Positive Law that all the seed of Abraham should be Circumcised the eighth day on pain of being cut off from his People And yet the Obligation of that Divine Positive Law ceased for forty years while they wander'd in the Wilderness and yet Moses their Supreme Power did neither Punish according to the Letter of the Law nor blame them for it 2. It was a Divine Positive Law that they should keep the Passover on the Fourteenth day of the first Moneth and yet there were several Cases wherein the Obligation of that Law ceased so that they did not sin though they did not that day eat the Passover For if any one was casually unclean by touching a dead body or if he were on a journey c. the Obligation of that Law ceased as to him and he sin'd not though he did not eat the Passover on the day appointed by the Law 3. The Sanctification of the Sabbath as to that particular day was injoyn'd by a Divine Positive Law and by that Law it was capital to violate the Sabbath or do any of our own Work the Worship of God Almighty being the proper and only work of that day And yet it is certain and on all sides confess'd that in many Cases the Obligation of that Law ceaseth so that we may lawfully do that which otherwise to the Jews was Capital If an Enemy invade our Country or a City be set on fire on the Sabbath or our Lord's day we may lawfully take Arms to defend our Country and the Church and Divine Service left make haste and labour hard to quench the fire and save the City Now as to the aforementioned Divine Positive Laws there may be many Cases wherein their Obligation ceases so that the Punishment otherwise required by those Laws may lawfully be pardoned So in this Law given to Noah there have been and may be several Cases wherein that Law does not bind ad Poenam and so the Murderer may lawfully be pardon'd 3. And it is further to be consider'd that this Law de Homicidio given to Noah does neither expressly say nor by any good consequence intimate that the Supreme Power shall not in any Case pardon a condemn'd Murderer It only declares death to be the just reward and punishment of Murder but it does not say that it must necessarily be always executed so that no Pardon in no case is to be admitted 4. And it is certain and in our present case more considerable That Jacobs two Sons Simeon and Levi were guilty of Murder and yet were pardon'd notwithstanding the Law given to Noah Sure it is that they were neither sentenc'd nor put to death for their Murders but long after went down into Egypt with Jacob their Father and died there Though they had impiously and abundantly shed Man's blood yet their blood was not shed for it Tho Jacob their Father and Isaac who was then living were the Supreme Powers in the then Church of God consisting in the seed of Abraham and had power to do it Nor could those Patriarchs Isaac and Jacob be ignorant of the Law given to Noah seeing Noah himself lived till the fifty seventh year of Abraham and died only forty three years before Isaac's birth Now considering the persons of these two great Patriarchs that they were Prophets men of exceeding Piety and beloved of God we may be sure they would not have transgressed that Law given by God to Noah if they had believed that the Obligation of it was such as excluded all possibility of Pardon In short if those pious Patriarchs might pardon Murder then I desire to know why Supreme Princes in some cases may not pardon it now 5. Lastly I ask Did that Law given to Noah bind David and the Jews in his time or did it not If not how comes it to bind us now above 2700 years after David's death If it did bind David then so as no pardon was to be permitted or granted to a Murderer it is not probable that David a Prophet and the best of Kings would have transgress'd that Divine Law and pardon'd Absolom Especially if we consider that his other known sins as Murder Adultery Numbring the People c. are confess'd by him and in Scripture mentioned as his sins but his pardoning Absolom is no where in Scripture confess'd by him or laid to his charge as a transgression of any Law Sed manum de Tabula I desire you to ask those who made the former Objection against the King's power of pardoning Murder from the Law given to Noah and think the Laws given to Noah still Obligatory How it comes to pass that in the same place the first Law given to Noah is a Prohibition to eat any Blood which is confirm'd by Moses and no where abrogated And yet all Papists and Protestants eat Blood notwithstanding that Law of God to Noah forbidding it I desire to know of the Gentleman who made the Objection which I hope I have probably answer'd why the second Law given to Noah Gen. 9. 6. about Murder should be binding and yet the first Law Gen. 9. 4. against eating Blood should not be binding too He who can and will solve me this doubt will do me a kindness which if any few can I am Your Faithful Friend and Servant T. L. THE CASE OF Pardoning Murder The CASE of Pardoning MURDER Query Whether it be lawful for his Sacred Majesty to Reprive or Pardon a Person convict and legally condemned for Murder My Honoured Friend ALthough I well know your Loyalty to be as much and your Learning and Knowledg of the Laws and their Obligation to be more than mine yet according to your command and my promise I have here sent you a Compendium and short Account of some Discourses I lately had with some who seem'd to doubt Whether our Gracious Soveraign could reprive or pardon a person legally condemned for Murder For a distinct answer to this Query I consider 1. That it is certain that all we Subjects are by the indispensable law of God and Nature bound next to our good God the great King of Heaven and Earth to honour and obey our Gracious Soveraign and that not only for fear of punishment but for Conscience lake So that to do or speak or think dishonourably of the Lord Anointed our King and to question and deny any of the Rights of his Crown and Prerogatives is in all Subjects disloyal and impious In the Natural Body if there be any blemish or disease in the head if it be in any danger from without all the members of the body the dictates of Right Reason and the principles of Nature requiring it will industriously concur to cover and conceal that blemish to cure that disease and prevent all danger that may happen to the Head So in the Body Politick if the King the Head of that Body have any errors or
may limit themselves by Oath or promise and so our Kings have limited their power and promised and in their Coronation-Oath sworn to do none of those things without the consent of their people in Parliament But does not this limiting themselves take away and destroy their Absoluteness No if any other power could lay Obligations and Limitations upon them then I grant they were not absolute but to limit themselves is consistent with absolute power For the truth of this we have an evident and authentick instance It is most certain that God Almighty is an absolute King of all the world yet for the comfort of his people he has limited himself by Oath and promise so the Apostle tells us That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lye we might have strong consolation These things premised concerning the great power of our Kings That it is Monarchical Supreme and Absolute the Query is Whether they can and lawfully may either 1. Reprive 2. Or pardon a person condemn'd for Murder Now it is a certain Rule in Law and Reason that Omne illicitum est ex lege aliqua illicitum Sin is the transgression of a Law and where there is no law there is no transgression If then such Reprive or Pardon be unlawful and may not be granted by the Kings of England then it must be so by some law which prohibits it and that must be either 1. Some Humane or 2. Some Divine Law For the first unless it do appear that the Kings of England are prohibited to reprive or pardon such malefactors by some law of our Nation to the making where of they have given their consent and so limited their own power I say unless there be such a law it will be evident that it cannot be unlawful by any humane law for our Kings to reprive or pardon such malefactors But although I have reason to believe that there is no such law Yet whether there be any such Law or no I shall not determine but leave it to the Reverend Judges and the learned in our laws who are best able to determine that Question It belongs not to my calling or present business to determine the Case by humane laws That which was desired of me was this Whether the Reprive or Pardon of a person legally condemn'd for Murder were prohibited and so unlawful by the law of God particularly by that Law given to the Jews by Moses in these words Thou shalt take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death he shall SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH NOW to determine this case of Conscience by the Divine Law is within the compass of my Calling and by this time at the Age of 77. I am or ought to be in some measure a competent Judge of such Cases And therefore seeing nothing is required of me save what is in my power to give my Opinion in the Case I shall here 1. Humbly and with submission to my Superiors give my opinion and judgment in the Case 2. The Reasons for it 1. For the first my present opinion and judgment is That there is no Divine Law which prohibits and so makes it unlawful for Supreme Princes to Reprive or Pardon a person legally condemned for murder And this I shall endeavour distinctly to shew and prove 1. That a Reprive 2. That a Pardon is not by any Law of God unlawful 1. For the first To Reprive is not to null or make void the Sentence pass'd upon a murderer or to free him from it but only for some time the delaying the execution of it Now 't is certain that there is no Law of God which prohibits such Reprive and delay of executing the sentence or any way make it unlawful for the Supreme power to grant such Reprive The severest Law against Murderers is that in the Book of Numbers but now nam'd which says That no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a Murderer but he shall surely be put to death But that Law does not say that he must die the same day the sentence pass'd or the same week or month If a Murderer be executed a month after the sentence passed he dies As SURELY as if he had died the same day 2. There may be just reasons drawn from the Law of Nature and Scripture why in many Cases the supreme Magistrate not only lawfully may but ought to grant such a Reprive The Law of God and Nature does indispensably bind all to love their neighbour as their selves and therefore so far as we have ability to endeavour his Salvation Now a condemn'd murderer who has no pardon is sure to lose a temporal life and that he may not lose eternal life too it is the observation and judgment of the best Scholar and Lawyer in his time it will and should be the care of pious Princes not to hurry such condemn'd malefactors hastily to death but to grant them some time by a Reprive before they leave this to consult their Ghostly Father and by prayer confessing their sins true penitence and the comfort of Absolution prepare themselves for a better life 3. But although this be a certain truth That the Supreme power may reprive a condemn'd Murderer yet it will further appear and beyond all contradiction in the proof of the next particular Where it will appear That the King by his Supreme power and Royal Prerogative may lawfully pardon such a condemn'd malefactor and therefore much more may he lawfully Reprive him For he who can lawfully pardon and remit the punishment of Death that it shall never be inflicted may certainly for some small time for a week a month or two suspend and delay the execution of it And so I proceed to the second particular 2. It is not unlawful by any Divine Law for the Supreme Power to pardon a person convict and condemned for Murder The reason is evident because there is no Divine Law which prohibits the Supreme power to grant such a Pardon That this may more distinctly appear it is certain and confess'd that Divine Laws are either 1. Evangelical made known to us in the Gospel 2. Mosaical such as God by Moses made known to his own people the Jews 1. For the first The Evangelical Laws were given by our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel for the gathering and perpetual Government of his Church Now it is certain that amongst these Laws there is nothing of any temporal punishment Our Blessed Saviour tells Pilate That his Kingdom was not of this world it was no Temporal Kingdom It was not to be promoted by the sword or temporal punishments He left his Apostles no power to punish the transgressors of his Laws either 1. In their Purse by Pecuniary Mulcts or Fines Nor 2. in their Persons by Death or Imprisonments All such Power does and ever did belong to the Civil Magistrate who only has
Jus Gladii Nor is there any Law in the Gospel which so much as mentions much less prohibits the Civil Supreme Magistrate to pardon condemn'd Malefactors 2. For the Mosaical Laws Ceremonial and Judicial they were such as were given by God himself for the good Government of the Jewish Common-wealth Now concerning these Laws it is certain 1. That they were given only to the Jews as is confess'd and fully proved by the Schoolmen and Casuists 2. It is certain that no positive Law Divine or humane does or can bind any save those to whom it is given and sufficiently promulgated and made known A sufficient Promulgation is absolutely necessary to the Obligation of any positive Law 3. And hence it follows that those Mosaical Laws never bound the Gentiles before our blessed Saviour's time much less Christians since as will anon appear And therefore if that Law in Numb 35. 31. but now mention'd or any other Mosaical Law had absolutely forbid and made the pardoning of Murder unlawful to the Jews yet it will not hence follow that it should be by that Law unlawful for Gentiles or Christians to pardon it seeing it is manifest that those Mosaical Laws were never given to nor any way obliged them For the Transgression of any Law does necessarily presuppose its Obligation It being impossible I should transgress a Law which never bound me to Obedience 4. The obligation of the Ceremonial Laws ceased even to the Jews to whom they were given at the death of our Blessed Saviour They were Types and Shadows of his Death and our Redemption by him and when the Substance and thing typified by them was come the Shadows ceased Whence it is that Divines both Ancient and Modern truly say That at our Blessed Saviours Death the Jewish Ceremonial Law was Mortua as to its obligation it was abrogated and the observation of it not necessary tho for some time to gain the Jews even the Apostles did voluntarily observe it But when the Gospel was more fully published it became Mortifera and the observation of it inconsistent with the Gospel 5. For the Judicial Law of the Jews it is certain that the Obligation of it ceas'd at least at the destruction of Jerusalem when the Jewish Government and their Commonwealth was utterly destroy'd 6. And hence it evidently follows that all those Mosaical Laws Judicial and Ceremonial have been abrogated and null and have neither bound Jew or Gentile above this 1600 years last past and therefore it is impossible that any of them should now bind any Christian Supreme Power not to pardon any condemned malefactor And what is said of the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws given to the Jews by Moses that none of them ever did or could bind any Gentiles or Christians the same we say of the Moral Law as to punishing or pardoning Murderers that it never prohibited Supreme Princes to reprive or pardon any person condemned for Murder That this may appear it must be considered that there are two Editions of the Moral Law both writ by the Omnipotent and Gracious Author of it by God himself 1. In the heart of Adam where it was most intirely and perfectly writ His Understanding being clear and abundantly able to know and distinguish good from evil quid faciendum quid fugiendum and his will obsequious to follow those dictates of right Reason But by the fall of Adam this Writing and perfect Edition of the Moral Law was much blotted corrupted and defac'd both in Adam and all his Posterity For although the substance of that Law did after the fall continue writ in their nearts yet so defac'd by the Fall that ignorance having blinded the Under standing it was in many places not legible nor sin having corrupted the will practicable 2. The second Edition of the Moral Law in respect of the writing of it which remain'd in the hearts of men after the fall was multo auctior emendatior And this Edition of the Moral Law is that which God by Moses gave only to his own Church and People the Jews In which he gave them 1. A just and perfect Compendium of that whole Law in two Tables of Stone containing Ten Precepts 2. A full and more perfect explication of those Precepts and the particular duties required by them 3. An addition of many Gracious promises and blessings to those who sincerely observ'd those Laws and many threats and punishments for those who transgress'd any of those Laws This Edition of the Moral Law with the many promises and punishments annext was as I said given only to the Jews not to the Gentiles And this appears by that memorable passage in St. Paul wherein he tells the Romans in these words The Gentiles which HAVE NOT THE LAW do BY NATURE These HAVING NOT THE LAW are a law to themselves which shews the work of the Law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS In which words we have the two Editions of the Moral Law afore mentioned expresly set down and that the Gentiles had only the first Edition and that the second and more perfect Edition was given only to the Jews For the Apostle says 1. That the Gentiles HAD NOT THE LAW to wit as it was Lex scripta in Lapide and given to the Jews with the Addition of many Promises and many several punishments annext to the transgressions of particular Precepts 2. That the Gentiles HAD THE LAW writ IN CORDE for so all men by nature had it And 't is the Moral Law he means for no positive Law of God or man is by nature writ in any mans heart Now what is said in the second and more perfect Edition of the Moral Law as it was given by Moses only to the Jews is either 1. De Officiis 2. Or de poenis promissis I. De Officiis quid faciendum aut fugiendum What good we are to do in obedience to the Affirmative Precepts As in that Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy Honour thy Father and Mother c. And what evil we are to avoid in obedience to the Negative Precepts such as these Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit Adultery c. In short the sum of all those Duties which the Moral Law requires of us is this That we love God with all our heart and our neighbour as our selves Now as to all these duties the obligation of the Moral Law is Universal Eternal and Indispensable It binds all men Jews and Gentiles and that indispensably 2. De promissis poenis concerning the Promises and punishments which are annext to the Moral Law as it was given to the Jews by Moses And here I. For the Promises it is certain that they were given only to the Jews For the Apostle expresly tells us That the Gentiles were aliens and strangers to the promises For instance the promise added to the fifth Commandment Honour thy Father and thy Mother that thy days may be long in the land
which the Lord thy God GIVETH THEE Canaan is the Land promised and given to the Jews only not to the Gentiles nor ever intended for them it being indeed impossible that all Jews and Gentiles should live in that little Land But to pass by the promises which do not so properly belong to our present business I say 2. That it is as certain that all the Mosaical Laws de Poenis are not natural but Positive and Judicial Laws which never bound any save the Jews or those who became Proselytes and voluntarily submitted to them to whom only they were given That this may further and more distinctly appear it is to be confidered as certain and consessed I. That the Law of Nature as all just Laws do binds all men 1. Ad Obedientiam to a willing and perfect Obedience And 2. upon supposition of sin ad Poenam But the Punishment to which the Law of Nature binds is Death and that Eternal Death For as in Adam by reason of sin all die so they had died eternally had not God most graciously sent his Son to redeem them from that death Every sin how small soever by the Covenant of Works of which the Moral Law was the condition on mans part to be perform'd was a capital crime and Death the Wages or punishment by that law due to it But those many various laws de Poenis which occur in the Mosaical law which he gave to the Jews are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non leges nobiscum nataE in cord naturalitere inscriptae not Natural laws writ in our hearts and born with us But they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leges à Deo datae positive Laws which neither do nor ever did bind any but the Jews As may appear 2. Because they were given only to the Jews and that after they came out of Egypt which was after the Fall of Adam above 2450 years But those Mosaical Laws de Poenis of which we speak were never given nor publish'd to the Gentiles But had those Laws de Poenis been Natural Laws as the Precepts in the Decalogue are they would have bound all mankind from the Creation to this day and that indispensably and then all Christians should be bound to obey and practise those Penal laws and punish all Malefactors with such punishments only as in those laws are appointed which is evidently untrue as may appear 3. By the judgment and consent of the Christian World for no Christian Church or State did ever think themselves bound to observe those Mosaical Poenal Laws and to punish transgressors of the Divine Law with those punishments which are prescribed by Moses For instance That the stealing of a Sheep should be punish'd with restitutio in quadruplum with restoring four sheep for one if the thief had sold or kill'd the sheep he stole but if the sheep was found in his hand who stole it he was only to restore two sheep for one That the stealer of an Ox should restore five Oxen. That he who curseth or who smiteth his father or mother or will not obey them should be punished with death and stoned with stones That to do any of our own work so much only as to gather a few sticks on the Sabbath day should be capital and the offender in any one of these things surely put to death although these and such other Laws de Poenis were Divine given to the Jews by Moses and obliged them yet no Christian Church or State did ever think themselves obliged to the observation and practice of them And they had good ground in the Gospels to think so For 4. Our Blessed Saviour in his Sermon on the Mount explains and confirms all the Moral Laws de Officiis yet those severe Mosaical Laws de Poenis he did not confirm But expresly declares that legal severity to be inconsistent with the Charity of the Gospel For though by the Mosaical law a Jew might justly require and the Judge give an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth yet our Blessed Saviour expresly declares against such legal severity You have heard saith he it has been said in the Law of Moses an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth But I say unto you Resist not evil c He does not allow that severity in poenis in the Gospel which Moses allow'd the Jews under the Law and therefore we may be sure that it was not any Moral or Natural Law which required those punishments appointed for several sins in the Law of Moses for then they had been unalterable nor would our Blessed Saviour have contradicted them but it was the positive law of Moses which required them of the Jews to whom only these Laws were given and obligatory And here for further evidence of this truth it is to be considered 1. That in that Mosaical Law which is ignorantly or maliciously urged to prove that our Gracious Soveraign cannot pardon murder the strictest binding words are these The Murderer SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH Therefore say they he cannot be pardon'd They who reason thus did not well consider the consequence of such arguing from the Penal Laws in Moses For if this argument be good Moses says The Murderer shall surely be put to death Ergo He cannot be pardon'd Then this grounded on the same law of Moses will be every way as good and concluding The same Moses says Whosoever doth ANY work on the Sabbath-day he shall SURELY be put to death Ergo He cannot be pardon'd If such Logick were good it would conclude all men to be unpardonably guilty of death seeing I believe there is no man who on some Lords-day has not done some work and therefore by such Logick as this must be unpardonably guilty of death But enough of this for indeed such arguments do not deserve any serious answer or confufutation Sure I am that never any Christian Church or State did or had any reason to believe That the severe Jewish Law for the observation of the Sabbath did oblige Christians and therefore there neither is nor can be any more reason why their severe Law against Murder should be now obligatory to Gentiles or Christians to whom it was never given 2. When the Law says The Murderer shall SURELY die our best Commentators out of the Rabbins say that this is spoken to the Judges before whom such Causes regularly came Now those Judges in the Jewish Commonwealth were appointed by the Supreme Power and by his Authority judged and determined Causes under him Admit then that the Judges who were Magistrates Subordinate to the Supreme Power were to take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer but were by that Law oblig'd to condemn and execute him yet it does not hence follow that the Supreme Power who made them Judges might
irrationality of their Worship and Pretences for it and the Odium that lies upon them universally as being hateful to the Christian World because they are a dispersed and vagabond People Slaves where-ever they come obnoxious to the Will of those Princes and States in whose Territories they live and so want all those temporal advantages which might allure Proselytes having no Jurisdiction or Authority any where to Protect themselves much less others who shall desert their own Profession to embrace theirs So that in all likelihood considering the Evidence of Truth and the very many Advantages which the Professors of Christianity have above that of Judaism by the Readmission of the Jews the cohabitation and conversation amongst Christians they may be sooner converted to Christianity God blessing the means than Christians seduced into Judaism And something we have to this purpose in Sacred and Prophane Story In the time of Queen Esther the Jews by her means had infinite Honour and Priviledges in the Persian Monarchy gained for them by her of Ahassuerus Darius Hystaspis was the Man her Husband Adeo ut musti ex populis terrae facti sunt Judaei saith the Text and the Reason is rendered Quoniam pavor Judaeorum super eos erat It was their great Priviledge and secular Advantages which made many turn Jews But now as their Religion is absolutely out of Date and their Misery more so the Fear that any should turn to them is less Nor do I find that when that Jewish Common-wealth was in its Glory they compelled any to be of their Religion no not those who lived amongst them and were uncircumcised for such did live quietly and were permitted so to do amongst them Nor only so but they were very scrupulous in admitting those Proselytes which did voluntarily come unto them As will fully appear by a large Discourse of Mr. Selden's to that purpose And though we find in Josephus that Johannes Hyrcanus commanded the whole Nation of the Idumeans to be circumcised yet that was because they were of the Seed of Abraham and so as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Posterity bound to be circumcised Whence it is that even Strabo Stephanus and Ammonius do reckon them for Jews But if it should be otherwise with the Jews now if they should be sollicitous and busie to seduce any to their Religion the Prudence of the State may by the Capitulations of their Admission tye them to the contrary and make such Seduction if voluntarily attempted by them a Forfeiture for their Priviledges and so secure the Publick as to that particular 3. Scandalum For the third thing which might make the admission of the Jews unlawful to wit Scandal I conceive the case will be more plain than the former For though I know not what Scandal some may take who are hardly pleased with any thing the Publick Magistrates do which suits not with their ends and interest yet I do not see any colourable Reason why the Readmission of the Jews into this Nation should by any sober and intelligent Person be thought Scandalous Scandalum datum I mean or be a ground of just Offence to any And that this may appear I reason thus If the supreme Magistrate by readmiting the Jews give a just ground of Scandal then it is either to Foreign States abroad or their own Subjects at home but neither of both can rationally be said 1. Not to Foreign States abroad for there neither is nor hardly ever was any Kingdom or State in Christendom which sometime or other hath not admitted them Sure I am most do now and certainly such States have no just Reason nor can have to condemn us for that which they do themselves 2. Not to their own Subjects at home and that this may more distinctly appear I consider 1. That in relation to humane actions to be done or not to be done by us all things in the World are and of necessity must be ranked in one of these three Particulars 1. Some things are absolutely good 2. Some are absolutely bad 3. Some are Res mediae and indifferent 1. Things absolutely good are such as are Sub praecepto divino affirmativo naturali vel positivo and these of necessity necessitas praecepti is meant must be done and without sin cannot be left undone by any Man in the World no one rational individuum excepted For I speak not of Children or natural Fools who want the use of Reason if they be juris naturalis nor if they be juris positivi can they without sin be left undone by any Man to whom that positive divine Law is sufficiently reveal'd Now I take it for manifest and a truth which I believe will be granted by all sober Men that neither the admission or exclusion of the Jews is absolutely good or sub praecepto divino affirmativo naturali vel positivo For 1. If their admission were a thing absolutely good and sub praecepto divino then all those who admit them not and much more they who eject them would be found guilty of a manifest violation of the Law of God which no Man ever said nor with any congruity of Reason can say 2. If their exclusion were absolutely good and sub praecepto divino then all those who have admitted them and the Christian Churches in all ages even those of the Apostles themselves have done so will be found guilty of a great sin and manifest transgression of the Law of God and then the primitive Christians and the Apostles themselves must of necessity be guilty of this Crime which neither is nor can justly be affirmed 2. Things absolutely bad are such as are sub praecepto Dei negativo naturali vel positivo forbidden by God and and so absolutely unlawful for us and that the admission of the Jews into this or any other Christian Common-wealth should be thus unlawful and so malum per se I believe is not and I am sure cannot with any congruity be asserted 1. Because there appears no Law of God natural or positive against such admission he that thinks otherwise let him shew it 2. If admission of the Jews into a Christian Common-wealth if cohabitation and an outward and civil conversation with them had been an evil of this high nature then as is before said the primitive Christians and Apostles nay our blessed Saviour himself which is impious to think had been guilty of it who all their lives permitted and practise such communion and outward conversation with the unconverted Jews 3. Well then let the admission and exclusion of the Jews be as most manifestly they are amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Res mediae those things we call indifferent and in themselves neither morally good or bad but such as may be either according as they are cloathed with several circumstances Then I say if the supreme Magistrate who is trusted with the managing of publick affairs think it fit to