Apostle did practise some legall Ceremon◠though in his owne purpose not as a legall Ceremony or in obedience to the Law ceremonial or as a yoke and burden but in other materiall respects in sometime and on some person after that it appeared to him and was euident that the same Ceremony among other persons and at other times was a yoke and a burden And is it not strange that my Brethren should not see this but impute it to me as a strange thing But they enioyned none such Ceremonies as were yokes and burdens admit of that the question is of practise of Ceremonies to auoide depriuation not of inioyning Next they affirme that they could not bee called ordinances of the world commandements or doctrines of men or voluntary religion neither could they be termed impotent and beggarly rudiments I say againe yes they might be so termed and that lawfully For the holy Ghost in the Apostle doth expresly terme them so in the same words both the obseruation of dayes moneths times and yeres Gal. 4. 9. 10. Holy-daies new Moones Sabboth daies Colos 2. 16. 22. as also abstinence from meates Touch not taste not handle not Col. 2. 10. 21. 22. 23. which was the very thing enioyned by the Apostles Act. 15. 28. If the Holy Ghost called them so we may be bold to terme them such But my Brethren say that they could not be termed such so long and so far forth as the Apostles did vse or inioyne them The which I answere by distinguishing betweene there nature and the vse that the Apostles had of them In their nature they were such as they were called yokes burdens or burdening traditions impotent and beggarly rudiments not onely in respect of the vnbeleeuing or ignorant beleeuing Iewes abuse but vnto the godly and best instructed Christians also for which of them would willingly haue vsed them without occasions of necessity to auoide a further incouenience yea considering them also in themselues for seeing Christ himselfe was come the body of what sound vse or erudition could they be what could they teach but Christ to come which was already come which also was an vntruth or what comfort could they minister to the Gentiles to whom they were inioyned or to Timothy and Paul by whom they were practised but as yokes and burdens only the comfort of their practise was the good purpose which they serued for the winning of the Iewes or retaining of them in the loue of the Gospell as the reasons alleadged by my Brethren out of Acts 21. 20. 24. 1. Cor. 9. 20. doe shew which were the causes of the Apostles vse of them made their practise lawfull But this much is sufficient to prooue the point in question For this sheweth the nature of those ceremonies to agree with the nature of ours As the Iewish ceremonies so likewise ours barely considered in thēselues which the Papists many professed Protestants abuse may be accounted in a sort yokes burdens burdening traditions commandements and doctrines of men voluntary religion impotent and beggerly rudiments c. yet as the Ceremonies practised by the Apostles so also ours by the same analogy in a case of necessity of expediency to redeeme the liberty of the Gospel in the Ministry of many good Teachers they are good and necessary and the commandements of God to practise 2. The second member of this Section affirmeth That it will neuer be prooued by me and if not then nothing is said to the purpose that when and where the Apostles or those Churches vsed them they had beene notoriously knowen to haue beene so abused or to haue wrought such euill effects as I there speake of And my answere is That it is true these ceremonies were not at all abused by any well grounded Christians at any time or place But it is not possible but my Brethren should know that the ceremonies well vsed by the Apostles Churches and other godly persons were knowen by them to haue been grossely abused euen as I alleadged in my first reason by the refractary and weake Christian Iewes euery where euen then when as they practised them like as we know that our Ceremonies haue been and are abused by Papists and weake Brethren notwithstanding which abuse knowledge thereof they persisted to vse them as often as necessity enforced and iust occasiō was offred For Paul knew how the Iewes abused circumcision to establish an opinion of the necessity thereof vnto saluation Act. 15. 1. yet after this knowledge he vsed it Act. 16. 3. and when S. Paul circumcised Timothy for the Iewes sake is it not euident that the Iewes had a false and abusiue opinion and practise of circumcision to preuent whose vniust offence Paul did it notwithstanding which the Apostle practised Circumcision on Timothy Likewise S. Paul his reprouing of Peter for abuse of Iewish ceremonies in causing of Gentiles to conforme vnto them Gal. 2. 11 12 14. whether wee referre the time thereof to Paraeus in Gal. 2. 104. Act. 11. 26. or as Paraeus doth to Act. 15. 30. 35. was before his circumcising of Timothy and his vowing and shauing of himselfe Act. 18. 21. Lastly was it not knowen to the Apostles when they obserued the occasion of the Iewish Sabbath to preach vnto them that the Iewes had an opinion of necessity of obseruation of that day as they had Ioh. 9. 16. Luc. 13. 14. Matt. 12. 2. Or could Paul and the Apostles bee ignorant that vowing offring contributing shauing dueties of the ceremoniall Law were abused by the Iewes both before they practised them and where they practised them and euen by occasion of their practise which doeth easily appeare by the violence which the Iewes vsed on a bare suspition that Paul was a professed enemie vnto the Legall rites Act. 21. 21 27 29. As for that which my Brethren alledge concerning Paul who hauing vsed circumcision and other Ceremonies doth after with great bitternesse reprooue and condemne the vse of them Gal. 4. 9 10. and 5. 12. Tit. 1. 14. I will omit that which some ‖ Gual in Gal. 2. Hom. 10 fol. 29. b. Codoman annal s Scriptur Ambros Chrysostomus learned men obserue that the Epistle to the Galat. was written before the Councill of Ierusalem Act. 15. and then those reproofes of his must goe before the circumcising of Timothy and shauing of himselfe Act. 16. 18. because it is controuerted and holden otherwise by †Paraeus prolegom in Ep. ad Rom. fol. 48. 49. Idem pro. em in Epist ad Gal. fol. 22. 23. other godly learned men But to it I say that that reproofe of Paul was not vsed in respect of the time after but in respect of the different case it was a case of confession that is hee was called to confesse a fundamentall truth in Titus case which he was not in the case of Timothy For the false Brethren would haue compelled Titus to haue beene circumcised meaning his conscience as
2. 3. 4. Fourthly Iesus Christ preferring the healing of the sicke a greater duety before the strict keeping the Ceremoniall rest a lesser duty and commanding a kind of seruile labour viz. the carying home of a bed in some case vnlawfull Io. 5. 8. 9. proueth it not onely by a peculiar reason proper vnto himselfe that hee is Lord of the Sabbath and therefore might ouerrule in this case Mat. 12. 8. But euen by reasons of Common equity namely First because it is lawfull by not strictly keeping ceremoniall rest to doe morrally well on the Sabbath day omitting sacrifice to doe mercy Mat. 11. 12. Secondly because the end is superior to the meanes for the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath Mar. 2. 27. 4 Fourthly because it is contrary to the inspired examples in the Scripture which are of common equity and reason and to the practise of the faithfull Saints of God namely besides the forenamed examples of the Priests of the Apostles of Dauid of our Sauiour first of Salomon who in a case of necessity did offer vpon another Altar then the Altar appointed for the worship of God because it was not able to receiue the offrings 2. Chro. 7. 7. but was to little for that end 1. King 8. 64. Whereas they were to offer sacrifice and to burne incense vpon one onely Altar in the Temple 2. King 23. 12. It being a Type of Christ the only sacrifice and mediator Heb. 13. 10. 2. of Hezekias who to set forward the mayne and substantiall worships of God did admit of many to the Passeouer albeit they were not ceremonially sanctified but legally vncleane and did not receiue the same as it was written in the Law nor according to the purification of the Sanctuary yet with a true heart seeking the Lord they were accepted namely in a case of superiour reason 2. Chron. 30. 17. 18. 19. 20. Thirdly of Paul who to saue his life a greater duety did with his owne hands cast away into the Sea the good creatures of God which otherwise should haue beene preserued and so for that cause neglected a lesser duety Act. 27. 30. Fourthly of the inspired Apostles of Christ who as before is noted did practise on themselues Act. 21. 26. and vpon others Acts 16. 3. and did aduise Act. 21. 23. 24. yea ordaine inioyne and command the practise of Iewish ceremonies as circumcision shauing purifying abstayning from blood and strangled meate and that as a duty good and necessary Act. 15. 28. which to auoide and not to vse was a duety required of God which to vse and practise in other cases was reprooued by the holy Ghost Acts 15. 10. and 21. 21. Gal. 4. 9. 10. 11. and 2. 12. 13. 14 and 5. 2. 3. 4. Colo. 2. 20. 21. 22. 23. and were needlesse shadowes Col. 2. 20. Ordinances of the world Col. 2. 20. Commandements of men turning from the trueth Col. 2. 12. Titus 1. 14. Impotent and beggarly rudiments Gal. 4. 9. 10. And of sundry perillous and perniciouse effects yet this they did admit albeit the violation of a duety to doe a greater duety of superior reason namely to procure the vnity of brethren Act. 15. 2. 4. 6. 7. 24. The wyninng of strangers to the faith 1. Cor. 9. 19 20. And to propagate the Gospell 1. Cor. 9. 23. To preuent the scandall of weake beleeuers Act. 16. 3. and 21. 20. And the danger of interruption or depriuation of the Ministery by the violent Iewes persecution Act. 21. 12. 24. 27. 28. Thus is the first point confirmed to the which doctrine sundrie godly learned men euen so many as I haue reade of this point doe also consent both in the same words and proofes viz. * vid. Caluin in Mat. 12. 1. 3 fol. 260. Vrsin cat part 3. fol. 707. immediat ante praecept 1. impress Cantabridg anno 1585. Piscator in Mat 12. 1. 2. 3. in analisi fol. 190. in obseruat ad eundem locum fol. 205. 106. 107 Idem in obseruat in Mat. 9. 13. fol. 156. Idem in obser ad Mat. 15. 3. 4. 5. 6. fol. 243. Polan syntagm Theolog. lib. 9 c. 29 fol. 4077. 4078. Martyn in summula verbi dei cap. 2. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. fol. 47. 48. de-calogo Mr. Perkins vol. 1. of his workes treatise of conscience Cap. 2. fol. 520. Yet to this poynt or proposition howsoeuer firme it bee in it selfe as hath appeared and is approoued by the best diuines yet some obiections haue beene layd against it which I will heere set downe Ob. Where it is sayd in the former proposition when two dueties doe meete at one time it is obiected that they cannot bee dueties both at once For if they were both dueties they would both bind and so a man must needes commit a sinne seeing hee is straitned betweene two dueties and must omit the one this therefore is not well proposed Ans The mentioning of these two duties meeting together at one time in our practise doeth not intend that they doe both of them bynd the conscience at the same instant but they are called dueties as they are considered apart being both workes are commanded of God in two seuerall commandements Which two workes being dueties considered apart doe sometimes offer themselues to our practise at one instant As to heare a Sermon at the Church on the Sabboth and to tend a sicke person ready to die at home at the sametime both are duties being cōsidred apart but meeting together and offering themselues to our practise at one time there is indeede but one duety because both cannot be performed in one instant In which case the greater worke is the duety the lesser bindes not for that present In like case for a minister to refuse inconuenient ceremonies albeit it be a duty being cōsidered apart from the duty of preaching the word yet when it meeteth with the duty of preaching so as preaching the word will not stand with refusing inconuenient ceremonies this refusing of ceremonies bindeth not the cōscience but leaueth to be a duty There are not two duties at that instant but only one which is to preach the word of God In which case the refusing of inconuenient Ceremonies is no duety neither is their practise a sinne yea the practise of them is a duety if otherwise they cannot preach the Word this obiection therefore needeth not Obiection The doctrine included in that point or proposition is not true because there may be a greater duetie neglected for the performance of a lesser which may then be done when the performance of the lesser keepeth him frō sin as for example A Preacher enioyned to preach naked ought to neglect preaching Besides it is contrary to the rule of the Apostle Rom. 3. 8. The least euil must not be done that the greatest good may be performed For when I cannot doe it without sinne it is no duety and therefore you should propose the matter thus It is necessary to performe
a lesser sinne for to performe a duety that is greater Answere First the doctrine of the proposition remaineth true notwithstanding this obiection For the case is proposed not of a sinne and a duetie but of two dueties being considered a part being both commanded of God and there is no such case wherein a greater duetie is to bee neglected for the performance of a lesser which also is in reason absurd Secondly to the instance of preaching in a naked manner I say that in this case there are two things to bee considered Necessitie and Decency if then he cannot preach naked but with the perill of his life he ought to refuse preaching it being a case of necessity and mercy is better then sacrifice But if his life will consist with his naked preaching hee ought to preach notwithstanding the scandall or indecencie if there bee no other meanes admitted for his preaching 1 Because a mans naked body being considered as it is naked it is the good creature of God and is not indecent to be looked on but to vncleane and vaine mindes it is decent enough to the pure 2 Because the gayning of soules and meanes of mans saluation is a duety of farre greater reason and waight then the auoyding of an inconuenient circumstance of scandall or of seeming indecencie arising only by accident not from the nature of the obiect and the like case is of the practise of our Ceremonies to redeeme the libertie of preaching to the place Rom. 3. 8. which sheweth that we may not doe the least euill to compasse the greatest good I say that to the present purpose wee may consider euill two manner of wayes For first euill is either that which is formally simply and in nature euill which no circumstance can amend As to redeeme preaching vpon condition of blaspheming God Inuocating the Deuill committing of idolatry periury idultery teaching of heresie or the like the which kind of euill is intended by the Apostle and may not bee done at any hand for the gayning of the greatest good 2 Againe euill may bee taken for that which is onely circumstantially ceremonially or accidentally euill which kind of euill may in some cases bee practised without sinne namely in case of superior reason at what time it is improperly called euill That this is so appeareth in the Priests who brake the Sabbath in Dauid who did that which was not lawfull for him to doe and yet were blamelesse and innocent Mat. 12. 4 5. 7. Also in the practise of Iewish inconuenient and many wayes euill Ceremonies which practise was so farre from being euill in that case that it was good and necessary Act. 15. 28. 29. touching this obiection see more at the end of the argument Obiect Mordecay refused to bow and performe the gesture of reuerence to Haman yea though hee were commanded by the King Hest 3. 1 2 3. by which refusall of obedience to a ceremoniall hee violated two greater dueties One was the Kings command and the other was the hazard of his life and destruction of the Church of the Iewes and thereby for performance of a lesser duetie hee did violate a greater Answ Either this gesture was Spirituall or Ciuill if the former hee ought to auoide spirituall adoration to a creature an heathen a wicked person an Amalekite and an enemy of the Church which is a sufficient and the true answere and thus doe all interpreters vnderstand this place thus the Hebrew glosse thus the Apocryphall prayer in the additions to Hester Lyra Vataplus Iunius Drusius Merlyne vpon these places If the latter either his action was euill or good if euill in disobeying the Magistrate in a thing indifferent it is impertinently alledged if well the reason is vnknowne and not expressed wee cannot iudge of the qualitie of the dueties compared if he did refuse this reuerence 1 Because hee was of the Amalekites which were especially cast out by God Exod. 11. 14. Deut. 25. 7. Num. 24. 7. 2 Because an open prophane person a malitious and professed aduersary of Gods Church 3 Because himselfe was a better man then Haman being the Queenes Vncle it may bee considerable whether hee did not well euen in this respect to refuse this reuerence Touching the hazard of his life and ruine of the Church it was vnknowne to Mordecai for Haman practised it because he did refuse it Obiect Daniel neglected a greater duety to performe a lesser for hee continued to pray three times a day kneeling vpon his knees his window being open towards Ierusalem notwithstanding that he knew that he should die for doing it so hee preferred the ceremonie and circumstance of prayer which was a smaller duetie before the safety of his life which was a greater Dan. 6. 10. Also the Iewes chose rather to die then to eate Swines flesh 2. Mac. 7. 1. and 6. 8. preferring obseruance of a ceremoniall duetie before their life Answ To these instances I first demaund whether these bee brought therefore to conclude that therefore Ministers should rather die then to vse the Ceremonies prescribed in our Church And let it bee considered seriously by euery person truely fearing God whether they thinke it fit for another or could resolue himselfe to loose this life by being at a stake for none other cause then for refusing the prescribed Ceremonies especially in a true Church of Christ wherein there are otherwise a true confession of faith and sufficient meanes of their saluation If it should fall out that they would not die in such a case I would know further how then they could loose their Ministery for not vsing them seeing it were better for a Minister to loose his life then to loose the comfort of his Ministerie Act. 20. 24. 1. Cor. 9. 15. If they would rather suffer death then vse the Ceremonies let them shew the ground and comfort they should haue before the Lord in this proceeding If they alleadge these instances I wil shew to how small purpose they serue therein therefore I say that their cases doe farre differ from the case in question First they were controuersies depending betweene the heathen and professed enemies of Gods Church and betweene the people of Gods couenant and members of the Church our controuersies are in the Church and betweene professed louers and beleeuers in Christ Secondly they were cases of confession wherein they were called to confesse the trueth and religion of God amongst Gods enemies as also the necessitie of inuocation of Gods name and of obedience to Gods precepts With vs the doctrine of Ceremonies is true and according to Gods word and the parts of our generall confession in the Booke of Articles is agreeable to the word of God Thirdly the dueties were of exceeding great moment for the performance whereof they should haue hazarded and lost many liues Daniel stood in obedience of a maine substantiall duetie not Ceremoniall or circumstantiall of the first commandement namely prayer to God and praysing of his name
dutie tying the conscience with a greater band then the dutie of refusing to conforme or the like These two points therefore being thus confirmed it followeth That for a Minister to suffer himselfe to be depriued of his Ministery for refusing to conforme to the prescribed Ceremonies is contrary to Gods word and so an error in doctrine and sinne in practise Now I will answere the obiections which are brought against this poynt Obiect The Ceremonies prescribed in our Church are vnlawfull as they are prooued by sundry reasons by the depriued Ministers therefore wee may not conforme vnto them but rather suffer depriuation for wee may not doe euill that good may come thereof Rom. 3. 8. Answ If it should be granted which they cōtend for It followeth Answ not that because they be vnlawfull in some respect therefore they may or bee conformed vnto because a man may doe that which is vnlawfull in some respect and yet not sinne against God as appearth by these instances out of Scripture A man may breake the Sabboth It is our Sauiours phrase in some respects and yet be blamelesse before God Mat. 12. 5. A man may doe that in some case which by Gods Law is not lawfull for him as our Sauiour Christ speaketh to doe and yet bee innocent Matth. 12. 3. A man may in some cases performe some circumstances in a substantiall worship of God not as it is written and yet performe that worship in Gods acceptation and with his blessing 2. Chron. 30. 18 19 20 21 25 26. A man may in some case practise lawfully and necessarily Act. 15. 19 20. such Ceremonies which in some other cases to practise were impotent and beggarly rudiments Gal. 4. 9. will worships traditions commandements and doctrines of men Collos 2. 20 21 22 23. and in many maine respects euill and vnlawfull Againe vnto the Apostles saying I further say that a man may bee sayde to doe some euill to doe some good Which answere will appeare out of the sayde places For to breake the Sabboth was euill yet to breake the Sabboth in some duetie to further a greater duetie in Gods worship which was good made the Priests blamelesse To doe a thing not lawfull was euill yet to preserue life which is good made Dauid innocent before God To performe Gods worship not as it was written was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a sinne yet to further Gods substantiall worships which was a good thing was not regarded of God To practise antiquated and superannuated vnprofitable yea very hurtfull Ceremonies was vnlawfull yet to purchase the libertie of the Gospell and vnitie of brethren which was good made their practise good and necessary So that this rule of the Apostle must bee limited and in some cases holdeth not for that as wee see a man may bee sayde to doe some euill that some greater good may come thereof the reason whereof is included in the foregoing argument the summe whereof is this Because the relinquishing of obedience to a lesser duty leaueth to be a sinne when a greater duety commeth in place which yet were euill if the greater duety were absent As for example to violate sacrifice namely to breake the Sabbath by rubbing eares of corne to eate that which is expresly forbidden him of God and so to doe a thing not lawfull is noe sinne when mercy and necessity comes in place which if mercy or other superior worke and duety were away were sinne In a word a man may doe a thing euill in vse circumstance and by accident so it be not simply and in nature euill also a man may violate a duety ceremoniall to further or accomplish a morrall good thing in which case the euill of the action ceaseth and this was the Apostles in the practise of the Iewish ceremonies Obiect But the ceremonies prescribed in our Church are not onely euill in the vse or inconuenient but are in their nature simply euill especially in their vse as appeareth by the reasons made against them in sundry writings of the depriued Ministers Ergo by noe meanes may they bee conformed vnto to procure the greatest good An. 1 The reasons alleadged by the depriued Ministers to prooue these ceremonies to be simply euill are very weake and friuolous because as it is noted in the first argument they al of them or the most part be applied to the Iewish ceremonies practised enioyned by the inspired Apostles and therefore either the practise and prescription of such ceremonies in a case of necessity leaueth to bee a sinne or else the Apostles must be accused for practising of such things as were simply a sinne and it is not in Apostolicall power to make a matter simply and in nature sinne to be noe sinne at all Howsoeuer these ceremonies bee now iudged in their nature simply euill by the depriued Ministers yet they were neuer so iudged of in the church of christ in any age or place by any sound teacher or wel grounded Christian the most curious sights among them that most stand for reducing of the Church to the primitiue purity in discipline ceremonies that euer looked on them in these dayes though they wished them to bee abolished as being many wayes inconuenient yet they iudged of them in their nature as things indifferent not onely as they are considered in themselues but as they are in vse with vs. Thus iudged they of a surplesse or linnen garment in the worship of God In a surplesse there is no impious thing per se noe not Bucer in the vse of it Script Anglican fol. 79. Hoopero These garments are not impure of themselues speaking also of their vse idem in his Epistle to Io. Alasco In the English litargie there is nulla manifesta impietas Epist Caluin P. Martyr 200. fol. 336. Per se sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these garments are of themselues indifferent Loc. com fol. 1085. amico cuidam The vse of them not impious or pernitious per sese aut sua natura verbo dei contrariae ibidem 1086. Hoopero These garments are not per se impiae impious of themselues that a Minister should rather leaue his Ministry then Beza vse them Epist 12. fol 98. I graunt them to bee indifferent being considered in themselues It is adiaphoron natura in the vse a matter indifferent in nature Enchirid. Tit. 1. de Adiaph Clas 3. cap. 16. Hemingius fol. 375. It is liberum per se a free matter of it selfe to vse or not Zanchius to vse de redempt lib. 1. cap. 16. fol. 445. yea magis deceret vestis linea quam lanea It is an indifferent thing Lo. 33. Quaest. 13. fol. 382. Bucan It is a thing indifferent in vse in Ezech. cap. 44. fol. 807. Polanus The surplesse in the owne nature indifferent meaning Cartwright in the vse for hee perswaded to the vse in the case of depriuation Rest of the second reply fol. 262. Thus also
externall circumstances actions or Ceremonies for the more orderly fit and decent performance of the substantialls as obseruation of fit time as either night or day and this or that houre in either place publike or priuate site of body as sitting standing kneeling high or low singing saying and the like The which degrees and differences of duties are thus distinguished vnto vs by the holy Ghost himselfe who hath taught vs to seuer the loue of God a substantiall of the first Table and iudgement mercy fidelitie substantialls of the second Table from the tithing of mint cummin annisse rue and all manner of hearbes a ceremoniall Law which yet was a duty being commanded and must be done calling the one sort of duties the weightier matters of the Law Matthew 12. 23. Luk. 11. 43. separating them by that title from the other which must be lesse weightie or as they called the lesser commandement Matthew 25. 19. Calling the one mercy the other sacrifice Matthew 12. 7. the one the knowledge of God the other burnt offerings Hosea 6. 6. the one Gods kingdome the other not so Rom. 14. 17. betweene the which he teacheth vs to put as much difference as betweene a Cammell and a Gnat Matth. 23. 23. 24. himselfe accepting the former without the latter Marke 16. 15. 16. but not the latter without the former tying the promise of saluation simply to the greatest but not to the inferiour without the greater Consider that there is a subordination of these duties of the Law whereof there are these forenamed degrees as namely that the greater duties such as haue in them greatest reason and band doe tye the conscience doe ouerrule the lesser and command obedience with the neglect of the other for that present when they meete together So as the neglect of the lesser leaueth to bee a sinne for the performance of the greater as the neglect of obeysance to a noble man or inferiour person is no offence in presence of a King and this subordination is generall to all the duties of the Law except the supremest of all other then which there is none higher as the highest duties vnto God feare loue confidence repentance which must neuer be commanded ouerruled by other duties inferior whatsoeuer they be and the reason is because the supremacy of God and the immediate proximity betweene these duties and God which also in respect of the immutable nature attributes of God which must leaue to be God and deny his titles of iustice of mercy goodnesse truth c. if hee should dispence with them Now the truth of this subordination I wil in order manifest in 4. propositions following First the substantiall duties of the first Table doe ouerrule Propos 1. the substantialls of the second Table Loue of Christ a substantiall of the first Table ouerruleth the loue of parents of wife children friendes brethren substantialls of the second Table Matthew 10. 37. yea so farre must the one yeeld vnto the other that for the loues sake of Christ the loue of parents must bee turned into hate Luke 14. 26. 33. and tokens thereof Deut. 13. 6. 7. 8. 9 13 Psalme 139. 21. 22. 2. Chronicles 19. 2. Obedience to good meeting the obedience to the Magistrate ouerruleth it Acts 4. 19. and 15. 29. This was the case of the three children of Daniel praying and of the Iewes refusing Swines flesh who disobeyed the Magistrate to obey GOD and neglected life a substantiall of the second Table to professe GODS trueth and to refuse Idolatrie substantialls of the first Table Secondly The substantialls of the second Table doe ouerrule the ceremonialls of the first Table so to sustaine nature in prouiding and eating corporall food meeting with the strict ceremoniall rest of the Iewish Sabbaoth the one a substantiall of the second Table the other a ceremoniall appendix to the first Table the former ouerrules the latter in which case GOD sayth I will haue mercy and not sacrifice Matthew 12. 47. Also workes of necessitie implying seruile labour as the carrying whom of a bed Iohn 5. 8. 9 10 mercie to a man sicke and diseased Matthew 12. 10. 12 13 Luke 13. 14. 15 16 mercie to a beast to saue his life Matthew 12. 11. 12 to giue him necessaries Luke 14. 5. 6 and 13 15 meeting at the same time with a ceremoniall obseruation of the Sabbaoth though commaunded in the Law and a dutie Exodus 20. 10. and 31 15 16 and 35. 3. The former ouerrules the latter by the reason yeelded by our Sauiour That the Sabbaoth was made for man and not man for the Sabbaoth Mark 2. 27 and it is lawfull though violating ceremoniall rest to doe morrally well vpon the Sabbaoth Matthew 12. 12 for in these cases God will haue mercy and not sacrifice Thirdly the substantials of the second table of greater reason do ouerule the substantialls of the second table of lesser reason Thus it is a duty of Magistrates to put wilfull murtherers to death Gen. 9. 6. Exo. 21. 12. 14. Leuit. 24. 17. Deut. 19. 11. 12. 13. Num. 35. 16 without recompence or dispensation Numb 35. 31. 32. the not executing of which law draweth on the whole land the heauy plagues of God Numb 35. 33. Deut. 21. 8. 9. And this was a substantiall dutie of the second table yet this dutie is ouer ruled by a case of necessitie for the safetie of the policie of the kingdome and state of the Church so Ioab the wilfull murderer of Abner 2. Sam. 3. 27. of Amasa 2. Sam. 12. 10. and that in the time of peace 1. Kin. 2. 5. and of Vriah 2. Sa. 11. 16. 17. is suffered to liue all the time of King Dauid viz. because he was being Captaine of the host too hard for him 2. Sam. 3. 39. which implyed the safetie of himselfe and of all the whole state which was a substantiall of the second table of greater reason then the other neither is Dauid reprooued or the land plagued for this thing neither was it repented because it was no sinne in him to passe by lesser worke commanded for the performance of a worke of greater reason Againe it is a breach of a substantiall dutie of the second table Exo. 10. 14. and euen of the law of nature for ab initio non fuit sic Mar. 10. 6. 7. 8. 9. Math. 19. 8. for the Magestrate or the Church Mat. 19. 3. 4. 8. Mar. 10. 6. 7. 8. 9. to command Deut. 24. 1. 2. Mar. 10. 3. 5. Mat. 19. 7. or to permit Matth. 19. 8. husbands to put away their wiues for euery cause Matth. 19. 3. as namely for some filthynesse espied in them Deut. 24. 1. yet this did Moses to preuent the breach of an higher precept namely many grieuious inconueniences in the whole policie of the Iewes arising from the obstinacie and cruelty of an obdurate people such as were the Iewes In which respect Moses is not reproued for this thing by our Sauiour
Christ and that from the reason for which Moses did permit this inconuenient precept which was the hardnesse of the Iewish nations heart Matth. 19. 8. Marke 10. 5. Also it is not lawfull for it is not good to cast away the good creatures of God which may serue for the life of man but they must bee preserued that nothing bee lost Matthew 15. 26. Iohn 6. 12. 13. yet in a case of necessitie to preserue life and preuent violent death a substantiall of the second table of greater reason Paul and the rest of his company which were in the Ship with him in danger of Shipwracke did lawfully cast with their owne handes the tackling and the wheate out of the Ship into the Sea where it was spoiled and destroyed Acts 27. 19. 38. Fourthly and lastly the substantials of the first table doe ouerrule the ceremonials of the first table which includeth the case in question It was vnlawfull in the law for the Priestes to admit or for the people to come vnto the Sacraments otherwise then as it was written though the failing was but a ceremoniall matter yet so did the people come and the Priestes admit the people in the time of Hezekias that the substantiall worship of God in the Passeouer should not bee hindred In which respect God layed not the breach of dutie to the charge of such as sought God in that Sacraments with their whole heart 2. Chron. 33. 18. 19. 20. likewise the substantiall worships of God requiring paines and labour of body such as the sacrifice of the law and other businesse to be done vpon the Sabboth meeting the precept of bodily rest vpon the Sabboth by which practise the Sabboth in respect of the rest is broken Mat. 5. 12. yet in respect of performance of the superior and substantiall worships they were blamelesse for breaking the Sabboth in the ceremoniall rest thereof The vnlawfulnesse of Iewish Ceremonies in many respects hath before appeared whereby was violated a ceremoniall circumstantiall dutie of the first Table which yet the Apostles we see did practise to further the substantials thereof namely the libertie of the Gospel and edification and peace of the Church of God By all which instances wee may see this conclusion prooued A matter euill by it selfe alone considered leaueth to be euill when a superior dutie commeth in place to ouerrule it whereby we may inferre that admitting the Ceremonies prescribed to bee euill in some sence yet in performance of a superior worke as to continue in preaching of the worke they leaue to bee a sinne Because the dutie of refusing of such like Ceremonies is a subordinate dutie to the practising of the word by preaching the one being a dutie circumstantiall the other an externall dutie substantiall Obiection To conforme to these Ceremonies prescribed is the violation of a negatiue precept now negatiue precepts doe bind ad semper and as Master Perkins saith Golden Chaine cap. 19. they bind at all times and to all times The affirmatiue bindeth at all times but not to all times A negatiue is broken by acting or doing a thing forbidden an affirmatiue is broken by omitting some dutie positiuely commanded as for example I may for a time omit preaching or prayer I am not bound continually to vse them but haue houres of omission But no sinne of adultery bowing to an idoll murther swearing prophaning of the Sabboth so neither of conforming to forbidden Ceremonies The negatiues are these Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any similitudes Exodus 20. 4. giue no offence to the Church 1. Cor. 10. 32. vse not the fashions of idolaters Leuit. 19. 27. 28. wherefore we may not neglect the refusing of Ceremonies to redeeme our dutie of preaching Answere 1 This rule is not rightly conceiued for Master Perkins saith not that all negatiues doe alway bind and in all cases so that in no case they may at any time be violated but only addeth that negatiues are of more force then affirmatiues which indeede is trew Also this rule is not generally true for these precepts were negatiue which yet were violated none but Priestes must eare sheaw bread let none of the people eate thereof not lawfull but onely for Priestes Matth. 12. 4. yet Dauid did lawfully violate it and they that were with him out of standing reason I will haue mercie not sacrifice Matthew 12. 7. thou shalt doe no worke Exodus 20. 10. yet the Priestes brake this and are blamelesse the Apostles violate it and are innocent by the former reason I will haue mercie and not sacrifice Matthew 12. 1. 2. 5. 7. In the the like case men doe lawfully feede and saue the life of their cattle Mat. 12. 11. 12. Lu. 14. 5. 6. and 13. 15. seruile labour is vsed as carrying of a bead Ioh. 5. 8. 9. 10. cast not bread to whelpes Matth. 15. 26. let nothing of Gods good creatures be lost Ioh. 6. 12. 13. yet Paul and his company doe lawfully cast away the goods in the Ship to saue their liues Acts 27. 19. 38. Let no murtherer liue let not thine eye spare a man hating and killing his neighbour Deut. 19. 11. 12. 13. Num. 35. 30. 31. 32. 33. yet Dauid suffered Ioab the murtherer of Amasa Abner Vriah all his dayes vpon this ground hee was to hard for Dauid 2. Samuel 3. 39. till after his death 1. Kings 2. 5. 6. neither was Dauid reprooued or the land plagued as it was threatned Numb 35. 33. Deut. 21. thou shalt not kill Exodus 20. 13. no not in heart or intention Matthew 5. 21. 22. yet Abraham sinned not but is commended and rewarded of God for purposing and setling himselfe to kill his onely sonne Genesis 22. 11. 16. grant no diuorce betweene man and wife for euery cause not for light cause Ab initio non fuit sic Matthew 19. 8. yet Moses is not blamed for permitting or commanding such a bill Matthew 19. 8. Deut. 24. 1. 2. but is iustified because hee did it for the hardnesse of their hearts Matthew 19. 8. Marke 10. 5. Let none bee vncircumcised after eight dayes Genesis 8. 11. 12. 13. yet for fortie yeeres there was not one circumcised Ios 5. 5. 6. 7. 9. let none legally vnsanctified be admitted to the Passeouer 2. Chron. 30. 18. Matth. 7. 6. yet in case of necessitie some were admitted and approued of God being internally sanctified 2. Chro. 30. 19. 20. hate not father mother brother sister wife life Exodus 21. 17. Pro. 20. 20. yet when Christ calleth vs to shew our loue to him and that the loue of these will not stand with our loue to Christ we must hate them indeede and testifie it by our outward practise Luke 14. 26. 33. Deut. 13. 6. 7. 8. 9. 2. Chro. 15. 16. for the better explication of this rule and to see how farre it holdeth and how smally it concernes our case I say first that this rule holds in the duties of the first table which