A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience tending to resolve doubts moved

so a Heretic, or a Popish Idolater, denies not God in profession, yet both worship strange Gods, and the work of mens hands, and the devil, not God, Deut. 32. 16. 2 Chro. 11. 15. Nor did Jeroboam deny God in profession, for he acknowledged that the Lord God, the true God could heal his dried up arm, 1 King 12. 6. and sent his wife to enquire of Jehovah concerning his sick child, 1 King. 14. 1, 2. and Jesu who clave to Jeroboam's calves, 2 King. 10. 29. And so by this same law of God ought to dye, as is clear in that he worshipped and served other Gods, as Deut. 32. 16. Ps. 106. 19. compared with Exod. 32. cleareth, for three thousand were slain by ⟨p. 196⟩[…] ⟨p. 197⟩[…] ⟨p. 198⟩[…] ⟨p. 199⟩[…] ⟨p. 200⟩the Magistrates sword for this sin, Exod. 32. 27, 28. yet these denied Jehovah not in formal and express profession, but by the genius and stain of their doctrine, and the same way the Heretic denies the Lord that bought them, these that worshipped Jehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. by this law should dye, the Priests of Malcom come under the law as well as the Priests of Baal, the Priests of Baal and the false Prophets were slain according to the law, and yet they professed Jehovah as well as Micaiah, 1 King. 22. 24. and Ahab, who worshipped Baal, professed he worshipped Jehovah, and so did these who worshipped the Samaritan strange Gods and Jehovah both together, 2 King. 17.

so a Hereticke, or a Popish Idolater, denyes not God in profession, yet both worship strange Gods, and the worke of mens hands, and the devill, not God, Deut. 32. 16. 2 Chro. 11. 15. Nor did Jeroboam deny God in profession, for he acknowledged that the Lord God, the true God could heale his dryed up arme, 1 King 12. 6. and sent his wife to enquire of Jehovah concerning his sicke childe, 1 King. 14. 1, 2. and Je•u who clave to Jeroboams calves, 2 King. 10. 29. And so by this same law of God ought to dye, as is clear in that he worshipped and served other Gods, as Deut. 32. 16. Ps. 106. 19. compared with Exod. 32. cleareth, for three thousand were slaine by ⟨p. 196⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 197⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 198⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 199⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 200⟩the Magistrates sword for this sin, Exod. 32. 27, 28. yet these denyed Jehovah not in formall and expresse profession, but by the genius and staine of their doctrine, and the same way the Hereticke denyes the Lord that bought them, these that worshipped Iehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. by this law should dye, the Priests of Malcom come under the law as well as the Priests of Baal, the Priests of Baal and the false Prophets were slaine according to the law, and yet they professed Jehovah as well as Micaiah, 1 King. 22. 24. and Achab, who worshipped Baal, professed he worshipped Jehovah, and so did these who worshipped the Samaritan strange Gods and I•hovah both together, 2 King. 17.

Nor is it of weight that some say from Deut. ¹13. only these are to be put to death who denies God as known by the light of Nature, not these that de•y the blessed Trinity, or Christ the Mediator, or the principles of the Gospel which are only known by the supernatural light of faith; and only these that deny principles of Divinity that are by natures teaching in the heart, for these sin against Natures law, and the Alphabet of natural Theology. This hath no warrant in the word, the Law condemns these to dye who blaspheme or draw men away from the true God as revealed in the Scriptures, which is a supernatural Revelation that flesh and blood taught not Moses, but a Prophetical and •mmediately inspiring Spirit, as the reason which God ins•uateth, Exod. 32. 8. They have turned quickly aside out of the way that I commanded them. Now the twilight and rude divinity of Nature, revealed not this way as being supernatural, yet for this turning aside were three thousand killed, v. 27, 28. And it is clear, Deut. 13. the dreamer shall surely be put to death, not because he hath denied the Create or that is known by the light of nature; but v. 5. because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. Now this is not, I conceive, a natural way, nor written in mans heart by nature, as this answer supposeth. But yet its also a sin against the law of nature, to deny the God who reveals himself in the Mediator Christ. And these that were put to death by this law were such as denied ⟨p. 201⟩God revealed in Christ,² for Christ saith, Moses wrote of me, and to Christ all the Law and the Prophets bare witness.

Nor is it of weight that some say from Deut. ¹13. onely these are to be put to death who denyes God as knowne by the light of Nature, not these that de•y the blessed Trinity, or Christ the Mediator, or the principles of the Gospel which are only known by the supernaturall light of faith; and onely these that deny principles of Divinity that are by natures teaching in the heart, for these sinne against Natures law, and the Alphabet of naturall Theology. This hath no warrant in the word, the Law condemnes these to dye who blaspheme or draw men away from the true God as revealed in the Scriptures, which is a supernaturall Revelation that flesh and blood taught not Moses, but a Propheticall and •mmediately inspiring Spirit, as the reason which God ins•uateth, Exod. 32. 8. They have turned quickly aside out of the way that I commanded them. Now the twilight and rude divinity of Nature, revealed not this way as being supernaturall, yet for this turning aside were three thousand killed, v. 27, 28. And it is cleare, Deut. 13. the dreamer shall surely bee put to death, not because he hath denyed the Creat or that is knowne by the light of nature; but v. 5. because he hath spoken to turne you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the Land of Aegypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walke in. Now this is not, I conceive, a naturall way, nor written in mans heart by nature, as this answer supposeth. But yet its also a sinne against the law of nature, to deny the God who reveals himselfe in the Mediator Christ. And these that were put to death by this law were such as denied ⟨p. 201⟩God revealed in Christ,² for Christ saith, Moses wrote of mee, and to Christ all the Law and the Prophets bare witnesse.

1. 1Not only those who •ffend against the principles of nature but those that publish and hold errors against the supernatural principles of the Gospel, are to be punished by the sword.Not only those who •ffend against the principles of nature but those that publish and hold errors against the supernaturall principles of the Gospell, are to be punished by the sword.
2. 2Such as slew their children to Molech, denied no more the word of God then our Heretics now do.Such as slew their children to Molech, denied no more the word of God then our Hereticks now doe.

2 Nor did these that worshipped Idols and the false teachers, and such as offered their children to Molech, who were surely by the Law to be put to death, deny the word of God more then the Heretic now: and Jeremiah useth the weapon of the word of God against them, as Moses was to use the sword against them, Deut, 17. 3, 4, 5, 6. Lev. 20. 2. as we read Jer. 7. 13. And they have built the high places of Tophet which is in the valley of the son of Hinnon to •urne their sons and their daughters in the fire, and he useth an argument from the word of God to convince them, which I commanded them not, neither entered it in my heart. Libertines might say, why should Jeremiah speak of a command of God, for though our Heretics under the Gospel acknowledge the word of God, yet the false teachers and Apostates that were to dye by the law, do but mock the word of God▪ and therefore the Lord should not use this argument, which I command not. But to me is clear, they were so far from denying the word of God, as our Antiscripturists do, that for the offering of their sons to God, they alleged both Abraham's example who was bidden offer Isaac his only son to God, and the Scripture, for if we (say they) are to offer the best of the flock to God, and its little enough to so great […] Lord, far more are we to offer the dearest thing we have, to wi• our sons and daughters: God answers, What ye offer to me must be commanded in my law, but it never entered into my heart to bid you offer your children to me. Now if these had both denied God their Creator, and his word, there had been no other sword to be drawn against them but that of iron.

2 Nor did these that worshiped Idols and the false teachers, and such as offered their children to Molech, who were surely by the Law to be put to death, deny the word of God more then the Heretick now: and Jeremiah useth the weapon of the word of God against them, as Moses was to use the sword against them, Deut, 17. 3, 4, 5, 6. Lev. 20. 2. as we read Jer. 7. 13. And they have built the high places of Tophee which is in the vally of the sonne of Hinnon to •urne their sonnes and their daughters in the fire, and he useth an argument from the word of God to convince them, which I commanded them not, neither entred it in my heart. Libertines might say, why should Jeremiah speake of a command of God, for though our Hereticks under the Gospell acknowledge the word of God, yet the false teachers and Apostates that were to dye by the law, doe but mocke the word of God▪ and therefore the Lord should not use this argument, which I command not. But to mee is cleare, they were so farre from denying the word of God, as our Antiscripturists doe, that for the offering of their sonnes to God, they alledged both Abrahams example who was bidden offer Isaak his onely sonne to God, and the Scripture, for if we (say they) are to offer the best of the flock to God, and its little enough to so great 〈…〉 Lord, farre more are we to offer the dearest thing we have, to wi• our sonnes and daughters: God answers, What yee offer to mee must be commanded in my law, but it never entred into my heart to bid you offer your children to mee. Now if these had both denyed God their Creator, and his word, there had beene no other sword to be drawne against them but that of iron.

Yea, 4 These acknowledge the Lord, and the law, and the Lords Priests and Prophets, as some Heretics do now, yet not standing to the sentence of the law that the Priest shall •each, but presumptuously rejecting it, were surely to be put to death, Deut. 17. 10, 11, 12, 13. So he that speaks a word in the name of the Lord (so confesseth, and professeth both the Lord and his word, as heretics now do) which the Lord commanded him not to speak, or shall speak in the name of other Gods, even that Prophet shall dye. And did not Jeremiah and Uriah, the son of Shemaiah and the Prophets that were killed and stoned by the Jews, professed God, and that the word of God came to them and that they had seen the visions of God, yet they were condemned as false Prophets, but for prophesying destruction on Israel, Judah and Jerusalem, and if the Lord had not sent them, but they speak the visions of their own head, they had been false prophets, as is clear, Jer. 14. 13, 14. Jer. 23. 15,¹ 16. and so justly condemned.

Yea, 4 These acknowledge the Lord, and the law, and the Lords Priests and Prophets, as some Hereticks doe now, yet not standing to the sentence of the law that the Priest shall •each, but presumptuously rejecting it, were surely to be put to death, Deut. 17. 10, 11, 12, 13. So he that speaks a word in the name of the Lord (so confesseth, and professeth both the Lord and his word, as hereticks now do) which the Lord commanded him not to speak, or shal speak in the name of other Gods, even that Prophet shall dye. And did not Jeremiah and Ʋriah, the son of Shemaiah and the Prophets that were killed and s•oned by the Jewes, professed God, and that the word of God came to them and that they had seen the visions of God, yet they were condemned as false Prophets, but for prophesying destruction on Israel, Judah and Jerusalem, and if the Lord had not sent them, but they speake the visions of their owne head, they had been false prophets, as is cleare, Jer. 14. 13, 14. Jer. 23. 15,¹ 16. and so justly condemned.

1. 1There be false Prophets now under the New Testament as there were under the Old Testament.

5 Are there not now under the New Testament who deny the word of God, as many Antiscripturists in England and doth not Saltmarsh, Del, Beacon, Randal and many Familists and Antinomians father their new lies upon the spirit, and the precious anointing that teacheth all things? a•• not they like to those Prophets, Deut. 13? have not some in France, in Holland, in England made defection to Judaism and Turkism, and turned Apostates from Christ? And yet they deny not God the Creator, nor the Scriptures of the old Testament, and by this answer they are free of all bodily punishment? And does not Peter contradict this answer of Libertines, that say our Heretics are not as these Deut. 13. 2 Pet. 2. 1. But there were false Prophets also among the people, as there shall be false teachers among you? and our Saviour, Mat. 24. 24. For there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders: insomuch that (if it were possible) they should deceive the very elect. A vive representation of the state of England this day.

5 Are there not now under the New Testament who deny the word of God, as many Antiscripturists in England and doth not Saltmarsh, Del, Beacon, Randal and many Familists and Antinomians father their new lies upon the spirit, and the pretious anoynting that teacheth all things? a•• not they like to those Prophets, Deut. 13? have not some in France, in Holland, in England made defection to Judaisme and Tur•isme, and turned Apostates from Christ? And yet they deny not God the Creator, nor the Scriptures of the old Testament, and by this answer they are free of all bodily punishment? And does not Peter contradict this answer of Libertines, that say our Hereticks are not as these Deut. 13. 2 Pet. 2. 1. But there were false Prophets also among the people, as there shall be false teachers among you? and our Saviour, Mat. 24. 24. For there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets, and shall shew great signes and wonders: insomuch that (if it were possible) they should deceive the very elect. A vive representation of the state of England this day.

6 The formal and what is essential to a false prophet is now in our seducers they thrust men away from God, and the way of Gospel that the Lord hath commanded us to walk in, •nd that is enough.

6 The formall and what is essentiall to a false prophet is now in our seducers they thrust men away from God, and the way of Gospell that the Lord hath commanded us to walke in, •nd that is enough.

7. From the practice of the Jews, when Heretics and Seducers, and blind guides were in the chair, and they tolerated themselves, we draw rather the contrary argument, ergo. we are not to follow, nor to suffer blind guides now, who deny the resurrection, as Familists and other, to lead souls into the ditch, no more then we are to follow them in corrupting the Law, and extolling the traditions of men.

7. From the practice of the Iewes, when Heretickes and Seducers, and blinde guides were in the chair, and they tollerated themselves, we draw rather the contrary argument, ergo. we are not to follow, nor to suffer blinde guides now, who deny the resurrection, as Familists and other, to lead souls into the ditch, no more then we are to follow them in corrupting the Law, and extolling the traditions of men.

CHAP. XV. Christs not rebuking toleration and the •aw, Deut. 13. vindicated.

CHAP. XV. Christs not rebuking tolleration and the •aw, Deut. 13. vindicated.

Christs no when reproving Church and State for not punishing Sadducees and Heretics denying the resurrection is,¹ 1. A poor argument to prove the lawfulness of tolerating them, 1. The Sadducees were chief Rulers themselves; Act. 23. 6. And he that reproves a Judge for murder, must in that same; reprove him for tolerating murders. He that said the guide leading, & the blind led, should fall in the ditch, he reproved the mis-government and wicked toleration of the Rulers. Nor read we that Elijah reproved Ahab for not killing Baals priests, ergo, Ahab transgressed not the Law, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. Deut. 17. 1, 2, 3. in tolerating false teachers? Nor doth God Deut. 32. 6, 7, 8. reprove the Rulers for not punishing the worshipping of the golden calf, or the making of it for worship, because Aaron and the Rulers under Moses were guilty of it; will it follow that the Rulers and the sons of Levi should tolerate it? since the Lord commanded the contrary. Nor does the man of God reprove Jeroboam for tolerating the people to worship the golden calves, or because he suffered the lowest of the people to intrude themselves in the priests office against the word and law of the Lord, because the less sin was swallowed up in the greater, but it follows not, that Jeroboam did the duty of a Magistrate in suffering the people to go to Dan and Bethel to such abominable Idolatry, or in suffering the basest of the people to take on•them the Priests Office, but the Prophets reproving Jeroboam's commanding of that Idolatrous worship, and Priests, which is a greater sin, must ⟨p. 204⟩by consequence condemn his not punishing of it, which is a less sin, so David sinned as a Magistrate in suffering Bathsheba to commit adultery, and to wrong her husband, and to violate Gods Law, and should not only as a Magistrate have hindered her, but should have put her to death for adultery, he being the supreme Magistrate, and there being an express Law of God that the adulterer, man or woman, should dye the death, Levit. 20. 10. which David knew well;

CHrists no when reproving Church and State for not punishing Sadduces and Hereticks denying the resurrection is,¹ 1. A poore argument to prove the lawfulnesse of tolerating them, 1. The Sadduces were cheife Rulers themselves; Act. 23. 6. And he that reproves a Judge for murther, must in that same; reprove him for tolerating murthers. He that said the guide leading, & the blind led, should fal in the ditch, he reproved the mis-government and wicked toleration of the Rulers. Nor read we that Elias reproved Achab for not killing Baals priests, ergo, Achab transgressed not the Law, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. Deut. 17. 1, 2, 3. in tolerating false teachers? Nor doth God Deut. 32. 6, 7, 8. reprove the Rulers for not punishing the worshiping of the golden calf, or the making of it for worship, because Aaron and the Rulers under Moses were guilty of it; will it follow that the Rulers and the sonnes of Levi should tolerate it? since the Lord commanded the contrary. Nor does the man of God reprove Jeroboam for tollerating the people to worship the golden calves, or because he suffered the lowest of the people to intrude themselves in the priests office against the word and law of the Lord, because the lesse sin was swallowed up in the greater, but it followes not, that Jeroboam did the duty of a Magistrate in suffering the people to go to Dan and Bethel to such abominable Idolatry, or in suffering the basest of the people to take on•them the Priests Office, but the Prophets reproving Jeroboam's commanding of that Idolatrous worship, and Priests, which is a greater sinne, must ⟨p. 204⟩by consequence condemne his not punishing of it, which is a lesse sin, so David sinned as a Magistrate in suffering Bathshe•a to commit adultery, and to wrong her husband, and to violate Gods Law, and should not onely as a Magistate have hindered her, but should have put her to death for adultery, he being the supreme Magistrate, and there being an expresse Law of God that the adulterer, man or woman, should dye the death, Levit. 20. 10. which David knew well;

1. 1[…] not express rebuking, of the Magistrates, tolerating of Heresies makes not for Christs ap••oing of toleration of Heresies more then of tolerating, the absolving of a murderer at the time of the feast, or other crimes against the second Table.〈…〉 not expresse rebukin•, of the Magistrates, tolerating of Heresies makes not for Christs ap••oing of toleration of Heresies more then of tolerating, the absolving of a murtherer at the time of the feast, or other crimes against the second Table.

yet the Prophet Nathan does not in express terms condemn David for not putting Bathsheba to death, though he faithfully reproved David, because Nathan reproving David for the adultery it self committed in his own person as the greater sin, must by consequence condemn Davids tolerating of Bathsheba an adulteress to live, which was a lesser sin, and it will not follow that David a King should tolerate known adultery in Bathsheba a subject, because Nathan does no where in direct terms (nor any Scripture elsewhere that we read) condemn David for not punishing with the sword the adultery of Bathsheba; so Nathan, G•d and other Prophets no where reprove David sparing the life of Joab a murderer. When Christ reproved the Sadducees, for denying the resurrection, he reproves, by consequence, both Church and State for tolerating the denying of the Resurrection, and supposeth the toleration of it to be against the law of God.

yet the Prophet Nathan does not in expresse tearms condemne David for not putting Bathsheba to death, though he faithfully reproved David, because Nathan reproving David for the adultery it selfe committed in his owne person as the greater sinne, must by consequence condemne Davids tollerating of Bathsheba an adulteresse to live, which was a lesser sinne, and it will not follow that David a King should tollerate knowne adultery in Bathsheba a subject, because Nathan does no where in direct tearms (nor any Scripture elsewhere that we read) condemne David for not punishing with the sword the adultery of Bathsheba; so Nathan, G•d and other Prophets no where reprove David sparing the life of Joab a murtherer. When Christ reproved the Sadduces, for denying the resurrection, he reproves, by consequence, both Church and State for tollerating the denying of the Resurrection, and supposeth the tolleration of it to be against the law of God.

2. It is no argument at all from 1. A negative fact. 2. In such a particular Scripture, to prove the lawfulness of toleration. Let then answer this, Christ that was a faithful Preacher to State and Church, no where reproveth in the Gospel, the toleration of the extortion of Publicans, Sodomy, murder, the absolving of a murderer at the feast, a bloody toleration, denying of God, blasphemy; ergo, it was lawful for the Church and State to suffer all these.

2. It is no argument at all from 1. A negative fact. 2. In such a particular Scripture, to prove the lawfulnesse of tolleration. Let then answer this, Christ that was a faithfull Preacher to State and Church, no where reproveth in the Gospell, the tolleration of the extortion of Publicans, Sodomie, murther, the absolving of a murtherer at the feast, a bloody tolleration, denying of God, blasphemy; ergo, it was lawfull for the Church and State to suffer all these.

3. This answer inferreth that the Church should tolerate all false doctrines, and the denying of the resurrection, and that there should be no Church censure, contrary to Mat. 18 yea Christ does no where rebuke the Pharisees, Scribes and Priests, because they did not, by preaching, admonish and ⟨p. 205⟩convince their fellows the Sadducees of that heretical doctrine that the dead shall not rise, and by this there should be not only a Physical toleration, and a non punishing by the Magistrate of all heresies, but a moral forbearing, and a no-rebuking, no preaching against false ways, and so not only Church-censures are taken away contrary to Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. Revel. 2. 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 20. But it is not lawful for Ministers or teachers to write or teach against Jezebel, and these that hold the doctrine of Balaam, by this reason of the Libertines. Nor does Christ command the Rulers of the people to punish the false witnesses that rose against him. Nor does he rebuke Church or State for tolerating the Publicans to extort the people, nor Caesar and Pilate, for oppressing the people, nor the Scribes and Pharisees for not preaching against Herod's beheading of John Baptist, or Pilates mixing the Gallileans blood with the sacrifice, Luke 13. ergo, Ministers are to tolerate bloody Magistrates, and not to preach against them.

3. This answer inferreth that the Church should tollerate all false doctrines, and the denying of the resurrection, and that there should be no Church censure, contrary to Mat. 18 yea Christ does no where rebuke the Pharisees, Scribes and Priests, because they did not, by preaching, admonish and ⟨p. 205⟩convince their fellows the Sadduces of that hereticall doctrine that the dead shall not rise, and by this there should be not onely a Physicall tolleration, and a non punishing by the Magistrate of all heresies, but a morall forbearing, and a no-rebuking, no preaching against false wayes, and so not onely Church-censures are taken away contrary to Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. Revel. 2. 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 20. But it is not lawfull for Ministers or teachers to write or teach against Iezabel, and these that hold the doctrine of Balaam, by this reason of the Libertines. Nor does Christ command the Rulers of the people to punish the false witnesses that rose against him. Nor does he rebuke Church or State for tollerating the Publicans to extort the people, nor Caesar and Pilate, for oppressing the people, nor the Scribes and Pharisees for not preaching against Herods beheading of Iohn Baptist, or Pilates mixing the Gallileans blood with the sacrifice, Luke 13. ergo, Ministers are to tollerate bloody Magistrates, and not to preach against them.

The sixth Answer to elude these Laws is, ¹If these Laws bind us in the New Testament, then must you not add nor diminish from the Law, Deut. 13. and so must the whole City, inhabitants and cattle, be put to the edge of the sword, and devoted to a curse, v. 14, 15, 16, 17. which ye cannot say bears any truth under the New Testament, except we say that Papists and their babies should be put to the edge of the sword, and their houses and land they dwell in execrable.

The sixth Answer to elude these Lawes is, ¹If these Lawes binde us in the New Testament, then must you not adde nor diminish from the Law, Deut. 13. and so must the whole City, inhabitants and cattle, be put to the edge of the sword, and devoted to a curse, v. 14, 15, 16, 17. which ye cannot say beares any truth under the New Testament, except we say that Papists and their babies should be put to the edge of the sword, and their houses and land they dwell in execrable.

1. 1Answ. 6.

Answ. ¹There are three different Laws, Deut. 13. one against the seducing false Prophet, to v. 5. a second against any seducing person, if it were brother or wife, to v. 12. a third, to the end of the Chapter, of a City, State or society, that will defend a false teacher. Now we argue not from the third Law; but there is no warrant to punish the son of a false Prophet, Idolater, Heathenish or Popish, or of wife, or brother that tempt us to Apostasy, and to follow false Gods, yea, or to hurt land, house, or cattle that belongs to them, the son shall not bear the sin of the father, except God by a positive Law command it.

Answ. ¹There are three different Lawes, Deut. 13. one against the seducing false Prophet, to v. 5. a second against any seducing person, if it were brother or wife, to v. 12. a third, to the end of the Chapter, of a City, State or society, that will defend a false teacher. Now we argue not from the third Law; but there is no warrant to punish the sonne of a false Prophet, Idolater, Heathenish or Popish, or of wife, or brother that tempt us to Apostacy, and to follow false Gods, yea, or to hurt land, house, or cattle that belongs to them, the sonne shall not beare the sinne of the father, except God by a positive Law command it.

1. 1The Laws, Deut. •3. three in number explicated, the first two were moral, the third ceremonial for the most part.The Lawes, Deut. •3. three in number explicated, the first two were morall, the third ceremoniall for the most part.

But the third Law, upon which we build not our arguments, at least, as touching any ceremonial part of it, belongs ⟨p. 206⟩not much to us, for to gather the spoil of such a City, and to burn it every whit, for the Lord, as a cursed and devoted thing or place, is clearly ceremonial and typical, because now every creature of God is clean, Rom. 14. 14▪ and so are all the victuals or meats of Heathens, or Papists now, and good and sanctified, 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4. and what God hath cleansed, we are not to esteem common or profane, Act. 10. 14. and the like must we say of places, 1 Tim. 2. 8. Joh. 4. 21. Zach. 14. 21. and by proportion, of all creatures, the creatures cannot now be typically cursed, and execrable as then, Deut. 13. 16. 18. For the holy Land, and every City was made by the Lord typically and ceremonially holy, and a pledge of a Heaven, when therefore a Seducer fled to any City from the Judge, if that City would partake with him in his sin, and save him from the hand of Justice, that City forfeited its typical holiness, and it, and all things in it, the spoil, cattle and goods, made accursed, and to be burnt with fire, and all the inhabitants young and old, put to the edge of the sword, and that not under the notion of false teachers, but as open Rebels against God, his holy law; and the Judge, the Minister of God, was to avenge that blasphemy, and the moral part is this; If the Army now on foot in England will against the Laws of God and man protect blasphemers and false teachers, and save them from the hand of Justice, and will reward, countenance, and promote Seducers of souls, our humble opinion is, that they render themselves obnoxious to the sword of the Magistrate. But the punishing of infants, and burning of the spoil was a mere temporary typical law that doth not abolish us in the New Testament. Now Libertines bring this as an argument. We cannot put to death false teachers by Deut. 13. for then should we by that Law kill their children and cattle, which consequence we deny as false and vain. For our Divines strongly argue from the moral equity, and the Law of nature warranting Joshua to make war with the Canaanites in the Old Testament, to prove the lawfulness of wars under the New Testament upon the same moral equity, as •osh. 1•. 19, 20.

But the third Law, upon which we build not our arguments, at least, as touching any ceremoniall part of it, belongs ⟨p. 206⟩not much to us, for to gather the spoyle of such a City, and to burne it every whit, for the Lord, as a cursed and devoted thing or place, is clearly ceremoniall and typicall, because now every creature of God is clean, Rom. 14. 14▪ and so are all the victualls or meats of Heathens, or Papists now, and good and sanctified, 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4. and what God hath cleansed, we are not to esteem common or prophane, Act. 10. 14. and the like must we say of places, 1 Tim. 2. 8. Ioh. 4. 21. Zach. 14. 21. and by proportion, of all creatures, the creatures cannot now be typically cursed, and execrable as then, Deut. 13. 16. 18. For the holy Land, and every City was made by the Lord typically and ceremonially holy, and a pledge of a Heaven, when therefore a Seducer fled to any City from the Judge, if that City would partake with him in his sinne, and save him from the hand of Justice, that City forfeited its typicall holinesse, and it, and all things in it, the spoyle, cattle and goods, made accursed, and to bee burnt with fire, and all the inhabitants young and old, put to the edge of the sword, and that not under the no•ion of false teachers, but as open Rebells against God, his holy law; and the Judge, the Minister of God, was to avenge that blasphemy, and the morall part is this; If the Army now on foot in England will against the Laws of God and man protect blasphemers and false teachers, and save them from the hand of Justice, and will reward, countenance, and promote Seducers of soules, our humble opinion is, that they render themselves obnoxious to the sword of the Magistrate. But the punishing of infants, and burning of the spoyle was a meer temporary typical law that doth not abolish us in the New Testament. Now Libertines bring this as an argument. We cannot put to death false teachers by Deut. 13. for then should we by that Law kill their children and cattle, which consequence we deny as false and vaine. For our Divines strongly argue from the morall equity, and the Law of nature •ar•anting Joshua to make warre with the Canaanites in the Old Testament, to prove the lawfulnesse of warres under the New Testament upon the same morall equity, as •osh. 1•. 19, 20.