Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	authority_n	church_n	faith_n	5,185	5	6.2589	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A83437	The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan. Or, A treatise against toleration and pretended liberty of conscience: wherein by Scripture, sound reason, fathers, schoolmen, casuists, Protestant divines of all nations, confessions of faith of the Reformed Churches, ecclesiastical histories, and constant practice of the most pious and wisest emperours, princes, states, the best writers of politicks, the experience of all ages; yea, by divers principles, testimonies and proceedings of sectaries themselves, as Donatists, Anabaptists, Brownists, Independents, the unlawfulnesse and mischeif [sic] in Christian commonwealths and kingdoms both of a vniversal toleration of all religions and consciences, and of a limited and bounded of some sects only, are clearly proved and demonstrated, with all the materiall grounds and reasons brought for such tolerations fully answered. / By Thomas Edvvards, Minister of the Gospel. The first part.; Casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan. Part 1	Edwards, Thomas, 1599-1647.	1647 (1647)	Wing E225; Thomason E394_6; ESTC R201621	211,214	231

exercise it were infallible and not subject to error which that t is so may be demonstrated by these following reasons First In the Churches of the new Testament in the Apostles dayes when they had men amongst them immediately inspired who could dictate the mind of Christ infallibly and tell them the certaine meaning of any Scripture notwithstanding all that Infallibilitie and Immediatenesse of Inspiration such Persons Tenets and Practises though erroneous and mistakes as by the rules of faith and love could and might be tolerated and suffered were tolerated and the Apostles in those things so far from giving any directions to the Churches for withdrawing or excommunicating that they give commands to the contrary namely to receive bear with please such and not our selves follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another and whereto we have already attained to walk by the same Rule as these Scriptures Rom. 14. 1 2 3 4 13 19. Rom. 15 1 2 3. Phil. 3. 15 16. with divers of the like kind show The holding the day of Christ to be at hand was an error and Paul writes pathetically to disswade the Thessalonians from it 2 Thes 2. 1 2 3. yet for all that hee accounts them brethren and so I might instance in other such particulars whereas on the contrary in damnable Heresies Scismes and such like as denying the resurrection of the dead holding Circumcision necessary to Iustification in denying Jesus Christ to be come in the flesh in teaching the Doctrines of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans in separating themselves and going out from the Church the Apostles are against all suffering bearing with receiving of and for rejecting delivering up to Satan and cutting of all such as these Scriptures testifie 1 Tim. 1. 20. Tit. 3. 10. Gal. 1. 8 9. Gal. 5. 12. the second Epistle of Iohn 7. 9 10. Jude 19 23 v. Revel 2. 14 15 20. with many more Now in the Tenets Opinions and Practises of the first sort the Apostles could have resolved the Romans Philippians as infallibly who held the truth and who in the error in those particulars as in the latter of Heresies This is acknowledged by Master Burroughs himselfe in page 59 60 61. of his Heart divisions even where he pleads for a Toleration in all points doubtfull and controverted among godly men who writes thus all these people spoken of in Rom. 14 were not in the right for a man not to eat flesh out of conscience when the thing was not forbidden certainly was a sin or to make conscience of a Holy Day which God required not was a sin Now the Apostle did not come with his Authoritie and say I will make you leave of keeping such dayes or you shall eate or to abstaine thus as you doe is evill and it must not be suffered in you No the Apostle layes no Apostlicall Authoritie upon them but tels them That every man must bee ful●y perswaded in his owne mind in what he doth and who art thou that judgest another mans servant the Lord hath received him And yet the Governours of the Church in the Primitive times might upon much stronger grounds have stood upon such a Principle then any Governours of the Church now can there was lesse Reason why they should suffer any difference in Opinion or Practise amongst them then why wee should suffer differences amongst us for they had men amongst them immediately inspired who could dictate the mind of Christ infallibly they could tell them the certaine meaning of any Scripture And yet we see plainly the Apostle applies himselfe both in the Romans and Philippians rather to presse mutuall forbearance and keeping the Vnitie of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace using all arguments of that kind as God hath received him be that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and hee that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it he that cateth eateth to the Lord c. Neverthelesse whereunto wee have attained let us walk by the same Rule and if in any thing you be otherwise minded God shall reveale even this unto you then from God immediately and infallibly to declare who were in the right and truth in those particulars wherein they differed and thereupon to command the others to be of their mind and Practise in all the particulars or else upon such an infallible resolution to declare they ought to be cast out of the Church and no communion hold with them By all which t is evident that Infallibility and opportunitie of immediatenesse of consultation with God is not the formall Ground of censure but the nature of the things themselves being destructive to faith Godlinesse and edifying for if the power of punishing had beene founded on infallibilitie seeing the Apostles were as able and infallible to give certaine resolutions in the matter of dayes meate and drinks and such like as in matters of faith they would have given other manner of Rules then they did in Rom. 14. Phil. 3. And indeed if Hagiomastize infallibilitie were good what reason can be given why the Apostles did not proceed with all errors and all persons as with Hymene●s Alexander and the woman Iesable which cleerly showes the lawfulnesse of censures lay not in the infallible knowledge of the Governours of the Church but the Apostles in persons and things themselves the one sort weak peaceable Christians holding the head and communion with the body the other turbulent wilful holding Doctrins subverting in the foundation the precious soules of men and godlines And certainly if infallibility were not the just ground and formall reason of censuring but some other thing then fallibility a possibility of mistaking in some things cannot be a just cause of taking away all power of punishing from Governors and that in all points though never so destructive to Gods glory and the soules of men Secondly in the new Testament there are many commands given and many ●●●les laid down both for those times wherein they were written and for all times till the comming of Christ unto persons who were not infallible nor immediately inspired concerning Heresies and Hereticks Scismes and Scismaticks to beware of folk Prophets and false Teachers to avoid reject and turne away from them not to beleeve every Spirit but to try the Spirits whether they are of God not to receive into house neither to bid God speed those that trasgresse and abide not in the Doctrine of Christ not to suffer those who teach false Doctrine and sed●ce the servants to God to countend ●arnestly the faith to hold fast the truth and sound Doctrine show was these Scriptures to whole Churches and particular Persons both private Christians and Pastors and Teachers not Apostles and Prophets the extraordinary Officers Rom. 1. 16 17 18. Phil. 3. 2. 1. Tim. 6. 5. 2 Pet. 3. 17. 1 John 4. 3. 2. Epist John 9. 10. Jud● 3. Revel 2. 14 20. Revel 3. Now however the

Lord is sure Luke 1. 3. 4. that Gospel was written that Theophilus might know the certaintie of those things wherein he had been instructed Colos 2. 2. there is a full assurance of understanding to know the misterie of God and of the Father and of Christ the Scriptures are cald the Oracles of God Acts 7. 38. Rom. 3. 2. 1 Pet. 4. 11 as well as the judgement by Vrim to show they are infallible and certaine Master Goodwin in his Anapologesiates page 103. saith of some Doctrines that he holds For my part I have the grounds of God I mean the Scripture I would fain know of Hagiomastix what made the Answer by Vrim to be infallible and to be beleeved and rested in by those who came to enquire but that God who was true and infallible said so and revealed it and is there not the same in the Doctrines contained in the Scriptures hath not God who is truth and infallible revealed and declared them in Scriptures and thereupon propounded them to be beleeved The Doctrines of faith must be laid downe certainly and infallibly in Scriptures both from the nature of faith which in respect of the matter to be beleeved must have certaine infallible and undoubted truth and not that which is false or doubtfull and from the formall reason and ground of beleeving which is the Authoritie of God who is true and infallible revealing his mind not the Testimonie of the Church as also from the end and use of the Scriptures to be the Canon and Rule of faith Now the Canon of a thing especially the supreme cheif by which all other are to be tried and judged of had need be certain and known and not doubtful and unknown Learned Rivet and other Protestant Divines writing of that question against the Papists of the Scriptures being the Canon and Rule of faith speak thus the Canon and Rule of faith must be certaine and known The best Protestant Divines writing against the Papists of the Canon of the Srcipture show that is one principall requisite to make a Canon and Rule that it should be certaine and infallible the Metaphor it selfe from whence the name is borrowed viz. not from any private measure but the publick and allowed according to which by the Law all other are to be measured demonstrates the certaintie and infallibilitie of a Canon and Rule that which in it selfe is uncertaine and variable cannot be the Canon or rule of any Doctrine much lesse of faith Yea * Bellarmine himselfe disputing for the Scriptures against Enthusiasts proves the Rule of the Catholick faith must be certaine and known for if it be not knowne it cannot bee a rule and if it be not certaine neither shall it be a rule Whoever is but versed in the writings of Protestant Divines upon that head of the Scriptures against Papists on the one hand and Anabaptists on the other or who so will consult them as Whitaker Chamier Rivet Amesius Bishop Davenant Whites way to the true Church Gerardus Robertus Baronius Maccovius Willets Synopsis Spanhemius Cloppenburgius shall find the infallibilitie and certaintie of the Scriptures and of the Doctrines of faith contained in them under the new Testament abundantly cleared and made good and the cavils about the interpretations of Scripture the need of a visible infallible Iudge of every mans private Spirit being Iudge c fully answered and therefore I shall not enlarge further on it only I shall briefly adde that God in these times of the new Testament hath left this threefold way and means of infallible certainty in Doctrines of Faith and Worship First the Scriptures and more especially since the Canon hath been sealed and compleated contains and holds forth all things necessary to salvation and out of them they may be certainly and infallibly known the word of God written is an inflexible golden rule not leaden nor be bent for all matters of faith and manners and there is such a certaintie of the Doctrines of faith laid down in the Scriptures that 1. all poins of faith necessary to salvation are plainly therein set forth so that all men who have spirituall eares and eyes may understand their meaning which position besides that t is held generally by our most learned Divines against the Papists may be demonstrated by these places of Scripture and reasons as Psal 19. 7. 8. enlightning the eyes making wise the semple Psal 119 105. 2 Pet. 1. 20. compared to a candle and a light to our feet and paths to a light shining in a darke place Deut. 30. 11. the commandement is not hidden all which show the clearenes and plainnesse of the Scriptures the Scripture in evident places calleth us to search it and seeke to it as John 5. 39. Esay 8. 20 c which had been to no purpose if they could not bee understood againe the end of the Scripture is for our learning Rom. 15. 4. but now obscuritie and things not to be understood ex diametro oppose learning lastly I might produce a multitude of pregnant quotations out of the Fathers Justin Martyr Chrysostome Austin Clemens Alexandrinus Isidorus Pelusiota Gregorius c speaking of Gods fitting the Scriptures even to the capacity of Babes and Sucklins of the Scriptures being a River wherein the Lamb may walke and the Elephant may swim of being a common light that shineth to all men of being easie to be understood by the Plowman the Artificer the widow woman and him that is most unlearned but I remember I am handling the question of Toleration and not that of the Perspicuitie of the Scriptures and doe therefore conclude affirming things necessary to salvation to be so cleerly laid down in the Scriptures that no man who can understand the words need doubt of the sense 2. There is not only a certaintie and assurance to be had from the Scriptures of things more plainly laid downe therein the matters of faith absolutely necessary to salvation but from the Scriptures by comparing Scripture with Scripture considering of circumstances by just consequences and such like many hard doubtfull points in Religion which to one man alone or to weak unlearned men are very uucertaine and doubtfull yet by the helpe of many learned men in Synods and Councels going Gods way may from the Scriptures be made cleare and certaine That place of Scripture Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11 12. showes us that hard matters and matters of Controversie too hard for a few Priests the lower Courts may by the help● of the higher Courts be so certainly and clearely resolved from the sentence of the Law the written word in that time that they who will not hearken in that case deserve to die and so in the new Testament some things in Pauls Epistles hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction

his other wicked Opinions M. Goodwin what Answer wil you make to God for these pretences brought against Scripture can you think against such expresse texts such poor shifts wil serve or wil hold water in the day of judgement what if these then prove but Adams fig-leaves meer shifts and tricks of wit to put off the word and bee not real what wil you then doe for all the dishonour of God ruine of precious souls occasioned by your means wil not Gods wrath sweepe away these Cobwebs I say no more thinke upon it Master Goodwin and be not deceived God is not mocked 18. THESIS Whereas the Patrons of Toleration commonly plead that all places of Scripture both of examples and commands for Magistrates punishing in matters of Religion are only from the old Testament and t is confessed by them that under the Law before Christs comming good Magistrates both did and might exercise coercive power on false Prophets Apostates Blasphemers but now since the new Testament t is otherwise It being the Will and Command of God that since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus a Permission of the most Paganish Jewish Turkish or Anti-Christian Consciences and Worships be granted to all men in all Nations and Countries and they only to be fought against with that sword which is only in soule matters able to conquer to ●it the sword of Gods Spirit the word of God I lay downe this Thesis That all things concerning Religion and pietie constantly practised by the godly and by God commanded under the old Testament and by him never declared to be repealed bind as firmely under the new Testament although there be no particular command nor example a new approving them as they did under the old and that in such cases the comming of Christ into the world and his death are so far from giving any dispensation or Libertie that quite contrary some things before permitted to the Jewes are by Christ now taken away and all matters in reference to Religion and Holinesse upon the comming of Christ into the world are spoken of by the Scriptures as to be kept and done with greater exactnesse and strictnesse For proof of which I lay downe these following grounds First That the Scripture of the old Testament is the Canon and Rule of faith and Practice as well as the Scripture of the New and that it equally belongs to Christians as the Books of the New which point besides that it hath been held by the Orthodox in the Church of God in all times since Christ and denied only by Hereticks as the Simoniani the Maniches Socinians Antinomians Anabaptists I shall give these reasons 1. That Christ and the Apostles all along in the new Testament prove their Doctrine by the Scriptures of the old Testament Moses and the Prophets still referring the People in all Controversies of Faith and Practice to the Scriptures of the old Testament as is evident by these places Luk. 16. 29. John 5. 39. Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. 2 Pet. 1. 19. cum multis aliis which are all understood of the Scriptures of the old Testament as besides many things in those texts showing as much no Scriptures of the new Testament being then extant when Christ gave those exhortations to search the Scriptures and when Timothy was a child of which Scripture the Apostle speaks which Timothy learned of a child as Chrysostome well expounds Now that was the Scripture of the old Testament because the new was not as yet committed to writing then when Timothie was a child Nay further all the texts by way of Scripture proo●e brought in the new Testament to prove any thing in matter of faith and manners are all quoted out of the old Testament and not the new whereupon wee see how frequently Moses the Psalms and Prophets are cited by Christ and his Apostles but to my best remembrance I doe not find in all the new Testament any place of Scripture brought to prove any thing from the new Testament but that one passage out of Pauls Epistles 2 Pet. 3. 15 16. 2. The Apostle Paul 2 Tim. 3. 16. saith All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for Reproofe for Correction for instruction in righteousnesse Now if all Scripture be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the Scripture of the old Testament is so to and as given by inspiration is with all reverence to be acknowledged and received by Christians Againe if all Scripture be profitable for Doctrine for reproofe for Correction for instruction of righteousnesse therefore Doctrines of faith and Practises of life may be profitably fetched from thence and when things are laid downe in the old Testament they are commanded in the Scriptures they being the Scriptures too although not mentioned in the new But who so desires to be further satisfied in this question of the Scripture of the old Testament being of the same Authoritie with Christians as that of the new let him consult Bullingers Books against the Anabaptists lib. 4. cap. 4. 5 6 and Spanhemius his Disputations against the Anabaptists De usu Script V. Testaments in Ecclesia Christiana Secondly every command of God made knowne in the old Testament and never afterwards repealed nor revoked by him nor expiring in the nature of it is perpetual and in force whatever God once commands til he declares either particularly that t is not his will such a Law should any longer bind or at least generally in equivalencie obliges So that t is no good argument to say against a Practice as long as t is commanded in the old this cannot be proved out of the new Testament and therefore may not be done but rather on the contrary wee may inferre that the silence of the new Testament concerning a Law expresly and clearly delivered in the old Testament is a confirmation rather then an abrogation of it or an intimation that it is expired There are many particulars might be instanced in some expressely commanded and others forbidden in the old Testament which are not spoken of at all in the new Testament unlesse in general that yet are held by Orthodox Divines and I suppose by Hagi●mastix too binding under the new as many degrees of Marriages forbidden usury as Magistrates putting to death murderers and some other Malefactors with divers others that might be named Upon which occasion Master Cotton answers Master Williams If it be true that Christ g●ve no expresse Ordinance Praecept or President of killing men by material Swords for Religion sake It is as true that neither did he for any Breach of Civil Justice no not for murder nor Adultery And so supposing there were no new Testament proofes for the Magistrates punishing Apostates Blasphemers c. yet the old Testament affording such a cloud of witnesses is testimony abundant especially remembring what I have at large proved in divers pages of the last Thesis concerning

God for it p. 12 13 Magistrates and Judges before Moses time before the Judiciall Lawes or Levitical Priesthood did punish for matters of Religion and command men under their power to worship God p. 13 14 Other Kings besides those of Israel and Iudah used their Power for the worship of God against Idolaters Blasphemers c p. 14 15 16 That objection against the Kings of Israel and Iudahs power in matters of Religion that they were tipes of Christ and that Land typical answered at large in eight distinct Answers where divers things are opened concerning Types and of those Kings being Types and how actions may be Typical and yet morall from p. 16 to 27 Idolatry and Idolaters not the adaequate object of the Magistrates coercive power under the old Testament but the whole worship and truth of God from p. 27 to 34 The 17. of Deut. 18. 19. opened and proved to give Magistrates the care of Religion p. 34 35 36 37 Vnder the Father in the fourth commandement and under sanctifying the Sabbath the Magistrates dutie to see the publick worship of God observed by his subjects proved p. 34 40. 41 The Magistrates dutie qua Magistrate in matters of Religion proved and yet with a difference of the Christian and Heathen Magistrates power in such matters p. 42 43 44 The commands in the Old Testament for Magistrates punishing in matters of the first Table as Exod. 22. 13. Deut. 13. 1 2 5. Deut. 17. 1. 2 3 4 5. Levit. 24. 16. Deut 18 20. 22. with divers others laid down p. 44 45 46 Reasons laid down to prove these commands for punishing Idolaters false Prophets c. Morall of common reason and equity given to all Nations and for all Ages from p. 46. to 53. Of Judiciall lawes under the Old Testament being in force under the New how far and in what respects with the reasons thereof from p. 53. to 58. The Magistrates punishing of sinnes immediately against God as Blasphemy Apostasie c. is of the light of nature p. 58 59 60 61 72 73 The Magistrates coercive power in matters of Religion as necessary under the Gospel for the glory of God salvation of mens soules peace of Church and State as under the Old yea more reasons for it under the Gospel then under the Law p. 62 63 64 The Magistrates punishing false Prophets c. is an act of our love to God and our Brethren p. 66 67 68 69 70 71 The reasons of those commands in 13. and 17. chap. of Deut. concerning putting to death false Prophets Apostates have been were and are stil the same of a like nature and force both before the commands given by Moses in Moses time and now under the Gospel p. 76 77 78 An Answer to that objection that if Moses laws bind now then Moses is alive under the new Testament p. 79 80 A full Answer to that objection If the Law in Deut. 13. be in force now t is in force in all the particulars for the manner of the punishment for a whole City not only al the Inhabitants but the cattell also c. in which answer many things are opened and cleared what 's morall in that Deut. 13. and what ceremoniall and that the law concerning the destroying of a city cattell c. is no part of the command spoken of in the first part of the 13. chap of Deut. p. 81 82 83 84 85 86 87. 173 174 175. 195 196 An answer to that obiection If Moses lawes bind under the New Testament then every person in an idolatrous State is bound to seek the death one of another yea the Magistrate bound to sentence to death all his subiects practising idolatry without exception p. 90 91 92 93 A full answer to that Evasion of Hagiomastix against the Old Testament lawes that the reason why the Magistrates did then punish false Prophets Blasphemers c. was because the Jewes to whom these laws were given in all difficult cases about matters of Religion had the opportunity of immediate consultation with God who did infallibly declare his mind to them in which answer many questions are discussed and cleared severall texts opened as whether God gave answers by Vrim and Thummim in difficulties arising about morall transgression● against the first Table or rather whether those answers were not concerning the events of future things as about the successe of war c. as whether Infallibility or Fallibility be the proper grounds and reasons of punishing or not punishing in matters of faith and morall transgressions as whether there be not and how far and by what means an infallibility and certainty in matters of Religion now as well as under the Law as whether that Deut. 17. 8 9 10 11 12. be any proof for God giving answers by Vrim and Thummim or only a ground in difficult cases to go from lower Courts to higher and the highest of all who by reason of their number and abilities were more able from the law of God to resolve difficult cases then the inferior Courts with divers other particulars usefull to be known in these times from p. 95 to 165 A full answer to that Evasion brought by Hagiomastix and other Patrons of Toleration that the punishments under the Law were more bodily and afflictive to the outward man then under the Gospel and consequently were typicall Cutting off of Casting out now and typicall of eternall damnation and therefore by the comming of Christ ceased p. 165 166 167 168 169 170 A full answer to that objection That supposing all those lawes in Deut. 13. c. were morall and in force yet they could not reach to Hereticks and false Teachers among us as not being those false Prophets Idolaters Blasphemers spoken of in those lawes from p. 171 to 190 An answer to that objection That the Sadduces Herodians Pharises were tolerated by the Jewes and that Christ did never charge that Church and State with sin for not punishing them p. 29 30 compared with 190 191 192 193 194 Severall Reasons laid down to prove that if there were no commands nor examples in the New Testament to prove the Magistrates power of punishing Hereticks false Teachers yet the proofs of the Old Testament were binding p. 199 to 211 Besides all the Old Testament proofs some places of Scripture speaking of the dayes under the New Testament brought for Magistrates power in Religion and punishing false Teachers p. 212 213 214 215 Seven grounds from places of Scripture recorded in the New Testament proving Magistrates coercive power against false Teachers annd Hereticks laid down and cleared p 215 216 217 218. Published by Authority A TREATISE against the Magistrates Toleration And Permission of a Promiscuous use and Profession of all Religions Sects and Heresies and a partiall limited Toleration of some few Sects or of any one Sect way of Worship Church Government different from the true Religion established and setled HAving in my Preface and Prolegomena both

and therefore in the present case the vindicating of and promoting of the glory of God the punishing of evill doers which Blasphemers Hereticks and Scismaticks are the commanding good being Morall-practicall things of perpetuall reason and equity bind all those in authority and government according to their places though they be no Types nor extraordinary persons Fifthly if this evasion of the kings of Israel and Iudah about Typicalnesse be good by the same reason it may hold against Magistrates punishing under the Gospel for matters of the second Table murther adultery c. for may not the Socinians and Anabaptists who deny Christian Magistrates may punish capitally for murther treason c. say the same thing against all the examples of Magistrates and kings under the old Law punishing with death for such offences that they were Types and that people and Land typicall which no Magistrate nor people are now and what ever can be said upon this ground against Princes meddling in matters of Religion may as well be said against their punishing in Civill matters and Anabaptists and Socinians may as well say those Kings were Types of Christ in respect of their power over the State as over the Church and if they should affirm it how would it be disproved And the Bloudy ●Tene● pag. 209. grants that in the Land of Israel all things their civils morals and naturals were carried on in Types as well as their Spirituals and Ecclesiasticals yea by this ground what ever shall be brought out of the Old Testament to show the duty of Magistrates or the qualifications of them as that they that rule over men must be just fearing God hating covetousnesse courageous c. it may be answered that was required of those who were typicall and their people typicall but it concerns not Magistrates now and yet higher by this evasion men may reason against all instances out of the Old Testament brought from Fathers Masters to bring up their children in the feare of God c. because the first-borne such Fathers and Masters of families were typicall and their children typicall which Fathers are not under the Gospel Sixthly if this answer of typicalnesse may hold all those Kings and Princes actions and practises in other things of Morall particular duties as prayer mourning for sinne giving God thanks for deliverances c. are taken away from binding now as well as their acts of power and authority and when Ministers bring these examples of David Iosiah Hezekiah c. in such things it may be said they were Types of Christ and did them as Types of something to come the Antinomian may upon this ground answer the example of Davids praying so often and constantly and of mourning for his sinnes by saying David was a Type of Christ Seventhly by this Answer all the Scriptures of the Old Testament Moses Psalms Prophets with whatever of any duty cōmanded or sin spoken against in any of these are at once made void for it may be said the Pen-men were Types and given to a typicall people written in a typicall Land It may be said of the whole Morall Law that as Moses in his person was a Type of Christ in many particulars so in delivering the Law he shadowed Christ the Mediatour Moses being a mediator betweene God and his people in giving the Law Galat. 3. 19. the Law was delivered in the hand of a Mediator that is Moses Acts 7. 38. and therefore not binding to Christians And so it may be pretended of all things written in the Psalms Prophets and the other Books that they were viz. the Oracles of God committed to the Jewes and the Circumcision Rom. 3. 2. Rom. 9. 4. which people and Nation of Israel were typicall of the true Israel the Israel of God Galat. 6. 16. So the Land of Canaan was typicall of rest from 〈◊〉 and of true rest and the heavenly inheritance Hebr. 4. 1 2 3 8 9 10 11. vers And indeed what was not typicall some way or other in the Jewish Church and State as the first-borne the Priests Kings Prophets the Land the people their worships with many more particulars so that if this Answer stand good all the Scriptures of the Old Testament are overthrown and all Hereticks whatsoever Socinians Antinomians Familists c. may evade any Scripture brought from thence as well as the pleaders for Toleration the examples of the Kings of Israel and Judah 8ly All the actions and practises done by persons and things typicall are so farre from nothing concerning them who live under the Gospel that the Scriptures of the New Testament tell us that many things under the Old Testament were made Figures and Type● for the admonitions and example of those in like cases under the New and did teach to the uttermost as the 1 Cor. 10. from the sixth verse to the twelfth and that clause of promise in the fifth Commandement That thy dayes may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee is meant of the Land of Canaan a typicall Land which yet did teach Christians under the New Testament that obedience to their Parents would bring a being well with them and living long upon the earth though they had not the Land of Canaan as Ephes 6. 1 2. 3. fully showes Saint Paul also tells us Rom. 15. 4. that whatsoever things were written 〈◊〉 were written for our learning and so those Magistrates and Princes of Israel and Judah how ever they might typifie Christs Kingdome they were such Types spoken of in 1 Cor. 10. viz. examples to Christian Magistrates to teach them to do so likewise as Fathers then were to teach Fathers now to instruct their children and therefore though such an order of men as Kings in Israel might be intended to typifie Christs Kingdom yet that no way hinders but what they did as Kings in ruling and ordering of their subjects they performed as the proper works of their places common to them with other Princes without any reference to their being Types or doing them as Types God in Scripture recording all along what they did as going upon common morall grounds and speaking nothing of them in their Reformations as in a figurative typicall notion And in the close of my Answer to this evasion of the instances of the Kings of Judah I shall hint to the Reader to consider some notes of distinction between actions meerly typicall and fulfilled in the Antitype done only to represent and shadow forth what Christ was to do and mixt actions morall and typicall too or at least the actions of one who by person or order is a Type and upon search it will be found that all the notes of actions morall not meerly typicall will be found in the practises of those Ks of Judah and Israel before named As first when their practises and wayes are not barely related but commended and praised by God wheras actions meerly typical are only related and set down as

by the state of the question laid down in the Prolegomena as also Deut. 13. is understood of Apostates who having professed the Law are fallen from it and of persons in the territories and power of the Jews not that they should doe so to all neighbouring Nations round about them as these phrases imply If there arise among you a Prophet If thy brother or thy Son or thy Daughter entice thee secretly saying le ts go serve other Gods If thou shalt hear say in one of thy Cities which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there saying certaine men the children of Belial are gone out from among you and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city Deu● 17. 2. If there bee found among you within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee man or woman that hath wrought wickednesse in the fight of the Lord thy God in transgressing his Covenant If it be true that such abomination is wrought in Israel then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman unto thy gates and stone them with stones till they die On which place * Calvin observes in his handling that question whether it be lawfull for Christian Judges to punish Hereticks that the punishment of stoning in Deut. 13. was not commanded to be inflicted upon forraine Nations but upon Apostates from the Jewish Religion who had perfidiously fallen from it by which saith hee is answered that objection made by some who aske whether Jewes Turkes and the like are by the sword to be forced to the Faith of Christ Neither doth God command the sword to be drawn promiscuously against all but Apostates who have wickedly with drawn themselves from the true worship and have endeavoured to draw others to the like defection he hath subjected to just punishment Yet for all this Hagiomastix makes Ifs and And 's brings instances of Suppositions in Heathens and of States wholly Idolatrous nothing at all to the question in hand for the Apostle speaks in 1 Corinthians and the seventh chapter of a Heathen and infidell that never received the faith of Christ but being borne and brought up in Heathenisme continues so however one of the married persons husband or wife was converted to the Christian faith besides that question put by Hagiomastix why was the Apostle Paul so farre from enjoyning a beleeving brother to detect or to put to death his infidell or Idolatrous wife that he doth not permit him so much as to put her away from him is absurd and ridiculous and a man would wonder that such a great champion as Cretensis would be taken for that dares challenge all Presbyterians in England Scotland and France assembled and not assembled and so cryed up and deified by the Sectaries in divers Pamphlets should bring such weak poore stuffe for the Corinthian State and Magistracie being then heathenish and infidels as the Apostle in the chapter going before 1 Cor. 6. 2. shows only many particular private persons living in Corinth being converted who were not the civill Government it had been to no end for Paul to direct the beleeving husband to complaine to the Magistrate of his Idolatrous wife that had been the way for himselfe to have been punished that had been all one as to have complained to the civill Magistrates of themselves and certainly the Apostle that blamed the beleeving Corinthians for going to law one with another before their Magistrates who were unbeleevers though he would not if they had been Christian Magistrates had no reason to stirre up Christians to complaine unto unbeleevers in matters of Religion and Christianity Master Goodwin might with as much reason have ask● why the Apostle Paul did not enjoine the unbeleeving wife or husband to complaine of the beleeving wife and husband as why hee did not enjoine the beleeving wife to detect her Idolatrous husband and might as well nay better reason it unlawfull for Christians to goe to law now under Christian Iudges because they might not under Heathens as to argue against Christians complaining and detecting of Christians that turne Apostates Hereticks Idolaters c because Christians did not complaine in Pauls time to Heathen Magistrates of Heathens yea this is so unreasonable a question to build an argument upon against an expresse command of God and that with a triumph in the close of it saying Certainly this Doctrine of the Apostle ●olds no tolerable correspondency with the opinion of our severe Inquisitors about the non a brogation of the Law for putting Idolaters to death that though I read in Ecclesiasticall Histories of Christians complaining to some Heathen Emperors favorers of Christian Religion of Christians when they turned Herrticks as to Aurelianus of Paulus Samosetenus the Heretick and of Heathens seeking to Heathen Princes against Priests that were very wicked under the show of Religion being guilty of sacriledge and corrupting the chastity of Matrons Yet I never read of any complaining of and desiring Princes to punish Heathens of the same Religion with themselves so that by all this the Reader may easily perceive besides the dissimilitude in the instance of 1 Cor. 7. from that of Deut. 13. the one speaking of an Heathen Idolater the other of a Jewish Apostate there was very great reason why the Apostle enjoyned not the beleeving wife to seek to take away the life of her unbeleeving husband for in so doing she might have hazarded her owne but could have done no good to the hindring of his Idoll worship But however Paul enjoyns nothing to the beleeving husband and wife about detecting their unbeleeving Yoke-fellowes upon the grounds already given yet I make no question had Paul lived in a time wherein the Corinthian Magistrates had received the faith he would have given both them and beleeving husbands in their places injunctions to have demolished Idoll Temples and their worships not to suffer Blasphemies against Christ but on the contrary to have sent preachers among them and to countenance and honor those who received the faith of which in the practises of Constantine Theodosius and other Emperors I might give many instances De inhibitis pagan●rum sacrificiis and of the shutting up yea pulling down the Temples of the Heathen Gods of their removing from Offices and Places those who were not Christians There is no question but Paul who dehorted so earnestly the beleeving Corinthians from going to the Idols Feasts in the Idols temples and from eating of the sacrifices in their Temples 1 Cor. 10. 2 Cor. 6. would if the State of Corinth had been Christian have exhorted them to put down the Idoll Temples to forbid those Idolatrous sacrifices to suppresse their Priests as also Christian husbands in case their wifes would have gone after Idolatrous Priests worshipped Images brought to them they would have desired their Magistrates helpe against such Seducers and Corrupters And for conclusion of my answer to this fifth Head if I would give liberty to

before Apostles yea Angels and anathematizes them if they bring any other Gospel then what the Apostles had preached which in many places he declares was according to the Scriptures Chrysostome saith that the Scripture is to be preferd before the Angels in the matters of faith The word of God is the cheife and highest rule of faith for as learned Chamier writes The word of God is God speaking therefore look what is the authoritie of God speaking the same is of the word of God and therefore above Angels And by the way I desire the Reader to observe against Hagiomastix who makes such a do of infallibilitie that not whatsoever is infallible is the supreme rule of faith for that is a grand mistake to make every thing that is infallible the ground of beleeving or the cheife rule of it but this is the ground of being the supreme Rule of faith that it be summae suaeque authoritatis of supreme authoritie of it selfe and not from another which is apparent because Angels are infallible the Apostles also were ex particulari assistutia Spiritus and yet neither of them are nor have been the supreme Rule of the Church This Paul hath taught us in Gal. 1. 8. how Apostles and Angels are to be anathematized if they bring any other Gospel But these things are unworthy to be affirmed of the Rule of faith and especially of the supreme Rule which ought not to be so resembled to any thing that by that it should be corrected and ordered for then it ceases to be a Rule but rather that by the Rule especially the highest all things else are to be judged wherefore besides infallibilitie there is something else necessary to a thing that it should become a Rule namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that it be of cheife and of its owne Authoritie not of a subordinate and borrowed Authoritie from another but whoever would be further satisfied in this point let him read learned Chamier 6. Then Gods owne voice from heaven the Apostle Peter tels us 2 Pet. 1. 17 18 19. of that voice of God from heaven which came to Jesus Christ This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased which Peter Iames Iob● heard when they were with Christ in the holy mount Matth. 17. 5 6. and yet Peter speaking of the Scriptures and comparing them with this voice from the excellent glory writes thus We have also a more sure word of prophecie whereunto you doe well that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a darke place until the day dawne and the day starre arise in your hearts upon which words Interpreters on the Place and other learned men show however that voice from heaven being from God as the written Prophecies were was in it selfe as sure yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken either for a most lure or very sure word a comparative for a superlative so used in other places of Scripture so setting forth to us the Scriptures being founded on the firmest and greaest authoritie or more sure or more firme So the word in the Greek properly signifies to the Christian Jewes to whom the Epistle was written which by long use and experience were more setled in their hearts and so sooner beleeved then the voice from heaven although that were sure also Christ in Joh. 5. from verse 31. to the 40. speaking of the many Testimonies concerning him as his own Johus testimony the Testimony of his works instances in the voice from heaven witnessing to him Matth. 3. 17. 17. Matth. 5. and then Christ goes to the Scriptures as the highest and cheifest Search the Scriptures for in them you thinke you have eternal life and they are they which testifie of me wee may observe the gradation of the witnesses Christs works greater then the Testimony of John the Fathers witnessing from heaven above that of his workes and the Scriptures testifying of him the last and greatest of all and for a conclusion of this Gods speaking to his Church under the new Testament especially since the Canon was sealed and confirmed as Divines speake that is by his Sonne making known the whole Evangelical Doctrine and Will of God concerning mans salvation is by the holy Ghost preferred far before the divers manners and wayes of Gods making known his will before as that of dreams visions Vrim and Thummim voice from heaven Angels c as is evident by Heb. 1. 1 2 3. compared with the second of Heb. 1. 2 3 4. In a word they who are so wicked to wrest and pervert manifest plaine places of Scripture would not if they had lived in those dayes have rested satisfied in the Sentences of the high Priest by Vrim in one comming from the dead in the Doctrine of an Apostle or Angel or in a voice from heaven but would have made cavils and sound pretences to have eluded and evaded all or any of those as well as the Scriptures in all which I might give particular instances but for present I shall instance only in the voice from heaven of which voice from heaven John 12. 28 29 30. though it was so plain and distinct testifying Christ to be sent of God and the Messiah yet t is perverted and misinterpreted as much as the Scriptures of which voice from heaven how perverted I referre the Reader to learned Rollock Calvin and other Interpreters on that place of Scripture and so much for this seventh Answer Eightly Supposing all Hagiomastix saith in page 46. 47. and 130 to be true that that sentence of the Priest or Iudge against which hee that would doe presumptuously was to be put to death was only a sentence upon enquiry by Vrim and Thummim and that the Iewes opportunitie of immediatenesse of consultation with the mouth of God himselfe was a cleer reason why that old Testament Law for putting of false Prophets c to death was given to them yet it followes not these Laws cannot be in force now unlesse that can be made apparence to have been the only reason and ground of the Magistrates punishing for if there were other reasons as well under the old Testament of those Lawes and that by God formally and particularly declared and expressed as t is evident there were and I have proved page 70. 76. and divers other pages of this Treatise then they being in force still the Lawes bind though one particular reason or more proper to that time bee ceased I might instance in many morall things commanded under the old Testament that unquestionably I suppose in Master Goodwins judgement are in force under the new of which among other reasons given there was some one particular reason proper to the Iewes that holds not now but for this I refer the Reader to page 83. of this Book and to put an end to these eight Answers to the sixth evasion of Hagiomastix page 46. 47 130 I shall only mind him

very uncertain doubtfull other things absurd and untrue As first that to be a Type of Christ is a sufficient ground of a Politicall Civill power over the Church and that typicalnesse qua typicalnesse gives those perso●s a power who otherwise have none the contrary unto which is in severall Reasons proved by Doctor Stewart in the second part of his Duply to M. S. page 22. and never yet answered by M. S. or any other though M. S. and many of his Brethren have written upon that argument since Secondly that he who was Head of the State was Head also of the Church in a typicall way whereas many great Divines are of another judgement and show that the Kings of Judah and the civill judicatures were formally distinct from the Ecclesiasticall and that he who was cheif in the State over civill matters was not cheif Iudge and Officer in the Church in an Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall notion of which point Master R●●herford and Master Gil●espie having written so fully lately I shall spare to speak any thing and referre the Reader to their learned Books enti●uled The Divine Right of Church Government Aarons Rod Blossoming Thirdly that the people of the Iewes were interchangably a Church and a Nation so that whoever was a member of the Church was a member of the Common-wealth and vice versa of which see the Book entituled The Antient Bounds or Liberty of Conscience seated page 60. Now Master Gillespie in his Aarons Rod blossoming Book 1. chap. 2. proves strongly that the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State and that in seven particulars as in respect of distinct Lawes distinct Acts distinct Officers so in respect of distinct Members there being Members of the Church among them who had the name of Proselyti Iustitiae and were initiated into the Iewish Religion by Circumcision Sacrifice c. that neverthelesse were restrained and secluded from Dignities Government and Preferment in the Iewish Common-wealth and from divers matriages which were free to the Israelites Master SELDEN also in that learned Book of his De Jure Natur. Gentium lib. 2. cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 20. speaks as much of those Proselytes Proselytus justitiae utcunque novato patriae nomine Iudaeu● diceretur non tam quidem ci● is Iudaicus simpliciter censendus esset quam peregrinus sempe● cui jura quamplurima inter cives Secondly how do they prove that Iehu Ioash Manasseh Asa Hezekiah Iebosophat Iosiah were Types of Christ and did execu●e typically the kingly office of Christ in his Church were Kings in an Ecclesiasticall notion an extraordinary way not ruling only for the Church but in the Church and over it as they say Moses Ioshua David Solomon were in their persons places and actions expresse types of Iesus Christ as 't is evident in the New Testament Pen-men also of Scripture besides Prophets as well as Magistrates and so were extraordinary men that every thing they did in Religion is not a binding example to Magistrates now as many Reformed Divines have showen against the Arminians and Erastians but that Asa Iosiah Hezekiah Iehosaphat were is gratis dictum not yet proved neither were these Pen-men of holy Scripture or Prophets extraordinarily inspired but these foure great Reformers as Kings were stirred up enquiring after and directed by Prophets as the Reader may finde clearly in the stories of them in the Chronicles and Kings Besides I finde not among Divines who have written of the Types of Christ or who grant Moses David Solomon to be expresse Types that they make Asa Iosiah c. to be Types Again of Types of Christ as Divines distinguish there are particular persons types of him as Adam Noah Isaac Joseph Moses Joshua Samson David Solomon Jonah and there are such rancks and orders of men as the First-born Kings Prophets c. Now though all of the first sort are speciall particular Types of him so that the speciall things done by them do typifie and set forth Christ in many particulars of his person actions and sufferings yet the rancks and orders of men as the First-born Kings Prophets may not be typicall in all the particular persons of those ranks and orders at least to the particular acts they do in those ranks and orders but 't is enough for many in those orders to agree in common as in being Kings and Prophets as Christ was there being some in all those orders and ranks appointed of God especially and peculiarly to be the Types which others are not and for whose sakes in those orders and ranks such orders of men were instituted by God to be Types of which many instances might be given with the Reasons thereof in some of the First-born Kings c. but I shall reserve the further handling of that to a second part upon this Subject Lastly supposing Asa Josiah and those godly Kings to be Types of Christ may it not be doubted whether Jehu Ieboash Ammon Ieroboam c. were Types of Christ and did execute his kingly office who yet were commended viz. the two fir●t for destroying false worship and reproved for not doing it constantly besides could those Kings of Israel and Iudah who yet were lawfull Kings that apostatised from all the whole worship of God the Ceremoniall Law that ordained the Types that destroyed Gods service and the Priesthood made Priests of the lowest of the people be Types of Christ and I desire to be resolved or M. S. the Author of the Antient bounds of Liberty of Conscience stated whether any wicked men were speciall Types of Christ and whether all persons who were Types of Christ were not saved Thirdly suppose these Kings of Iudah were Types of Christ in setting on the Thron of David and ruling over Iudah in Christ the King of his Church coming out of their loines yet they were temporall Kings had Civill authority Now how does it appear that what they did in punishing idolatrous Priests comm●nding their subjects to the true worship of God they did only as Types by vertue of that Notion and not as they were temporall Kings which must be proved before their examples can be made null and I am sure the Scripture no where faith that the Kings of Iudah and Israel in what they commanded in matters of Religion they did as Types of Christ and not as Civill Magistrates 'T is one thing to be a Type and another thing to doe such things meerly qua Types and what if Christian Magistrates leaning upon this broken staffe suffering all Herefies Blasphemies and Idolatries in their Kingdomes Christ at the last day when they stand before the judgement feat they objecting for themselves the Kings of Israel and Iudah were Types of Christ and all they did was by vertue of their typicall notion shal tell them no but as Magistrates entrusted by God with a power and authority how will they be then confounded will this distinction and notion

found out by Libertines deliver from the wrath to come had not Princes need be on better grounds then Apocryphall notions such distinctions of which God in his Word never gave any foundation but besides the Apocryphalnesse of this notion that these Kings reformed Religion not meerly quae Types but as Kings and Princes over subjects may be proved thus First because Magistrates before them and Magistrates of other Common-wealths did so as is largely shown in the twelfth Th●sis Secondly Types were not ordained by the Politicall or Morall Law as Magistrates and their authority but by the Ceremoniall Law Thirdly for that which they say the Kings of Israel the Iews and their Land were Types of and that which by their Kings punishing Idolaters and Seducers was typified namely spiritual censures under the Gospel of Excomm●nication and casting out of the wicked from the Churches of the Gospel 't is denied they were Types of the Christian Church in respect of the Civill State but of the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Government by Church Officers so the Land of Canaan was a Type of heaven not as it contained the Civill State but the Church it being a Type of Heaven before they had possession of it or their Civill State and Government set up and yet no Type of Heaven till the people of God had a promise of it 〈◊〉 is evident by laying the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament together And as for those punishments inflicted by Kings typifying the censures under the Gospel we must know that all the Spiritual Censures of Admonition Suspension Excommunication were under the Old Testament in the time of the Kings of Iudah and that not only for Ceremoniall uncleannesses but for morall and scandalous fin● all which is fully proved by Master Gillaspie at large in his A●rous Rod blossoming 2 Book 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 12. chapters Fourthly granting what these Libertines say that the Kings of Judah were Types of Christ and in what they did they aypified Christs kingly Office yet this cannot enervate the examples of these Kings unlesse doing things as a Type and as a Morall example could not stand in one and the same person which is not so Some particular persons may be intended by God Types of Christ the highest kind of Type and their action intended to typifie speciall works of Christ and yet those very action● may be Morall and binding all in such relations whose persons nor actions can in no kind be judged typicall and the reason of it is because God may serve himself of a person or office doing things commanded in the Moral law to make a type of ●nd though God intends such a man by such and such actions to make him a Type yet the man may not know so much nor intend any such thing in such actions but do all by vertue of a Morall command and for the better understanding of this let the Reader consider that in some persons the same actions may be both Typicall and Morall extraordinary in regard of the ma●●er and some circumstances and ordinary in regard of the matter and substance typicall as typifying Christ and what he should do and yet Mo●all duties which he ought to do and all others also in such relations so that though some persons be Types and the things they do typicall yet they may be Morall too and so binding which though as they were typicall they may be taken away yet as they were Morall may be in full force As for example Christ was figured in Joseph Ioseph was an eminent Type of Christ in the first ●ank of Types as a singular person typifying him not as a rank or order of men by office only as those kings of Iudah spoken of and among other things he was a Type in feeding his Father and his Brethren that when advanced in the kingdome he provided for and nourished his Fathers house which typified Iesus Christ feeding the Family of God and preserving the Church alive Now though Ioseph in this action was a Type of Christ and did it typically yet not only typically but did this morally and naturally too by vertue of the fifth Commandement and sixth Commandement of childrens duty to their Parents and of preserving life and by vertue of this example of Ioseph every man in high place and rich is bound to send for and provide for Father and Brethren in a necessitous condition and suppose now a man in Iosephs condition should have Father and Brethren in want whom he should neglect and being pressed by Iosephs example to provide for them he should answer Iosephs practise was nothing to him for he was a Type of Christ and typified Christs feeding of his Church not with temporall food only but with the Manna from Heaven the word and Sacraments I aske of those who plead this Argument of typicalnesse whether this were a good Answer and if not neither is theirs against the practise of the kings of Iudah from being Types of Christ and I wish the Pleaders for Toleration would serious consider of and resolve this Question though Ioseph was a speciall Type of Christ and in this action of preserving his Father and Brethren a Type of Christs preserving his Church yet whether this action of his to his Father Brethren and their children do not bind now in the dayes of the Gospel children to their Fathers c. or whether the typicalnesse of it hath caused it to cease and in the resolution of this case the ingenuous Reader may see what to judge of the typicalnesse of the kings of Iudah and that typicalnesse of persons and actions does not presently make all such persons and actions that they cannot be examples or rules to others who are not typicall The Prophets and Propheticall office were Types of Christ as well as the kings of Iudah and yet actions they did that were some way typicall and extraordinary bind Christians under the Gospel for the substance and matter and are set before them for example as Eli●● a Type and in his Prayer a Type yea somewhat in it extraordinary is by Iames propounded in prayer as a patterne and a proof of effectuall servent prayer to righteous men under the Gospel Iames 5. 16 17 18. In Hebrews 11. many are named who in their persons were undoubted Types of Christ as Noah Isaac Joseph Moses Samson David and others who if not Types in their persons yet were in an extraordinary way as Abraham Iacob Gideon Iephtah c. Now in the point of faith and patience though Types or extraordinary persons are set down for examples and patterns to Christians under the New Testament Hebrews 12. verse 1 2. I could give many more instances of Types and extraordinary persons whom in Morall practicall things matters of faith holinesse righteousnes though they did such things extraordinarily and as Types of Christ either personally or officially Christians in an ordinary way are commanded to follow