for the Apostolicall function Lastly Christ was sent euen as he was man to be a teacher of the Iewes therfore be is called the minister of circumcision Rom. 15. 8. so the Apostles are sent by him to teach the Gentiles Thus far is the comparison to be enlarged no further And that no man might imagine that some parte of this resemblance stands in a power of binding conscience Christ hath put a speciall exception when he saith Goe teach all nations teaching them to obserue al things that I have commanded you Arg. 6. Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist â—â—all receive to them selues iudgement and ye must be subiect not onely for wrath but also for conscience sâ—â—e Answ. Magistracie indeed is an ordinance of God to which we owe subiectioÌ„ but how farre subiection is due there is the questioÌ„ For body goods outward coÌ„versation I grant all but a subiection of coÌ„science to mans lawes I deny And betweene these two there is a great difference to be subiect to authority in conscience to be subiect to it for conscience as wil be manifest if we do but consider the phrase of the Apostle the meaning whereof is that we must performe obedience not onely for anger that is for the auoiding of punishment but also for the auoiding of sinne so by coÌ„sequent for auoiding a breach in coÌ„scieÌ„ce Now this breach is not properly made because mans law is neglected but because Gods law is broken which ordaineth magistracie withall binds mens consciences to obey their lawfull commandements And the daÌ„nation that is due unto men for resisting the ordinance of God comes not by the single breach of magistrates commandemet but by a transgression of the law of God which appointeth magistrates their authority To this answer papists reply nothing that is of moment Therfore I proceed Arg. 7. 1. Cor. 4. What will you that I come unto you with a rod or in the spirit of meeknes Now this rod is a iudicial power of punishing sinners Answ. For the regiment protection of Gods Church There be 2. rods mâ—…oned in scripture the rod of Christ the Apostolicall rodd The rod of Christ is termed a rod of iron or the rod of his mouth it signifies that absolute soueraigne power which Christ hath ouer his creatures wherby he is able to coÌ„uert saue them or to forsake and destroy them And it is a peculiar priuiledge of this rodde to smite and wound the conscience The Apostolicall rodde was a certaine extraordinary power whereby God inabled them to plague and punish rebellious offenders with grieuous iudgements not in their soules but in their bodies alone With this rod Paul smote Elimas blind Peter smote Ananias and Saphira with bodily death And it may be that Paul by this power did giue up the incestuous man when he was excommunicate to be vexed in his body and tormented by the deuill but that by this rodde the Apostles could smite conscience it can not be prooued Arg. 8. 1. Tim. 3. Paul made a law that none hauing two wiues should be ordained a Bishop now this law is positiue and Ecclesiasticall and bindes conscience Answ. Paul is not the maker of this law but God himselfe who ordained that in mariage not three but two alone should be one flesh and that they which serue at the altar of the Lord should be holy And to graunt that this law were a new law beside the written word of God yet doeth it not follow that Paul was the maker of it because he used not to deliuer any doctrine to the Churches but that which he receiued of the Lord. Argum. 9. Luc. 10. He which heareth you heareth me Answ. These wordes properly concerne the Apostles and doe not in like maner belong to pastors teachers of the Church And the end of these wordes is not to confirme any Apostolicall authority in making lawes to the conscience but to signifie the priviledge which hee had vouchsafed them aboue all others that he would so farre forth assist them with his spirite that they should not erre or be deceiued in teaching publishing the doctrine of saluation though otherwise they were sinfull men according to Matth. 10. It is not you that speake but the spirite of my father which speaketh in you And the promise to be led into all truth was directed vnto them Arg. 10. 1. Cor. 11. I praise you that yee keepe my commandements Answ. Paul deliuered nothing of his owne concerning the substance of the doctrine of saluation the worship of God but that which he receiued from Christ the precepts here ment are nothing else but rules of decencie comely order in the congregation and though they were to be obeyed yet Pauls meaning was not to binde any mans conscience therewith For of greater matters he saith This I speake for your commoditie and not to intangle you in a snare 1. Cor. 7. 35. Arg. 11. Councels of ancient fathers when they commaÌ„d or forbid any thing do it with threatning of a curse to the offenders Ans. The church in former time used to annexe vnto hir Canons the curse anathema because things decreed by them were indeed or at the least thought to be the will and word of God and they had respect to the saying of Paul If any teach otherwise though he be an angell from heauen let him be accursed Therfore councels in this action were no more but instruments of God to accurse those whome he first of all had accursed Arg. 12. An act indifferent if it be commanded is made necessary the keeping of it is the practise of vertue therefore euery law bindes conscience to a sinne Ans. An act in it selfe indifferent being commaÌ„ded by mans law is not made simply necessary for that is as much as gods law doth or can doe but only in some part that is so far forth as the said act or action tends to maintaine and preserue the good end for which the law is made And though the action be in this regard necessary yet doth it still remaine indifferent as it is considered in it selfe out of the ende of the law so as if peace the common good comely order may be maintained all offence auoided by any other meanes the act may be done or not done without sinne before God For whereas God himselfe hath giuen liberty freedome in the use of things indifferent the law of man doeth not take away the same but onely moderate and order it for the common good Arg. 13. The fast of Lent stands by a lawe and commandement of men and this lawe bindes conscience simply for the ancient fathers haue called it a Tradition Apostolicall and make the keeping of it to be necassary and the not keeping of it a sinne and punish the offenders with excommunication Answer It is plaine to him that will not be
obstinate that Lent fast was not commaunded in the Primitiue Church but was freely kept at mens pleasures in seuerall Churches diuersly both in regard of space of time as also in respect of diversity of meats Ireneus in his epistle to Victor â—…ed by Eusebius saith Some have thought that they must fast oâ—… day some two daies some more some 40. houres day and night which diversitie of fasting commendeth the vnitie of faith Spiridion a good man did eate flesh in Lent and caused his guest to doe the same and this he did upon iudgemeÌ„t because he was perswaded out of Gods worde that to the clean all things were cleane And Eusebius recordes that Montanus the hereuke was the first that prescribed solemne and set lawes of fasting And whereas this fast is called an Apostolicall tradition it is no great matter for it was the manner of the ancient Church in former times to tearme rites and orders Ecclesiasticall not set downe in scriptures Apostolicall orders that by this meanes they might commend them to the people as Ierome testifieth Every province saith he may thinke the constitutions of the ancestours to be Apostolicall lawes And whereas it is said to be a sinne not to fast in Lent as Augustine speaketh it is not by reason of any commandement binding conscience for Augustine saith plainly that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed any set time of fasting Chrysostome that Christ neuer commanded vs to follow his fast but the true reason hereof is borrowed from the ende For the Primitiue Church vsed not the popish fast which is to eat whitmeate alone but an abstinence from all meates vsed specially to morufie the flesh and to prepare men before-hand to a worthy receiuing of the Eucharist And in regarde of this good ende was the offence And whereas it is said that auncient fathers taught a necessitie of keeping this fast euen Hierome whome they alledge to this purpose saith the contrary For confuting the errour of Montanus who had his set times of fast to be kept of necessity hee saith We fast in Lent according to the Apostles tradition as in a time meete for vs and wee doe it not as though it were not lawfull for vs to fast in the rest of the yeere except Penticost but it is one thing to doe a thing of necessitie and anothing to offer a gift of free-vvill Lastly excommunication was for the open contempt of this order taken vp in the Church which was that men should fast before Faster for their further humiliation preparation to the sacrament So the 29. canoÌ„ of the councill of 〈◊〉 must be understood As for the Canons of the Apostles so falsely called and the 8. councill of Toledo I much respect not what they say in this case Arg. 14. Gods authority binds conscience magistrates authority is Gods authority therefore magistrates authority binds conscience properly Ans. Gods authority may be takeÌ„ two waies first for that soueraigne and absolute power which he useth ouer all his creatures secondly for that finite limited power which he hath 〈◊〉 that men shall exercise ouer men If the minor 〈◊〉 that Magistrates authority is Gods authority be taken in the first sense it is false for the soueraigne power of god is mooueâ—…ic able If it be taken in the second sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 false For there be sundry authorities ordained of God as the authority of the father oner the childe of the master over the servant the authority of the master ouer his scholler which doe not properly and 〈◊〉 bind in conscience as the authority of gods lawes doth By these arguments which I haue now answered by many other being but lightly 〈◊〉 it will appeare that necessary obedience is to be performed both to ciuil ecciesiasticall iurisdiction but that they haue a constraining power to bind conscience as properly as gods laws do it is not yet prooued neither can it be as I will make manifest by other arguments Arg. 1. He that makes a law binding conscieÌ„ce to mortal sinne hath power if not to saue yet to destroy because by sin which follows upon the transgressioÌ„ of his law comes death daÌ„nation But God is the only lawgiuer that hath this priuiledge which is after he hath giueÌ„ his law vpoÌ„ the breaking or keeping thereof to save or destroy Iam 4. 12. There is one lawgiuer that can saue or destroy Therfore God alone makes laws â—inding coÌ„science properly no creature caÌ„ do the like Answer is made that S. Iames speaks of the principall law-giuer that by his own proper authority makes lawes doth in such manner saue destroy that he need not feare to be destroied of any that he speaks not of secondary lawgiuers that are deputies of god make laws in his name I say again that this answer staÌ„ds not with the text For S. Iames speakes simply without distinctioÌ„ limitatioÌ„ or exceptioÌ„ the effect of his reason is this No maÌ„ at all must slander his brother because no man must be iudge of the law no man can be iudge of the law because no man can be a law-giuer to saue and destroy Now then where be those persons that shall make lawes to the soules of men binde them unto punishment of mortall sinne considering God alone is the sauing destroying lawgiuer Arg. 2. He that can make laws as truly binding conscience as gods lawes can also prescribe rules of Gods worship because to bind the conscieÌ„ce is nothing els but to cause it to excuse for things that are well done and therefore truely please God to accuse for sinne wherby god is dishonoured but no man can prescribe rules of gods worship humane lawes as they are humane laws appoint not the seruice of God Esai 29. 13. â—â—â—ir fear towards me was taught by the precept of 〈◊〉 Mat. 15. 9. they worship me in vain teachâ—â—â— doctrines which are the commandements of 〈◊〉 Papists here make answer that by lawes of men we must understand such lawes as be unlawfull or unprofitable being made without the authority of God or instinct of his spirit It is true indeed that these commandements of men were unlawfull but the cause must be considered they were unlawfull not because they commanded that which was unlawful against the will of God but because things in themselues lawfull were commanded as parts of gods worship To wash the outward part of the cup or platter to wash hands before meat are things in respect of civill use very lawfull yet are these blamed by Christ no other reason caÌ„ be rendred but this that they were prescribed not as things indifferent or ciuill but as matters pertaining to Gods worship It is not against Gods worde in some politike regards to make distinctions of meats drinks times yet Paul calls these things doctrines of deuils because they were commaÌ„ded as things
higher powers Rom. 13. 1. or Honour father and mother Exod. 20. which commaundements binde vs in conscience to performe obedience to the good laws of men As S. Peter saith Submit your selues to euery humane ordinance for the Lord 1. Pet. 2. 13. that is for conscience of God as he saith afterward v. 19. wherby he signifieth two thing first that God hath ordained the authority of gouernours secondly that he hath appointed in his word and thereby bound men in conscience to obay their gouernours lawfull commandements If the case fall out otherwise as commonly it doth that humane laws be not inacted of things indifferent but of things that be good in themselues that is commanded by God then are they not 〈◊〉 properly but divine lawes Mens laws intreating of things that are morally good and the parts of Gods vvorshippe are the same with Gods laws and therfore binde conscience not because they were inacted by men but because they were first made by God men beeing no more but instruments and ministers in his name to revive renew and to put in exequution such precepts and laws as prescribe the worship of God standing in the practise of true religion vertue Of this kind are all positiue lawes touching articles of faith the duties of the morall law And the man that breakes such lawes sinnes two waies first because he breaks that which is in conscience a law of God secondly because in disobaying his lawfull magistrate he disobâ—… the generall commandement of God touching magistracie But if it shall fall out that mens lawes be made of things that are cuill and forbidden by God then is there no bonde of conscience at all but contrariwise men are bound in conscience not to obay Act. 4. 19. And hereupon the three children are commended for not obaying Nabuchadnezzar when he gaue a particular commandement vnto them to fall downe and worship the golden image Dan. 3. Moreouer in that mans law binds onely by power of Gods law hence it follows that Gods law alone hath this priuiledge that the breach of it should be a sinne S. Iohn saith 1. epist. 3. Sinne it the anomie or transgressioÌ„ of the law vnderstanding Gods lawe When Dauid by adulterie and murder had offended many men that many waies he saith Psal. 51. against thee against thee haue I sinned And Augustine defined sinne to be some thing said done or desired against the law of God Some man may say if this be so belike then we may breake mens laws without sinne I answer that men in breaking humane lawes both may and doe sinne but yet not simply because they breake them but because in breaking them they doe also breake the law of God The breach of a law must be considered two waies First as it is a trespasse hinderance iniurie damage and in this respect it is committed against mens lawes secondly the breach of a law must be considered as it is sinne and so it is onely against Gods law The second point namely How farreforth mens lawes binde conscience I explane on this manner It is all that the lawes of God doe or can doe to binde conscience simply and absolutely Therefore humane laws bind not simply but so farre forth as they are agreeable to Gods word serue for the coÌ„mongood staÌ„d withgood order and hinder not the libertie of conscience The necessitie of the law ariseth of the necessitie of the good end thereof And as the end is good and profitable more or lesse so is the law it selfe necessarie more or lesse Hence it followeth that a man may doe any thing beside humane lawes and constitutions without breach of conscience For if he shall omit the doing of any law I. without hindrance of the ende and particular considerations for which the law was made II. without offence giuing as much as in him lieth III. without contempt of him that made the law he is not to be accused of sinne Example In time of warre the magistrate of a citie commands that no man shall open the gates the end is that the citie and euery member thereof may be in safetie Now it falls out that certaine citizens beeing vpon occasion without the citie are pursued by the enemie and in daunger of their lifes Herupon some man within openeth the gate to resâ—…e them The question is whether he haue sinned or no. And the truth is he hath not because he did not hinder the ende of the law but rather further it and that without scandal to men or contempt to the magistrate And this stands euen by the equitie of Gods word God made a law that the priests onely should eate of the shewbread now Dauid being no priest did vpon vrgent occasion eate of it without sinne If this be true in Gods law then it may also be true in the lawes of men that they may in some cases be omitted without sinne against God Neither must this seeme strange For as thâ—re is a keeping of a law and a breaking of the same so there is a middle or meane action betwâ—â—ne them both which is to doe thing beside the law and that without sâ—â—â—e To proceede further mens laws be either civill or ecclesiasticall Civill laws are for their substance determinations of necessarie and profitable circumstances tendâ—â—â— to â—â—hold and maintaine the commandemâ—… of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More specially they prescribe what is to be doâ— and what is to be left vndone touching actions both civill criminal touching offices and bâ—rgines of all soâ—â—â— c. yea they conclude inioyne commaÌ„d not onely such affaires as be of smaller importaÌ„ce but also things actions of great waight tending to maintaine common peace civill societie and the very state of the common wealth Now such laws binde so farre forth that though they be omitted without any apparanâ— sâ—â—ndal or contempâ— yet the breach of them is a sinne against God Take this example A subiect in this lande vpon pouertie or vpon a couctous minde against the good law of the land coines money which after ward by a sleight of his wit is cunningly conuaied abroad into the hands of men and is not espied Here is no euident offence giuen to any man nor open contempt shewed to the lawgiuer and yet in this action he hath sinned in that closely otherwise then he ought to haue done he hath hindered the good of the common wealth and robbed the soueraigne prince of her right Ecclesâ—sticall lawes are certaine necessarie and profitable determinations of circumstances of the commaundements of the first table I say bâ—â—e 〈◊〉 because all doctrines pertaining to the foundation and good estate of the Church as also the whole worshippe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 downe and commaâ—nded in the written word of God and cannot be prescribed and concluded otherwise by all the Churches in the world Aâ—â—or the Creedes and Confessionâ— of particular Churches they are in substance Gods word and they binde not in conscience by any power
are forgiven thee For so the Apostle thinketh that a man is iustified freely by faith Papists being much choked with this place make answer that S. Bernard doeth not say that wee â—ust beleeue the pardon of our sinnes absolutely without respect of workes but that hee requires the condition of our conversion and repentance as signes whereby this perswasion is wrought I answer againe that hee auoucheth plainly the generall faith whereby the points of religion are beleeued to be but a beginning or â—udiment of faith and therefore not sufficient vnlesse we goe further and apply the grace of God to our selues by faith simply without respect of any condition perfourmed on mans parte Indeede I graunt that the trueth of conversion and other workes are by him mentioned afterwarde but that was for this ende to shewe how any man may haue a sensible and euident experience by workes as fruits of the pardon of his owne sinnes life euerlasting which he beleeueth Argument 3. S. Iohn penned his first epistle that he might shewe unto the Church of God a way how they might ordinarily and fully be assured of the loue of God and of eternall life and therefore he affordeth vs many pregnant testimonies for this purpose 1. Ioh. 2. v. 3. And by this we know that we haue knowen him if wee keepe his commandements And v. 5. Hee which keepes his word in him is the word of God truely accomplished by this vvee know that wee are in him cap. 3. 10. By this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devill And v. 19. By this vve know that we are of the trueth and before him vvee shall make our hearts confident cap. 4. 13. By this we know that we dâ—â—ll in him and hee in vs because he hath given vs of his spirit cap. 5. 2. By this vvee knowe that we love the sonnes of God when we love god and keepe his commandements vers 13. I have written these things vnto you vvhich beleeve in the name of the sonne of God that yee may knovve that you haue life eternall To these testimonies first of all answere is made that none of them doe necessarily imply a certentie of diuine faith because wee are saide to knowe the thinges which wee leaâ—…e by coniectures Beholde a â—…y and poore shifte Saint Iohn saieth cap. 1. vers 4. These things vvee vvrite vnto yâ—â— that your â—oy may be full Now it is but an uncerten â—oy that riseth by coniecturall knowledge Againe this knowledge brings foorth conscience and bolâ—…sse even before God c. 3. v. 19 21. and therefore it can not but include an infallible cerâ—enâ—y and to put it out of question that the knowledge here mentioned is the knowledge of divine faith or as unâ—â—â—â—ible as it is or can be it is added cap. 4 16. And vvee have knovvon and beleeved the love vvhich God hath tovvardes vs. Secondly it is answered that all these speeches are generall and not concerning particular men but it is false for when Saint Iohn saieth vve know hee speakes of himselfe and includes the rest of the Church in the same condition with himselfe Now hee himselfe was fully assured of his owne saluation For Christ a little before his departure out of the worlde did comfort all his disciples partly by renewing the promise of life euerlasting and of the presence of his spirite unto them and partly by praying unto the father for their finall preseruation so as they could not but be fully resolued of their happy estate both in this life and in the life to come 〈◊〉 4. Abrahams faith 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby hee applyed the promise vnto himselfe Rom. 4. v. â—1 And this faith of his is an example propounded unto vs according to which we are to beleeue and therfore hee is called the father of the faithfull â—â—r 16. and Pâ—…l hauing 〈◊〉 downe the 〈◊〉 â—…d effectes of his faith saith It vvas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely for him but also for vs vvhich 〈◊〉 v. 22. It is obiected that Abrahams faith was not of salvation but it concerned his 〈◊〉 in his olde age as Paul saieth Rom. 4. v. 〈◊〉 Abreham about hope beleeved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the father of many nations according to that vvhich vvas spoken so shall thy seeâ—… be Aâ—svver Wee must distinguish the obiect of faith which is either principall or lesse principall Principall is alwaies Christ with his benefites lesse principall are other lesse and particular benefites obtained by Christ. As of Abrahams faith the obiect lesse principall was a carnall seede or issue and the principall obiect most of all respected as the foundation of all other blessings was the blâ—… seede Christ Iesus Gâ—lat 3. v. 16. To Abraham and his seede vvere the promises made Hee saith not And to the seeds as of many but 〈◊〉 thy â—eed as of 〈◊〉 which is Christ. And v. 29. If yee be Christs then Abrahams seed Thuâ— it is plaine that issue was â—â—ither promised nor desired but with respect to Christ who coulde not haue descended of Abraham if he had bene wholly without seed Hauing thus alledged some arguments for the trueth I come now to consider the obiections of the Papistes Obiect I. Iob beeing a righteous man wanted certenty of grace in himselfe Iob. 9. v. 20. If I vvoulde iustifie my selfe mine evvne mouth shall condemâ—… 〈◊〉 if I vvoulde be perfect he shall iudge me â—icâ—ed though I vvere perfect yet my soule shall 〈◊〉 knovve it Againe vers 28. I am afraid of all my workes knovving that thou vvilt not iudge me innocent Answer Bildad in the former chapter had extolled the iustice of God Iob in this chapter giues assent thereto saying vers 2. I knovve verely it is so and hee likewise spendes the whole chapter in magnifying the iustice of God and hauing propounded this ende of his speech hee doth not speake of him selfe and his owne estate simply as it is considered 〈◊〉 it selfe bus as he esteemed himselfe being compared with God specially then when hee entereth into a straight examination of his creature And so must the speach â—e vnderstoode if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my soule should not knovv it that is I will not acknowledge or stand vpon any righteoâ—… of mine owne when God shal enter into iudgement with me And thus much the very Efect angels beeing in possession of heauen and therefore hauing more then assurance thereof can not but say when they are compared with God Againe the words according to the originall are commonly of all and so may well â—e translated thus Am I perfect I know not my soule I â—â—horre my life that is if I thinke my selfe perfect I haue no respect of mine owne soule oâ— thus I am perfect in respect of you and I know not my soule and I abhorre my life namely in respect of mine owne vprightnes And the other place is thus to be translated I feare all â—â—y sorrowes and not all my works for this is flat against