asinasuddenrebellionanymanthatcansuppressitbyhisownpowerinthecountrywhereitbegins，withoutexpresslaworcommission，maylawfullydoit，andprovidetohaveitratified，orpardoned，whilstitisindoing，orafteritisdone。Also，itisexpresslysaid，“Whosoevershallkillthemurderershallkillhimuponthewordofwitnesses“：*2butwitnessessupposeaformaljudicature，andconsequentlycondemnthatpretenceofjuszelotarum。TheLawofMosesconcerninghimthatenticethtoidolatry，thatistosay，inthekingdomofGodtoarenouncingofhisallegiance，forbidstoconcealhim，andcommandstheaccusertocausehimtobeputtodeath，andtocastthefirststoneathim；*3butnottokillhimbeforehebecondemned。Andtheprocessagainstidolatryisexactlysetdown：forGodtherespeakethtothepeopleasJudge，andcommandeththem，whenamanisaccusedofidolatry，toenquirediligentlyofthefact，andfindingittrue，thentostonehim；butstillthehandofthewitnessthroweththefirststone。*4Thisisnotprivatezeal，butpubliccondemnation。Inlikemannerwhenafatherhatharebelliousson，thelawisthatheshallbringhimbeforethejudgesofthetown，andallthepeopleofthetownshallstonehim。*5Lastly，bypretenceoftheselawsitwasthatSt。Stephenwasstoned，andnotbypretenceofprivatezeal：forbeforehewascarriedawaytoexecution，hehadpleadedhiscausebeforethehighpriest。Thereisnothinginallthis，norinanyotherpartoftheBible，tocountenanceexecutionsbyprivatezeal；which，beingoftentimesbutaconjunctionofignoranceandpassion，isagainstboththejusticeandpeaceofaCommonwealth。
Inthethirty-sixthChapterIhavesaidthatitisnotdeclaredinwhatmannerGodspokesupernaturallytoMoses：notthatHespokenottohimsometimesbydreamsandvisions，andbyasupernaturalvoice，astootherprophets；forthemannerhowHespokeuntohimfromthemercyseatisexpresslysetdowninthesewords，“Fromthattimeforward，whenMosesenteredintoTabernacleofthecongregationtospeakwithGod，heheardavoicewhichspakeuntohimfromoverthemercyseat，whichisovertheArkofthetestimony；frombetweenthecherubimshespakeuntohim。“*Butitisnotdeclaredinwhatconsistedthepre-eminenceofthemannerofGod’sspeakingtoMoses，abovethatofHisspeakingtootherprophets，astoSamuelandtoAbraham，towhomHealsospokebyavoicethatis，byvision，unlessthedifferenceconsistintheclearnessofthevision。For“facetoface，“and“mouthtomouth，“cannotbeliterallyunderstoodoftheinfinitenessandincomprehensibilityoftheDivineNature。
*Numbers，7。89
Andastothewholedoctrine，Iseenotyet，buttheprinciplesofitaretrueandproper，andtheratiocinationsolid。ForIgroundthecivilrightofsovereigns，andboththedutyandlibertyofsubjects，upontheknownnaturalinclinationsofmankind，anduponthearticlesofthelawofnature；ofwhichnoman，thatpretendsbutreasonenoughtogovernhisprivatefamily，oughttobeignorant。
Andforthepowerecclesiasticalofthesamesovereigns，IgrounditonsuchtextsasarebothevidentinthemselvesandconsonanttothescopeofthewholeScripture，andthereforeampersuadedthathethatshallreaditwithapurposeonlytobeinformed，shallbeinformedbyit。Butforthosethatbywritingorpublicdiscourse，orbytheireminentactions，havealreadyengagedthemselvestothemaintainingofcontraryopinions，theywillnotbesoeasilysatisfied。Forinsuchcases，itisnaturalformen，atoneandthesametime，bothtoproceedinreadingandtolosetheirattentioninthesearchofobjectionstothattheyhadreadbefore：ofwhich，inatimewhereintheinterestsofmenarechangedseeingmuchofthatdoctrinewhichservethtotheestablishingofanewgovernmentmustneedsbecontrarytothatwhichconducedtothedissolutionoftheold，therecannotchoosebutbeverymany。
InthatpartwhichtreatethofaChristianCommonwealth，therearesomenewdoctrineswhich，itmaybe，inastatewherethecontrarywerealreadyfullydetermined，wereafaultforasubjectwithoutleavetodivulge，asbeingausurpationoftheplaceofateacher。Butinthistimethatmencallnotonlyforpeace，butalsofortruth，tooffersuchdoctrinesasIthinktrue，andthatmanifestlytendtopeaceandloyalty，totheconsiderationofthosethatareyetindeliberation，isnomorebuttooffernewwine，tobeputintonewcasks，thatbothmaybepreservedtogether。AndIsupposethatthen，whennoveltycanbreednotroublenordisorderinastate，menarenotgenerallysomuchinclinedtothereverenceofantiquityastopreferancienterrorsbeforenewandwell-provedtruth。
ThereisnothingIdistrustmorethanmyelocution，whichneverthelessIamconfidentexceptingthemischancesofthepressisnotobscure。ThatIhaveneglectedtheornamentofquotingancientpoets，orators，andphilosophers，contrarytothecustomoflatetime，whetherIhavedonewellorillinit，proceedethfrommyjudgement，groundedonmanyreasons。Forfirst，alltruthofdoctrinedependetheitheruponreasonoruponScripture；bothwhichgivecredittomany，butneverreceiveitfromanywriter。Secondly，themattersinquestionarenotoffact，butofright，whereinthereisnoplaceforwitnesses。Thereisscarceanyofthoseoldwritersthatcontradictethnotsometimesbothhimselfandothers；whichmakestheirtestimoniesinsufficient。Fourthly，suchopinionsasaretakenonlyuponcreditofantiquityarenotintrinsicallythejudgementofthosethatcitethem，butwordsthatpass，likegaping，frommouthtomouth。Fifthly，itismanytimeswithafraudulentdesignthatmensticktheircorruptdoctrinewiththeclovesofothermen’swit。
Sixthly，Ifindnotthattheancientstheycitetookitforanornamenttodothelikewiththosethatwrotebeforethem。
Seventhly，itisanargumentofindigestion，whenGreekandLatinsentencesunchewedcomeupagain，astheyusetodo，unchanged。
Lastly，thoughIreverencethosemenofancienttimethateitherhavewrittentruthperspicuously，orsetusinabetterwaytofinditoutourselves；yettotheantiquityitselfIthinknothingdue。Forifwewillreverencetheage，thepresentistheoldest：iftheantiquityofthewriter，Iamnotsurethatgenerallytheytowhomsuchhonourisgiven，weremoreancientwhentheywrotethanIamthatamwriting：
butifitbewellconsidered，thepraiseofancientauthorsproceedsnotfromthereverenceofthedead，butfromthecompetitionandmutualenvyoftheliving。
Toconclude，thereisnothinginthiswholediscourse，norinthatI
wrotebeforeofthesamesubjectinLatin，asfarasIcanperceive，contraryeithertothewordofGodortogoodmanners；ortothedisturbanceofthepublictranquillity。ThereforeIthinkitmaybeprofitablyprinted，andmoreprofitablytaughtintheUniversities，incasetheyalsothinkso，whomthejudgementofthesamebelongeth。ForseeingtheUniversitiesarethefountainsofcivilandmoraldoctrine，fromwhencethepreachersandthegentry，drawingsuchwaterastheyfind，usetosprinklethesamebothfromthepulpitandintheirconversationuponthepeople，thereoughtcertainlytobegreatcaretaken，tohaveitpure，bothfromthevenomofheathenpoliticians，andfromtheincantationofdeceivingspirits。Andbythatmeansthemostmen，knowingtheirduties，willbethelesssubjecttoservetheambitionofafewdiscontentedpersonsintheirpurposesagainstthestate，andbethelessgrievedwiththecontributionsnecessaryfortheirpeaceanddefence；andthegovernorsthemselveshavethelesscausetomaintainatthecommonchargeanygreaterarmythanisnecessarytomakegoodthepubliclibertyagainsttheinvasionsandencroachmentsofforeignenemies。
AndthusIhavebroughttoanendmydiscourseofcivilandecclesiasticalgovernment，occasionedbythedisordersofthepresenttime，withoutpartiality，withoutapplication，andwithoutotherdesignthantosetbeforemen’seyesthemutualrelationbetweenprotectionandobedience；ofwhichtheconditionofhumannature，andthelawsdivine，bothnaturalandpositive，requireaninviolableobservation。Andthoughintherevolutionofstatestherecanbenoverygoodconstellationfortruthsofthisnaturetobebornunderashavinganangryaspectfromthedissolversofanoldgovernment，andseeingbutthebacksofthemthaterectanew；yetIcannotthinkitwillbecondemnedatthistime，eitherbythepublicjudgeofdoctrine，orbyanythatdesiresthecontinuanceofpublicpeace。AndinthishopeIreturntomyinterruptedspeculationofbodiesnatural；wherein，ifGodgivemehealthtofinishit，Ihopethenoveltywillasmuchpleaseasinthedoctrineofthisartificialbodyitusethtooffend。Forsuchtruthasopposethnoman’sprofitnorpleasureistoallmenwelcome。
THEEND