Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	mortal_a	nature_n	venial_a	6,243	5	12.3225	5	true

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

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 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

resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 4. Conclus Nothing in non-obeying unwarrantable Commandments must be done that redoundeth to the discredit of the Ruler or the hurting of his Majesty and honour 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King Eccles 10. 20. Curse not the King For even when we deny subjection or obedience objective to that which they command yet owe we obedience officiall and all due respect and reverence to the person and eminent place of the Ruler as Act. 7. 2. Steven calleth them Men brethren and fathers Act. 7. 51. And yet stiffe-necked resisters of the holy Ghost 5. Conclus Humane Laws whither civill or Ecclesiastick in that particular positive matter which they have of Art Oeconomy policy and in Gods matters of meer humane coyne and stamp do not bindes the conscience at all per se kindely and of themselves 1. Nothing but what is either Gods expresse word or his word by consequence doth lay a band on the conscience of it self But not to eat flesh in L●nt upon civill reasons Not to carry Armour in the night To wear Surplice and to Crosse infants in Baptisme are neither Gods word expresly nor by consequence The major is sure because the word is the perfect and adequate object of matters of Faith and morall practice which concerneth the conscience Psal 19. 7. 8. Psal 119. 9. Iohn 20. 31. Prov. 8. 9. 2. Because whatever thing layeth a band on the conscience the not doing of that would be a sin before God if the Ruler should never command it But the carrying Armour in the night the not wearing Surplice in Divine service should be no sin before God if the ruler should never command them as reason Scriptures and adversaries teach The Proposition I instruct from the diffinition of an obligation of conscience for to lay a band on the conscience is defined to lay a command on the soul which ye are obliged before God to do as you would eschew sin and obtain eternall salvation So the learned Pareus so Dr. Field so Gerson and so teach Gregorius de Valentia and Suarez 3. None can lay on a band of not doing under the hazard of sin but they that can remit sins for the power that looseth the same bindeth But mortall men cannot binde to sin nor loose men from sin but where God goeth before them in binding and loosing for they cannot bestow the grace of pardoning sin But he onely who hath the keys of David who openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth 4. Whoever can lay on bands of Laws to bring any under the debt of sin must lay on bands of obligation to eternall punishment but God only can do this Mat. 10. 28. The Proposition is clear because sin against God essentially includeth a relative obligation to eternall punishment 5. In matters of Gods worship this is clear The School-men as Aquina● Suarez Ferrariensis Conradus teach us that there is a twofold good The first is an objective and primordiall goodnesse whereby things are agreeable to Gods Law if rulers finde not this in that good which they command they are not just and so not to be obeyed There is another goodnesse that cometh from the will of authority so only divine authority must make things good the will and authority of Rulers findeth objective goodnes in them and therefore enacteth Laws of things but because they enact Laws of things they do not therefore become good and Lawfull It is the will of the Creator of all beings which is the measure rule and cause of the goodnesse of things as Adams not eating of the tree of knowledge is good and gratefull obedience from Gods forbidding will and it should have been as gratefull obedience to eat of that tree if God had commanded so Men cannot make worlds nor can their will create goodnesse in acts indifferent nor can their forbidding will illegittimate or make evil any actions indifferent and therefore things must be morally good and so intrinsecally good without the creative influence of humane Authority and from God only are they apt to edifie and to oblige the conscience in the termes of goodnesse morall And this is strengthened by that which in reason cannot be denied to wit that it is essentiall to every human Law that layeth any obligation on the conscience that it be just nor is it to be called a Law except it be just and justice and equity humane Laws have from God the law of nature and his word not from the Authority and will of men therefore Iurists expound that What pleaseth the Prince hath the vigour of a Law of just things Also the School-men as Carduba Thomas Soto Medina Adrianus Navar Driedo Castro as I gather out of their writings give strong reasons why Rulers cannot lay an obligation on the conscience when the matter of the Law is light and naughty for this were to make a man a trangressor before God for a word a straw a toy which is unjust Because the just weight of the matter is the only just ground of the Laws obligation Ergo the will of the Lawgiver except he make a moat a mountaine cannot lay an obligation of necessity on man 2. It were a foolish law and so no law to oblige to eternall punishment and the offending of 2. God for a light thing for this were to place the way of salvation in that wherein the way consisteth not 3. Such a law were not for edification but for destruction of soules 4. This was the Pharises fault Mat. 23. to lay on intollerable burthens on mens soules 5. The law of God and nature freeth us in positive lawes from guilt in case of necessity as David did lawfully eat Shew-bread 6. A Civill law may not take away a mans life for a straw farre lesse can it bind to Gods wrath 7. Augustine saith they be unjust ballances to esteeme things great or small for our sole will Out of all which I conclude that no law as a Law doth oblige the Conscience but that which hath from the matter morall equity and not from the intention of the Law-giver as Cajetan Silvester Angelus and Corduba teach which intention must take a rule from the matter of the law and not give a rule Gerson No law saith he is a law to be called as necessary to salvation as all good lavves should be but that vvhich de jure Divino is according to Gods lavv yea vve are not saith Durandus to obey the Pope if he command a Monke to doe somthing vvhen he is not moved to command by the necessity the profit of the Church but by his ovvne free vvill and if this be knovven If the Pope faith he for his ovvne vvill and vvithout necessity and utility should seclude vvorkes of supererogation that command should tend to destruction and vve

of sincere obedience to lawfull authority as well as we conceited good probably included in the very obiect of the action he that doth that which in his private opinion he suspecteth to be evil because injoyned by lawfull authority doth not evil that good may come of it seeing the goodnesse of obedience is no consequent of the action but a motive precedent authority maketh actions indifferent to be good and necessary Ans He beggeth the question The goodnesse of sincere obedience to authority saith he may countervail the evil that we in our private choice fear to be in the action But first obedience to authority in things wanting Gods word whereof he speaketh now is not obedience but sinning because doing without faith 2. I take the Doctor at his word refusing obedience to mens will-worship or to practise even to the ruin of the weak things indifferent for fear of the greatest evil the offending of God by adding to his worship Rev. 22. 18 19. is obedience to God and not a privation the purpose I say of this obedience to God may countervail all evil that can be imagined in non-obedience to men and sure obedience to God though probably obedience is as good and better then obedience to men though probably obedience Jesuites and Formalists say Rulers are in possession to command Ergo We cannot thrust them out of possession where we are not perswaded that they command against reason saith Sanches So I say God is in just possession commanding us to venture upon no indifferent action where the conscience doubteth and shall we not no lesse contend for Gods just possession as time-servers do for mortall Rulers unjust possession in this 2. I prove that it were Lawfull then to sin against God A Iew is alike perswaded that Maries Son i● the true Messiah and that he is a deceiver Opinions about a man might seem indifferent to the Iews And it is all one saith Jackson as if the thing be indifferent Now the Pharisees in a Councell determine that Maries Son is a deceiver Then it is lawfull for the Jew upon purpose of sincere obedience to Pharisees who sit in Moses chair to believe that Maries son is a deceiver because the conceit of sincere obedience is an essentiall motive to transubstantiate unbelief into sincere obedience and the Iew may venture upon the faith that Maries Son is a deceiver and crucifie the Lord of glory being commanded thereunto by his Commanders because Gods providence favoureth more positive actions then privations 3. He saith He that obeyeth for the sole authority of Rulers doth not evil that good may come of it 1. Because the goodnesse of obedience countervaileth the evil of the actions But 1 The question is if it be obedience Ergo If it be no obedience it cannot countervail the evil 2. If it be the evil of sin with a doubting conscience to do what judges commandeth having no warrant of faith but the will and lust of men no purpose of good though it were to save all the world can counter-redeem the evil of sin against God 2. Because saith he such a one doth not evil that good may come of it Then he that stealeth moneys to give to the poor doth not evil that good may come of it by Dr. Jacksons reason Because the goodnesse of purposing to help the poor is not a consequent but a precedent motive of the action and so maketh it good We all know the intention of the end goeth in the intention before the action but not as an essentiall cause to make an evil action good or make an indifferent action necessary and honest A good intention doth make a good action good and better but that a good intention as Idolators are full of good intentions can never so season the means as this Doctor saith that it can make evil to be good Vasquez condemneth the Fathers of ignorance because they said Propositum bonum excusat malum opus so Cassianus said It was lawfull to lie for a good end and Chrysosto● and Ambrose said the same as Vasquez saith see Aquinas for this 3. It is the doctrine of the man of sin That Pope or Rulers sole and bare authority can make an action indifferent and so neither good nor evil to be indifferent and good as Bellarmine saith for God only by his institution createth morall goodnesse in actions mans will is no creatrix of goodnesse 4. Neither resolutions nor skill are to be credited or followed because private or publick because authority of man as such is no light nor warrant to the conscience to adventure upon moral actions and the Lord giveth light to private men to obey Psal 25. 8 9. 1 Cor. 2. 14 15. Ioh. 7. 17 ●8 Ioh. 7. 27. 2 Cor 3. 18. 2 Cor. 4. 4. As he doth to Rulers to Command So Sylvester Tartaretus so Rivetus Doctot Field I proceed to answer other Arguments As 1. We must not obey Not only for wrath but for conscience the violation of a speciall Law necessarily draweth with it the violation of the generall Law of the fift Commandment But the violation of the generall saith Learned Pareus hurteth the Conscience and the Magistrate punisheth not for generall Violation but for the Violation of this speciall Law Ergo this speciall Law obligeth in Conscience And it seemeth to carry reason Every just punishment presupposeth essentially a sin else it is not a just punishment but the Ruler doth justly punish the particular Transgression of an humane Law Ergo the Transgression of a particular Law of Rulers is sin The Proposition is confirmed by grave School-men Soto Sylvester and Ioan Eselius Who thinke that there cannot be a Law obliging to a punishment and not to a fault because punishment hath an intrinsecall relation to a sin nor can it be a just punishment that is not proportioned to a sin for the Law saith That cometh not under damage which cometh not under fault Ans Though the Violation of the generall Law hurteth the Conscience it being against the fifth Commandment it followeth not that the Violation of every particular Law even that that is meerly Positive hurteth the Conscience before God For then the carrying of Armour in the Night Suppose no Ruler on earth make a Law there anent should be a sin before God which no wise man can say 2. The other reason is more important and draweth with it that School-question agitated by Iurists also and Ganonists An ulla detur lox pure paenalis If there be a Law purely Penall without sin in it And if the Law of Rulers in things meerly Positive be meerly Penall and co-active and not formally obliging to sin But I Answer Rulers do justly punish the Transgression of a Positive Law not as particularly humane and Positive But as 1. It hath connexion with the Morall Reason of the Law 2. As the particular transgression is scandalous

15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy

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

others seemeth better to me who deny that the least veniall should be committed to eschew a greater sinne 6. Rule There is a principle obligation a lesse principle a least principle Hence these three degrees issue from love 1. God 2. Our selves 3. Our Neighbour The love of God is most principle and is the measure of the love of our selves the love of our selfe is lesse principall then the love of God and so the obligation lesse I am to make away life and all things yea eternall glory as devided from holinesse and as it includeth only happinesse rather ere I sinne against God The obligation to care for my owne salvation is more principall then my obligation to care for the salvation of my Brother for the love of my selfe is the measure and rule of the love of my Neighbour Now because the obligation of caring for the soule of my brother is only secondarie in compare of the obligation of caring for my owne salvation I am not to sinne my selfe or sinfully to omit any thing that is commanded me in a positive precept to prevent the sinne of my brother Yet hence it doth not follow that a positive Precept is more excellent then the law of Nature which is Thou shalt not murther nor scandalize him for whom Christ died Because though to care for the soule of my brother be of the law of nature simpliciter yet is a secondarie obligation and may cease and yeeld to a stronger obligation that tyeth me more principally to care for my owne soule for though the Command be positive yet knowingly to sinne by a sinfull omission is no lesse a destroying of my owne soule and so of the law of nature in a higher obligation then the other is 7. The Jesuits and Popish Doctors as they are of a large conscience in many things so in the doctrine of scandall to extoll obedience to men so high as we may doe things in themselves not necessarie yea that hath no necessitie but from the will of Commanders And Formalists in this conspire with them even though from this doe flow the ruine of many soules and though the sinfull scandalizing and ruine of these soules flow from sinfull corruption of either ignorance or frailtie or wilfulnesse or malice yet the scandall ceaseth not to flow kindly from the pretended obedience to an unlawfull command for the thing commanded having no Necessitie but the will of man is unlawfull and it is no good reason to say Men are scandalized through their owne ignorance and Malice Ergo the scandall is taken and not given for these who were enemies to the Truth and were so scandalized at Davids murthering of Uriah and Adulterie 2 Sam. 12. 14. as they were by him occasioned to blaspheme Certaine their actuall scandall was from their owne corruption But what Ergo it was not also from Davids murther and adulterie and ergo it was a scandall only taken by the enemies not given by David Surely it solloweth not You may hence judge of the Rule of Lodo Caspensis a Capucean These saith he that doe a worke of it selfe indifferent for a weightie cause and use their owne right ●tuta●tur suo jure are excused from mortall sinne as these who lett a house to Whores and publick Usurers that are not strangers though they may commodiously lett it to others they doe not cooperate with sinne because the house it but a place and extrinsecall and remote to the sinne So Christians taken by Turkes for danger of their life which is a weighty necessitie may furnish instruments necessarie for warre against Christians because they doe a worke indifferent of it selfe for a just cause so may a servant convey his Master to a Whore yea and make the Bed for a Concubine and open the doore and if his Master be to climbe in at a window to a whore he may lift up his foot or reach him a ladder Why the servant saith he useth his owne right in doing a worke of it selfe indifferent U●itur suo jure faciens opus exse indifferens modo non placeat ei peccatum A. But sure all out jus and right that men have over their houses and that Captives and servants have to their Masters and Lords is jus limitatum a right ruled limited bounded by the word of God nor is the worke they performe morally indifferent physically it is and Captive Christians if for danger of their life they may prepare necessary instruments of warre against Christians they may kill Christians also for what power the conquering Lords have over Captives to command them to prepare fire and sword against the innocent witnesses of Jesus Christ because they are such the same jus right have they to command to kill the innocent But for no cause the most weighty can we choose either to shed innocent blood or to co-operate with the shedding of it nor to co-operate with the works of darknes for it is shamefull that a servant may lawfully co-operate with and thrust his master in at a window to goe to a whore the jus or dominion of Masters to command and the right of servants to obey is only in the Lord. Yea to kill a man is Physically indifferent for that is physically yea morally without relation to any law indifferent which is capable of lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse according as it shall bee commanded of or forbidden by God But for a man to kill his son is of it selfe such certaine if God command a Judge to kill his son it is lawfull for the father to kill his son if the Lord forbid Abraham to kill his son it is unlawfull for Abraham to kill his son And therefore Caspensis hath no more reason to use the Instance of captives preparing warre against innocent Christians and of a servant thrusting his Master in at doore or window to a whore then of captives killing the innocent or of servants breaking a house and taking away the goods of a man in the night or of servants committing whoredome at the command of their Conquerors or Lords the one kinde of action in it selfe is as indifferent and susceptible of morall lawfulnesse and unlawfulnesse as the other And if the Master doe co-operate to commit harlotrie in climbing in at a window to a whore and to robbing in digging thorow an innocent mans house in the night to kill the Master of the house and to steale his goods then the servant that co-operateth in these same physicall actions and also diggeth thorow the innocent mans house and kills himselfe is the harlot and the robber by cooperation and participation no lesse then the Master The naked relation of a captive and of a servant cannot make the captive and servant innocent and guiltlesse co-operators for then to sinne at the command of any Conqueror and Master because I am in the condition of a captive and servant were lawfull though God forbid and inhibite me to doe what I doe by the