of meat wearing a blue coat are necessary to salvation or that the master imposeth those things upon the servant as of necessity unto salvation The obligation of the servants conscience to doe the things commanded ariseth from the force of that divine Law which bindeth servants to obey their masters in lawfull things The master in the things lie so commandeth hath no particular actuall respect to the conscience of his servant which porhaps all that while never came within his thoughts but meerely respecteth his owne occasions and conveniences In this example as in a glasse let the Objecters behold the lineaments and feature of their owne argument Because kneeling standing bowing are commanded by the Church and the people are bound in conscience to obey the Lawes of the Church therefore the Church imposeth upon the people kneeling standing and bowing as necessary to salvation If that which they object were indeed true and that the Church did impose these rites and ceremonies upon the people as of necessity to salvation and require to have them so accepted doubtlesse the imposition were so prejudiciall to Christian liberty as that every faithfull man were bound in conscience for the maintenance of that liberty to disobey her authority therein and to confesse against the imposition But our Church hath been so far from any intention of doing that her selfe that by her foresaid publique declaration she hath manifested her utter dislike of it in others What should I say more Denique te ipsum concute It would better become the Patriarchs of that party that thus deeply but untruely charge her to looke under their owne cloakes dive into their owne bosomes and survey their owne positions and practice if happily they may be able to cleere themselves of trenching upon Christian liberty and ensnaring the consciences of their brethren and imposing upon their proselytes their owne traditions of kneele not stand not bow not like those mentioâ—ed Col. 2. of touch not tast not handle not requiring tâ— have them accepted of the people even as of necessity uâ—to salvation If upon due examination they can acqâ—ite themselves in this matter their accounts will be the easier but if they cannot they shall find when the burden lighteth upon them that it will be no light matter to have beene themselves guilty of that very crime whereof they have unjustly accused others As for consent with the Papists in their doctrine concerning the power that mens lawes have over the conscience which is the last objection it ought not to move us We are not ashamed to consent with them or any others in any truth But in this point weâ— differ from them so far as they differ from the truth which difference I conceive to be neither so great as some men nor yet so little as other some men would make it They teach that Humane Lawes especially the Ecclesiasticall bind the consciences of men not only in respect of the obedience but also in respect of the things themselves commanded and that by their owne direct immediate and proper vertue In which doctrine of theirs 3. things are to be misliked First that they give a preheminence to the Ecclesiasticall Lawes above the Secular in this power of binding We may see it in them and in these objecters how men will run into extremities beyond all reason when they give themselves to be led by corrupt respects As he said of himselfe and his fellow-Philosophers Scurror ego ipse mihi populoâ—â— so it is here They of Rome carryed with a wretched desire to exalt the Papacy and indeed the whole Clergy as much as â—hey may to avile the secular powers as much as they dare they therefore ascribe this power over the conscience to the Ecclesiasticall lawes especially but doe not shew themselves all out so zealous for the secular Ours at home on the contrary out of an appetite they have to bring in a new plat forme of discipline into the Church and for that purpose to represent the established government unto the eyes and hearts of the people in as deformed a shape as they can quarrell the Ecclesiasticall lawes especially for tyrannising over the conscience but do not shew themselves so much agrieved at the secular Whereas the very truth is what soever advantages the secular powers may have above the Ecclesiasticall or the Ecclesiasticall above the secular in other respects yet as to the power of binding the consoience all humane lawes in generall are of like reason and stand upon equall termes It is to be misliked secondly in the Romish doctrine that they subject the conscience to the things themselves also and not onely tye it to the obedience whereby they assume unto themselves interpretative the power of altering the nature of the things by removing of their indifferency and inducing a necessity for so long as they remain indifferent it is certaine they cannot bind And thirdly and principally it is to be misliked in them that they would have this binding power to flow from the proper and inherent vertue of the laws them selves immediately and per so which is in effect to equall them with the dâ—vine law for what can that doe more whereas humane lawes in things not repugnanâ— to the Law of God doe bind the conscience indeed to obediâ—nce but it is by consequent and by vertue of a former Divine Law commanding us in all lawfull things to obey the superiour powers But whether mediately or immediately may some say whether directly or by consequent whether by its owne or by a borrowed vertue what is it materiall to be argued so long as the same effect will follow and that as intirely to all intents and puâ—poses the one way as well as the other As if a debt be alike recoverable it skilleth not much whether it be due upon the originall bond or upon an assignement If they may be sâ—re to be obeyed the higher powers are satisfied â—et Scholars wranglâ— about words and distinctions so they have the thing it is all they looke after This Objection is in part true and for that reason the differences in this controversie are not altogether of so great consequence as they have seemed to some Yet they that thinke the difference either to be none at all or not of considerable moment judge not aright For albeit it be all one in respect of the governours whence the obligation of conscience springeth so long as they are conscionably obeyed as was truely alleaged Yet unto inferiours who are bound in conscience to yeeld obedience it is not all one but it much concerneth them to understand whence that obligation ariseth in respect of this very point whereof we now speak of Christian liberty and that for two waighty and important considerations For first if the obligation spring as they would have it from the Constitution it selfe by the proper and immediate vertue thereof then the conscience of the
one way wee may not in such case redeeme the offence of a private brother with our disobedience to superiour authority in using our liberty the other way and many other like cases there may be But this I say that where without great inconvenience wee may doe it it is not enough for us to please our selves and to satisfie our own consciences that we doe but what we lawfully may but wee ought also to beare one anothers burdens and to forbear for one anothers sakes what otherwise we might doe and so to fulfill the Law of Christ S. Paul who hath forbidden us in one place to make our selves the servants of any man 1. Cor. 7. hath yet bidden us in another place by love to serve one another Gal. 5. 13 And his practise therein consenteth with his doctrine as it should doe in every teacher of truth for though he were free from all and knew it and would not be brought under the power of any yet in love he became servant to all that by all meanes hee might winne some It was an excellent saying of Luther Omnia libera per fidem omnia serva per charitatem We should know and be fully perswaded with the perswasion of faith that all things are lawfull and yet withall we should purpose and bee fully resolved for charity sake to forbeare the use of many things if we finde them inexpedient He that will have his owne way in every thing he hath a liberty unto whosoever shall take offence at it maketh his liberty but a cloake of maliciousnesse by using it uncharitably The fourth and last way whereby we may use our liberty for a cloake of maliciousnesse is by using it undutifully pretending it unto our disobedience to lawfull authority The Anabaptists that deny all subjection to Magistrates in indiffâ—rent things doe it upon this ground that they imagine Christian liberty to be violated when by humane lawes it is determined either the one way or the other And I cannot but wonder that many of our brethren in our owne Church who in the question of Ceremonies must argue from their ground or else they talke of Christian liberty to no purpose should yet hold off before they grow to their conclusion which to my apprehension seemeth by the rules of good discourse to issue most naturally and necessarily from it It were a happy thing for the peace both of this Church and of their owne consciences if they would in calme blood review their own dictates in this kind and see whether their owne principle which the cause they are ingaged in maketh them dote upon can be reasonably defended and yet the Anabaptists inference thence which the evidence of truth maketh them to abhorre be fairely avoided Yet somewhat they have to say for the proofe of that their ground which if it be found it is good â—eason we should subscribe to it if it be not it is as good reason they should retract it Let us heare therefore what it is and put it to triall First say they Ecclesiasticâ—ll Constitutions for there is the quarrell determine us precisely ad uâ—um in the use of indifferent things which God and Christ have left free ad utrâ—mlibet Secondly by inducing a necessity upon the things they enjoyne they take upon them as if they could alter the nature of things and make that to become necessary which is indifferent which is not in the power of any man but of God onely to doe Thirdly these Constitutions are so faire pressed as if men were bound in conscience to obey them which taketh away the freedome of the conscience for if the conscience be bound how is she free Not so onely but fourthly the things so enjoyned are by consequence imposed upon us as of absolute necessity unto salvation forasmuch as it is necessary unto salvation for every man to do that w ch he is boâ—id in conscience to do by which device kneeling at the Commuâ—ion standing at the Gospell bowing at the name of Jesus and the like become to be of necessity unto salvation Fifthly say they these Constitutions cannot bee defended but by such arguments as the Papists use for the establishing of that their rotten Tenet that humane lawes binde the conscience aâ— well as divine Then all which premises what can bee imagined more contrarious to true Christian liberty In which Objections before I come to their particular answer I cannot but observe the unjust I would we might not say unconscionable partiality of the objecters First in laying the accusation against the Ecclesiasticall lawes onely whereas their arguments if they had any strength in them would as well conclude against the politicall lawes in the civill state and against domesticall orders in private families as against the Lawes Ecclesiastical yet must these onely be guilty and they innocent which is not equall Let them either damne them all or quit them all or else let them shew wherein they are unlike which they have not yet done neither can doe Secondly when they condemne the things enjoyned as simply and utterly unlawfull upon quite other grounds and yet keep a stirre about Christian liberty for which argument there can be no place without supposall of indifferency for Christ hath left us no liberty to unlawfull things how can they answer this their manifest partiality Thirdly if they were put to speake upon their consciences whether or no if power were in their owne hands and Church affaires left to their ordering they would not forbid those things they now dislike every way as strictly and with as much imposition of necessity as the Church presently enjoyneth them I doubt not but they would say Yea and what equity is there in this dealing to condemne that in others which they would allow in themselves Fourthly in some things they are content to submit to the Ecclesiasticall Constitutions notwithstanding their Christian liberty which liberty they stiffely pretend for their refusall of other some whereas the case seemeth to bee every way equall in both all being enjoyned by the same authority and for the same end and in the same maner If their liberty be impeached by these why not as much by those or if obedience to those may consist with Christian liberty why not as well obedience to these In allowing some rejecting others where there is the same reason of all are they not very partiall And now I come to answer their arguments or rather flourishes for they are in truth no better That first allegation that the determining of any thing in unam partem taketh away a mans liberty to it is not true For the liberty of a Christian to any thing indifferent consisteth in this that his judgement is throughly perswaded of the indifferency of it and therefore it is the determination of the judgement in the opinion of the thing not in the use of it that
taketh away Christian liberty Otherwise not onely Lawes politicall and Ecclesiastical but also all vowes promises covenants contracts and what not that pitcheth upon any certaine resolution de future should be prejudiciall to Christian liberty because they doe all determine something in unam partem which before was free and indifferent in utramq partem For example if my friend invite me to sup with him I may by no meanes promise him to come because the liberty I had before to goe or not to goe is now determined by making such a promise neither may a yong man binde himselfe an apprentice with any certaine Master or to any certaine trade because the liberty hee had before of placing himselfe indifferently with that Master or with another and in that trade or in another is now determined by such a contract And so it might be instanced in a thousand other things For indeed to what purpose hath God left indifferent things determinable both wayes by Christian liberty if they may never be actually determined either way without impeachment of that liberty It is a very vaine power that may not be brought into act but God made no power in vaine Our Brethren I hope will waive this first argument when they shall have well examined it unlesse they will frame to themselves under the name of Christian liberty a very Chimera a non ens a meere notionall liberty where of there can be no use That which was alleaged secondly that they that make such Lawes take upon them to alter the nature of things by making indrfferent things to become necessary being said gratis without either truth or proofe is sufficiently answered by the bate deniall For they that make Lawes concerning indifferent things have no intentionat all to meddle with the nature of them they leave that in medio as they found it but onely for some reasons of conveniency to order the use of them the in differency of their nature still being where it was Nay so farre is oun Church from having any intention of taking away the indiffâ—rency of those things which for order and comelinesse she enjoyneth that shee hath by her publique declaration protested the contrary wherwith they ought to be satisfied Especially since her sincerity in that declaration that none may cavill as if it were protestatio contrariafacto appeareth by these two most cleare evidences among many other in that shee both alloweth different rites used in other Churches and also teacheth her owne rites to be mutable neither of which she could doe if she conceived the nature of the things themselves to be changed or their indifferency to be removed by her Constitutions Neither is that true which was thirdly alleaged that where men are bound in conscience to obey there the conscience is not left free or else there would be a contradiction For there is no contradiction where the affirmative and negative are not ad idem as it is in this case For Obedience is one thing and the Thing commanded another The Thing is commanded by the Law of man and in regard thereof the conscience is free but Obedience to men is commanded by the Law of God and in regard thereof the conscience is bound So that we are bound in conscience to obedience in indifferent things lawfully commanded the conscience still remaining no lesse free in respect of the things themselves so commanded then it was before And you may know it by this In Lawes properly humans such as are those that are made concerning indifferent things the Magistrate doth not nor can say This you are bound in conscience to doe and therefore I command you to doe it as he might say if the bond of obedience did spring from the nature of the things commanded But now when the Magistrate beginneth at another end as he must doe and saith I command you to doe this or that and therefore you are bound in conscience to doe it this plainely sheweth that the bond of obedience ariseth from the power in the Magistrate and duty in the subject which is of divine ordinance You may observe therefore that in humane Lawes not meerely such that is such as are established concerning things simply necessary or meerely unlawfull the Magistrate may there derive the bond of obedience from the nature of the things themselves as for example if he should make a Law to inhibite Sacriledge or Adultery he might then well say you are bound in conscience to abstaine from these things and therefore I command you so to abstaine which he could not so well say in the Lawes made to inhibite the eating of flesh or the transportation of graine And the reason of the difference is evident because those former Lawes are rather Divine then humane the substance of them being divine and but the sanction onely humane and so binde by their immediate vortue and in respect of the things themselves therein commanded which the later being meerely humane both for substance and sanction doe not The consideration of which difference and the reason of it will abundantly discover the vanity of the fourth allegation also wherein it was objected that the things enjoyned by the Ecclesiastical Lawes are imposed upon men as of necessity to salvation Which is most untrue Remember once againe that obedience is one thing and the things commanded another Obedience to lawfull authority is a duty commanded by God himselfe and in his Law and so is a part of that holinesse without which no man shall see God but the things themselves commanded by lawfull authority are neither in truth necessary to salvation nor doe they that are in authority impose them as such Onely they are the object and that but by accident neither and contingently not necessarily about which that obedience is conversant and wherein it is to be exercised An example or two will make it plaine We know every man is bound in conscience to imploy himselfe in the workes of his particular calling with faithfulnesse and diligence and that faithfulnesse and diligence is a branch of that holinesse and righteousnesse which is necessary unto salvation Were it not now a very fond thing and ridiculous for a man from hence to conclude that therefore drawing of wine or making of shoes were necessary to salvation because these are the proper imployment of the vintners and shoemakers calling which they in conscience are bound to follow nor may without sin neglect them Againe if a Master command his servant to goe to the market to sell his corne and to buy in provision for his house or to weare a livery of such or such a colour and fashion in this case who can reasonably deny but that the servant is bound in conscience to do the very things his Master biddeth him to doe to goe to sell to buy to weare and yet is there any man so forsaken of common sence as thence to conclude that going to market selling of corne buying
a Horat. 1. Epist. 17. 2. 3. §. 46. Whence humane lawes have their power of binding the conscience §. 47. is a point needfull to be known for two reasons The former §. 48. The later a Rom. 13. 1-6 b 1 Pet. 2. 13. c cum christo juâ—ente servis homini nonilli servis sed â—i qui jussit Aug. in Psal. 124. §. 49. Christian liberty and civill obedience have their proper bouÌ„ds §. 50. Observ. 3. We should endeavour to be the servants of God §. 51. Whose service is of all other §. 52. 1. the most just a Esay 44. 21. b Exod. 12. 44. alibi c 1 Pet. 1. 18. 19. d 1 Cor. 6. 19. e 1 Cor. 6. 20. f Luk. 1. 74. 75. g Psal. 116. 16. h An qui sundum aufert ejus a quo emptâ—s est tradit ei qui nihil in co habet juris injustus est qui seipsâ—m aufert dominanti Deo a quo factus est malignis servit spiritibus justus est Augustin 19. de Civil 21. i Rom. 13. 7. k Mat. 22. 21. §. 53. and equall a Vit ut tibi serviat cum quo sactus es non vis servire ei à quo sactus es August de 10 Chord c. 10. b Quod laudas in servo non exhibes Domino co sceleratiùs quia vis ut mâ—â—â—orem tâ— habeas servii quam te Deus Augustin ibid. c Esa. 43. 23. 24. d Phil. 2. 7. e Luk. 22. 27. §. 54. 2. the most necessary a Ios. 24. 15. b Esay 60. 12. c Nihililli jam liberi est spospondit Senec Ep. 36. d Prov. 20. 25. §. 55. 3. the most easy in regard both of the certainty of the service a Mat. 6. 24. b Senec. c Nos tam graves Dominâ—s juterdâ—s alternis vicibus imperantes interdum pariter Sâ—nec Epist. 37. d Enquidagis Duphei in diversâ—n seinderis hame bunccine an hunt sequeris Pers. Satyr 5. e Tit. 3. 3. f Heb. 13. 8. g Iam. 1. 17. h 1 Ioh. 2. 7. §. 56. and of the help we have for the performance thereof a Augustin b Phil. 4. 13. c Esay 26. 12. d 1 Cor. 15. 10. e Mat. 11. 30. f Auson in carm ad Theodos. g 1 Ioh. 5. 3. §. 57. 4. the most honourable a Sirac 23. 28. b 1 Sam. 2. 30. c Ioh. 12. 26. §. 58. and 5. the most profitable service a Luke 17. 10. b Mal. 3. 13 14. c Iob 21. 15. 1. d Psal. 143. 12. I am thine O save me Psal. 119. 94. 2. e Esay 65. 13 14. 3. f Rom. 6. 21. g Rom. 6. 22. §. 59. Observ. 4. We must behave our selves as the servants of God with all meete a Iosh. 24. 16 -24 b Gal. 6. 7. §. 60. 1. Reverence Which consisteth 1. in thinking meanely of our selves a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menand b 1. Tim. 6. 1. c Plaut §. 61. 2. in fearing to offend a Mal. 1. 6. b Psal. 2. 11. c Heb. 12. 28. §. 62. 3. in studying to please our master a Tit. 2. 9. b Col. 1. 10. c Gal. 1. 10. a Eph. 6. 5. §. 63. II. Obedience both Active in doing his commandements b Rom. 6. 16. c Ios. 24. 24. d Psal. 18. 44. e Mat. 8. 9. f Heb. 11. 8. g Gen. 22. h Heb. 11. 17. 18. i Rom. 4 20. k 2 Sam. 13. 28. §. 64. 2. Passive in being conteÌ„t with his allowances a Mat. 25. 24. b 1 Tim. 6. 8. c Phil. 4. 11. §. 65. and in submitting to his discipline a 1 Pet. 2. 18. b Lev. 26. 21. 23 §. 66. III. Fidelity which consisteth a Mat. 24. 45. b Mat. 25. 21. 1. 2. 3. §. 67. 1. in the heartinesse of our service a Eph. 6. 5 -7. Col. 3. 22. 23. b Prov. 15. 3. c Psalm 11. 4. d Psalm 139. 3. e Prov. 23. 26. Psal. 51. 6. g 1 Sam. 12 24. §. 68. 2 in our zeal for our master a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripid. in Med. act 1. §. 69. 3. in our diligence a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Stob. serm 60. b Mat. 25. 26. c Rom. 12. 11. d Icr. 48. 10. §. 70. The Conclusion a Phil. 2. 13. §. 1. The scope a Aquin. 1. 2. qu. 18 art 4 ad 3. §. 2. and importance of the Text. a Marlorat in Euchirid §. 3. The first conclusion which some deduce â—rom it a Act. 15. 9. b Ioh. 1. 12. Gal. 4. 26. c Rom. 3. 28. 5. 1. d Habac. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. e Rom. 15. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 8. f Râ—m 5. 1. g Act. 16. 34. Eph. 1. 8. a Act. 15. 9. §. 4. allowed true but rejected as impertineÌ„t a Si quis dixerit opera omnia quae ante justiâ—icationâ—m â—â—â—nt verâ— esse peccâ—ta An a tâ—ema sit Concil Trident. Sess. 6. Can. 7. §. 5. yet with some excusation of the Authors a Though S. Augustine sometimes applyeth it also to prove that all the actions of inâ—idels meaning c. be sinne Rhem. annot in loc b Eâ—omne quod non eâ—t ex side peccaâ—um est ut sc. intelligat justitiam insideâ—â—um non esse justitiaâ— quia sordet natura sine gratia Prosper in Epist. ad Rusin V. etiam cundem contra Collat. c Extra Ecclesiam catholisam nihil est integruÌ„ nihilcastum dicente Apostolo Omne quod non c. Leo serm 2. de jejun Pentec §. 6. Another conclusion which some deduce from this text b Rom. 10. 17. c T. C. l. 1. p. 27 apud Hooker lib. 2. §. 4. T. C. l. 1. p. 59. c. apud Hooker lib. 2. §. 7. which as they would have it understood a Iob 13. 7. §. 8. is neither 1. true a I say that the word os God containeth whatsoever things can fall into any part of mans life T. C. lib. 1. p. 20. apud Hooker lib. 2 §. 1. §. 9. either in the rigour of it a Rom. 4. 15. b Rom. 2. 15. c Rom. 2. 15. d Tertul. de coron milit cap. 4. §. 10. or in the mitigation a Mat. 7. 12. b 1 Cor. 14. 40. §. 11. nor 2. safe in respect of the evill effects viz. 1. Superstitions §. 12. 2. Vncharitable Censurings a Verse 3. 4. 10. 13. §. 13. 3. Contentions a Verse 3. §. 14. 4. Contempt of authority * It is indeed fully handled by M. Hooker in his second book of Eccles. Policy but few men of that party will read his works though written with singular learning wisedome godlines and moderatioÌ„ a Pet. Blesens Epist. 131. b Delicata satis imò minus mole sta est ista obedientia c. Bernard de praecept dispens Infirmae prorsus voluntatis indicium est statuta seniorum studiosius discutere haetere ad singula que injunguntur exigere de quibusque rationem malè suspicari de omnipraecepto cujus causa latuerit â—ec unquam libentèr obedire nisi c. Bern. ibid. §. 15. and 5. the ensnaring of mens consciences a Esay 40. 1 2. b Esay 61. 1-3 c Rom. 8. 15. d 2 Tim. 1. 7. e Psal. 45. 7. f Psal. 30. 11. §. 16. nor 3. warranted from the present Text a See Articles of the Church of England Artic. 6. §. 17. What is here meant by saith a Heming in Rom. 14. 1. b Piscat ibid. c Iohn 3. 3 6. Acts 14. 1 2. d Hîc vers 2. e Vers. 14. f Vers. 22. g Vers. 23. §. 18. The application of the Text for the resolving of sundry Questions §. 19. The first Question resolved a Respectus non mutant naturam b Opinionostra nobis legem facit Ambros. de paradis c Ioh. 16. 2. d Act. 26. 9. e 1 Tim. 1. 13. f Act. 22. 3 4. Phil. 3. 6. §. 20. The second Question resolved 1. 2. 3. Vbi est suspicio ibi discussio necessaria Bâ—rnard Epist. 7. a Ratio in rebus maâ—isestis non inquiriâ— sed statim judicat Aquin. 1. 2. qu. 14. 4. ad 2. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Aristot. 1. Mag. Moral 18. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristot 3. Ethn 5. §. 21. The third Question resolved a Verse 5. â—ic plenè certus sit Heming b Quasi plenis velis seratur Piscat in Schol. ad Rom. 14. 5. Luk. 9. 50. d 1 Cor. 14. 40. e 1 Tim. 4. 4. f Tit. 1. 15. g Rom. 14. 14. h 1 Cor. 6. 12. §. 22. The fourth Question a Herodot in Cliô Senâ—c 3. do ira 21. §. 23. as concerning a Resolved conscience answered in 2. conclusions The former a Quiagit contra conscientiam qua credit Deum aliquid prohibuisse liceterret contemnit Deum Bonavent 2. sent dist 39. b Menand c Pers. Satyr 5. d Iam. 4. 17. e Quod sit contra conscientiam aedificat ad geheunam c. 28. qu. 1. Omnes §. ex his f Rom. 14. 22. g Dan. 3. 16-18 h c. 11. qu. 3. Quiresistit ex Augustino §. 24. the Later §. 25. as concerning a doubting conscieÌ„ce a animo nunc huc nunc fluctuatilluc Virg. Aeneid 10. b Iames 1. 8. 1. c Ibid. d Ephes. 4. 14. 2. 3. 4. §. 26. answered in 3. Conclusions the 1. 1. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. 3. Ethic. 5 2. b 1 Cor. 7. 36. c Non tiâ—i imputabitur ad â—ulpa quod in vitus ignoras Augustin de nat grat §. 27. the second a Nilsaciendum de quo dubites sit necne rectè factum Ciâ— hb. 1. de Ossic. §. 28. the third Is daâ—nuÌ„ dat qui jubet daâ—e ejâ—s verò nulla culpa est cui parere necesse sit L. 169 st de div Reg jur b Bernard de pâ—ecept dispâ—nsat c Rom. 13. 1. d 1 Pet. 2. 13. §. 29. Sundry objections removed the first a Rom. 13. 5. b Isidoâ— c Duâ—ius incertus quasi dâ—arum viarum Isid 10. Etym. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plus est standum praecepto prelatiâ— quam conscientiae Bonavent 2. sent distinct 39. §. 30. the Second a Gregor §. 31. the Third §. 32. and the Fourth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Solon apud Stobae Serm. 3. §. 33. as concerning a scrupulous Conscience §. 34. The Conclusion
this shelter The other places usually alleaged speake onely either of divine and supernaturall truths to be beleeved or else of workes of grace or worship to be performed as of necessity unto salvation which is not to the point in issue For it is freely confessed that in things of such nature the holy Scripture is and so we are to account it a most absolute and sufficient direction Upon which ground we heartily reject all humane traditions devised and intended as supplements to the doctrine of faith contained in the Bible and annexed as Codicils to the holy Testament of Christ for to supply the defects thereof The Question is wholly about things in their nature indifferent such as are the use of our food raiment and the like about which the common actions of life are chiefely conversant Whether in the choice and use of such things we may not be sometimes sufficiently guided by the light of reason and the common rules of discretion but that we must be able and are so bound to doe or else we sinne for every thing wee doe in such matters to deduce our warrant from some place or other of Scripture Before the Scriptures were written it pleased God by visions and dreames and other like revelations immediately to make knowne his good pleasure to the Patriarches and Prophets and by them unto the people which kinde of Revelations served them to all the same intents and purposes whereto the sacred Scriptures now doe us viz. to instruct them what they should believe and doe for his better service and the furtherance of their owne salvations Now as it were unreasonable for any man to thinke that they either had or did expect an immediate revelation from God every time they ate or dranke or bought or sold or did any other of the common actions of life for the warranting of each of those particular actions to their consciences no lesse unreasonable it is to thinke thaâ— we should now expect the like warrant from the Scriptures for the doing of the like actions Without all doubt the Law of nature and the light of reason was the rule whereby they were guided for the most part in such matters which the wisdome of God would never have left in them or us as a principall relique of his decayed image in us if he had not meant that we should make use of it for the direction of our lives and actions thereby Certainely God never infused any power into any creature whereof he intended not some use Else what shall we say of the Indies and other barbarous nations to whom God never vouchsafed the lively oracles of his written word Must we thinke that they were left a lawlesse people without any Rule at all whereby to order their actions How then come they to be guilty of transgression for where there is no Law there can be no transgression Or how commâ—th it about that their consciences should at any time or in any case either accuse them or excuse them if they had no guide nor rule to walke by But if wee must grant they had a Rule and there is no way you see but grant it wee must then we must also of necessity grant that there is some other Rule for humane actions besides the written word for that we presupposed these nations to have wanted Which Rule what other could it be then the Law of Nature and of right reason imprinted in their hearts Which is as truely the Law and Word of God as is that which is printed in our Bibles So long as our actions are warranted either by the one or the other wee cannot be said to want the warrant of Gods word Nec differt Scripturâ an ratione consistat saith Tertullian it mattereth not much from whether of both wee have our direction so long as we have it from either You see then those men are in a great errour who make the holy Scriptures the sole rule of all humane actions whatsoever For the maintenance whereof there was never yet produced any piece of an argument either from reason or from authority of holy writ or from the testimony either of the ancient Fathers or of other classicall Divines of later times which may not be clearely and aboundantly answered to the satisfaction of any rationall man not extreamly fore-possessed with prejudice They who thinke to salve the matter by this mitigation that at leastwise our actions ought to be framed according to those generall rules of the Law of nature which are here and there in the Scriptures dispersedly conteyned as viz. That we should doe as we would be done to That all things be done decently and orderly and unto edification That nothing be done against Conscience and the like speake somewhat indeed to the truth but little to the purpose For they consider not First that these generall Rules are but occasionally and incidentally mentioned in Scripture rather to manifest unto us a former then to lay upon us a new obligation Secondly that those rules had beene of force for the ordering of mens actions though the Scripture had never expressed them and were of such force before those Scriptures were written where in they are now expressed For they bind not originally quà scripta but quà justa because they are righteous not because they are written Thirdly that an action conformable to these generall rules might not be condemned as sinfull although the doer thereof should looke at those rules meerely as they are the dictates of the Law of nature and should not be able to vouch his warrant for it from any place of Scripture neither should have at the time of the doing thereof any present thought or consideration of any such place The contrary whereunto I permit to any reasonable mans judgement if it be not desperately rash and uncharitable to affirme Lastly that if mens actions done agreeably to those rules are said to be of faith precisely for this reason because those rules are contained in the word then it will follow that before those particular Scriptures were written wherein any of those rules are first delivered every action done according to those rules had been done without faith there being as yet no Scripture for it and consequently had beene a sin So that by this doctrine it had beene a sinne before the writing of Saint Mathewes Gospell for any man to have done to others as he would they should doâ— to him and it had beene a sinne before the writing of the former Epistle to the Corinthians for any man to have done any thing decently and orderly supposing these two rules to be in those two places first mentioned because this supposed there could then have bin no warrant brought from the Scriptures for so doing Well then wee see the former Opinion will by no meanes hold neither in the rigour of it nor yet in the mitigation Wee are therefore to beware of it and that