The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

and the like, are properly Monuments, and instruments of Idolatry, because these are not necessary, as is the material house, nor have they any common and physical influence in the worship, as the Temple hath, yea all the necessity or influence that they have in the worship, is only religious and human flowing from the will of men, without either necessity from our natural Constitution of body, or any word of Scripture, and therefore they are to be removed upon this ground, because they are unnecessary snares to Idolatry.

Ans 1. We are carefully to distinguish between a law of Nature, or a perpetual binding Moral law, which standeth for an eternal rule to us, except the Law-giver himself by a superven • ent positive law, which serveth but for a time, do loose us from an obligation thereunto, and a positive temporary law. God saith in an exoresse law, of nature▪ that obligeth us perpetually (The sun shall not be put to death for the sins of the father) no Magistrate on earth can lawfully take away the life of the son, for the sin of the father, for this eternally obligeth. Yet Saul was to destroy the sucking children of the Amalekites for the sins of their fathers, but he had a positive temporary command of God to warrant his fact, 1 Sam. 15. 2. 3. none can infer that we are from this law, which was a particular exception, from a Catholic perpetually obliging moral law, that Magistrates are now to take away the lives of the sucking infants of Papists. So this is perpetual and moral, and warranteth us forever to use all the creatures of God for our use. 1. Tim. 4. 4. Gen. 1. 27. 28. then we may lawfully use Gold, Silver, Houses, all creatures for meats, except some particular positive law, or some providential emergent necessity forbid us, as the Ceremonial laws of the Jews forbidding the eating of swine's flesh, and some other meats, were no other thing, but Divine positive exceptions from the law of nature and creation, in the which God had created swine's flesh, and all these other forbidden meats for the use of Man, and so by the same reason, God hath ordained Church and houses to fence off us the injuries of Sun and Air, in all our actions civil and religious, except that by a peculiar Precept, he forbid the use of the house of Baal, to the Jews, to be a typical teaching to us of God's hating of Idols and Idolatry, but not of our demolishing and making useless all houses built to the honor of Idols and Saints under the New Testament, except we had the like Commandment that the Jews had.

These who oppose us, in this, can no more inhibit us by any law of God, of the • se of a creature granted to us by the law of the creation, then they can interdyte us of the use of another creature, nor are we more warranted to demolish Temples and material houses which have only a physical and common use alike in all our actions, Natural, civil, and Ecclesiastical or Religious, then of eating swine's flesh, or of other meats forbidden in the Ceremony • nial Law, and to answer to the Argument, this or that material house built to the honor of Paul and Peter is every way as necessary in the worship of God▪ as a Temple built of purpose for the worship of God, though another house may conduce as much for the worshipping of God▪ as this, yea it hath the same very necessary Use, and Physical conveniency, for the serving of God, that any other house hath, which was never built for the honor of a Saint, which I prove, 1. because no creature of God▪ that is useful to us, by the law of creation, is capable of any moral contagion to make • it unlawful to us, but from the me • will of God as the Gold and Silver, and Idol houses of the false God's, and Images of Canaan are in ••• secally, and by the Law of creation, as pure, and morally clean, as the Gold and Silver and Synagogues of the Jews, and had their Physical and civil necessity, the one, as the other had. But from whence was it that the Jews might make use of their own Silver and Gold, and houses, and not of the houses, or silver and gold of the heathen God's and Idols? Certainly this was from God's mere positive will and command, fobidding the Gold and houses of the Idols of Cannan, and not forbidding the other, the Adversaries can give no other reason: therefore they must give us the same positive Commandment, for not making use of the Gold and Silver, and Temples of the Popish Idols, and Saints under the New Testament, that the Jews had for refusing the Gold and Silver, and demolishing the Temples of the heathenish Idols of Canaan. And if they say, Th •• the very command that warranted the Jews to abstain, from the use of the heathe • s Gold and Idol-temples, doth warrant us to abstain • from the use of the Gold and Idol-temples of Papists. It is answered, we have no warrant from the Word, but it shall warrant us as well to abstain from swine's flesh; if it be replied, every creature of God eatable i • Good, and may be received lawfully▪ 1 Tim▪ 4 6 Rom 14▪ 14▪ I answer, so all gold, all silver all houses serving to •• nc • off the injuries of heaven, and air, are good, and fit for Mans use, and now blessed in Christ under the New Testament, except you say, that it is not lawful to make use of the Gold and Silver of a Papis •• Image, no • of crees of the Papists fields that b • aret • •• fruit, for these also were discharged to the Jews, Deut 20. v. 19▪ 20▪ and the reason why they • ight not cut down the t •••• ▪ th •• be •••• fruit, because these trees were man's life, Deuter. 20 19 whereas t •••• that bear no fruit were to be cut down, as not so necessary for man's life. Now this reason is moral and perpetual, and so are houses to sense off the injuries of the clouds a Manslife; except they be forbidden by a positive law of God, and so necessary as without the • se of houses no worshipping of God can be ordinarily; And therefore in the second place, as we use Gold Silver, Tamples▪ and material houses (though abused to Idolatry) because the Lord hath created them for our use, his law of Creation warranting us to use them, so can we not refrain from the use of them, though abused by Papists, except we have a special positive law to warrant us to refrain from the use of these necessary creatures of God, so useful for the life of man; For according to the grounds of these against whom we now dispute, the Garments of silk or cloth of Gold, that hath covered Popish Images, the Gold and Silver of the Popish Images, though melted and dissolved into innocent metal, the Material Temples built to the honor of Saints, are to be cast away and utterly abolished, as unlawful to be used in any sort, for the Jews according to the Law, Deut. 7. 19. 20. might make no use of the gold or silver of the Heathen-Image, and Achan brought a curse on himself, for the simple taking for his use, the wedge of Gold, and the Babylon • sh Garment. Now we have no law in the New Testament to abandon the use of the creatures, for as Cornelius was not to count that meat unclean, which God • ad cl • nsed, Act. 10. 15. So neither are we to count Silver and Gold, and houses useless, which God in the Creation made Good, and useful for our life, and therefore no moral contagion can adhere so to these creatures, as we are utterly to disuse them, as creatures cursed, because they were abused, except it can be proved that the abuse of them hath deprived us of the necessary use, that they have by the law of Creation; for certain it is, as the killing of the sucking infants of the Amalekites was typical, and tieth not us to kill the young children of Papists so was the disusing, or not using of Gold, Silver and Houses, abused to Idolatry, typical.

And before I come to the second Conclusion, An house for the worship of God is amongst the things that are necessary, by way of dis-junction in specie, not in individuo; that is, a house is necessary, in its Physical use, to fence off our bodies, the injuries of Sun, Air, and heaven, but not this house, for another house may serve the turn as conveniently. But some object Then this, or this house Dedicated superstitiously to the religious honor of a Saint ought to be removed out of the worship of God, 1 because by your own confession. Th •• individual house so abused is not necessary. God may will be worshipped, without this house, though it never had been, in rerum naturâ. 2. From the worshipping of God in so Superstitious a place, many truly godly are so scandalized, that for worshipping God in such Superstitious and Idolatrous places, they have Separated from your Church, conceiving that in so doing you heal the wounds of the Beast; It is true, it may be their weakness, yea but be it so, that it were their wickedness, that they are scandalized, yet by your doctrine, in things not necessary you are not to do anything by which either the weak, or the wicked may be scandalized; as is clear in the eating of meats, Rom. 14.

Ans. This argument may 1. be retorted against these who hold with us the same doctrine of Scandal, for, without eating of Swines flesh, my life may be preserved, and a malicious Jew may be, and necessarily is highly scandalized, that I, who possibly am a Jew converted to the Christian faith, do eat Swines flesh before him, for he conceiveth me to be an Apostate from Moses his law, therefore I should abstain from eating Swines flesh before a Jew, who out of Malice is scandalized, by my doing a thing not necessary, hic & nunc. But the conclusion is absurd: nor do I think that many truly godly of the Strictest Separation do stumble at our Churches out of wickedness. Many truly Godly and Sincere refuse to come to our Churches, whereas many scandalous, well lustered hypocrites, who knoweth nothing of the power of godliness, but are sitten down in the Scorners Chair are admitted to the Lord's Supper, and as the former cannot be excused, so I pray God, that the latter draw not down the wrath of God upon both Kingdoms. 2. Things not necessary which actively produce scandal must not be only indifferent Physically in their natural use, as This or this house, but they must be indifferent both Physically and Morally, for the Meats spoken of, Rom. 14. at that time, were both ways indifferent. 1. They were not necessary but indifferent Physically in an ordinary providence, both then and now, for ordinarily my life may be preserved, and suffer little loss by not eating Swines flesh, or such meats, in case of extreme necessity of sterving, if any could have no other meat, they might eat then, as the case was, Rom. 14. because Mercy is better then Sacri ••• at alltimes. 2. These things Rom. 14. were indifferent Theologically or Morally in their own nature, 1. v. 3. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. 2. Because v. 17. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink. Sure, in Moses his time, to abstain from such meats, and eat such, as the Lamb of the Passover, the Manna, to drink of the water of the Rock, was worship, and so some part of the kingdom of heaven, but it is not so now, saith Paul. 3 Paul clearly maketh them Morally indifferent. 1 Cor. 8. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat, are we better (morally and before God) neither if we eat not, a e we (Morally) theworse. Now this Temple or House Physically is indifferent, and not necessary for the worship of God, for men may be defended from the injuries of Sun and air, Though this house had never been in rerum naturâ. But this Temple or house though dedicated to a Saint is not Morally indifferent, but Morally necessary, so as if you remove it from the worship, because abused to Idolatry, and give it in no use in the defending of our bodies from the injuries of the Wind, Rain and Sun, you Judaize, and do actively scandalize the Jews, and harden them in their Apostasy, and so this house though abused to Idolatry, is not indifferent Morally, as the meats Rom. 14. But the using of it is necessary and an asserting of our Christian liberty, as to eat blood, and things strangled, and Swines flesh even before a Jew, so to use all houses for a physical end to defend our bodies from heat and cold, is a part of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. But Ceremonies have no natural and physical use. The crossing of the air with the Thumbe, the keeping of a day religiously without warrant of the Word, are not taught in the School of Nature, and so are naturally not necessary as This or this house, though abused to Superstition is, and the Adversaries that say they are Morally indifferent, as good, and as Spiritual Ceremonies in kind and nature, may be devised in their place. But in all this dispute of Scandal, we give, but do never grant that the Ceremonies are indifferent, we dispute here that they are scandalous, and so unlawful in their use, upon the principles of Formalists; whereas we judge them in their nature, because they have not God, but the will of men to be their father and author, to be unlawful, and repugnant to Scripture, because not warranted by either command, practice, or promise in Scripture.

Conclus. 2. As some things Physically necessary must be abstained from, when the unseasonable using of them is a stumbling block to our weak brother, in the case of the moral indifferency of the thing, as it was in the eating, or not eating of meats once forbidden by God's law, but then indifferent. Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 8. for then it was true, ( But meat commendeth us not to God▪ for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not, are we the worse▪ ) So in the case of physical indifferency, but of Moral and Theological necessity, when an Evangelike law of Christian liberty has passed a determination upon eating, or not eating; Then to abstain from eating upon a pretended fear of not offending a weak Jew, is actively to • ay a sinful stumbling block before a weak Jew, and to harden him in Judaism, and here using of such meats, and the affirmative, to wit, to eat is lawful and necessary, the things being now morally necessary, not morally indifferent, where as before▪ the negative, to wit, not to eat was lawful and necessary. Hence to eat▪ Rom 14. 1 Cor. 8. before a weak Jew, was unlawful and an active scandal, the eating or not eating then of the own nature being morally indifferent, and to abstain from eating before a weak Jew, Col. 2. 16. 17. Gal. 2. v. 5. 11. 12. Gal. 5. 1. 2. 3. is unlawful and an active scandal, because now eating is morally necessary, and a standing in, and an asserting of the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. And upon the same ground, for the Jews, when the Ceremonial law stood in vigor, to make use of Baals Temple, for a Synagogue to the worship of the true God, was unlawful and against a Ceremonial Command of God, as was the sacrificing of the Amalekites cattle to the Lord, and the using of the Silver and Gold of the Ca •••• ites Idols, Deut. 7. 25, 26. • 6. 1 Sam. 15. 1, 2, 3▪ But when these things forbidden were in the case of moral indifferenc •• , as were certain meats, Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. and c. 10. they were not unlawful▪ by reason of any▪ such Ceremonial positive Commandment▪ only by the unseasonable using of them▪ before weak Jews, they were scandalous; But these same Idols houses, Silver and Gold now, when we are f • lly possessed in that liberty▪ wherewith Christ has made us free, Are so to be used as the good creatures of God given to both Jew and Gentile now under the Gospel, by the ancient Law of creation, that now to abstain from the use of houses, Gold and Silver abused to idolatry and worshipping of either Popish Saints or Idols, and the Idols of Pagans, upon any pretence of a Ceremonial Command, were to Judaize, and to betray our Christian liberty, and the highest scandalizing and hardening of the Jews. For that is a mere Ceremonial Commandment which depriveth us of the use of things or creatures, that are naturally useful to us, such as are houses, cattle, silver, and Gold, upon the mere will of the supreme law-give • ; And upon this ground to disuse Churches built to Saints by Papists, is Judaizing, for the thing is not morally indifferent, as meats were in the case Rom. 14. 1 Cor. c. 8. c. 10. but the use is morally necessary for the asserting of Christian liberty; Christ having made every creature of God good in its native use, for man, both Houses, and Gold and Silver, as all meats are 1 Tim. 4. 4. 5. Genes. 1. 28. 29. and having made all things new, Revel. 21. 5. and given us a new spiritual right to them, 1 Cor. 3. v. 21. 22. 23. and therefore to take them from us, by any Ceremonial law, is to put us again under the old yoke, from which we are freed through Jesus Christ, Acts 15. v. 10. 11. And the houses, and Gold and Silver, though abused to Idolatry, do now return to their physical uses▪ of which the Jews, by a temporary positive law, were interdyted, for the time of their in • an • i • , yea▪ if we were interdyted of any creature of God, by such a law we might not eat of oxen and sheep, that had belonged to Papists, who are Idolaters, for Saul was never to use the Cattle of the Amalekites for common use, nor for food, nor for sacrifices to the Lord: And it should be unlawful to melt the Silver-Images of Papists, and convert them into money▪ for the poor, or cups them into silver bowls or cups, for the lawful use of the Lord's Supper. I grant to sell Images of Gold or Silver to these who use them, as formal Idols is unlawful; as to sell a whore for money to these that should prosesse the buying of her for 〈…〉 lo •• i • , were to be accessory to that harlotry, especially seeing Idols formally remaining so are, ex naturâre • , for no other end but for Idolatris; they have no necessary physical use for the life of man, far more, if they be the portraictures of the Father, Son, or holy Spirit▪ if they be of stone, or of anything, that cannot be useful for man's life, then must they be defaced and broken, le •• we lay the stumbling block of our iniquity before others. Now, if from any law of the Jews, or practice of Moses, and Hezekiah, houses built to the honor of Saints, Silver and Gold of Idols, were to be made useless, in their physical use, in the worship of God, or for our civil use, then were we, upon that ground, to dissolve the stones and timber of such a house, and to bray and stamp the Silver and Gold into powder, as these holy Rulers did. People here fleeing from Antichrist fall evidently in Iu • ais • e, and make themselves, with the Galath • ans, debtors to Circumcision, and all the Ceremonies of Moses, which thing we condemn in the Anti-Christ.

Ans. These meats▪ Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. were then indifferent, but they are not so now, when the Gospel is fully promulgate, for we may not now to abstain from Meats forbidden in the Ceremonial law, for fear to offend a weak Jew, for our abstinence should harden them in their •• belief, that Christ is not yet come in the flesh. To make Temples and houses dedicated to Saint • , as indifferent now as meats were then▪ and the argument were concludent▪ But to demolish Churches and remove their physical use now were as Judaical, as to forbear to eat Swines flesh. We are not to deprive ourselves of the physical use of 〈…〉 of this▪ or this meat as thinking we are bound by any law of God to forbear the use thereof, and especially we are not to do it, as conceiving we are under the tie of a law given to the Jews, whereas we are under no such tie, or law, at all. But the disusing of Temples dedicated to Saints, that the Adversaries plead for, Deut. 7. is a total renouncing of all use of them, & the places they allege from the Ceremonial law doth conclude it: for the Temples, silver and gold of the Idols of Can • an were altogether useless to Israel. It was Achan 's sin, that he took the Babylonish garment, and the wedge of Gold; for any use civil or religious, though he should have bestowed these for any religious use, or the relief of the poor and indigent: yea, though it was scandalous to none, he having taken these privately and by theft, yet the very taking of them was a curse to him, and the whole Camp of Israel, for the total abandoning of all use whatsoever of these houses, Gold and Silver, which in themselves, and by the law of Creation were physical, and in regard of that natural use they had from their Creator to supply our necessity, can have its rise from no other total and complete cause, but from the sole positive will of God, discharging his people of the whole use of these creatures at all, as if they had never been created for the use of man, whether their use should be scandalous to others, or not scandalous. But by the law of nature, which, I grant, saith ( Thou shalt not scandalize nor murder the soul of him, for whom Christ hath died. ) The Romans, Rom. 14. and the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 8 were forbidden the eating of fleshes forbidden in Moses law▪ But with these two restrictions 1. they were forbidden not all eating of these meats in private, but only in the presence of a weak Jew, and for the conscience of others, in the case of scandal, 1 Cor 10 28, 29. (2) They were not by the law of nature that inhibites scandal, forbidden the total use of these meats, in any case, so as they should make these meats utterly useless to themselves, or to any others. As the Jews were forbidden to make use of the Canaanitish Idols, Gold and money: And of the Cattle of the Amalekites, either secretly or openly, either in the case of scandal given to others, or not given. And Achan paid dear for his Babylonish garment, and his wedge of Gold, though he took it by theft.

Ans. The half-reason or incomplete moral ground of the law is not the soul of the law: But you must take in all the reasons, the words of the text are these. Thou shalt not desire the silver and gold that is on them, nor take it to thee, lest thou be ensnared therein: for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God. v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it. Now what made that Gold an abomination to the Lord, more then all the gold of the earth? it is of it self the good and useful creature of God, no less then all the gold of the earth: nothing made it an abomination to God, but, if we look to the original cause, there was a positive, free command of God forbidding Israel to covet, or use that Gold. The Canaanites themselves, by the law of nature might lawfully have melted that same very Gold, and made use of it, without sin. 2. It is not a good reason, Such a law had a mor • ll and perpetual reason. Ergo, the law it self is perpetual and moral. It followeth only: Ergo, the morality of that law is perpetual. For all the Ceremonial laws had a moral and perpetual reason: As the shadows had a moral substantial ground in Christ the body of all shadows: but it doth not follow therefore the shadows and Ceremonial law in the letter must be perpetual: Very often in the book of Leviticus, there is no reason given of the Ceremonial laws. But, be ye holy, I am the Lord, that sanctifies you. This is a moral and perpetual reason, that endureth to the end of the world, yet it is no due consequence: therefore all these shadows and Ceremonies shall endure to the end of the world, The reason is, because it is the sole positive will of God that maketh a temporary concatenation between not eating blood, and not being cruel, and between sacrificing and being holy, and yet not being cruel is perpetual, not eating blood temporary. (3) If things indifferent, as the eating of flesh, before a weak Jew, Rom. 14. be a snare to my own soul and to the souls of others: I am to abstain from these and the like. But that I must abstain from the total use of any creature that God has made useful for the life of man, by the law of creation, as Israel was to abstain from the cattle of the Amalekites, and to stamp in powder, and make altogether useless the Gold and Silver of the heathen Idol-God's, is altogether unlawful, and a very Judaizing, and its to make, as Paul saith, Jesus Christ of no effect.

Ans. It is true, the loss of the use of a material Temple, is nothing comparable to active scandal, which is the destroying of any soul. But the refusing to worship God in these material Temples because abused to Idolatry, were not only a disusing of the creature, without any warrant from God, but an open Judaizing and an active scandal both to Jews and Christians, though we should employ the houses to civil use, for any external conformity with the Jews, when the thing is not indifferent, in religious acts, such as is the disusing of the Churches, is Iudaising: for should we now use Circumcision and the Passover▪ with an open, printed and professed intention to signify Christ already come in the flesh, and should make an open declaration against the Jewish intention in these ordinances; we should no less Judaize, then Peter, who Gal. 2. did only practice an external conformity with the Jews, with no Jewish intention, sure he was persuaded that Christ was already come in the flesh: yet was he justly rebuked, by Paul, for Judaizing. For the loss of an house in a material or physical use of it, I grant it is not comparable to the loss of a Son. But the losing of it on a religious ground, is another thing. When the religious loss of the house is not indifferent, as was the Abstinence from some meats indifferent then, but sinfully scandalous before a weak brother.

Ans. I deny the major Proposition▪ for the eating of blood, the taking of both the young bird▪ and the damme in the nest, was an insnaring of the Jews to cruelty, through their abuse of the creatures, the use whereof God▪ had made both lawful and necessary to them in the Creation. The blood was the life of the beast, and the Lord requireth in us mercy▪ to our beasts life, whereas the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel▪ Prov. 12. 10. yet is it not lawful for us to devise any way, we please, to keep us from being snared in cruelty, for then upon the same ground, it were unlawful for us to eat blood, contrary to the express word of God, Rom. 14 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. 26. 1 Tim. 4▪ 3. 4. God by a positive and Ceremonial Command hedged in the people of the Jews, from being ensnared in Idolatry, and, by some Ceremonies, taught them to detest all Idolatry: but it doth not follow, that we Christians are to inure our hearts, from being ensnared with Idols, and to a detestation of Idolatry, by these same Ceremonies that they were commanded, for then we were obliged to stamp the Golden and Silver idols, to dustand powder: and to cast the powder into the river as Moses did the Golden Calse, Deut. 9. 21. and behooved to drink of that water, Exod. 32. 20. 1 Chro. 15. 16. 2 King. 18. 4. so it followeth no ways, though the physical use of a material Temple, should ensnare us to Idolatry, that we are therefore to disuse that house; except we had the same Ceremonial command to warrant us, that the Jews had, and by this argument, you may bring us back to observe all the Ceremonies of Moses his law, Because all these Ceremonies were appointed in the wisdom of God, either to keep us from being ensnared in some sin, and to raise, in our heart, a detestation thereof, or to teach us somewhat of Christ, of whom we be naturally ignorant and forgetful.

Ans. That Churches in so far as their use extendeth, farther then to the commodious propulsation of injuries of Sun and Ai • e, be demolished, we can well allow, for these that were demolished by our Reformers of blessed memory; nor so spacious and inconvenient for hearing the word of God and celebration of the Sacraments, being ordained for Masses, Idols, for blind superstition, that the very length, breadth, height, beauty, and glory of them might redound to the glory of Saints and Idols, that it was reason they should be demolished in so far as they conduced nothing for the physical and necessary end, for which Churches are ordained under the New Testament; And thus far we allow of the breaking of Images, Crosses, Crucifixes, and all Monuments of Idolat • ie, so as the matter of all these, whether Timber, Marble stones, Mettall of Gold, Silver, Brasse, or the like to be employed, for the necessary use of man's life, but that all their superstitious form and religious use be utterly abolished. As for the abolishing of Bels abused in time of Popery; because they have a necessary and Physical use to give warning for the seasonable conveneing of the people of God, to the public worship, I see no ground, for it, from Deut. 7. or other places, but we must be necessitate to stamp to powder the very Mettall of Bels, and to render them not only useless in Churches, but any other way tending to the good of man's l •• e.

Ans. I deny not but Churches dedicated to Saints, and in regard of their vain and ostentive spaciousnesse unprofitable for hearing the Word, may be employed to civil uses for ordinary dwelling; But I see no ground how this can be according to the places cited by our godly Brethren of the contrary mind except the Churches were first purified, in some Ceremonial way, as God prescribeth that the spoil of Midian be purified, which our Brethren cannot say, except we would make ourselves debtors to the whole Law, for so the law was, Num. 31. and so Paul doth reject Circumcision, Gal 5. 3. and if it be said the necessity of the poor requireth that these Temples be not loosed, but employed for the poor, as David in point of necessity eat the Shew-bread. I answer 1. The poor, as the case was, Rom. 14. might eat Swines flesh, and so ruin him, for whom Christ died, which is absurd for their necessity might require it. But certain it is, David's necessity was laid on him by the sixth Commandment as an act of mercy in the point of starving, and if any poor Jew were in the like case, I conceive it should have been scandalizing to that Jew to eat Swines-flesh, before another weak Jew. Providentiall necessity may make that which is a sinful scandalizing to be obedience to the sixth Commandment, but the will of Superiors can make no such providential change as the D▪ of Aberdeene do dream▪ But if the necessity be less then the Necessity in point of sterving, it could justify the poor Jews eating of meats conceived to be against the law of God, as the case was, Rom. 14. But that the Church or house dedicated to a Saint, should have no physical use in the worship of God, to defend us from the injuries of Sun and Heaven, and yet have the same use▪ in common, for the poor to dwell in, wanteth all shadow of reason, for how can it be proven that the same physical use in the worship is unlawful, and yet out of worship is lawful▪ except there intervene some Ceremonial and religious purging of the house, by fire or some other way, which were Iudaical under the New Testament, for the necessity of the poor, is not like the necessity of David's eating of Shew-bread: Its certain, that the necessity of disusing the creature in a Physical usage, in the worship, must have a warrant in Scripture, as well as the using of the same, in the same usage, must have the like warrant.

Answ. 1. It is denied, that Bells which have a necessary use, though only for the better ordering of the worship of God, are any active objects of scandal, and the mere passive scandal taken at anything not indifferent, but physically necessary, and so necessary, that without it sinful inconvenients of either wearying in the service of God, or sinful neglect should follow, is no sinful scandal given, but merely taken.

2. There be two necessities of things, one natural, and first in that regard, another religious, and in that regard secondary; the former necessity doth always stand, except God remove it by some posterior commandment. Its necessary, that Adam and Eve eat of all things that God created for eating. God (I grant) may remove this necessity in some, and command either Adam to fast for a time, or not to eat of the tree of Knowledge: So say I, warning by Bells hath a physical necessity, the use of the Temples in worshipping hath the like necessity, so have Gold and Silver a necessity. god only, either by a Commandment, or by an exigence of providence that standeth to us (as in the case of a scandal) for a command can remove the physical necessity, and inhibit Israel to use such and such Gold, as have been in use in the Heathen Idols, and may forbid to perform an act of obedience to an affirmative command in the case of scandal▪ as he may forbid Paul to take wages for Preaching the Gospel, though Paul have some natural necessity of taking wages. But the Church without a higher warrant from God, hath no power to restrain us in the necessary use that God hath given us. Make Bells and Temples as indifferent and unnecessary as some meats were, Rom. 14. and I shall yield the Argument.

3. That the Lord our God will have a bodily necessity as the smaller, to yield to a soul-necessity as the greater, is a ground not so sure, but it ought to have been proved, except by a soul-necessity, you mean a necessity of saving the soul, and not sinning against God, and oppose it to a me • bodily necessity, including no sin in it▪ then I shall grant the Assertion, That the one necessity i • greater then the other. But otherwise, Cateris paribus, other things being alike, I conceive it is contradicted by Jesus Christ's saying, Matth. 12. cited out of Hosea, Chap. 6. I will have me ••• , and not sacrifice: And here we must determine the case of scandal to the soul from the exsuperance of necessity to the body and life. The case falleth out, David and his followers are at the point of starving for hunger (it may be a question if the presen • necessity be so great) there being no bread for them, but the Shew-bread, which by a Ceremonial Law of God, only the Priests should eat: If any of the followers of David out of a groundless scrupulosity of conscience should have taken Paul's Argument, Rom. 14. and said to David▪ I will starve rather ere I eat this bread; for a divine law forbid • me; and if▪ thou eat of it, it shall be a scandal to •• , and wilt thou for bread destroy him for whom Christ died? The Apostle Paul would not, for so small a thing, as to eat swine's flesh before a weak Jew, in the case, Rom. 14. destroy the soul of one for whom Christ died, by laying before him a stumbling block, by his unseasonable and scandalous eating. I think (if Scripture cannot possibly be contrary to Scripture) this doubt might easily be removed, by answering the case was not alike with David in his hunger, and so in a Physical and natural necessity to save his own temporal life, that by all probability was in great danger, and these who being in no such necessity, did eat such meats scandalous, and so distructive to the souls of weak ones, and having variety of other meats to keep them from sterving, and so a mere necessity of preserving the bodily life, if we compare one affirmative command of God, with another, may remove that which may be supposed a soul necessity. And the reason is, because in the doctrine of scandal, which is more intricate and obscure then every Divine conceives, God placeth acts of providential necessity as emergent significations of his approving will, which are so to us, in place of a divine Commandment of God's revealed will, and these providential acts of necessity do no less oblige us to moral obedience, then any of the express written Commandments of God. I clear it thus. There is an express law. It is s •• and unlawful for David, or any man, who is not one of the Lord's Priests, to eat show-bread. But God cometh in, and putteth David in such a posture of divine providence, that if he eat not show-bread, he shall be sinfully guilty of violating a higher moral law of God, who saith, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. Then David shall be cruel to his own life, and sin against the sixth Commandment. Thou shalt do no murder. If he eat not, for not to eat, when you are in a providential condition of sterving, if you may have it, is to kill yourself, and this providential condition doth no less oblige you to the Moral obedience of the sixth Command, then if God in the letter of the Law should command you to eat. This fact of David was not done by any extraordinary impulsion of the Spirit, but by a constant channel that Providence ordinarily runneth in, according to which I, or any Professor must be obliged to prefer a work of Mercy to Sacrifice, that is, by which we are to give obedience to the sixth Command, which is not to kill, even as without extraordinary impulsion, I may absent myself from hearing the Word, when I find going to Church may endanger my life, for non-obedience to affirmatives, in a greater necessity▪ is ordinary. And therefore Christian prudence, with which the Wisdom of God keeps house, Prov. 8. 12. doth determine many things of scandal: And prudence is a virtue commanded in the word of God, for a wise man observes times, and so will he observe all other circumstances, yet there be rules here which standeth always, and they be these. 1. Comparing a physical and merely natural necessity with a moral necessity▪ if we yield to the physical necessity, and neglect the moral, we sin against God, and may lay a stumbling block before others; as to eat such meats, where the loss is small, and the necessity of eating merely physical, and the eating be a scandal to the weak, we sin and give scandal, the case is clear, Rom. 14. for eating, (the case being indifferent, as it was, Rom. 14.) is a mere physical necessity, and not scandalizing a weak brother, is a moral necessity. 2. Rule, if we compare a greater moral necessity with a less moral necessity, the less necessity must yield to the greater, a necessity of mercy must yield to a necessity of sacrificeing; if David then should not have eaten the show-bread, in his providential necessity of samine, he should have been guilty both of active scandalizing the souls of others in killing himself, and should have killed himself, and the less moral necessity ceaseth, and is no necessity, when a greater moral necessity interveneth. 3. Rule▪ Where there is a physical necessity of the thing, yet not extreme, and a moral necessity of abstinence, we are to abstain; The Jews had a physical necessity of the Babylonish Garments, but not so extreme, in point of perishing, through cold, as David had of Shew-bread▪ in point of sterving for famine, therefore Achan should have obeyed the moral necessity of not touching the accursed thing▪ and neglected the physical necessity, which if it had amounted to the degrees of necessity of mercy, rather then obeying a Ceremonial Command, such as was ( Touch n • t the accursed spoil) Ach •• might, without sin or scandal, to himself or others, have meddled with the spoil. 4. Rule. That which is necessary, in specie, in the kind, as to go to Church and hear the Word, to come to the house of God and Worship, may be, in individuo, in a particular exigence of providence, not morally necessary, but the contradicent thereof morally lawful. David doth lawfully forbear to come to the Lord's house, if he knew Saul may kill him, by the way. • ▪ The things which we are to forbear only for necessity of scandal, and upon no other ground, these I may do in private, if I know they cannot come to the notice of these who shall be scandalized, upon the ground of less physical necessity; as Rom. 14. believers, for their necessity ordinary, and for nourishment, might eat fleshes in private, though before a weak Jew they could n •• ▪ because the sin is not in the act of eating, but wholly in the scandal, and in the manner of the unseasonable doing of it. But these things which are morally not necessary, because t •• •• bstance of the fact is against a law we are to forbear, both in private, because they are against a law, and in public before others, for the scandal. as Achan sinned in taking the Babylonish Garment, though in private, and his sin should have been more scandalous, if he had done it publicly; Now these we are upon no ordinary necessity to do, but such as may encroach upon the hazard of the loss of life, in which case an exigence of providence, does stand for a Command of nonmurthering, had Saul and his Army been reduced to a danger of starving in a wilderness, and could have no food, except they should kill, and eat the Cattle of the Am • l • kites, • conceive, The Lord's preferring of Mercy before Sacrifice, should warrant them to eat of the Amalekites Cattle, yet would this providential necessity be so limited, as it may fall out, that it stand not for a divine Command; for it holdeth in affirmative commands only, and 2. so positives as there must be, yea there can be no sin eligible by such and such a case, as Lot sinned in exposing his daughters to the lust of men, to redeem abstinence from Sodomy.

Hence it is clear; we may not do a less, nor counsel another to commit a less sin, to eschew a greater; as the Jesuits wickedly teach. So Tannerus, so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum, a scandal that a Christian may hinder another to fall in, and yet he permitteth him to fall in it. But God hath a prerogative to permit sinful scandals, men have no such power, when they are obliged to hinder it. The divinite of others seemeth better to me, who deny that the least venial should be committed to eschew a greater sin.

6. Rule. There is a principle obligation, a less principle, a least principle. Hence these three degrees issue from love, 1. God▪ 2. Our selves, 3. Our Neighbor: The love of God is most principle, and is the measure of the love of ourselves: the love of our self is less principal, then the love of God, and so the obligation less. I am to make away, life and all things, yea eternal glory as divided from holiness, and as it includeth only happiness, rather ere I sin against God▪ The obligation to care for my own salvation, is more principal, then my obligation to care for the salvation of my Brother: for the love of myself is the measure and rule of the love of my Neighbor. Now because the obligation of caring for the soul of my brother is only secondary, in compare of the obligation of caring for my own salvation, I am not to sin myself, or sinfully to omit anything that is commanded me in a positive precept, to prevent the sin 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 murder, nor scandalize him for whom Christ died. ) Because though to care for the soul of my brother be of the law of nature simpliciter, yet is a secondary obligation▪ and may cease and yield, to a stronger obligation that tieth me more principally to care, for my own soul▪ for though the Command be positive, yet knowingly to sin, by a sinful omission, is no less a destroying of my own soul, 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 scandal, to extol obedience to men so high; as we may do things in themselves not necessary, yea that hath no necessity, but from the will of Commanders; And Formalists in this conspire▪ with them, even though from this do flow the ruin of many souls: and though the sinful scandalizing and ruin of these souls, flow from sinful corruption of either ignorance or frailty, or willfulness or malice, yet the scandal ceaseth not to flow kindly▪ from the pretended obedience to an unlawful command, for the thing commanded having no Necessity▪ but the will of man is unlawful, and it is no good reason to say, Men are scandalized through their own ignorance and Malice. Ergo the scandal is taken, and not given, for these who were enemies to the Truth, and were so scandalized at David's murthering of Uriah, and Adultery, 2 Sam. 12. 14. as they were by him occasioned to blaspheme. Certain their actual scandal was from their own corruption. But what? Ergo, it was not also from David's murder and adultery? and ergo it was a scandal 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 do a work of it self indifferent, for a weighty cause, and use their own right, • tuta • tur suo jure, are excused from mortal sin, as these who lett a house to Whores, and public Usurers, that are not strangers, though they may commodiously lett it to others, they do not cooperate with sin, because the house it but a place, and extrinsical and remote to the sin. So Christians taken by Turks for danger of their life, (which is a weighty necessity) may furnish instruments necessary for war against Christians because they do a work indifferent of it self, 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 door, and if his Master be to climb 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 own right in doing a work of it self 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 Lord's, is jus limitatum, a right ruled, limited▪ bounded by the word of God, nor is the work they perform morally indifferent, (physically it is) and Captive Christians, if for danger of their life, they may prepare necessary instruments of war against Christians, they may kill Christians also: for what power the conquering Lord's 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 darkness, for it is shameful that a servant may lawfully co-operate with, and thrust his master in at a window, to go▪ 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 lawfulness, or unlawfulness, according as it shall be commanded of, or forbidden by God. But for a man to kill his son, is of it self such, certain, if God command a Judge to kill his son, it is lawful for the father to kill his son, if the Lord forbid Abraham to kill his son, it is unlawful for Abraham to kill his son. And therefore Caspensis hath no more reason to use the Instance of captives preparing war against innocent Christians and of a servant thrusting his Master in at door 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 whoredom at the command of their Conquerors or Lord's, the one kind of action in it self is as indifferent and susceptible of moral lawfulness, and unlawfulness, as the other. And if the Master do co-operate to commit harlotry in climbing in at a window to a whore, and to robbing, in digging thorough an innocent man's house in the night, to kill the Master of the house, and to steal his goods, then the servant that co-operateth in these same physical actions, and also diggeth thorough the innocent man's house and kills himself, is the harlot, and the robber, by cooperation and participation, no less then the Master. The naked relation of a captive, and of a servant, cannot make the captive and servant innocent and guiltless co-operators, for then to sin at the command of any Conqueror and Master, because I am in the condition of a captive and servant, were lawful, though God forbid and inhibit me to do, what I do, by the command of my Master and Conqueror, for in so doing, Utor meo jure, I use my right as a servant. For God forbiddeth me in what relation I be in, servant, or Captive, to sin, at the command of any, or for declining any ill of punishment▪ Though as weighty as the torment of hell separated from sinful despairing and blaspheming of God. Now to co-operate with that which I know to be a sin, is to partake in other men's sins, which is forbidden, as a sin, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Eph. 5. 11. But to run with the thief, and to help an Arch-robber, Prov. 1. 13. 14. is a consenting to his robbery and bloodshed. And to help any to dignity thorough a house, or to climb in at a window to Incest, Sodomy, Buggerie, to fetch a beast to the Master who rageth in the sin of Beastialitie, or to setch a young man to the Master or Conqueror to the sin of abominable Sodomy, knowing the Master and conquerors mind is to co-operate to Beastialitie and Sodomy, is as high a measure of sinful cooperating in these abominations, as for the servant to help up, or life up his Master, to go in, at a window to an harlot, for this is a consent to these sins, and a consent in the highest degree; so to give a knife to a Master, who seeketh it from his servant, to kill his Father, Mother, Prince, Pastor, is to consent formally to such horrible paricides, and therefore Caspensis should have brought instances in Bugrie, Sodomy, Parricide, when as he used softer Names of fornication and harlotry.

8. The non-necessaries, or such things as need not be in the worship of God, which do bring scandal, Must 1. be such as are neither necessary in specie, nor in individuo, in kind, or in spece or nature, or in their individuals and particulars, as the whole Categorie of Men's devises, as

• 1. Unwritten traditions—not necessary, not written.
• 2. Human mystical, symbolical signs and Ceremonies—not necessary, not written.
• 3. Human holy days, crossing, kneeling to Elements, Altars, Crossing, Surplice, Rochets, &c, —not necessary, not written.
• 4. This and this human holy day, this crossing—not necessary, not written.

2. These things are judged not necessary, that are not necessary by way of dis-junction, as Surplice is not necessary by way of dis-junction, for neither is Surplice necessary, nor any other white or red habit, that hath some mystical religious signification, like unto Surplice; So kneeling to the Elements is neither Necessarie, nor any the like religious honoring of them, by prostration before them, o • kissing them.

But, the things of the Directorie for the public worship, as many of them are necessary, and have express warrant in the Word, as Praying, Preaching, Sacraments, Praising, &c. So 2. some things that are non-necessaries in the individual or particular words, or things, yet are they not to be removed in their alternative necessity, either this or the like though some be thereby scandalized. Because though they be not necessary simply, yet are they necessary by way of dis-junction, as that the Minister say, either these, or the like words, for words to that sense are necessary. So the order that the Directorie prescribes in citing such and such acts of Divine worship is necessary either this way, or a way as convenient not different from this, for some order of necessity there must be. So the Liturgy or Service Book, what ever Jos. Hall say on the contrary (as it is little that he doth, or can say) though it should contain many things necessary in specie, in the kind, sit for the external public worshipping of God, yet because these words in Individuo, in their particulars are not necessary, is to be re • oved, because though all the matter were good (as much of it is Popish ) yet that book in its structure, frame, style, Grammar, method, and form is popish, and framed after the model of the Roman Missal, especially performed with the cursed Authority of the Council of Trent, under Pius the fifth, in all the Masses, Rubrics, Epistles, Gospels, &c. is scandalous, and a Directorie in Scripture words is better, and is therefore justly laid aside by the Revevent Assemblie, and honorable Court of parliament, because there is scandal in words, in style and language, in divine worship. And these who will abstain from practicing of some things in the Directorie, for fear of scandalizing others, must give reasons from the Word that these things they forbear, are neither necessary simply, nor by way of dis-junction. Because as I conceive, Things neither necessary in the same individuals, nor by way of dis-junction, are such Non-necessaries as are to be removed out of the worship of God, for fear of scandal. And that any such non-necessaries can be found in the Directorie, I do not see as yet.

Ob. The people had the more opinion of Dietie in the thing they adored the baser it was. None hath any such opinion of the cross. Ergo, it is no scandalous object. Ans. All our Divines hold, that Heathens of old, and Papists of late, worship Images, as religious memorative signs of God, Hooker with one dash of his Pen, against the Prophets and Scriptures, acquitteth them of Idolatry, therefore the Cross may be adored, without any opinion of Dietie in it.

Ans. 1. Though the Cross were first framed for no adoration; yet we plead against the Images and Crosses of Lutherans as not necessary, in divine worship, and therefore to be removed, though never adored.

2. The people think Baptism incomplete without the Cross, Ergo, to them it has the like necessity, as water.

3. How will Hooker prove never any burnt Incense to the Brazen Serpent, but believed it really to be God? that is his dream, beside the Text.

4. By this Luther ••• have their desire; for actual intention that Images be lawful remembrancers of Christ, without intention of adoration, shall make Images as lawful teaching Ceremonies, as Hooker will have the sigue of the Cross.

5. We remove not crosses from coin, no more then the Jews did the image of C • s • r. But we agree with them. Hooker being judge, in Banishing them from the worship.

6. Hezekiah then might have broken the old, and made a new Brazen Serpent, for a memorial of the miraculous cure, so they had not burnt Incen • e to it; The remembrance of the old mercy should have been as good in the new, as in the old. But certainly the Brazen Serpent was not destroyed as Brasse, but in all its religious use. It was not purged, but abolished.

7. If we may make Images and Orasses alike in shape, but dislike in use, in God's worship, we may bring in Golden Calves to the Temples, and the Image of Dagon, and the Sidonian God's, and Altars such as Josiah destroyed, so at their first moulding we imprint on them, chaste and innocent religious intencions and signification, and make them alike in shape, but dislike in use to heathen worship. But sure the Calf of Egypt, and the Calf that Aaron made, though like in shape, yet were dislike in use.

8. We read of no new Inconvenients that the Images and Temples that Solomon erected to strange God's, did in Josiah's time, which they did not in ••• ekiahs time, but that they were Monuments of Idolatry in both; It seems that Nooker would commend Hezekiah, for not demolishing the Images of Solomon's outlandish God's; But then it was Josiah's zeal without knowledge, that he demolished them. 2. We then might well suffer the Images of Jupiter, Dagon, Ashtarosh to stand before the people publicly, so they do no harm • : and Papists and Lutherans say the Images of Christ and the Saints do • no harm, when the Pastors carefully teach the people, that there is no Dietie • nor God-h • ad dwelling in them. 3. We say the sign of the Cross is a mere instrument of Idolatry and Superstition, and what ever good intention, or pious signification was stamped on it, at the first, by men's carnal wisdom and will zeal, it no more made it good, then if upon the Image of Dagon, you would found the like good intention and pious signification.

9. Though Hezekiah was commended by God, it no more followeth his omission in not demolishing Solomon's outlandish Idols must belawfull, and a part of his upright walking in •• matters of religion, then because David is commended, as walking uprightly in all things, save in the matter of Uriah, that his numbering of the people, his revengeful attempt to destroy Nabal and all his, must also be a part of David's walking uprightly before God.

10. Solomon had a warrant for the Brazen Image in the Temple, not to abolish it. But Hezekiah had no warrant not to Abolish the Brazen Serpent, after the people burnt Incense to it, even suppose the People should, upon the exhortation of the Priests, have desisted from burning Incense to it. I see not, if Images may be lawful Remembrancers to us, so we adore them not; But the Golden Calves, the Images that Solomon made to outlandish God's, the Image of Diana, and all the heathen Images that the Word speaketh against should be brought into the Christian Churches, to teach us to flee, and eschew the adoring of these abominations, for we have as great need of Ceremonial and Historical remembrancers to teach us to eschew evil, as to admonish us to follow good. But the truth is, except we will be wiser then God, we need neither.

Ans. Objects sinful and so intrinsically scandalous are to be removed, as the Image of Jupiter, Molech, both because sins, and and so not necessary. 2. Because scandalous, for the truth is, even sins (if we speak accurately) are not scandalous actum secundo, in regard of our corruption, our sins may sad the Angels, but they are not properly scandalous to Angels, and therefore everything actively scandalous, as scandalous is to be removed. 2. How doth Hooker prove that the Vessels made for Baal, are in their own nature more incurable then the sign of the Cross? You may remove the superstitious intention and Idolatrous use of any vessel, and turn it to a good use; Yet Josiah burnt them to ashes. The like may be said of the Groves which he stamped to powder, and cast in the brook Kidron, And of the Chariots five of the Sun, which he burnt with fire, and of the bones of dead men, not any of these, being of their own nature more indifferent, and innocent creatures of God, were of their own nature more scandalous, and more uncurable then the sign of the Cross. The like may be said of Altars, and I pray are reasonable men, the Priests of the high places of their own nature uncurable? are they not capable of repentance, and curable by doctrine? yet 2 King. 23. 20. Josiah slew all the Priests of the high places. 3. Teaching may remove evil customs, otherwise how should the Gospel convert sinners, that are accustomed from the womb to do evil? Jer. 13. 23. Jer. 22. 21. Ephes. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. Tit. 3. 3. 4 5. therefore scandalous objects of the second kind, are no more to be removed, then the Sign of the Cross. 4. It is false, that scandalous objects of the third sort are more easily cured, except they be removed, for no human prudence, when the sign of the Cross, and the Brasen serpent, are sure, not necessary in God's worship. And when men have, and so still may abuse them to Superstition and Idolatry, can make these being now actively scandalous, to be not actively scandalous, as no ar • can make a pite to be no pite. Indeed God's ordinances, because necessary, may be cured, from scandal by teaching. But it is God's only prerogative, by his commanding will to make a thing, not necessary in his worship, to be necessary, and to alter the nature of things, so as his command could have made the Brazen Serpent, to remain a lawful teaching Sign, and no scandalous object, and only he might have forbidden the burning of Incense to it. The Ancient Ignatius, or any had no warrant to make confession of Christ before enemies and mockers, by gestures or crossing, Paul did it not, Peter commandeth confession to be verbal, 1 Pet. 3. 14. 15,

Ans. 2. We know no necessity to have, nor any danger to want such wares, as Surplice, Crossing, bowing to Altars, to elements, which sure the Apostolic Church wanted, both in specie, and in individuo. The like Papists say for adoring of Images, that Hooker here saith, for Surplice, and the like Scandals. So doth the Jesuit Tannerus say, in. 22. to. 3, dis. 5. de religione. q. • . dub. 3. Quando dicitur Adorationem imaginum non esse licitam, qui non est scripta. Respo. (inquit) apostol • familiari Spiritus instinctu quadam Ecclesiis tradider • nt Servanda que non reliquerunt in scriptis—inter hujusmodi Traditiones est Imaginum Christi adoratio.