Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	supreme_a	3,134	5	8.5794	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94740	A supplement to the Serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy; published October 1660. In, first, some consideration of the oath of allegiance. Secondly, vindicating of the consideration of the oaths of the Kings supremacy and allegiance, from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn, Samuel Fisher, Samuel Hodgkin, and some others against them, in the points of swearing in some case, and the matters of those oaths. By John Tombes B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1661 (1661)	Wing T1821; Thomason E1084_1; ESTC R207991	39,490	48

said King his heirs or successors or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his heirs and successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty his heirs and successors all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministred unto me and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever And I do make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily willingly and truly upon the true faith of a Christian So help me God The words of King JAMES in his Apology for the Oath of ALLEGIANCE p. 46 c. in his answer to Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter AS the Oath of Supremacy was devised for putting a difference between Papists and them of our profession so was this Oath of Allegiance which Bellarmine would seem to impugn ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papists and the perverse disciples of the Powder-treason In King Henry the eighths time was the Oath of Supremacy first made by him were Thomas Moor and Roffensis put to death partly for refusing of it From his time till now have all the Princes of this Land professing this Religion successively in effect maintained the same and in that Oath only is contained the Kings absolute power to be judge over all persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all forrein powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions Whereas this last made Oath containeth no such matter only medling with the civil obedience of subjects to their Soveraign in meer temporal causes And that the injustice as well as the errour of Bellarmine's gross mistaking in this point may yet be more clearly discovered I have also thought good to insert here immediately after the Oath of Supremacy the contrary conclusions to all the Points and Articles whereof this other late Oath doth consist whereby it may appear what unreasonable and rebellious points he would drive my subjects unto by refusing the whole body of that Oath as it is conceived For he that shall refuse to take this Oath must of necessity hold all or some of these Propositions following 1. That I King James am not the lawful King of this Kingdom and of all other my Dominions 2. That the Pope by his own authority may depose me If not by his own authority yet by some other authority of the Church or of the See of Rome If not by some other authority of the Church and See of Rome yet by other means with others help he may depose me 3. That the Pope may dispose of my Kingdoms and Dominions 4. That the Pope may give authority to some forrein Prince to invade my Dominions 5. That the Pope may discharge my subjects of their obedience and allegiance to me 6. That the Pope may give licence to one or more of my subjects to bear arms against me 7. That the Pope may give leave to my subjects to offer violence to my person or to my Government or to some of my subjects 8. That if the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose me my subjects are not to bear faith and allegiance to me 9. If the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose me my subjects are not bound to defend with all their power my Person and Crown 10. If the Pope shall give out any sentence of excommunication or deprivation against me my subjects by reason of that sentence are not bound to reveal all conspiracies and treasons against me which shall come to their hearing and knowledge 11. That it is not heretical and detestable to hold that Princes being excommunicated by the Pope may be either deposed or killed by their subjects or any other 12. That the Pope hath power to absolve my subjects from this Oath or from some part thereof 13. That this Oath is not administred to my subjects by a full and lawful authority 14. That this Oath is to be taken with equivocation mental evasion or secret reservation and not with the heart and good will sincerely in the faith of a Christian man These are the true and natural branches of the body of this Oath In the book intitled God and the King imprinted at London 1615. by King James his special priviledge and command p. 27. is thus said The matter or main subject of this Oath which is the principal thing whereof I conceive you desire to have a more distinct and full understanding may to this purpose be resolved into these ensuing assertions 1. Our Soveraign Lord King James is the lawful King of this Kingdom and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries 2. The Pope neither by his own authority nor by any other authority of the Church or of the See of Rome nor by any other means with any others help can depose his Majesty 3. The Pope cannot dispose of any of his Majesties Kingdoms and Dominions 4. The Pope cannot give authority to any forraign Prince to invade his Dominions 5. The Pope cannot discharge his subjects of their allegiance unto his majesty 6. The Pope cannot give licence to one or more of his subjects to bear arms against him 7. The Pope cannot give leave to any of his subjects to offer violence unto his Royal person or to his Government or to any of his Majesties subjects 8. Although the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose his Majesty or absolve his subjects from their obedience notwithstanding they are to bear faith and true allegiance unto his Majesty 9. If the Pope shall by sentence excommunicate or depose his Majesty nevertheless his subjects are bound to defend his Person and Crown against all attempts and conspiracies whatsoever 10. If the Pope shall give out any sentence of excommunication or deprivation against his Majesty notwithstanding his subjects are bound to reveal all conspiracies and treasons against his Majesty which shall come to

Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples would never by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine for when the disciples of Christ supposing they might use violence as under the law would have commanded fire to come from heaven as Elias did to consume them that would not receive them Christ turned and rebuked saying ye know not what spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Answ To be Governor in things and causes spiritual and Ecclesiastical is ascribed to the King as King and not as a Christian for a Christian as a Christian hath not the Government of any others besides himself in any causes and he is Governor in Ecclesiastical causes as well as temporal But he is not governor in temporal things as a Christian but as a King although it is true that a Christian is better fitted to govern in both causes in that he is a Christian his Christianity by framing his spirit to wisedom justice clemency c. producing more aptitude to govern though not more authority and therefore were there not in this part of the Petition sundry mistakes by which those Petitioners incommodate and harm themselves and others and there seems to be some reflection on my book of the Serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy I should let this pass But for these reasons I shall a little examine what is said 1. The mistake is continued as if by acknowledging the King supreme Governor in spiritual things he had a power given him to be Lord over anothers faith which were indeed to ascribe that to the King which the Pope takes on him to determine what a Christian is to believe which Hart the Jesuite imagined was given to the King by that Oath but was rectified therein by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 10. 2. If by imposing by outward force any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing on the conscience the same mistake is continued which I have before discovered But if by outward force imposing any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing by civil penalties on the outward man something in Gods worship there is need of much caution to determine of their power Civil penalties are greater as death banishment mutilation imprisonment spoiling of estate liberty of trade c. Or less as some small diminution of priviledges office c. The things imposed on men may be either the commands or plain institutions of Christ or some things devised by men as Councils Fathers Prelates c. And these impositions may be either in circumstances of time place order which are undetermined by Christ or in such points of doctrine or worship as are of greater moment and determined by Christ The impositions may be such as are termed by the Apostle hay and stubble or such as overthrow the foundation which is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. such as are impositions tending to Idolatry Superstition Profaneness heresies of perdition blasphemy The imposition may be on Teachers or Learners stronger or weaker Christians to be subscribed to or taught or to be conformed to or professed and this to be done either by bare presence which infers no consent or by some act which shews consent It cannot be denied but that Kings by reason of their errour and rigour have very sadly miscarried in their impositions on Christian brethren in matters of faith and worship there having been many mistakes in the best Councils Fathers Prelates and learned men since the Apostles days who have seldome been so equal as to permit those they have been prejudiced against to debate freely and fully what they hold nor are they heard with that equanimity which were requisite And therefore Princes Parliaments Republiques have made many hard Laws and done innumerable unrighteous executions to shedding of much innocent blood and most heavy oppressions of men either guiltless or not deserving such severe penalties as they have indured I think Kings and Parliaments who see not much with their own eyes but are fain to use the judgements of Learned men and Prelates who are often partial through prejudice or interest or not studied in the points about which they advice do often stand in a very slippery place and that Law-makers and Officers of justice have need of very much circumspection and tenderness ere they make penal Laws in matter of Religion that they should not make heresie by the determinations of any Councils since the Apostles days nor urge subscriptions and conformity under civil penalties but in things plainly set down in holy Scripture that so much liberty to dissents and different usages should be given as may stand with peace Yet that Kings should use no civil penalties on men for any disorders or errours in any matters of saith or worship of God I am not yet convinced by any thing I have read much less by the Arguments of these Petitioners Not by the first For a King may do that which our Lord Christ in his state of humiliation would not do He would not divide an inheritance among brethren Luke 12. 13 14. and yet a king may do it For though Christ was King in right yet he refused at that time to take upon him or to execute the office of a King but took upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2. 7. And therefore a King on his throne is not debarred from doing that which Christ would not do in his debasement And yet even then the Lord Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple and overthrew the tables of the money-changers John 2. 15 16. Mat. 21. 12. I will not now dispute whether Christ did this jure zelotarum by the right that Zelots of the Law among the Jews claimed to themselves or jure Regio by the right of a King under which notion acclamation was made to him when he rode on an Ass into Jerusalem Luke 19. 38. after which he did expel the buyers and sellers out of the Temple ver 45. nor whether this be a good proof for Magistrates to intermeddle in matters of Religion as it hath been argued by Mr. Cobbet of New England It is sufficient for my present purpose that the alledging of Christs example by these Petitioners is so far from making against the Kings power in Ecclesiastical causes that it rather makes for it Nor is it against the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical that the Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples never would by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine For besides what is already said of Christs example there is a great difference to be made between professed infidels and disorderly Christians between planting of the Gospel at first and resorming Christians who have in shew received it there may be reason to do the latter by civil penalties though not the former though men are not to be

and they are the only witnesses to give in evidence out of charity and justice to swear for ending of strife Richard Hubberthorn addes something against what I argue in proof of the fourth Proposition omitting any shew of answer to my sixth Argument for my first Proposition and passing over the second and third I alledged to prove this Proposition That the King is the only supreme Governor in all his Dominions the example and rule of Christ Mat. 22. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. Luke 2. 51. which he saith I bring to prove an oath of Supremacy to King Caesar which is not true it being brought to prove a supremacy over all persons not an oath of supremacy and so all his answer is impertinent The Argument stands good Christ himself did acknowledge subjection to Caesar and his parents therefore no Prelate is exempt from the Kings government Richard Hubberthorn addes John Tombes saith That Paul a Saint was subject to the judgement of Caesar and appealed to him then he acknowledged him supreme c. Ergo. Ans Paul was a prisoner for the word of God and testimony of Jesus and appealed to Caesar for justice because he was unjustly accused and had not done any thing worthy of bonds or of death therefore according to their law he ought to be set free but Paul did not call Caesar the Supreme Head of the Church and chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things for if Caesar had been the supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would but have needed little appealing unto for setting him at liberty but in such Arguments as Tombes hath used is manifest the ignorance of foolish men wherein their folly appeareth to all men as the Scripture saith 2 Tim. 3. 9. I reply 'T is true I alledged Pauls example Acts 25. 8 10. to prove the King Supreme Governor over all persons in his Dominions and Acts 23. 29. and 24. 5 6 8 10. and 25. 8 11 19 21. and 26. 2 3. to prove him Governor in all Causes or Chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things not to prove Caesar Supreme Head of the Church as R. H. misrepresents me Now he shews not any defect in my proof taken from matter of fact related in the Text but tels us If Caesar had been Supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would have needed little appealing which is to alter the conclusion and to say nothing to that point which was in question nor to answer the proof at all which all that know the rules of arguing know to be ridiculous and indeed very foolish Speeding no better in answering my Arguments R. H. proceeds to his wonted course of invectives against my person which I am necessitated to take notice of because they are impediments to many of receiving the truth I teach and do so fill people with prejudice that their ears are stopped from hearkning to the clearest demonstrations and they are carried away with the vain conceits of Quakers and other blind guides He tels me That my Ministry if received would beget men from their holy and harmless state into transgression of Christs command and from the tenderness of conscience into hardness of heart and saith When I say the Oath of Supremacy was imposed for excluding of the Popes jurisdiction c. if so why dost thou preach it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians who are redeemed from the Popes power and jurisdiction that I am a miserable comforter to tender consciences that my end is seen and therefore cannot deceive many that those holy persons who are tender of an oath ought to be my teachers who am far from righteousness or tenderness of conscience that it is a shame for me to be an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences who profess my self a Minister of Christ that it is manifest my Ministry is to bring people into condemnation in which he falsly accuseth me that I am an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences that I preath it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians because to free them from the snare which the Law of the Land brings them into by reason of their denying to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance I have endeavoured out of compassion to their souls to prove to them that such swearing may be lawful It is not I that impose the Oaths on them but the Law and the Officers that are to execute it nor did I preach it up to be imposed on tender consciences but after it was imposed on them by others and my Petition with others to his Majesty for the release thereof without the desired effect I did upon advise and importunity publish the writing about it to free them from mistakes who scrupled the thing there being then in appearance no other way for the liberty and help of many then imprisoned and more liable to imprisonment for their refusal to swear then by shewing them the lawfulness of that for denying of which they suffered and therefore they might without danger to their souls and much benefit to themselves in their outward estate take an expedite course for their peace Which charity that thinketh no evil that hopeth all things believeth all things 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. if there had been any in R. H. would not have construed to have been done to any evil end but out of love and mercy to men for their good and for the great advantage of them that are of the same judgement with me in point of baptism that it may not be imputed to them as their common tenent that they allow no Oaths no not in judicial proceedings which is interpreted as tending to the overthrow of all civil Government and so the persons counted intolerable which hath caused and is yet likely to cause great persecution to those that hold the truth about baptism In which thing I bless God I have not been so miserable a comforter but that I know my self of many and am told of more hundreds yea thousands who have had their liberty and their families saved from ruine by reason of the clearing of the point to them in that book and if some after their swearing have been disquieted in spirit because of their Oath it is not to be imputed to that book but their own weakness or such affrightments as R. H. and others do put upon them I refuse not to be taught by R. H. or any other but sure I am in this thing R. H. yields me no light to rectifie me but by his false accusations of me as far from righteousness as bringing men into condemnation by my Ministry c. gives me occasion to fear that he is led by an evil spirit so venomous a tongue discovering a malicious poisoned heart My answer to the grand objection from Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. James 5. 12. was that there must of necessity be some limitation of Christs speech as of the next speech ver 38

made Christians by civil penalties sith Religion is not to be inforced but perswaded yet being Christians they may be corrected by civil penalties As the Apostle Paul though he said what have I to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. yet did not exclude Ecclesiastical penalties on them that are within no more are they that are within freed from civil penalties in some things Ecclesiastical because they are within though perhaps they that are without are not to be compelled to come in And yet it is not proved that a King may not use some civil penalties especially denying of favours and priviledges to them that embrace not the faith or rather it is certain he ought so to put a difference between Christians and infidels godly Christians and profane loose ones that the former may have that encouragement and benefit which others have not according to Davids example Psal 101. which a King ought to follow As for the speech of Christ Luke 9. 54 55 56. it serves much less for the Petitioners purpose For 1. The reason of the disciples desire of calling fire from heaven was not their not receiving them or their doctrine as Christian but as Jews For the Samaritans did not receive Christ because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem ver 53. which shews that their not receiving him was out of the hatred they bare to him as a Jew and to the worship which was at Jerusalem according to what we read of the Samaritans Joh. 4. 9 20. 8. 48. And therefore this is not to the present purpose of Christs denying power to the Civil Magistrate to inflict civil penalties on the non-receivers of his doctrine 2. The fact of the Samaritans was far different from the fact of the Captains that came to take Elijah 2 Kings 1. chap. For they came to take Elijah to destroy him these only did not receive Christ those doubtless were worshippers of Baal and joyned with the King of Israel to uphold idolatry and to persecute the Prophets and Worshippers of the true God which made them more justly objects of wrath and Divine vengeance then the Samaritans were 3. That which the disciples would have had fall on the Samaritans was fire from heaven to destroy them which was too great a punishment for that neglect But this doth not prove that a lesser and proportionable penalty may not be inflicted on some disorderly Christians by a Civil Magistrate 4. The disciples were but private persons and were carried with a private and selfish spirit even the desire of private revenge and therefore Christ rebukes them as not minding with what spirit they were moved which hinders not but that a publique Magistrate ex zelo justitiae with a publique spirit out of zeal of justice may inflict some proportionable civil penalties on Christians who are his subjects for some offences in spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes But say the Petitioners 2. If any men under heaven have had any such power in the dayes of the Gospel the Apostles and Elders in the Primitive times must needs have had it but this they disowned The Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 1. 24. saith thus Not for that we have dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy for by faith you stand yea the Lord Jesus when they strove for Domination forbids it saying ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great do exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so amongst you Mat. 20. 25 26. even so saith Peter speaking to the Elders Feed the flock of God which is amongst you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind neither as being Lords over Gods heritage but being examples to the flock 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. And in truth the Apostles and disciples were not to use any external force to carry on their masters work but only by shewing the terrours of the Lord were to perswade men and in case of resistance to shake the dust from their feet as a witness against their opposers Answ 1. To have dominion over our faith that is to appoint authoritatively what we shall believe what not so as that if we believe not we sin against God and are liable to his wrath is peculiar to Christ the great Prophet of the Church Acts 3. 22 23. To the Apostles themselves Christ said Mat. 23. 10. Neither be ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ Neither the Pope nor any Council of Bishops or Elders much less Kings and Parliaments who take not upon them to be teachers in the Church can prescribe to us our Creed or form of Worship of God any otherwise then Christ and his Apostles from him have delivered them to us Nor doth the Oath of Supremacy ascribe to them such power and authority but it hath been disclaimed as is before shewed Nevertheless Princes may require those under their Dominions to worship God in Christ according to the plain direction of the Scriptures of the new Testament and if they set up idols blaspheme the God of heaven c. may inflict civil punishment they may forbid and punish the teaching of some doctrines tending to the reproach of Religion destructive of Christianity of Civil Government provided they be very wary that they do not judge by any other then the plain declarations of the holy Scripture and not by the authority of any Councils or Fathers sith as it is in the 21. Article of the Church of England General Councils have erred and may erre in things pertaining to God and the punishment be so proportioned and qualified as may agree with justice equity prudence clemency and other vertues requisite in them that rule over others Nor 〈◊〉 that which is here alledged of validity to disprove it For 1. It is not rightly supposed that Princes have not in the days of the Gospel a power in matters of Religion which the Apostles and Elders in the Primitive times had not The contrary is proved in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of Supremacy in the confirmation of the 4th and 5th Propositions The Apostles and Elders as messengers of Christ and Pastors of the Church had their peculiar authority which Princes are not to usurp and Princes have their peculiar power and authority to which every soul is to be subject neither have dominion over our faith and however Popes claim it our Princes disclaim it 2. The Text Mat. 20. 25 26. is rightly urged by Protestants against the Popes usurpation as I shew in my Romanism discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. but not rightly urged against Christians being civil Magistrates nor against Princes being governors over all persons in their dominions in spiritual things That which is there forbidden is rule in the Apostles over one another after the manner of the Kings of the Nations 3. The Text 1 Pet. 5. 2

3. is much less to the purpose it being only a precept to Teachers and Elders of the Church concerning the exercise of their Ecclesiastical function nothing to the restraint of Princes from the exercise of their office in things and causes spiritual 4. The Apostles only perswading shewing the terrours of the Lord shaking off the dust of their feet are ill alledged to exclude Princes from their power of governing all persons in all causes The Apostles and Elders did not bear the sword as Princes do It would be of very bad consequence if in case of resistance they might do no more then the Apostles were to do in case their doctrine were received or opposed It is added by the Petitioners thus 3. It is very plain that the Lord Jesus himself in his parable of the tares and wheat forbids any force to be exercised upon false worshippers as such for by the tares which he forbids the pulling up Mat. 13. 29. cannot be intended the transgressors of the second Table such as thieves murderers c. because all confess with one consent that the Magistrates authority reaches such but those that Christ Jesus would have remain amongst his wheat in the field of the world are the children of the wicked one through Idolatry and will-worship this will further appear if the 28 29 30. ver be compared with the 38 39. of the same Chapter and the reason the Lord Jesus gives why both tares and wheat must grow together O King that it were engraven with the point of a diamond and often laid before thee is least in gathering up the tares the wheat also be rooted up with them Answ Parables are a way of teaching much used of old in the Eastern Countries as appears by Jotham's parable Judg. 9. Nathans parable 2 Sam. 12. and they are narrations of things perhaps never done yet related as if they had been so acted as they are told that by the resemblance the thing intended may more easily insinuate it self into the minds of the persons to be instructed by the parable Now there are in such parables two parts the one the devised story the other the intended doctrine to be learnt by it which is sometimes opened as Mat. 13. which we term the application or explication and sometimes left to be gathered by the auditors as Luke 14. 16 c. Luke 15. 11 c. and even Mat. 13. 31 32 33 44 45 46. In the devised story are many things inserted as lace in a garment or carvings in a building or pictures in a Map which are only for comeliness in the speech more handsome dress of the speech or filling it up and yet are not doctrinal nor argumentative as from the parable Luke 16. 23 24 25. it would be vain to teach men that those in hell may see those in Abrahams bosome and speak one to another And therefore it is a rule in Divinity that such symbolical expressions are not argumentative any further then their application explication or scope appears to be Now the parable Mat. 13. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. being distinctly opened by Christ from ver 36. to 44. it is unsafe to conclude any more from it then Christ hath done in his explication I know this passage Mat. 13. 29 30. hath been much urged for the toleration of men corrupt in matters of faith and worship by the civil Magistrate without civil penalties specially such as are destructive of mens being But what ever be said of the conclusion this Text serves not to the purpose For 1. It is no part of the application or explication ver 36. to ver 44. and therefore is to be counted only a filling up of the devised story and therefore not doctrinal or argumentative 2. There is no proof That by the children of the wicked one ver 38. are meant only Idolaters and wil-worshippers Yea these reasons seem to prove that others are meant to wit wicked men who are transgressors of the second Table of the Law as well as the first 1. That the children of the wicked one are ver 41. termed all scandals or things that do offend and them that do iniquity or that which is not agreeable to Gods Law 2. John 8. 44. 1 John 3. 10 12. haters of their brethren and murderers and liars are termed children of the Devil or wicked One as well as Idolaters or will-worshippers 3. The children of the wicked One seem to be all sorts of men who are of Satans sowing 4. All those who are not children of the Kingdome but are to be cast into a furnace of fire Ver. 38. 42. are termed tares and these are not only Idolaters will-worshippers heretiques but all other sorts of sinners such as are mentioned 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. and elsewhere Nor are the reasons valid here produced to the contrary For 1. It followes not thieves and murderers and others whom confessedly the authority of the Magistrate here reacheth are not here meant therefore not other transgressors of the second Table but Idolaters will-worshippers heretiques 2. Nor doth it follow Christ would not have thieves murderers and other transgressors of the second Table remain among the wheat but to be plucked up therefore they are not here meant by the tares but Idolaters and will-worshippers as if Christ would have all transgressors of the second Table plucked up none of the transgressors of the first which is all one as to say Christ would have all liars covetous unrighteous persons in any kind destroyed not any Witch Atheistical scoffer Blasphemer Idolater profane person 3. It is not proved that by the servants of the housholder are meant the civil Magistrate why not the Angels termed reapers ver 39. These Petitioners after make them the Apostles will they have them to tolerate Idolaters in the Church 4. Were it granted that here were meant only Idolaters will-worshippers heretiques how is it proved that this is a precept to civil Magistrates There is no such precept in the application or explication of the parable and therefore it seems to me not to note the duty of the civil Magistrate but the event of Gods providence that God would permit the cohabitation of the wicked in the world with the just as is also taught in the parable of the net ver 47 48 49 50. Not that Magistrates or Ministers should permit them and not by civil punishment or Ecclesiastical remove them out of the Church or the world Lastly it follows not Magistrates may not destroy Idolaters will-worshippers therefore they may not inflict any civil punishment from the species to the genus negatively an argument concludes not These Petitioners further tell us How sad it is to remember how in all ages since Christ very strange mistakes have been on this account the Lord of life himself was put to death for supposed blasphemie and wickedness and accused for being an enemy to Caesar Mat. 26. 65. John 19. 12. and this done unto him by a people