vid. Sel­den. loco citato. [...] Power or [...] being by the Jewish Rabbines a thousand times recko­ned [Page 112]amongst the attributes of God. I am further to observe that the Iewes did not reckon materiall blasphemy, such as is wickedness of life, or the profession of a religion or way inconsistent with the truth, for to be the blasphemy that was to be pu­nished with death. Thus the Blind man Ioh. 9. who avowed Christ to be no sinner, but a Prophet, and of God, was not impleaded or condemned as guilty of blasphemy, and so to dye; but he was excommunicated, or excluded from the converse of the Iewes. And the Disciples in the Acts. ch. 4. & 5. though they preached that Iesus was the Christ, and that Salvation was to be had onely in his name, and that God had exalted him with his RIGHT HAND to be a prince and a Saviour, &c. yet were not they charged with blasphemy, or represented as guilty of death. So Paul in his declaration, what­ever he lay down, it was not imputed to him as blasp [...]emous: for then the people would have rent their cloaths, instead of casting them off, and have said, he was guil­ty of death, and not Away with such a fel­low from the earth; it is not fit that he should live, Acts 22. v. 22, 23. from whence it may be gathered what opinion the Iewes had of the Messiah, that one might avowe himself to be, or that another was such, yet not be guilty of blasphemy, or death: for such his assertion, yet as a sower of sedition such might be punished with stripes [Page 113]or imprisonment. Acts 4. v. 3. Acts 24. v. 5. for if they had taught openly that Christ did sit at the right hand of power, or glory (as Steven Acts 7. v. 55, 56, 57.) or had said: he was the Son of God, they would not have spared the Disciples who con­demned the Master upon that score, and told Pilate, We have a law, and by our law he ought to dye, because he made himself the Son of God. Joh. 19.7.

It is very considerable how by the same law, whereby Christ was condemned for blasphemy by the Iewes in asserting his dei­ty: by the same law are the Socinians con­demned now for denying his deity. We ought then to be very tender in commit­ting the interpretative power of such lawes to any sort of men, least analogicall blas­phemy retrench upon the truth.

Formall blasphemy or [...], maledictio, seu execratio ejusdem, reproachfull language or cursing of the Sacred name was counted blasphe­my by them, and as such, prohibited. viz. When the Hol [...]ness, Po­wer, Verity, Quando sanctitas, potesias, ve­ritas, unitas, numinis aut con­vitio ultro ac diserte prosciaditur, aut ex professione, actuve aliquo palam ac procaciter negari conse­quenter deprehendi [...]ur. Selden. de jur. natur. l. 2. c. 11. and Unity of God was either reviled willfully and expresly, or by some action or de­claration (in a way of consequence) openly and malepertly denyed. Of the former sort was the blasphemy of [Page 114] Rabshekah 2. King. 8.30. Isai. 36.15. And of Shelomith's Son Levit. 24.13 and that of which Naboth was accused, 2 King. 21. v. 10.13. the Chaldee having it [...] though the Hebrew [...] (and the Greek [...]) which signifies to blesse or curse according to the foregoing sense.

Of the second sort, or consequentiall blasphemy (which was not to depend up­on subtile consequences deduced from words or actions innocently spoken and performed, and without any evill intenti­on, or through errour; as any man may prove out of Mr. Selden de jur. natur. l. 2. c. 11.) it was accounted such, if any one without lapsing himself into idolatry, or embracing strange worships, (for that was comprised by the Iews under the precept of Idolatry, & was also reputed a consequenti­al blasphemy) did perswade others thereun­to, or profess the lawfulness & equity there­of himself, and that [...] with an high hand, Ex prot [...]r­via, n [...]n ex ignor [...]ntia seu disci­plinae erro­re. [...], out of malepert­nesse, not ignorance, or mistake in judgment. Or if any Israelite did in such manner vio­late the Law of Moses, or a son of Noah, (living among the Jews under an establish­ed politie in Judaea) transgress the precepts of N [...]ah, not out of weakness, or hasty sedu­ctions of natural concupiscence or error, but because he peevishly and malepertly refuses to acknowledge his obligation to the con­trary, or doth not reverence the Authority: [Page 115]Power, Ʋnity, and Verity of God so com­manding or prohibiting; that is, he denies it all in very deed, willingly, wilfully, and with an high hand, and despises it. This is the doctrine of the Jews, and to this doth that precept referre Numb. 15.30. The soul that shall do with an high hand, ( [...], proudly and insolently, the Chaldee hath it, with an uncovered head, [...]) whether he be home-born, or stranger, the same reproacheth (or blasphe­meth) Jehovah: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

By all this that hath been alleadged as the doctrine of the Jews, together with their practice in our Saviours time, this Law of Blasphemy and Idolatry is particular to the Jews, living under their proper polity in the land God gave them, and extends coercively no farther; nor therein to any consequential or figurative remote Idolatry and blasphemy proceeding from probable rea­sons, or weaknesse of judgement, or the like; so that for ought I can see, since neither the Scripture nor Jewish Doctors inform us what a Supream Magistrate over the sons of Noah ought to do in such cases, and since in dubious matters it is best to be cautious, I believe, notwithstanding all this Law, a Toleration must necessarily be granted.

But to give a punctual answer to these Laws: It is evident that they are part of the Political Law of Moses, and not com­prized [Page 116]in the Moral Law, I mean as to the punishment inflicted upon the Transgressor: for the Moral Law, It is the opinion of many Iews, and also of Theodoret, that the first part of one text in contro­versie, viz. Levi [...]. 24.15. Who­soever curseth his God, shall bear his sin that by this text even Idolaters were prohibited to blaspheme their gods. Which interpretation, as it is highly probable, and conformable to reason and usage; so it shews that there may be a rule to evi­dence a transgression, yet not inferre a temporal punishment: for none of them prove any punishment to have been in­flicted thereupon, but that the offender should hear his sin. The like in stances may be brought from several Laws the breach whereof was punished with ex­cision or cutting off. or the Law of Nature may lead us to condemn what it doth not enjoyn us to punish, at least not this or that particular way. This is evident, as to the case in hand, from the practise of sundry Nations: and even that commandment which taught the Iew to keep the Sabbath, and to con­demn its breakers, did not teach them what pu­nishment they should in­flict upon them. Thus he that had gathered sticks upon that day, was put in ward, because it was not declared what should be done unto him. Philo Ju­daeus de vi­ta Mosis. lib. 3. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the Congregation shall stone him. Numb. 15.34, 35. So the Blasphemer, son of Shelomith, though he had sinned against the Law delivered in the Mount, Exod. 20.7. yet was he put in ward, that the minde of the Lord might be shewed them: and God commanded he should be sto­ned, Levit. 24.12.16. Nor doth the example of God so punishing inferre that we ought [Page 117]to do in the like manner: God by Moses punished Theft, (which is a breach of the Moral Law) with a four-fold restitution amongst the Iews, Exod. 22. v. 1. Luc. 19.8. Yet Mr. Selden shews how the strangers in Israel were punished for thievery with death; as also amongst us they are: Nor do I finde the usage to be condemned, though every pettit transgression of the Sabbath we do not punish with death. This then being a Political Law, it cannot oblige us but up­on the account of common equity, and not as a part of the Iewish Polity, for then all the judicial Law would be introduced into Christianity: and since common equity, nor the example of God doth not determine ne­cessarily of the greatness and manner of the punishment, I conceive a moderation requisite, lest for the uncertain satisfying of one Law we run the certain hazard of breaking another, which is that of com­mitting no murther.

This will much more appear, if we con­sider that the prohibition Exod. 22. v. 20. Is directly against Sacrificing, which he that shall expound to be any sort of worship which is commanded not to be appayed to other Gods but Jehovah, It is very hard measure, and a Zeal not according to knowledge, that because the law may without retre [...]ching upon impossibility, be expounded so, therefore the man must dye. speaks more then is in the Text, or can be necessari­ly deduced from any o­ther places of Scripture, wherein if it be some­times [Page 118]used for worship in generall, it doth not follow that it is alwayes so used, and consequently that it must, but that it may be so here. The whole is a fallacious ar­guing from the punishment of one deter­minate species or kind of transgression with death, to the punishment of all that agree therewith in a more large and genericall relation. Adultery may be (and is by our lawes) punished more severely then forni­cation, yet are both forbidden by the same commandement. As for the place in Deut. c. 13. it is directed against prophets and dreamers, things not to be heard of in our dayes, in which those delusions as well as gifts are ceased, and that of Deut 17. v. 2. &c. is a punishment of corporall adorati­ons and service paid to the Sun, Moon and host of Heaven: of which I know not, nor do I hear of any among us: However, since this text thus urged maketh against Paga­nisme and its toleration, I desire that not onely the practise of the Jewes, but of the primitive Christian Emperours be consi­dered, and it will be evident how they did not think themselves concluded thereby. It is no good argument which doth not weigh all circumstances; the opponent must prove that all Common-wealths must be (as to this point) like unto that of Is­rael, that their Magistrates have the same duty incumbent upon them (though, by the way, to destroy Idolaters, and sedu­cers [Page 119]thereunto, Hebraeorum meribus, Hebraeus a Deo & Dei lege deficiens aut ducem se ad f [...]lsos cultus prae­b [...]ns ( Deut 13. [...].) illico a quo­vis homine poterat interfici. Ju­dicium Z [...]l [...] id vocabant Hebraei quod a Phinea primo exercitum aiunt, Num. 25. & inde a­blisse in morem. Sic Jud [...]um quendam Graecis se polluentem ritibus occidit Matthias (2 Maccab. 24.) Sic trecen [...]i alii Judaei a p [...]pularibus suis occisi reseruntur libro qui vulgo dicitur Maccabaeorum tertius. Nec alio obtentu instituta lapidatio in Ste­phanum ( Act. 7.57.) & conju­ratio in Paulum ( Act. 23.13.) multaque alia exempla eiusmo [...]i ex [...]ant & apud Philonem; & a­pud I osephum. Grotius de iur. bell. l. 2. c. 20. §. 8. was no Magistraticall act; and what wonder is it if Je­hu, Josiah and Elijah do that which any member of that politicall consti­tution might doe?) And that the same power not only ought to be, but is actually enstated in them: And when they shall have proved this, we shall grant them liberty of extirpating their I­dolatrous subjects. In the mean while I desire it may be observed, that though it be argued out of the Text Deut. 13. v. 10, 11. that the precept is urged with a per­petuall reason, therefore its force is ever­lasting. [ Cur ob eum finem perlata lex di­citur que perpetuò valere debet? Sic enim scribitur in extrema lege, Ʋt omnes Israelitae audiant & timeant, & nè deinceps rem adeò nefandam designent. Beza de pun. haeret.] Thou shalt stone him with stones that he dye, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God.—And all Israell shall hear and fear and shall do no more any such wickednesse as this is among you. The lat­ter part of which words, however Beza would make them to be a reason for the [Page 120]Action, yet from the words I can gather no more, then that God, to whom nothing is hid, saith that by way of event, it shall happen that such exemplary punish­ments shall be attended with the conse­quent of Israel's obedience: nor will col­lation of texts help us to any more full, and also necessary deduction. And as for the for­mer part, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, though I should grant the reason to be perpetuall: yet doth not it therefore (in Scripture ratio­cination) follow that the law is to be perpe­tual: Such is the case of abstain­ing from blood. Le­vit. 17. v. 10, 11, 13, 14. not to instance in other laws, is not that of the Sabbath enforced with a perpetuall reason as to the determinat day?, and yet do not Divines absolve us from the obligation thereof? Is it not now as true as ever, that in Six dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth and rested the seventh day, wherefore he blessed the Seventh day and hallowed it.

As for Mysticall or Figurative Idolatry I understand not how this text can with any pretense be urged against it, unlesse they will find out some Analogicall punishment: for as such Idolatry is not absolutely Idola­try, but in some proportion (for the extent whereof we have no warrant either in the customary interpretation of penall lawes, which are not to be extended: nor in Scrip­ture, which prohibits all addition to the text upon so severe a curse as one ought not upon probabilityes to run the danger of [Page 121]it) nor they dreamers or false prophets, The Apostle Peter, Epist. 1. cha. 2. saith indeed, That as of old there were false prophets; so under the Gospel there should be false teachers, which should deny the Lord that bought them. Of these he saith, That their Judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their Dam­nation flumbereth not: ( v. 3.) yet doth not be say, they ought to be murthered, or otherwise afflicted, as of old under the Law; but leaves them to God to be punished, as were those of Sodom: he reserves the unjust unto the Day of Judgment to be punished: ( v. 9) and those false teachers bring upon themselves sw [...]ft destruction: (va [...]) which nei­ther was then, nor for some hun­dreds of years after inflicted on them by the M [...]gistrate. In that place of Peter I further observe in the natural signification of the words, That Heresie (as it is else­where called a work of the flesh) is distinct from their denying of the Lord that bought them. So that per­nicious Heresiae ( [...]) is not a spiritual thing, but a facti­ou or seditious joyning and siding with some Opinionist. but in some proportion, (the prophet and dreamer be­ing expresly such as shall give a sign or wonder and seduce them to the wor­ship of strange Gods, or Idols, of which kind he that would make every discrepant or false noti­on in Theology, must have recourse to other Glossaryes then I can admit of) why then is there no restriction upon the punishment? Or if it must stand for all Analo­gical Idolatry, I hope that before they be pu­nished with death who are not termed Ido­laters in Scripture, though they be termed Heretiques and Schismatiques; that they who are positively in Scripture so termed, shall be the first sufferers, and then the co­vetous will not scape free, nor they who are most vehement for persecution, since Covetousnesse is (a work of the flesh, as Heresy, It doth not appear from the text, Gal. 5.20. that Heresy is a worke of the flesh as we do usual­ly take the vvord, but it signifies th [...]re a s [...]iding or factious b [...]andy­ing. and which the latter is not called but distinct from it, Gal. 5.20.) I­dolatry. [Page 122]Coloss. 3.5. But to shew the diffe­rence between Heretiques and Idolaters? is it not sufficient that the old Law con­demn [...]s them to death, and yet from Ez­ras time, or not long after, Tolērated these? and that the Apostle bids us only a­void, whom they say kill, fire, banish? Tit. 3.10▪ A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition reject [ [...] excuse your self unto: so Luc. 14.18.] know­ing that he that is such is subverted, and sin­neth, being condemned of himself. Con­cerning Heresy, the word is not alwayes taken in a bad sense: the Sadduces are cal­led an Heresy Act. 5.17. and the Pharisees, Act. 15.5. and Christianity it self Act. 28.22. and as often as I hear it mentioned al­most, me thinks I hear men speak as of a People that in a time of idlenesse and im­plicite faith dare enquire into the state of things, and imploy their judgment. Surely the case is very hard, if they who having done all that was in their power to try all things, if they misse of the truth, and hold fast not which is good, but which seems so, either thorough invincible igno­rance, or such as he that made us knowes humane frailty to be lyable unto; if they I say, shall not be in as good a condi­tion as those who received the Truth with­out tryall, and embraced it upon no bet­ter an account then custome, education, or interest. But however that I have no aversion [Page 123]upon this account for Heresy when it is named, yet I do not relish accordingly that of Heretique. [...]. [...]. For this latter de­notes a person given to change, often choosing, or apt to doe so; now I am advi­sed by the wise man, Prov. 24.21. Not to meddle with those that are given to change: whereunto I may subjoyne the Apostles reason prealledged, knowing that he, that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being con­demned of himself▪ Questionlesse the fickle and unstable minded are subverted in their principle, and when they embraced that which is good, they do it upon such an ac­count as a Christian hath little reason not to reject, or excuse himself to them: and they having such a sense of their own in­stability, that they are clouds carryed with a temper, trees whose fr [...]it withereth, with­out fruit, mistake or offend, and condemn themselves in such their lapses, at least of a mutability not becoming the spirit of God. The converse wich such, is like what the Apostle saith of Younger widowes, refuse them [ [...] the word is the same in both places] For when they begin to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry: ha­ving damnation, because they have cast off their first faith, 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. But allowing the common notion of the word (if there be any common notion thereof, or certain definition, which I am ignorant of, as not knowing in this case what to professe, where [Page 124]the Spirit of God is silent) let there have been such a thing in Pauls time, when men could joyn to the Church of God, and yet condemn themselves in such their pra­ctise, whilst they embraced opinions diffe­rent from what the Apostles (upon whom the Church was built, and who were as the Ʋrim and Thummim under the old Testa­ment before the Captivity) did reveal and determine of: that such were to be de­clined after one or two admonitions, that such were subverted, that such did sin, and were self condemned, and might be known under the circumstances aforesaid for such, is to me undoubted. But why did not Paul (having here occasion to speak of Heresy, and what was to be done thereupon) ordain, or give some item that for the present they should only avoid them, but in after times, (when they should have lesse of the Spirit of God, and more of the arm of flesh to assist them) then they should hang, burn, imprison, and fine them. No: he was farre from that, as Christ was from saying to his Apostles, Go your wayes; behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves for the present, Luc. 10.3. but when you shall have got strength [not that strength which I put upon you, whereby Ananias and Saphira shall fall, and others shall be delivered to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, but saving the spirit: but] such strength as the Kings of this world will contribute [Page 125]unto you, then do you become wolves also, or if you retain your sheepish-nature, at least put on wolves cloathing. In a word the Heretick here is subverted, is self-con­demned, and known for such by him who is enjoyned to avoid him: if there be any such Hereticks in our dayes, he that can discern them, let him avoid them; but destroy them not till further orders. Thus I have done with the case of Idolatry, in the disquisition whereof I am not only at a loss in reference to the nature of Heresie, the Judge of Heresie, and the power to punish it, together with the punishment it self; but I am dis-satisfied whether it be not com­manded to be tolerated in the Parable of the Tares, Matth. 13. v. 24. By the Tares is not meant wicked and ungodly livers; for then had Christ abolished Magistracy, when he prohibited the extirpating such ( v. 30.) to whom the Magistrate ought to be a terror, and not to bear the Sword, (as these their Sickles) in vain: nor is it meant of Heresies (as they are distinguished from Heathenism) it being no inoculation of trees, but a sowing of different feeds, which in the conclusion of the Parable are the Children of the wicked one, opposed to the Children of the Kingdom: in fine they are burned in the fire; whereas of most Heresies I dare only say that the professors of them shall escape, but as it were by fire.

I come now to speak of Blasphemy and [Page 126]the Blasphemers, which who they are I see not how I may well determine. It is the general vogue of the Jews, that it extends in the penal part of the Law unto a bare pro­nunciation of the sacred name Jehovah, or to a reviling insolently the Ʋnity, Verity, or Power of God: as hath been shewed. Mate­rial blasphemy or the professing a Religion or worship which in effect repugns to the Truth, Unity, and Power of God, is not the thing prohibited or punished: hence was the Toleration of old amongst the Jews, and of Heathens amongst the Christians, as also of Arians, &c. who if they had been concluded under this Law, should be cen­sured with death, and not slight or no pe­nalties. To dispute against the greatest truths seems not to have been accounted con­demnable blasphemy; for when Paul was at Ephesus, he disputed with others, and they with him concerning the things of the kingdom: he said they were no Gods that were made with hands, yet doth the Town-Clerk give Paul and his followers this te­stimony, that they were neither robbers of Churches, nor yet blasphemers of the Ephesian goddess, Act. 19.37. This text puts me in minde of a general opinion which Baronius doth avow, [ Tom. 1. ad ann. 57.] that the Jews and Christians did generally hold, that even the Heathen Gods were not to be reviled, or contumeliously spoken against. Josephus re­counteth it for one of Moses his Laws, Let [Page 127]none blaspheme such as the other cities shall esteem as Gods, Antic. l. 4. c. 8. [...]. The same Authour in his second Book against Appian having interested the innocency and inte­grity of the Jews, declines all bitter di­scourses and declamations against the Gods of the Heathen, saying, It is our custom to observe our own laws, [...]. not to accuse those of others. Our Lawgiver hath directly prohibited us to revile or blaspheme such as are reputed Gods by others, for of much as they bear the name of God. And Philo saith that Moses did not so much as permit the Proselytes of justice, or such as did entire­ly profess Judaism to blaspheme the Gods they had renounced, least it should give occasion to others to blaspheme the true God. [...]. Philo de Monarch, lib. 1. but of this I shall speak more in my proposals how to manage a Toleration, whereunto, though some light may be ga­thered from what I have here laid down, yet if it be found that I have proved the lawfulness and necessity thereof, I shall, ac­cording as God shall enable me with strength and opportunity, and as the pub­like exigency of affairs (whereunto I think my self obliged to contribute all that I [Page 128]can) shall call for it at my hands, I shall endeavour to lay down such a method as thereby we may have that peace with all men, the possibility whereof I have alrea­dy evinced by matter of fact, (and could much more, had I not tyed my self to the Roman and Greeke story) and the necessity whereof we may learne from that Apostoli­call precept, If it be possible, and as farre as lyes in you, have peace with all men Rom. 12.18. Hebr. 12.14.

Much more might be said of Hereticks, and their punishment out of Austin. and how it is generally acknowledged how the Orthodox Christians did never implore the aide of the Magistrate for 400. Years (though the hereticks did) and out of the same Father, I could answer the greatest inconveniences attending this Toleration; which was denyed to the Donatists & Cir­cumcellions, men outragious in their ways, and the latter of which did use to kill with swords and maime the orthodox party, as also to put out their eyes with a mixture of lime and vinegar? And will any one think this an entermedling of the Ma­gistrate in Spirituall matters, if he suppresse these? Did the Magistrate of old ever pun­ish or fine the Pelagians and Jovinians, he­reticks. Quando Pelagianis & Jovinianis ex Caesarum edictis dicta est mulcta? Erasmus de inquisition. and Adversus Pelagium nun­quam agitatum est de implorandâ Caesarum ope, [Page 129]quòd non perinde turbaret Reipub. tranquilli­tatem. id. de haeret. puniend. But I reserve these things for an Appendix to what hath been said, or for a second Edition, in which I shall faithfully represent all Objections that shall be made against this Treatise by private Letters, or which I shall finde in Books, whom I shall as much consult then, as I have herein mine own thoughts.

If any shall think it fitting, either by way of Letter privately, or in Print to op­pose what I have said here; I desire he would explain the nature of Heresie out of Scripture, or else not to think that I will ever grant any necessary conclusions from thence. And that he would shew me why Hereticks of a greater or less allay, and Schismaticks, should become of a worse condition then Pagans: ‘since Dominion is noy founded in Grace? and Excommunica­tion is not the privation of any proper or peculiar good, whereof the Transgres­sor of the Law was formerly possessed; but of those common benefits which he should have reaped from the Church, as of spiritual communion, and receiving the Sacraments,’ Medina in 1. secundae pag. 5 [...]3. q. 96. art. 4. as Medina words it out of Seto. Besides, let them shew how it is that that we come to be within their jurisdicti­on. The Pope and most of the Papists do profess they have no power over them that are without; they say Moores, Jewes, and Pagans ought not to be extirpated, or [Page 130]forced from their Religion: and that over them the Church hath no power. That her power over Hereticks ariseth from their being Rebels, and from their deserting that profession which they have made of faith unto the Church. And their reason is, because every Republick ought to have power to punish offenders. But as to their argument, it is false that Christ hath any such Church or­ganical, as they mean, and as I shall shew (possibly) in a discourse concerning the personal reign of Christ. And if he had any such Chimarical Church, yet would not that be destitute of power to subdue and chastise offenders. For, saith the Apostle, though we walk in the flesh, we do not warre after the flesh: (for the weapons of our war­fare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God, and bringing into capti­vity every thought to the obedience of Christ: And having in readiness to revenge all dis­obedience, when your disobedience is fulfilled. But since it is (or may be stated) that Ba­ptisme is no admission into a particular Church, nor an assent unto the Articles and Confession of a particular Church, but something else: and Babie-baptisme, as established upon the resembling practise of the Jews in their Proselytes of justice, was of no validity (though conferred) unlesse the [Page 131]childe baptized, being come to years of discretion did own the act of the Church or Council: which if he did not, he was not looked upon as an Apostate, but as one that had alwayes been a Gentile:) And I think if we enquire into the usage and judgment of the Ancients, the said Infant-baptisme will amount to no such obligation with­out the Additional of Confirmation. But let these things be true or false, Roffensis in his book against Luther, Art. 33. saith, that he denied both That the Pope could force men to return to the profession of that faith which they once embraced: or punish them for such their relinquishing thereof. Yet in this the Papists deal more ingenuously with those they persecute, then others do: for they shew them a Catholick Church to which they have vowed obedience: They shew them a Judge, and that an infallible authoritative one, so as they can neither dispute the power, nor the equity of the sentence: All which pretenses, though they be vain and empty cosenages, yet is the procedure more fair and rational then if without these formalities and circumstances one should suffer.

To conclude, I should here become an humble Supplyant for those of the Episco­pal Divines, who understanding the princi­ples of that Church-way which they pro­fess, have learned in all conditions to be content: and in their prosperity were [Page 132]neither rash in defining, nor forward in persecuting soberly-tender Consciences. It is certain we owe much to their learned defences of Protestancy against the Papists, and several other their labours: and may reap much more benefit thereby, if they may have a greater security (paying that respect which they ought to their Gover­nours, and praying for them, that they may live peaceably under them) then at present they enjoy in their walkings. In like manner I should plead for such Catho­licks as adhere to the doctrine of Widdring­ton, or Preston and Blackwel, &c. denying the Popes power any way in Temporals, to depose Magistrates, I hope I do not by this Decla­ration reflect upon what hath been publikely noted concern­ing Popery and Prelacy: it be­ing (to me) inconceivable that by those terms any thing should be meant, but the Popes power in temporals: and the Bishops domineering in Parliament as Barons and spiritual Lords to di­spose of lands, or the ci­vil obedience of subjects; such being ready to sa­crifice their lives as well as fortunes for the de­fence of their Heretical Governours in secular lawful quarrels; since this is their judgement, (whatsoever Mr. Baxter ignorantly and foolishly charge the Papists in general with) I DO PROFESSE UNTO THE WORLD, AND ACQUIT MY SELF OF ANY WAY CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR OPPRESSION.

To vindicate the Widdringtonian Catho­licks now in England I shall not recite any particular testimony out of their writings; nor mention Mr. George Blackwell Arch-Presbyter of the English seminary Priests, nor others who upon several occasions have declared themselves; I shall only set down the testimony of thirteen Reverend and learned English Priests (with whom twice thirty o­thers would have joyn­ed, These are all Widd ington: own word in h [...] confutation of T.F part. 1 cap. 5. if their protestation had not been made so suddenly) who to give assurance of their loyalty to the late Queen Elizabeth, did by a publike instrument, written in parchment, thus declare themselves.

I thought fit to publish this their declara­tion, that so all of that religion because of some Italianated or Hispaniolized Authors may not suffer: This hath been the gene­rall doctrine in France and England here­tofore; nor do I doubt but our State might obtain the like declaration in these dayes from multitudes of the Romish Church; who thereupon might enjoy a Toleration moderated according to the con­veniency of the Republique. But as for the Jesuits and such as shall not assent unto some such full, ample, and satisfactory declaration, I think all means are not one­ly necessary but requisite against them, that may secure us from the abettours of a for­reign power, unto which they would sub­ject us: let them rejoyce in a foolish Cano­nization at Rome, whilest they are executed at Tiburne for Traytors. I have been told that the great sufferance of Papists under [Page 140]the late Arch-bishop of Canterbury did ex­tend no further then those I plead for: if so, I must do him the right to lament the condition of great and invidious favorites, whose best actions are lyable to miscon­structions, nor have they any defence a­gainst popular prejudices. It hath been de­clared by the Episcoparians, that they did not suffer for their Religion, Oh! let not us be inferiour to them in goodly professi­ons! Let not us give the one or other cause of being in a fort Martyrs, whilest we become persecutors.