Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	distinction_n	mortal_a	venial_a	4,934	5	12.1153	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92138	The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.	Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1646 (1646)	Wing R2377; Thomason E326_1; ESTC R200646	722,457	814

should be according to the word of God and not beside the word of God If it be said they have Gods Commanding will in so far that he doth not forbid any thing not contrary to his own word but hath given the Church Authority to adde to his worship things not contrary to his word as they shall see they do promove godlinesse or may edifie the Church But then if the Church must see by the light of reason and naturall judgement aptitude in these to promove godlinesse they are Commanded by God who hath even stamped in them that aptitude to edifie and so are not beside Gods word 4. Our Divines condemne all the Traditions of the Church of Rome as Purgatory Prayer for the dead Imagery Adoring of Reliques all the Crossing Holy water Chrisme Oyl Babies Bells Beads c. Because God hath no where Commanded them and sins veniall and beside the Law and sins mortall and contrary to the Law we condemne because as what is capable of seeing and life and hearing and yet doth not see live nor hear that in good reason we call blinde dead and deaf all beside the word are capable of Morall goodnesse and yet not Morally good because not warranted by Gods word therefore they must be Morally evil III. Conclus Opinion of Sanctity holinesse and Divine necessity is not essentiall to false worship Formalists will have their Ceremonies innocent and Lawfull so they be not contrary to the word of God 2. So they be not instamped with an opinion that they binde the Conscience and are of Divine necessity holinesse and efficacy So Morton their Prelat for opinion of justice necessity efficacy and merit saith he make them Doctrinals and so unlawfull But this is but that which Papists say So Suarez saith That their unwritten Traditions are not added to the word of God as parts of the word of God but as things to be believed and observed by the Churches Commandment and these who did swear by Jehovah and Malcom Zeph. 1. esteemed Malcom and an oath by Malcom not so Religiously and so holy as an oath by Jehovah and Malcom and yet no doubt they ascribed some necessity to oaths by Malcom and Jehoram saying Am I Jehovah to kill and make alive who yet worshipped Ieroboams Calves esteemed the worshipping of these Calves lesse necessary and lesse holy and meritorious then the worshipping of the true Yehovah yet the Calves called their gods which brought them out of the Land of Aegypt had some necessity and opinion of holinesse For 1. Aaron in making a Calf and Proclaiming a Feast to the Calf committed false worship but Aaron placed not holinesse justice or merit in that worship Because Exod. 32. 22. for fear of the people who in a tumult gathered themselves together against him he committed that Idolatry Ergo necessity of Sanctity Merit and Divine obligation is not essentiall to false worship Ieroboam Committed Idolatry in saying These are thy Gods O Israel but he placed no efficacy or merit therein because 1 King 12. 27. He did it least the people going to Ierusalem should return to Rehoboam and kill him And the Philistims dis-worship in handling the Ark unreverently had no such opinion they doubting whither God or Fortune ruled the Ark 1 Sam. 6. 9. It were strange if these who say in their heart There is no God Ezech. 9. 9. Psal 94. 6. And so fail against inward worship due to God should think that the denying of God were service and meritorious service to God and that Peter denying Christ and Iudaizing Gal. 2. 12. for fear thought and believed he did meritorious service to Christ therein Pilate in condemning Christ Iudas in selling him the Souldiers in scourging him did dis-worship to their Creator the Lord of glory Shall we think that Pilate who for fear of the people did this believed he was performing necessary Divine and Meritorious worship to God 2. If opinion of necessity Divine of Merit and sanctity as touching the conscience were essentiall to false worship it were impossible for gain and glory to Commit Idolatry to preach lies in the Name of the Lord for a handfull of barley as Ezek. 13. 19. Mic. 3. 5. 1 Kin. 22. 6. 1 Tim. 4 1 2. Tit. 1. 11. For its a contradiction to Preach Arrianisme Turcisme Popery against the light of the minde only for gain and yet to think that in so doing they be performing meritorious service to God Yea they who devise will-worship know their own will to be the Lord-carver of that worship at least they may know it yet shall we think they hold themselves necessitated by a Religious obligation so to do Else it were impossible that men could believe the burning their Children were will-worship indifferent and Arbitrary to the worshippers which is open war against reason Now a worship cannot be false wanting that which is essentaill to false worship 3. False worship is false worship by order of nature before we have any opinion either that there is Religious necessity in it or meer indifferency Ergo Such an opinion is not of the essence of false worship 4. By that same reason opinion of unjustice or opinion of doing justice should be of the essence of unjustice Cains killing of his Brother should not be Man-slaughter except Cain placed some divine Sanctity in that wicked fact which is against all reason and the reason is alike in both Gods Commanding will and his forbidding will They Answer Gods will constituteth Lawfulnesse in essentiall worship and mans will in things arbitrary but this is to beg the question for when we ask what is essentiall worship they say it is that which God commandeth and what is accidental or arbitrary it is that which human authority commandeth this is just Gods wil is the essentiall cause of that worship whereof it is the essentiall cause mans will is the essentiall cause of that whereof it is the essentiall cause 5. All the materials of Jewish and Turkish worship might be appointed for right worship so we held them to be Arbitrary 6. God cannot forbid false worship but in that tenure that he commandeth true worship but whether we esteem it true or not holy or not he cōmandeth true worship Erg. c. IV. Conclusion It is a vain and unwarrantable distinction to divide worship in essentiall which hath Gods 1. Particular approving will to be the Warrant thereof and worship accidentall or Arbitrary which hath only Gods generall and permissive will and hath mans will for its father so Ceremonies say they In these hath Gods generall will according to their specification whether a Surplice be decent or not is from mans will therefore they are called worship reductively because in their particulars they have no Divine institution and they tend to the honouring of God not as worship but as adjuncts of worship so Morton so Burges Ans As Sacramentall worship is lawfull essentiall worship

and against order in which case the formall object of the just punishment inflicted by the Ruler is in very deed not the simple omission of the positive act of a particular humane Law but the violation of the morall goodnesse annexed to it and of the scandall given Now in this meaning the transgression of the positive humane Law is not kindely Per se of it self punishable but by accident and so it bindeth the conscience by accident And in this sense great Doctors as Ambrose Anselme Theodoret Chrysostom Navarra Felinus Taraquel say That humane Laws oblige the conscience But the most learned of the Canonists aver that not to obey civill Laws laying aside the evil of scandall is no mortall sin and so doth not involve the conscience in guiltinesse before God 2. They object To resist the Laws of the Magistrate is to resist himself and to resist himself is to resist the Ordinance of God Ans To resist the Laws positive and particular in connexion with the morall reason of the Law is to resist the Ruler true But so the question is not concluded against us for by accident in that sense humane Laws binde the conscience but to resist the particular Laws as particular Laws as particular positive Laws is not to resist the Ruler A Ruler as a Ruler doth never command a thing meerly indifferent as such but as good edificative profitable and except you resist the morality of the positive humane Law you resist not the Ruler yea nor yet is the Law resisted 3. The Iesuit Lod. Meratius objecteth Every true Law obligeth either to guiltinesse or to punishment but the civill and Canonick Laws are Laws properly so called But they do not ever oblige to punishment only Ergo They oblige to sin Ans It is denied that Laws civill or Canonicall as meerly particularly positive do oblige as Laws or that they are Laws they be only Laws according to the morality in them that can promove us to our last end eternall felicity It is also false that the Iesuit saith If thou wilt be saved keep the Commandments doth command the keeping of all Civill and Canonick Laws or that hence is concluded a Law obliging the conscience that is humane and positive as if a Lent Fast a Pilgrimage and not carrying Armour in the night were commanded by Christ as necessary to life eternall The same Meratius striveth to answer the Argument of Almain and Gerson which is this Who ever can oblige to sin mortall before God he can inflict eternall punishment but no mortall man can inflict eternall punishment 1. Saith he This Argument would prove sins against the Law of nature as homicide and adultery not to be deadly sins for by the Law of nature eternall punishment is not inflicted for sins against the Law of nature but by the positive will of God If any say God is the author of the Law of nature because he is the Creator of that humane nature in the which this law is written So if that be sufficient that the law of nature oblige under eternall punishment so also the civill and Ecclesiasticall lavv shall binde the conscience because he is the author of that power which maketh Civill and Ecclesiastick laws for there is no power but it is of God Ans 1. By the Law of nature sins against the Law of nature deserve eternall punishment and that essentially laying aside the positive will of God to whom I grant it is free to inflict punishment or not to inflict and this agreeth to all sin But to carry Armour in the night laying aside the case of scandall and the morality thereof that no murther follow thereupon deserveth neither temporall nor eternall punishment And if this Argument of the Iesuits hold good no mortall sin shall oblige to eternall punishment because Gods positive will is the nearest cause of actuall punishment eternall in all sins 2. God is not the Author of a propper no●othetick power in man for that is the question 2. He answereth Distinguishing the Proposition None can oblige to a mortall sin but he who can inflict the eternall punishment of a mortall sin It is true saith he of the punishment which wholly dependeth upon the will of the judge who made the Law but it is not true of that punishment which no way dependeth upon the will of the Iudge such as is eternall punishment excommunication dependeth upon the vvill of man and it obligeth to eternall punishment yet man cannot inflict that eternall punishment for a man may command an act the omission whereof or the commission whereof is of such moment that it serveth much for the good of a community and therefore he vvho of knowledge and vvillingly doth such an act doth sin against right reason and so against the eternall lavv of God Ans 1. The distinction of the Jesuit is but a begging of the question He vvho can oblige to mortall sin by his Lavv can also oblige to eternall punishment if eternall punishment depend vvholly on his free vvill as the Lavv doth What is that but the inflicting of eternal punishment belongeth to him who maketh a Law obliging to sin mortal so being the inflicting of eternall punishment belong to him But our Argument is he who hath dominion and authority to make a Law hath dominion and authority to inflict a punishment answerable to the transgression of that Law for it is one dominion and power to make the Law and to inflict the penalty of the Law Man cannot make the penalty of eternall wrath Ergo he cannot make a Law obliging to eternall wrath 2. Excommunication is not done by mans will but by the power of the keys for a mortall sin deserving excommunication and so eternall wrath If any Excommunicate upon his sole will as wicked Popes have done in that case the will of a man obligeth neither to punishment nor to eternall punishment it is but Brutum Fulmen and not to be feared 3. If any Commit an act that hurteth a whole Community and is forbidden by men in Authority he sinneth against the Law of God though men had never forbidden that Act And we deny not but humane Laws agreeing with the Law of Nature doth oblige the Conscience both to sin and eternall punishment but then they are not humane Laws but Divine Laws and in that case two guiltinesses Duo reatus are Committed one against the fifth Commandment in doing what Superiors according to Gods Word forbiddeth and there is another guiltinesse against the matter it self and a Divine Law which also should stand as a sin before God thought the Ruler had never forbidden it But if any carry Armour in the Night being forbidden by the Iudge for eschewing of night homicide if no homicide follow at all and the matter be not known and so not scandalous the carrier of Armour is involved in no guiltinesse before God CAP. III. Of the power of the

should not delay to pray till he were first delivered from the gall of bitternesse and then pray Sure if Peter had said to Simon Magus First labour to be freed of the gall of bitternesse and to have thy thoughts pardoned and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned as Christ saith First bee reconciled to thy brother and then offer and as Paul saith First Let a man try and examine himselfe and so let him eate and drinke the reply of Erastus should have nerves 2. It is true Christ speaketh not of the externall government of the Church but it is as false that he speaketh of the internall acts of the minde but he speaketh of the right ordering of the externall acts of divine worship which are regulable though not quatenus as regulable by the Church and draweth an argument from the words by necessary consequence which consequence Erastus cannot elude 3. But how doth Erastus prove this consequence if our Exposition stand and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar except we bee first reconciled to our brother and if God approve nothing which we doe which deviates from this perfection we should doe nothing that is good and right and so all must be excommunicated 1. Is Christ here injoyning a work of perfection and of supererogation Is Erastus popish in this 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright so is it not to eate and drinke worthily while first we be reconciled to our brother Erastus was so surfetred with charity as we heard before that if any but desire the Sacrament and professe repentance he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper and here if Christ require but that the partie be reconciled to his brother ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament this is too great strictnesse it should excommunicate us all and we shall so never doe any thing that is right and good 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internall acts onely and of that which our minde injoyneth for the Lord speaketh of three externall visible acts 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother 5. He saith not if the Presbyters bid you saith he leave your offering true he saith not that in words but supposing this that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering he had beene killing his owne sonne to Molech as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer while he should testifie his repentance and finding him impenitent whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God and to be cast out of the Church as 1 Cor. 5. Certaine this is Christs order Be first reconciled to thy Brother and then offer try thy selfe first and then eate and if the Church see this order neglected whether are they to suffer clean and unclean to come and eat and holy things to be prophaned Erastus He shall expede himselfe out of this doubt easily who can distinguish the internall governing of the Church which is proper to God onely who knoweth the thoughts and can judge them without error from the externall governing of the Church in qua falli infinitè omnes possumus in the which we may all infinitely erre and in which we can doe nothing nisi quod mandatum expessè nobis legimus except what vve read to be expresly commanded for here he vvho is not against us is vvith us Marke 9. and no man ought to forbid those which God hath commanded so they bee externally done all externall actions quoad nos to us are good vvhich are done according to the prescript of Gods Word though to God vvho judgeth the heart they be not good every vvay many to day the Pharisees of old many in Pauls time preach for gaine many are ambitious and some out of envy preach Christ never for bad them to teach nor Paul but rejoyced Phil. 1. that Christ was preached hovvever since no man can understand the internall actions or thoughts and without error judge them there is no punishment by mans Law for them onely God vvithout error judgeth and punisheth them Ans There be many untruths here 1. If this distinction of internall and externall governing of the Church remove most of the doubts here he that eates and drinkes unworthily which is an act of externall worship which may be regulated and ordered by the Church for the Church may not administer the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church is no sinne to the unworthy eater because God commanded that externall act expresly as Erastus saith and so it is a good action quoad nos even to the unworthy eater for he knoweth not his owne thoughts nor can he judge them without error especially being unregenerated 2. If Erastus himselfe acknowledge this his owne dis●inction he must acknowledge an externall Church-government and who then are the Governours especially in the Apostolick-Church where heathen Magistrates are Pastors and Teachers no doubt what meaneth this then my Brother trespasseth against me and will not be gained I tell the Church Erastus saith I tell the Christian Magistrate but there is no Christian Magistrate then there was no externall Government in the Church the first hundreth nay nor three hundred yeers in the Church or then it must follow that the Apostles and Pastors were the deputies of heathen Magistrates Ergo the heathen Magistrates should with imposition of hands have been ordained the officers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church And that they were not it was their owne fault for the principall officer must be more principally called to office by Christ and given by him as a gift when he ascended on high to edifie the body of the Church Eph. 4. 11. 3. Erastus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions because God only can judge them sine errore without error But so God only should judge all things internall and externall and there should be no Magistrates because men may erre in judging the externall actions of men and will not this gratifie the Papists who say in this Tell the Church that is the Pope who cannot erre Then the Synod cannot erre Protestants deny the consequence Synods may judge as Act. 15. and yet Synods may erre 4. Erastus will have us lyable to infinite errors in externall actions therefore saith he we should do nothing in externalls but what is expresly commanded but first may we not infinite falli infinitely erre in internall actions and thought and acts of beleeving are we more infallible in internall then in externall actions New Theologie and are we not as well tyed to what is expresly commanded in internall as in externall actions I think the word is as strict a rule and the Law of the Lord as

the Sacraments Heathen remaiing Heathen they should prostitute holy things to Dogs and be guilty of an Heathen mans eating of his owne damnation Hence this Assertion of Mr. Prynne must be a great mistake That Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated grosse impenitent scandalous Christians whom they would suspend from the Sacrament for feare of partaking with them in their sinne as to administer the Sacrament to them because saith he unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthie receiving of the Sacrament 1. Because there is and may be discovered to bee in the congregation persons as unworthy as Heathen such as Simon Magus yea latent Iudasses Parricides who are in the visible Church while God discover their hypocrisie but we may lawfully preach the Word to men as uncapable of the Word as Heathen and as unworthie as Christ and the Apostles did who did not contravene that Cast not Pearles to Swine yet we cannot give the Sacraments to men knowne to be as scandalous uncapable and unworthy as Heathen but we must prostitute holy things to Dogs and partake of their sinne for this is non causa pro causa that Mr. Prynne bringeth to say we may as well refuse to preach the Gospell to scandalous impenitents as to administer the Sacrament without partaking of the sinnes of either because unprofitable hearing is as damning a sinne as unworthy receiving the Supper This Because is no cause it is true they are both damnable sinnes but how proveth he that Preachers partake equally of both I can shew him a clear difference which demonstrateth the weaknesse of this connexion 1. Vnprofitable hearing of the Gospell in a Heathen is as damning a sin as hypocriticall receiving of the Sacrament is a sinne they are not equalia peccata but sure they are ●què peccata but I may preach the Gospel to a Heathen and not partake of his sinne of unprofitable hearing for I may be commanded to preach to a Heathen remaining a Heathen as Paul preached to Felix to the scoffing Athenians to the persecuting Iews and giving obedience to the command of God freeth me from partaking of his unprofitable hearing But I cannot administer the Lords Supper to an Heathen remaining a Heathen without sharing in his sin and suppose a Heathen remaining a Heathen would croud in to the Lords Table as of old many Heathen fained themselves to be Iewes desiring to serve the time 1 Sam. 14. 21. yet I should partake of the Heathens unworthy receiving if knowing him to be a Heathen serving the time and crouding in amongst the people of God I should administer the Lords Supper because I have no command of God to administer the Lords Supper to a Heathen man nor could Paul administer the Sacrament to the scoffing Athenians or to Felix without taking part with them in their prophaning of the Lords Table 2. The necessity of preaching the Word it being simply necessary to the first conversion of a sinner putteth Pastors in a case that they may and ought to preach the Gospell to Heathen and to thousands knowne to be unconverted without any participation of their unprofitable hearing and the non-necessity of the Lords Supper or the Seale of the Covenant and the nourishing of their souls to life eternall who visibly and to the knowledge of those who are dispensers of the Sacrament prophane and abominably wicked putteth those same dispensers in a condition of being compartners with them in the prophaning of the holy things of God if they dispence the bread to those that are knowingly dead in sinnes so the Gospell may be taught in Catechisme to Children Deut. 6. 6 7. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Exod. 12. 26 27. Gen. 18. 19. Prov. 22. 6. because there is a necessity they be saved by hearing Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. but there is no necessity but a command on the contrary that the Lords Supper be dispensed to no children nor to any that cannot examine themselves and they may be saved without the Sacrament but not ordinarily without the Word nor were it enough to forwarne Apostates and persecutors and Hypocriticall heathen and children that if they eate unworthily they eate their owne damnation as Mr. Pryn saith and yet reach the Sacrament to those for the dispensers then should ●ast Pearls to some Dogs and Swine contrary to Mat. 5. 6. and they should be free of the guilt in polluting of holy things if they should give them a watch-word say they were about to prophane the holy things of God before they committed such wickednesse Nor doe we as Mr. Pryn saith nor know we or the Scriptures any such distinction as sealing externally to the senses of any receiving the Lords Supper lawfully divided sinfully it may be divided but there is no Law for sinne no print no authority of men for it from the internall sealing nor heard we ever of two sorts of conversion one externall from Paganisme to the externall profession of the faith wrought extraordinarily by Miracles without the Word and ordinarily by Baptisme in Infants and another internall from formall profession to an inward imbracing of Christ and his merits 1. Because the Stewards and Ambassadors of Christ may notdare to play with the Sacraments as children doe with nuts to seal to mens senses and fancies Christ and spirituall nourishment in him and part in his body broken and blood shed in those who visibly have nothing of faith to their discerning and of the life of Christ but onely senses and fancie such as all visibly and notoriously scandalous walking after the flesh all Herericks Apostates knowne and unwashen Hypocrites have and no more 2. All heathen and unbaptized have senses and are capable of externall washing and externall and Sacramentall eating as well as others are but are they capable of the Seals because they have bodies to be washed and teeth and stomacke to eat Sacramentally And have Ministers warrant enough to dispense the Sacraments to all that have senses But they must be within the visible Church also ere they be capable of Sacraments Mr. Pryn will say but I aske by what warrant Mr. Pryn alledgeth that the Supper of the Lord is a converting ordinance as well as the Word and that Pastors may without sinne dispense the Sacraments to those to whom they preach the Word but they may preach the Word to Heathen remaining Heathen Ergo may they dispense the Lords Supper to Heathen remaining Heathen What more absurd yet remaining Heathen they are as capable of Mr. Pryn his sense-sealing and sense-converting Sacraments as any sound beleever 3. A sealing to the senses cannot be divided from the inward sealing by the Spirit neither in the intention of God for the externall sealing without the internall is Hypocrisie and God cannot intend Hypocrisie nor can this division be in regard of the nature of the Sacrament for it doth seal to us our spirituall nourishment in Christ except we

is onely possible and the good lesse necessary then the good of non-scandalizing then we are not for hope of a possible dutie and lesse necessarie to doe that from whence a Scandall doth arise So it was not lawfull for Paul to take stipend which should have hindered the promoving of the Gospell though he might have imployed that stipend upon charitable uses because that Charitie was a dutie onely possible and incomparably lesse necessarie then the promoting of the Gospell So 1 Cor. 6. 7. Why suffer ye not rather losse yet by that suffering losse they were lesse able for workes of Charitie and to provide for their Familie and Children but the gaine was temporall and not to be compared with a good fame upon Christian religion which was slandered by heathen when they went to law Christian against Christian before an Heathen Judge The fourth scandalous object is that which hath appearance of evill Not every thing is such for good hath the appearance of evill Paybodie to elude this sheweth a number of things which have appearance of evill but ●are good and he nameth among them Hushaies abiding with Absolon in his conspiracie which was plaine dissimulation but that properly hath appearance of evill 1. Quod plaerumque fit malo fine as the Schoolemen define it that which ordinarily is done for an evill end as to ly in bed with another mans wife to sit at the Idols table to bow to an Image 2. That which being good in it selfe yet because of the circumstances is exponed vain-glory as to pray in the streets it s ordinarily exponed to be for this end to be seen of men These who expone that place 1 Thess 5. Abstaine from all appearance of evill to be abstaine from that which seemeth evill to the conscience and judgement of the doer or onely of doctrine reach not the Apostles minde for to sit at the Idols table to bow to an Image and keepe the heart to God are out of doubt appearances of evill forbidden in the text yet are they not doctrines seeming evill alwayes to the judgement of the practisers They object to looke up to the beavens and Sunne may have appearance of praying to the Sunne and heavens for in the externall fact no more could be done by a person adoring the Sun Ergo such appearances cannot be scandalous Objects Answer lifting up of the eyes in prayer are naturall adumbrations and expressions of the elevation of the heart required in prayer Psal 25. v. 1. and so commonly exponed by all Nations and therefore cannot be appearances of evill Hence these rules I. Suppose all be strong in whose presence I practise a thing indifferent yet if it have no necessitie no aptitude to edifie and have onely all its goodness from the will of commanders in practising I scandalize 1. Because the strong are apt to sinne and so apt to be scandalized and the action is idle and not reasonable having no other reason but the meere will of Rulers 2. If I probably know my practice shall come to the knowledge of these who shall be scandalized I scandalize them in such an action II. Rule Though the practice of things indifferent having some necessitie be lawfull as 1 Cor. 10. 27. Eat what is set before you asking no question for conscience sake Yet the ●aith and conscience of things indifferent is never indifferent we are never to judge a thing indifferent necessarie nor a thing necessarie indifferent and practice in that judgement so erroneous is finfull and not of faith Rom. 14 ● 22. III Rule An universall omission of good of obeying affirinative precepts for the eschewing of scandall cannot be lawfull for it is 1. necessarie for my salvation to obey affinnative precepts though not in all differences of time In this meaning Augustine said We are not to abstaine from good workes he meaneth a totall abstainence for any scandall And Tertullian good offendeth non save a wicked minde But at sometime an obedience to an affirmative precept hic nunc may be omitted when we see that from the doing thereof the ignorant and weake will commit great sinnes So Aquinas Bannes Sanches for affirmative precepts of the law of nature saith Bannes must sometime be omitted for the eschewing of scandall for they doe not obliedge but when and after such a manner as is convenient V. Rule To doe any good action or lawfull or indifferent when I probably foresee a scandall will follow is an active scandall for I preferre my owne will to my brothers salvation saith Antoninus and Navarret and therefore saith i Antoninus A virgin going abroad without just necessitie where her beautie shall be a snar● to young men or to goe out upon a necessary cause with a whorish attire is an active scandall her feet abideth not in her house saith Solomon And Navarr saith It is to sinne mortally and Silvester saith If the Popes commandement doe but smell of veniall sinne and if by giving audience thereunto it be presumed that the state of the Church shall be troubled or a scandall shall arise though the commandement goe out under the paine of Excommunication it is not to bee obeyed Vasques and Suarez say to sell gift or dispose of any things indifferent when we foresee they shall abuse them is to commit the sinne of active scandalizing Yea the forme of an Idol though he never adore it doth highly scandalize and Antoninus Silvester Corduba Metina the Jesuit Zanches teach That to contribute to that which we see shall induce any to sinne is to be guilty of scandalizing And the reasons be these 1. We are not to preferre our will to the salvation of our brother 2. Things lesse necessarie then our brothers salvation in that case become not necessarie and so fruitlesse and idle 3. Charitie inferferreth that we hinder so far as we can the ruine of our brothers soul Scandaell is spirituall homicide 4. To contribute any morall help and influence to our brothers fall and soul-ruine is to be accessarie to his sinne Hence Ceremonies and things not necessarie to salvation may be omitted altogether in their specialities when the practising of them doth scandalize and so though kneeling in Gods worship cannot well be universally omitted yet kneeling appropriate to such an act of worship may be omitted and ought to be omitted if it scandalize and Ceremonies which scandalize universally seeing they are not in their very kinde necessarie to salvation are to be abolished Yet I may adde one caution here To contribute helpe for the doing of that which of it selfe is necessarie which I know an other in respect of humane frailtie will abuse to sinne is no active scandall So to lay hands on a qualified Pastor is not sinne though I foresee through humane frailtie he will abuse his power in some things to sinne So for