The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.

Duplyers pag. 66.

It is certaine we are freed from one of these precepts, for Gods precepts are not repugnan•• one to another. Ye commonly say, the precept of obedience to humane authoritie, must give place to the precept of eschewing Scandall, though it be causlesly taken, be∣cause the command of a Superiour cannot make that fact to be free of scandall, which otherwise would be scandalous. But it is certaine, that (laying aside the case of scandall) to denie obe∣dience to the ordinance of our Superiours, injoyning and perempto∣rily requiring of us▪ things lawfull and expedient, is really the sinne of disobedience. Ye will say, that the scandall of weake brethren, may make that fact or omission▪ not to be disobedience, which otherwise would be disobedience; because we ought not for the Commandement of man. doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended: and so the precept of obedience bindeth not, when offence of a weake brother may be feared. On the contrary we say▪ that the lawfull commandement of Superiours, may make that scandall of our weake brethren, not to be imputed unto us, which otherwise would bee imputed unto us, as a matter of our guiltinesse. No scandall ••f weake brethren causlesly taken, can make that fact, not to be the sinne of disobedience, which other∣wayes, that i•• extra casum scandali, if it were not in the

case of scandall, would bee the sinne of disobedience.

Answer. 1. This is right downe worke. But 1. I Answer, Both the precepts are not obligatorie, you say true. We common∣ly say (saith the Doctors) that the precept of obedience to hu∣mane authoritie, must give place to the precept of eschewing scan∣dall, although it be causlesly taken. We say not that Commonly, nor at all, if by Scandall causlesly taken, you mean scandall passive, onely taken, and not given, for we are not to regard such scandalls. But here the scandall is given in that, we must practise base Ceremonies, indifferent knots of straws for mens pleasure, though from thence many soules for whom Christ died, be destroyed. 2. It is good reason that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie in things which you call indifferent, and might well be sent away to Rome (were it not the Lord Pre∣lates pleasure to command them, for their owne carnall▪ ends) should yeild and be gone, and lose all obligatorie power, be∣cause it is but a positive precept, and 2. affirmative, that obliedg∣eth not ad semper, as Cross••, kneele, weare Surplice. And 3. In a thing indifferent, and that this Divine Commandement of God, (scandalize not) (kill not one redeemed by Christ) should stand in force. 1. Because it is a naturall precept. 2. It is negative, and obliedgeth eternally. 3. It is of a necessarie matter, because no man-slayer hath life eternall, 1 Jh. 3. 15. But our Doctors will have the Commandements positive of men to stand, and the Commandements of God, which are expresly of the law of na∣ture to fall before their Dagon, and to lose all obligatorie power, whereas Gods owne positive law yeildeth, and loseth obligato∣rie power, when Gods naturall Commandement of mercy com∣meth in competition with it, as is cleare as the noon-day, in David famishing, who eat the Shew-bread, which by a positive law, was not lawfull to any save the Priests onely, to eat, yet must mans law stand, and Gods law of nature fall, at the pleasure of these Doctors. 3. Wee say justly, you erre in saying it is reall disobedience to deny obedience to the ordinance of Superiours, when the matter of their law is indifferent, and when it is scan∣dalous, and obedience cannot be given to it, but by s••aying him for whom Christ died, yea, to give obedience to Superiours in that case, is reall murthering of soules, and reall disobedience to

God. Yea, and if there be murthering of a weake brother in the fact, it cannot come under the compasse of the matter of an humane law, and the Scandall maketh it no obedience to men, but disobedience to God. 4. You retort bravely, but Po∣pishly, the argument back upon us; But we bring our argu∣ment from the law of Nature (Thou shalt not murther, nor scan∣dalize) and we bring it not so much against the obedience to the Commandement of Superiours, as against the law and Commandement of Superiours, 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 con∣sideration of a lawfull Commandement to take away the scan∣dall, is not to any purpose. And so 5. I may invite Papists, Je∣suites, and all the Patrons of the Pope, to thanke you, and kisse your pen, for these words we say that the lawfull Commande∣ment of Superiours (of Prelates commanding things indiffe∣rent) may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be im∣puted 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 sinne, for nothing can be imputed to Men or Angels, as guiltiness, but fin. But if the Commandements of Prelates may make that not to be imputed to you, which otherwise and before, or without that law of Superiours, would have been imputed as the matter of your guiltinesse, then the law of Superiours and Prelates may make that, which without that law, would have been sinne, to be no sinne at all. I know no more said by c 1.1 Bellarmine of the Universall Prelate of the world, but that he can make sin to be no sinne, and no sinne to be sinne. And d 1.2 that the Pope cannot command vertue as vice, and vice as vertue, for if he should doe so, the Church should be obliged to believe vertue to be vice, and vice to be vertue. But much good doe 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 e 1.3 he will not give the foresaid power to the Pope, but in doubt∣some

acts, and in acts of positive lawes about fasting, you give to Prelates more, to wit, that their commanding will, may make sinnes forbidden in the law of nature, to be not imputed, as the matter of our guiltinesse, and to be no sinnes; We cannot want dispensations and indulgences at home, ere it be long, if happily we pay well for them.

Yet f 1.4 Bernard will not have the Popes commandement to make that which is simply evill to be lawfull. g 1.5 The Popes pleasure make not things good (saith Tolet) yea, a subject (saith h 1.6 Alphonsus d••••••astro) may without sinne contemne the law of his Superiour, judging it to be evill, 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∣wayes would have been imputed to Abraham as a matter of guil∣tinesse, and crueltie, to be no sinne. Ergo, Prelates have not power to make an act of soul▪murther, to be no sinne, to scan∣dalize a weake 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 Adulterie, an act of Chastitie, an act of lying, an act of truth speaking.

2. If Rulers, even the Apostle Paul, be tyed by the law of Nature, to Charitie to their brethren, as Rom. 14. 15. Not to stay him for whom Christ died, not to se••ke their owne things, but the good of their brethren, 1 Cor. 10. 24. Not to eat things sacrificed to idols, before the weake, v. 29. To doe all for the glory of God, v. 32. Then is it sinne in the Ruler himselfe to scandalize the weake. Ergo, Rulers cannot command to others that as obe∣dience, which they cannot doe themselves without prodigious disobedience to God. What Paul forbiddeth in Canonical Scrip∣ture as murther, that he cannot command in Church Canons as obedience Canonicall to Superiours.

3. Prelates shall have immediate Dominion over our con∣sciences to bind us to obedience by doing acts that otherwise should be imputed to ••s as the matter of our guiltinesse; and be∣cause the same power that bindeth the conscience, may also loose, so they may dispense with all the ten Commandements, and coyne to us a new Decalogue, and a new Gospell. They may legitimate murthers, paricides, and illegitimate Godlinesse▪

and right••••••snesse and sobri••ti••, by this Divinitie.

4. That must be false (It is better to obey God nor man, Act. 5.) but to abstaine from scandalizing a weake brother, is an act of obedience to the sixt Commandement. Ergo, the contrary can∣not be done at the command of Prelates. 6. Gods positive lawes yeildeth (Thou shalt not kill) to wit to the law of nature. Da∣vid may eat shew bread, when he is famishing. Ergo, the Pre∣lates law farre more must yeild to the sixt Commandement (thou shalt not scandaliz••, nor kill the soule of him for whom Christ died.) 7. Rulers must all be infallible law-makers. 8. Rulers might command bodilie murther, and it should not be murther, they may command to digge pitts in the way of Tra∣vellers, To marry with Infidel••, to send abroad a goaring Ox, to give knives to little children.

They object. A Master a father, may command a servant and a son to do that, which if the servant or son refuse to do, their disobe∣dience scandalizeth. And again, a Master, a Father, may com∣mand the contrary, and if they disobey, they scandaliz•• culpably. Erg. The commanding will of a Master and a Father, and farre more of publick Rulers, may make that to be active scandall, which is no active scandall. A Carpenter may command his servant to remove a tree from the East end of his house, to the West end, and againe, he may for his sole will, to try his servants obedience, com∣mand him to remove it againe to the East end of his house.

Answer. 1. The Master, Father, Carpenter, command either these things as artificiall agents, from reason of art, and then the question is not touched, for in scandalls men are considered, as morall agents, or they command them as morall agents, and that either for their sole will and pleasure, and so they be idle and unreasonable actions, and cannot be lawfull commande∣ments, and so are they scandalous both to Commanders and o∣beyers, but they may well command upon just reasons, that which if servants and sonnes obey not, they give Scandall, and they may command the contrary of that same, at another time, when now contrary reasons maketh it lawfull and expedient, and if servants and sonnes obey not the contrary, they also give Scandall, but here the change is not from the will and authori∣tie of the Commanders, but from the things themselves, which

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

are changed, so that which is an active scandall at some time, the contrary of it may be an active scandall at another time, as in the ease, Rom. 14. To eat meats before the weake, which they conceive to be forbidden, by Gods law, is to slay him for whom Christ died, and an active scandall, because then the Ce∣remonies were mortall and indifferent, nothing essentially con∣stituteth an active and a given scandall, but these two; 1. That* 1.7 it may be left undone, as the author of the course of conformitie, a 1.8 saith well out of Hieronimus, Without hurting of the truth of a sound life, and a sound faith and righteousnesse. 2. If upon the practice of a thing indifferent, and not necessarie, any of the foresaid three wayes, we see some shall be scandalized, though* 1.9 they take scandall upon an unjust ground, it is an active scan∣dall, as to eat such meats before the weake, Rom. 14. is in ano∣ther time and case, as Galat. 2. when the Ceremonies are now deadly, and upon just reasons not necessarie, the practising (I say) of the same, is an active scandall and so if any be scan∣dalized at the eating, Rom. 14. it is scandall 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 scandall, and so not given, because the times of the expyring of the dutie of Cere∣monies, and the full promulgation of the Gospell, 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 vertue, as Gods ordinance to cure the stinged persons, he is scan∣dalized by a passive scandall onely, for Gods institution maketh it now the necessary ordinance of God, And the Magistrates suf∣fering of the Brazen Serpent to remaine now, is no active scan∣dall, and the passive scandall is onely taken away, by informa∣tion, and the sound exponing of the right use of a necessary or∣dinance of God. But after that the Brazen Serpent loseth its vertue, and is not now an ordinance of God necessarie, if any burne Incense to it, these who are by authoritie obliedged to remove it, and doth not remove it, they doe morally and culpa∣bly scandalize.

Hence we see it is foolish and vaine, that some say, such as c 1.10 Hooker. d 1.11 D. Forbes. e 1.12 D. Sanderson, and f 1.13 Lynde∣say, 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 lawes upon these things indifferent, and therefore to eat, or not to eat, were matters of every private mans choise; But it is not the like case with our Ceremonies, for they remaine no longer indifferent, but are necessa∣rie to us, after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them, and so the scandall that ariseth from our dutie of obedi∣ence, to lawfull authoritie, is taken, and not given.

I answer, it is most false, that eating and not eating, in case of scandall was under no law in the Church of Rome and Co▪ rinth. For these most indifferent acts in their use, and cloathed with their Circumstances, when, where, and before what per∣sons, were under the unalterable law of nature, as (destroy not him, with thy meat for whom Christ died) a law which as the g 1.14 course of conformitie saith well, cannot be dispenced with by no power but Gods. And Paul proveth by stronger arguments, to eat in the case of Scandall, was not indifferent, but simply evill, Then all the Prelates Canons on earth can afford, as Rom. 14. by eight Arguments, as we have seen, that it fighteth against Charitie, v. 15. Now walkest thou not charitably. 2. It is a destroying of him for whom Christ died, and so murther. 3. Contrary to Christs love, who died for that weake brother. 4. It maketh Religion and Christian Libertie to be evill 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, see∣ing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanswera∣ble Arguments taken from the law of nature, and Gods Canons written in the heart, forbidding under the pain of Goa's anathe∣ma, 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 Lords 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 Cere∣monies. 3. If this be a good reason the Church of Rome, and Corinth might have made such Ceremonies as these.

Notwithstanding the eating of meates, which some suppose to be forbidden by Gods law, be a killing of him for whom Christ died, and against Charity▪ and a reproaching of our Christian li∣ber••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 weake ones, for whom Christ died. But certainly Paul would ne∣ver have command••d, in a Canon, that which he writeth in Canonicall Scripture, to be a murthering of him for whom Christ died, and that which he would not practise himself, to the worlds end, so long as it standeth in the case of indifferencie, as he saith of eating of fleshes, conceived by some weake ones to be against Gods law, 1 Cor. 8. v. last, The Pope himselfe would, nor dare in conscience, to practise any of his owne 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 weake, but commandeth not eating in the case of scandall. 4. Idolatrie is ever idolatrie, (saith a 1.15 the course of conformitie) and so scandall being sinne it cannot cease to be sinne, because superiours commandeth it. 5. Though Apostolick authoritie being meerly divine, should command that which is in it self murther, and was ••urther, before it be Canonically commanded, (which I think also is a false hypothesis) yet it shall never follow that humane autho∣ritie, or Ecclesiastick authoritie can command scandall, which is spirituall murther; For if Ecclesiastick authoritie may com∣mand murther, they may command idolatrie, for active scan∣dalizing is as essentially murthering of one for whom▪ Christ died, as to worship an idoll, is essentially idolatrie. Therefore Master Sydserfe pretended Bishop of Gall••way being straited with this argument, sayd, Though humane authoritie cannot in∣vert the nature of things, or make spirituall murther, to be no murther, yet they can by a Church Canon put the mindes of people in such a change, as now they are not in the hazard to be justly scandalized▪ for a scandall (sayd the Prelate)▪ is ens rationis, no reall thing but a fiction of reason, the nature of it being in the ap∣prehension of the ignorant and blind, who are scandalized, and a law may remove this ignorance, when it giveth light, and sheweth the expediencie of things indifferent. To which I answered, you may, call idolatrie, if you please, and all sinnes, fictions of rea∣son, but not only doth scandall given proceed from ignorance and blindnesse of the apprehension of the partie scandalized, but

also from the unseasonable practising of a thing, which is no wayes necessarie in the worship of God. The course of b 1.16 con∣firmitie saith well, He that denieth that there is any scandall, 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 denyeth that there is any motion. We may hence judge what to say of c 1.17 D. Forbes his Answer to the place, 1 Cor. 9. Who saith that Paul was under no Ecclesiasticall law, not to take wages, and therefore in not taking wages, he was not a contemner of Ecclesia∣sticall authoritie, but we are under a Church law to practise 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 lawfull for him, as the case of scandall then stood, to take wages, v. 18. he should abuse his power in the Gospell, and v. 19. 20, 21. he should not have becommed all things to all men to save some, and these things had been sinfully scan∣dalous, if (as the case was then) Paul for a penny of wages, which he might have wanted, having no familie to provide for, should have layd a stumling block before many. And the Do∣ctor d 1.18 ••aith No humane power can compell a man, to doe that, which he cannot doe, except inevitably he give scandall. The Do∣ctor addeth; The Apostle teacheth not that to take stipend was unlawfull, or of it selfe scandalous, yea he taught it was lawfull, 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 unlawfull. I Answer 1. In this argument of Scandall, we give, but doe not grant, that they are not unlawfull, but indifferent. 2. Though to take wages be lawfull, yet it followeth not, that it is not in Pauls ca••e at Corinth of it selfe scandalous; for to eat all meates is lawfull, Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 10. 23. All things are lawfull, v. 26. The earth is the Lords, yet to eat before the weake, was in it selfe scandalous, Rom. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 10. 28. 29. 3. It is a most weake 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 sinne, and there is no reason in sinning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If this be good,

adulterie and murther in David, is not of it selfe scandalous, for as no man hath reason to sinne, so no man hath reason to be scandalized, at Davids sinne. Pauls taking wages at Corinth should have been a sinfull hindering of the Gospels progresse, and therefore of it self sinfull; and so of it selfe scandalous. But I return to the Doctors.

Notes

• c 1.1

  Bellarm. contra Barcla. cap. 31. In bono sensu Christus dedit Petro (Papae) potesta∣tem faciend•• de peccato non pec∣catum, & de non peccato pecca∣tum.
• d 1.2

  Bellar. de Romano Pontif. l. 4. cap 5.
• e 1.3

  Bellarm. in Recognit o••i∣bus. L••quuti sumus de actibus dubiis viriu••um & vitiorum, nam si percipe∣ret manifestum vitium, aut pro∣hiberet manife∣stum virtutem dicendum esset cum Petro, Act. 5. Obedire oportet magis Deo, quam h••minibus—dicimus posse jubere ut tali die non jejunetur,—non potest autem jubere ut non colatur Deu••.
• f 1.4

  Bernardus Epist. 7. Quo∣modo ergo vel Abbatis jussio vel Papae per∣missio, licit•••••• facere potuit, quod purum ma∣lum fuit.
• g 1.5

  Toletus in ••nstruct. Se∣cerdo••. lib 5. cap▪ 3. cum cau∣sa rationabili a∣liquid praecipitur—••os debe∣mus audire, nec Pap•• pro suo li∣••ito excusat.
• h 1.6

  Alphonsus de potest legis Civil. cap. 5. Conclus. 5. Potest subd•••• •••• sin•• peccato le∣gem aut precep∣tum superioris▪ contem••••re, ju∣dicando ill•••• ma•••••• & contra r••••ionem.
• * 1.7

  The essence of an active or given scandall.
• a 1.8

  Course of conformitie, pag 147.
• * 1.9

  (b) Dimitten∣dum est, propter scandalum, ••om••e quod potest prae∣termitti, salvâ triplice veri∣tate vitae doctri∣nae & justi••iae, Hierony. Gl••ssord. tom. 9.
• c 1.10

  Hooker of Eccles•• Policie, l. 4▪ pag. 157.
• d 1.11

  D. Forbes in Iren. lib. 2. c. 20. n. 19.
• e 1.12

  Sandersons Sermon, Rom. 14 pag. 22. 23.
• f 1.13

  Lyndesay his defence of Pearth Assemb. in Prafat Pay∣bodie.
• g 1.14

  Course of Conformitie, pag. 146.
• a 1.15

  Pag. 143.
• b 1.16

  Course of Conformitie. pag. 143.
• c 1.17

  Forbes Iren. l. 2. cap. 20. n. 6.
• d 1.18

  Forbes, lib. 2. cap. 20. n. 19. Non potest hu∣mana potestas te cogere ad facien∣dam illud quod facere non possis abs{que} inevitabili¦datione scandali.