that had the Law of God amongst them and were famous in the world for their earthly wisdom and knowledge Stephen was stoned and James the Apostle killed with the sword supposed to be tares or the children of the wicked One when they were the pretious wheat of God Acts 6. 13 14. and 12. 2. The Christians that suffered in the ten persecutions were they not accused of being pestilent fellows movers of sedition turners of the world upside down enemies to Caesar Acts 24. 5 12. and 17. 6 7. when the contrary was most true and they will be found to be the faithful martyrs of Jesus So in latter times many of those that have been put to death for heresie and blasphemy are by this age acknowledged to be the Saints of God O King that our words might be acceptable to thee consider that neither thy Self nor Counsellors have the spirit of infallibility if the Apostles that had an extraordinary spirit of discerning must not pluck up the tares lest they root up the wheat also how can any Prince on earth undertake a work so dangerous It is possible many of those that are counted false worshippers and hereticks in this day may at the time when God shall judge the world in righteousness be servants of the most high God Remember we pray thee that those that lived in the days of the Lord Jesus accused their fathers for being guilty of the blood of the Prophets saying If we had been in the days of our Fathers we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets Mat. 23. 29 30. yet themselves killed the Lord of life The Romish Church also saith if we had lived in the days of the heathen Emperors we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Christians yet puts to death many as righteous as they were and now many of thy subjects in this Nation are ready to say If we had lived in the days of Queen Mary we would not have been guilty with our Fathers in the blood of those good men that then suffered yet such a spirit of persecution is now risen up as if not restrained will terminate in the blood of many good men and so bring down the wrath of God upon this generation and there will be no remedy Answ I could eccho out all this after them were not this alledged as a ground of their denial of the taking the Oath of the Kings Supremacy It is a good wish that the King would deeply consider and remember all this some acts of his give cause to think he doth and to hope he will remember it I said somewhat to the same effect in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and such things as have lately hapned give still cause to inculcate this that his Majesty his Counsel and Ministers of justice have need of very much circumspection how they imprison and other ways punish men for their dissent from that which is established in matters of faith and worship sith this power of punishing for supposed heresies errours and schisms hath been so unhappily and unrighteously managed as gives cause to fear that it neither was nor will nor can be well used without destruction of many innocent persons God forbid I should justifie any abuse or neglect according to my power and place the seeking of reformation Nevertheless all this amounts not to a sufficient ground or reason to deny the Kings Supremacy in spirituals sith the like abuses happen in temporal things and yet these Petitioners deny not the promise yea and that indeed in words of swearing of obedience in temporal causes We might make a Catalogue of Sauls Davids Solomons and others oppressions in temporal things shall we therefore deny their regal power in them no but acknowledge the power and oppose the abuse yet not by arms or other unpeaceable ways but by Petitions to the Rulers prayers to God patient suffering which are the weapons whereby Christians conquer For which reason I except not against that which the Petitioners adde 4. To inflict temporal punishmemts upon any of us thy subjects for not conforming to thy decrees that restrain us from the worship that we know to be of God Is it not a breach of that royal law that commands thee that whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do you even so to them for this is the law and the Prophets Mat. 7. 12. And we would in all humility offer to thy consideration if thy soul were in our souls stead wouldest thou be satisfied with the same measure as is now dealt unto us when neither the God of heaven nor our own consciences condemn us of any evil intended against thy person or authority Nor can the greatest of our enemies make any due proof of any combination or plotting with any upon the face of the earth for the disturbance of the publique peace And this we can with boldness say because we know our own innocency Yet cannot this be a sufficient ground of denying the Kings Supremacy in spirituals nor is the proof of that Supremacy enervated by what follows But whereas it is objected that the Kings of Israel and Judah under the old Testament had power in spiritual causes and did punish blasphemy and Idolatry which are crimes of the highest nature against God we confess they had such power which was given to them in plain precepts written in the law of Moses but the Gospel that we live under is another dispensation in which the Lord Jesus is the only Law-giver who doth not as Moses proceed against the transgressors of his precepts by external force and power to the destroying them in their bodies and estates in this life but in long suffering waits on men not willing they should perish but rather that they should repent and be saved 2 Thes 1. 9. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Acts 17. 31. and when any continues in disobedience to the Gospel his punishment is eternal in the world to come The Apostle Paul testifies of himself that he was a blasphemer and perescuter 1 Tim. 1. 20. And if the mind of God had been that he should have suffered death in that condition how should he have had repentance given him and been such a glorious instrument in the Church as he was Furthermore it is too well known that the Jews are the greatest blasphemers against our Lord Jesus Christ as are on the earth yet it is not the mind of the Lord they should be destroyed from the face of the earth for how then should the Scripture be fulfilled wherein God hath promised to call them and to make them the most glorious Nation of the world Oh how can they be converted if they be not permitted where the Gospel is preached We speak not this in favour of any blasphemy for our souls abhor it but because we would have the lives of men as precious in thy eyes O King as they are in
39 40 41 42. and many more places which I then did not recite but shall now refer the Reader to some of them Mat. 5. 29 30. Mat. 6. 17 19. 25. 34. Mat. 7. 1. Mat. 10. 28. Mat. 23. 3 8 9. Luke 6. 30. John 6. 27. which with many more if they were understood without limitation would cross other Texts of holy Scripture and such truths as are undeniable and introduce such evils as are intolerable And that Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. is to be limited I proved it from the Angels and Pauls swearing and adjuring after that precept which shews they understood it with limitation and so are we to understand it and that it is to be limited as I there set down I proved from the words of the Text there and elsewhere Hereto R. H. speaketh thus Indeed it doth plainly appear that thou must of necessity either disprove Christs words or else deny thy own seeing they are contrary the one to the other so therefore thou saist that it was those oaths above mentioned that was forbidden by Christ and the Apostles and I shall shew it plainly that thou hast no necessity to limit Christs words to vain and prophane swearing but only that thou wouldst have thy words true and his false for Christs words in Mat. 5. do not intend such oaths for he speaks of the true oaths which was used among the Jews and such oaths as Christ told them they were to perform for it was not said in old time that they should perform vain light prophane unnecessary customary and passionate oaths but such as they were to perform betwixt the Lord and them and the solemn Vows and Covenants which they made in old time to their Kings and one to another the Christians now by the command of Christ was not to swear these oaths neither any oath true nor false To which I reply 'T is true Christ spake of true oaths to be performed to the Lord as the occasion of his precept did lead him to speak But it is true also that our Lord Christ forbids not such oaths universally nor as they were used in old time among the Jews and to their kings and one unto another but as the Pharisees and other teachers interpreted what was said to them of old time that what was said to them did bind no further then not to break their oaths but to perform them to the Lord otherwise they might swear as oft as they would and in what manner they pleased But this Christ denied and determines they might not swear frequently unnecessarily with such oaths as they used and conceits of the obligation of some and not others as the Text leads us to conceive and the reasons by me given prove the words are to be limited to which R. H. hath given no answer and therefore my answer and whole dispute stands good notwithstanding the opposition of R. H. and S. F. And for the insinuations of R. H. that this is preaching of the lawfulness of swearing or sinning against Christs command and that such teachers are given to change with every government and that they preach as the false prophets did for handfuls of barley and pieces of bread they are but a further continuation of his revilings it being no teaching against but expounding of Christs command nor have we changed our doctrine or principles with change of government but shewed subjection to the powers that be as Paul injoins Rom. 13. 1 2. Nor do we look at wages any otherwise then we are allowe nor conceive we are bound by any law of Christ or his Apostles to refuse or neglect more liberal maintenance be it by tithes or other pay assigned by law then that which is by meer alms or voluntary contribution which in most places is so scant that persons of worth are necessitated to live in a sordid manner or people are necessitated to take persons of little worth and thereby the Ministry is debased the people untaught or ill taught such ignorant and corrupt men as R. H. seems to be by his writing creep in among men and pervert them That which R. H. saith the Jews sware by the living God but the Apostates by the book insinuates as if such were apostates as swear thus and that they swear by the book and not by the living God But neither doth he prove that they who teach the lawfulness of some swearing are apostates from Christianity any more then holy Paul who hath left upon record in holy Scripture his oaths after he was an Apostle nor is this form of swearing So help me God and by the Contents of this book any other then swearing by the living God made known in that book and pawning our interest in his help according to the doctrine and promises in that book expressed by laying the hand on the book as formerly by coming before the altar 1 Kings 8. 31. 2 Chron. 6. 22. as a sign of our abandoning our interest in Gods help made known in that book if we speak not truth I find in an humble petition of some prisoners in Maidston dated January 25. that they cannot acknowledge any authority that God hath given the King in spiritual things or causes and they thus argue If thou hast any power to be a Lord over our faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God on our consciences it is given unto thee as thou art a Magistrate or as thou art a Christian but thou hast no such power given unto thee of God as thou art a Magistrate appears 1. Because if Magistrates as such have such an authority then all Magistrates in all Nations have the same power In Turky I must be a Mahometan in Spain a Papist and for ever as the authority changes Religion I must do the same 2. Because the Apostles refused to be obedient to their rulers when they were commanded to forbear that which they judged part of the worship of God Acts 4. 19. Acts 5. 29. 3. All the Scriptures of the new Testament that injoyns obedience unto Magistrutes were written when the Romans had the Empire of the world whose Emperours were for the most part if not all heathenish idolaters for the first 300 years until Constantine 's time it therefore cannot be supposed that any of these Texts of Scripture that calls for obedience to Magistrates intends an obedience in matters of faith or worship for then the Christians that lived under those Emperours must needs have denied Christ and worshipped the Roman gods as some of the Emperours commanded Answ Though in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy there is that said which might have prevented this objection yet being willing to clear the truth more fully I say 1. That it is not rightly supposed That by outward force any thing in the worship of God may be imposed on mens consciences For though by outward force things may be imposed on the outward man and
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
the eyes of the righteous and most holy God Answ It is true that I alledged in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy the power of the Kings of Israel in spirituals to prove the King to be Governor in spiritual causes I did not nor was it necessary I should assert the same power every way or the justice of proceeding now by the same Laws which were in many things appropriate to the policy of that Nation nor am I of opinion that the judicial laws of Moses bind us any farther then their common equity nor do I think it necessary we should fetch our Laws from them they being in many things fitted to the policy of that people which is different from ours Nor do I deny that there is not the same reason of punishing some idolatry and blasphemy of professed Christians as was of punishing the idolatry and blasphemy of the Israelites in the worshipping of the golden Calf Baal Ashtaroth Molech there being such special warnings given them before such great things done by God for them as made their engagement greater and their revolt to other gods worse and more detestable then in other people and if it be true which Dr. John Burges in his rejoinder to the reply to Bishop Mortons defence of the three Ceremonies that the Popish idolatry is not so bad as the Israelites then there may be cause why that idolatry which the Papists use should not be punished with death though the worship of the golden Calf Baal Molech and such Idols were And for some blasphemies against Christ as the Messiah or Son of God and some errours or heresies which under the name of blasphemies have been punished with death and perhaps by Laws in force are liable to the same punishments I dare not say that they are equally evil or to be punished as the blasphemy of the mungrel was Lev. 24. 14 15 16. Nor do I take upon me to justifie those Laws by which death is awarded to heretiques nor to avow the sentences that have been past against persons as heretiques because condemned by Canons of Councils He that should now enact a law to put men to death for breaking the Sabbath because God did so appoint it Numb 15. 35. in the case of him that gathered the sticks on the Sabbath day or should make a law that the father and mother of a stubborn son should bring him to the Elders of the City to be stoned to death as it is Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. should as it is said of Draco the Athenian write his laws in blood I deny not but that in the New Testament punishments are put off to the last judgement that Christ hath told us Mark 3. 28. that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men and blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme excepting that against the holy Ghost that John 8. 7 8 9 10. Christ if that story be genuine would not condemn the woman taken in adultery but rather furthered her escape from stoning that the Gospel we live under is another dispensation as the Petitioners speak meaning that it is not so severe and rigid a Covenant as the Law was that the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ John 1. 17. And therefore I count them too severe beyond Christian moderation that inflict death imprisonment banishment for some errours termed heresies for non-conformity to some forms of worship for some conceived blasphemies Some eminent Protestants have been censured as too cruel even by men of great understanding for their severity in these things According to this determination a prevention may be made of destroying such a blasphemer as Paul or the Jews and yet the Kings Supremacy proved from the example of the Kings of Israel even in spirituals which may be exercised for publique peace and common good if good caution be used without such direful and cruel persecutions as have been A fathers power may be proved from the Law Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. though that law stand not in force and so may the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical be proved from the power of the Kings of Israel though it be denied that he is to punish Idolatry blasphemy heresie as they did or some would now have it once more say the Petitioners 5. As it is no wayes lawful from the word of God for Christian Magistrates to destroy and root out the contrary minded in religious matters although Idolaters so such proceedings may many times prove inconsistent with the very being of nations for suppose any Nation were wholly heathenish idolaters and the word of God coming in amongst them should convert the chief Magistrates and twentieth part of the Nation more must he with that twentieth part destroy all the other nineteen if they will not be converted but continue in their heathenish Idolatry it cannot possibly be supposed warrantable Answ All this may be granted The Spaniards practice in destroying the Americans is condemned by Bartholomew de Casa a Spanish Bishop their practises in their bloody Inquisition are abhorred by all sober people that are not made drunk with the wine of the whore of Babylons fornications few men of good temper and wisdome do allow making war to propagate Religion the zeal of Princes and Bishops in persecuting Christians adjudged heretiques by them is censured as madness by well composed men In the multitude of people is the Kings honour but in the want of people is the destruction of the Prince Prov. 14. 28. Thou shalt not be joyned in burial because thou hast destroyed thy land and slain thy people Isa 14. 20. Doubtless a Prince ought to be tender of his subjects as of his children and yet he may correct them and though he be not to destroy those that remain infidel-idolaters nor to force them to be Christians yet he may have a power to govern in things spiritual And this if wisely and uprightly managed may be of great advantage to the Church of God and is not to be denied because he doth much less because he may or we are jealous he will abuse it Thus much be said in answer to those Petitioners Afore the first sheet of this Supplement was printed off I met with a little piece intituled A caution to the sons of Zion by Samuel Hodgkin in which he grants assertory oaths in judicial proceedings not to be forbidden by Christ Mat. 5. 34. because commanded in the law of Moses and overthrows the Quakers plea that no swearing is lawful yet denies any promissory oath lawful and therefore in that respect opposeth the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and saith he is imprisoned for that reason In that book he first excepts against the definition Jeremiah Ives gave of a sacred oath that it is a bond by which a man binds his soul to the speaking of that which is in it self true or the doing of that which is in it self lawful unto which the
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
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
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