doe in vaine goe about from this place to establish their Sacrilegious Tyranny by giving Lawes without the word and beside the word to bind Conscience Therefore Civill Magistrates of whom this whole Discourse is shall exercise a sacrilegious Tyranny over the Conscience and in vaine goe about to establish it from this place when from the word of God they establish true Religion and goe about to punish the Fundamentall subverters of the same But how farre off Calvins Judgement was to restraine Civill Magistrates from medling in matters of Religion let him interpret himselfe in his own words in his opuscula in his Answer to Servetus who was put to Death for his Heresies at Geneva by his procurement Hoe uno saith he contentus sum Christi adventû nec mutatum esse Ordinem Politicum nec de Magistratuum officio quicquam Detractum A gedùm quod Paulus docet Rom. 13.4 Non frustra ah ipsis Gladium gestari an ad speciem unam restringi debet Fatentur isti quibuscum nunc Discepto ad alia crimina plectenda Judices diviniâ—ùs esse amatos moâ—◠â Religione abstineani ut libera ipsis tacentibus Impietas lasciviat verirm reclamat innumeris locis Spiritus Sanctus c. This one thing saith he sufficeth me that by the coming of Christ neither was the State of Civill Government changed nor any thing taken away from the Magistrates Office Goe to then that which Paul teacheth Rom. 13.4 that he beareth not the Sword in vaine ought it to be restrained unto one kind onely they themselves confesse with whom I have to deale the Magistrates are armed of God to punish other crimes so that they abstaine from matter of Religion that so ungodlynesse may runne riot by their connivance But the Holy Ghost crieth out against this in many places c. Discusser Againe Calvin speaking of sulfilling the Law by Love writeth thus on the same place Paul hath not respect vnto the whole Law he speaketh onely of those duties which the Law commandeth us towards our neighbours And after Paul only mentioneth the second Table c. And that he repeateth Love is the fulfilling of the Law understand it as before of that part of the Law which concerneth humane Society for the former Table of the Law which is of the worship of God is not here touched So Beza upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there be any other Commandement it is summed up in this thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy selfe the whole Law saith he commandeth nothing but the love of God and our Neighbour but since the Apostle in this place discourseth of the mutuall Duties of men one to another I thinke this Terme Law ought to be restrained to the second Table Defender And so think I too yet without the least prejudice to the cause in hand For if the Question be of the dutyes which Subjects owe to Magistrates they pertaine to the second Table or if the Question be of the vertu eof love one to another That it is the fulfilling of the whole Law It is meant cheifely of the second Table though withall it be true the second Table cannot be fulfilled without fulfilling of the first Table also These things are out of controversie But what is all this to the point in hand The Apostle in calling love the fulfilling of the Law speaketh of the Law of the second Table Ergo the Magistrate who is spoken of in the same chapter hath no power to punish the crimes against the first Table or thus further in the 13. of the Romans the Apostle speaketh of the Duties of Subjects to Magistrates which is a Duty of the second Table therefore Magistrates have no power to punish their Subjects for crimes against the first Table The Discusser might as well argue that the duties of Subjects to Magistrates are duties of the second Table therefore it is not the Dutie of Subjects to pray for their Magistrates which is a Duty of the first Table The Truth is though Prayer be a Duty of the first Table yet to pray for Magistrates is a Duty of the second Table In like sort though Idolatry and Blasphemy and Heresie be sinnes against the first Table yet to punish these with civill penalties is a Duty of the second Table For let it be considered in the feare of God are not all Duties of Righteousnesse to man commanded in the second Table as well as all Duties of Holinesse to God commanded in the first Table If so I demand againe whether it be not a Duty of Righteousnesse belonging to the people of God to enjoy the free passage of Religion Truth of Doctrine Holinesse of worship Purity of Church-Government I demand yet further if it be not an injurious dealing to the people of God to disturb the Truth of Doctrine with Heresie the holinesse of worship with Idolatry the Purity of Government with Tyranny If all these be granted then it unavoydably followeth that all these wayes of unrighteousnesse are justly punishable by the second Table Let not therefore the Discusser please himselfe in deluding himselfe and the world that Beza and Calvine did absolutely denie the 13. of the Romans to concerne any matter of the first Table For though the Duties of Loyalty to Magistrates and of love to all concerne the second Table yet it was neither the word nor Judgement of Calvine or Beza so to interpret Rom. 13. As to exempt Magistrates from Power of punishing Heresie and Idolatry Calvines Interpretation of Rom. 13.4 and his Argument from thence against Servetus is declared above in this chapter Heare now how Beza interpreteth the same Text in his Booke entituled De Haereticis â Magistratu puniendis Testatur Paulus Magistratum esse Dei Ministrum qui Gladium gerat ad eas ulciscendas qui malè agunt Rom. 13.4 Quamobrem alterutrum necesse est si in Haereticos Magistratus jus nullum habet vel ipsos malè non agere quod Refutatione indigere non puto vel quod in genere Paulus ait ad certum maleficiorum genus revocandum eorum videlicet quae corporalia peccata vocant de quo malificiorum discrimine copiosius ut spero posteà suo loco Disseram That is Paul witnesseth saith he that the Magistrate is Gods Minister who beareth the Sword to take vengeance on them that doe evill Rom. 13.4 wherefore one of these two must needs be If Magistrates should have no just power over Hereticks either that Hereticks are not evill doers which is so grosse that I thinke it needs no Refutation or else that Pauls speech is to be restrained to a certaine sort of evill deeds to wit such as they call corporall sinnes of which distinction of evill deeds I shall dispute more largely I hope in his due place hereafter So Beza CHAP. 48. A Reply to his Chap. 48. Discusser THe higher powers in this Rom. 13. were amongst others the Roman Emperours and subordinate Magistrates
fellowship of all the Churches in the Countrey Himselfe hath separated and so banished himselfe from the fellowship of all the Churches in the world and yet he hath not banished himselfe out of the world But though it be impertinent to my Letter to discusse the grounds of his Civill Banishment yet since he is pleased by hook or crook to draw it in I referre the Reader for Answer to a full Treatise of that Argument penned by a reverend faithfull Brother the Teacher of the Church at Rocksbury and withall as I have touched somewhat of it above in Answer to his Preface so I shall speak a word or two more unto it here Whom that eminent Magistrate was that so summed up the grounds of Mr. Williams his Banishment in those foure Particulars above mentioned Mr. Williams doth wisely conceale his name lest if he were named he should be occasioned to beare witnesse against such fraudulent expression of the Particulars whereof some were no causes of his Banishment at all and such as were causes were not delivered in such generall Tearmes For in universalibus latet Dolus It is evident the two latter causes which he giveth of his Banishment were no causes at all as he expresseth them There are many knowne to hold both these Opinions That it is not lawfull to heare any of the Ministers of the Parish-Assemblies in England and that the Civill Magistrates power extendeth onely to the bodies and goods and outward estates of men and yet they are tolerated not onely to live in the Common-wealth but also in the fellowship of the Churches The two former though they be not so much noysed yet there be many if not most that hold That we have not our Land meerly by right of Patent from the King but that the Natives are true owners of all that they possesse or improve Neither doe I know any amongst us that either then were or now are of another minde And as for the other Point That it is not lawfull to call a wicked Person to sweare or pray Though that be not commonly held yet it is knowne to be held of some who yet are tolerated to enjoy both Civill and Church-liberties amongst us To come therefore to Particulars Two things there were which to my best observation and remembrance caused the Sentence of his Banishment and two other fell in that hastened it 1. His violent and tumultuous carriage against the Patent By the Patent it is that we received allowance from the King to depart his Kingdome and to carry our goods with us without offence to his Officers and without paying custome to himselfe By the Patent certain select men as Magistrates and Freemen have power to make Lawes and the Magistrates to execute Justice and Judgement amongst the People according to such Lawes By the Patent we have Power to erect such a Government of the Church as is most agreeable to the Word to the estate of the People and to the gaining of Natives in Gods time first to Civility and then to Christianity To this Authority established by this Patent English-men doe readily submit themselves and foraine Plantations the French the Dutch and Swedish doe willingly transact their Negotiations with us as with a Colony established by the Royall Authority of the State of England This Patent Mr. Williams publickly and vehemently preached against as containing matter of falshood and injustice Falshood in making the King the first Christian Prince who had discovered these parts and injustice in giving the Countrey to his English Subjects which belonged to the Native Indians This therefore he pressed upon the Magistrates and People to be humbled for from time to time in dayes of solemne Humiliation and to returne the Patent back againe to the King It was answered to him first That it was neither the Kings intendment nor the English Planters to take possession of the Countrey by murther of the Natives or by robbery but either to take possession of the voyd places of the Countrey by the Law of Nature for Vacuum Domicilium cedit occupanti or if we tooke any Lands from the Natives it was by way of purchase and free consent A little before our coming God had by pestilence and other contagious diseases swept away many thousands of the Natives who had inhabited the Bay of Massachusets for which the Patent was granted Such few of them as survived were glad of the coming of the English who might preserve them from the oppression of the Nahargansets For it is the manner of the Natives the stronger Nations to oppresse the weaker This answer did not satisfie Mr. Williams who pleaded the Natives though they did not nor could subdue the Countrey but left it vacuum Domicilium yet they hunted all the Countrey over and for the expedition of their hunting voyages they burnt up all the underwoods in the Countrey once or twice a yeare and therefore as Noble men in England possessed great Parkes and the King great Forrests in England onely for their game and no man might lawfully invade their Propriety So might the Natives challenge the like Propriety of the Countrey here It was replyed unto him 1. That the King and Noble men in England as they possessed greater Territories then other men so they did greater service to Church and Common-wealth 2. That they employed their Parkes and Forrests not for hunting onely but for Timber and for the nourishment of tame beasts as well as wild and also for habitation to sundry Tenants 3. That our Townes here did not disturb the huntings of the Natives but did rather keepe their Game fitter for their taking for they take their Deere by Traps and not by Hounds 4. That if they complained of any straites wee put upon them wee gave satisfaction in some payments or other to their content 5. We did not conceive that it is a just Title to so vast a Continent to make no other improvement of millions of Acres in it but onely to burne it up for pastime But these Answers not satisfying him this was still pressed by him as a Nationall sinne to hold to the Patent yea and a Nationall duty to renounce the Patent which to have done had subverted the fundamentall State and Government of the Countrey 2. The second offence which procured his Banishment was occasioned as I touched before The Magistrates and other members of the Generall Court upon Intelligence of some Episcopall and malignant practises against the Countrey they made an order of Court to take tryall of the fidelitie of the People not by imposing upon them but by offering to them an Oath of Fidelitie that in case any should refuse to take it they might not betrust them with place of publick charge and Command This Oath when it came abroad he vehemently withstood it and disswaded sundry from it partly because it was as he said Christs Prerogative to have his Office established by Oath partly because an oath was a part of Gods
that they will doe it without some excitement from the Angells no more then the Angells powred out their vialls till they were stirred up by a great voice out of the Temple Revelations 16.1 It is an evasion as groundlesse as the former that Elijahs stirring up of Ahab to kill all the Preists and Prophets of Baal was figurative For all Figures in the old Testament have their Accomplishment â—n the New Now evident it is Ahab an Apostate Idolater was no Type of Christ nor was Israel after their Apostacy a Type of the true Church of Christ A Tabernacle it was but not a Tabernacle of Christ Aholah but not Aholibah To make this act in Israel a Type of Christs act in Christian State or Church is to make darknesse a type of light Ceremoniall Lawes were generally Typicall not so Moses his Judicialls especially those which had in them morall equity It is Morall equity That Blasphemers and Apostate Idolaters seducing others to Idolatry should be put to death Levit. 24.16 Deut. 13.5 Ahab forfited his owne life because he did not put Benhadad to death for his blasphemy 1 Kings 20.23 28. and ver 42. yet Benhadad was no Israelite nor was his blasphemy bleched out in the Land of Israel but the externall equity of that Judiciall Law of Moses was of morall force and bindeth all Princes to expresse that zeale and indignation both against blasphemy in such as fall under their just power which Ahab neglected and against seduction to Idolatry which Ahab executed or else Elijah or some others by his consent But before I leave this dispute touching the meaning of those words Let them alone let me add another Interpretation which I see doth rather more satisfie others and it may wel stand Let them alone is not a word of precept by way of Ordinance But a word of permission by way of Providence God in his Providence will permit some or other Tares ever to be found in his Church to the last Judgement Which yet he would not have his servants offended at For them he will pluck up by his Angells at the last Harvest CHAP. 28. A Reply to his 28th Chapter VVhich is a Recaptulation of what Points the Discusser supposeth He hath proved in opening this Parable Defender The Discusser in this Chapter is onely a Rehearser of what he conceiveth himselfe to have evidently demonstrated to the Conscience from Chap. eighteene to this Chapter twentieight Five Points Negatively and Five Points Affirmatively But because what he rehearseth hath been reversed in the Reply to those severall Chapters I will not Actum Agere nor Dictum dicere CHAP. 29. A Reply to his twentininth Chapter Discussing the Text in Matth. 15.14 Letter The second Scripture brought against such Persecution for Cause of Conscience is Matth 15.14 where the Disciples being troubled at the Pharises cariage towards the Lord Jesus and his Doctrine and relating how they were offended at him The Lord Jesus commaundeth his Disciples to Let them alone and giveth this Reason that the blinde lead the blinde and both should fall into the ditch Answ of the Letter Christ speaketh not there to publick Officers whether in Church or Common-wealth but to his private Disciples concerning the Pharises over whom they had no power And the command he giveth to Let them alone is spoken in regard of troubling themselves or regarding the offence which they tooke at the wholesome Doctrine of the Gospel As who should say Though they be offended at this wholesome saying of mine yet doe not you feare their feare nor be troubled at their offence which they take at my Doctrine not out of sound Judgement but out of blindnesse But this maketh nothing to the cause in hand Discusser To passe by this Assertion of the privacy of the Apostles in that the Lord Jesus commanded to Let them alone that is not onely to be offended themselves but not to meddle with them It appeareth it was no Ordinance of God nor of Christ for his Disciples to have gone further and have complained to and excited the Civill Magistrate to his duty Which if it had been an Ordinance of God and Christ either for the vindicating of Christs Doctrine or the recovering of the Pharises or the preserving of others from infection the Lord Jesus would never have commanded them to omitt that which should have tended to these holy ends Defender Reply 1. To passe by the Assertion of the Privacy of the Apostles It is not an Act of courtesie and loathnesse to strive but out of defect of just pretence to make any colourable exception against it For though the Apostles were called to a publique Ministery Math. 10. yet it seemeth not as then to a constant office but to a transient Administration pro illa vice for that time Their constant calling required to attend continually upon Christs Ministry to prepare and ripen them for the publique constant office which they were to be called to after Christs Resurrection Acts 1.21 22. Besides in that transient Administration they were not sent to the Scribes and Pharises who were no bitter then Wolves and Foxes but to the lost sheepe of the House of Israel Matth. 10.6 And therefore the Apostles not being sent to the Scribes and Pharises they had no power over them but stood as private men to them Reply 2. And as they had no calling nor power to correct or censure them themselves so neither had they a calling to excite the civill Magistrate against them For first it was no just cause for the civill Magistrate to punish the Pharises for that they tooke unjust offence against Christs wholesome doctrine For neither was the doctrine it selfe a fundamentall truth nor was their offence against it a fundamentall errour though it was dangerous Besides the civill Magistrates had no Law established about doctrines or offences of that nature And therefore they could take no judiciall cognizance of any complaint presented to them about the same Moreover our Saviour who sent forth his Apostles to preach to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel gave them a charge of caution to beware how they medled with Scribes and Pharises Behold saith he I send you forth as sheepe among wolves Be ye therefore wise as serpents innocent as doves Beware of men c. Mat. 10.16 17. The Apostles therefore having received this caution could not meddle with the Scribes and Pharises but trespasse against this rule of serpentine prudence as much as for a flocke of lambes to complaine to a kennell of wolves of the wolves out-rage Yea Christ himselfe was sparing to reprove them himselfe though called to a publicke Ministery till the last yeare of his Ministery when his houre was comming of departure out of the world as knowing they would not be able to beare it and their exasperation might have been some hinderance to the free passage of his Ministery before his houre was come CHAP. 30. A Reply to his Chap. 30.
the Colledge that he might be trained up to knowledge for the help of his Country-men But no violent course taken with them at all to constraine them to the Faith or Profession of Christianity The time is hastning we hope when all the vials of Gods wrath will be poured out on the Antichristian State and then we looke for the fulnesse of the Gentiles to come in and with the Jewes multitudes of Pagans But till the seven plagues of the seven Angels be fulfilled wee cannot easily hope for the entrance of 〈◊〉 New multitudes of men into the Church according to the word of the Lord Rev. 15.8 No man that is no man out of the Temple no Pagan was able to enter into the Temple till the seven plagues of the seven Angels were fulfilled But to returne to our Discusser he speaketh at randome when he intimateth that we walke not by Rule but partially as if we permitted not the like liberty of worship to our Country-men nor to the French Dutch Spanish Persians Turkes Jewes which wee doe to the Indians For we Neither constraine them to worship God with us nor restraine them from worshipping God in their owne way Persians Turkes and Jewes come not amongst us those of other Nations of Europe when they doe come amongst us their manner of Worship is not taken notice of amongst us Our Country-men worship God with us for the most part if some of them come not to our Assemblies by reason of the distance of their dwellings from us they have Liberty of publick prayer and preaching of the word a-amongst themselves by such as themselves choose without disturbance Discusser The Answerer addeth a further Answer to Tertullian for whereas Tertullian had said that one mans Religion doth neither hurt nor profit another the Answerer saith it must be understood of private Worship or of Religion professed in private Otherwise a false Religion professed in publick by the Members of the Church or by such as have given their Names to Christ will be the ruine and Desolation of the Churches Rev. 2. Whereto I Answer 1. Those that are Members of the Church and those that have given their names to Christ are all one the distinction therefore is unsound Defender The Discusser must excuse me though I doe not take them for all one For men of yeares must give up their names to Christ before they can be received Members into the Church as is evident Isaiah 56.6 7. Therefore they are not all one the one precedeth the other Discusser I answer secondly that Tertullian doth not there speake of private but of publick worship and Religion Defender Tertullians speech may possibly be meant of either publick or private But as I said to make the speech true it must either be understood of private or if of publick profession of Religion it must be understood not of Christian but of Pagan and of Pagan during the time of Gods Patience and their ignorance But after God revealed the Truth of the Gospel-Religion to them it was not safe to continue a publick Profession of Pagan-Religion for after the White-Horse hath revealed the Gospel a Red and Black and pale-horse follow to avenge the rejection of it upon the Romane-Pagan-Empire Revel 6.2 to 8. Discusser I answer thirdly although it be true in a Church of Christ that a false Religion or Worship permitted will doe hurt according to those Threats of Christ Rev. 2. yet in two cases I beleive a false Religion will not hurt which is most like to have been Tertullians meaning 1. A false Religion out of the Church will not hurt the Church no more then weeds in the Wildernesse will hurt the inclosed Gardens nor poyson hurt the body when it is not touched or taken yea and Antidotes are received against it 2. A false Religion and worship will not hurt a Civill State in case the worshippers breake no civill Law And the Answerer elsewhere acknowledgeth that the civill Peace is not broken where the civill Lawes are not broken And this onely is the point in Question Defender If this onely be the point in Question where then lyeth the controversie for if I say as the Discusser saith I doe that the Civill Peace is not broken when the Civill Law is not broken and if a false Religion or worship doe not hurt the civill State unlesse the Worshippers breake some civill Law then where lyeth the pinch of the controversie But I would not have the Discusser mistake himselfe I doe not remember that I have any where said that the civill Peace is not broken where the civill Law is not broken He saith I say so elsewhere If he meane that I say so in the Modell drawn up by my Brethren the Elders of those Churches he wrongeth and polluteth himselfe much Crimine falsi when he saith that Mr. Cotton with the rest of the Ministers of New-England composed that Modell of Church and civill power It is no new thing with him to say I did that which I did not that Modell was drawen up by some other fellow-Brethren but not by me There is a Truth in the speech which they speak rightly understood but not as the Discusser here taketh it For first what if no civill Law be made for the establishment of Religion nor against the violation of the Fundamentalls of it this very defect of so needfull a Law may bring the wrath of God upon the civill State as did the defect of a King in Israel Judg. 21.25 Againe secondly there may be a Law made for the establishing of true Religion and it though it be violated yet the Discusser will say no civill Law is violated because no Law concerning the second Table is violated But that is his mistake to thinke the civill Lawes concerne onely the outward Estate of the People and not their Religion That is a civill Law whatsoever concerneth the good of the City and the propulsing of the contrary Now Religion is the best good of the City and therefore Lawes about Religion are truly called civill Lawes enacted by civill Authority about the best good of the City for the promoting and preserving of that good of the City But having thus spoken to his second case first wherein he saith a false Religion will not hurt a civill State I come now to his first which was that a false Religion will not hurt if it be out of the Church no more then weeds in the wildernesse will hurt the inclosed Garden But what if the Garden be inclosed in the midst of a wildernesse what if the weeds grow so neere the inclosure or hedge round about the Garden that they easily creep into the Garden what if every blast of wind blow the seeds of the weeds into the Garden which are ready to overspread the Garden and to choak the good herbes The Discusser will say they that keep and dresse the Garden should weed them out True so they ought to their best endeavour But
Scriptures and expressions of Truth alledged by them doe speake loudly and fully for them that where they are under the Hatches they should not be smothered but suffered to breath and walk upon the Decks in the aire of civill Liberty Defender Reply 1. When the Author of the Letter calleth that Popish Booke out of which he quoteth that Testimony a wicked Book why may not that Testimony be a wicked Testimony as by his owne Judgement the Booke a wicked Booke Reply 2 It is true which they say the meanes which Almighty God appointed for the conversion of Kingdomes was Humility Patience and Charity neither doe wee allow any meanes of rigour for Conversion of soules but onely the power of Spirituall Armour It is true also which they alledge out of Matth. 10.16 That Christ sent his Apostles as sheep into the midst of Wolves He did not send Wolves amongst sheep to kill imprison spoyle c. But this onely sheweth what the condition and Commission and worke of Ministers is when they are sent among Pagans and Persecutors But this is no prohibition to Ministers when they live in a Church of Christ to drive away Wolves from the Sheepfolds of Christ as knowing they come to kill and to destroy And drive them away they may not onely by Church-censures if they be of the Church Tit. 3.10 11. but also if they be out of the Church by miraculous vengeance in case they have such a gift as Paul had and used it against Elymas Acts 13.9 10 11. or by their Prayers though the Discusser deny it chap. 27. as Paul did against Alexander 2 Tim. 4.14 or by stirring up the civill power against them as Elijah did Ahab and the people against the Prophets of Baal 1 Kings 18.40 Reply 3. That which they alledge out of Matth. 10.7 they meane 17. is as farre wide from the purpose as the former It is true the Apostles ought not to deliver the People whom they are sent to convert unto Councels or Prisons or to make their Religion Felony or Treason But what is this to such as being converted to the Profession of the Faith doe Apostate from the Faith and seeke to subvert the Faith which they have professed Or what is this to such as doe seeke also to subvert the civill State to kill Kings or dethrone them and to dispose of their Kingdomes may not such Religion shall I say or Rebellion be made Felony or Treason But see here the partiality both of the Letter and of the Discusser if a Christian King set not up the Popish Religion but make Lawes for the establishment of the Truth this shall be condemned in him as Hereticall pravity himselfe prescribed dethroned killed and his Kingdome alienated to a stranger And this shall passe with Toleration But if a Prince shall make Lawes for the security of himselfe and his Kingdome and condemne such seditious and rebellious Attempts for Felony and Treason this shall be taxed as unchristian Persecution and contrary to the way of Christ and his Apostles Reply 4. It is true likewise what they quote out of verse 32. When ye enter into an House Christ had them salute it saying Peace be to the House he doth not say send Pursevants to ransack and spoile it For Christ sent not his Apostles with civill power nor doth he allow Princes to send Pursevants to ransack Houses that so they might convert the Housholders or sojourners therein But if Seducers to Idolatry be found there and Rebels and Conspirators against the civill State be found there though that Commission to the Apostles speake not to such case yet it is enough the Magistrates Commission from God Rom. 13.4 Armeth him to take vengeance on evill doers Reply 5. To John 10. verse 10 11. The Answer is as easie as to the former The Pastor giveth his Life for the sheep he cometh not to kill or to destroy the sheep But what if he see the Wolfe coming or what if he see the Thiefe coming both of them to steale and kill and to destroy Shall the Pastor now sit still and not hazard his life in their defence contrary to verse 11 12 13 Or shall he betake himselfe onely to spirituall censures when it may be they are not capable of such stroakes Or shall it be an hainous and unchristian carriage in him to seeke ayde against such Thieves and Wolves from them who should see that the sheep of Christ may lead a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godlinesse and Honesty 1 Tim. 2.1 2. The Apostles themselves and the Churches planted by them they doe not so much as desire it of God from their Magistrates that they may live a quiet and peaceable life in a way of ungodlinesse no more then a way of dishonesty So Paul himselfe professeth Acts 25.8.11 But in a way of Godlinesse and Honesty they desire of God they may find by the protection of their Magistrates a quiet and peaceable life in that Text of Timothy Thus to satisfie the Discussers mind and to prevent any pretence of exception I have runnâ— over the Scriptures and expressions of Truth alledged in the Popish Booke which he saith speake loudly and fully for their Toleration but how truly let the servants of God judge Discusser But Protestants herein shew themselves partiall and practise that themselves which they taxe in Papists For though they cry out of Persecution when themselves are under Hatches yet when they come to sit at Helme they runne the same course both in Doctrine and Practise When Mr. Cotton and others have formerly been under Hatches what sad and true complaints have they poured out against Persecution But coming to the Helme how doe they themselves both by Preaching Writing Printing practise unnaturally and partially expresse towards other the cruell Nature of such Lyons and Leopards as some of them have opened out of Cant. 4.8 Defender What we have opened out of Cant. 4.8 against Persecution when as he saith wee were under the Hatches amounted to this That it was lawfull for the sheep of Christ to follow Christ and and to come along with him and flye away from persecution Did any of us then teach that it was unlawfull for Magistrates to pursue with just revenge Apostate Seducers unto Idolatry Heresie or blasphemy or turbulent subverters of civill or Church-Order And since we are come hither where he is pleased to honour us with sitting at Helme which is farre from us what have we taught or practised more then our selves allowed in times of our owne restraint But men that can allow themselves a Liberty of calumny it may well become them to plead for a Liberty of impunity for all Religions We keep not a weight and a weight as he calumniateth a measure and a measure what we measure out to others wee should never thinke it hard measure to have the same returned to our selves in the like case Onely this measure we desire of all hands to be kept that