New ERRORS Made Palpable by an old LIGHT OR A Cheap and easie Method to Cure the Dissentions of the Time by a Septuagint of Conclusions Composed and Experimented BY Anthony Norwood Esquire LONDON Printed by E. G. and are to be sold by CHARLES ADAMS at the Mary-Gold in Fleet-street over against Feâ—ter-Lane 1652. LOng preambles to short discourses are like wide Lists to narrow Cloaths which though they set off the commodity yet they yeeld no benefit to the Buyers Instead therefore of a Preface take for the better understanding of that which followes this briefe survey of such politicall Axioms as have been held forth to the people for infallible verties by some of the late Aulicicall pretenders to Divinity The Episcopall party determine thus THat by the ordinance of God nationall government ought to be successively monarchicall or solely and hereditarily in one That as the Israelites so all Nations ought to be governed by Kings and that Kings may not be resisted deposed or punished That as the primitive Christians so all beleeving associations ought to have Bishops to superintend in their Ecclesiasticall polity That the Regall and Episcopall offices may be managed by two distinct persons in one and the same Commonwealth and that both are of divine institution The Anti-Episcoparian Doctrines speake to this effect THat although there be no divine Law by which the government by Kings was constituted but what was peculiar to the children of Israel yet Regall Government ought to be continued in all Christian associations That in some cases Kings may be resisted but may neither be deposed nor punished That although there were Bishops and no Kings in that polity which was peculiar to the primitive Christians yet the government by Bishops is Antichristian and ought to be discontinued That in civill affaires government ought to be Monarchicall and in one but in Ecclesiasticall concernments democraticall and by many This is sum of what they say and at how wide a distance in opinion the Prelaticall and Presbyterian Doctors stand in opposition one to the other is manifest by these their publiquely avowed principles wherein I conceive each of them to be no less remote from truth and this I shall endeavor to demonstrate in the insuing propositions that so the people of the Nation may be no longer blown in sunder and disjoynted by such impetuous counterblasts of blind carnall and selfe-intending Rudiments Thus then we begin I. If in the first ages of the world as well before the floud as after every Father had by the Law of God and nature a jurisdiction over his own family sole and independent of any other humane authority then was it a sin in any other to usurp upon their jurisdictions in any case whatsoever But in the first ages of the world as well before the floud as after every Father had by the Law of God and Nature a jurisdiction over his own family sole and independent of any other humane authority Therefore whosoever did then assume a power over any other Father or his family in any case whatsoever did therein transgress the ordinance of God II. If God was displeased with Nimrod for arrogating to himselfe a jurisdiction over more families then his own then was it not lawfull for him so to doe But God was displeased with Nimrod for arrogating to himselfe a jurisdiction over more families then his own Therefore his so doing was not justifiable in the sight of Almighty God III. If the disposing of the children of Israel into a select fraternity under Kings and Priests was a typical representation of Christ and his Church then is it not presidentially obliging But the disposing of the Children of Israel into a select fraternity under Kings and Priests was a typicall representation of Christ and his Church Therefore although the institution were from God yet doth it not oblige all people and in all times IV. If God was displeased with the Israelites for desiring to be governed by Kings and if the precedent government by Judges did continue some hundreds of yeers without any express dislike from God then if all Nations ought to be presidented by them the government by Judges ought rather to be embraced then that of Kings But God was displeased with the Israelites for desiring to be governed by Kings and the precedent government by Judges did continue 450. yeares without any express dislike from God Acts 13. 20. Therefore if all Nations ought to be presidented by the Israelites the government by Judges ought rather to be embraced then that of Kings V. If nationall government in a military forme be not perpetuated by any universally binding Law of God and if the Kings of Israel were distinguistable in their office from the Judges of that Nation by their military imployment onely then is it more reasonable to say that all Nations may be governed by Judges then that they ought to be everlastingly governed by Kings But nationall government in a military equipage is not perpetuated by any universall Law of God and the Kings of Israel were distinguishable in their office from the Judges of that Nation by their Military imployment onely 1 Sam. 10. 1. Therefore it is more rationall to say that all Nations may be governed by Judges then that they ought to be everlastingly governed by Kings VI. If the government of the whole world were at any time in the power of one Man then if Monarchicall government be instituted by God it is as lawful to subdivide it into as many Monarchies as there are families as to divide it into so many Kingdomes as are now in Christendome But the government of the whole world was by the donation of God solely and Monarchically in Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 27. 7. Therefore if Monarchicall government be instituted by God it is as lawfull to subdivide it into as many Monarchies as there are families as to divide it into so many Kingdomes as are now in Christendome VII If they who teach that by the ordinance of God the government of a Christian Common-wealth ought to be Monarchicall and in one do likewise affirme that by the like ordinance two or more ought to bear rule in the same Commonwealth then is their doctrine contradictory to it selfe But they who teach that by the ordinance of God the government of a Christian Common-wealth ought to be Monarchically in a King do likewise affirme that the Clergy have by divine right a gubernative power in the same Commonwealth Therefore the Monarchicall Doctors will have something to do to reconcile their own flat contradictions VIII If there be nothing in the ordinance to restraine Kings or Bishops to exercise what power and over what people they please nor any thing to prohibit the people to have as many or as few and what persons they please to be their Kings or Bishops then is the doctrine of divine ordination of Kings and Bishops impertinent and inconsistent with peaceable government But there is nothing in
last Kings was invalid But the last line of English Kings did derive their title to the Crown from Conquest and there were Kings in England before them Therefore if the Crownes of Kings ought by Gods ordinance to descend in a right line to their next legitimate heirs the title of the last Kings was usurped and whatsoever any of them acted as Kings was unlawfull and is voydable XXII If the limits and precincts of no such Magistrates are laid out by any divine boundaries then can they not infallibly know of what people they respectively may lawfully take cognisance by any theologicall dispensatory But the limits and precincts of no such Magistrates are laid out by divine boundaries Therefore of what people they respective may lawfully take cognisance is not determinable by Theology XXIII If no such Magistrates be distinguishable in their persons power or precincts by any divine directory then neither Magistrates nor Subordinates can bee convinced of their reciprocall allegeance but by some humane demonstration But no such Magistrates are distinguishable in their persons power or precincts by any divine directory Therefore neither Parochiall Provinciall or Monarchicall Magistrates nor their Subordinates can be convinced of their reciprocall allegeance but by some humane demonstration XXIV If it be a humane Law only by which the persons power and precincts of all such Magistrates are known and distinguished so as to create a mutuall allegeance between them and their Subordinates then no such allegeance can be created unless some knowne persons have a lawfull power to make Lawes But it is a humane Law onely by which such persons are so distinguished as to create a mutuall allegeance Therefore unless some known persons have a lawfull power to make Lawes no such allegeance can be created XXV If no man be bound to submit to such Lawes as are constituted by an obtruded power then the Law-makers ought to have a known lawfull power over that whole community to which they pretend a power of giving Lawes But n o man is bound to submit to Lawes constituted by an obtruded power Therefore the Law-makers ought to have a known lawful power over the whole Community XXVI If the Authority of the Law makers ought to extend lawfully to the whole Community then it must be such as relating to all doth not thereby infringe any known Law of God But their Authority by whom Lawes are made ought to extend lawfully to the whole Community Therefore it must be such as relating to all no divine Law is thereby infringed XXVII If the Law makers Authority ought to be such as doth not infringe any known Law of God and if originally the paternal jurisdiction be by divine right sole and independent then in believing associations none have a justifiable and satisfactory calling to make Laws and constitute publique Magistrates either Civil or Ecclesiastical but the fathers of families or some deputed by them But the Authority of Law-makers must be such as doth not trespasse upon any known Law of God and the paternal Prerogative is sole and independent Therefore none have a warrantable power to give Lawes or impose Magistrates either Civil or Ecclesiastical upon believing associates but the fatherhood or their deputies XXVIII If the Magistratical power neither of Kings Priests or Judges of Israel did consist in making but in declaring Law then as they were Kings Priests and Judges they had no Legislative Authority But the Magistratical power neither of Kings Priests or Judges of Israel did consist in making but in declaring Law Therefore they had not any Legislative Authority belonging to them as they were either Kings Priests or Judges XXIX If neither the Kings Priests or Judges of Israel had a Legislative power appending to their offices and if there be no Law of God that giveth such power to such officers then neither Kings Priests or Judges have by divine right a Legislative power in respect of their offices But neither the Kings Priests or Judges of that Nation had a Legislative power appending to their offices nor is there any Law of God that giveth such power to such Magistrates Therefore by divine right neither Kings Priests or Judge have a Legislative power by vertue of any of their offices XXX If in Christian associations none have a warrantable and satisfactory calling to make Lawes or constitute publique Magistrates of any sort whatsoever but the fathers themselves or some deputed by them then the Authority of the fatherhood of associated Christians either persoually or representatively assembled is sole independent and supreme in all causes as well Civil as Ecclesiastical But in Christian associations none have a warrantable and satisfactory calling to make Lawes or constitute publick Magistrates of any sort whatsoever but the fathers themselves or some deputed by them Therefore the Authority of the fatherhood of associated Christians either personally or representatively assembled is sole independent and supreme in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil XXXI If it be not discernable who amongst the individual members of a Christian Common-wealth is more particularly inspired with the gifts of the Spirit then another then in such associations the gifts of the Spirit are not convincing evidence of the lawful calling of any Magistrates But it is not discernable who amongst the individual members of a Christian Common-wealth is more particularly inspired with the gifts of the spirit then another Therefore the gifts of the Spirit are not competent to distinguish who in such associations ought to be Magistrates and who subordinates XXXII If in the associations of believers the gifts of the Spirit be not competent whereby to determine who ought therein to be Magistrates then is there no other way to distinguish between Magistrates and subordinates but by the rule of Nature or consent But in the associations of believers the gifts of the Spirit are not competent whereby to determine who ought therein to be Magistrates Therefore there is no other way to distinguish between Magistrates and subordinates in such associations but by the rule of Nature or Consent XXXIII If the Magistrates of a Christian Comonwealth are no other way distinguishable from subordinates but by the rule of Nature or Consent then the Government of Christian associations falls wholly under a natural and prudential speculation But the Magistrates of a Christian association are no other way distinguishable from subordinates but by the rule of Nature or Consent Therefore the Government of a Christian Commonwealth falls altogether under a natural and prudential speculation XXXIV If the Government of a Christian Commonwealth falls wholly under a natural and prudential speculation then they who are of the Ministerial function have not therein any singular priviledge to a gubernative power by divine dispensation But the Government of a Christian Commonwealth hath its form and being meerly from prudence and Nature Therefore they who are of the Ministerial function have therein no singular right to a gubernative power by divine
the ordinance to restraine either Kings or Bishops from exercising what power and over what people they please nor any thing to prohibit the people from having as many or as few and what persons they please to be their Kings or Bishops Therefore the doctrine of divine ordination is impertinent and not consistent with prudentiall and peaceable principles IX If the Ceremoniall Law be abolished and whatsoever was derived from that Law lost its efficacy when that was abrogated then all formes of government constituted by that Law did determine with it But the Ceremoniall Law is abrogated and whatsoever was derived from that Law lost its efficacy when that was abolished Therefore all formes of government constituted by that Law are now determined X. If neither before the Ceremoniall Law was constituted nor after it was abolished God did prescribe the Lawes or any set forme of government by which and none other he would have all associated people unalterably governed then is there not now remaining any municipall Lawes or forme of nationall government of an immediate divine institution But neither before that Law was instituted nor after it was abrogated did God prescribe any such Lawes or forme of government Therefore no such Lawes or forme of government are now of an immediate divine institution XI If after the abolition of the Ceremoniall Law no people were confined by God to any positive and known forme of Polity then after that Law was abrogated the fathers of families were not restrained by God of any part of those rights which were due to them before that Law was in force But after the abolition of the Ceremoniall Law no people were confined by God to any positive and known forme of Polity Therefore after that Law was abrogated the primitive rights of the Fatherhood might revert to them notwithstanding any ordinance of God to the contrary XII If in the Gospell all those who are subordinate to the Father of a family be commanded to obey him in every thing then Christianity doth not abridge a Father of any part of his primitive Prerogative But all those who are subordinate to the Father of a family are commanded in the Gospell to obey him in every thing Eph. 5. 24. Colo. 3. 20 22. Therefore a Father of a family loseth nothing of his primitive Prerogative by being converted to the faith XIII If meerly by the donation of the graces of the spirit no Father hath a more particular priviledge or prerogative then another then no Christian Father hath more right then another to a gubernative superiority by divine dispensation But no Father hath meerly by the donation of the graces of the spirit a more particular priviledge or prerogative then another Therefore upon that account no Father hath by divine dispensation more right then another to a gubernative superiority XIV If beleeving Fathers have from God an equall sole and independent power both by grace and nature then no man hath a power to compell them to associate in government or being associated to impose upon them in causes either Civill or Ecclesiasticall But beleeving Fathers have from God an equall sole and independent power both by grace and nature Therefore no man hath authority to compell them to associate in government or being associated to impose upon them in causes either Civill or Ecclesiasticall XV. If no man have a power to impose upon beleeving Fathers or to compell them to associate in government then may such fathers retaine their native freedome and independency in all causes as well Civill as Ecclesiasticall But no man hath by divine right a power to impose upon heleeving Fathers or to compell them to associate Therefore such Fathers may continue free and independent in both the said causes XVI If the preservation of peace and propriety be the proper end of all nationall government and if beleeving fathers have a right to preserve their own freedome against an obtruded power then is it necessary that in all Christian associations government be so constituted that the subordinate Fathers may be convinced of the lawfulness of the power and personall calling of their Magistrates But the preservation of peace and propriety is the proper end of all nation all government and beleeving Fathers have a right to preserve their own freedome against an obtruded power Therefore it is necessary that in all Christian associations government be so constituted that the subordinate Fathers may be convinced of the lawfulness of the power and personall calling of their Magistrates XVII If Magistrates may sin by usurping upon those over whom they have no warrantable jurisdiction then some rule is necessary by which they may infallibly know as well to what people as to what dispensations their authority may lawfully be extended But Magistrates may sinne by usurping upon those over whom they have no warrantable jurisdiction Therefore some rule is necessary by which they may infallibly know as well to what dispensations as over what people their authority may lawfully be extended XVIII If in a Christian Commonwealth neither parochiall provinciall or Monarchicall Magistrates can be known or distinguished in their persons or power by the Law of God then subordinates cannot be convinced of the lawfulness of their personall calling and power by any divine directory But in a Christian Commonwealth neither Parochiall Provinciall or Monarchicall Magistrates can be known or distinguished in their persons or power by the Law of God Therefore by a divine directory subordinates cannot be convinced of the lawfulness of the personall calling and power of any such Magigistrates XIX If God hath no where intailed the Government of many families upon the eldest Son of the precedent governour and if the Crown of Jsrael did not descend in a right line by priority of bloud then is there not either a divine precent or president to justifie a claime to Magistracy by hereditary succession But neither hath God intayled the government of many families upon the eldest Sonne of the precedent governor nor did the Crowne of Israel descend in a right line by priority of bloud Therefore he that claimes a Crown by succession wil never be able to make out a good Title by the bare plea of a divine Charter XX. If the jurisdiction of Augustus Caesar did extend to the whole known world then if government ought to be hereditarily monarchicall no Nation of the world can at this day be under any known lawfull Monarchicall authority But the whole known world was under the jurisdiction of Augustus Caesar Luke 2. 1. Therefore the severall Nations of the world cannot at this day be under any known lawfull authority if God hath appointed government to be hereditarily Monarchicall XXI If the last line of English Kings did derive their title to the Crown from Conquest and if there were any Kings in England before them then if the Crowns of Kings ought by the ordinance of God to descend to their next legitimate heirs the title of the
then if in their representative Assemblies one cannot act unless he be elected no more may any other But in Christian associations no one Father hath a greater priviledge to act in their Common-Councels then another Therefore if in their representative Conventions one cannot act unless he be elected no more may any other XLIX If in their representative Councels none hath more power to act then another unless he be elected then the pretended power of Kings and Lords spirituall and temporal to act by vertue of their own rights is not justifyable But in the representative Councels of associated beleeving Fathers none hath more power to act then another unless he be elected Therefore the pretended power of Kings and Lords spirituall and temporall to act in such Councels by vertue of their own rights is not justifiable L. If custome cannot destroy a right grounded upon an universall Law of God the the authority of the Fatherhood cannot be voided by any customary claimes But custome cannot destroy a right grounded upon an universall Law of God Mat. 15. 3. 4. 9. Therefore no customary claimes can make void the sole and independent authority of a Christian Fatherhood LI. If the government of a Christian Common-wealth be solely and independently in the Fatherhood then whosoever assumes a power in competition with the Common-councell of a beleeving Fatherhood usurps upon their authority and sins against Gods ordinance But the government of a Christian Commonwealth is solely and independently in the Fatherhood Therefore whosoever assumes a power in competition with them or with their representatives doth thereby sin against Gods ordinance LII If the Fatherhood of Christian associations have a sole and independent power and if it be a sin to usurp upon that authority then may the representative Trustees of the Fatherhood lawfully resist any such usurpation But the authority of the Fatherhood of associated Christians is sole and independent and it is a sin to usurp upon that authority Therefore any such usurpation may lawfully be resisted by the representative Trustees of the Fatherhood LIII If it be lawfully in the power of the representative Trustees of the Fatherhood to resist any such usurpation then they are bound in honour and religion not to suffer any to be competitors with them in government if they have a potency wherewith to oppose But it is lawfully in the power of the representative Trustees of the Fatherhood to resist any usurped power Therefore if they be in a condition to prevent it it stands not with their honour nor honesty to suffer any to be their competitors LIIII If the Trustees of the Fatherhood cannot in honor or honesty suffer any to be sharers with them in government they having a potency to oppose then had it been dishonest and dishonorable in the present Trustees of the Fatherhood to yield an inherent right in the Militia and Negative voice to a King in their power who had taken up Arms to maintain the incroachment But the Trustees of the Fatherhood cannot in honour or honesty suffer any to be sharers with them in government they being in an opposing condition Therefore had they yeelded an inherent right in the Militia and Negative voice to a King who had put the Nation to a vast expence in a war raised to maintain the incroachment they had neither done honestly nor honourably LV. If the supreme power be solely and independently in the Fatherhood and if their present Trustees did by their publique Remonstrances engage the people in a chargable war against the contrary pretences then if after the sword had determined the controversie they had yeelded up their sole and independent interests they might deservedly have been noted with the brand of infidelity to all succeeding generations But the supreme authority is solely and independently in the Fatherhood and their present Trustees had engaged the people in a chargeable war by their publique Remonstrances against the contrary pretensions Therefore they might deservedly have been noted with the ignominious brand of infidelity to all succeeding generations had they after the sword had determined the controversie yielded up any part of that sole and independent authority with which they were intrusted LVI If the Lawes now in being do not agree in all points with the Lawes of former ages then if the present Lawes be of any force it must necessarily be acknowledged that humane Lawes are alterable and repealable But the Lawes now in being do not agree in all points with the Lawes of former ages Therefore if the present Lawes be of any force it must be acknowledged that humane Lawes are alterable and repealeable LVII If humane National Lawes may lawfully be altered or repealed then they may be repealed or altered by that authority or the like to that by which they were or ought to have been made But it is lawful to alter or repeal any humane National Lawes Therefore they may be altered or repealed by that authority or the like to that by which they were or ought to have been made LVIII If humane Lawes may be altered or repealed by that authority or the like to that by which they were made then the Fatherhood of Christian associations may alter or repeale any municipal Lawes therein constituted But humane Lawes may be altered or repealed by that authority or the like to that by which they were or ought to have been made Therefore the municipal Lawes of Christian associations may be altered or repealed by the Fatherhood or their representatives LIX If humane Lawes may be altered or repealed by the Fatherhood and if Magistrates Parochial Provincial and Monarchical be of humane institution then any such Magistrates may be outed of their authority by an act of the Fatherhood either personally or representatively assembled But municipal Lawes may be altered or repealed by the Fatherhood and all such Magistrates be of humane institution Therefore any such Magistrates may be outed of their authority by an act of the Fatherhood whether personally or representatively assembled LX. If in the English Nation there hath been at one and the same time many Kings independent one of another from whom the last Kings could not derive any interest then to make out a justifiable title to the late Kings it must bee confessed that Kings may be deposed But in the English Nation there hath beene at one and the same time many Kings independent one of another from whom the last Kings could not derive any interest Therefore the title of the late Kings was invalid unless Kings may lawfully be deposed LXI If before association the Fathers of a Christian Commonwealth were equally independent then after association they are equally obliged to submit to the Lawes therein constituted But before association the Fathers of a Christian Commonwealth were equally independent Therefore being associated they are equally bound to submit to the Lawes therein constituted LXII If the members of a Commonwealth be equally bound to submit to the Lawes
I finde no fault in the Man It was the councell then that gave the condemning sentence against him Wee have a Law and by that Law he ought to dye was the instrumental vote that sent him an innocent to the meritorious Cross Which councel had he not been conscious that it had lawfully a power over him his submission thereunto had been a sinne against himselfe because it was in his power to summon Legions of Angels to his protection And had he sinned his suffering had not beene efficacious to Mans salvation Something may be said why this example of our Saviours is not altogether pertinent to this purpose As first in respect of that saying of the Jewes wherein they disclaime any lawfulness in themselves to put any man to death from whence it may be alledged that our Saviour suffered not under the authority of the Jewish Councell but Pilates jurisdiction Which is thus answered It is apparent that the sentence of death was passed upon him by the councel and that was it which gave Pilate power over his life And that that Nation had liberty to try offending natives by their own Lawes is not less evident Whereby it seemes to me that they bring a conquered Nation the allegeance betweene the Emperour and them was regulated and circumscribed by reciprocall capitulations and conditionall Covenants by which the executing power was reserved to the Emperiall Officer otherwise the Leviticall Law by which the Israelites were forbidden to suffer a blasphemer to live would have justified them no less in the execution then in passing the sentence And therefore although the executing power was consentatively in Pilate for which cause our Saviour may be said to suffer under him yet was it authoritatively from that Magistracy which did yeeld to those conditions and that may still be the Common-councell of his own Nation Againe whereas we say that the supreme authority is solely and independently in the Eldership of associated Christians it may be objected that this example will not make good the assertion because we finde that Priests Pharisees and Scribes were mixed with the Elders of the people in that councell by which he was condemned To this we reply that The people of Israel being admonished to make themselves Judges and Officers in all their Tribes and the Priesthood not being infeoffed by God with any judiciary authority nor the orders of Scribes and Pharisees constituted by him if we should say that these Priests Scribes and Pharisees were made members of that councell by the election of the people it would be a long while before any thing could be produced to prove the contrary Besides in matters hard to be judged the people were directed to enquire of the Priests and Levites they might therefore be called by the Elders of the people to assist in their National Councels as it hath been the custom in England for the Judges at Law and yet not have therein a condemnatory power And this seems to be intendment of the Text for after the High Priest had voted his answer to be blasphemous he refers the sentence to the Councel and they thereupon condemn him to be guilty of death Deut. 16. 18. Levit. 17. 9. Marke 14. 64. This was the case of that immaculate Lamb who being to be offered up an expiation for sin was careful to preserve himself without spot that man might be cleansed from the deep stain of his deadly pollutions by that his underservedly bleeding Oblation Christ the anointed and just one was sentenced to death by the unjust verdict of the Elders of of his own Nation and yet he having power to resist submitted to the killing condemnation because he knew it was not unjust so to do Here we have an example beyond examples a president equal to a precept He is safe that can repose upon this Rock seeing God hath made me a member I will not scruple to obey such an authority as had power over my head He did not expostulate the unjustnesse of the sentence nor will I so much esteem of my own worth above his merits as to think that any priviledge or prerogative can exempt me from being under the lash of the like authority So long as live in a society I must be under some government and it ought to be such as I may safely submit to Not meerly for the benefit sake for if I goe no further my obedience exceeds not the gratitude of sensuall Beasts but like a Christian for conscience sake Not my fancy but my duty must guide me to be obedient I cannot erre by my submission to a lawful authority And I shall hardly be perswaded that being incorporated into a Christian Society any Magistracy can have so lawfull a power over me as the Eldership or paternall Councel of my own Nation till I know upon whose judgement I may rely with better security then upon my allseeing and no sinning Saviours He was a King a Priest and a Prophet who having a certaine and infallible knowledge of all things taught us by his example to be obedient to the determinations of nationall councels And what pretenders soever there be to Prophecy Priesthood or Kingship who dare trust to their own conceptions rather then to the path which he who only can be their Saviour hath troden out to them they are not likely ever to come to the place that hee hath provided for those who follow and beleeve in him for he that thinks himselfe wiser then God cannot put any confidence in God Adam sins and in him all Mankinde To free Man from the punishment due for sin Christ is promised God to shadow forth the designed Christian Church forms to himselfe a Church of the children of Israel for whose sakes the Idolatrous Kings of Canaan are destroyed by Gods appointment The Jsraelites desire God is displeased yet gives them Kings reserving the choice to himselfe These Kings are types of him who was to suffer for sinne Some of these Kings are by Gods direction doomed to death for sinning By Gods predeterminate counsell the Kingship and Priesthood of Israel met both in him who was preordeined to be a sacrifice for sin and Christ not without the consent of his Father together with his life gives up the power of both to a councell of his own Nation By his death the Law by which those Kings and Priests were constituted is abolished and all those made Kings and Priests to God the father who by a true and lively faith can lay hold upon his sons incarnation passion and resurrection Thus were Adams posterity brought from bondage to liberty from death to life And whether the substance of the precedent propositions may not be reasonably collected from this exemplary progress to mans salvation I leave to be determined by any ingenuous Christian who will contemplate these circumstances in his sober selfe-denying and peace-projecting solitudes Rev. 1. 6. To conclude I am not so wise in my own conceit as to thinke it impossible for me to be mistaken It may be that my own blindness hath made me venter thus boldly into publique but I would be loath that that should lead any other man into the same error If therefore through the want of judgement I have in any thing herein by me published swarved from the truth I I doe humbly request and shall thinke my selfe extreamely happy to have my misapprehensions laid open by some ingenious and more knowing pen which being done let me undergoe the severest of censures if I be found in the number of those who hate to be reformed FINIS