The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

Duplyers.

Answ. 1. Your enumeration is weak, for we know no Scandal justly taken, but proceeding from both these, weakness or wickedness of nature, is the nearest cause of all Scandal taken, because it is the cause of all sin, and to be scandalized is sin. Also it is here taken from the enormity of the deed, in that practicing of things indifferent, if a scandal taken either weakly or maliciously thence arise, there is enormity in the deed, yet total abstinence is not hence concluded, because, cessante ration scandali, when the ground of the Scandal is removed, there is no enormity in the fact. 2. You define to us, or rather divine, that then there is an irregularity in the fact that justly scandaliz • th, when either the fact is a sin, or then hath a manifest show of sin. And we wonder where you learned this strange Divinity, for 1 Cor. 10. 27. To eat meat at a Feast that you are invited unto▪ is neither sin, because v. 23. 25. it is lawful: The earth is the Lord's, nor is it such as hath a manifest show of sin, as all having sense knoweth. One of your prime Doctors defined to me, these only have manifest appearance of sin, Quae pl • rum{que} fiunt malo fine, which for the most part are done for an evil • nd, such as is to lie in bed with another man's wife, to kneel before an Idol. The form • r, in the exposition of all is done for adultery, the latter for Idolatry. I am sure to eat meats at an Infidels feast, is not of that nature which is done ordinarily for an evil end, it is ordinarily done to refresh nature, and to sol •• e it, which hath no manifest show of sin, and yet if there be a weak one beside, who saith, that meat is offered to Idols, in that case to eat, is to scandalize 32. and is against the glory of God, v. 31. 3. You ask from whom we learned this strange doctrine to deny obedience to the laws of Superiors for scandal causelessly taken; And we answer, we learned it from the Apostle Paul, who saith 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat offend my weak brother, I will eat no flesh (I will abstain totally and absolutely) while the world standeth. This abstinence for the date of the worlds standing, God be thanked, is longer then the time to a lawful General Assembly was at that time: yet the Apostle proveth, Rom. 14. That to eat, or not to eat, was at that time as indifferent, as to practice, or not practice Ceremonies, also whoever offended at Paul's eating of fleshes, were offended out of weakness, v. 7. and it was in that sense, scandal causelessly taken.

Duplyers pag. 59. n. 34.

Answer. What the author of the English Popish Ceremonies saith in that subject, all your learning shall never be able to Answer, for our brethren, required but abstinece from these Ceremonies, till they be tried in a lawful General Assemblie, for they never were yet tried in a lawful Assemblie, till the late Assemblie at Glasgow, anno 1638. 2. That Author argueth a Majore, and we desire an Answer, if we may abstain from spiritual duties commanded by the most high Superior the Lord our God. hic & nunc in case of Scandal. Ergo, far more are we to abstain, from practicing of dead Ceremonies void of all spirit of life, in the case of scandal, yea and universally, and totally we are to abstain, because the Superiors have no power to make laws in materia scandalosa, when that which they command is scandalous; and in the very matter soul-murder.

Duplyers.

Answer. We conceive you not to be Papists, to hold this distinction, then far more things indifferent for a time, in case of scandal may be forborne, when Counsels the performance whereof merit a greater degree of glory in heaven▪ may be suspended. 2. It is false, for Aquinas saith, Actiones quantumcun{que} rectae at{que} utiles omittendae. So D. Banns.

Duplyers.

Answer 1. Aquinas saith, Excommunication may be omitted in the case of scandal. Now the Churches precept of Excommunication is no counsel, but a precept. And it is lawful saith Thomas to rebuke our brother, and an act of Mercy and Charity commanded (saith he) in the law of nature, and so not a Counsel. Yet saith Thomas, in case of scandal it may be omitted. Navar. doth contradict you, read when you please. And Ferdin •• d▪ de Castro Palao, you thought we had not these authors to find you out • and give • o Vasquez right play, We may omit the •• aring of a Mass which is no Counsel, but command to save the temperall life of our brother. Becanus, Duvallius may be seen to cross you.

Dupliers.

Duplyers.

Answer. The author saith so indeed, but withal he saith, that Church laws bind not the conscience, because they are Church laws, Sed propter rationem legum, for the reason of the laws; and such you cannot show to be in your Ceremonies. 2. The Assumption is badly proved, for your consciences are not transparent glass; except that light come out in arguments founded upon the law and testimony, and where this is not, there is no light, Es. 8. 20. an erring conscience proveth nothing, so you beg the question.

Duplyers 2. arg. n. 37.

I must crave here leave for a pause, and ask the question. 1. If information and light given to beware of the scandal of Ceremonies and things indifferent, can make them the lawful object of Church Canons, D. Forbes and other say so. But 1. This is that which Papists say to our Divines, who object that Images are pits and snares to Idolatry. This danger (saith Johannes de Lugo ) the Popes Professor at Rome, is easily prevented by the instruction and care of Prelates, who are to teach, that Images have no dignity of themselves, but only from the samplar. And so Bellarm. the Jesuit, Uasquez. Estius. The Council of Magountine helpeth the matter. Let our Pastors (say they) carefully teach the people, that Images are not set up, that we should adore them, but that they should be helps for our memory. 2. Paul gave strong reasons for lawfulness of days, and meats, that weak Jews should not be scandalized at the eating thereof. yet he would neither pass them in a Church Canon, nor practice them himself, while the world standeth, 1 Cor. 8. 13. yea, he proveth Rom. 14. by eight strong Arguments, that it was not lawful to practice them. Ergo, he presuproseth that information of Pastors should not take away the scandal of the weak, as Rom. 14. 14. There is nothing unclean of it self. Ergo, It is lawful to eat all meats, 1 Cor. 10. 26. The earth is the Lord's. Ergo, eat what is set before you, v. 23. all things are lawful, and yet he saith, eat not, give no offense, if meat offend my brother, I will not eat to the worlds end. 1 Cor. 8. 13. 3. This vain argument presupposeth that the want of literal information, is the adequat cause of falling in scandal, a vain reason. Peter actively and culpably scandalized Christ in his carnal counsel, Master, pity thyself, Mat. 16 21. 22. 23. yet Christ was sufficiently enlightened, that he could not be scandalized. But certain it is, that the will and depraved inclination is the cause why we fall in scandal, even when we know that others who publicly sinneth, doth sin, and that we should not be scandalized. Now no reason in Pastors preaching, or in Church-Canon, can take away the inclination of the heart to evil, and therefore no information of Pastors can remove the scandal of the weak; For then David in committing adultery, Noah in drunkenness, Lot in his incestuous folly with his own daughters, Peter in denying his Savior, should not have caused others within, or without the Church to stumble, nor have culpably scandalized them; So David. Noah, Lot, and Peter, had preached to all that heard of their fall, that adultery, drunkenness, incest, and denial of Christ, were grievous sins to be avoided, and that it was sin for any to be scandalized thereat, for such information should have given sufficient literal information to beware of the like sins. Yea, a father might inclose in a chamber, his son and a beautiful virgin, and if he should sufficiently inform his son of the guiltiness, and punishment of harlotry, he should not lay a stumbling-block before his son. Yet we all know, a stumbling-block may be laid before the inclination no less, then before the blind mind, yea suppose, to warn a Traveler of a pit, in his way, might be sufficient, to make the digger of the pit free of laying a stumbling-block in the way (as it is not) seeing to make a pit is not indifferent, yet it shall not free the Commanders of Ceremonies and the acts of Pearth Assemblie of active scandal, because men naturally loving life and health, hate to fall into pitts, which may endanger their life, and so have no inward moral inclination to fall into a pit; but men though informed of spiritual falls, and warned to beware of them, yet love and incline to Idolatry, and therefore to warn them to beware, and yet set the powder near the fire, is but to scorn the craft, and to mock men. Yea, in that they desire and require, that the people beware of the Ceremonies, and require that Pastors inform them of the danger; they grant that Ceremonies are powder amongst the pitchers, and yet they be innocent, and indifferent creatures, as if they would call them indifferent pitts, indifferent whores to allure, beware of them; indifferent pest-clothes, see that your inclination touch them not. Yea, then Hezekiah had given no scandal, if he had commanded the brazen Serpent still to stand, and had commanded the Priests to preach that the Serpent was not God, and therefore warned the people of their Idolatry in burning Incence to it, only let it stand as a memorial of God's power in curing the people, who were stinged with Serpents in the Wilderness. So if the Israelites should give their sons and daughters to marry strange women of the Canaanites, if they should ordain the Priests to teach carefully their married children, to beware, that they were not drawn away, by these idolatrous marriages, to serve the God's of the Canaanites, they should not lay a stumbling-block before their sons and daughters. Yea, these who excel in light, may be weak in grace, and in hazard to be ensnared, by the idolatry and superstition of Ceremonies.

4. The law of nature provideth all possible and lawful means for the removal of everything, that may rnine his soul, for whom Christ died, but not only information of the danger of Ceremonies, but also the removal of the pitts themselves, to wit, the Ceremonies are possible and lawful means.

5. 1. This were an idle Sabbath work to expound such theams as these Sacramental bowing is an humble adoring of God, not of bread, (and as it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save believers, so it pleased Prelates, by the foolishness of holy days and Saints days, to teach the people articles of faith, and by the Surplice to teach pastoral innocence, and by confirmation to bless children▪ ) 2 Calvin, and Luther teach, that no word should be heard in the Church, nisi purum Dei verbum, but the pure word of God. Surplice human and Saints days, crossing, kneeling, cannot be a text that Ministers can preach on, and expound, for they are commanded to speak God's word, Ezech. 7. To read God's law, and give the meaning and sense thereof, Nehem. 8. 8. and to expone the Scriptures, Luk. 24. 27. not to teach the meaning of wretched Ceremonies, for in that they should not be the Pastors of Christ, but speak with the mouth of Antichrist, and Exod. 12. 26. 27. If the children ask the fathers, what mean ye by this Passover, they were to answer, It is the Sacrifice of the Lord's Passover. So if they ask what meaneth your kneeling to Bread, your Saints days, your Surplice and Crossing, you must answer, they are the Ceremonies of the Lord's Supper, and Baptism; What uncouth bleating were this? 6. Shall people (saith D. Ammes be fed with this East wind, the virtue of Surplice, when there be so little time, to learn the main things of the Gospel? also some preach none, some study never Ceremonies, some blush to speak of such toys. Yea▪ and alas often saith, Banns the weak are not capable of distinctions, it is hard to draw the wits of rude people along the untwisted thread of distinctions, that the elements are objectum adorationis à quo significative and objectum adorationis relativae material, non adorationis formal. I conceive the Doctors of Aberdeen have ado with their wits to understand them, they must be taught of D. Mortounes essential and accidental worship; of Bellarmine's additions perfecting, and additions corrupting the word of God. And whereas D. Forbes saith; It is a shame for Ministers, and teachers of others to pretend weakness, though the flock might be ignorant. Answer. Weakness, is weakness of faith, Rom. 14. 1. and weakness of grace, not weakness in literal light. And I think Ministers may pretend this upon too good grounds, and weakness of faith is often a great inclination to superstition. 2. Though the Ministers refusing the Ceremonies, should understand them as well as these who writ books for their defense, yet it will not follow that they should practice them, for their forbearance is for fear of scandalizing the weak. Paul had perfect knowledge of his Christian liberty, as any man, yet he would not eat meats to the worlds end, which should offend his brother. The stronger should not scandalize the weak, because they are stronger.

Duplyers pag. 63. n. 38.

Answer. 1. For scandals taken, and also given, by either weak, or willful, when the matter is indifferent, and hath evident conformity with Jewish and Popish rites, and is not necessary, we may disclaim the authority of all such laws, true. Ergo, we may for scandal maliciously taken, deny the authority of all laws, it followeth not. Ex affirmation sp • ciei male colligitur negatio generis. It is not for taken scandal, but for given scandal, that we disclaim the authority of these laws. 2. The Doctors will have us believe, upon the sole light of their conscience, n. 36. that they think the Ceremonies lawful and expedient. But for us, they will not credit us in that, but out of malice we are soandalized, and not out of weakness.

Duplyers n. 39. 4. arg.

Answer. Against the Law of disputing, you lay down a ground, which is a principal part of the question that is practicing these Ceremonies be obedience due to Superiors, and none practicing for a time an injuring of Superiors in their due, though God's affirmative precepts be omitted for a time, as the not hearing the Word, the not receiving the Sacraments, in case of Scandal, God's due is not taken from him. If you will be more zealous for the honor of Prelates and men, then for the honor of God. Answer the Argument yourself: I am not to reprove a scorner because of the scandal, he shall but trample, as a sow, upon any word of reproof, yet the scandal were causle • lie taken if we should do so, The good word of God should furnish no just cause to him, yet am I not taking from God his due, and your bare word, that this is disobedience to Superiors, not to practice Pearth Ceremonies is not enough to us. 2. Your probation is weak, That children and wife keep company with the Excommunicate father, is a commandment of the law of nature, and God's necessary law, and to deny this to an husband and father is such a sin, as the eschewing of a scandal can never legitimate, but I hope kneeling to Bread, and Crossing, and Surplice (commanded in our Canons and Service-book ) are at the best commanded by a positive law, and not commanded in the law of nature, and so very unlike to natural duties that wife and children owe to father and husband. 3. I retort this Argument. We may not wrong men in that which is their due. Ergo, We may not wrong God in his due, but it is his due; ( Murder not him for whom Christ died practice not Ceremonies before the weak who shall be scandalized thereat. )

Duplyers 5. arg. n. 40.

Answer. The first part of this Argument is Logic from a sore▪ skin▪ That which we are bidden do under pain of death, that we must do, the just logic of the King of Babylon, to prove it is lawful to worship the Kings golden Image, Dan. 3. 15. I have scarce heard Papists for shame press to conclude the equity and lawfulness of a Law, from the penalty of a law, Suffering (as your Jesuits and Arminians teach you) falleth not under Free-will, and is not culpably evil, nor is Excommunication except you be Papists, death of the soul, when the cause of Excommunication is not just, and deserveth no censure, but it may be some of you think (Mr. Sibbald I know doth it) that Navarrus, and their Gregory said true, that unjust Excommunication is valid, and to be feared: but if this argument (as I see not head nor feet in it) be founded upon the lawfulness and expediency of Ceremonies commanded, then not to practice them at all. So first they be lawful. 2 Expedient▪ 3 Commanded by lawful authority, is sin, and all sin is a death of the soul, and then you may put your Argument from grievous punishments of body and soul in your pocket, for it is of no use here▪ for whether punishment Civil or Ecclesiastic follow upon disobedience to Superiors, it is sin. 3. That none of us would die or be Excommunicated for eschewing Scandal, is no good argument, though many have suffered as hard as death, banishment, and proscription of all, and Excommunication also. But the truth is, you might have said; Shall we incur for scandal the loss of our st • pends, and (one fair before the wind, qualification) for a Bishopric?

Duplyers 6. arg. pag. 64. n. 41.

Answer • . To fill the field, an Argument already answered, is brought again to make the figure of fi • up▪ The refusal of the Ceremonies till they be tried in lawful Assembly, is not forbidden in the fifth Commandment, prove that▪ and take it with you. 2. You bring an Answer as commonly given •• us, that is neither ours, commonly, nor rarely▪ but it is good, build a straw • astle, and you may soon cost a fire-ball at it, and blow it up▪ We never taught that the negative part of the fif • Commandment is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandal taken by others. For this includeth all scandals, both passive and active. Who of ours ever dreamed such a thing, if Superiors command, what God commandeth before them, do we teach that, because others take scandal at that Command, therefore we are not holden to obey? that is scandal taken, not given. We teach no such thing▪ Rulers command to honor father and mother, if any take offense at this commandment and obedience to either the affirmative or negative part of it, we are not to esteem that scandal the weight of a feather, the Commandment obliedgeth. But this we teach, if when the matter of the Commandment of Rulers is indifferent, as you plead Ceremonies to be, if from obeying of these any weak or wicked be scandalized, then the Rulers do command spiritual murder, and then their commandment is no commandment, no • is it the fifth Commandment. It is just like this, You shall not refuse obedience to your Rulers, commanding you to rub your beards when you come to the Church, or to draw a cross line with your thumb in the air above a baptized infants forehead, though many souls, by obedience to these Commandments▪ be induced to love Popery; many be made sad thinking zealous Rulers, love popish toys better then the simplicity of the Gospel. Now such is the Commandments of Pearth-articles, and these suffer no exceptions, for we judge them no Commandments at all, and if any such be enjoined upon pretence of any other of the nine Commandments, we hold them to be impious commandments, and no obedience to be given to them at all. So if according to the sixth Commandment, and the seven and eight, Rulers command to run Carts amongst a multitude of young Children, whence killing of some might fall out; If they should command a young man, and a fair virgins to chamber together, and command Paul in the case he was at Corinth to take stipend, though it should hinder the progress of the Gospel, as 1 Cor. 9. 23. all these were to command culpable scandals, and were unlawful, as the Canons of Pearth faction. 3. You say, the negative part of the fifth Commandment forbidding the resisting of the power, Rom. 13. 2. by us, is to be understood, with exception of the case of scandal taken, whereby you insinuate, that not to obey the acts of Pearth Assembly, is a resisting of the power of Rulers, Rom. 13. 2. It is ignorantly spoken, to resist every law of the Rulers, is not to resist his power, when the laws are such as commandeth scandal: yea, by your own doctrine it is lawful to fly when a Ruler unjusty, commandeth & persueth his subjects▪ pag. 3. n. 19. And to •• ie I am sure, is to refuse subjection to the Laws of the Ruler, from whose tribunal we • li • , ye • , and to fly so, is to resist his laws, but I hope it is not to resist the power, for to resist the power, bringeth damnation, and guiltinesss before God, Rom. 13. 2. But to fly from his legal Citations, is to resist his laws, but doth not, I hope, bring damnation before God, and sin upon the conscience, as you grant.

Duplyers n. 43.

Answer. If any stumble at our non-obedience to Pearth Articles, and thence be induced to vilipend Laws and Authority, it is a scandal merely taken, no ways given, as is clear, because they stumble at our obedience to God, in that we refuse to kill one for whom Christ died. 2. It is no ways true, that men are naturally inclined to vilipend Laws in a matter indifferent, (as you hold Ceremonies to be) from whence ariseth Scandal, yea, we are by nature much bent to extol and love-laws commanding soul-murder, and all laws inductive to Popery, which is but a mass of carnal propositions of heterodox Divinity, every way suitable to our flesh. The third exception is answered already, the fourth is to be discussed in the following Chapter.

Dupliers pag. 65. n. 43.

Answer. 1. The question of purpose is perversely set do • ne, for they should say, whether the precept of obedience to Superiors, in a straw lifting, in things indifferent, and merely positive, and not necessary to salvation, be more obligatory, then the precept of God, in the law of nature, in a matter necessary to salvation, as a Commandment of God forbidding soul-murder, and scandalizing him for whom Christ died? Or thus; Whether am I obliedged rather to obey God, forbidding me to murder my brother, or to obey man, commanding me to kneel towards Bread and Wine, and to cross the air with my thumb upon the face of a baptized infant.

2. The question seemeth to make a collision of Commandments, as if God could command things contradictory, and certainly, if the not obeying of Pearth Articles be a scandal given, as you say, it is▪ I shall undertake to prove, that the practice of these Ceremonies is a Scandal given, and so it is not a seeming strait as you say, but a real strait by your doctrine. There be cases wherein, whether Rulers command things, or command the contrary, a passive scandal doth arise, but because a passive Scandal, is the sin of the scandal taker, and not of Rulers giving, the Church is not to regard it, as Matth▪ 11. 18▪ 19. The Jews are scandalized, at Christ's eating and drinking, and are scandalized at John the Baptists not eating and drinking. But neither Christ, nor John do culpably give scandal. But there can be no such exigence of providence wherein nonpractising of your commanded Ceremonies, is a given scandal, and the practicing of them is also a given scandal. Because (as Banns, and our own Am • sius saith▪ There is not such a perplexiti • . 1. God should have brought a man then in some cases under an absolute necessity, by way of contradiction to sin, and murder his brother, whether he do such a thing or not do it. 2. Twentie Jews are scandalized, Rom. 14. Because Paul eateth such and such meats, which they conceive are forbidden by God's law. And twenty Christians are scandalized, because Paul eateth not such and such meats, then we suppose, and its very casual, for seeing, to be scandalized ariseth from the knowledge or ignorance of the mind, and divers men may have contrary opinions about one thing. Some think it unlawful for Paul to eat, some think it unlawful not to eat. Hence upon the use of a thing indifferent, twenty are scandalized, and upon the non-using of that same indifferent thing, twenty are also scandalized. What shall Paul do in this strait. I answer, he taketh Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the negative. I will not eat flesh, if meat offend my brother. Then the twenty that are scandalized by the non-practice of the thing indifferent, do take scandal only, whereas Paul giveth no scandal actively. Also, the othet twenty who are scandalized by Paul his practice of the thing indifferent, are justly scandalized, & it is both a scandal taken, and active, and a scandal given and passive. Some object, but if either of the sides be indifferent, to wit, either to use a thing indifferent, or not to use it. If ten take offense at the use of it, and ten take offense at the non-use of it, there is a necessity of scandalizing either of the sides, for the twenty weak Christians are scandalized at Paul's abstinence from such meats, conceiving that he Judaizeth, whereas the Profession of his Christian liberty in eating would edify them, and not scandalize them.

Answer. The use of a thing indifferent is not God's lawful mean of edification, God hath appointed his Word, Works, the holy and blameless profession of his children to edify, and not the using of actions indifferent, yea, actions indifferent as they are such, and separated from necessity, and moral reason, are not lawful, and so the cessation from that action is lawful and necessary, and if the use scandalize, non-using of things indifferent, is not indifferent, but necessary, as non-scandalizing, and negative precepts always binding, abstinence, with Paul is necessary. It is vain that Paybodie saith, that Peter was Gal. 2. in danger of a double scandal, for (saith he) he was in danger to scandalize the Gentiles, in refusing their company, as if they had been no brethren, which was the greater scandal, and in danger to scandalize the Jews in eating with the Gentiles, which was a less sin, and less scandal. But I answer, Paul did not then justly rebuke his Judaizing, Galat. 2. which doth gratify Barronius, Bellarmine, and Papists, who will have Peter, an Apostle who could not err. 2. It should follow that Paul rebuked Peter, because that of two evils of sin, he chose to commit the lesser sin. Whereas of two evils of sin, neither is to be chosen. One might then lawfully commit fornication to be free of adultery. and so fornication should be lawful, which is absurd. And Paul should call Gal. 2. 14. it upright walking according to the truth of the Gospel to choose a less sin. 3. Peter by eating with the Gentiles, should not have scandalized the Jews, but edified them, in showing the Christian liberty they had in Christ, as is clear, v. 5. To whom we gave no subjection, no not for an hour (by practicing Jewish Ceremonies) that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

Duplyers pag. 66.

Answer. 1. This is right down work. But 1. I Answer, Both the precepts are not obligatory, you say true. We commonly say (saith the Doctors) that the precept of obedience to human authority, must give place to the precept of eschewing scandal, although it be causelessly taken. We say not that Commonly, nor at all, if by Scandal causelessly taken, you mean scandal passive, only taken, and not given, for we are not to regard such scandals. But here the scandal is given in that, we must practice base Ceremonies, indifferent knots of straws for men's pleasure, though from thence many souls for whom Christ died, be destroyed. 2. It is good reason that the precept of obedience to human authority in things which you call indifferent, and might well be sent away to Rome (were it not the Lord Prelates pleasure to command them, for their own carnal▪ ends) should yield and be gone, and lose all obligatory power, because it is but a positive precept, and 2. affirmative, that obliedgeth not ad semper, as Cross • , kneel, wear Surplice. And 3. In a thing indifferent, and that this Divine Commandment of God, (scandalize not) (kill not one redeemed by Christ) should stand in force. 1. Because it is a natural precept. 2. It is negative, and obliedgeth eternally. 3. It is of a necessary matter, because no man-slayer hath life eternal, 1 Jh. 3. 15. But our Doctors will have the Commandments positive of men to stand, and the Commandments of God, which are expressly of the law of nature to fall before their Dagon, and to lose all obligatory power, whereas God's own positive law yieldeth, and loseth obligatory power, when God's natural Commandment of mercy cometh in competition with it, as is clear as the noon-day, in David famishing, who eat the Shew-bread, which by a positive law, was not lawful to any save the Priests only, to eat, yet must man's law stand, and God's law of nature fall, at the pleasure of these Doctors. 3. We say justly, you err in saying it is real disobedience to deny obedience to the ordinance of Superiors, when the matter of their law is indifferent, and when it is scandalous, and obedience cannot be given to it, but by s • aying him for whom Christ died, yea, to give obedience to Superiors in that case, is real murthering of souls, and real disobedience to God. Yea, and if there be murthering of a weak brother in the fact, it cannot come under the compass of the matter of an human law, and the Scandal maketh it no obedience to men, but disobedience to God. 4. You retort bravely, but Popishly, the argument back upon us; But we bring our argument from the law of Nature ( Thou shalt not murder, nor scandalize ) and we bring it not so much against the obedience to the Commandment of Superiors, as against the law and Commandment of Superiors, and this Argument is against the Ceremonies, as if they had not been commanded, and as they were before the Assembly of Pearth, and therefore the consideration of a lawful Commandment to take away the scandal, is not to any purpose. And so 5. I may invite Papists, Jesuits, and all the Patrons of the Pope, to thank you, and kiss your pen, for these words we say that the lawful Commandment of Superiors (of Prelates commanding things indifferent) may make that scandal of our weak brethren not to be imputed unto us, which otherwise would be imputed unto us, as a matter of our guiltiness. What ever (my brethren) may be imputed to you otherwise, & before the law of Pearth Assemblie was made, as the matter of your guiltiness, was your sin, for nothing can be imputed to Men or Angels, as guiltiness, but fin. But if the Commandments of Prelates may make that not to be imputed to you, which otherwise and before, or without that law of Superiors, would have been imputed as the matter of your guiltiness, then the law of Superiors and Prelates may make that, which without that law, would have been sin, to be no sin at all. I know no more said by Bellarmine of the Universal Prelate of the world, but that he can make sin to be no sin, and no sin to be sin. And that the Pope cannot command virtue as vice, and vice as virtue, for if he should do so, the Church should be obliged to believe virtue to be vice, and vice to be virtue. But much good do it you, Masters of Arts. Yet Bellarmine in his recognitions, saith not so much of his great Pope-Prelate, as you say of your little Prelates, for he will not give the foresaid power to the Pope, but in doubtsome acts, and in acts of positive laws about fasting, you give to Prelates more, to wit, that their commanding will, may make sins forbidden in the law of nature, to be not imputed, as the matter of our guiltiness, and to be no sins; We cannot want dispensations and indulgences at home, ere it be long, if happily we pay well for them.

Yet Bernard will not have the Popes commandment to make that which is simply evil to be lawful. The Popes pleasure make not things good (saith Tolet ) yea, a subject (saith Alphonsus d ••• astro) may without sin contemn the law of his Superior, judging it to be evil, and contrary to reason.

But I reason thus; It is the incommunicable power of the Supreame Law▪ giver to make the killing of Isaac, which other ways would have been imputed to Abraham as a matter of guiltiness, and cruelty, to be no sin. Ergo, Prelates have not power to make an act of soul▪murder, to be no sin, to scandalize a weak brother is to destroy him, for whom Christ died, Rom. 14. v. 15. 1 Cor. 8. v. 11. yea, and by the same law Rulers may make an act of Adultery, an act of Chastity, an act of lying, an act of truth speaking.

2. If Rulers, even the Apostle Paul, be tied by the law of Nature, to Charity to their brethren, as Rom. 14. 15. Not to stay him for whom Christ died, not to se • ke their own things, but the good of their brethren, 1 Cor. 10. 24. Not to eat things sacrificed to idols, before the weak, v. 29. To do all for the glory of God, v. 32. Then is it sin in the Ruler himself to scandalize the weak. Ergo, Rulers cannot command to others that as obedience, which they cannot do themselves without prodigious disobedience to God. What Paul forbiddeth in Canonical Scripture as murder, that he cannot command in Church Canons as obedience Canonical to Superiors.

3. Prelates shall have immediate Dominion over our consciences to bind us to obedience by doing acts that otherwise should be imputed to • s as the matter of our guiltiness; and because the same power that bindeth the conscience, may also loose, so they may dispense with all the ten Commandments, and coin to us a new Decalogue, and a new Gospel. They may legitimate murders, paricides, and illegitimate Godliness▪ and right ••• snesse and sobri • ti • , by this Divinity.

4. That must be false ( It is better to obey God nor man, Act. 5.) but to abstain from scandalizing a weak brother, is an act of obedience to the sixth Commandment. Ergo, the contrary cannot be done at the command of Prelates. 6. God's positive laws yieldeth (Thou shalt not kill) to wit to the law of nature. David may eat show bread, when he is famishing. Ergo, the Prelates law far more must yield to the sixth Commandment (thou shalt not scandaliz • , nor kill the soul of him for whom Christ died.) 7. Rulers must all be infallible law-makers. 8. Rulers might command bodily murder, and it should not be murder, they may command to dignity pitts in the way of Travelers, To marry with Infidel • , to send abroad a goaring Ox, to give knives to little children.

Answer. 1. The Master, Father, Carpenter, command either these things as artificial agents, from reason of art, and then the question is not touched, for in scandals men are considered, as moral agents, or they command them as moral agents, and that either for their sole will and pleasure, and so they be idle and unreasonable actions, and cannot be lawful commandments, and so are they scandalous both to Commanders and obeyers, but they may well command upon just reasons, that which if servants and sons obey not, they give Scandal, and they may command the contrary of that same, at another time, when now contrary reasons maketh it lawful and expedient, and if servants and sons obey not the contrary, they also give Scandal, but here the change is not from the will and authority of the Commanders, but from the things themselves, which 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 are changed, so that which is an active scandal at some time, the contrary of it may be an active scandal at another time, as in the ease, Rom. 14. To eat meats before the weak, which they conceive to be forbidden, by God's law, is to slay him for whom Christ died, and an active scandal, because then the Ceremonies were mortal and indifferent, nothing essentially constituteth an active and a given scandal, but these two; 1. That it may be left undone, as the author of the course of conformity, saith well out of Hieronimus, Without hurting of the truth of a sound life, and a sound faith and righteousness. 2. If upon the practice of a thing indifferent, and not necessary, any of the foresaid three ways, we see some shall be scandalized, though they take scandal upon an unjust ground, it is an active scandal, as to eat such meats before the weak, Rom. 14. is in another time and case, as Galat. 2. when the Ceremonies are now deadly, and upon just reasons not necessary, the practicing (I say) of the same, is an active scandal and so if any be scandalized at the eating, Rom. 14. it is scandal both taken, and also culpably given, and if any be scandalized at the not eating, as the case is, Galat. 2. That is only a passive scandal, and so not given, because the times of the expyring of the duty of Ceremonies, and the full promulgation of the Gospel, varieth the case now, and the sole will of Rulers maketh not the change; So if any offer Incence to the Brazen Serpent, so long as it hath virtue, as God's ordinance to cure the stinged persons, he is scandalized by a passive scandal only, for God's institution maketh it now the necessary ordinance of God, And the Magistrates suffering of the Brazen Serpent to remain now, is no active scandal, and the passive scandal is only taken away, by information, and the sound exponing of the right use of a necessary ordinance of God. But after that the Brazen Serpent loseth its virtue, and is not now an ordinance of God necessary, if any burn Incense to it, these who are by authority obliedged to remove it, and doth not remove it, they do morally and culpably scandalize.

Hence we see it is foolish and vain, that some say, such as Hooker. D. Forbes. D. Sanderson, and Lyndesay, pretended Bishop of Edinburge, and Mr. Paybodie. That as Rome and Corinth the Church had not past her determination upon eating, and not eating, nor made any Church laws upon these things indifferent, and therefore to eat, or not to eat, were matters of every private man's choice; But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies, for they remain no longer indifferent, but are necessary to us, after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them, and so the scandal that ariseth from our duty of obedience, to lawful authority, is taken, and not given.

I answer, it is most false, that eating and not eating, in case of scandal was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co▪ rinth. For these most indifferent acts in their use, and clothed with their Circumstances, when, where, and before what persons, were under the unalterable law of nature, as ( destroy not him, with thy meat for whom Christ died ) a law which as the course of conformity saith well, cannot be dispensed with by no power but God's. And Paul proveth by stronger arguments, to eat in the case of Scandal, was not indifferent, but simply evil, Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford, as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments, as we have seen, that it fighteth against Charity, v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably. 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died, and so murder. 3. Contrary to Christ's love, who died for that weak brother. 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Liberty to be evil spoken of. v. 6. &c. It is a sham then to say, that eating, or not eating, was indifferent, because free from any ty of a Church Canon, seeing eating before a weak brother is under the ty of unanswerable Arguments taken from the law of nature, and God's Canons written in the heart, forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathema, and curse, (heavier then the Church anathema, ) that we should, for meat, destroy him for whom Christ died, and so are the Canon-makers, and Lord's of Ceremonies under a curse, if they for crossing, kneeling, surplice, destroy him for whom Christ died, or command him to be destroyed, by the practice of Ceremonies. 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome, and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these.

Notwithstanding the eating of meats, which some suppose to be forbidden by God's law, be a killing of him for whom Christ died, and against Charity▪ and a reproaching of our Christian liber • ie, yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, the Prelates of Rome and Corinth, to command eating of such meats, before weak ones, for whom Christ died. But certainly Paul would never have command • d, in a Canon, that which he writeth in Canonical Scripture, to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died, and that which he would not practice himself, to the worlds end, so long as it standeth in the case of indifferency, as he saith of eating of fleshes, conceived by some weak ones to be against God's law, 1 Cor. 8. v. last, The Pope himself would, nor dare in conscience, to practice any of his own Canons, even though they were yet not Canonically commanded or forbidden. Paul would not dare to put a law upon the Romans or Corinthians, to eat, or not to eat meats, before the weak, but commandeth not eating in the case of scandal. 4. Idolatry is ever idolatry, (saith the course of conformity) and so scandal being sin it cannot cease to be sin, because superiors commandeth it. 5. Though Apostolic authority being merely divine, should command that which is in itself murder, and was • urther, before it be Canonically commanded, (which I think also is a false hypothesis) yet it shall never follow that human authority, or Ecclesiastic authority can command scandal, which is spiritual murder; For if Ecclesiastic authority may command murder, they may command idolatry, for active scandalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom▪ Christ died, as to worship an idol, is essentially idolatry. Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gall • way being straited with this argument, said, Though human authority cannot invert the nature of things, or make spiritual murder, to be no murder, yet they can by a Church Canon put the minds of people in such a change, as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized▪ for a scandal (said the Prelate)▪ is ens rationis, no real thing but a fiction of reason, the nature of it being in the apprehension of the ignorant and blind, who are scandalized, and a law may remove this ignorance, when it giveth light, and showeth the expediency of things indifferent. To which I answered, you may, call idolatry, if you please, and all sins, fictions of reason, but not only doth scandal given proceed from ignorance and blindness of the apprehension of the party scandalized, but also from the unseasonable practicing of a thing, which is no ways necessary in the worship of God. The course of confirmitie saith well, He that denieth that there is any scandal, is like one who could not see the wood, for the trees—the walking of Diogenes is meetest for a Zeno, who against all reason denieth that there is any motion. We may hence judge what to say of D. Forbes his Answer to the place, 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiastical law, not to take wages, and therefore in not taking wages, he was not a contemner of Ecclesiastical authority, but we are under a Church law to practice the Ceremonies, and yet we refuse them. I answer; If then the Church of Corinth had commanded Paul in their Canons to take stipend, for preaching, he was obliedged to take stipend, yet he proveth that it was not lawful for him, as the case of scandal then stood, to take wages, v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospel, and v. 19. 20, 21. he should not have becomed all things to all men to save some, and these things had been sinfully scandalous, if (as the case was then) Paul for a penny of wages, which he might have wanted, having no family to provide for, should have laid a stumling block before many. And the Doctor • aith No human power can compel a man, to do that, which he cannot do, except inevitably he give scandal. The Doctor addeth; The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawful, or of it self scandalous, yea he taught it was lawful, and that they should not be scandalized thereat, because Christ hath ordained, that he who serveth at the altar, should live upon the Altar, but you teach that the Ceremonies are unlawful. I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandal, we give, but do not grant, that they are not unlawful, but indifferent. 2. Though to take wages be lawful, yet it followeth not, that it is not in Paul's ca • e at Corinth of it self scandalous; for to eat all meats is lawful, Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 10. 23. All things are lawful, v. 26. The earth is the Lord's, yet to eat before the weak, was in it self scandalous, Rom. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 10. 28. 29. 3. It is a most weak reason to prove that to take wages was not scandalous, because for • ooth the Corinthians should not have been scandalized: for to be scandalized is to sin, and there is no reason in sinning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If this be good, adultery and murder in David, is not of it self scandalous, for as no man hath reason to sin, so no man hath reason to be scandalized, at David's sin. Paul's taking wages at Corinth should have been a sinful hindering of the Gospels progress, and therefore of itself sinful; and so of it self scandalous. But I return to the Doctors.

Duplyers pag 67. 68. n. 46 47.

Answer. 1. This distinction of inexpedient in the matter of indifferent Ceremonies is Popish and vain, for if the Ceremony be indifferent, and may be wanted in the worship of God (as these Ceremonies be) if one soul, for whom Christ died, shall be murdered thereby, it is hoc ipso, to be judged inexpedient and scandalous in it self, and so cannot fall under the object of a Church Canon, as 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my brother to stumb'le (he saith not the whole Church) I will not eat. Ergo, he cannot command others to eat. 1 Cor. 10. 28. But if any man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , say to you, this is offered in sacrifice to Idols, eat not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for his sake that shown it. Ergo, if it seem expedient, and so be scandalous to one, let alone to a whole Church, we are totally to forbear it, and Paul would, while the world standeth, 1 Cor. 8. 13. forbear it. 2. You will not have us to forbear a thing indifferent, that actively (for the passive scandal, I hope, you regard not as a scandal) doth scandalize, but with a provision that we do it without offense of Superiors, and without the scandal of others. But I ask, Doctors, what you mean by Offence of Superiors, if you mean without displeasing and inciting our Superiors to anger. 1. You ignorantly confound displeasing and Scandalizing, When a Pastor rebuketh Superiors, as Jeremiah, Elias, and John the Baptist, in the good old world did, they did displease Superiors, but not scandalize them; yea, they did edify their Superiors, while as they did offend them. It is wicked Divinity, to mean, that we are not to eschew the murthering of a weak brother for whom Christ died providing we offend not, that is, displease not our Superiors. Will you to please men displease the God of heaven, and commit spiritual homicide? This is worse then Popery.

But if you mean, that we are to forbear the thing commanded for eschewing the scandal of the weak, providing we do it without the offense of Superiors, that is without the active scandalizing of Superiors, then 1. your distinction is vain, for if we scandalize culpably our superiors by our forbearance, though it be inexpedient to all private persons, we are not to forbear, because in no case can we break the sixth Commandment, and scandalize our Superiors. 2. You shall be forced to give • case, wherein we are necessitated by God's providence, and that by way of contradiction, whether we forbear, or forbear not, to murder either the souls of some weak ones, or the souls of Superiors, by our forbearance of the practice of things judged expedient by Superiors, you make us to murder the souls of Superiors by the non-forbearance, or you will have us to murder the souls of weak brethren, if we practice. This is a wronging of Providence, and a Ma • ichean tenent, that we can be under such a necessity of sinning. Yea, there must be two centra • y revealed wills in God, commanding, by forbearing the Ceremonies, not to murder Superiors, and commanding by not forbearing, not to murder weak brethren; and so God commandeth both to forbear, and also not to forbear. If you say, the weak may be informed, and then it is a passive scandal only, and practicing is lawful at the commandment of Superiors. I answer, 1. Then your distinction hath no use here. 2. I answer. Let the Superiors, who have more knowledge, be informed, that to abstain from a practice, that may murder any one redeemed by Christ, is Christ's commandment ( Thou shalt do no murder ) then it is but a passive scandal, and not an active, or culpably given scandal. Ergo, we are to forbear the thing commanded for eschewing of the scandal▪ (hic & nunc ) of the weak, even though with the offense, that is the passive scandal of Superiors and others, which is contradictory to the Doctors. 3. If we may forbear obedience to God's positive Commandments, hic & nunc, for esehewing of Scandal, far more may we, hic & nunc, not cross, not kneel, hic & nunc, when crossing and kneeling murdereth one for whom Christ died, even though it offend our Superiors. Ergo, this provision of the Doctors is vain; and Superiors are unjustly offended, if our nonmurthering of weak brethren offend them, nor are we to care for the Doctors provision here. 4. No utility can truly redound to the whole Church by practicing of an indifferent thing which culpably occasioneth the murthering of a weak brother, Except our Doctors mean, that sin may edify the whole Church. 5. They say, if the things in our private judgment be inexpedient the second way, that is to the Church, the Church cannot Command them, except the Church command against her conscience. 6. If matters in their expediency be questionable and probable on both sides, the Churches determination should end the controversy (saith the Doctors) this is the Doctrine of the Jesuits, Suarez. Thomas Sanches, and Gregor de valent. as I show before when a thing is probable, and I be resolved in conscience against neither of the sides, and fear the one side be murthering him, for whom Christ died, which is against God's commandment, and know that human authority commandeth the contrary and am persuaded it is indifferent, and a positive commandment of men, if the Churches determination be here to sway my conscience; to practice, is to me blind obedience, for human authority as it is such, giveth no light. Ergo, it cannot remove my doubting, and beget faith; and also the conscience is so much the bolder to venture on a sin, against God, for fear of eschewing a sin against men, which is questionable, and in a matter indifferent, this is also the stout conscience of Bonaventura 2 sent. dist. 39. plus est standum praecepto Praelati quam conscientiae. 7. Our Doctors say, our way is against the peace of the Church: But I answer, their way is Popish, and against the truth of God, in commanding our consciences to rest upon the wicked will of men. And their instance of a Synod of a hundred Pastors may be brought as well to prove the Synod of Trent is to be obeyed, as for the present purpose,

Duplyers, pag. 69.

Answer 1. This is a wide step, to make all things in Scripture, either matters of faith, or matters indifferent. That there were eight persons in Noah's Ark, and that Sampson s • ew a thousand with the jaw bone of an asse, are not matters of faith, as matters of faith are contradistinguished, from things indifferent, many are saved, who neither know nor believe many things of this historical verity in Scripture, yet are they not matters indifferent. But the Doctors are reconcilers with the Belgik Arminians, who deny all the things contraverted betwixt Papists and us, and betwixt us and Arminians, and Anabaptists, at least the most part of them to be fundamental▪ and that either side may be believed, and holden, without hazard of salvation, and therefore we are to lean to the Churches determination in these without farther inquiry. 2 They mean, that in matters contraverted, and in all things indifferent; as whether in this, or that fact, we do murder him for whom Christ died; We are to give our faith and conscience over to the Church without further trial. 3. What if we be▪ not persuaded of the indifferency of the things commanded but doubt whether they be commanded or forbidden in the Word, as is now the present case of Ceremonies to us, for we cannot be persuaded of their indifferency, and the Doctors saith they are not matters of faith. Ergo, by their own doctrine their distinction is defective. 4. Scripture is also perfect in resolving us, what is scandal and murthering of our brother, as what is Idolatry and Blasphemy, and therefore we are not to hang our faith here upon the Churches Canons without farther trial, as you say. 5. That the Scripture is perfect in matters of faith, but imperfect in matters of Policy, that is in matters wherein we may kill him for whom Christ died, is no better then the Papists distinction, who teach us that the Scripture is perfect in the articles of faith, not in traditions, so Scotus saith. True Theology according to Divine revelation is only of things in Scripture, or which may be deduced out of Scripture. And Suarez saith, Things that belong to accidentarie rites are left to the Churches determination, but the Scripture implicitly containeth all articles of fear faith. And so saith Banns, and Duvallius. 6. Your fear is vain, that we shall have no order nor peace, if Scripture be judge, and not the authority of the Church, in matters which you call indifferent, for the Church giveth out Canons concerning things strangled, & blood, which were matters indifferent, and that from the word of God, Act. 15. and that in great unity and peace. God's word maketh unity, and not men's authority. 7. Disobedience to Church Canons in case of given Scandal, is neither disobedience, nor hurteth at all; It possibly offendeth men who will tyrannize over the Conscience, and if any be induced thereby to sin, it is a scandal taken, not given. Abstinence from murthering a weak brother, is obedience to God, and so no active Scandal.

In the 48 Section▪ The Duplyers do but redouble over again the arguments already brought and answered by me divers times to D▪ Robert Barron in private, while he was silenced, and (as I conceived) satisfied. Especially, they say our disobedience to superiors in things lawful and expedient, is most scandalous to others, and that because we, by nature, are most unwilling to be curbed, and to have our liberty restrained. Therefore Calvin saith, God, that he may allure us to obedience to •••• riours, called, superiors, Parents.

I answer. 1. The Doctors are too hasty to call that obedience to Superiors which is in question, We say it is disobedience to the • ixt Commandment, because it is a scandalizing of our brother. Ergo, it is not obedience to the fifth Commandment to practice indifferent Ceremonies, when they do scandalize. 2. Our argument is made against the practice of Ceremonies, before they be enacted in a lawful Assemblie, if they be murthering of the weak, before Pearth-Assemblie, the will of Prelates, yea, and all the authority of men or Angels, cannot make the practice of them, to be no murder, for men's will cannot make that which is sin and guiltiness before God, to be no sin, but due obedience to the fifth Commandment, though the Doctors expressly say this.

Duplyers, pag. 71. Sect. 44.

Ans. 1. It is soon proved by your learning, for the precept of God's law to eschew scandal, to you is no precept, and so of no obligation, when Superiors command to scandalize, so you may prove that snow is whiter then the raven, when as the raven is not white at all.

I answer. 2. That precept is of greater obligation that commandeth acts edificative to all, then that which commandeth acts edificative to some. It is true, 1. if it be a lawful command of God, but the • ssumption applied to your purpose is most false, the command to obey Prelates, when they command things indifferent, the obedience whereof doth culpably occasion the murthering of him, for whom Christ died, is not a commandment edificative to all, yea, it is a Commandment of acts destructive to the souls of all. This Argument would have some color, if it were not a vain begging of the question, for they lay down as, confessed, that the practice of Ceremonies, from whence many souls are ruined, is obedience, and obedience to the fifth Commandment. This is to be proven, and constantly denied by us, because disobedience to the sixth Commandment, and murthering of our brother, cannot be obedience to the fifth Commandment.

Duplyers pag. 72. n. 50.

Ans. You said before matters of Policy are not matters of faith. Ames is a Protestant writer in matters of faith, by grant of all, it is like then you term • mesius our own, not yours, because he wrote against Arminians and Papists, and so that Arminians and Papists are yours, and Protestant Divines ours. 2. We grant the precedency and dignity to the fifth Commandment above the rest, but your Ceremonies that break the sixth Commandment, shall find no room in the fifth Commandment. Cause the fifth Commandment speak thus, if you can; Notwithstanding, that crossing, kneeling, surplice, human holy days occasion the soul murder of him for whom Christ died, yet we the Prelates command the practice of the foresaid Ceremonies as good and expedient for edification, for our Commandment maketh the murthering of our brethren, to be obedience to the fifth Commandment. But if Prelates may command that which would be otherwise, without, or before the Commandment, spiritual murthering and scandalizing of our brother, they may command also, that which would be otherwise without, or before their command, adultery against the seventh, and theft against the eighth, and perjury and lying against the ninth Commandment, and concupiscence against the tenth; for the fifth Commandment hath the precedency before the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth Commandments, no less then before the sixth, which forbiddeth the killing of our brothers soul. 3. What Ames and Parens saith, do well prove the dignity of the fifth Commandment, above all the Commandments of the second Table; but this is not to our purpose, but every commandment of the fifth Commandment; yea, every commandment of the first Table, is not above every commandment of the second Table. The love of God, is more then the love of our neighbor, and the love of God should, and doth, command obedience to all the ten Commandments, Deut. 30. 6. 7, 8. & Deut. 10. 12. Yet every duty and commandment that the love of God requireth of us, as to offer sacrifice, is not for that a greater commandment then every commandment of the second Table, yea, the taking of a sheep out of a ditch on the Lord's day, commanded in the sixth Commandment, is more then sacrifices commanded in the second Commandment, as our Savior saith, Math. 12. v. 11, 12. and though the fifth Commandment be laid upon us as the fountain and cause, yea to this end, that we should keep all the rest, as Divines say well. Yet it followeth not that every commandment of the fifth Commandment, as when my father commandeth me to preach in a linen Ephod, and to cast a Character with my thumb in the air, as crossing is, shall be of more obligation then this commandment of God (Thou shalt not destroy his soul for whom Christ died) 4. It is false, that denying of obedience to Pearth-Assemblie, commanding indifferent straws and feathers as (kneel to consecrated Bread, the Image of Christ crucified) doth directly procure the perturbation and confusion of human societies, as the Doctors saith. There is great difference betwixt subjection to superiors, and obedience to superiors; When private men, as the three Children will not bow to Nebuchadnezzar's Image, there is no confusion brought in for that, if they had risen against the King in arms, as Papists do in Ireland against our King, that is confusion, and subverteth directly human scocieties, but to suffer punishment by Superiors, is subjection to superiors, as is clear, 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honor the King. 18. Servan • s be subject to your Masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward. 19. For this is thank-worthy (this subjection) if a man, for conscience reward God▪ enaure grief, suffering wrongfully. 5. What Dionysius said of the ill of schism is for us, for schism is against love to our brethren, and a renting Christ's body. 1 Cor. 1. 13. and a greater evil then non-obedience to Prelates, when they command indifferent Ceremonies, occasioning the r •• ne of him for whom Christ died. To say nothing that the Doctors of Aberdeen are the Schismatics who have now separated from the Church of Scotland, and our National covenant with God.

Duplyers pag. 37. n. 51.

Ans. 1. Here be the white shifts of Mr. Sanderson, Paybodie, Downham, who place Loyaltie above Charity. We owe to our brother love, but to the Ruler (say they) love and justice. 1. Why do they not extend Loyaltie to its utmost, even loyalty to the King of kings? whose royal law saith▪ ( Thou shale not scandalize (Thou shalt not murder) they draw in loyalty to Rulers who shall die as men, and to their commandment of things indifferent, which God hath not commanded. 2. It is true, these duties which we owe to others by way of justice, are more obligatory then these which we owe only by way of charity, caeteris paribus, When duties of the law of Nature, and moral Law, are compared together, then indeed the duties which we owe, both by the tie of Justice and Charity, are more obligatory, then the duties that we owe only by the tie of Charity. As for example; My father is in danger, before my eyes, to be drowned, in one deep water; and before my eyes also, my neighbor and friend is in danger of the like kind; the two tyes and bands of Justice and Charity, both by the fifth and sixth Commandments are more obligatory, hic & nunc, and do more strictly oblige, that I run to succor, and preserve the life of my father, then the life of my neighbor, for the obligation to my neighbor, is only charity, by the obligation of the sixth Commandment, which obligation ceaseth, hic & nunc, at this time, when my fathers life is in hazard; and thus far the Doctors argument goeth for strong, as Schoolmen, Casuists, and Divines teach. But it is not to a purpose for the Doctors; For all offices and duties generally, and universally, of what ever kind, which we owe by way of Justice, are not more obligatory, then duties which we owe, only by way of Charity, as when duties of a positive commandment of God, enjoined by our Superiors, and duties which we owe by charity only, are compared together, then the Doctors major Proposition is not clear of it self, as they dream, nor do Casuists or Ames, or Divines say with them, but truth, and all our Divines say against them. Let us suppose that the King, and Convocation, and Assembly of Priests and Prophets of Israel make a Canon according to God's Word. That no manner of man presume to eat show-bread, save the Priests only. All men owe obedience to this, both because it is God's express Law, and by the band of Justice, the Elders and Assembly of the Ancients have forbidden it. But if our Doctors argument stand strong, David at the point and hazard of famishing for hunger, sinned in eating show-bread, yet Christ acquitteth him of all sin, and saith Math. 12. 5. he and his followers are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , blameless. Now Davia was under a duty by mercy, and love to his own life, and he lives of his followers, to eat show-bread, and he was under the band of Justice, by the law of the Ancients of Israel, and God's law, not to eat. Therefore in some cases, when our Superiors commandments are only positive Laws, they are not more obligatory, then duties of Charity, only commanded in the law of nature. I clear it further thus, I see my neighbor in danger before my eyes of drowning, and my father commandeth me to go and labor, or sow his farm in that time, while I am to preserve the life of my neighbor in present danger, to lose his life, in a great water. By the Doctors maxim I am under the higher obligatory tie of Justice, to obey my father, who commandeth a thing both lawful and necessary by virtue of the higher Commandment, to wit, the first of the second Table, then I am obliged by the sixth Commandment, and of charity only, to give present succor and help to my dying neighbor, so I must let my neighbor die in the waters, to give a duty of justice to my father, of far less necessity. I would not commit my conscience to such Casuists, as are the Doctors of Aberdeen. But if the Doctors would see with some new light of reason; it is clear, that not only the tie of Justice maketh the precept more obligatory, but also the weightiness of the thing commanded; Yea, and if the positive Commandments of the Lord our God, who of Justice and kingly sovereignty▪ hath right to ask obedience of us above all earthly Superiors do yield and cede as less obligatory, then commandments of love only, that are commanded in the law of nature. What do our Doctors clatter and fable to us of a right of Justice, that mortal Rulers have to command in things indifferent, from which the destruction of souls doth arise? for these commandments of Rulers, (kneel religiously before bread, the vicegerent image of Christ crucified) (keep human holy-days) Cross the air with your thumb above a baptized infants face ) at best, are but positive Commandments, not warranted by God's word. But shall they be more obligatory by a supposed band of Justice that Prelates have over us to command, such toy's then this divine law of God and Nature, Rom. 14. For indifferent days, meats, surplice, destroy not him for whom Christ died? All the Casuistes, and Schoolmen, Navarra, Sylvester, Sanchez, Raphael de la Torre, Meratius, Duvallius, Thomas, Scotus, Bonaventura, Suarez. Uasquez, Grego. de Valentia, Albertus, Richardus, Biel, Corduba, Angelus, Adrianus, Alphonsus, Becanus, yea, and all the host of our Divines cry with Scripture, that Mercy and the precepts of Love, and of the Law of nature, are more obligatory then Sacrifice, burnt offerings, and God's own positive laws, yea, and that positive laws lose their obligatory power, and cease to be laws, when the laws of nature and necessary duties of mercy and love (as not to murder our brother) (not to scandalize) standeth in their way. I might weary the reader here with citations, and bewilder myself also, but it is a point of Divinity denied by none at all. 3. What we owe of Justice to our Superiors, is indeed both a moral debt of obedience, and a debt of justice, and law which Rulers may seek by their place, and ex jure, as Aristotle saith, but this right is limited, Rulers have no right to seek absolute obedience, but only in the Lord, not against charity. And though the place of Rulers be authoritative, yet their commanding power, as touching the matter of what they enjoin is only Ministerial, and they cannot but in God's place exact, that which is God's due, and seeing God himself, if he should immediately in his own person command, he would not urge a positive commandment, far less the commandment of light and vain Ceremonies, against and beyond the precept of love, not to destroy a soul for whom Christ died. Ergo, Superiors under God, who borrow all their right from God, cannot have a higher right then God hath. 4. The comparison of a man who oweth moneys to a Creditor, and oweth moneys to the poor, is close off the way, for he is obliged to pay the Creditor first, but the case here is far otherwise; The debt of practicing indifferent feathers and straws, such as kneeling, crossing, wearing Surplice, is neither like the debt owine to the poor, nor to the creditor; For natures law, and God's word, 1 Cor. 10. 18, 19. maketh the nonpractise, non-murthering obedience to God, when the practice of indifferent things, is a soul-stumbling to the weak, and the practicing is but at its best obedience to a positive Law, and ought to stoop, and go off the way, and disappear when natures Law (Murder not) doth come in its way. When the Doctors put Loyaltie above Charity, they suppose obedience to commandments commanding scandalizing of souls to be loyalty to Superiors, which is questioned, it being treason to the Sovereign of heaven and earth, to destroy his Image, it is taken as loyalty by our Doctors, but not proven to be loyalty, and so a vain question here, whether Loyaltie be above Charity or not. But I dismiss the Doctors till another occasion. Other things as Popish tenets, in their book are a thousand times answered by us.

1. Dist.

S Ome things are necessary physically, as to eat flesh, and some things are necessary morally, either because of a law of nature, or a positive or divine command.

2. Dist.

The same way, Some things are not necessary physically, and that either simply, as we may live simply without some rare meats, that our Land and soil doth not afford, or in some respect only, as without such and such flesh forbidden by the law of God. Or things are not necessary Morally or Theologically, as to eat forbidden-meats before a weak Jew.

3. Dist.

Some things Physically necessary, as to eat fleshes being apt to nourish my body, may be Morally or Theologically not necessary, being stambling blocks to my weak brother.

4. Dist.

Some things may be necessary, in specie, and that morally, as to hear the Word, to Pray. But, in individuo, clothed with such and such circumstances may be not necessary, as to go to hear the Word, when my brothers house is on fire, that hearing is not necessary, but may be scandalous, and the like we may say of praying in the streets.

5. Dist.

Some things may be necessary Physically in private▪ as to eat for health some fleshes, which publicly before weak Jews, as the case was Rom. 14. is Morally not necessary, but scandalous.

6. Distinct.

1. Concl. Monuments, or instruments of idolatry, are of two sorts, either such things as have no other use at all, but to contribute sorne subservient influence in, or unto idolatrous worship, and because these have all their warrant from a mere commandment of man, they are simply not necessary, as the graven image, the idols themselves, all positive observances in God's worship destitute of any command of God, and the use of these in any case must be scandalous, and so unlawful, because, if the Brazen Serpent now losing its primitive divine effect, which was to cure the stinged people, if it be but the passive object of robbing God of his glory, in that Incense is burnt to it, have no use at all▪ but to be, as it were, a robbers Den to receive the stolen-away glory of God, it must be abolished. It is true things necessary abused in regard of our corruption, are to be purged, and restored to their own use, but if they be useless, and of themselves have no fruit, but only, that they are fit to be abused, as useless pittes by the way side, and the Brazen Serpent, and a Razor put in the hand of a child, and images, they are to be removed, both subject and accident, for that they be uncapable of purgation, therefore they are capable only of abolition. It is not enough to say that we may devise a good use for them, as we may use Images to put us in remembrance of God, for we may never devise the use of a thing not necessary in Religion, when as we cannot devise the thing it self. But here we cannot devise the thing it self. Yea, if the thing it self be good, and lawfully useful. As the eating of flesh, yet if it be less necessary, for the life, then the edification of my brother. The Apostles excellent rule, Rom. 14. v. 15. must stand as a law discharging my eating▪ No man for this or this m • at, which is less necessary, ought to hinder the salvation of his brother, which is more necessary, by destroying his brother for meat. For clear it is, this or that meat, without which I may live, is of fa • re less necessity comparatively, then the salvation of one for whom Christ died. True it is also, if my brother be scandalized, and so his soul in hazard, if I eat any at all, in that case, the scandal is merely passive, for though my brothers salvation be of greater consequent and necessity then my temporal life, yet my total abstinence from meat is a killing of myself and heinous murder, and so forbidden in the sixth Commandment, and so a destroying of my own soul. And eating for conscience sake is necessary, though eating of this or this meat be not necessary.

But there be other things that are instruments of idolatry and subservient thereunto, in a Common and Physical influence, as a Temple built to the honor of a Saint, and for the adoring of Images, and for the reading and opening the word of God in the New and Old Testament, though in a corrupt way, these are not properly monuments of Idolatry. Now the house or Church, as such is no monument, nor useless instrument in worship, such as is a Surplice, a human holy day, for it hath, as such, being a thing of walls and timber, no other, then that very same physical influence in worshipping either the true God, or a Saint, that it hath in civil use, in our ordinary dwelling, to wit, to fence our bodies, in religious, in natural, in civil actions, from injuries of heaven, clouds, and sin. The adjuncts of the Church, as Crucifixes, Images, Altars, Ravels, Mass-clothes, 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.