To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
First, it cannot be denied, but that divers indifferent things may be hic & nunc of such weight, and moment, of such necessity, or at least expediency, and conveniency, as that the just com∣mands of our lawfull superiours may render them our duty, and omission of them would be sinfull: of subjection unto such com∣mands the Apostle speaks, Rom. 13. 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Where by
wrath is understood Metonymically punishment: we are therefore to obey the Commands of the Magistrate, not onely for feare of punishment, but also for feare of sin: lest we wound the Consci∣ence with transgression of the fifth Commandement. To assert the contrary, (that 'tis not a sinfull disobedience to violate the Commands of Superiours concerning some things indifferent in their generall nature,) tends apertly to the dissolving of all go∣vernment, and stocks up the authority of Magistrates, and masters of families by the very roots.
Secondly, 'tis as unquestionable, that all omissions of what is commanded by humane lawes are not sins, unlesse they be out of contempt of authority: for
First; otherwise (as(t) 1.1 Ames rightly saies) as many lawes as there were, so many snares for soules there were, and they that live under lawes, should be subject to many more sins, then they who live among barbarous people, either quite without lawes, or with but a few.
Secondly, there be divers lawes, that be(u) 1.2 purely penall, and the intent of such lawes is satisfied, when one patiently submits unto the punishment inflicted for the breach of them; such are se∣verall lawes of our Land putting restraints upon some men in fouling, fishing, hunting, and the like: as also that statute, which prohibited the eating of flesh, at such times upon politick respects, for the breed, and increase of cattle, as also for the encouragement of fishing, Now no man can reasonably hold, that every breach of such lawes is a sin, especially when tis not contemptuous, and scandalous: I put in that limitation, because contempt of authority, and scandall unto others will make a very small, and otherwise inconsiderable violation of a meer penall law, to be a very hei∣nous sinne.
Thirdly, the omission of what is commanded by humane lawes is in many cases(w) 1.3 agreeable unto the presumptive will of a just magistrate. It is to be presumed, that if he knew the cases, he would tolerate the omission, and therefore such a bare omission would not be a sin: Of this Ames speakes very well: the obliga∣tion, saith he, of a Law, must not be stretched beyond the just in∣tention, and mind of the lawgiver, but it is to be presumed, that no man would oblige his Subjects to a mortall guilt, and utter damnation, for every neglect of his will and pleasure. Nay if in some case, the Law cannot possibly be observed, but some great damage, scandall, or inconvenience, must needs follow, it is to be presumed, that the Law-giver never intended that the Law in such a case should be observed. We would reckon him a very cru∣ell Magistrate that should be implacably angry at a sicke man for eating flesh in a time of Lent, and can we thinke then, that there was any such thing as Christian pity and commiseration in the breasts of those men whom nothing could attone for the omissi∣on of the Crosse, Surplice, &c? while they scandalized, that is de∣stroyed, the immortall soules of many for whome Christ dyed. Suppose the greatest Monarch upon the face of the earth should command the meanest, and lowest of his slaves upon some impor∣tant affaire to ride post through such a City, without any of the least stay or diversion, and then it should happen, that a com∣pany of litle children should be playing in the streets; can this slave think, that he is obliged to ride over them? Nay, un∣lesse we imagine his Master to be a most bloudy Tyrant, we must needs think, that he will be highly displeased at so horrid a cruel∣ty; and can any man then make any tolerable apology for the ty∣ranny* 1.4 of our late Prelates, who commanded all to drive on with a furious career in the course of conformity, without any the least stop, though hereby were hazarded a world of soules, pur∣chased at no lower a rate than the divine bloud of our blessed Saviour?
It is the will and pleasure of the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, that matters commanded by his affirmative precepts should be, for a while, forborne, in case of the likelihood of scandall conse∣quent; but these men (in imitation of him that exalted himselfe above all that is called God 2 Thes. 2. 4.) could not be perswaded
to dispense with a temporary forbearance of any ceremonies they enjoined: though they well foresaw, that the sequele of them was likely to be a very great, and spreading scandall.
But now the non-conformists might spare all this discourse touching the obligation of humane lawes in generall: because they hold that humane, religious, Doctrinall Ceremonies the matter in question, cannot be lawfully determined by the authority of either Politicall, or Ecclesiasticall superiours: and for this they have two, as I take it, very convincing arguments.
First, because all such Ceremonies are Sawcy additions unto the word, and ordinances of God, Deut. 4. 2. and cap. 12. 32. strange fire which the Lord commanded not, Lev. 10. 8.
Secondly, because suppose they be indifferent (which was a thing never granted) yet they are unnecessary toyes, and trifles: and therefore it is not lawfull for our superiours to command them, when, from the practise of them, it is very probable, that scandall will arise. For
First, every power is the Minister of God to thee for good, Rom. 13. 4 the power of the Magistrate is like that of the Minister, only for edification, and not destruction, 2 Cor. 10. 8. and cap. 13. 10. but now if he should have power to command humane symboli∣call Ceremonies (that may be well spared in Gods worship and service) whenthere is likelihood of the consecution of Scandall: then he should have power to do mischiefe, to enjoine things hurtfull, and destructive unto the soules of men.
Secondly, our Saviours commination against scandall, Matth. 18. 7. (Woe to that man by whom the offence cometh,) reacheth Magi∣strates, as well as private persons: and we may say the same of the Apostolicall prohibitions of scandall both to the Romans, and the Corinthians, Rom. 14. 13, 15, 20, 21. 1 Cor. 8. 9. and chap. 10. 32.
Unto these prohibitions adde we Pauls resolution to avoid scan∣dall arising from the use of things indifferent: if meat make my brother to offend (saith he) I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend, 1 Cor. 8. 13. For
From this resolution the unlawfulnesse of the injunction of such ceremonies as ours will undeniably follow.
To cleare this I shall presuppose that, which cannot (with any co∣lour of reason) be denied: to wit, that, that, which Paul held un∣lawfull
for himselfe to practise in his own person upon a generall account belonging to all Christians, could not by him be lawfully imposed upon others by an Ecclesiasticall Canon; but now Paul held it unlawfull to eat flesh in case of scandall probably conse∣quent, and this was upon a generall reason belonging to all Chri∣stians: and therefore he thought it utterly unlawsull to impose any such matter upon others when scandall was likely to follow.
From this thus premised, I shall hence thus argue Syllogistically, against our Prelates imposition of our Ceremonies.
If it were unlawfull for Paul to impose upon the Corinthians such ceremonies as ours, then it was unlawfull for our Prelates to impose such upon us.
But it was unlawfull for Paul to impose such Ceremonies as ours upon the Corinthians.
Therefore it was unlawfull for the Prelates to impose such Ce∣remonies upon us.
The sequele of the major is evident: because the Prelates could not pretend unto so much authority in matters Ecclesiasticall as Paul had: for in each of the Apostles there was a greater 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of jurisdiction then in any that succeeded them.
As for the Minor that may be confirmed by this following Syllogisme.
If it were unlawfull for Paul to impose upon the Corinthians the eating of flesh when scandall was likely to ensue, then it was unlawfull for him to impose upon them the use of such Ceremo∣nies as ours.
But the former appeareth to be unlawfull by the 1 Cor. 8. 13.
Therefore the latter was unlawfull also.
There is nothing here can be questioned but the Major, and that is easily confirmed from a just comparison of flesh with such Ce∣remonies as ours.
First, the eating of flesh was undoubtedly a thing more cleerly indifferent, then the practise of such Ceremonies of ours.
Secondly, flesh was necessary unto the maintenance of the life of man by disjunction: that is, flesh, or some other meat: but now such Ceremonies as ours are not necessary unto the worship and service of God by disjunction: for God may be worshipped with∣out them, or any others in their stead: a surplice (saith Ruther∣ford)
is not necessary by way of disjunction, for neither is surplice ne∣cessary, nor any other white or red habit, that hath some mysticall sig∣nification, like unto Surplice: So kneeling to the elements is neither necessary, nor any the like religious honouring of them by prostration be∣fore them, or kissing them.
But against this accusation of our Ceremonies for scandall there are objected two Comparisons.
First, of the duties of justice and Charity together: the duties of justice are more obligatory then the duties of charity, as being not only a morall, but a legall debt: Now to hinder the scandall of the weak is a duty of charity, only a morall debt, to obey the lawfull command of authority in things indifferent a duty of ju∣stice, a legall debt; and therefore of the greater obligation, and mo∣ment: I shall the rather insist on this argument, because it is of late so much stood on by Dr Sanderson [in his last Sermons prin∣ted 1656. pag. 249.] where we are not (saith he) able to discharge both: debts of justice are to be paid (saith he) before bebts of charity. Now the duty of obedience is debitum justitiae, and a matter of right: my superiour may challenge it at my hands as his due; and I doe him wrong, if I withhold it from him. But the care of not giving offence is but debitum charitatis, and a matter of but courtesie. I am to performe it to my brother in love, when I see cause: but he cannot chal∣lenge it from me as his right, nor can justly say I do him wrong, if I neglect it. It is therefore no more lawfull for me to disobey the law∣full command of a superiour, to prevent thereby the offence of one or a few brethren, then it is lawfull for me to do one man wrong, to do ano∣ther man a courtesie withall, or then it is lawfull for me to rob the Ex∣chequer to relieve an Hospitall.(x) 1.5
For answer: First, if this argument be applied unto our Ce∣remonies there will be in such application a meer begging of the question; for that our Ceremonies were things indifferent, the command of them lawfull, the practise of them a duty of justice, a legall debt, is the maine thing in controversy betwixt the confor∣mists,* 1.6 and non-conformists; and therefore all this should be proved, and not barely presupposed as it is. But
Secondly, the fore mentioned rule is to be understood with this limitation, caeteris paribus, if the termes of the comparison be equall: and equall they are not, when the minims of justice are
put into the ballance with the weightiest duties of charity: and so 'tis in the present comparison, though we suppose our Ceremonies to be indifferent, and the practise of them a dutie of justice: for of what importance is such practise in comparison of the not scan∣dalizing of our Brother? Who, that is not extreamly transpor∣ted with prejudice, will think, that the commands of the Prelates to weare the surplice, to signe children with the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme &c. carry any tolerable proportion with those precepts of the Apostle, destroy not him with thy meat, thy indiffe∣rencies, for whom Christ died; for such things destroy not the worke of God? Rom. 14. 15, 20. What lawes, of any earthly wight what∣soever, concerning ceremonies, can be more obligatory, than the Commands of God touching the externalls of his worship and service? and yet it is his will, and pleasure, that these externals of his worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy? I will have mercy and not sacrifice, Matth. 12. 7. Thus are we to leave our prayers, both publique, and private, to forsake a Sermon, for to save the life 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our neighbours, to quench the firing of his house, to helpe his cattle out of the ditch: now, if the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of men, surely then much more is the trash of humane inventions to yeild unto a worke of mercy towards the soules of men: This answer which I now give was made by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his dispute of scandall unto the Duplies of the Do∣ctors of Aberdeen pa. 50, 51, 52, 53. his discourse there is so sa∣tisfactory, as that I have thought fit to transcribe what he saies; and I hope the reading of it will not be irksome unto the Reader.
It is true these duties which we owe to others by way of justice, are more obligatory then those, which we owe only by way of charity, caete∣ris paribus: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 duties of the Law of nature, and morall Law, are compared together, then indeed the duties, which we owe both by the tye of justice and charity, are more obligatory then the duties that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 owe onely by the tye of charity. As for example, My Father is in dan∣ger before mine eyes to be drowned, in one 〈◊〉〈◊〉 water, and before my 〈◊〉〈◊〉 also my neighbour or friend is in danger of the like kind: the two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and bands of justice and charity, both by the fifth and sixt Com∣mandements, are more obligatory, hic & nunc, and do more strictly ob∣lige, that I run to succour and preserve the life of my Father, than the
life of my neighbour: for the obligation to my neighbour, is only Charity, by the obligation of the sixth Commandement, which obligation cea∣seth, hic & nunc, at this time, when my fathers life is in hazard: and thus farre the Doctors argument goeth for strong, as School-men, Ca∣suists, 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, than duties which we owe only by way of charity: as when duties of a positive com∣mandement of God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by our superiours, and duties which we owe by charity only, are compared together, then the Doctors Major proposi∣tion is not cleare of it selfe, as they dreame, neither do Casuists, or Ame∣sius, or Divines say with them; but truth, and all our Divines say a∣gainst them. Let us suppose that the King, and Convocation, and Assembly of Priests and Prophets of Israel make a Canon according to Gods word. That no manner of man presume to eat shew-bread, save the Priests only. All men owe obedience to this, both because it is Gods expresse Law, and by the band of Justice the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and assembly of the Ancients have forbidden it. But if our Doctors argument st and strong, David at the point and hazard of famishing for hunger, sin∣ned in eating shew-bread, yet Christ acquitteth him of all sinne, and saith Matth. 12. 5. he and his followers are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, blamelesse. Now David was under a duty by mercy, and love to his own life, and the lives of his followers, to eat shew bread, and he was under the band of Justice, by the Law of the Ancients of Israel, and Gods law, not to eat. Therefore in some cases when our superiours commandements are only positive Lawes, they are not more obligatory, than duties of Charity, on∣ly commanded in the Law of nature. I cleare it further thus, I see my neighbour in danger before my eyes of drowning, and my father com∣mandeth me to goe and labour, or sow his farme in that time, while I am to preserve the life of my neighbour, in present danger, to loose his life in a great water. By the Doctors maxime, I am under the higher obligatory tie of Justice, to obey my father, who commandeth a thing both lawfull and necessary, by vertue of the higher commandement, to wit the first of the second Table, than I am obliged by the sixth Com∣mandement, and of charity only, to give present succour and helpe to my dying neighbour, so I must let my neighbour dye in the waters, to give a duty of Justice to my father of farre lesse 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 cleare that not only, the tye of justice maketh the precept more obligatory, but also the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the thing commanded; yea, and if the posi∣tive Commandements of the Lord our God, who of Justice, and Kingly soveraignty hath right to aske obedience of us above all earth∣ly Superiours, do yeild and cede as lesse obligatory, then commande∣ments 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 mor∣tall Rulers have to command in things indifferent, from which the destruction of soules doth arise? for these commandements of Rulers, (Kneele religiously before bread, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 image of Christ crucified) (keepe humane holy dayes) (Crosse the ayre with your thumb above a baptized infants face) at best, are but positive Com∣mandements, not warranted by Gods word. But shall they be more obligatory by a supposed band of Justice that Prelates have over us to command such toyes, than this divine Law of God, and Nature, Rom. 14. For indifferent dayes, meates, surpsice, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not him for whom Christ dyed? All the Casuists and Schoolemen, Navarra, Sylvester, Sanchez, Raphael dela Torre, Meratius, Duvallius, Tho∣mas, Scotus, Bonaventura, Suarez, Uasquez, Greg: 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 ob∣ligatory, than sacrifice, burnt offerings, and Gods owne positive Lawes, yea, and that positive Lawes loose their obligatory power, and cease to be lawes, when the lawes of nature and necessary dutyes of mercy, and love (as not to murther our brother) (not to scan∣dalize) standeth in their way. I might weary the Reader here with citations, and be wilder my selfe also, but it is a point of Divinity de∣nyed by none at all. 3. What we owe of Justice to our Superiours, is in∣deed both a morall debt of obedience, and a debt of Justice and law, which Rulers may seeke by their place, and exjure, as Aristotle saith, but this right is limited: Rulers have no right to seeke absolute obe∣dience, but onely 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 injoyne is only 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and they cannot but in Gods place exact, that which is Gods due, and seing God himselfe, if he should immediatly in his owne person Command, he would not urge a positive commandement, sarrè lesse the commande∣ment
of light and vaine Ceremonies, against and beyond the precept of love, not to destroy a soule for whom Christ dyed. Ergò, Supe∣riours under God, who borrow all their light from God, cannot have a higher right, than God hath. 4. The comparison of a man who oweth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to a Creditor, and oweth moneyes to the poore, is close off the way, sor he is obliged to pay the Creditour first; but the case 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is farre otherwise; the debt of practising indifferent seathers, and straws, such as 〈◊〉〈◊〉, crossing, wearing Surplice, is neither like the dept owen to the poore, nor to the Creditor; For natures Law, and Gods word, 1. Cor. 10. 18. 19. maketh the Non-practise, non-mur∣thering obedience to God, when the practise of indifferent things is a soule stumbling to the weake, and the practising is but at 'its best o∣bedience to a positive Law, and ought to stoope, and goe off the way, and disappeare, when natures Law (murther not) doth come in 'its way. When the Doctors put Loyalty above Charity, they suppose obe∣dience to Commandements commanding scandalizing of soulès to be loy∣alty to Superiours; which is questioned, it being treason to the sove∣raigne of Heaven, and Earth, to destroy his Image, it is taken as loy∣altie by our Doctors, but not proven to be loyaltie, and so a vaine questi∣on here, whether Loyalty be above Charity or not.
This dispute of scandall is annexed unto his divine right of Church Goverment, which was published 1646. since that Dr. Sanderson 1656 (as I shewed you but now) propounds the ar∣gument a new, with a great deale of triumph, but without any considerable reinforcement; and withall he takes no notice of Rutherford, his answer, from whence I gather that he never read it: and indeed it is a thing very incident unto the greatest Schollars of that party to censure, but never to reade their adversaries.
Thirdly, to say something unto Dr. Sanderson as well as unto the Duplyers, I must needs confesse, that I am transported with a just admiration, that so great a schollar should so extenuate, as he doth, the guilt of an active scandall; for he makes the care of not giving offence to a brother to be a matter but of courtesy; he cannot, (saith he) justly say I do him wrong, if I neglect it: But first, the Apostle Paul speakes another language, in his account to make brethren to offend is to sin against them, to wound their weake consciences, and so to sin against Christ. 1 Cor. 8. 12.
Compared with ver. 11. 13. and Rom. 14. 15. 20. he resolves, that 'tis a destroying of a brother for whom Christ died, a destroying of the worke of God in him: whereupon Divines generally deter∣mine, that 'tis soule-murther: Now, in wounding the weake conscience of our brother, in murthering his immortall soule, there is doubtlesse some wrong committed against him: not to destroy him for whom Christ dyed &c. is more than a matter of meer courtesy unto him.
Secondly, suppose the care of not giving offence be, in respect of our brother, but debitum charitatis; yet in regard of God 'tis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 justitiae, a legall debt: he may, and doth challenge it as due, and we do him wrong if we disobey him. Our Saviour thun∣dereth a woe against such disobedience; Woe to him through whom offences come, Luk. 17. 1. and in the second verse this woe is aggra∣vated by comparison with a very grievous punishment, it were better for him that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, then that he should offend one of these little ones.
But to proceed'unto the second comparison on which I insisted out of Bishop Morton and Dr Sanderson: a Comparison betwixt a scandall given to a Magistrate, and a scandall given to one, who is only a brother: I demand whether or no the offence given to, or taken by a Magistrate, who is a brother, and withall a Magistrate be not greater, than that which is given to, or taken by one, who is only a brother? an impartiall Judge will soone determine that the double re∣lation of brother, and Magistrate weigheth down the single, and naked relation of a brother &c. ut suprà.
For answer unto this, distinguish we of a twofold acception of scan∣dall, Primary, and Secundary.
First, Primary, and so tis an occasioning culpably the fall of another into sin.
Secondly, Secundary, and so 'tis only the angring, vexing, displea∣sing of another.
This distinction premised; the comparison may be understood; either of the scandall of a Magistrate in a secundary acception, with a scandall of one, who is onely a brother in a secundary acception of the word too; or else of the scandall of a Magistrate in a secundary acception with the scandall of a brother in a primary acception; or 3. of the scandall of a Magistrate in a primary acception with
the scandall of a brother in a primary acception also.
First; if the Comparison be on both sides to be understood of scandall taken in a secondary sense, there is no doubt, but the scan∣dall of the Magistrate is more dangerous, than that of one, who is only a brother: for the wrath of the supreame Magistrate is as the Messengers of death, Prov. 16. 14. as the roaring of a Lyon, Prov. 19. 12. In indifferent things then it will be our safest course to anger a brother, rather then to displease the Magistrate. But this acception of scandall is impertinent unto our purpose, and so much is consessed by Dr Hammond in his treatise of scandall pag: 23. To be angry, grieved, troubled, at any action of another, is not (to be offended) in the scripture sense, nor consequently doth it fol∣low, that I have done a misse in doing that which another man is angry at, unlesse my action be in it selfe evill. The scandall we speak of is culpable; but to displease a magistrate is not alwaies a sin: the mi∣stake of scandall for the angring of one is taken notice of by Cal∣vin also upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. having affirmed, that some corrupted the doctrine of scandall with foolish glosses, and others with their impious calumnies, he sheweth the originall of both their mistakes touching the meaning of offence in the Apostle. Utrique errant in verbo offendendi. Nam offendere accipiunt, pro incurrere in odium, vel effensionem hominum, aut quod idem ferè est, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quodipsis dis∣pliceat, vel minus arrideat. Atqui clarissimè patet ex contextu, nihil esse aliud quam mulo exemplo tanquam obice fratrem impedire à recto cursu, aut illi praebere causam lapsus. Non ergo hic disput at Paulus de retinendâ hominum gratiâ, sed de sublevandis infirmis, nè 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & prudentèr regendis, nè à rectâ viâ deflectant.
Secondly, if the comparison proceed of the scandall of the Ma∣gistrate in a secondary sense with the scandall of a brother in a pri∣mary sense, doubtlesse the scandall of a brother is more to be decli∣ned: it is farre better to anger, and displease a pious Magistrate, a religious Prince, a Parliament, a whole Church, & Commonwealth, then culpably to occasion the fall of the meanest, poorest, and most illiterate artizan into sin: and this will be denyed by none who know, that 'tis more dangerous to displease God, than man.
Thirdly, if the comparison be to be understood of the scan∣dall of the Magistrate in a primary acception with a scandall of a brother in a primary acception too: then I should thinke, that the
scandall of the Magistrate is the greater, and more to be eschewed, it is a greater sin culpably to occasion the fall of the Magistrate into sin, then the fall of a meere brother: because the falls of Magi∣strates are of a more pernicious example, giving greater counte∣nance, and encouragement unto sin.
But this will no wayes advantage our Sticklers for Ceremonies: for the non-conformists deny, that their forbearance of Ceremo∣nies did culpably occasion the fall of the Magistrate into sinne: and the contrary they expect to have proved and not barely dictated.
One thing let me observe on the bie, before I passe on: and 'tis: that, if those who make this comparison of the scandall of a Ma∣gistrate with the scandall of a brother, take scandall on both sides in the primary acception thereof: then they seeme to intimate, that there may be a case wherein a man may be necessitated cul∣pably to occasion the fall, either of a Magistrate, or of a brother into sinne: Of a Magistrate if he forbeare what he commands, of a brother if he practise it: But this is not casus dabilis, for God by his providence, can never necessitate a man unto sin: of this Ru∣therford speaks very solidly in his resutation of the Dupliers pag. 41, 42. You shall (saith he unto them) be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to give a case, wherein we are necessitated by Gods providence, and that by way of con∣tradiction, whether we forbeare, or forbeare not to murther either the soules of some weake ones, or the soules of superiours, by our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the practise of things judged expedient by superiours: You make us to murther the soules of Superiours, by the non-forbearance, or you will have us to murther the soules of weake brethren, if we practise. This is a wronging of providence, and a Manichean tenent, that we can be under such a necessity of sinning. Yea, there must be two contrary re∣vealed Wills in God, Commanding, by forbearing the Ceremonies, not to murther Superiours, and commanding by not forbearing, not to mur∣ther weake brethren: and so God commandeth both to forbeare and also not to forbeare. Mr Tombes [in his treatise of scandalizing p. 266, 267, 268.] quarrels with Ames, for affirming, that there can be no such perplexity, that it should be necessary for a Godly man, whether he do this or that, or not do it, to scandalize some one: But Dr Ames is to be understood of a scandall in the primary sense, a cul∣pable occasioning the fall of another into sin: and the objections of Mr Tombes proceed only concerning scandall in a secundary ac∣ception
thereof, as will be apparent unto any one, that will be plea∣sed to peruse them.
There be two things more I shall take notice of in my foremen∣tioned discourse.
First, I suppose all along that the Convocation was our Mo∣ther, and the Church of England: but surely she was a step mo∣ther unto divers of the Godly, using towards them farre more ri∣gour, then unto such whom profanesse rendered obnoxious unto their Courts: if any indifferent man looke upon their Canons he must needs confesse, that one of their chiefe designes was to crush, and persecute such religious persons, whom they nicknamed Pu∣ritans, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with their Ceremonies such among them for whom Christ died. But I wonder upon what account, I, or any man else, could think it to be the Church of England. If in any sense it can be called the Church of England, it was because it re∣presented the Ministry of England, and that it did not; because the farre major part of it were Cathedrall men, Bishops, Deanes, Arch-Deacons, and such as were chosen by the respective Chapters of each Cathedrall: it might then be a representation of the Ca∣thedrall Ministers, but not of the ministry of England: and that I shall make good by two parallels.
The first shall be, betwixt our Convocations, and the Councill of Trent: many sober, and moderate Papists accused this to be a pack'd assembly, a representation, of, not the Catholike Church, but the Court of Rome; because the greatest part of it were of the Popes faction, and depended wholy upon him: So the Major part of our Convocations were of the Bishops faction, and min∣ded chiefly the interests of Cathedrals: and therefore were not a representative of all the Ministers in England. I shall exemplifie this by instancing in the Diocesse of Bathe, and Wells, wherein I li∣ved: In this there were members of the lower house of Convo∣cation, one Deane, three Archdeacons, and one chosen by the Chap∣ter of Wells: and to ballance these there were but two Clarkes chosen by the Ministry of the whole Diocesse: Now what impar∣tiall man, but will determine that these seaven could be no due re∣presentation of the Ministers of the Diocesse of Bathe and Wells, as long as five of them were members of the Cathedrall, in whose election the Ministers of the Diocesse had no hand at all.
A second paralell shall be betwixt our convocation, and a civill assembly: wherein we will suppose, that the Prince chooseth three hundred, who are his Courtiers, or else such as have their de∣pendance, either wholy, or in great part upon him: and the na∣tion choose only a hundred: you may call this assembly a Parlia∣ment, or what you will; but surely no rationall man can thinke it to be a representation of the nation: and as irrationall were it to call the Convocation a representation of the Ministers, of Eng∣land, seeing those chosen by the Ministers were an inconsiderable part of the Convocation.
And unto this we may adde; that there was seldome a due, and regular choice made of the Clerks of the Convocation: I was present at the last election, that was at Wells: and then Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 told us, that it was an unquestionable priviledge due unto his See for him to propound unto us the Clerkes that we should chuse, unto which he expected our conformity, tacitly menacing all that dissented.
And when yet, by all this violence, he was unlikely to carry it for such as he had nominated; why then, he had another shift, that was (I believe) never heard of before: he enabled the Pluralists, of whom either all, or most were his favorites, to voice it in seve∣rall capacities: to give as many double voices, as they had dignities, and benefices: his Son gave at that time eight single voices, two as he was Archdeacon of Bath, two as he was Prebend of Cud∣worth, two as he was Parson of Bucklan-Mary, two as he was Vi∣car of Kingsbury: Now, to say that such an election was regular, and lawfull is as ridiculous, and senselesse, as if a man should say, that in the Choice of Knights of the Shire for Parliament, men may give as many double voices, as they have Farmes and Li∣vings.
A second thing I shall take notice of, in the now mentioned di∣scourse, is my misinterpretation of the 1 Cor. 10. 32. Upon which I thus descanted: as Paul exhorts to give none offence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Jew nor Gentile, so he addes in a further 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Church of God: The Jewes and Gentiles were but parts, the Church of God the whole, they but brethren, she the mother. Here was a grosse mistake, in thinking, that the Jewes and Gentiles here spoken of were mem∣bers of the Church: whereas, by the Apostles distinction of them
from the Church of God, it is plaine, that they were not as yet converted unto the Christian faith, but were as yet enemies there∣unto, and consequently strangers unto the Church: And thus ha∣ving finished my examination of the two limitations that I gave in a former edition of this treatise. I shall goe on to that which followeth.
But suppose the action in which this appearance of evill is im∣agined to be as indifferent in it felfe, so also not annexed un∣to a necessary duty, and we also left to the use of our liberty, what then?
Two things are here especially to be considered: first, the quality of the action expected at; secondly, the difference of times, and places.
To beginne with the first, the action (at which thy brother is scandalized, by his groundlesse imagination, that 'tis evill, or carrieth a reall appearance of evill) is either of none, or great importance to thee.
If it be of none importance, but weightlesse, as affording thee either none, or but small benefit: offend not thy brother by an unseasonable exercise of thy liberty. Know that as authority, so charity should also restraine it: consider that by this undue use of thy liberty thou sinnest against thy brother, and by sinning against him thou sinnest against Christ. 1 Cor. 8. 12.
But now if it be of some weight, and moment, as yeelding thee some great profit, why thou must a while forbeare it, untill thy brother may be better informed; and to informe him that the action is lawfull which offends him, thou must take care too, o∣therwise thou wilt prejudice the truth, through thy regardlesse silence, and also continue his weaknesse, and foment in him a negative superstition. Let every one of us, (saith the Apostle, Rom. 15. 2.) please his neighbour for his good unto edification, And for a man to humour his neighbour in an erroneous and super∣stitious opinion, however it may please him, yet not for his good unto edification: Upon which ground I take it, that the Apostle Paul, as he refused maintenance at Corinth, to avoid appear∣ance of a coveteous intention, and mercenary affection in preaching: so also his just title, and unquestionable right thereunto he at large both professeth, and proveth.
But now if thy brother refuse, and contemne information: Tunc desinit esse scandalum pusilli ex 〈◊〉〈◊〉, aut simplici igno∣rantiâ, et incipit esse scandalum Pharisaei ex purâ malitiâ, aut ig∣norantiâ affectatâ, & crassâ. The shelter of weakenesse is there∣by taken from him, his judgment being now overshadowed no longer with a meere weakenesse arising out of simple ignorance, but with a proud, and wayward, if not envious and malitious perversnesse, that is accompanied with a grosse, willfull, & affected ignorance, He is no longer then to be accounted a weak one, but a proud and wilfull one, and for his peevishnesse thou may∣est choose, whether thou wilt forgoe thy liberty. Calvin upon the 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells us os some foollish interpreters, that leave unto Christians almost noe use at all of thinges indifferent, up∣on pretext to avoide the offence of superstitious persons inepti sunt, inquit, qui nullum prope usum rerum indifferentium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faciunt Christianis, nè superstitiosos offendant, And he discovers the ground of their mistake to be; because they do not consider, that Paul here inveigheth against those, who unseasonably abuse their knowledg before such weake ones, whom they neglect to informe, or instruct concerning the matter, at which they are scan∣dalized: therefore there will be no place for reprehension if such information preceed, In hoc hallucinantur inquit, quod non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Paulum hic invehi adversus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, qui scientiâ suâ intempestivè abutuntur coram infirmis, quos docere negligunt. Ergò 〈◊〉〈◊〉 amplius locus non erit, si praecedat doctrina. Mr Tombes [in his trea∣tise of scandalizing, pag. 233, 234.] quotes Peter Martyr, and Bu∣cane for the same purpose, and this what they say is 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ordi∣narily, or for the most part true; for if we are to forbeare all our con∣veniences, and matters of expediency, when men are scandalized at them, after we have given them, or offered to give them full in∣formation; our Christian liberty in things indifferent would in these our times come to be just nothing: nay our servitude would be greater, and more unsupportable, than that of the Jewes under the Leviticall Ceremonies.
However yet information doth not alwaies alter the nature of scandall; for the scandall of the weake may sometimes last, Post∣quam reddita est ratio facti, after a reason of the fact, whereat they are scandalized, is rendred to them. For, by reason of their ex∣treame
ignorance, and slownesse of understanding, they may be utterly incapable of information, and instruction; or else some opinion, or practise, whereunto they have been long accustomed, may cast such a mist before their weak judgments, as that they may not be able presently to apprehend the reason that is given of the action, at which they stumble. And we should so farre pitty the simplicity of such poore soules, as to abstaine from that which scandalizeth them, if by such abstinence there accrue not to us any great losse, or inconvenience.
This is observed by Cajetan upon Aquinas 2. 2 dae. q. 43. art. 7. Ubi dicitur, inquit, articulo 7 mo. de scandalo pusillorum, si autem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 redditam rationem hujusmodi scandalum duret, jam videtur ex ma∣litiâ esse; adverto, quod author non assertivo verbo utitur, sed opinativo, dicendo, jam videtur ex malitiâ esse; potest siquidem contingere, quod pusilli non sint capaces rationis redditae, vel propter pristinam consue∣tudinem, quae facit apparere dissonum, quod veritati consonat, vel prop∣ter rationem apud eos magis apparentem, vel aliquod hujusmodi: & tunc quia malitia non facit scandalum, sed ignorantia vel infirmitas, quamvis reddita sit ratio, cessandum est ab hujusmodi spiritualibus non necessariis. Cajetan. in 2. 2. 0. 43. &c. Whereas it is said in the 7th article, touching the scandall of the weak, if after a reason given, the scandall do still remain, it seemeth to be of malice; you must note the Author doth not use (verbo assertivo, sed opinativo) saying, it seemeth to be of malice. For it may fall out that the weake are not capable of the reason that is rendred, either by reason of his former Custome, which maketh that to appeare discordant with the truth, or for some reason which in his eyes is more apparent, or by reason of some such like cause, and then it is not out of malice that he is offended, but out of ig∣norance and infirmity.
After Cajetan, Petrus de Lorica doth roundly and fully expresse the matter. Verum est (saith he) quod Cajetanus advertit, scanda∣lum pusillorum perseverare posse adhuc, postquam reddita est ratio facti, vel quia rationem non capiunt ob mentis tarditatem, vel ob con∣suetudinem diu firmatam: in quo casu docet Cajetanus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esse actionem, ex quâ scandalum accipiunt; vel differendam, donec ad saniorem mentem venerint. Quòd solùm verum, si actio omitti po∣test 〈◊〉〈◊〉 jacturâ nostrae utilitatis. Si enim magna utilitas temporalis vel spiritualis interveniat, contemni potest scandalum pusillorum, post∣quam
sufficienter admoniti sint. In the next place I will recite a limitation of Gregory de Valentia, that comes under this head, and is very remarkable.
Having laid downe a rule, that for avoiding the scandall of our neighbour, which springeth, either from his ignorance, or weak∣nesse, it behooveth us by the obligation of Charity, to do, or o∣mit, that which may be done, or left undone without sin: he after∣wards puts this exception. Est autem animadvertendum hanc re∣gulam intelligi debere de omni eo, quod sine peccato fieri, aut omitti possit, non quom: docunque, sed moralitèr, attentâ suavitate, quae est in jugo legum divinarum: idest, quod sine peccato fieri, aut omitti possit, sine maxima etiam aliqua, & penè intolerabili 〈◊〉〈◊〉, spectata quoque in hac conditione 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c, And indeed (me thinks) he speaks reasonably. For improbable seems it, that the sweet mo∣deration, which is in the yoake of divine lawes, should con∣sist with so great a rigour, as in all matters whatsoever, not sim∣ply unlawfull, to exact, not only a brotherly, but also a servile com∣pliancy with every supposed weak one, whose weaknesse may be but pretended by those, that are willing to speake favourably of them. For the humouring and contenting of every supposed weakling in all matters at which he takes offence, I conceive not my selfe bound to endanger my life, to hazard my estate, and for∣tunes, or to incurre any other great, or notable inconvenience: for that would truly be durus sermo, an hard saying: who were able to beare it?
But now against this may be objected the resolution of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. 13. if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend: flesh is of great expediency for the nourishment of mans life, and yet Paul resolves upon a perpetuall abstinence therefrom in case of scan∣dall Consequent; and this example of Paul is obligatory unto all Christians.
For answer, first, this flesh may be understood only of such as was sacrificed unto Idols; for words in scripture usually are to be restrained unto the subject matter spoken of, and the meat, and flesh, here spoken of in the Context, was such as had been offered unto an Idoll.
Secondly, Calvin resolveth that 'tis an Hyperbole: est, inquit, hyperbolica locutio, quia vix possibile est, ut quis à carnibus totâ vitâ abstineat, siremaneat in communi vitâ: significat tamen se 〈◊〉〈◊〉 usurum potius suâ libertate, quam ut fit insirmis offendiculo. Nun∣quam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 licitus est usus, nisi moderatus ad charitatis regulam. This Hyperbole of Pauls you may Parallel with that of our Sa∣viour, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. 39, 40, 41. whosoever shall smite thee on thy right 〈◊〉〈◊〉, turne to him the other also. And if any man will sue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at the Law, and take away thy coate, let him have thy cloake also. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shall compell thee to goe a mile, goe with him twaine.
Thirdly, Paul is to be understood, only upon supposition that the Gospell should not be fully promulgated, and brethren should remain uninstructed concerning the nature of Christian Liberty; for usually 'tis in this case only, that to eat flesh involves in the guilt of an active scandall, makes a brother to offend: hence the Apostle exhorts the strong amongst the Romans to abstaine from meats forbiden by the Law of Moses, for prevention of the scan∣dall of the weake: but amongst the Galathians; and Colossians he dislikes such an abstinence, and dehorts from it: & the reason, of this his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 carriage, was: because the weak amonst the Romans were not fully taught the doctrine of Christian liberty, & the Gala∣thians & Colossians were Julian, mistaking the Apostles doctrine of scâdall, thought to make use of it for the starving of the Christias, and therefore, in Antiochia, and in the region round about, he dedi∣cated all the sountaines to the Goddesses of the Gentiles, and caused all the victuall, that was to be sold in market places, to be sprink∣led with Ethnick, holy waters, thinking that some would be scan∣dalized at the drinking of the water of such fountaines, and at the eating of such victuall, and that the Apostles doctrine obliged all to forbeare any thing in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of scandall: never-thelesse Christians, without scruple of conscience, dranke of the water, that was in the Wels, and ate of the meat, which they bought in the market; beeing, since the full publication of the Gospell, fully per∣swaded, that to the cleane all things are cleane. Rutherford deter∣mines; that, since the plenary promulgation of the Gospell, wee are not obliged to forbeare the good Creatures of God, things good, fit, and usefull for the life of man, or of physicall use in the worship of God, though men be scandalized at such things, and the reason of their scandall be, because they have been abused unto
Idolatry, and superstition: he instanceth in Churches, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unto the saying of Masse, and unto the Idolatrous worship of Saints, and in bells that have been abused by Papists by being consecrated, baptized & used to chase away divels: & for this his determination you may gather out of him [p. 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, &c.] these two reasōs.
First, because abstinence from such things, (upon a religious ac∣count, for avoidance of scandall, because abused to Idolatry, and superstitiō,) would be, (after a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 publicatiō of the Gospell) a Juda∣izing, an externall Cōformity with the Jew, a betraying of our Chri∣stian liberty, a cōfirming & hardning the Jewes in their Apostacy: it would make, as Paul saies, Jesus Christ of no effect, it would make us debters to Circumcisiō, & to all the Ceremonies of Moses, Ga. 5. 3, 4.
Secondly, the practise of such things, since we are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 possessed in that liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, is morally and Theologically necessary, for the asserting of our Christian liberty: to shew, that every Creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tim. 4. 4. That unto the pure all things are pure, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. 15. that we dare not call that uncleane which God hath cleansed, Act. 10. 15.
But there is one passage in this authour concerning scandall, which I cannot in any waies approve of: it is pag. 58, 59. where he averreth, that things of meere civill use, that are necessary with a necessity of conveniency are to be forborne, if scandall fol∣low, if they be not convenient in the highest degree. And that no man may think I misreport him, take his own words. There be some things of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 civill use, as Bells, gownes, Pulpits, preaching on Tuesday or Thursday. These be considered two 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. As ne∣cessary with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 simply. 2. With 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 secundum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gradum, as convenient in the highest degree of necessity, or that morall maximum quod sic. In the first de∣gree, what scandalizeth, is to be rejected: in the last respect they oblige, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any be scandalized thereat, it is taken and not given.
But sure this doctrine if embraced will put and hold mens Consciences upon a perpetuall rack: For it will be a matter of great difficulty especially for some men allwaies to determine what in their indifferencies is convenient in the highest degree.
Secondly, we must put a difference between times, and places: for however they be but circumstances of actions, and therefore extrinsecall to them, so that they cannot cause any such essentiall
variation in them, as to make those actions materially good, or sinfull, which are of themselves in their own nature indifferent: yet notwithstanding the publick and ordinary abuse of an action at such a time, or in such a place, may make it then and there, in that place and for that time appeare to be evill; although the same action at another time, and in the same place; or in another place, at the same time, may not be obnoxious to any such censure.
First then, time may alter this imaginary appearance of evill in an action. Reservation of the brazen serpent, as for other ends and purposes, so for commemoration of that miraculous delive∣rance of the Israelites thereby, from the stings of fiery Serpents, was for a while free from all suspicion, either of Idolatry or super∣stition: but when once it became the generall, ordinary, nay daily occasion, and object of Idolatry that can be, when incense was offered to it: then if the publique Magistrate had not demolished it, he might justly have been thought to favour that Idolatry where∣with it was polluted. And therefore commednable was Hezekiah his zeale in breaking it in peices, 2 King 18.4.
In the former Edition it was observed out of Morton that the same Hezekiah did not destroy the high places, which Solomon had built for Astoreth, the abomination of the Sidonians: and for Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites; and for Milchom, the abomination of the Children of Ammon, and yet was never taxed for countenancing of Idolatry. For in his daies the Idols there erected, were disregarded no man worshipping them, and therefore might safely be suffered to stand: but when afterwards they were generally and usually adored, then the good King Josiah justly demolished them: and indeed should he have permit∣ted them then when the Idolatry wherewith they were defiled, was flagrant at the height, he might justly be suspected to be a favourer of that Idolatry.
But unto this observation of Mortons; Ames thus replyeth. He propoundeth, as very observable, that Hezekiah did not abolish the Idols, which Solomon suffered to be set up, because they were neg∣lected. But. 1. it may well be thought that those idols were destroyed by Hezekiah , and set up again before the time of Josiah , as many other
superstitions were. 2. It cannot be doubted but they should have been destroyed, even though they were for the time neglected: because either Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy them as Josiah, or else he might have prevented that cause which Josiah had: and to prevent evill, we are as well bound, as to correct it.
Unto this Reply of Ames, Dr. Burges rejoineth, whose Rejoinder and Ames his Triplication I shall rather transcribe them then Epitomize.
Dr Burges his Rejoinder unto the first part of the Reply.
Say you so? then belike it may be well thought that the holy Ghost knew not so well as you what was done, for the text saith, that Josiah destroyed those high places, which Solomon King of Israel had set up: and then describes by the very place, where, and by name those same Idols, which Solomon had set up for his outlandish wives, 1 King. 11.5,7. I hope you will repent this rashnesse, I am sure you should.
Because the Defender did make this one ground of denying our consequence from Hezekiahs zeale against the monuments of Idolatry, that he did not abolish the Idols which Solomon suffered to be set up in favour of his strange Wives: because they were (at that time) neglected Idols. It was replyed, that it may be well thought, they were destroyed by Hezekiah, and set up againe before the time of Josiah. This the Rejoinder calleth rashnesse to be repented of: because it is said (2. Reg. 23.13.) that Josiah destroyed those high places, which Solomon had set up. And was it such a rashnesse, to say that it may be thought so? the phrase is more mod••st then theirs, who peremptorily affirme those Idols to have been neglected, untill after Hezekias time: when the Scripture testifieth plainly, that Ahaz Hezekiahs his father worshipped Molech (which was one of those Idols) by making his son to passe thorow teh fire: and was so madly given to superstition, that he sacrificed under every green tree. 2. Reg. 16. Nay lesse was said, then some learned have with great probability affirmed: z 3.1 Namely
that those Idols with their appurtenances were first defaced by Solomon himselfe, after his repentance; and being restored after by Idolaters, were againe defaced. Salianus (in his Annals ad an. 3309.) saith thus: we thinke also that while Solomon lived, that whole shop of Divels was broken up and ruined. And withall the statues, the groves, and altars, as also the rest of Idolatrous monuments. 2. King. 23. 13. to have reference to Manasses, and Ammon (who had set them up in the same place, and upon the same foundation) and not to Solomon, who áyed 250 yeares Before. It is incredible to speake, that when Asa, Josaphat, and Jehoiada did farre and neare 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ido∣latery, they notwithstanding suffered a scandall so apparent. And to the yeare 3406. It were very strange if those idols after 350 yeares should yet remaine, the which Solomon after his repentance, and o∣ther good Kings had abolished. So that it is probable that such like temples, and Idols were repaired, and built up againe by other suc∣ceeding ungodly Kings, which Solomon in former time had made: that that which Solomon builded should be all one with such like as he had builded. Where he sheweth by divers instances, both out of scripture, and out of common speech, how that word which, doth not alwayes note the same singular substance; therein confuting all the ground that the Rej. had for censuring the Repl. of rashnes to be repented of. This sen∣tence is the more also to be favoured; because according to the other, which our Def. and Rej. maintaine, it will be very hard to answer that objection against Solomons repentance, which(a) 3.2 Rabanus on 2 Reg: 23. groundeth on that supposition: Solomon never truly re∣pented of his Idolatry: for if he had manifested fruits worthy repen∣tance, he would have taken order with those Idols, which he had set up by removing them, and (being so wise a man) never have left them to stand for stumbling blockes to fooles, as if what he had erroneously devised, had been well and wisely done. Beside all this, it is not credible, that the same individuall Temples stood by Jerusa∣lem from Solomons time to Josias; if it were but for this, that the Assyrians came even to the gates of Jerusalem, spoiling and breaking downe all costly buildings, (Such as Solomons Temples were) not sparing, but deriding the Gods of nations. 2. Reg. 8.
Unto the second branch of the Reply Dr. Burges thus re∣joineth
Burges his Rejoinder,
This prooves not that they were, nor is it likely that God himselfe would have vouchsased such thorow praises to Hezekiah, as he doth, 1. Kings. 18. 5. If Hezekiah had been bound to destroy those neglect∣ed Idols, as well as others 〈◊〉〈◊〉 taken in the manner, and did not say, why he was bound to do that which he did not.
Because either Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy them as Josiah; or else he might have prevented that cause which Josiah had; and to prevent evill, we are as well bound, as to correct it.
If Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy those high places, which stood neglected, (and had done perhaps about three hundred yeares, even since the death of Solomons wives, whose Chappels they were) as Josiah had, when Manasses, or Ammon had, after Hezekiah his time, revived that Idolatry; the holy Ghost would have taxed Heze∣kiah for not doing that, for doing whereof he commendeth Josiah; or at least, not have left his integrity crowned with like praises, as he doth, 2 Kings, 18. 5. nor was Hezekiah bound to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the cause which Josiah had, unlesse he had suspected it. For though we are bound to prevent evill which we for see, so farre as we well can, yet are we not bound to foresee all that may happen. Neither are the same meanes alwayes requisite for prevention, which must be vsed for recove∣ry. If you thinke otherwise, burne all your popish bookes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they fall into the hands of popelings, and do mischeife; for you are bound to prevent evill, as well as to correct it.
Ames his Triplication.
It was added by the Repl. that those Idols should have been destroy∣ed, (though they had been for the time neglected) because that evill for which Josiah destroyed them, ought as well to have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 prevented as corrected. To this the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answereth, that this is not true, except Hezekiah had suspected that evill. And who will say, that there is no cause to suspect evill of an Idoll, though it be for a time neglected? or can any man thinke, that if the Israelites had neglected them, no Sy∣donian, Moabite, or Ammonite gave occasion of any evill to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by those Idols? The Spanish and French Papists (to say nothing of English) when they in passing by the Crosse in Cheape-side, do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unto it, give they not cause to suspect 〈◊〉〈◊〉 evill to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unto it? The same meanes. (saith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rejoinder) are not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 requisite for prevention, which must be used for recovery. Yes truly, about
Idols (if we judge out of the Scripture) the very same meanes. Burne then (saith the Rejoinder) all your Popish books, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they fall into the hands of Popelings to abuse them. So will I certainly, if you can shew me, that they must be burned, when Popelings have had them in their hands, and abused them, which here you grant concerning these Idols.
Here is nothing of the Rejoinder left unexamined, but his quo∣tation of the 2 Kings 18. 5. and how impertinent y that is al∣ledged will appeare by comparison of it with 1 King. 15. 5. Da∣vid did that, which was righ in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing, that he commanded him all the daies of his life, save onely in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. For 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this com∣mendation of David we may as well conclude, that his numbering of the people, and his purpose and attempt to revenge himselfe of Nabal by destroying him and all his, were lawfull; as we may in∣ferre from the praises of Hezekiah, that his omission in not demo∣lishing Solomons outlandish Idols, must be unlawful: See Ruther∣ford pag. 90.
Secondly, wee must distinguish of places. That which in some places carries a shew of evill, elsewhere perhaps is not suspected thereof. According to places therefore, in indifferent matters wee may vary our practise. It was the advice of Ambrose unto Austin, and Monica, respected by Austin, as if it had been the an∣swer of an heavenly oracle;(b) 5.1 unto whatsoever Church ye shall come, observe the manner or custome thereof, if ye will neither give nor take scandall. Which advice if restrained unto things indifferent is very good: and besides we have Pauls precept, and president for it: his precept, 1 Cor. c. 10. v. 32. Give none offence, neither to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, nor Gentile, which could not be done, but by complying with them in indifferencies. His president also answereth his pre∣cept; To the Jewes he became a Jew, to them that were under the Law, as under the Law; to them that were without the law, as with∣out the Law; to the weake, as weake, 1 Cor. 9. 20, 21, 22. Amongst the Jewes he shaved his head, made a vow, Acts 18. 18. and(c) 5.2 circum∣cised Timothy, Acts 16. 3. and yet amongst the Gentiles, where these actions bore an appearance of Judaisme, he withstood Peter for them even to his face, Gal. 2. 11. There be three other instan∣ces in the former edition, which because they are questionable I
shall wholy wave, and passe on unto the examination of my vaine triumph over the non-consormists, wherein, as the Proverb is, I reckoned without mine host.
Aliae leges humanae, quia possunt esse vel justae vel inju∣stae, idque rati∣one efficientis, materiae, for∣mae, finis, & hu∣jus aut illius subjecti, vel ad∣juncti; idcirco non ità simpli citèr alligant, ut earum quae∣libet violatio culpam letha∣lem inducat. Si enim sic esset, tum quot sunt leges, tot essent laquei anima. rum, & qui sub legibus vivunt, pluribus multo peccatis essent obnoxii, quam qui in barbaris gentibus, vel abs∣que legibus, vel cum paucissimis transigunt vitam. Ames. de Consc. cas. lib. 5. cap. 24. Num. 22.
Multae leges sunt purè 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ita ut ipsis plane satis fiat, si 〈◊〉〈◊〉 solvatur. Rat. 1. Quia legis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est deterrere homines à communi & frequenti usu hujus áut illius rei, ad quem finem sufficit constitutio poenae. 2. In talibus etiam legibus est tacita conventio & pactum, de poena ferenda si contra fiat: Contra leges autem conventionales, aut sub conditione latas, venire quis potest absque peccato. 3. De talibus legibus, intelligentes homines nunquam faciunt scrupu∣lum conscientiae, si absit contemptus, scandalum, & notabile damhum. Tales sunt leges de non 〈◊〉〈◊〉, de non piscando, de volucribus aut feris non capiendis, de non utendo hoc aut illo ge∣nere vestium, ciborum &c. num. 28.
Obligatio legis non po∣test extendi ul∣tra intentio∣nem, & men∣tem 〈◊〉〈◊〉, eamque ju∣stam. Praesu∣mend umautem est nullum ho∣minem velle su. os subditos ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tea∣tum & damna∣tionem obliga∣te, propter quemlibet suae voluntatis neg∣lectum. Into si in aliquo casu magnum dam∣num, scanda∣lum, aut 〈◊〉〈◊〉 modum ex ob∣servatione qua∣rundam legum sequuturum esset, praesumi∣tur non intēdis∣se legislatorem, ut in illo casu observaretur.
Ames. de Con. lib. 5. cap. 24. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 22.
Quis est, qui dicat, ut ha∣beamus quod demus paupe∣ribus, faciamus furta divitibus? August. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
Mendac. cap. 7.
Existima∣mus etiam, vlvo Salomone, om∣nem illam dae∣monum offici∣nam disruptam fui••le, dilacera∣tam, atque dis∣perditam. Vi∣denturque refe∣rendae illae sta∣tuae, & luci, & ••rae & reliqua Idolatriae monumenta (2. Reg. 23.13.) ad Manastem, & Ammonem (qui exc••tave∣rant illa ••nco∣dem loco & ••u∣pra eadem fun∣dāenta) non ad Salomonem, ante annos 250. extinctum. Incredibile dictu est, tantum scandalum ab Asa, Josa∣phato, Joiada, cum late idolatriam disperderent, in oeulis ipsis positum, non vidisse, aut non auso∣attingere, & ad annum 3405. Mirum profe•••• si Idola illa post tercentos 50. annos subsiste∣rent, quae Salomon ipse poenitens, & caeteri reges boni su••tuliessent, Utique dicendum videtur, ab impiis regibus extructa fuisse ejusdem generis fana, & Idola, quae olim Salomon in lisdem locis extruxerat: ut illud quae aedificaverat Salomon, sit idem ac si dixisset, qualia aedisicaverar.
Solomon de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Idola∣triae scelere, nunquam per∣fectè paenituit. Nam si fractus paenitentiae dig∣nos faceret, sa∣tageret ante omnia, ut idola quae aedificave∣rat, tollerentur, & non in scan∣dalum stulto∣tum, quae ipse cum fuisset sa∣pientissimus, erronea fecerat quasi sapientè ac rectè facta relinqueret.
Ad quam∣cunque Eccle∣siá 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in∣quit, ejus monē servate, si pati scandalum non 〈◊〉〈◊〉, aut face∣re. Aug. Ep. 86.
〈◊〉〈◊〉 was then indifferent, but after the full promulgation of the Gospel it became to be not only mortua but mortifera, not only dead but deadly, as being an inter∣pretative deny all of Christs coming in the flesh.