Thirty Queries, Modestly propounded in order to a Discovery of the Truth, and Mind of GOD, in that Question, or Case of Conscience; Whether the Civil Magistrate stands bound by way of Duty to interpose his Power or Authority in matters of Religion, or Worship of God.

By JOHN GOODVVIN, Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go, and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the Wheat with them. Let both grow together until the Harvest, &c.
Matth. 13. 28, 29, 30.
Man, who hath made me a Judg, or Divider over you?
Luke 12. 14.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind:
Matth. 15. 14.
Dei lex nos docuit quid sequamur: humanae leges hoc docere non possunt. Extorquere solent timidis commutationem: fidem inspirare non possunt.
Ambros. Epist. 13.

LONDON, Printed by J. M. for Henry Cripps and Lodowick Lloyd, 1653.

Some Queries concerning the Duty of the Civil Magistrate, in, and about his publique Interposure in matters of Faith, the Worship of God, and the promoting Christi­an Religion.


WHether any thing be incumbent by way of Duty upon the Civil Magistrate, being Christian, simply in respect of his Office or place of Magistracy, because of his be­ing Christian, which would not have been matter of Duty to him, in cafe he had been Pagan, and not Christian? Or whe­ther the Office and Work of the Civil Magistrate, as such, be not entire within it self, and consisting within its own appro­priate bounds and limits; so that nothing more accrues unto him, by way of Duty, in his Office, by his being Christian; nor is any thing, which is matter of Duty unto him, as a Magistrate, diminished or taken off from him, by his being, or turning, Pa­gan? And if so, whether doth God require of a Pagan Magi­strate, that according to his present Judgment and Conscience, he should interpose and umpire with his Authority in matters of Christian Belief, or in things appertaining to the Worship of God?


Whether doth it appertain to the Civil Magistrate, as such, to provide by Civil penalties, as by disgracing, fining, imprison­ment, death, &c. for the observation of any other Law in his Territories, but of the Law of Nature only; and of this so far only, as either it clearly dictateth or prescribeth the doing of such things, which have a rational connexion with the welfare, honor, and prosperity of that community of men, which is un­der his inspection and government; or as it, with like clearness, restraineth the doing of such other things, which are in the eye of Reason contrary hereunto; considering that matters of a more spiritual nature, and such which relate either by way of sympathy, or opposition, only to an holy and humble walking with God, and not properly or directly to the Civil Interest, are of another cognisance, and committed by God to the care and faithfulness of Ecclesiastical Magistrates, in conjunction with the Common Councel of such Christian Churches, which are under their inspection, respectively?


Whether is the consent of the generality of the inhabitants of many Nations, in one and the same principle, (especially re­lating to the maintenance and upholding of their respective Idolatries and Superstitions,) any competent or sufficient proof, that this principle is agreeable to the light, or Law of Nature, or safe for Christians to practise and walk by; consi­dering, that the Devil (the God of this world) laboreth in the very fire to corrupt the Judgments, to blind the Understand­ings, to pollute the Consciences of Men in matters appertaining to the Worship of God, and hath so sadly prevailed over the world herein, as we generally know he hath done? Or whe­ther is that principle of Mahometanism, according unto which the men of this Superstition judg it lawful to put a Christian, or any other person, to death, who shall in any of their Terri­tories, call Mahomet, Accursed (wherein probably many other Idolatrous Nations accord with them, in reference to their respective Gods, so called) a sufficient ground for Chri­stians to put a Mahometan to death for calling Christ, Ac­cursed, [Page 5] in their Dominions? Or in case a Christian State should thus practise, would it not be a snare of confirmation and obduration upon the Mahometan in his way?


Whether our Saviours intent in the Parable of the tares, where the housholder forbiddeth his servants to GATHER up the tares, lest whilest they gathered up these, they PLUCKED UP the Wheat also Mat 13 29., was not to prohibit such Magistrates, who are Christian and Orthodox, the exercising of any degree of severity against Blasphemers, Seducers, Heretiques, erroneous persons, &c. simply as such, for this reason, lest by such an exam­ple they occasion, or be accessary unto, the exercising of much greater severity by Idolatrous and Heretical Magistrates upon Christians, and godly persons, that are Orthodox and sound in their Judgment? And whether is not this sence of the said pas­sage, argued and asserted from the Context it self, and by other Arguments, against all reasonable contradiction, in a Discourse (not many years since published) entituled, Hagiomastix, &c. pag. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 25. as also in another Discourse printed not long after, and with relation to it, entituled, a Post­script, or Appendix, p. 14, 15.


Whether is that right of power to interpose in matters of Religion, as in punishing Idolaters, Seducers, false Prophets, &c. which seems to have been given to the Civil Magistrate a­mongst the Jews under the Mosaical Dispensation, any reason­able or competent ground on which to judg, that Civil Magi­strates now, under the Gospel, and amongst the Gentiles, ought to assume (yea, or lawfully may assume) the like power? Or are there not many reasons, and these pregnant and undeniable, to prove the contrary, extant in the Discourse mentioned, en­tituled, Hagiomostix, pag. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, &c.


Whether the Lord Christ himself, did not strictly charge his Disciples themselves, as well as others, not to accept of the title of Rabbi, or Masters, from men, in these words, But be not ye called, Rabbi Mat. 23. 8.? and again, Neither be ye called Masters? And whether they do not much more then accept of these [Page 6] titles, even compell men to give them unto them, who un­der civil Mulcts and Penalties shall exercise a Magisterial Jurisdiction over the judgements and consciences of men in matters appertaining to God, requiring of them either to beleeve such or such doctrines, or to submit to such or such practices, whilst their judgments and consciences remain unsatisfied and unconvinced of the truth of the one, and lawfulnesse of the other?


Whether may the Civill Magistrate, who derives and re­ceives his power of Magistracie from the people, lawfully exercise by vertue of his office, any other kind of power, or any further degree of power, then may lawfully be delega­ted unto him, and intrusted with him, by this people; yea, or may he lawfully exercise any further degree of power then may reasonably be presumed that the people intended, or at the utmost ought to have intended, to confer upon him, or put into his hand? If he may, from whom, or by whom, shall this surplussage of power be conceived to be de­rived unto him? or upon what account can be justifie him­self in the exercise of it? If he may not, then by what right can he exercise any power in matters of Faith, or over the judgements or consciences of men, in as much as the com­mon people from whom he receiveth the intire body or sum of that power, which he administreth, have no right at all, nor colour of right, to delegate unto any man any authority or power to intermeddle or officiate in one kind or other in the affairs of Jesus Christ, and his Kingdom, or to regulate (authoritatively) the judgements and consciences of men (no, not their own) in little or much, in things appertain­ing unto God?


Whether did not the Lord Christ rebuke his Disciples (and this somewhat roundly) who desired a Commission or au­thority from him to call for fire from Heaven, as Eliah for­merly had done, to consume those, who refused to receive him; did he not (I say) sharply reprove them in saying to [Page 7] them, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of Luk. 9. 54, 55, 56? [mean­ing, that they did not consider the nature of the Gospel, and what lenity ought to be shewed towards sinners, in order to the propagation thereof, above what the severity of the Law admitted.] And doth not the reason which he immediately subjoyneth, plainly shew this to have been his meaning; For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them; as if he had said, The end (or, one great end) of my coming into the world, was not that any mans life should be destroyed, or taken from him for my sake, or for any injury done unto me Ultra natu­ram aliquid monet, nempe inimicos dili­gendos esse, ad­versarios veri­tatis tolerandos &c.—Docet item regnum▪ Dei non esse regnum in quo gladiis et fusti­bus res agatur. Marlorat. Ex­posit. Ecclesi­astica in Luk. 9. 55.; but that I might mediate, perswade, and pre­vail with those, who otherwise are severe against offenders, as you are, to exercise all lenity and patience towards them, and to be tender over their lives, in order to the Salvation of their Souls?


Whether, as the ancient saying amongst the Fathers was, Sanguis Martyrum, semen Ecclesiae, i. e. the blood of the Martyrs was the seed of the Church, so it be not altogether as true, and this upon the same account in reason, and experi­mented accordingly in all ages, that Sanguis Haereticorum, se­men Haereseos, the blood of Heretiques is the seed of Heresie? And whether is not that saying of Tacitus, Punitis ingeniis gliscit authoritas, Punishment doth but make the authority and credit of any mans wit, or parts, to glow, shine, and pre­vail the more, altogether as true in re Ecclesiasticâ sive Chri­stianâ, in matters of an Ecclesiastical or Christian, as of a Politique or Civil, import?


Whether had not an Ʋzzah an honest and upright intenti­on to accommodate the Ark, and to preserve it from harm by shaking, when he put forth his hand to keep it steady by hold­ing it? and whether was not God offended with him not­withstanding, making a breach upon him by slaying him in the place? Or was the Ark of God in any real danger of suffering inconvenience by the shaking of the Oxen, in case Ʋzzah had not intermedled to prevent it?


Whether might Paul in his days have been lawfully punish­ed by the Civil Magistrate in Ephesus, for that sedition, or Acts 19. 23, 24, &c. tumult, which was occasioned in this City, by his preaching the Gospel, and paricularly of this Doctrine, That they be no gods which are made with hands? It not, whether may such Ministers or Preachers, upon occasion of whose preaching Tu­mults are frequently raised by rude and inconsiderate people, be punished by the Christian Magistrate upon this account? Or ought not rather the Heads and Principals in such Tumults be enquired out, and punished?


Whether are not, Formality, Hypocrisie, Simulation, Dis­simulation &c. in, and about the Worship of God, sins of an high provocation in the sight of God? If so, is it not simply unlawful, either for the Civil Magistrate, or any other person whatsoever, either to compel, or to invite or tempt, unto any of these sins? Or is not the punishing of such persons, for not frequenting the publique places of Divine Worship, who have no sense of a Deity; or others, for not coming, or joyning in, a State-worship, whose Judgments and Consciences inwardly abhor such a Worship, as much as a compelling of men unto those sins? Or whether is a Christian State any whit the more like to receive countenance or blessing from God, for such practices in it as these?


Whether was it reasonable, or at all pleasing unto God, that Pharaoh and his Taskmasters should require of the Israelites their full tale of work, and yet not give them straw? Or is there any whit more reason or equity, that Magistrates should require subjection unto such Laws from men, to whom they neither give (nor indeed are able to give) either wisdom or strength, whereby they should be enabled to yield such sub­jection; at least if it be supposed that they have no sufficiency of strength and power in this kind given unto them by any other; yea such a sufficiency, whereby they are enabled to yield this obedience or subjection under any temptation whatsoever [Page 9] to the contrary? Or is it a thing equitable or lawful to impose Mulcts and Penalties upon blind men, whose eyes were put out by their parents, because they see not?


Whether can there any thing demonstratively, yea or pro­bably, be concluded for the punishing of Idolaters by the Civil Magistrate, from this passage in Job; If I beheld the Sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness: and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be punished by the Judg Job 31. 26, 27, 28., &c. considering, 1. That these words, to be punished by the, have nothing in the Original corresponding with them, but are in­serted by the Translators upon their own account, as the dif­ferent character, wherein they are printed, importeth. 2. That this latter clause, this also were an iniquity to be punished by the Judg (upon which the stress of the pretended in [...]erence lieth) is thus rendred, out of the Hebrew, by Arias Monta­nus: Etiam hoc iniquitas judicata; i. e. this also [is, or hath been] an adjudged iniquity; meaning, that such a practice, or practices, which Job had now mentioned and described, had been adjudged, [viz. by men fearing God] or rather was to be adjudged by all men, impiously sinful. 3. That though the English Translation of the said clause be admitted, yet it is no ways necessary that by the Judg therein mentioned, we should understand the Civil Magistrate, or any Earthly Judg, but rather the Judg of all the Earth, God himself. 4. (And lastly) That the sin of Idolatry was not like to be punished by the Judges of the Earth in Jobs days, being for the most part, if not generally, Idolaters themselves?


Whether is then a Sword put into the hand of the Civil Magistrate for the punishment of false Teachers, by this pas­sage in Zechary; And it shall come to pass that when any shall yet prophecy, then his Father and Mother that begat him, shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live: for thou speakest lyes in the Name of the Lord: and his Father and his Mother that begat him, shal thrust him through, when he prophecyeth Zech. 13. 3.; [Page 10] considering that many worthy Expositors, as well ancient, as modern, understand the words in a figurative sence; yea and Mr Deodate, who lived where High Presbytery had her Throne, as likewise our English Divines, though desirous to enthrone the same Government also amongst them, yet in their joynt labor of Annotations upon the Bible, plead for the same Inter­pretation? This with much more, for the opening the mind of the Holy Ghost in the said passage of Scripture, is to be seen in a small Discourse written upon this account only, published some years since under the Title of a Postscript, or Appendix, being an Explication of Zech. 13. 3.


Whether was it not the sence of Christian Antiquity even after Constantine's days, That the Civil Magistrate, as such, had no right of umpirage in matters of Christian Religion? And whether doth not this sufficiently appear by these and such like passages of Ambrose in his thirteenth Epistle, written to the then Emperor, Valentinian. When did you hear, most gra­cious Emperor, that Laicks [i. e. persons in no Ecclesiastical, or Church Office] did ever censure, or sentence any Bishop [or Pastor of a Church] in matters of Faith [or Christian Reli­gion?] And again: Your Father (through the goodness of God) having lived to maturity of years, said, that it did not belong to him to give judgment between Bishops, [mean­ing, as before, in causâ fidei, in a case of Faith, or Christian Be­lief.] So also: The Law of God hath taught us what we are to follow [or believe,] the Laws of men cannot teach us this. They may extort from persons timorous a change [of their former profession,] but they cannot inspire [them with an inward] belief [of what they outwardly profess Quando au­disti, Clemen­tissime Impera­tor, in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judi­casse? Pater tuus (Deo favente) maturicris aevi, dicebat, non est meum judicare inter Episcopos. Dei lex nos docuit quid se­quamur; hu­manae leges hoc docere non pos­sunt. Extor­quere solent ti­midis commu­tationem; fidem inspirare non P [...]ssunt.?] Now i [...] the sence of Antiquity was, That the Supreme Magistrate, though Christian, was not to umpire between Bishops, or Pastors of Churches, in matters of Faith, evident it is that they were of the same mind touching his incompetency to judg between other persons also in like cases; and consequent­ly that matters of Faith did not at all appertain to his cogni­zance, as a Magistrate. For the reason why they conceived that [Page 11] it did not belong to the Emperor to judg between Bishops in cases of Faith, could not be any consideration of the par­ticular qualitie, rank or function of these persons, but onely the nature and qualitie of those things, being spiritual, about which they were at variance amongst them elves. This plain­ly appears by the expresse specification (in the words cited) of those cases wherein the Emperour (as they conceived) had no right of decision between the persons mentioned, as viz. in matters of Faith: which clearly supposeth, that in other cases viz. such which are of a Civil nature and cogni­zance, they had the right and power we speak of; however the. Church of Rome hath since apostatized from this truth (with many others) and imbraced a lie in stead of it. Of like impott with the former is that passage of Tertullian, where he saith, That it is palpably unreasonable, that men who are free, should be forced against their wills to sacrifice; when as it is the willingnesse of the mind that is required in all Divine Services; yea it may well be judged ridiculous that one man should be compelled by another to honour the Gods, when as he stands bound at his peril to render these propitious unto him of his own accord, Facile ini­quum videtur liberos homines invites urgeri ad sacrifican­dum; (nam & alias divinae rei faciundae libens animus indicitur) certe ineptum existi­maretur si quis ab ali [...] cogere­tur ad honorem Deorum, quos ultro sui causa placare deberet, ne prae manues­set jure liberta­tis dicere, n [...]l [...] mihi Jovem propitium, Ter­tul. Apol, c. 28. &c.


Whether the Lord Christ hath not expressly charged all men without exception not to call any man, Father, upon the Earth, in these words, and call no man your Father upon the Earth, for one is your Father which is in Heaven Mat. 23. 9.? And whe­ther do not they sin with an high hand against this charge, who shall receive, or consent unto, any Doctrine, or submit unto any practice in, or about the Worship of God, upon the account only of such or such a mans, or of such or such mens judgement or authority, and without any satisfactory ground within themselves, that such, whether doctrine, or practise, is agreeable to the Word of God?


Whether are any two, four, or six persons, suppose all of them godly, learned, and competently (yea let it be, if you please, excellently) quilified for the Ministry of the Go [...]el, [Page 12] competent Judges of the gifts, parts, and Ministerial abili­ties of many thousands of their Brethren? Or is it Christian or meet to make or set up Nebuchadnezzars in the Church of Christ, persons (I mean) who shall Ecclesiastically slay whom they will, and whom they will keep alive; set up whom they will, and whom they will, put down? Or in case it shall be judged expedient for the affairs of the Go­spel, that any such number of Persons be invested with such a prodigiousness of power, who are competent Judges of the meetnesse, or worthinesse of Persons to be intrusted here­with; especially where there are so many thousands, as this Nation (through the abundant blessing of God upon it) af­fordeth, of very excellent abilities and endowments, a­mongst whom it is next to an impossibility for men to sin­gle out any two, four, or six Persons, to whose worth and abilities all the rest shall by any Law of God, or of equity and reason it self, stand bound to stoop or do homage? Or is it not a Solecism in reason and conscience, that greater parts, learning, and worth, should be compelled to go on foot, whilst those which are meaner and more servile are made to ride on Horses?


Whether in case any two, four, or six persons shall be ad­vanced to that Power and Interest now mentioned, are not they like to be the men, who wear soft raiment, and live in Kings Houses; I mean, whose applications have been to the greatnesse of this World, who by ignoble artifices and compliances have infinuated themselves into the familiarity and friendship of the anointed Cherubs of the Earth, and such, who being ascended on High, are able to give gifts unto men? And whether are such persons as these, who cannot, Charity her self being Judg, but be judged great lo­vers of this present World, meet to be intrusted with that High Umpitage specified, in the affairs of Jesus Christ?


Whether hath not God in his Word directed, prescribed, and injoyned all methods, waies, and means any waies neces­sary [Page 13] (at least so judged by him) for the propagation of the Go­spel in the world? If so, is not any additional course, or device of men in order hereunto (I mean any such course, which is not reducible to some, or other, one, or more, of the means pre­scribed by him) a constructive insinuation, either that men are wiser, or else more provident and careful, of saving the Souls of men, then God himself? Or is the device of authorizing a small number of men to commission whom they please for the preaching of the Gospel, and again to exclude whom they please from preaching the Gospel, either any of those means, which God hath sanctified for the propagation of the Gospel, or re­ducible to any of them?


Whether since the days of Christ, and of his Apostles, can it be proved, or is it in it self at all probable, that ever any person, who preached the Gospel, how faithful and serviceable soever to God and men in his way, was wholly free from error, or uni­versally Orthodox? Or can it reasonably be thought either pleasing to God, or profitable unto men, or advantagious to the Gospel, that no man should be admitted to the preaching of it, but only those, who shall be adjudged by a few men, and these in some things (without all doubt or question) possibly in ma­ny things, weak and erroneous themselves, to be throughout the whole circumference of their Faith unspotted with error, and in all their Tenents and Opinions unquestionably Orthodox and sound? Or, in case some heterodox or unsound Opinions may be tolerated in those, who shall be permitted to preach the Gospel, what, or of what nature, or to what degree dangerous, may these Opinions be? Or who, according to the Word of God, shall be judged meet to umpire in this so great and diffi­cult an affair?


Whether is it meet or Christian, for any man, or any number of men (especially for any smaller or inconsiderable number of men) to presume so far of their own gifts, abilities, wisdom, learning, knowledg, insight into the Scriptures, &c. as to judg themselves worthy or meet to prescribe authoritatively, and to the exposing of those, whom they shall make Delinquents, to [Page 14] Civil penalties or inconveniences, unto the gifts, parts, learning and knowledg of other men, and these (probably) no ways in­ferior, possibly superior to themselves, in all such qualifications and endowments? Or is it Christian or reasonable, either to tempt men into such a conceit, or to indulge men under such a conceit, of themselves, by delegating such a power, or authority unto them?


Whether is it not generally held, and maintained by our best Protestant Writers, Divines, and others, against Papists, that even General Councels themselves may err in matters of Faith? and that there is no infallible Judg on Earth in Controversies incident to Christian Religion?


Whether is not the manifestation of the Spirit (as the A­postle termeth the manifest gifts of the Spirit of God) given to every man to profit withall? If so, who can with a good Conscience inhibit such from publishing or preaching the Go­spel, upon pretence of an unsoundness in some disputable Opi­nions, or for want of that, which some men call Ordination, whose abilities for that work are at least competent, and the exercise of them desired by many for their Edification?


Whether did those Christians, who, upon occasion of a great persecution raised against the Church at Jerusalem, being scat­tered abroad, went every where preaching the Word, pass any Acts 8. 1, 4 test of their abilities, or sufficiency for the work, before they put forth their hand unto it? Or is their fact in preaching the Gospel upon such terms, and before any publique approbation, any ways censurable by the Word of God?


Whether is it likely that persons called to the work of Magi­stracy and Civil Government, upon which very thing, if consci­entious, they do attend CONTINUALLY Rom. 13. 6., and so have little time to wade into the depths of controversal Divinity, or to in­form their Judgments throughly on which side of the way the Truth lieth in many difficult and abstruse Questions, much agi­tated and debated by studious and learned men, should be able [Page 15] to distinguish (as it were by the face) who are the Orthodox, and who the Heterodox men? And if this be not likely, whether can they reasonably claim any such Interest or right of power, wher­by to nominate and appoint men for the tryal of the meetness of all other men, for the work and service of the Gospel?


Whether such persons, which shal be nominated and appoint­ed by the chief Rulers in a State, to adjudg the meetness, and unmeetness of men for preaching the Gospel, are not like to be of a State Religion; I mean, to be every ways conformable in their Judgments to such Tenents and Opinions in Religion, which that State, or generality of people in that State, consent unto, hold, and maintain? And if so, whether are they not like to be corrupt, rotten, or unsound in many of their Religious Principles, or Opinions, considering, 1. That (for the most part) men in rule, authority, and power, are enemies to Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15 24 25. compared., and so not like to receive the Gospel in the purity and truth of it. 2. That the generality or great bulk of people in any State (who generally are of the same Religion, both for principles and practice, with their Supreme Heads and Gover­nors, as these likewise are of the same Religion with them in both) were never known to have embraced, or admitted such Evangelical Doctrines, or Truths, which are clearly and plainly destructive to the flesh, or whose faces are directly set against their corrupt, sensual, profane, and vain practices and ways; nor is it (indeed) in it self a thing any ways likely ever thus to be?


Whether are not all men bound to pray, that the Lord would send forth Laborers into his harvest Mat. 9 38.; and if their prayer in this behalf be (as it may, and ought to be) effectually fervent, whether shall it not prevail, and consequently will not the Lord of the Harvest himself send forth Laborers hereinto? If so, are not such persons, who shall be commissioned with power to Elect and Reprobate whom they please, amongst those whose hearts shall stir them up to labor in this Harvest, more like to refuse or keep back those (at least some of them) whom [Page 16] the Lord shall send forth (i. e. shall stir up their hearts to go) into this Harvest, then any wayes to accommodate him in his way, or to promote the Harvest-work it self?


Whether is there any whit more ground for the Civil Ma­gistrate to act out of his sphere, (I mean, in matters which are not of a politick or civil, but of a spiritual or ecclesiastick consideration) then there is for the Church Magistrate, or Ec­clesiastical Elder to act out of his, and to interpose in matters of State, and civil policie? And if the Lord Christ refused to arbitrate in a civil case between Brethren, replying to him that desired it at his hand, Man, who made me a Judg, or Di­vider over you; Luke 12. 14. Whether hath not the Civil Magistrate, as much, or more, reason to disclaim all interposure, as a Magi­strate, in spiritual affairs, and to say unto those, who shall de­sire or expect any thing from him in this kind, Who made me an Ecclesiastical Judg, or Spiritual Decider over you?


Whether, when the Apostle, speaking of the Civil Magi­strate, saith of him, that he is the Minister of God, a Reven­ger to execute wrath on him that doth evil, Rom. 13 4. are these words, him that doth evill, to be extended as well to him that is a spiritual Delinquent or Evil Doer onely (viz.) that teacheth false Doctrine, reproveth or disparageth him that teacheth true, worshippeth God in a false manner, or otherwise then he ought, &c. or to be confined to such Evil Doers onely, who sin against the clear light and Law of Nature, or the lawful politick constitutions of the State where he lives? Or hath it not by sondry undeniable grounds and reasons been proved, that the said words ought to be thus limited and understood, in the Discourse formerly mentioned under the title of Hagiomastix, Pag. 58. 59, 60, 61, 62, &c.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.