indifferent Ceremonies when they doe scandalize 2. Our argument is made against the practise of Ceremonies before they be enacted in a lawfull Assemblie if they be murthering of the weak before Pearth-Assemblie the will of Prelates yea and all the authoritie of men or Angels cannot make the practise of them to be no murther for mens will cannot make that which is sinne and guiltinesse before God to be no sinne but due obedience to the fift Commandement though the Doctors expresly say this Duplyers pag. 71. Sect. 44. But we with good warrant â—oe averre that the precept which fobiddeth the resisting of the civill power and in generall the denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our Superiors is of greater obligation then the precept of not scandalizing Their first reason I put in forme to them thus That is of greater obligation which commandeth acts edificative to all then that which commandeth acts edificative to some only for the good of all is to be preferred to the good of some particular persons and we are to have a greater care of the salvation of all then of some But the precept of obedience to Superiours is universall and commandeth the act of edifying all to wit obedience to Superiours and an act to eschew the scandall of all to wit disobedience But the precept of eschewing the scandall of some doth but edifie some only and not all Ergo c. Ans 1. It is soon proved by your learning for the precept of Gods law to eschew scandall to you is no precept and so of no obligation when Superiours command to scandalize so you may prove that snow is whiter then the raven when as the raven is not white at all I answer 2. That precept is of greater obligation that commandeth acts edificative to all then that which commandeth acts edificative to some It is true 1. if it be a lawfull command of God but the â—ssumption applyed to your purpose is most false the command to obey Prelates when they command things indifferent the obedience whereof doth culpably occasion the murthering of him for whom Christ died is not a commandement edificative to all yea it is a Commandement of acts destructive to the soules of all This Argument would have some colour if it were not a vaine begging of the question for they lay downe as confessed that the practise of Ceremonies from whence many soules are ruined is obedience and obedience to the fift Commandement This is to be proven and constantly denyed by us because disobedience to the sixth Commandement and murthering of our brother cannot be obedience to the fift Commandement Duplyers pag. 72. n. 50. The fift Commandement commeth neerer to the nature of pietie and religion contained in the first Table and the honouring of parents as your owne Aâ—â—â—sius saith by prophane authours is called by the name of religion and pietie 2. It is the ground of obedience sayeth Pareus to be given to all the rest of the precepts of the second Table 1. Because all societies Oeconomicke civill and Ecclesiasticke doe consist and are conserved by the subjection of â—nferiours to superiours 2. Our superiours are set over us to the end we may doe our dutie to all others Hence saith your owne Amesius Crymes which directly procure the perturbation confusion and eversion of societies are more grievous then the violation of the singular precepts and Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria writing to Novatus saith Martyrdome suffered for eschewing of schisme is more glorious then Martyrdome for eschewing Idolatrie Ans You said before matters of Policie are not matters of faith Amesius is a Protestant writer in matters of faith by grant of all it is like then you terme â—mesius our owne not yours because he wrote against Arminians and Papists and so that Arminians and Papists are yours and Protestant Divines ours 2. We grant the precedencie and dignitie to the fift Commandement above the rest but your Ceremonies that break the sixth Commandement shall find no roome in the fift Commandement Cause the fift Commandement speak thus if you can Notwithstanding that crossing kneeling surplice humane holy dayes occasion the soule murther of him for whom Christ died yet we the Prelates command the practise of the foresaid Ceremonies as good and expedient for edification for our Commandement maketh the murthering of our brethren to be obedience to the fift Commandement But if Prelates may command that which would be otherwise without or before the Commandement spirituall murthering and scandalizing of our brother they may command also that which would be otherwise without or before their command adulterie against the seventh and theft against the eighth and perjurie and lying against the ninth Commandement and concupiscence against the tenth for the fift Commandement hath the precedencie before the seventh eighth ninth and tenth Commandements no lesse then before the sixth which forbiddeth the killing of our brothers soule 3. What Amesius and Parens saith doe well prove the dignitie of the fift Commandement above all the Commandements of the second Table but this is not to our purpose but every commandement of the fifth Commandement yea every commandement of the first Table is not above every commandement of the second Table The love of God is more then the love of our neighbour and the love of God should and doth command obedience to all the ten Commandements Deut. 30. 6. 7 8. Deut. 10. 12. Yet every duty and commandement that the love of God requireth of us as to offer sacrifice is not for that a greater commandement then every commandement of the second Table yea the taking of a sheepe out of a ditch on the Lords day commanded in the sixth Commandement is more then sacrifices commanded in the second Commandement as our Saviour saith Math. 12. v. 11 12. and though the fift Commandement be laid upon us as the fountaine and cause yea to this end that we should keepe all the rest as Divines say well Yet it followeth not that every commandement of the fift Commandement as when my father commandeth me to preach in a linnen Ephod and to cast a Character with my thumbe in the aire as crossing is shall be of more obligation then this commandement of God Thou shalt not destroy his soule for whom Christ died 4. It is false that denying of obedience to Pearth-Assemblie commanding indifferent straws and feathers as kneele to consecrated Bread the Image of Christ crucified doth directly procure the perturbation and confusion of humane societies as the Doctors saith There is great difference betwixt subjection to superiours and obedience to superiours When private men as the three Children will not bow to Nebuchadnezzars Image there is no confusion brought in for that if they had risen against the King in armes as Papists doe in Ireland against our King that is confusion and subverteth directly humane scocieties but to suffer punishment by Superiours is subjection to superiours as is cleare 1 Pet. 2. 17.
intend to kill his Son Why is not eating the forbidden fruit Lawfull Only because God Commandeth and if God forbid Abraham to kill his Son and Command Adam to eat it is Lawfull 2. If this be good observe all the Ceremoniall Law so you lay not Divine necessity upon the observance thereof offer Sacrifices to God under the New Testament and you cannot fail in the worship against the Institutor So slaying of the Children to Molech so you count it free and changeable shall not fail against Gods Commandments of the first Table I Command it not They Answer To kill Children is Man slaughter but I Reply God doth noâ— Ier. 7. Reason against Offering the seed to Molech as it was murther and forbidden in the sixth Commandment but as false worship and forbidden in the second Commandment Else he proveth not that it was unlawfull worship against piety but that it was an act of cruelty Yea so it be thought free and bind not the Conscience it may be Lawfull worship and is not condemned by this God Commanded it not Ergo It is not Lawfull I Commanded not saith Morton and D. Burges that is I discommanded or forbade Ans So saith the Iesuit Valentia but so Circumcising of women boyling of the Paschall Lambe another Ark then Moses made should not be unlawfull for these are not expresly discommanded But Gods Commanding to Circumcise the Male-childe to Roast the Paschall Lambe to make this Ark and his silence of Circumcision of women and boyling the Passeover and silence of another Ark is a Command 2. The Text Jer. 7. Is wronged I Commanded not neither came it in my heart to Command this Abomination That is I never purposed it as worship else they knew to kill their Children except to God as Abraham was Commanded was unlawfull as Isa 63. 4. The day of Vengeance is in mine heart 2 King 10. 30. 1 King 8. 18. Gen 27. 41. To be in ones heart is to purpose a thing 3. Valentia saith Exod. 18. 20. I Commanded not the false Prophet to speak But how By not sending or calling him Else God did not say by a Positive Commandment to every false Prophet Prophecy not but because God bâ—de him not Prophecy he was to know God forbade him Else to speak Arbitrary Doctrines and Prophesies not tying the Conscience were no false Prophecying They Object 1 King 8. 17. It was well that it was in Davids heart to build a house to God and yet David had no warrant in Gods Word for to build an house to God So Morton Burges Ans David had a twofold will and purpose to build Gods house 1. Conditionall It was revealed to David that God would have an house built therefore David might conditionally purpose to build it so it was Gods will he should be the man This wanteth not Gods word We may desire what ever may promove Gods glory conditionally As that Petition teacheth Thy Kingdom come This was recommended of God and approved 2 Kin. 8. 17. 2. A resolute will upon Nathans mistake the blinde leading the blinde this was not Commanded though the desire of the end was good that is that a house should be built Morton 16. It was Lawfull upon common equity considering Gods mercy to him in subduing his enemies and that he dwelt in Cedars whereas God wanted an house but he could not actually perform it without Gods word So Burges Ans 1. The consequence without Gods word is as good to conclude that David might actually build Gods house as to will and purpose to build it Because the word is a perfect rule to our thoughts and purposes no lesse then to our actions if to build without Gods Word was unlawfull Ergo to purpose this without Gods Word was unlawfull A purpose of sin as of Adultery is sin a purpose of will worship is will-worship and sin 2. A man of blood is as unfit to purpose to be a type of a peaceable Saviour as to be a type of a Saviour 3. If God reprove Samuels light for judging according to the eye 1 Sam. 16. 7. Far more he rebuketh his purpose to Anoint a man without his word Who giveth Kingdoms to whom he pleaseth Yet Samuel had a good intention and Gods word in generall that one of Iesse's Sons should be King 4. Iâ— that good purpose had remained with David deliberately to build the Lords house after the Lord had said Solomon not David must build the house it would have been sinfull yet the reasons upon common equity and a generall warrant that God would have an house had been as good as before if Mortons consequence be once good it s ever good 5. By this without the warrant of the Word we may purpose to glorifie God The Baptist without Gods warrant may purpose a New Sacrament Cajaphas may purpose that he shall be the man who shall dye for the people I may purpose to glorifie God by a thousand new means of worshipping Papists have good intentions in all they do 6. A purpose of heart is an inward substantiall worship warranted by Gods Word Psal 19. 14. Psal 50. 21. Psal 74. 11. Ier. 4. 14. Gen. 8. 2. Eccles 2 3. Isa 55. 7. Ergo The word is not a rule in substantiall and Morall Duties heart-purposes cannot be indifferent heart-ceremonies 7. David needed not aske counsell at Gods mouth and word for an indifferent heart-purpose grounded upon sufficient warrant of common equity whether he should act it or noâ— that which warranteth the good purpose warranteth the enacting of the good purpose 8. Who knoweth if God rewardeth additions to the word with a sure house and all indifferent Ceremonies All additions to Gods Word are unlawfull Deut. 4 â— Deut. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18. Ioh. 20. 31. Luk. 16. 29 30. 2 Tim 3 17. Psalme 19. 7 8. So Basilius Hieron Cyprian Chrysostome Procopius Turtullian All the Fathers all Protestant Divines opposing Traditions put their seal and Pen to the plenitude of Scripture But humane Rites are Additions to Gods word Morton and Burges say God forbiddeth in the foresaid places additions of any thing as Divine and a part of Gods Word or additions contrary to Gods Word and corrupting the sense thereof but not additions perfecting and â—â—â—plaining his Word aâ— Commentaries and Annotations of the text So do Papists Answer Duvallius a Sorbonist He forbiddeth other new Sacrifices as of the Gentiles who offered their Sons and Daughters So Valentia Vasquez Bellarmine Suarez Cajetan They are not added which the Church addeth they are from the spirit of God So Bannes but all these do elude not expound the Texts 1. Because if the Iewish Princes had Commanded Arbitrary and conditionall Arâ—s Sacrifices places of worship so they addâ— not heathenish and wicked as the Gentiles Sacrificing their Children they had noâ— failed by this answer yet
these Traditions by an Argument taken from the want of a lawfull Author while he calleth them Precepts of men opposed to the Commandments of God and while he saith v. 13. That every plant not rooted by his heavenly Father shall be rooted out Yea and Christ expresly proveth their worship vain because they taught the fear and worship of God by the precepts of men and not by the word of God and Ceremonies are the precepts of men 3. Mar. 7. 10 11 12. He alledgeth their corrupt and false exposition of the fifth Commandment in saying It is a gift whereby Parents may benefit which Children offer to God though they help not their Parents in their poverty necessity so you free them from obedience to the fifth Commandment of God by setting up your false glosse saith Christ which is a human tradition Then to Christ this is a good argument your corrupting of the fift Cōmandment with your false glosses is a rejecting of Gods 5. Commandment why because it is a doctrine of men and one of the Pharisees Traditions For whether they placed operative sanctity in preferring mens Commandment to Gods or not none can deny but Christ reasoneth against these evils because they were mens Traditions otherway Formalists shall be forced to say that if the Pharisees have esteemed them Arbitrary and of no operative sanctity mens Commandments had not been vain worship Christs Argument from Isa 29. should prove nothing for false glosses and corrupting the fifth Commandment is not vain worship because it is a doctrine of men for Doctrines of men as only coming from men and esteemed Arbitrary are not vain saith Formalists yea except they be contrary in the matter to Gods Law and proffered or equalized in the opinion of sanctity to Gods Law they are not a whit vain because they come from men or are doctrines of men 4. Christ defendeth his Disciples practice in abstaining from externall not-washing Ergo he esteemed the externall washing unlawfull But if the Disciples abstinence was because of the impiety of washing and the opinion of sanctity put upon washing otherwayes Lawfull he should have defended his Disciples in a thing unlawfull for to disobey the Elders and Church-guides who sate in Moses's chair and were to he obeyed Matth. 23. 2 3. in an externall indifferent act of washing not contrary to the washings commanded in Moses Law and so negatively conforme to Gods Law is Lawfull as Formalists and Papists both teach but Christ defended his Disciples in their non-obedience externall for they were not challenged for denying the opinion of operative holinesse to these Ceremonies Christ who commanded obedience to sitters in Moses his chair in all things Lawfull would have obeyed himself and cleared his Disciples in so far as they ought to obey or not to obey 5. Vasquez sayes These Traditions were unlawfull because they were invented Sola voluntate hominum absque ratione by the sole will of men without reason But so are Popish Ceremonies for if they can be proved by the word of God and the light of nature they are essentiall parts of Gods word and not accidentall nor left to the Churches will 2. It is good then the Iesuit confesseth the Church from sole will and so the Pope and Prelat can make no Laws but either Scripture or natures light must warrant them and sole will cannot rule them 3. They had as good reason in generall from Moses his writings and the Law-washings as Pope and Prelats have for their Traditions But saith Vasquez Christ complaineth of these traditions because they held them to be Summam Religionis the marrow of Religion and took no care of Gods Law Ans That will no more prove them to be vain worship and that the Disciples were to be justified in their non-conformity to these Church washings then that Gods Disciples and sound believers under the Old Testament should abstain from keeping Gods Sabbaths his new-Moons and from offering Sacrifices because the people placed all holinesse in these of old and neglected works of mercy and justice Isa 1. 11 c. Jer. 7. 4 5 6. But say Formalists Christ condemneth them because the Pharisees thought eating with unwashen hands defiled the conscience and meat defiled the soul when the eaters did not wash as the elders commanded Whereas Christ saith It is not that which goeth in at the mouth which defileth the man but the wickednesse that cometh out at the heart Ans It is true and I think Pharisees believed meat eaten contrary to the Elders Traditions defiled the conscience as is clear Mat. 15. 16 17 18. And that also Christ condemneth as a Doctrine of men and of ignorant men and so doth non-conformity to your Ceremonies pollute the conscience as a breach of the fifth and second Command as you say QUEST IV. Whether humane Ceremonies can consist with Order Decency and the sincerity of our profession of true Religion CEremonies fight with Order and Decency 1. These Rites pretended by Gods command to adde order and decency to Gods worship and yet deface his worship and addeth none thereunto be unlawfull But humane Ceremonies be such Ergo That they pretend Order is proved D. Burges saith They have no place in all the New-Testament save only 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done in order and decency a place as a Estius citeth Magnified by Papists for all their Ceremonies The Major is undeniable I prove the Assumption 1. Because Magick-like Rites honoured with Gods name as Christian-Masse Christs-Masse an Adored Tree called Gods board when there is no use for a Table a Crossing honoured with dedication to Christs service is like Gods name used by sorcerers in Charming Spelling Divining where vertue is ascribed to signes characters and words which have no such vertue from God or nature and this Valentia justly calleth Superstition So the Iews called the Calfe Jehovah Papists call a creature of their making Agnus Dei a stile due to Christ only Joh. 1. 29. 2. All creatures are means of glorifying God Rev. 4. 11. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 11. 36. And may be invited to praise God as Psal 148. Now it were strange bleating to say O Crossing Surplice Praise ye the Lord when things ordained by mans sole will and so idle and sinfull are made means to glorifie God with as good reason dancing in the Church and blowing feathers in the Aire which have by nature or reason no aptitude for these ends may be decent means of glorifying God 2. Order and decency supernaturall in the Church is in the Word Cant. 6. 4. Clear as the Sun terrible as an Army with Banners Nothing wanting Gods institution can reach a supernaturall end as our Ceremonies are 2. But also Ceremonies relatively sacred in Religious state must be more then civilly decent as also right order produceth supernaturall joy Gal. 2. 5. Civill order cannot do this Or 3. Ceremonies adde naturall order but this is not in colour
but will it follow therefore the Pastor should not watch over him to try in another way in a Pastorall way by his walking profession and practicall knowledge whether he be in Christ or no. The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the souls of the people as they that must give an accompt And they are so far to try that are Shepherds that they are obliged in a Pastorall way to know those of the flock that are diseased Ezech. 34. 4. Sick broken driven away and lost And to what end should they try themselves least they eat damnation to themselves Ergo the Stewards should try the stomacks that they eat not poyson If then the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery Sodomy Murthers and if every man ought to have personall watchfulnesse over his own conscience that he be not insnared to those sins and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold and to be wary to meddle with it but it doth not follow that Magistrates as Joshua should not try out Sorcerers Sodomites and other Achans to punish them Erastus 2 Cor. 13. is against this a person is to try himselfe Will it follow when he hath tryed himselfe that he cannot come to the Lords Supper except he seem meet to the Elders And this not our consequence let Erastus owne it we care not In a constitute Church he should else Erastus provides no way against a Pagan who hath heard the Word as he may doe 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church sit downe at the Lords Supper for Erastus provides no stop for him but only his own pagan Conscience and so may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament his owne Conscience is all his rule contrary to what he saith himselfe lib. 3. c. â— p. 207. Erastus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper but upon supposition that they come as the manner is he biddeth them come worthily as all are bidden hear the Word though they â—e forbidden to he are it as if it were some prophane History nor doth the Lord command sinfull coming for no act commanded of God is evill Ans 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans more to come to the Supper and Children then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word which is absurd he commandeth all to heare but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper but those onely that can discerne the Lords body for to heare the Word though I be not prepared is simply necessary if I would be saved and to sacrifice if I would be reconciled and to pray if I would obtaine any blessing though the manner of doing all these be commanded that I heare sacrifice and pray in faith But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all not to Pagans not to children not to the unregenerated but onely to the regenerated and to those who discerne the Lords body and for a child to come to the Lords Supper or an unrenewed man is forbidden not commanded and no ill act is commanded and it is a sinne that they come at all But Erastus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word then doth Christ command Turks and children to come to the Supper for he commandeth them to heare the Word and Peter bade Simon Magus pray Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him nor bids he him receive it but by the contrary forbids pearles to be cast unto Swine Erastus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Christians to be members of the Church now then of Iewes to be members of the Iewish Church But God would have all circumcised even the most flagitious that were punished by the Magistrate to be members of the Iewes Church Ergo God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church Ans This will prove that all baptized even children should come to the Supper 2. I deny the Minor to wit that all the most wicked remained Members of the visible Iewish Church jure before God the wicked Iewes to God were as Sodom and Gomorrah Esa 1. 10. Yea he saith Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians O children of Israel saith the Lord What they were de facto and not cast out was the fault of the Priests and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels Wolves Lions in the flock and admitteth them to holy things is their sin Erastus But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to those Iewes especially who were unclean by touching an unclean thing against their will and ignorantly and the purging of them depended on their owne will so they observed the Ceremonies of Moses Ans That is much for us if those who were uncleane against their will and cast out of the campe it being a trying Type that far more those that are wickedly scandalous are to be cast out of the Church Erastus The Church is a draw-â—et a field a marriage Supper there be good and ill in it and it was not the sinne of the inviters who are bidden invite all good and bad Mat. 22. But the man that came himselfe without the wedding garment he is cast into utter darkenesse Ergo The Officers are to invite all and forbid none Ans They are to invite all to all Ordinances and Seals even Dogs and Swine that is false They are to invite all to some Ordinances to heare the Law and Gospel preached but not the Seales that were to cast Pearles to Swine 2. The way of Erastus is that none are to be debarred nor to debarre themselves from the Seales more then from the Word The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life and his casting of him out of Paradise and Cains being cast out from the presence of the Lord to me are rather Types presignifying Excommunication and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things then patternes of Excommunications and so are they alledged by Beza and our Divines CHAP. VII Quest 3. Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was typified in the Old Testament VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament to be rightly expounded when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you 18. And I will be a Father unto you and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall holinesse and cleannesse commanded in the booke of Leviticus for after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes about eschewing of uncleane things he saith in generall Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes and keepe my Commandements and doe them 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you and I will be your God and ye shall be my people And it is a cleare allusion to Numb 19. 11. He that toucheth
action either Civil Natural or Supernatural yet marriage is not Morally or Theologically indifferent So as to marry or not marry is a matter of a mans free choice and of his own free will not obnoxious to any binding Law as is kneeling not-kneeling crossing not-crossing in the minde of our Adversaries 1. If it were morally indifferent to marry or not to marry Rulers might make Laws either commanding all to marry or none to marry or some to marry some not to marry which were no small tyranny and the very doctrine of Devils 2. The gift of Continency is to some a commandment of God that they marry not and burning is to some a commandment obliging them in conscience to marry else they sin therefore to marry or not to marry is necessary to all men or then unlawful and so not indifferent as our Divines teach against Papists their Supererogatorie Works The Lords calling of any to suffer for his Truth is instead of a command of God though the man might be saved though he suffer not for the Truth 3. If there be no necessitie in marrying but onely conditional in the manner oâ— marrying then all mankinde without sin might abstain from marrying which it most absurd 4. The place 1 Cor. 7. 39. saith not that a Widow is under no necessitie of marrying but onely under a necessity of well and spiritual marrying For the libertie that the Widow hath there is not that it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry for since our Adversaries teach That Rulers may make Laws in things indifferent they might then make a Law that no Widows shall marry which were vile tyrannie But the libertie that the Widow hath to marry whom she will is opposed onely to a Law and Obligation Matrimonial that she was under while her Husband did live And the words clearly speaketh onely of thiâ— freedom not of Moral freedom of indifference from all Law of God necessitating her to marry The Wise is bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth but if her Husband be dead she is at liberty to marry whom she will onely in the Lord. But there are no smal oddes betwixt libertie to marry this or that man because the Husband is dead of which libertie onely the Apostle speaketh and liberty and indifference without all restraint of Gods Law to marry at all or not to marry This latter libertie the Scripture speaketh not of onely the Doctor alleageth it Object Kneeling at the Sacrament howbeit antecedente and immediately it be necessary by Gods Law yet consequently and by the mediation of lawful Authority it is now necessary to us not by necessity of the thing it self but by necessity of obedience order and peace and so according to the practice it is for the time necessary by Gods Law and cannot be omitted without sin So Forbes Answ Necessitie of obeying the Church can make nothing necessary and good for the Church commandeth it because it is necessary and good and it hath not goodnesse necessitie and aptnesse to edifie from mens will and the Churches commandment 2. I ask if no kneeling now in Scotland laying aside the respect of Authority and Law be in it self undecent and unapt to edifie if not then the Church hath no more ground and reason for order and decency in our Ceremonies for what I say of one holdeth true in all then there is for the want of Ceremonies and if that be true the sole will and lust of Authority maketh our Ceremonies lawful What can Romish impudence give more to the Man of sin But if there be unorderlinesse and indecency in our Ceremonies then kneeling now must be sin even laying aside the respect of Humane Laws 3. It is strange Divinity That that which is no sin of it self cannot be omitted without sin for the sole will and pleasure of men Humane Authority then may make it sin not to rub our Beards not to claw our Heads when we come to the Church to hear Gods Word If Humane Authority can make an indifferent Act lawful and the omission of it sinful they may make all the indifferent Acts in the World lawful Acts they might then make piping leaping laughing Acts oâ— Divine Worship and might make a Decalogue of their own And if they may make an indifferent Act to be sin if it be omitted they may by as good reason make sinful Acts as Adulterie Incest Murther Robbery to be lawful Acts For if mans inhibiting will be the formal reason of sin then his commanding will must be the formal reason of obedience And so Rulers might command Murther Robbery Incest Blasphemy Object We may perform an individual act coming from deliberate will and that without sin and we may omit the same without sin Whether we practise these indifferent actions or omit them we should refer both practice and omission to Gods glory and these actions we call indifferent or free as indifferent and free is opposed to that which is morally necessary which are either necessary to be done or necessary to be omitted by necessity of a Divine Law Howbeit every action that is not of Faith be sin Rom. 14. 23. Yet the faith whereby I beleeve this action is necessary and must be done is not necessary to the eschewing of sin But if I do it that I do it in Faith and for Gods glory is necessary but the necessity of the goodnesse of the action doth not make the action necessary for it were to lay a yoak of continual doubting upon mens conscience if they should beleeve every individual act that they do to be necessary for whether should they turn them while they think of doing or not doing these actions that they know to be commanded by no Word of God That a Widow marry in the Lord if she marry is necessary but it is not necessary that she marry but it is indifferent to her to marry or not to marry Doctor Forbes Answ It is a contradiction that an action individual should be indifferent and so neither good nor evil and yet done in Faith and referred to Gods glory For the ground of doing which is Faith and the end which is Gods glory are individual properties necessarily concurring to the individuation of the Action Moral 2. An action individual that is meerly indifferent and so without sin may be performed without sin or omitted without sin cannot be an action of Faith referred to Gods glory For what may be done without sin and may not be done without sin is a will-action and wanteth all necessitie of reason and so is an idle and sinful action but a sinful action may be done in fancy but in Faith it cannot be done it may in the vain intention of the doer be referred to Gods glory In intentione erronea operantis but ex conditione operis according to the nature of the work it serveth not for Gods glory This way to cast stones in the water
the Canons of Pearth faction 3. You say the negative part of the fift Commandement forbidding the resisting of the power Rom. 13. 2. by us is to be understood with exception of the case of scandall taken whereby you insinuate that not to obey the acts of Pearth Assembly is a resisting of the power of Rulers Rom. 13. 2. It is ignorantly spoken to resist every law of the Rulers is not to resist his power when the lawes are such as commandeth scandall yea by your own doctrine it is lawfull to flie when a Ruler unjusty commandeth persueth his subjects pag. 3. n. 19. And to â—â—ie I am sure is to refuse subjection to the Lawes of the Ruler from whose tribunall we â—liâ— yeâ— and to flie so is to resist his lawes but I hope it is not to resist the power for to resist the power bringeth damnation and guiltinesss before God Rom. 13. 2. But to flie from his legall Citations is to resist his lawes but doth not I hope bring damnation before God and sinne upon the conscience as you grant Duplyers n. 43. Men are ready to stumble and to be scandalized at our refusing obedience to the lawfull Commandements of our Superiours for they will take occasion by our cariage to doe that unto which by nature they be most inclined to wit to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie Answer If any stumble at our non-obedience to Pearth Articles and thence be induced to vilipend Lawes and Authoritie it is a scandall meerely taken no wayes given as is cleare because they stumble at our obedience to God in that we refuse to kill one for whom Christ died 2. It is no wayes true that men are naturally inclined to vilipend Laws in a matter indifferent as you hold Ceremonies to be from whence ariseth Scandall yea we are by nature much bent to extoll and love-lawes commanding soul-murther and all lawes inductive to Poperie which is but a masse of carnall propositions of heterodox Divinitie every way sutable to our flesh The third exception is answered already the fourth is to be discussed in the following Chapter Quest IIII. Whether the Precept of obedience to Superiours or the precept of eschewing scandall be more obligatorie Dupliers pag. 65. n. 43. LAst of all when a man is peremptâ—rily urged by his Superiours to obey their lawfull Commandements and in the meane time feareth that if he doe the thing commanded by them some through weaknesse shall be scandalized by his carriage in this case he is not onely in difficultie and strait betwixt the Commandement of men and the Commandement of God who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended But also he seemeth to be in a strait betwixt two Commandements of God to wit the precept that forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be scandalized and the other which forbiddeth the resisting of Authoritie Answer 1. The question of purpose is perversly set do â—ne for they should say whether the precept of obedience to Superiours in a straw lifting in things indifferent and meerely positive and not necessarie to salvation be more obligatorie then the precept of God in the law of nature in a matter necessarie to salvation as a Commandement of God forbidding soul-murther and scandalizing him for whom Christ died Or thus Whether am I obliedged rather to obey God forbidding me to murther my brother or to obey man commanding me to kneele towards Bread and Wine and to crosse the aire with my thumbe upon the face of a baptized infant 2. The question seemeth to make a collision of Commandements as if God could command things contradictorie and certainly if the not obeying of Pearth Articles be a scandall given as you say it is I shall undertake to prove that the practice of these Ceremonies is a Scandall given and so it is not a seeming strait as you say but a reall strait by your doctrine There be cases wherein whether Rulers command things or command the contrary a passive scandall doth arise but because a passive Scandall is the sinne of the scandall taker and not of Rulers giving the Church is not to regard it as Matth 11. 18 19. The Jewes are scandalized at Christs eating and drinking and are scandalized at John the Baptists not eating and drinking But neither Christ nor John doe culpably give scandall But there can be no such exigence of providence wherein non-practising of your commanded Ceremonies is a given scandall and the practising of them is also a given scandall Because as Bannes and our owne Amâ—sius saith There is not such a perplexitiâ— 1. God should have brought a man then in some cases under an absolute necessitie by way of contradiction to sinne and murther his brother whether he doe such a thing or not doe it 2. Twentie Jewes are scandalized Rom. 14. Because Paul eateth such and such meats which they conceive are forbidden by Gods law And twentie Christians are scandalized because Paul eateth not such and such meats then we suppose and it s very casuall for seeing to be scandalized ariseth from the knowledge or ignorance of the minde and divers men may have contrary opinions about one thing Some thinke it unlawfull for Paul to eat some thinke it unlawfull not to eat Hence upon the use of a thing indifferent twentie are scandalized and upon the non-using of that same indifferent thing twentie are also scandalized What shall Paul doe in this strait I answer he taketh Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the negative I will not eat flesh if meat offend my brother Then the twentie that are scandalized by the non-practice of the thing indifferent doe take scandall onely whereas Paul giveth no scandall actively Also the othet twentie who are scandalized by Paul his practice of the thing indifferent are justly scandalized it is both a scandall taken and active and a scandall given and passive Some object but if either of the sides be indifferent to wit either to use a thing indifferent or not to use it If ten take offence at the use of it and ten take offence at the non-use of it there is a necessitie of scandalizing either of the sides for the twentie weake Christians are scandalized at Pauls abstinence from such meats conceiving that he Judaizeth whereas the Profession of his Christian libertie in eating would edifie them and not scandalize them Answer The use of a thing indifferent is not Gods lawfull mean of edification God hath appointed his Word Workes the holy and blamelesse profession of his children to edifie and not the using of actions indifferent yea actions indifferent as they are such and separated from necessitie and morall reason are not lawfull and so the cessation from that action is lawfull and necessarie and if the use scandalize non-using of things indifferent is not indifferent but necessarie as non-scandalizing and negative precepts alwayes binding abstinence with Paul is necessarie It is vaine that Paybodie saith that
intention signifieth divine adoration p. 147 148 Objections of Swarez contending that intention of adoration is essential to adoration removed p. 148 149 Of the Idolatrous worship of the Iews and Papists p. 150 The relative expressioÌ„ of God in the creature is no ground of adoring the creature p. 151 The Iews beleeved not the Golden ca lt to be really God p. 151 152 The adoring of Images not forbidden by the Ceremonial law but by the Moral law p 154 The evasions of Bellarmine and Swarez answered p. 155 Papists did of old adore before or at the presence of the Image as a memorative signe and yet were Idolators p. 158 Two sort of signes ibid. Divers evasions of Papists touching the adoring of Images p. 161 162 scq Swarez is not content at the hungry expressions of Durandus Mirandula Hulcot in the worshipping of Images p. 165 166 The place worship at his footstool discussed Psal 99 ibid. Prayer may as lawfully be given to the creature as Adoration p. 169 170 Divers Fables touching Images p. 179 180 The original of Images p. 181 Images not in the ancient Church neither worshippeâ— therein p. 182 â—83 184 c. Vasquez will have all things to be adored p. 190 Joan. dâ— Lugo proveth the same by four Reasons p. 191 Whether sitting or kneeling be the most convenient and lawful gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 192 Sitting the onely convenient and lawful gesture p. 193 What is occasional in the first Supper ibid. Christ sate at the first Supper p. 194 195 Sitting a sign of our coheirship p. 197 198 199 A signe of our coheirship may well consist with our inferiority in worshipping Christ p. 198 Ceremonies fail against the Authority of Rulers p. 201 Whether humane Laws binde the conscience or not p. 201 202 seq How civil positive Laws binde not the conscience p. 202 203 A twofold goodnesse p. 207 The will of created Authority cannot create goodnesse in things p. 204 205 Humane Laws obliâ—ge onely in so far as they agree with the Law of God p. 206 A twofold consideration of Humane Laws p. 208 How Rulers are subordinate to God in commanding p. 209 Humane authority is not the nearest nor the instrumental cause of Laws p. 208 209 A double obedience due to Rulers objective and subjective p. 210 Objective obedience no more due to Rulers then to equals p 210 211 False Rules of obedience to Rulers proposed by D. Jackson refuted p. 212. The goodnesse of supposed obedience to Rulers cannot countervalue the evil in the sinful manner of doing with a doubting conscience p. 214 Other arguments for the obligation of humane Laws answered p. 216 What it is to resist to Ruler p. 217 Why men cannot make Laws that layeth a tie on the conscience p. 219 That Christ hath a spiritual Kingdom not onely in the power of Preaching but also in the power of the Keys by censures p. 220 That there is such a divine Ordinance as Excommunication p. 223 Objections against Excommunication removed p. 224 How we are to rebuke our Brother p. 225 The Church Matth. 18. is not the civil Sanedrim p. 226 227 229 How Heathen and Publicans were excluded from the Church p. 230 Binding and loosing acts judicial p. 235 236 Excommunication is a divine Ordinance proved by 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 seq fuse To deliver to Satan is not miraculous killing p. 238 239 The essentials of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5. p. 238 239 c. Whether the Word doth warrant censures and exclusion from the Seals ibid. Cutting off not alwayes killing p. 241 Moral scandals excluded men from holy things amongst the Iews p. 243 The prophecy Ezek 44. 11 12 c. to be fulfilled under the New Testament p. 244 245 Ceremonial exclusion from holy things under the old did typiâ—ie exclusion for moral uncleannesse under the N. Test p. 247 248 The Churches exclusion from the Seals declarative non coactive by violence ibid. Censures applyed to some by name ibid. Eschuing the society of scandalous Church-members must be a Church-censure p. 249 The hindering of Jezabel by preaching not sufficient p. 251 Debarring of the scandalous from the Seals proved p. 252. seq It belongeth not to the Magistrate to debar from the Seals p. 253 Erastus against exclusion from the Sacraments refuted p. 253 seq fuse By Erastus his way we cannot deny the Seals to a Turk p. 258 259 To exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication p. 260 Excommunication is no real separation of one from Christs invisible body p. 261 262 264 Though Excommunication be onely declarative yet it s not empty p. 266 Putting out 1 Cor. 5. p. 269 Whether Erastus doth prove that none were excluded amongst the Iews for moral uncleannesse from the holy things of God p. 271 A twofold forgivenesse p. 273 All are invited to come to the Sacraments but not that they come any way p. 274 The question whether all should be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus p. 275 Two sort of signes amongst the Iews some purely holy some partly holy partly necessary for the bodily life the latter clean and unclean might eat but not the former p. 277 All are commanded to hear but not to â—ome to the Supper p. 280 Whether Erastus doth justly deny Excommucation to be typified of Old p. 281 Ceremonial uncleannesse typified exclusion out of the visible Church for scandals not out of the Kingdom of Heaven p 287 288 Legal uncleannesse was sin p. 289 The scope and sense of Matth. 18. perverted by Erastus p. 290 Our Saviour speaketh of all not of private or lesser scandals onely p. 291 By the word Brother is not meaned a Iew onely ib. Christs speaking in the second person argueth not the privacy of the scandal p. 294 A twofold forgiving p. 295 Christ speaketh not of such sins as private men may forgive as Erastus dreameth p. 297 Christs scope spiritual Erastus his way carnal p. 298 A Publican most odious to the Iews p. 305 It s not private forgivenesse which is holden forth Matth. 18. 17. p. 308 Binding and loosing proper to Stewarts p. 309 To excommunicate is not formally to debar from the Seals p. 311 Christ might well give directions touching a Church not yet erected p. 314 c. The place 1 Cor. 5. vindicated from Erastus his glosse p. 316 317 c. The prayers of the Church intervene not for this particular miracle p. 318 319 Faith of miracles not in all the faithful at Corinth p. 320 Delivering to Satan not miraculous p. 321 The Church not Paul alone had hand in delivering the man to Satan p. 326 What delivering to Satan is p. 327 The destruction of the flesh what it is p. 328 Hymeneus and Alexander not killed by Satan p. 332 Delivering to Satan not miraclous p 336 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away not alwayes to kill p. 337 To eschew the
in things onely necessary for the Churches Commandment is neither a lawful nor obliging necessity Introd Actions meerly indifferent cannot be done in faith Introd The unlawfulnesse unseparably adhering to actions indifferent maketh them unlawful Introd How exsuperancy of goodnesse is to sway the will of Rulers and people Introd The will of Rulers not a law to us in things indifferent Introd The definition of a Scandal p. â— Propositions touching Scandal from Rom. 14. p 4 5 6 Propositions and Rules touching Scandal from 1 Cor. 7. and 8 and 10. p. 7 8 9 An object scandalous two wayes p. 9 Four things may be scandalous objects ibid. What is malum aparens appearance of evil p. 11 Rules touching Scandal p. 12 13 14 Whether or no we may deny obedience to the Laws of Superiors for fear of Scandal causelesly taken p. 15 16 17 Whether Information can remove Scandal from things not necessary but only through the necessity of mans commandment p. 20 21 Whether the precept of obedience to superiors or the precept of eschewing Scandal be more obligatory p. 28 29 c. The essence of an active Scandal p. 36 37 How the fifth Commandment is more obligatory then following precepts and how noâ— p. 46 47 c. Whether or not in every indifferent things we are to eschew the Scandal of all even of the malicious Affirmatur p. 53 c. Occasions of sins as occasions are forbidden p. 56 What is Christian liberty in things indifferent p. 57 58 A further consideration of things not necessary how they he scandalous p. 60 Of the necessity of things which remove Scandal p. 61 62 Some things necessary from the onely pâ—â—iâ—ive Will of God some thing necessary from something in the things themselves p. 62 Two sorts of monuments of Idolatry p. 63 We cannot devise the use of any thing in worship when we cannot devise the thing it self p 63 The place Deut. 7. 25. The graven Image of their gods shall ye burn with fire cleared p. 64 How Houseâ— and Temples builded to Saints are not to be demolished p. 65 Temples and Houses have a like physical use in Gods worship as out of Gods worship p. 65 66 No Houses no Temple no Creatures are now unclean under the New Testament p. 67 How things not necessary are to be abstained from or used in the case of Scandal p 67 c Things scandalous under the New Testament are forbidden in a far other sense then meats dayes and other things in the Ceremonial Law p. 73 How far a Moral and perpetual reason maketh a Law perpetual p 74 75 Difusing of houses because abused to idolatry a Iudaising p. 75 76 77 Bells for convening of the people to publike worship not to be abolished though they haye been abused to superstition p. 77 c. A most necessary rule to be observed in the doctrine of Scandal That emergent providences of natural necessity are to us in place of divine commands in some cases p. 81 Eight considerable Rules touching the kindes and degrees of necessity in eschewing Scandal p. 82 83 84 The 1 2 3 4 5 Rule p. 82 83 the 6. Rule ib. A scandal may flow from ignorance and corruption and so be taken when it also kindly issueth from the sinful or unseasonable fact of another and so is also kindly given p. 84 85. the 7. Rule 84 A false rule of Papists that men may co operate in a sinful act and be free of scandal because of some necessity p. 85 No relation of servant or câ—ptive can render it lawfuâ— to cooperate with sin p. 86 What things not necessary are to be removed from the worship of God as scandalous p. 87 the 8. Rule ibid. Ceremonies not so much as necessary by way of disjunction which necessity agreeth to many circumstances of worship in the Directory p. 8â— Religious monuments of Idolatry are to be removed p. 89 90 c. What conformity with Idolaters is unlawful p 93 Conformity with Idolaters in things in Gods worship not necessary unlawful p. 94 95 The same Ceremonies in Idolaters and in the true Church may be judged the same three wayes p. 96 Formalists grant conformity with Heathen and Idolaters in Ceremonies cloathed with a scriptural signification p. 96 97 98 How the Scripture is a Rule p. 99 Church-Government properly an Institution ibid. The worship of God needeth no religious Ceremonies but what God hath himself prescribed p. 100 101 We need not say that conformity with Idolaters was the onely cause why God forbad his people heathenish rites p. 102 103 ⧠Places of Scripture cleared in both these â—REATISES Gensis Ch. Ver. Page 6. 14. 51 17. 11 129 9. 13 ibid. Exodus Ch. Ver. Page 32. 22 117 20. 4 130 32. 4 5 151 152 12. 8 15 347 348 18. 15. 16 404 405 406 Leviticus Ch. Ver. Page 4. 5 6 439 440 6. 4 5 6 289 290 8. 6 7 8 384 385  9 c.  10. 11 398 399 10. 10 379 380   453 242 9. 13 347 348 16. 2 3 285 4 5 c.   18. 3 4 94 9â— 19. 19 ibid. 22. 20 21 455 22. 10 470 21. 2 3 288 289  4 5  23. 27 28 286 287 19. 11 282 283 13. 3. 4 386 Number Ch. Ver. Page 5. 1 2 41 242 9. 3 4 5 6 â—48 9. 6 7 â—53 8. 6 7 8 9 391 39â— 11. 16 17 â—04 405 16. 9 91 392 25. 7 8 â—28 35. what â—76 477 478 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â— 12  31 21 22 â—7 78 Deuter. Ch. Ver. Page 1. 16 404 415 â— â— 51 52 53 54 55 56 c. 98 99 100 4. 5 155 156 157 12. 32 51 52 53 c. 7. 25 26 64 65 Tâ— of Scan. 66 67 74 14. 1 2 362 363 17. 8 9 10 11 12 13 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 340 402 303 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 505 17. 18 547 548 571 572 19 20.  20. 19 66 67 22. 9 ibid. 23. 18 455 456 32. 2 455 Jeshua Ch. Ver. Page 1 2 507 22. 15 16 ibid. Judges Ch. Ver. Page 18. 17 567 1 Sam. Ch. Ver. Page 8. 7 208 209 210 3. 13 453 454 15. 1 2 3 65 66. 1 Kings Ch. Ver. Page 8. 17 96 97 98 11. 12 571 572 12. 27 127 18. 40 41 428 2 Kings Ch. Ver. Page 11. 1â— 18 572 1 Chron. Ch. Ver. Page 26 â— c. 410 411 28. 11 27 28 26. 30 31 414 415 29. 20 159 170 2 Chron Ch. Ver. Page 10. 8 468 469 15. 12 13 463 464 19. 9 545 23. 19 241 242 19. 6 7 8 9 10 11 386 387 388 389 c. 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 507 30. 6 7 346 347 30. 18 19 348 Ezra Ch. Ver. Page 9. 21 22 242 243 6. 9 290 10. 11 12 ibid. Psalmes Ch. Ver. Page 2. 8 9 605 606 607 610 611 34. 11 202 50 1â— 272 368 79. 8 93 94 99. 5
we be all one body in Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. If he mean Ceremonies as such speciall materialls to wit Surplice c. as ordained of man who may ordain another Ceremony doth not immediatly respect the honour of God 1. This is to beg the question 2. A white garment upon a priest of Jupiter Sacrificing to that Idoll should immediatly respect the honour of Iupiter though the Priest might honour Iupiter with garments of white Roses or some other like device while he officiateth So bowing of the knee in prayer doth immediatly honour God though I may pray sitting or standing 3. It is a dream that the honour of the subject is given to the adjunct yea and properly is the adjunct and agreeth to the adjunct as Surplice hath the very Office and place of Gods word and Sacramentâ— to teach and signifie and yet they are but adjuncts if a mans Coat or his Hat or Shooes could discourse and reason as only the man can do in reason we should say the Coat is the man 2. They say God forbiddeth efficient and operative means of worship and grace in the second Commandment or means immediate which worketh by vertue in themselves or wrapped in them for so the word and Sacraments are means of grace and worship yea the Sacraments be exhibitive seals and therefore we owe to such means subjection of conscience immediatly both to the things instituted and particular means of admonition and to the duties admonished or called to our remembrance by them for they have vertue residing and inherent in them by divine institution to work upon us But God forbiddeth not in the second Commandment means that teach occasionally as Objectum a quo therefore we owe subjection of conscience to the things admonished but not to the particular means of admonition therefore we are tied in conscience to Ceremonies only collaterally and propter aliud they be only externall objects or occasions For whoever saith he expected that men should be stirred up by Ceremonies as by causes or any otherwayes but as by sensible objects as we are by the sight of the creatures or other memorials therefore saith he they are not means by the which grace is wrought by the power of God wrapped in them but resident in God himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them so D. Burges Ans All cometh to this Ceremonies taketh the place of Word and Sacraments but cannot fill the chaire and discharge the office so well as Gods Ordinances doth A Clown taketh on the Crown and usurpeth the Throne and cannot do Regall Acts with such grace of Royall Majesty as the Lawfull King what is he for that no usurping Traitor 2. He will not have Ceremonies to be causes of worship but occasions so do Papists say Images saith Vasquez do only set before us the History and effects of God Bellarmine Suarez as all know do say That Images cannot so represent Iehovah as he is in himself or described in his word nor can the Idoll or Image of God represent God as a cause but onely as an object externall and occasion and yet God forbiddeth it Isa 40. 18. Hab. 2. 19. 20. 2. Gods word to the reprobate is a sealed Book and is as if you would teach letters to a new weaned childe Isa 29. 11. c. 29. 9. It worketh by no inherent vertue wrapped in it self but though it be mighty yet is it mighty through God 2 Cor. 10. 4. Ioshuahs twelve stones the Phylacteries the Manna the Rainbow did only as Aquinas saith well worke upon the senses and memory The word it self doth but work morally or objectively and is not a cause having the power of God wrapped in it If Surplice work only as an occasion the Preachers Napkin the bands of women doth so excite the memory and the affection 3. All our Divines teach that the Sacraments are exhibitive seals but not of themselves or by any vertue inherent in them as Papists say but by the power of God which worketh by the right receiving of the Sacraments and the Sacraments Actu Primo and essentially are only signes which worketh objectively and occasionally as you say your unhallowed Ceremonies do 1. because they are Sacraments essentially whether they be received by Faith or not and they are exhibitive seals only to believers 2. Vnbelievers should not prophane the Sacraments by their unworthy receiving of them if they were not Sacraments to them only signifying and if they were exhibiting seals to them then should they receive them worthily which is against what we suppose 3. The Fathers as Justine Martyr Ireneus Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose prove that Circumcision in its nature except to believers did only signifie Grace 5. Here be a most vilde distinction That we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished but not to Surplice or to such means and particular admonishers but only collaterally But â— is the Church ordaining Ceremonies a collaterall Mistresse over the conscience who is the other collaterall judge here who but Christ 2. We owe this collaterall subjection of Conscience to the Image of the Trinity for though we owe not subjection of Conscience to the image as such an admonisher or such an exhorting object seeing the Word of God may also admonish us of God yet we owe subjection of conscience to the thing admonished to wit to the blessed trinity 3. Neither owe we subjection of conscience to the word as written with ink on paper nor to the sound of the word Preached yea nor do we owe subjection of Faith to the Word as the Word but only collaterall when we say I hope in the Word I believe the Word I rejoyce in the Word of God we take the Word for Objetum quo and God for Objectum quod for the word is not the formall object of any subjection of Conscience I owe to the Word not a subjection of Conscience collaterall or coequall with the subjection that I owe to God but only subordinate as to a mean and to the Word for God and because it is instituted by God but I owe subjection of Conscience to God solely independently and onely yea subjection of Conscience is not due to the Word for its manner of working and not due to the Ceremonies because they work not as the Word of God doth as no wonder they being but hay and stubble but subjection of Conscience is due to the Word because God is the Author of it and speaketh in it himself as is clear Ier. 13. 15. Amos 3. 8. Heb. 2. 3. Hear for the Lord hath spoken and it is to be received only and in Conscience yielded unto as it is the Word of God Isa 1. 2. 1 Thess 2. 13. Now because we cannot receive the Surplice Crossing Capping as the Surplice of God and as the Crossing of Christ therefore are we not to submit at all to the Doctrines which these
his glory laid down in the hand of any creature as it dishonoureth the Husband that his wife give her body to another representing his person For this cause Bernardus Puiol faith Images are properly to be Adored contrary to that which Durandus saith And Azorius saith It is the common opinion that Images are to be worshipped with Latreia the highest honour due to God So saith he Thomas Alexander Bonaventura Richardus Albertus Paludanus Alman Marsilius Capreolus Cajetanus caeteri juniores sic sentiunt The fourth expression of wit is this distinction of Vasquez That that internall submission to God as to the Creator and chief God is due to God only and that the image seeing it is a Creature is not capable of that high honour But the externall act of kissing and kneeling he will have due to the image for the excellency of the Samplar And so he denyeth contrary to Suarez That the image separated from the Samplar or the humanity of Christ separated from Divinity can be Adored But if externall Adoration may be given to images so also internall submission Thou shalt not bow down to them Religiously it is expounded in the second Commandment Thou shalt not Worship them It is grossenesse in Vasquez to say The Worshipping of images was forbidden the Iews in the second Commandment as a Ceremoniall inhibition because of the Iews propension to idolatry But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the second Commandment Forbidding the similitude of God And the Athenians were not under the Law of Ceremonies Ioannes de Lugo saith This is a probable opinion But it is clear Cornelius a devout man one who feared and worshipped God whose Prayers were heard in heaven for Christs sake knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the house of Simon a Tanner yet his Religious externall bowing though he knew Peter was not God but a Divine man resembling God by Peter is rebuked as idolatry Act. 10. v. 25 26. I cannot help Ioan. de Lugo to say That Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him not because it was a sin but for modesties cause But 1. Peters Argument striketh against idolatry ver 26. Stand up he forbiddeth Religious kneeling for I my self also a man The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas useth Act. 14. â—er 15. We also are men c. and used against the idolatry of Lystra expresly condemned in that place And the Angels Argument against the idolatry of Iohn Rev. 19. 10. I am thy fellow servant Worship God Ergo externall Religious bowing should not be given to any save to God 2. Peter and the Angel should have opened the Jesuits and Formalists distinction if worshipping of Saints and dumbe images be worshipping of God and the honour principally of inward acknowledgment of the Supremacy and Soveraignty of God be intended in bowing to images and modesty should not forbid honouring of God And whereas Ioannes de Lugo saith Iohn was forbidden to Worship the Angel to signifie that our nature in Christ was advanced to a dignity above the Angels But 1. then it is unlawfull to any to worship Angels 2. Nor is it Lawfull to give the Virgine Mary Divine worship as Suarez saith 1. For her excellency in touching Christ 2. For her Grace and Sanctity 3. For her mothers place in bearing Christ because her nature in Christ is not exalted above the nature of other believers for the nature common to all believers and Eadem specie was assumed by Christ 3. The Angel saith Worship God he therefore believed the Worshipping of Angels was not the Worshipping of God All these fight against Religious bowing before the elements in due regard of so Divine mysteries the Bread would say if it could speak See thou do it not for I also am a Creature The fifth trick of wit is a distinction of Suarez That one and the same act of Adoration may be given and is given in externall Worship to the image and to God but in reference to God it is Latreia the high Honouring of God and in reference to the image it is an inferior Veneration So do our Formalists say as Burges saith Adoration and Veneration differ not but by mens will and if it be lawfull to Adore God before the Ark Why not at the Sacrament The Bread and the Wine are Christ significative as the Ark had the title of Iehovah by occasion of the elements not as they are but as they signify we may tender a knee-worship not at all to them but only to God or Christ And again he holdeth it lawfull to Adore the elements but then Adoration as given to the elements is Veneration and Adoration in a large sence 1 Chron. 29. 20. The people Worshipped God and the King The outward Adoration was one as the word by which it is expressed was one but the Religious and Civill worship were distinct in the minde and intention of the worshippers Edward the 6. Book saith Kneeling is to eschew prophaning of the Sacrament Opposit to prophaning is externall Religious honouring expressed by kneeling and that is Adoring Hence one and that same Adoration and externall bowing is given to Bread and to Christ but the minde and will of the Adorer maketh the same act in reference to Christ Adoration or Latreia of the highest degree of honour but in reference to the Bread lawfull Veneration of an inferior nature Answer 1. If it were possible that the Wise could transmit her body in the act of Harlotry by or through a strange Lover to her Husband her will and minde might change Adultery if she saith she giveth her body to a stranger but in her minde and will intendeth to bring forth children to her own Husband So if divers acts of the minde make Religious kneeling to a stock or Bread lawfull if one should Adore the man Iudas as a memoriall of Christ his intention of will might save his Soul if he say I give one and the same externall worship to Iudas and to Christ Or if Cornelius should say I give one and the same knee worship to Peter and to Christ but in my intention they be far different For I Worship Iudas and Peter in that act with Civill homage Commanded in the fifth Commandment as they be Christs Apostles and represent him but in that same I Worship Christ with the highest honour called Latreia Vasquez and Burges make them one externall Worship The three Children might have kneeled to the Image of Nebuchadnezzer for their minde and will as Formalists say might have put another signification of honouring the Lord Iehovah upon their knee-worship and externall kneeling could not have been denyed to the Lord Iehovah and so the three Children should not have given Divine honour and knee-glory to the Image and they were fooles who did hazard their bodies to the fire But wisemen think if they had given knee-worship what ever their heart thought they should
this worship 8 Only the rich who are able to sustain Images should be saved and not the poor 9. There is no profit but great vanity in adoring Images To the Arguments from miracles it is answered that these miracles are lying signes for Ea miracula nulla Evangelii lectio tradit 2. They deny that all things are to be adored in the which or by the which God wrought miracles Gregorius Nyssenus bowed his knee to the Image of Abraham What then the Councell saith these books of Nyssenus are perished The fable of Agbarus to whom the Image of Christs face painted in a cloath was sent was not in the world till the year of God 700. It is a counterfeit work ascribed to Athanasius in stile and phrase of writing not like to him where it is said that it was the image of Christ crucified by the Iews in Berythus a Town in Syria out of whose side flowed blood and water which being mixed with water could cure all diseases so Symson The Testimony of the Councell of Eliberia is clear that images should not be in Churches Canus Surjus and your own men say this Councell condemneth images For 370. years there were no Images in Churches in this age Martyrs were admired and the Grecians first especially Gregorius Nyssenus the brother of Basilus had Images in Churches Sozomen saith Christians took into Churches pieces of Christs image broken by Iulian the Apostat in the first age when Religion was born down and holy Pastors killed Gregorius Magnus first defended that images should be in Churches It s like the Apostate Iulian would hate any thing bearing the name of Christ most falsly yea and Antiquity beareth contradictions most aparent touching images But Nicephorus saith the creatures of God are the Lawfull Images of God But it is more then evident by what I have said that ancient Papists and Synods used images to be memorials of God and not to be adored CAP. II. QUEST 1. Whither kneeling or sitting be the most convenient and Lawfull gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament of Christs Body and blood 1. Conclus SItting is the most and only lawfull gesture That gesture that Christ and his Disciples used upon morall and unalterable grounds which doth not concern the first Supper as first but as a Supper and that not upon no occasionall and temporary reasons belonging to that Supper more then to all the Suppers of that kinde that we are to follow as a pattern and must be most Lawfull But the gesture of sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is evident in Scripture I prove the Assumption 1. Sitting was either 1. Miraculous 2. Customable 3. Occasionall or 4. Morall None in reason can say the first that sitting was a miracle 2. Nor is it customable For 1. Customes laudable are grounded upon decency and reason and so morall or grounded upon no reason at all But Christ did nothing in Gods worship nor did he any humane morall actions for the meer fact and will of others going before for these were not reasonable humane actions and if it be customable only it is not lawfull to put away a customable action out of worship and to put a morall action of kneeling and Divine signification in the place thereof for so we might change places times persons and all physicall circumstances and make them supernaturall 2. The action could not be occasionall for then the occasion of the Supper as first and because of such persons such time at night such place an upper chamber should have moved Christ to sitting rather then to kneeling or to any other gesture but kneeling or any other gesture might have consisted well with that first Supper with the upper chamber with the time and persons as well as sitting except the Law givers will had been a reason of the contrary Some object Christ choosed an upper chamber not the Temple twelve persons not ten not twenty at night for he might have celebrated it at dinner but we are not holden to imitate Christ in these Ergo neither in sitting Ans Occasionall properly is that which hath a reason not from the nature of the thing it self but from such occasionall occurrences of Providence as God will not alter and its that which hath no morall nor sacred conveniency with the nature of worship but hath only a conveniency for such a time and place as Christs preaching in a ship when he is at the sea side and a multitude are to hear him the ship hath no agreement with the nature of preaching more then an house hath time place and persons are clearly such as agreed with that supper as first not as a sacred worship and therefore were meerly occasionall and so not imitable and though Christ might have altered them yet had they been occasionall and they have no sacred conveniency with this Supper as this Supper and if Christ had altered these for meer will upon no reasons that concerneth all Suppers they had not been occasionall but positive points of worship and so had obliged us yea the upper chamber and these twelve persons by no possibility can concern all Suppers to the end of the world but sitting agreeth kindly and natively to all Suppers in generall as kneeling to all praying indefinitely Christ might have changed bread and wine in flesh and milk or water will it hence follow we are not to imitate Christ in bread and wine And that bread and wine are occasionall Lastly Pauls practise in passing from an upper chamber and from twelve men to a Church full of men and women 1 Cor. 11. 23 17 18 22. warranteth us to passe from these we have not the like reason to warrant us to passe from sitting 2. That gesture which Christ choosed and that refusing all other even kneeling having the same Religious reasons at the first supper as now that must be most convenient and lawfull But sitting is such Ergo The Proposition is clear The Assumption is proved from Matth. 26. While they did eat the Passeover he took bread Mar. 14 22. As they did eat Jesus took bread But while they did eat the Passeover they sate Ergo while they took the Supper they sate I prove the Assumption Matth. 26. 20. And when the evening was come he sate down with the twelve Mark 14. 18. And as they sate and did eat Jesus said c. v. 22. And as they did eat Iesus took bread eating the Passeover and sitting were co-existent and taking the Sacramentall bread of the Supper and eating the Passeover were co-existent Ergo Taking the bread of the Supper and sitting were co-existent Paybodie saith Paul expoundeth as they did eat after they had ended eating and so after they had ended sitting and possibly passed to another gesture 1 Cor. 11. After Supper he took the Cup. Ans If you wholly remove the Passeover you remove the Table also 2. Though the
expoundneth them so as I take he draweth them from 1. This materiall wine 2. From Sacramentall tabling 3. From this old fruit of the Wine 4. From fellowship here in the Kingdome of Grace to 1. New wine in heaven 2. To heavenly tabling 3. To new and everlasting wine 4. In the Fathers Kingdome Neither am I much moved with what Paybodie saith that our Saviour led the woman of Samaria from Iacobs well to thirst for the water of life yet is not for that Iacobs well made a type by divine institution I answer this would have some colour if Christ did speake of common wine as he did speake of Iacobs Well as of common water But all the three Evangelists speake of Sacramentall wine consecrated by word and prayer else Christs calling bread his body should not prove that bread were a signe of his body by divine institution but onely we were to make that spirituall use of bread and wine that we make of ordinary bread and wine at our houses Formalists then must say that Christ speaketh of wine here as common not as Sacramentall which is absurd when Christ is expounding the Elements in their spirituall signification Luke 5. 22 21. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me on the table Mat. 26. 23. Marke 14. 20. If he had been kneeling or standing gestures unpossible for them then he could not have his hand leaning on the table and if he had not beene sitting table-wise in a table-fellowship with Christ then could not our Saviour have conveniently convinced the ingratitude of Iudas as he doth Now if Christ aime not to make Iudas his fault the greater because Iudas and he sate at one table together and that as an holy and Sacramentall table he had in this no more argued Iudas of ingratitude then any of the rest of the house who communicated not with Christ because Christ and they did eate one materiall and ordinary bread together And in this Achitophel was a type of Iudas as David of Christ and that not onely in this that Achitophel did eate bread with David and so had a civill fellowship but that they went together to Gods house in company together Psal 55. 14. So had Christ and Iudas fellowship together at that same Sacramentall table And as tabling together signifieth civil fellowship so must fellow-tabling at one sacred Feast signifie Spirituall fellowship together 6. Giving and not granting that fellow-sitting together were onely a common honour not a misticall honour by divine Institution yet since to sit at a table with a Ruler is an honour 1 Sam. 20. 5. 2 Sam. 9. 13. Esther 7. 7. Prov. 23. 1. Mat. 8. 11. Luk◠16. 23. Luke 22. 30. And the Lords Disciples are admitted to sit with him as is cleare in that he sate down with the twelv◠and he sate Luke 24. 30. at meat with them and tooke bread and blessed it No power on earth should dare to deprive the people of God of this honour for this honour was bestowed on the Lords Apostles as communicants not as Apostles and the want of Christs bodily presence diminisheth nothing of the honour seeing he is really but in a spirituall manner present as the Lord of the feast with us as he was with them Paybodie saith When Christ sate at table in the Passeover even then he schooled them from looking at honour in materiall or outvvard sitting vvhile as Luke 22. 26. he would stand himselfe as a servant and vvash his Disciples feet Ansvv His non-sitting and washing their feet being a morall not a Sacramentall teaching them humility doth no more schoole them from not looking to sit then his non-eating and non-drinking while he stood servant-like doth schoole them from not looking to the honour of eating and drinking Sacramentally Christ teacheth lessons of humility not to learne us not to seek the spirituall honour of communion with Christ that were to teach us to be proud and this man is that bold to insinuate that it was a spece of pride for the Disciples to sit at table with Christ and for Iohn to leane on his bosome Mr. Paybodie thinketh to crush this argument Because the serving of God the Father and giving him glory must be incompatible with a table-fellowship with his Sonne The disputer saith he reasoneth thus Kneeling importeth an inferiority therefore it is contrary to the person of co-heirs which person we act by table-sitting but do you saith he dream of a co-heirship whereby you stand not in an inferiority to Christ then when you take on you the person of co-heirs by sitting at Table it were not lawfull either to esteem or in a short ejaculation to call Christ your Lord and Superiour yea so faith must have no working at the Sacrament for Faith importeth an inferiority and dependance We respect Christ in his banquet as a King inviting us to eat with him yea I may kneel and call God my Father and in so doing I actuate the person of a co-heire Ans But in this the disputer and we mean no other thing then that kneeling which is a note of submission and never used in banquets cannot formally expresse as an apt signe the dignity of fellow-table-ship with Christ 2. Poor Logitian it followeth not in sitting at table which is the expressing signe of the honour of table-fellowship we may not call Christ Lord. David sitting at Table with his Prince Saul might well term him my Lord the King but if David should be put to his knees at Table and inhibited to eat at the Table at which his Prince did eat no wise man will say that Saul had honoured David with fellow-Tabling with him For the Act of kneeling and non-eating were no expressing signes of fellow-Tabling but by the contrary of no fellow-Tabling the Disputer hath no minde to make us every way equall with Christ so as there can be a case wherein it is not Lawfull to esteem or call Christ our Lord King and Superiour this is Paybodies consequence but take away Table-sitting an honour put upon us by Christ in this Sacrament Luk. 22. 27. and substitute kneeling for it then you take away Gods expressing signe of Table-Fellowship in that gesture for while the world standeth kneeling shall never be a signe of Table-fellowship sitting at Table is a signe as the Scriptures clear but sitting taketh never away our inferiority to Christ you may worship and actuate the person of a co-heir but not worship in an expressing visible signe of co-heirship and then kneel Farther he reasoneth with us as if Table-sitting inferred an equality betwixt us and that Lord who is the head of men and Angels we reason for an honour of fellowship not equality David set at King Saul's Table is not made equall with Saul but in Table-sitting he doth partake of Table-honour to feast with his Prince If Christ should have sitten and caused his Disciples rise and wash his
a lege aeternâ as they depend on the eternall law Ergo they oblige in Conscience it followeth not They oblige in Conscience as their Major and Minor proposition in that which is morall can be proved out of Gods word but so in their morallity they are meerely divine and not humane and positive and so the argument concludeth not against us They oblige in Conscience as they depend upon the eternall law that is as they are deduced from the eternall Law of God in a Major proposition without probation of the assumption that we deny and it is in question now The people 1 Sam. 8. in rejecting Samuel from being their judge rejected God not because Samuel had a power of making lawes without the warrant of Gods word Neither Moses nor Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any Prophet were in that servants subordinate to God for they vvere onely to heare the vvord at Gods mouth 3. We could have no more at Bellarmines hand then Jackson saith For Bellarmine saith In a good sense Christ gave to Peter a power to make that which is sinne to be no sin and that which is no sinne to be sinne So Iackson the interposition of derived authority maketh that which would be murther other wayes to bee a good worke that is men may doe what God onely can doe If Isaac then at the commandement of Abraham his father offer his sonne Iacob to God in a bloody Sacrifice then Abrahams derived authority maketh that a lawfull sacrifice as to strike a Prophet of it selfe is a degree of murther but when a Prophet commandeth another to strike a Prophet it is lawfull But can any blasphemer say that this was humane derived authority without warrant of the word of the Lord such as are humane positive lawes and our humane ceremonies see the text 1 King 20. 35. And a certaine man of the sonnes of the Prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord smite me This was immediate divine and Propheticall authoritie and not humane Doth the Kings letter of Mart make robbing a Spaniard lawfull Court Parasites speake so he refuteth himselfe The Kings letter of Mart for wrongs done to the State maketh that which is Piracy lawfull then the Kings authority doth not here by a nomothetick power and a law laid upon the Conscience but the wrongs of Piracy by Spaine done to the State of England may make the robbing of Spaniards an act of lawfull warre and an act of justice flowing from the King as a lawfull Magistrate Now Iackson is speaking of mandates of Rulers in that place which have no warrant of the word of God Yea even Stapleton a Papist saith as Doctor Field also observeth That humane laws binde for the utility and neoessity of the matter and not from the will of the Lawgiver And so saith Gerson Almain Decius Mencha and our owne Iunius saith The plenitude of power of lawes is onely in the princpall agent not in the instrument Doctor Iackson saith unlimited and absolute faith or submission of conscience we owe not to rulers that is due to God but we owe to them conditionall assent and cautionary obedience if they speake from God suppose they fetch not an expresse commission from Scripture for if Pastors be then onely to be obeyed when they bring evident commission out of Scripture I were no more bound to beleeve obey my governours then they are bound to beleeve and obey in Bellarm. contr 3. lih 4. cap. 6. not 89. my Governours then ther are bound to believe and obey me for equals are oblieged to obey equalls when they bring a warrant from Gods word and so the povver of Rulers vvere not reall but titular and the same do th Sutluvius and Bellarmine say Answ We owe to equalls to Mahomet conditionall and cautionary faith and obedience thus I beleeve what Mahomet saith so he speake Gods word yea so Samaritans who worshipped they knew not what John 4. 26. gave saith to their Teachers in a blinde way so they speake according to Gods word 2. It followeth in no sort if Rulers are onely to be obeyed when they bring Gods Word that then they are no more to be obeyed then equalls Infetiours because there is a double obedience one of conscience and objective coming from the thing commanded And in respect of this the word hath no lesse authority and doth no lesse challenge obedience of Confcience and objective when my equall speaketh it in a private way yea when I writ it in my muse then when a Pastor speaketh it by publike authority for we teach against Papists that the word borroweth â—o authority from men nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man but as indeed the Word of God as the Scripture saith 1. There is another obedience officiall which is also obedience of Conscience because the fifth Commandement injoyneth it Yet not obedience of Conscience coming from the particular commanded in humane Lawes as humane so I owe obedience of subjection and submission of affection of feare love honour respect by vertue of the fift Commandement to Rulers when they command according to Gods Word and this I owe not to equals or inferiours and so it followeth not that the power of Rulers and Synods is titular because they must warrant their mandates from the Word But it s alwayes this mans hap to be against sound truth But 3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this Thou shalt not murther Beleeve in Iesus Christ when Rulers and Pastors command them then when I read them in Gods word I prove 1. If this from a Ruler Thou shalt not murther challenge faith and subjection of Conscience of six degrees but as I read it my selfe or as my equall in a private way saith Thou shalt not murther it challenge saith and subjection of foure degrees onely then is it more obligatory of Conscience and so of more intrinsecall authority and so more the word of God when the Ruler commandeth it then when I read it or my equall speaketh it to me This were absurd for the speaker whether publike or private person addeth not any intrinsecall authority to the word for then the word should be more or lesse Gods word as the bearers were publike or private more or lesse worthy As Gods word spoken by Amos a Prophet should not be a word of such intrinfecall authority as spoken by Moses both a Prince and a Prophet 2. My faith of subjection of Conscience should be resolved as concerning the two degrees of obedience of faith to the word spoken by the Ruler on the sole authority of the Ruler and not on the authority of God the Author of his own word 4. I answer to Sutluvius That Christ in the externall policy of his owne house is a Lawgiver ordaining such and such officers himselfe Ezek. 4. 11. commanding order and decency
and setting downe a perfect discipline in the New Testament in all particulars that have influence religious morall mystically significant in Gods worship and there is reason that Synods and Pastors should rather promulgate Gods Lawes then the people 1. Because God hath given to them by office the key of knowledge 2. Because by office they are watch-men and so have authority of office to heare the Law at Gods mouth and in Synods to give Directories or Canons according to that word which people have not and that their Canons must be according to Gods Word is said in the word Nehemiah 10. 32. Also we â—â—ade ordinances for us 34. as it is written in the law of the Lord. Iackson saith Of things good in themselves and apprehended so by us without any scruple of evil every mans conselence htah sufficient authority to inioyn it only the alacrity of doing in what time or measure it is to be done or such circumstances cometh within the subiect of obedience to governours Answ Then because faith in Christ is evidently good by the Doctors learning the Pastor hath no more authority to command the people to beleeve in Christ then the people hath to command the same to him So in preaching all the necessary fundamentals of salvation the authority of Pastors is meerely titular There be then little necessitie of a publike Ministery as Socinians teach us 2. The alaâ—rity and manner and measure of beleeving and doing things evidently good is as particularly set downe in Gods Word as obliging the Conscience as the Mandates themselves God who commandeth us to love him and to beleeve in his Sonne hath not left that power to Prelates that createth wretched Ceremonies to command us to love God with all our heart or not and to serve God with alacrity or not or to beleeve in Christ with all the heart or with halfe a heart the sincerity measure and manner of the loving of God is no more the subject of obedience to rulers then the loving of God Rulers doe command both alike Pari authoritate except the man say that we obey Gods Law perfectly when we give obedience to it according to the substance of the acts though we obey not sincerely The Doctor giveth us Rules in obeying Rulers We are not to adventure on the action whereof we are perswaded there be much evil and no good in it Ans Then we cannot venture upon Ceremonies that bringeth adders to Gods word under all the Plagues written in Gods word 2. Gods word not mens perswasions of conscience except in this also he be an Arminian is the rule of mens actions The servants of Caiaphas may be perswaded there is no good but much evil in confessing Christ We are to lay aside the erroneous perswasion and obey if the action be good in itself Iackson Some actions apprehended as meerly evil may be undertaken with lesse danger then others which are apprehended partly as evil partly as good the action is evil as long as we fear the evil in it to be greater then the good we can hope for Ans To do any thing as apprehended evil of which sort are humane Ceremonies to us for any respect is to do with a doubting conscience and to sin Rom. 14. 23. 2 God 's word not probabilities should lead us in adventuring upon actions Iackson 3. If the measure of the good apprehended be as great as the evil feared in private choice we may adventure upon the action leaving the event to Gods providence which favoureth actions more then privations works rather then idlenesse and following of that which is good rather then abstinence from evil for vvhere this indifference of perswasion is authority may cast the ballance and sway the private choice so also Hooker Ans This is the Iesuit Suarez his doctrine and so saith the Iesuit of Corduba Sanches when the subject is in a doubt whether the thing commanded by the Superiour be lawfull or not he is obliged to obey and he is to be excused because of the command of the superiour 1. Because say they the Commanders condition is better and for a speculative doubt he is not to be spoiled of his power of commanding where reason saith he commandeth nothing against reason 2. Because the inferiour hath resigned his will to the superiour Deut. 17. 2. Paral. 19. Ergo In things doubtsome God commanded to stand to the determination of the Priest and it is a truth that the will of the Superiour doth not vary and change the nature of a thing in it self yet it varieth to the inferiours conscience Now indifference of perswasion is all one to Doctor Iackson with indifferency of the thing for so he dictates If one have indifferency of reasons of twelve degrees on both sides that Arianisme or Arminianisme is truth if authority determine both to be truth the weight of authority in indifferency of perswasion should cast the ballance and to believe this or not to believe it where Arguments are of twelve grains of light of truth on both sides it is to the doubting man as if the thing were indifferent so is the doubter to give up his soul conscience and faith to believe Arianisme to be truth not from light of conscience for equally as much light of conscience are in either side as is supposed but for the meer will of humane authority without Gods word Now though the matter here be indifferent in it self yet not so to the doubter for Ceremonies in our perswasion are not indifferent See here Ignatius Loyola say Give over your self to your Ruler Give the Prelate your faith to keep while ye be in eternity and at the last judgement he will restore the pawn And this is â—aith Gregory de Valent. to give your two eyes to your guide I had rather they stick in my own head To these Iesuits I oppose the minde of Vasquez and Salas who say in that case the subject should first lay aside his errour and then obey 2 God requireth a full perswasion by the Lord Iesus even in things indifferent Rom. 14. 14 22 23. But poor naked humane authority cannot ingender perswasion of faith and here is doubting 3. It is false That providence favoureth positive actions more then privations for Rom. 14. God loveth better abstinence from meats in themselves lawfull and clean as the Apostle proveth ver 14. Because nothing is unclean of it self then that the eater doubt if he be not transgressing the Law of God in eating though a great Apostle say there is no danger in eating And Jackson addeth of the same nature these The good of obedience is not a consequent only of the action but either an essentiall part or such a circumstance and motive precedent as bringeth a new essence for its concomitant whereby the evil which we out of private perswasions fear may be countervaled by the goodnesse that is in the purpose
in the second table Rom. 13. 3 4. Isai 49 23. and you said elsewhere that externall peace is too narrow an object for the Magistrate for the intrinsecall end of a Magistrate is also a supernaturall good and not only a peaceable but also a godly life 1 Tim. 2. 2. Ans It is true the Magistrate as the Magistrate doth care for the supernaturall good of subjects and the duties of Religion and the first table but how intrinsecally and as a magistrate that is that men worship God according to his word But 1. The magistrate as such hath nothing to do with the spirit nor can he command the sincerity of the worship his care is that there be a divine worship that is materially and externally right and consonant externally to the rules of the word and for this cause learned divines make the externall man the object of the magistrates office but not the externall man as doing the duties of the second table only but also as serving God in the duties of the first table for which cause I said Augustine meant the same when he said that Kings serve God as men and as Kings 2. Magistrates as magistrates are to extend their power for Christ that is that not only there be Iustice and Peace amongst men but also that there be Religion in the land yea that the Gospel be preached so all our Divines make the King to be custos â—t vindex utriusque tabule Yea I think he is a keeper and preserver of the Gospel also and is to command men to serve Christ and professe the Gospel and to punish the blaspheming of Iesus Christ and this is royall and magistraticall service that the King as King performeth to God and to Iesus Christ the mediator ex conditione operis in regard that good which he procureth as King materially and externally is consonant to the supernaturall Law of the Gospel but it is not magistraticall service to Christ ex intentione operantis Obj. 4. When it s required that the Magistrates be men fearing God hating coveteousnesse c. is not this an essentiall ingredient of an King as a King that he read in the book of the Law that he may feare God Deut. 17 Ans There is a twofold goodnesse here to be considered one of the magistrate as a magistrate another as a good and Christian magistrate The former is an officiall goodnesse or a magistraticall prudence justice and goodnesse this is required of all magistrates as such to judge the people so the acts of an heathen magistrate done according to common naturall equity by Nebuchadnezzar Pilate Cesar Felix Festus are to be acknowledged as acts of a Lawfull Magistrate valide and no lesse essentially Magistraticall then if performed by King David and of this goodnesse the Scriptures speak not as essentiall to a Magistrate as a Magistrate But there is another goodnesse required of Magistrates as they are Members of the Iewish Church and as they are Christians and of these the Scripture speaketh and so Magistrates not as Magistrates but as good and Christian are to be such as feare God hate covetousnesse respect not the face and favour of men so it s denied that the fear of God hating of covteousnesse are essentiall ingredients of Kings as Kings For Kings as Kings intend justice peace godlinesse materially considered both ex conditione operis and operantium But for justice and righteous judgement in a spirituall and an Evangelick way that belongeth not to the essence of a Magistrate nec ex conditione seu ex intentione operis nec ex conditione operantis The Holy Ghost requireth it of judges as they would approve themselves as truly Holy and Religious and would be accepted of God and in this sense Kings as Kings do not serve God nor the mediator Christ nor yet as men only they serve God and the mediator Christ as Christian Kings or as Christian men rather III. According to that third member of our seventh Distinction The unjust and evil exercise of the Ministeriall power is obnoxious to the magistrate as the magistrate thus in that he beareth the sword against all evil doers Ro. 13. 1. The magistrate as the magistrate doth only command well doing in order to praise and a good name or temporall reward amongst men Rom. 13. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the power 1 Tim. 5. 17. Matth. 10. 10. Nor can the magistrate as the magistrate promise or command the Elders to feed the Flock with the promise of the reward that Peter promiseth 1 Pet. 5. 4. to wit That when the chief shepheard shall appear they shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away The magistrate as a Preacher if he be one as David and Solomon were both or as a godly religious Christian man may hold forth such a promise but not as a Magistrate and upon the same ground the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot forbid careles unsound preaching and rigorous and tyrannicall ruling or rather domineering over the Flock under the pain of death eternall for he can but kill the body and hath but the carnall and temporall sword Rom. 13. 4. and so he can inhibite ill doing only in order to temporary punishment and though the duty of the former be spirituall and the sinne of the latter also yet the externall man is capable only of the Magistrates promises and threatnings as they respect evill or good temporary so that it is a wonder to me that M. Pryn or any learned man can say that magistrates can make Lawes to binde the conscience sure it is ill divinity 2. If there never had been sin there should have been no government but of Fathers and Husbands there should have been no magistraticall dominion not any magistraticall allurement to weldoing by temporall rewards not any terrifying from evill doing from fear of the sword death stripes or bands and God governed the Apostolick Church and they attained the Crowne and supernaturall end of life eternall without the accessory hire of a a temporary reward from the magistrate and the subsidy of his sword Ergo it is evident that the magistrate is neither an essentiall nor an integrall part of the visible Church as the visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God Word Sacraments Discipline Censures Rebukes Admonition Excommunication Prayers Mutuall edification in as great perfection as is happily attainable in this life without yea against the will of the civill magistrate Though it be a great incouragement to have the King a Nurse-father yet hath not Christ counted it simply necessary to his visible Church injoying all the Ordinances of God to the full 3. If the magistrate do only command the teachers and Pastors to preach and determine synodically in order to a temporall reward and forbid them to abuse their ministeriall power in order to temporary punishment by the temporary sword then surely the Pastors and Teachers are
Deu. 17. they are not to chuse a stranger but one from amongst their brethren and men fearing God and hating coveteousnes Exo. 18. 21. Deu. 17. 15 16 17 18 19 20. and 1. 16. and that a Christian Magistrate receive power to govern in the Church I deny him to be a Governour of the Church from Christian people I see no inconvenience Suppose that a Christian woman chuse a Pagan Husband she sins in her choise and as a sinful woman chuseth a Pagan who hath no other then a Pagan conscience to be the guide of her youth and her head and to love her as Christ loved his Church and to rule her according to his marital and Husband-power in some acts of her Christian conversation Yea when Christians did fight under Heathen Emperours they gave power as all souldiers do to their Commanders to those Heathen Captains to command Christians according to their Pagan consciences for other consciences it cannot be supposed Heathen have as this Author speaketh nor do I see such an inconvenience that men as men chuse a Magistrate who is a Heathen to see not the Church as the Church but men of the Church do their duty and to punish them civilly when they omit Church duties when providence compelleth Iudah Yea when God commandeth Iudah to submit to a Babylonish or Persian King who according to his Babylonish conscience is to command them to keep the oath of God to abstain from murther yea to build again the house of God and is to punish the men of Iudah if they do the contrary Here evidently the Church is to chuse Heathen Kings who according to their Heathen consciences are to judge and punish sins against both Tables but they chuse them to adde there auxiliary power to help and desend the Church not any privative or absolute power to set up what ordinances they will Nor is it supposed that men as men may give to Indian and American Magistrates power to judge by rule of Indian consciences what is blasphemy against Iesus Christ what is apostacy from the Christian saith to Iudaâ—sme and to punish it For in that fare the Indian Magistrate is uncapable of Magistracy in those acts though essentially he be a lawfull Magistrate in other acts just as Christian men and Saints by calling may make a Christian Corinthiaâ— amongst themselves their Magistrate and yet he cannot judge whether Tiâ—ius the Physiâ—ian in Corinth hath poysoned Sempronius as he hath a Christian conscience but not a medicinall conscience to speak so or the skill and art of a Physiâ—ian to know what is poyson what not yet did men as men create this Christian Magistrate to judge punish murthers and poysoning of Christians 2. Let us also turn the Tables the Author cannot deny but Ten thousand Christians and Indians half of each side may come to be one civil incorporation they create with common consent a Christian Magistrate over themselves this they do as a society of men The Indians worship their God in that society by offering their children to the Devil and this is their Indian conscience for it is not to be supposed that an Indian can worship his God with other then an Indian conscience By this Authors way Indians and Christians gave to this Christian Magistrate to judge of this Indian and bloody worship with a Christian conscience for it is supposed he can judge with no other conscience I demand whether or not this Magistrate be obliged to punish such horrid shedding of innocent blood If he be he is set over this incorporation to bear the sword of the Lord and with a Christian conscience to judge and punish Indian consciences Is not this as great an inconvenience as what he objecteth to us Besides that according to this way he must not punish the killing of the children to the Devil why this is against the will of the meek Saviour in whom the Christian Magistrate believes to persecute an Indian for his conscience as this Author thinketh Now it is no lesse an Indian conscience worship and no murther to offer an innocent child to the Indian God then it was to the Jews to offer an innocent Bullock or a Ram to Jehovah Obj. But God hath forbidden in the Law of nature to kill infants to God upon any pretence Ans In the Law of nature God hath forbidden all false worship 2. The Law of nature hath forbidden to offer any blood to God that is the Law of nature will never warrant us to offer in a whole brunt offering an innocent Beast to God created for the use of man and it should be against the Law of nature to kill Beasts for any religious use or for any use except to be food or medicine for man Except God in a positive Law had commanded whole burnt offerings and offering of Beasts to God so the Law of nature forbids Indians to kill infants but they tell you there is a positive Law of their God and in conscience they are obliged to kill their children to this God and you must convince their conscience that this is murther not right worship by reason and light of truth not with a club and force of sword which hath no influence upon the conscience 3. It followeth not that God hath subjected God Christ Heaven the Spirit to naturall men for an Indian Magistrate remaining an Indian never received power from mem as men nor from God to judge of Christian worship yea Indian Magistrates as Indians are uncapable of judging or punishing what is against Christ Heaven the Spirit and yet they are Lawfull Magistrates for their ignorance of Christ excludeth them from having any such formal power what Magistraticall power they have which they cannot put forth in acts is not to a purpose for this power which they cannot exercise shall never subject Christ Heaven the Spirit to the consciences of naturall men or Indian Magistrates this consequence therefore should have been proved not presumed as a truth 4. He saith If any Church should arise amongst those who have Indian Magistrates Christ should betrust the Indian civill power with his Church I answer This is non-consequence also for the state of heathenship in the Indian should exclude him from any such trust if a Church arise they are to be under the Indian Magistrate while God in his providence free them from under him that they may chuse a Christian Magistrate who may be a nurse-father to them 5. The Lord be trusteth his Church to the civil power as an auxiliary power not to exercise any magistraticall power over the Church and over their conscience but only for the Churches good and for their conscience These would be distinguished a governour of or over the Church 2. A Governour in the Church 3. A Governour for the Church neither Christian nor Heathen Magistrate is a Governor of the Church or over the Church An Heathen Magistrate may be a Governour in the Church giving to
by Gods Word Ergo They are unlawful and so not indifferent If then nothing be good because Rulers command it but by the contrary they do lawfully command it because it is good The Churches power is one and the same in things indifferent and necessary in matters of Doctrine Discipline and Order for in both the Church doth not create goodnesse but doth by the Light of the Word or which is a part of the Word by natures Light finde pre-existent goodnesse in Doctrine Discipline and matters of Order Therefore Will of Authority as Will hath no power to dispose of the least Circumstance of time place or person but the Churches power is Ministerial and determined to what is good expedient and convenient Object Humane Actions according to their specifice nature may be indifferent in Gods Worship For example to pray to God in the morning in your Bed or out of it in the House or in the Fields to Preach the Word in thiâ— or that habit in a Gown or in a Cloak these are actions in their kinde indifferent because they are neither commanded nor forbidden for that is according to the kinde of action good which is so commanded of God that it is unlawful to neglect it or to do any thing repugnant to it as to love God and our Neighbour and that is evil according to its kinde which is so forbidden by Gods Law as it is not lawful to do it or command it in any sort so it is evil to blaspheme God to commit adultery So Forbs Ans In the Field or in the Bed Cloathed with Gown or Cloak when we Pray or Preach are meer Accidents and Circumstances of praying and preaching and we grant them to be variable and indifferent howbeit they admit of Regulation Moral and so are not simply indifferent for to pray in the Fields and Streets to be seen of men is vain glory But I hope they are not indifferent in your meaning as are Surplice Holydays c. For you will not say the Church may make Laws that no Prayers be but in the Fields no Preaching except the Preacher be cloathed with a Cloak 2. It is not good Logick to say ` To pray in House or Field is an action according to its kinde neither good nor evil when as it is an individual action contracted to such a place House or Field because Field or House are indifferent in Prayer To pray is not indifferent according to its kinde because Accidents of Actions are indifferent it followeth not that the action is indifferent for then the Doctors Opinion maketh an Act of loving God and beleeving in Christ indifferent in its kinde for it is as indifferent to love God in the Field as in the House and to love him while you are cloathed with a Gown as with a Cloak As it is indifferent to pray in House or Field cloathed with Gown or Cloak so to love God and the most necessary actions in the world hic nunc in this time or in this place shall be actions according to their nature neither good nor evil but indifferent which is against the Doctors own Distinction 3. Place or habit doth not constitute Praying and Preaching in their specifice nature that were a wonder for their Objects do constitute their nature and their Objects are God and Gods Word and if they be indifferent according to their nature it shall be indifferent to pray to God or to some other thing possibly an Idol Nay if Actions good of their own nature such as to Pray or Preach be made indifferent according to their kinde because cloathed with indifferent Circumstances of time and place and habit then by that same reason Actions of their own nature evil as to murther commit adultery should also become indifferent from these Circumstances then should it be indifferent to kill in House or Field and indifferent according to its kinde which is most absurd Object Howbeit it be objected that every voluntary action is either honest or not honest yet there are some things honest that are indifferent and free For there are two kindes of honest things 1. Some honest and necessary things as all the duties commanded in Gods Law the contrary of these polluteth a man before God and they are formally positively and inclusively laudable and commendeth men before God and are rewarded This way every voluntary action is not either honest or unhonest for there is a middle betwixt these two to wit something honest and lawful but not necessary but morally free as Marriage which commendeth not a man to God so that he is therefore rewarded neither doth the contrary to wit non-marriage pollute a man before God or is blame-worthy because marriage is onely negatively honest Honestum irreprchensibile honestum exclusive honestum per compossibilitatem cum honesto formali positivo So marriage is neither positively honest nor unhonest but free morally Neither is marriage necessary by absolute necessity or necessity that toucheth the action for men may marry and not to marry is no sin onely marrying is necessary by a conditional necessity 1 Cor. 7. 39. A Widow is free to marry whom she will but with this condition That she marry in the Lord the necessity toucheth not the action but the manner of the action And this necessity of the manner or goodnesse of the action of marriage doth not make the action necessary but leaveth it as free to men to marry or not to marry and so there are some actions according to the spece or nature that are indifferent and not unhonest yet lawful So Doctor Forbs Answ 1. Marriage hath something in it natural even before the Fall It was naturally good that man should not be alone and this way before and after the Fall Marriage in the ground that maketh it necessary which is an aptitude and inclination to procreation is most necessary and so now after the Fall of man all that burneth and marrâ—eâ—h not despiseth Gods remedy of lust and sinneth and so by necessity of Gods command in the Law of nature and repeated by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 2 9. it is necessary in individuo And although that which is meerly natural in marriage as the Act of marriage according to the substance be not formally laudable and rewarded because of the naturality thereof yet it is not for that free or indifferent 2. And when the Doctor saith That marriage is indifferent in its nature and free so that there is no necessity of the action but onely of the goodnesse of the action he speaketh wonders For howbeit marriage be indifferent by a Metaphysical indifferency of contrahibility to such and such persons because marriage may be in some without sin and no marriage may also be in other some without sin and so praying is indifferent it is in some without sin and not praying is in some also without sin when the man is necessitated to some other
should be of Faith and referred to Gods glory But shall I beleeve I am doing in Faith and glorifying God when I am casting stones in the water and I have as good reason not to cast at all If one wilaction that may be done and may not be done may be of Faith and referred to Gods glory then may they all be of Faith and referred to Gods glory This is a laughter rather then Divinitie 3. I cannot beleeve that an action that hath as good reason to be omitted as to be done can be acceptable to God because I have no ground for my Faith for my Faith here leaneth neither on Scripture nor on Reason but there is no reason why the action should rather be nor not be because it is indifferent yea crossing and kneeling of themselves shall be of Faith because I beleeve them to be of Faith But it is a vain thing to say that Faith maketh its object 4. There are no actions in the World but they have all their Moral necessitie from their intrinsecal goodnesse For from whence is it necessary to love God but from the intrinsecal goodnesse that the love of God hath from Gods command For there is no necessitie an action to be at all yea it is idle and superfluous if there be no goodnesse in it at all If then crossing and kneeling laying aside the respect of Humane Laws commanding them have no necessitie Moral from any Commandment of God why they should be at all their necessitie must be all from mans will this is tyranny in Rulers for their sole pleasure to command under the heaviest pain things that have no necessitie at all but their will 5. Neither is it any yoak to mens conscience to square all their Moral Action by Gods Word and so to see according as it is Written before they vanture upon any Action Moral It is libertie to keep Gods way accuratel Object In general no particular action is necessary the goodnesse whereof that is commended and rewarded of God may â—s well be had by the omission of that action or by an other action as by the doing of it but such an action in the individual use is true and indifferent but iâ— the goodnesse necessary cannot be had at all without that particular action then the action in the individual use is necessary although according to its nature it be possibly indifferent So to us now to kneel at the Supper is necessary that we may obtain the necessary good of due Obedience and decent Vniformity and eschue the contempt of Anthority Schism and Confusion Forbâ— Answ 1. By goodnesse here the Doctor meaneth Concomitant and general goodnesse which maketh not the action necessary to be done and so it hath no goodnesse intrinsecal but is an idle action and yet it may be done or not done without sin and when it is done it is done upon no other motive but the meer will and pleasure of the doer We have hereby the Doctors learning Such an idle action done in Faith and done for Gods glory 2. All our Ceremonies in their use crossing kneeling wearing of Surplice have no intrinsecal goodnesse no internal moral equity of Order Decency and aptnesse to Edifie wherefore it is necessary they should be done the doing of them in Faith and for Gods glory may be obtained as well by noâ—â—-kneeling none-crossing none-Surplice This is no small dash to the credit of Pearth Assembly for they saw no goodnesse in the Articles but that which as well might have been obtained without them Hence except the goodnesse of pleasing King James they had no more reason for the Ceremonies then to make an Act that all Ministers shall go to the Foot-Ball the third day of May. 3. Then the meer pleasure of the King hath made kneeling necessary and good obedience to the fifth Commandment mens will as will so is the onely formal reason of obedience to the ten Commandments or disobedience 4. Then we may of Faith and for Gods glory refuse the Ceremonies if it be the Kings Will and in that point the fifth Commandment standeth or falleth at the nod of the Kings Will. Such Mercenary Divinitie becometh not the lovers of Reformation Object There is a twofold maline in actions One thar layeth a moral impediment on the act so that it cannot be performed without sin So to eschue the malice that is in adultery we must eschue the act of adultery this malice polluteth the act and should binder the act There is another malice that polluteth the act but doth not morally hinder the act As when one feedeth the poor for vain-glory vain glory polluteth the act but hindereth it not Vain-glory should be laid aside and the poor fed If one kneel at the Supper thinking it not lawful to kneel before Creatures his kneeling is evil but the evil in it doth onely pollute the act and make it finful but doth not morally hinder kneeling because contumacioâ—s ignorance pride and contempt of Authority should be laid aside Men should be docil and see the law fulnesse of it and obey the Church Forbs Answ In things indifferent the very malice adhering to the practice of them howbeit it adhere not inseparably to them maketh the practice damnable For eating Rom. 14. before a weak Brother whose weaknesse might have been removed if he would be docil and know that their is no creature now unclean is murther Rom. 14. 14. Therefore suppose all the Kings and General Assemblies on Earth should command one to eat in that case before the weak Brother they were to be disobeyed and so the Doctor freeth us that we cannot kneel at the Lords Supper 2. Rulers may not make laws of things having no necessitie of Goodnesse Decency and aptnesse to Edifie and onely good because they will when they see of necessitie these laws shall inevitably ruine many souls for that is to have more regard to their own will then to the salvation of peoples souls whereas even Christ pleased not himself 3. Many weak are uncapable of all Reasons or Arguments that can free our kneeling of Idolatry Ergo They should abstain and not kneel with a doubting conscience better not eat as eat with a doubting conscience Rom. 14 23. 4. Pride and contempt are onely seen to God Prelates have no place to punish heart-acts they are to prove by two Witnesses the Malice and Pride and Contempt of Authoritie but this is invisible to mens eies refusal of obedience to Canons touching indifferent things the necessitie whereof as the Doctor must say cometh onely from mans will cannot be contempt The neglect of a command of God is indeed a virtual contempt of the Majestie Authoritie Power and Justice of God because a command of God hath Essentially Equitie and Justice in it from Gods commanding Will But a command of a thing indifferent that may as well without sin be left undone as done as our Doctor saith of our Ceremonies can never
according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary minde except the Churches were first purified in some Ceremonial way as God prescribeth that the spoyle of Midian be purified which our Brethren cannot say except we would make our selves debtors to the whole Law for so the law was Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessitie of the poore requireth that these Temples be not loosed but imployed for the poore as David in point of necessitie eat the Shew-bread I answer 1. The poore as the case was Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh and so ruine him for whom Christ died which is absurd for their necessitie might require it But certaine it is Davids necessitie was layd on him by the sixt Commandement as an act of mercie in the point of starving and if any poore Iew were in the like case I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh before another weake Iew. Providentiall necessitie may make that which is a sinfull scandalizing to bee obedience to the sixt Commandement but the will of Superiours can make no such providentiall change as the D of Aberdeene doe dreame But if the necessitie bee lesse then the Necessitie in point of sterving it could justifie the poore Iewes eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God as the case was Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint should have no physicall use in the worship of God to defend us from the injuries of Sunne and Heaven and yet have the same use in common for the poore to dwell in wanteth all shadow of reason for how can it be proven that the same physicall use in the worship is unlawfull and yet out of worship is lawfull except there intervene some Ceremoniall and religious purging of the house by fire or some other way which were Iudaical under the New Testament for the necessity of the poor is not like the necessity of Davids eating of Shew-bread It s certain that the necessity of disusing the creature in a Physical usage in the worship must have a warrant in Scripture as well as the using of the same in the same usage must have the like warrant Object 5. But Bels are more hurtful to the souls of Gods people who are scandalized by them then they are useful for the tymous and seasonable convening of the people and therefore they may well be abolished being lesse necessary and necessary onely ad melius esse for the better ordering of the Worship of God and not simply necessary for the being of the Worship Now as the Lord our God will have a lesser necessity to yeeld to any greater a bodily necessity to give place to a soul-necessity the soul being more excellent then the body as is clear in that God would have his people to dispence with the lesser losse of the spoyl of the Amalakites of their Idols gold and silver that the greater necessity may stand to wit their not being allured nor their teeth put a watering and their heart to a lusting after the Idols of Canaan so would he have us to abolish the Saints Temples the gold of Popish Images the Bels that are lesse necessary seeing the Sun may teach as well as the Bell for eschewing soul-dangers in laying stumbling blocks both before our own souls and others Answ 1. It is denyed that Bells which have a necessary use though onely for the better ordering of the worship of God are any active objects of scandal and the meer passive scandal taken at any thing not indifferent but physically necessary and so necessary that without it sinful inconvenients of either wearying in the service of God or sinful neglect should follow is no sinful scandal given but meerly taken 2. There be two necessities of things one natural and first in that regard another religious and in that regard secondary the former necessity doth alwayes stand except God remove it by some posteriour commandment It s necessary that Adam and Evah eat of all things that God created for eating God I grant may remove this necessity in some and command either Adam to fast for a time or not to eat of the tree of Knowledge So say I warning by Bells hath a physical necessity the use of the Temples in worshipping hath the like necessity so have Gold and Silver a necessity god onely either by a Commandment or by an exigence of providence that standeth to us as in the case of a scandal for a command can remove the physical necessity and inhibite Israel to use such and such Gold as have been in use in the Heathen Idols and may forbid to perform an act of obedience to an affirmative command in the case of scandal as he may forbid Paul to take wages for Preaching the Gospel though Paul have some natural necessity of taking wages But the Church without a higher warrant from God hath no power to restrain us in the necessary use that God hath given us Make Bells and Temples as indifferent and unnecessary as some meats were Rom. 14. and I shall yeeld the Argument 3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller to yeeld to a soul-necessity as the greater is a ground not so sure but it ought to have been proved except by a soul-necessity you mean a necessity of saving the soul and not sinning against God and oppose it to a meeâ— bodily necessity including no sin in it then I shall grant the Assertion That the one necessity iâ— greater then the other But otherwise Cateris paribus other things being alike I conceive it is contradicted by Iesus Christs saying Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea Chap. 6. I will have meâ—â—â— and not sacrifice And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life The case falleth out David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger it may be a question if the presenâ— necessity be so great there being no bread for them but the Shew-bread which by a Ceremonial Law of God onely the Priests should eat If any of the followers of David out of a groundlesse scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Pauls Argument Rom. 14. and said to David I will starve rather ere I eat this bread for a divine law forbidâ— me and if thou eat of it it shall be a scandal to â—â— and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died The Apostle Paul would not for so smal a thing as to eat swines flesh before a weak Jew in the case Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died by laying before him a stumbling block by his unseasonable and scandalous eating I think if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture this doubt might easily be removed by answering the case was not alike with David in his hunger and
so in a Physicall and naturall necessitie to save his owne temporall life that by all probabilitie was in great danger and these who being in no such necessitie did eat such meats scandalous and so distructive to the soules of weake ones and having varietie of other meats to keep them from sterving and so a meere necessitie of preserving the bodily life if we compare one affirmative command of God with another may remove that which may be supposed a soule necessitie And the reason is because in the doctrine of scandall which is more intricate and obscure then every Divine conceives God placeth acts of providentiall necessitie as emergent significations of his approving will which are so to us in place of a divine Commandement of Gods revealed will and these providentiall acts of necessitie doe no lesse oblige us to morall obedience then any of the expresse written Commandements of God I cleare it thus There is an expresse law It is sâ—â— and unlawfull for David or any man who is not one of the Lords Priests to eat shew-bread But God commeth in and putteth David in such a posture of divine providence that if he eat not shew-bread he shall be sinfully guiltie of violating a higher morall law of God who saith I will have mercie and not sacrifice Then David shall be cruell to his owne life and sinne against the sixt Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther If he eat not for not to eat when you are in a providentiall condition of sterving if you may have it is to kill your selfe and this providentiall condition doth no lesse oblige you to the Morall obedience of the sixt Command then if God in the letter of the Law should command you to eat This fact of David was not done by any extraordinarie impulsion of the Spirit but by a constant chanell that Providence ordinarily runneth in according to which I or any Professor must be obliged to preferre a worke of Mercie to Sacrifice that is by which we are to give obedience to the sixt Command which is not to kill even as without extraordinarie impulsion I may absent my selfe from hearing the Word when I find going to Church may indanger my life for non-obedience to affirmatives in a greater necessitie is ordinarie And therefore Christian prudence with which the Wisdome of God keeps house Prov. 8. 12. doth determine many things of scandall And prudence is a vertue commanded in the word of God for a wise man observes times and so will he observe all other circumstances yet there be rules here which standeth alwayes and they be these 1. Comparing a physicall and meerely naturall necessitie with a morall necessitie if we yeeld to the physicall necessitie and neglect the moral we sinne against God and may lay a stumbling blocke before others as to eat such meats where the losse is small and the necessitie of eating meerely physicall and the eating be a scandall to the weake we sinne and give scandall the case is cleare Rom. 14. for eating the case being indifferent as it was Rom. 14. is a meere physicall necessitie and not scandalizing a weake brother is a morall necessitie 2. Rule if we compare a greater morall necessitie with a lesse morall necessitie the lesse necessitie must yeeld to the greater a necessitie of mercie must yeeld to a necessitie of sacrificeing if David then should not have eaten the shew-bread in his providentiall necessitie of samine he should have been guiltie both of active scandalizing the soules of others in killing himselfe and should have killed himselfe and the lesse morall necessitie ceaseth and is no necessitie when a greater moral necessitie interveneth 3. Rule Where there is a physicall necessitie of the thing yet not extreame and a morall necessitie of abstinence we are to abstaine The Jewes had a physicall necessitie of the Babylonish Garments but not so extreame in point of perishing through cold as David had of Shew-bread in point of sterving for famine therefore Achan should have obeyed the morall necessitie of not touching the accursed thing and neglected the physicall necessitie which if it had amounted to the degrees of necessitie of mercie rather then obeying a Ceremoniall Command such as was Touch nâ—t the accursed spoyle Achâ—â— might without sinne or scandall to himselfe or others have medled with the spoyle 4. Rule That which is necessarie in speciè in the kind as to goe to Church and heare the Word to come to the house of God and Worship may be in individuo in a particular exigence of providence not morally necessarie but the contradicent thereof morally lawfull David doth lawfully forbeare to come to the Lords house if he knew Saul may kill him by the way â— The things which we are to forbeare only for necessitie of scandall and upon no other ground these I may doe in private if I know they cannot come to the notice of these who shall be scandalized upon the ground of lesse physicall necessitie as Rom. 14. beleevers for their necessitie ordinarie and for nourishment might eat fleshes in private though before a weak Jew they could nâ—â— because the sinne is not in the act of eating but wholly in the scandall and in the manner of the unseasonable doing of it But these things which are morally not necessarie because tâ—â—â—â—bstance of the fact is against a law we are to forbeare both in private because they are against a law and in publick before others for the scandall as Achan sinned in taking the Babilonish Garment though in private and his sinne should have been more scandalous if he had done it publickly Now these we are upon no ordinarie necessitie to doe but such as may incroach upon the hazard of the losse of life in which case an exigence of providence does stand for a Command of non-murthering had Saul and his Army been reduced to a danger of starving in a wildernesse and could have no food except they should kill and eat the Cattell of the Amâ—lâ—kites â— conceive The Lords preferring of Mercie before Sacrifice should warrant them to eat of the Amalakites Cattell yet would this providentiall necessitie be so limited as it may fall out that it stand not for a divine Command for it holdeth in affirmative commands only and 2. so positives as there must be yea there can be no sin eligible by such and such a case as Lot sinned in exposing his daughters to the lust of men to redeeme abstinence from Sodomie Hence it is cleare we may not doe a lesse nor counsell another to commit a lesse sinne to eschew a greater as the Jesuites wickedly teach So Tannerus so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum a scandall that a Christian may hinder another to fall in and yet he permitteth him to fall in it But God hath a prerogative to permit sinfull scandals men have no such power when they are obliged to hinder it The divinite of
it was lawfull Arg. 2. Of Additions a Basil in morall b Hieron in Matth. 23. d Cyprian epist 68. e Chrys in 2 Tim. 1. f Procopius in Deut. 12. g Turtullian de prescript adver heret h Morton Burges supra c. 2 3. p. 136. i Duvallius 2. delegibus q. 5. art 1. res ad 3. Hoc tantum facito id est non offer as alia victimarum genera filios aut filiâ—s dâ—o ut Gentiles k Valent. tom 3. disp 6. q. 2. resp ad 2 l Vasquez tom 2. in 12. desp 152. c. 14. Qui addit novum non dicitur declinare m Bellarm. de pont l. 4. c. 17. Moses non alloquitur Principes quorum est leges condere et sic addere sed populum eâ—ius est obedire n Suarez de trip virit disp 5. Sect. 4. Additiones non corrumpentes sed perficientes non sunt additiones datâ— enim sunt a Spiritu sancto o Ita Cajeta p Bannes in 22. q. 1. Art 10. Non adduntur verbis dei ipsa dei verba All additions even these which perfecteth the word are unlawfull p Didocl in alt Damasc p. 504 505. q Vasqu to 2. in 12. disp 154. cap. 3. Respondetuâ— pontificem quidem nec extra generale concilium nec inillâ— posse Statuere aliquid de fide quod non contineatur in principiis articulis revelatis aut certissime ex iis colligatur r Vasq ib. Every Morall Act is to be warranted by the word Arg. 3. What is mans in worship is not Lawfull a Zanchius Com. in Hos Colligimus binâ— omnes cultus qui non sunt ex Deo ex voluntate Dei ex cius verbo legeque desumpti sed ex nobis aliisqite hominibus exeogitati sine Dei verbo damnari b Pareus Humanum inventum What is ours in Gods worship is unlawfull Scripture teacheth us us every practicall way c Rich. Hooker discip book 2. p. 55 56. 58 59. 8. Not all actions in man but Morall actions onely are regulated by the word d Eccles 3 4. 2. 4. Luk. 21. 24 1 Thess 5 6 7. Helps of faith and the formall object of faith are different e Sanderson in his Sermon f Hooker 2 book Eccles Pol. p. 60 61. Naturall reason is a part of Scripture Iackson on the Creed 1. Part. Sanderson What certitude of Faith is required in all our actions of our daily conversation Tit. 2. 11. 12. The Scripture a warrant for the morality of our acts of the second table as for the acts of worship Many actions of the 2. table are mixt and not purely Morall all the actions of the first table are purely morall The contrâ—ry is the clear judgement of Papists as Sâ—â—rcâ— teacheth us tom de virt et statu Relig. l. 2. de superst Cap. 1. Scriptura ipsa praecipit â—bscrâ—are votâ— que qua tamen voluntarie non ex precepto promittuntur et ratio naturalis dictat non solum esse facienda bona praecepta sed etiam esse utile plura bona et honesta facere quam precâ—pta sunt Undâ— etiam Hâ—râ—tici ipsi suos peâ—uliares modos et ritus introducunt in modo colendi Deum qui non sunt in Evangelio vel Divina lege praecepti imo nec ipsi inter se in bujusmodi ritibus comveniunt c. The Iesuit speaketh of the Ceremonies of Lutherans and the Prelaticall faction in England What is beside the Word of God in Morals is contrary to the Word of God a Sanderson Sermo b Morton Burges Supra c Paybod par 2. S. 14. p. 45. d D. Iackson on the Creed l. 3. c 7. p. 275. The vanity of the perfection of Scripture in essentials not in accidentals e Giles Widows in his lawlesse kneelles Puritan g Bannes to 3. 22. q. 1. art 1. Omne quod non est ex fide idest quod fit contra propriam conscientiâ—â— est peccatum f Vasquez to 1. 12. dis 59. q. 19. Art 6. c. 2. h Vasquez to 1. disp 65. c. 1. i Angelus verbo Dubium c. 1. k Corduba l. 3. q. 4. l Navir in cap. de Penitentia dub 7. n. 8. m Vasquez to 1. disp 66. cap. 9. Nec subditus dubius de justitia belli potest parere quamdiu dubius manet n Adrianus in quod libet punct 2. ad art 2. Milites dubii cligerent sic partem dubiam expoâ—erent se periculo injuste occidendi et praedandi non eundo tantum pecearent non obediendo o Suarez de Tripl virt Theol. Tract 3. disp 14. Sect. 6. p Silvester verbo belli 3. q. 1 c. 4. q Gratian. d. 23. quest 1. Quod culpatur r Sanches jesuita Cordubensis in decal Tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 3. Num. 3. Whatsoever is not of faith c. how true Doubting condemneth Papists say the Srcipture in generall is perfect but not in particulars of worship and so say Formalists w Scotus Prolog in senten q. 3. ad art 3. Terminus praefixus Theologiae quantum ad revelationem Divinam est â—orum quâ—â—uâ—â— inâ—sadra Scriptura sicut habetur ult Apocalyps Si quis â—pposucrit ad ista apponet ei Deus plagas quae contineâ—â—ur in Scriptura que possunt clici de ipsis x Suarez de tripl virt Theolog. Tract 1. disp 5. Sect. 4. Ad perfectionem non est quod omnia credenda contineat explicite satis est enim quod contineat mysteria nostrae redemptionis substantialia fundamenta Ecclesiae cum mediis necessarijs ad salutem y Bellar. de Effec Sacrament cap 32. respons ad Arg. 2. Christus ad plenum nos instruxit in Scriptura de vcro Dei cultu Bellar. Respondet id verum est de instructione generali non autem de particulari z Vasquez Tom. 2. in 1 2. disp 151. cap. 3. Nihil novi propositi Statuere possunt quod non pertineat ad pristiâ—um statum cujusque conservandum pro libito ferre legem certe non licet a Bannes To. 3. in 22. q. 1. Art 10. ad arg 3. Scriptura indicat nobis Divini â—uminis sensum non tamen in individuo in specie sed in communi generali quadam ratione b And Duvallius in 2. Thomae tract de legib q. 5. Art 1. ad Arg. 2. Scriptura est sufficiens quia ipsa omnia tam eredâ—â—da quam agenda impliâ—ite contineat propterea expresse ad Ecclesiam tanquam ad Columnam veritatis tam in fide quam in preceptis bene vivendi nos remittit What is only negative in Gods worship cannot be commanded Opinion of sanctity Divine necessity not essentiall to false worship a Morton Innocency of ceremonies generall defense c. 1. S. 15. b Suarcz to de trip viâ—t theol tract 1. dis 5. S. 4. Haec vero similia traditionalia non scripta non adduntur scripturis ut fiant quaâ—i partes â—jus quod potest etiam censeri prohibitum
1 2. de rel sanct c 4. ad 2 Nec desunt in Ecclesâ—â— qui doceant literis sâ—rmonibus quis cultus reliquiss formulistâ— elementis sacramentalibus de beatur c Vasquez in 3 part 10. 1. disp 105. 5. n. 3 Quare nec aliquid periculi in ipsarum imaginum adoraâ—ione si populus tudis juâ—ta sinccram fidem religionean mediocriter instituatur d Estius lib. 3 dist 36. sect 7. Ecclesia diligenter doctrina opere distinguit inter honorem Deo proprium eum qui Divinis ac Dei amicis hominibus tribuitur e Concil Moguntinum cap. 41. Pastores nostri populum accuratè moneant imagines non ad id proponi ut eas adoremus Sed ut per imagines recordemur c Calvin Iusti l. 4. c 8. sect 8. d Luthercom in Gal 1. neque alia doctrina in Ecclesia tradi aut audiri debet quâ—m purum dâ—i verbum e D. Ammes fresh fuit f Bannas tom 3. m 22. q. 43. art 8. Nota posse contingere ut pusilli non sirt capaces ratâ—onis redditae tunc quamvis sit reddita illis ratio tâmen ab hujusmodi spiritualibus cessâ—â—dum quia tunc non ex malicia sed ex ignorantia scoâ—dolizantur c 4 sect 1. q 10. Tannern to 3. in 22. dis 2. q. 6 dub 9. concurrentibus dâ—obus praeceptis quorum utrum que servari non potest obligare desinit alâ—erum quod â—im obligandi minorem habet Ita Suarez to 3. diâ— 66. sect 4. Gregor de Valentiâ— in 22. q. 18. puncto 4. a D. Bannes â—o 3. in 22. q. 43. art 8. con 3. Talis perplexitas est absurdum quid b Amesius de Cons lib. 5. â—â—p 11 thes 18 Nulla datur taliâ— perplexitaâ— c. c Bellarm. contra Barcla cap. 31. In bono sensu Christus dedit Petro Papae potestatem faciendâ— de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum d Bellar. de Romano Pontif. l. 4. cap 5. e Bellarm. in Recognit oâ—ibus Lâ—quuti sumus de actibus dubiis viriuâ—um vitiorum nam si perciperet manifestum vitium aut prohiberet manifestum virtutem dicendum esset cum Petro Act. 5. Obedire oportet magis Deo quam hâ—minibus dicimus posse jubere ut tali die non jejunetur non potest autem jubere ut non colatur Deuâ— f Bernardus Epist 7. Quomodo ergo vel Abbatis jussio vel Papae permissio licitâ—â—â— facere potuit quod purum malum fuit g Toletus in â—nstruct Secerdoâ— lib 5. cap 3. cum causa rationabili aliquid praecipitur â—os debemus audire nec Papâ— pro suo liâ—ito excusat h Alphonsus de potest legis Civil cap. 5. Conclus 5. Potest subdâ—â—â—â— sinâ— peccato legem aut preceptum superioris contemâ—â—re judicando illâ—â— maâ—â—â— contra râ—â—ionem The essence of an active or given scandall a Course of conformitie pag 147. b Dimittendum est propter scandalum â—omâ—e quod potest praetermitti salvâ triplice veritate vitae doctrinae justiâ—iae Hierony Glâ—ssord tom 9. c Hooker of Ecclesâ— Policie l. 4 pag. 157. d D. Forbes in Iren. lib. 2. c. 20. n. 19. e Sandersons Sermon Rom. 14 pag. 22. 23. f Lyndesay his defence of Pearth Assemb in Prafat Paybodie g Course of Conformitie pag. 146. a Pag. 143. b Course of Conformitie pag. 143. c Forbes Iren. l. 2. cap. 20. n. 6. d Forbes lib. 2. cap. 20. n. 19. Non potest humana potestas te cogere ad faciendam illud quod facere non possis absque inevitabilidatione scandali a Suarez de Rel. to 4. l 4 tract 5. cap 15. Si secâ—usâ— praeceptâ— res ex â—trâ—queâ—aâ—te sit probabilis tunc universaliter verum erit adjuncto praeceptoobedi â—dum esse b Thom. Sanchez â—n Decalog to 2. lib 6. cap. 3. n. 3. c Greg. de Val. â—â— 3. disp 7 q 3 punct 2 d Supra q. 6. of this Treatise a Scotus prol in sent q. 3. ad art 3. b Suarez 10. â—e leg cap. 1. de trip viâ—â— Theologie Tract 1. disp â— q. â— c Banneâ— tom in q 1. â—â—â— 10. dub 2. d Duvallius 2 tract de legib q 5. art 1. â—d arâ— 2. Calv. in Inâ—â—â— â—uâ—â— 2 cap. 8. sect 35. Ames Mâ—dull l. 2 c. 17. sect 13. Melul Theol. l. 2. c 16. s 58 59. 60. 61. 62 63. a Robert Lord brooke in a discourse of nature of Episcopacie cap. 5. pag. â—6 b Origen cont Celsum l. 8. c Strabo l. 15. d Tertull. in 2 pol. ca 9. bibebant sanguinem humanum e August epist 19. Vt vetus synagoge hoc pacto cum honore sepaliretur f Ireneus lib. 2 cap 12. g Tertullian de pudicit c. 12. h Cyprian ad Quirinum l 7. i Lorinus com in act 15. ait esse legem mere positivam quae râ—moto contemptu scandalo alio peccato non videtur arctè obligare k Cajetan vitare fornicationem est divini juriâ— reliqua â— Canone erant ut morâ—m gererent â—â— Iudaeis quibus conviverent l Philip. Gameth in 12. q. 104. 105. câ— 2 ad fovendum inter Iudeâ—s Genâ—es mutuâ—m concordiam propter infirmitatem Iudaeorum m Paybodie par 3 pag. 413. 4â—4 a Paybodie b D. Forbes in Irenicâ— a Calvin Instâ—t l 3. c. 19. sect 7. tâ—rtia pars libertatis ut nuâ—la rerum extâ—â—nâ—râ—m quae per sâ—siunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—ligâ—â—ne corâ—m Dâ—o tangâ—remur quin eas nunc usurpare nunc indâ—ffâ—renter liceal uti b Châ—mnit Exam. pâ—rt 2. de rit sacra p. 33. c Polan Syntag Thâ—ol lib 6. ca. 9. d Bâ—ll de â—fficac Sacram 1. 2 ca. 32 e Iuâ—ius in Bâ—ll co 3. l 4. â—a 17. â— 19 20 f Whittâ—ker de pontif Râ—m q. 7. c. 3. ad 5. Fran. Silvius Duacens Profes in 22. q. 43. â—â— 7. concl 3. Charitas dicat ne absque omni causa â—ffâ—ramus proximo etiâ—m ex malitia peccaturo occasionem peccati Ita Tannerus in 22. to 3. ais 1. q 6 duc 9. asseâ— 3 bonâ— conquedâ—m â—â—bia â—lavandis ad vitandum scandalum malitiosorum a Parker on the crosse part 2. sect 8. Math. 17. 2â— Of the necessitie of things which remove scandall Some things necessary from the only positive will of God Some things necessarie from some thing in the things themselves Two sorts of monuments of idolatrie We cannot devise the use of any thing in worship when we cannot devise the thing it selfe The place Deut. 7. 25. The graven image of their God shall ye burne with fire dicleared How houses and Temples builded to Saints are noâ— to be demolished Temples and houses have a like physicall use in Gods worship as out of Gods worship Deut. 7. 25 26. No Houses no Temple no creatures are now uncleane â—â—er the New Testament Deut. 12. 1 2. How things not necessarie are to bee abstained from or used in the â—ase of Scandall 2. Conclus Things scandalous under the N Testament are forbidden in a farre other sense then mâ—aâ— dayes and other things in the Ceremoniall law How far a morall and perpetuall reasâ—n maketh a law perpetuall Levit. câ— 11. Disusing of houses because abused to idolatrie a Iudaising Bells for the convening of the people to publick worship not to be abolished â—â—ough they have been abused to superstition A most necessarie rule to be observed in the doctrine of scandall that emergent providences of naturall necessitie are to us in place of divine commands in some cases Considerable rules â—ou hing the kindes and degrees of necessitie in eschewing scandall 1. Rule 2. Rule 3. Rule 4. Rule 5. Rule Tannerus to 3. in 22 disp 9. de â—ide spâ— c. q 6. dub 9. In magnâ— casu necessitatis que valdè praeponderat futuro scandalo non est illictum facere rem habenâ—em speciem mali â—â— eâ—â— similatio Petri Gal. 2. Tu rian de virtâ—â— vitiis par 1. c. 39. dubio 16. Quindo quis para us est magnum â—urtum committere non soâ—â—â—m â—citum est minus futurum consulere sed etiam co-operâ—â—â— ad illud 6. Rule 7. Rule A scandal may flow from ignorance and corruption and so be taken when it also kindly issueth from the sinfull or unseasonable fact of another and so is also kindly given Caspensis tom 3. Curs Theolog. Trac 27. de Charit Sect. 2. disp 8. num 19. A false rule of Papists that men may cooperate a sinfull act and be free of scandall because of sâ—me necessitie No relation of servant or captive can render it lawfull to co-operate with sin 8. Rule What things non-necessarie are to be removed from the worship of God as scand lous Ceremonies nâ—t so much as necessarie by way of dis-junction which necessitie agreeth to many circumstances of worship in the Directory Hooker Ibid. Religious Monuments of Idolatrie are to be removed Wolphius who addeth to P. Marâ—yr Commenâ— in 2 King 23. speaking of Iosâ—â—â—â— zeale Et hâ—c illius fides industria nos quoque excitabit â—t in odium fâ—stidium earum quae pugnant cum Dâ—i verbo rerum bomines quâ—quo modo inducamus Hooker Eccle. Policie â— l. 5. 349 350. 2 King 23. 7. Hooker 198. What Conformitie with Idolaters is unlawfull Conformitie with Idolaters in things in Gods worship not necessarie unlawfull Ecclesiast Poâ—â— licie l. 4. p. 138. Pag 13â— The sâ—me Ceremonies in Idolaters and in the true Church may be judged the some three wayes Formalists grant Conformitie with heathen and Idolators in Ceremonies clothed with a Scripturall signification Phocyllide◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 13â— pag. 132. l. 4. How the Scripture is a Rule Church Government properly an Institution 133. l. 4. The worship of God neâ—oeth no relâ—gious Ceremonies â—ut what God hath himselfe prescribed Hooker pag. 134 134. 135. 138. We need not say that conformiâ—ie with Idolaters was the only cause why God forbade his people heathâ—nish rites pag 139.