The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious tract · Text of tract · Question 4
Queſt. IIII.
Whether the Precept of obedience to Superiours, or the precept of eſchewing ſcandall be more obligatorie?
Dupliers pag. 65. n. 43.
LAſt of all, when a man is perempt…rily urged by his Superiours, to obey their lawfull Commandements, and in the meane time feareth▪ that if he doe the thing commanded by them▪ ſome, through weakneſſe, ſhall be ſcandalized▪ by his carriage; in this caſe he is not onelyonly in difficultie and ſtrait, betwixt the Commandement of men, and the Commandement of God, who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weake brother may be offended. But alſo he ſeemeth to be in a ſtrait betwixt two Commandements of God, to wit, the precept that forbiddeth us to doe that, whereby our weake brother may be ſcandalized and the other, which forbiddeth, the reſiſting of Authoritie.
Anſwer. 1. The queſtion of purpoſe is perverſly ſet do …ne, for they ſhould ſay, whether the precept of obedience to Superiours, in a ſtraw lifting, in things indifferent, and meerely poſitive, and not neceſſarie to ſalvation, be more obligatorie, then the precept of God, in the law of nature, in a matter neceſſarie to ſalvation, as a Commandement of God forbidding ſoul-murther, and ſcandalizing him for whom Chriſt died? Or thus; Whether am I obliedged rather to obey God, forbidding me to murther my brother, or to obey man, commanding me to kneele towards Bread and Wine, and to croſſe the aire with my thumbe upon the face of a baptized infant.Tannern▪ to 3. in 22. diſ. 2. q. 6 dub. 9. concurrentibus d…obus praeceptis quorum utrum. que ſervari non poteſt, obligare deſinit al…erum quod …im obligandi minorem habet. Ita Suarez. to. 3. di…. 66. ſect. 4. Gregor. de Valenti… in. 22. q. 18. puncto 4.
2. The queſtion ſeemeth to make a colliſion of Commandements, as if God could command things contradictorie, and certainly, if the not obeying of Pearth Articles be a ſcandall given, as you ſay, it is▪ I ſhall undertake to prove, that the practice of theſe Ceremonies is a Scandall given, and ſo it is not a ſeeming ſtrait as you ſay, but a reall ſtrait by your doctrine. There be caſes wherein, whether Rulers command things, or command the contrary, a paſſive ſcandall doth ariſe, but becauſe a paſſive Scandall, is the ſinne of the ſcandall taker, and not of Rulers giving, the Church is not to regard it, as Matth▪ 11. 18▪ 19. The Jewes are ſcandalized, at Chriſts eating and drinking, and are ſcandalized at John the Baptiſts not eating and drinking. But neither Chriſt, nor John doe culpably give ſcandall. But there can be no ſuch exigence of providence wherein nonpractiſing of your commanded Ceremonies, is a given ſcandall, and the practiſing of them is alſo a given ſcandall. Becauſe (as aD. Bannes …o. 3. in. 22. q. 43. art. 8. con. 3. Talis perplexitas eſt abſurdum quid.Bannes, and our owne bAmeſius de Conſ. lib. 5. …p. 11 theſ 18 Nulla datur tali… perplexita…, &c.Am…ſius ſaith▪ There is not ſuch a perplexiti…. 1. God ſhould have brought a man then in ſome caſes under an abſolute neceſſitie, by way of contradiction to ſinne, and murther his brother, whether he doe ſuch a thing or not doe it. 2. Twentie Jewes are ſcandalized, Rom. 14. Becauſe Paul eateth ſuch and ſuch meats, which they conceive are forbidden by Gods law. And twentie Chriſtians are ſcandalized, becauſe Paul eateth not ſuch and ſuch meats, then we ſuppoſe, and its very caſuall, for ſeeing, to be ſcandalized ariſeth from the knowledge or ignorance of the minde, and divers men may have contrary opinions about one thing. Some thinke it unlawfull for Paul to eat, ſome thinke it unlawfull not to eat. Hence upon the uſe of a thing indifferent, twentie are ſcandalized, and upon the non-uſing of that ſame indifferent thing, twentie are alſo ſcandalized. What ſhall Paul doe 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 twentie that are ſcandalized by the non-practice of the thing indifferent, doe take ſcandall onelyonly, whereas Paul giveth no ſcandall actively. Alſo, the othet twentie who are ſcandalized by Paul his practice of the thing indifferent, are juſtly ſcandalized, & it is both a ſcandall taken, and active, and a ſcandall 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 offence at the uſe of it, and ten take offence at the non-uſe of it, there is a neceſſitie of ſcandalizing either of the ſides, for the twentie weake Chriſtians are ſcandalized at Pauls abſtinence from ſuch meats, conceiving that he Judaizeth, whereas the Profeſſion of his Chriſtian libertie in eating would edifie them, and not ſcandalize them.
Anſwer. The uſe of a thing indifferent is not Gods lawfull mean of edification, God hath appointed his Word, Workes, the holy and blameleſſe profeſſion of his children to edifie, and not the uſing of actions indifferent, yea, actions indifferent as they are ſuch, and ſeparated from neceſſitie, and morall reaſon, are not lawfull, and ſo the ceſſation from that action is lawfull and neceſſarie, and if the uſe ſcandalize, non-uſing of things indifferent, is not indifferent, but neceſſarie, as non-ſcandalizing, and negative precepts alwayes binding, abſtinence, with Paul is neceſſarie. It is vaine that Paybodie ſaith, that Peter was Gal. 2. in danger of a double ſcandall, for (ſaith he) he was in danger to ſcandalize the Gentiles, in refuſing their companie, as if they had been no brethren, which was the greater ſcandall, and in danger to ſcandalize the Jewes in eating with the Gentiles, which was a leſſe ſinne, and leſſe ſcandall. But I anſwer, Paul did not then juſtly rebuke his Judaizing, Galat. 2. which doth gratifie Barronius, Bellarmine, and Papiſts, who will have Peter, an Apoſtle who could not erre. 2. It ſhould follow that Paul rebuked Peter, becauſe that of two evills of ſinne, he chooſed to commit the leſſer ſinne. Whereas of two evills of ſinne, neither is to be choſen. One might then lawfully commit fornication to be free of adulterie. and ſo fornication ſhould be lawfull, which is abſurd. And Paul ſhould call Gal. 2. 14. it upright walking according to the truth of the Goſpell to chooſe a leſſe ſin. 3. Peter by eating with the Gentiles, ſhould not have ſcandalized the Jewes, but edified them, in ſhowing the Chriſtian libertie they had in Chriſt, as is cleare, v. 5. To whom we gave no ſubjection, no not for an houre (by practiſing Jewiſh Ceremonies) that the truth of the Goſpell might continue with you.
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, becauſe 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 obedience to the ordinance of our Superiours, injoyning and peremptorily 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 otherwayes, 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 commonly ſay (ſaith the Doctors) that the precept of obedience to humane authoritie, muſt give place to the precept of eſchewing ſcandall, although it be cauſleſly taken. We ſay not that Commonly, nor at all, if by Scandall cauſleſly taken, you mean ſcandall paſſive, onelyonly 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 Prelates pleaſure to command them, for their owne carnall▪ ends) ſhould yeild and be gone, and loſe all obligatorie power, becauſe it is but a poſitive precept, and 2. affirmative, that obliedgeth 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 nature to fall before their Dagon, and to loſe all obligatorie power, whereas Gods owne poſitive law yeildeth, and loſeth obligatorie power, when Gods naturall Commandement of mercy commeth 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 onelyonly, 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 ſcandalous, 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 Popiſhly, the argument back upon us; But we bring our argument from the law of Nature (Thou ſhalt not murther, nor ſcandalize) 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 conſideration of a lawfull Commandement to take away the ſcandall, is not to any purpoſe. And ſo 5. I may invite Papists, Jeſuites, and all the Patrons of the Pope, to thanke you, and kiſſe your pen, for theſe words we ſay that the lawfull Commandement of Superiours (of Prelates commanding things indifferent) may make that ſcandall of our weake 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 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 cBellarm. contra Barcla. cap. 31. In bono ſenſu Chriſtus dedit Petro (Papae) poteſtatem faciend… de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccatum.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 dBellar. de Romano Pontif. l. 4. cap 5.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 eBellarm. in Recognit o…ibus. L…quuti ſumus de actibus dubiis viriu…um & vitiorum, nam ſi perciperet manifeſtum vitium, aut prohiberet manifeſtum 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….he will not give the foreſaid power to the Pope, but in doubtſome 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 fBernardus Epiſt. 7. Quomodo ergo vel Abbatis juſſio vel Papae permiſſio, licit… facere potuit, quod purum malum fuit.Bernard will not have the Popes commandement to make that which is ſimply evill to be lawfull. gToletus in …nſtruct. Secerdo…. lib 5. cap▪ 3. cum cauſa rationabili aliquid praecipitur—…os debemus audire, nec Pap… pro ſuo li…ito excuſat.The Popes pleaſure make not things good (ſaith Tolet) yea, a ſubject (ſaith hAlphonſus de poteſt legis Civil. cap. 5. Concluſ. 5. Potest ſubd… … ſin… peccato legem aut preceptum ſuperioris▪ contem…re, judicando ill… ma… & contra r…ionem.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 otherwayes would have been imputed to Abraham as a matter of guiltineſſe, and crueltie, to be no ſinne. Ergo, Prelates have not power to make an act of ſoul▪murther, to be no ſinne, to ſcandalize 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 obedience, which they cannot doe themſelves without prodigious diſobedience to God. What Paul forbiddeth in Canonical Scripture as murther, that he cannot command in Church Canons as obedience Canonicall to Superiours.
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 guiltineſſe; and becauſe 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 cannot be done at the command of Prelates. 6. Gods poſitive lawes yeildeth (Thou ſhalt not kill) to wit to the law of nature. David may eat ſhew bread, when he is famiſhing. Ergo, the Prelates 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 Travellers, 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 diſobedience ſcandalizeth. And again, a Maſter, a Father, may command 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, command 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 commandements, and ſo are they ſcandalous both to Commanders and obeyers, 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 authoritie of the Commanders, but from the things themſelves, which duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page 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 Ceremonies were mortall and indifferent, nothing eſſentially conſtituteth an active and a given ſcandall, but theſe two; 1. ThatThe eſſence of an active or given ſcandall. it may be left undone, as the author of the courſe of conformitie, aCourſe of conformitie, pag 147.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(b) Dimittendum eſt, propter ſcandalum, …om…e quod poteſt praetermitti, ſalvâ triplice veritate vitae doctrinae & juſti…iae, Hierony. Gl…ſſord. tom. 9. they take ſcandall upon an unjuſt ground, it is an active ſcandall, as to eat ſuch meats before the weake, Rom. 14. is in another 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 ſcandalized 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 Ceremonies, 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 ſcandalized by a paſſive ſcandall onelyonly, for Gods inſtitution maketh it now the neceſſary ordinance of God, And the Magiſtrates ſuffering of the Brazen Serpent to remaine now, is no active ſcandall, and the paſſive ſcandall is onelyonly 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 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 culpably ſcandalize.
Hence we ſee it is fooliſh and vaine, that ſome ſay, ſuch as cHooker of Eccleſ… Policie, l. 4▪ pag. 157.Hooker. dD. Forbes in Iren. lib. 2. c. 20. n. 19.D. Forbes. eSanderſons Sermon, Rom. 14 pag. 22. 23.D. Sanderſon, and fLyndeſay his defence of Pearth Aſſemb. in Prafat Paybodie.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 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 neceſſarie to us, after that the Church hath now made a commanding law upon them, and ſo the ſcandall that ariſeth from our dutie of obedience, 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 perſons, were under the unalterable law of nature, as (deſtroy not him, with thy meat for whom Chriſt died) a law which as the gCourſe of Conformitie, pag. 146.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, ſeeing eating before a weake brother is under the ty of unanſwerable Arguments taken from the law of nature, and Gods 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 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 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 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 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 weake ones, for whom Chriſt died. But certainly Paul would never 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 aPag. 143.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 authoritie, or Eccleſiaſtick authoritie can command ſcandall, which is ſpirituall murther; For if Eccleſiaſtick authoritie may command murther, they may command idolatrie, for active ſcandalizing 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 invert 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 apprehenſion 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 reaſon, 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 bCourſe of Conformitie. pag. 143.confirmitie 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 cForbes Iren. l. 2. cap. 20. n. 6.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 Eccleſiaſticall 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 ſcandalous, 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 Doctor dForbes, lib. 2. cap. 20. n. 19. Non poteſt humana potestas te cogere ad faciendam illud quod facere non poſſis abſ que inevitabilidatione ſcandali.…aith No humane power can compell a man, to doe that, which he cannot doe, except inevitably he give ſcandall. The Doctor 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, foreign. 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.
Duplyers pag 67. 68. n. 46 47.
As for that which yee ſay, that when Scandall may be taken at the doing of the thing commanded, then the thing commanded becommeth inexpedient, and ſo ought not to be obeyed; that yee be not more deceived with this errour, we pray you marke, that a thing commanded, by our Superiours, in Church or Policie, m…y be two wayes inexpedient, to wit, either in reſpect of ſome particular Perſons, who th…ough weakneſſe, or mali…e, doe ſtumble at it, or elſe in reſpect of the body in generall, becauſe it is contrary to Order, Decencie and Edification. If the thing commanded be inexpedient, the former way, we may indeed, in ſuch a caſe, for eſchewing the Scandall of the weake, forbeare the practice of the thing commanded, Hic, & nunc, in ſome particular places, and times: provyding alwayes we doe this without offence of our Superiours, and without the ſcandall of others, but we cannot totally forbeare practice, for we are to looke more to the utilitie, which the body of the Church may receive, by the thing commanded, and by our obedience to our Superiours, then to ſome particular perſons. 47. But if the thing commanded be in our private judgement inexpedient, the other way, we ought not for that, to deny Obedience to the lawes of the Church; for when the inexpediencie of a thing is queſtionable, and probable arguments may be brought, pro and contra, concerning the expediencie of it, wee have ſufficient warrant to practiſe it, if the Church inact it as expedient. Otherwayes your way is ſo dangerous, that there ſhall never be peace, nor unitie in the Church, for men ordinarily are divided in judgement, concerneing the expediencie of things. Suppoſe a Synode conſiſting of one hundred Paſtours, threeſcore ſhall think this particular Ceremonie expedient, for the good of the Church, and in reſpect of pluralitie of voyces▪ make an act to be concluded for the eſtabliſhing of it, ſhall the remnant fourty, who are of the contrary judgement, deny obedience to the acts of the Synode?
Anſwer. 1. This diſtinction of inexpedient in the matter of indifferent Ceremonies is Popiſh and vaine, for if the Ceremonie be indifferent, and may be wanted in the worſhip of God (as theſe Ceremonies be) if one ſoule, for whom Chriſt died, ſhall be murthered thereby, it is hoc ipſo, to be judged inexpedient and ſcandalous in it ſelfe, 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, foreign, ſay to you, this is offered in ſacrifice to Idols, eat not, foreign, for his ſake that ſhewed it. Ergo, if it ſeem expedient, and ſo be ſcandalous to one, let alone to a whole Church, we are totally to forbeare it, and Paul would, while the world ſtandeth, 1 Cor. 8. 13. forbeare it. 2. You will not have us to forbeare a thing indifferent, that actively (for the paſſive ſcandall, I hope, you regard not as a ſcandall) doth ſcandalize, but with a proviſion that we doe it without offence of Superiours, and without the ſcandall of others. But I aske, Doctors, what you meane by Offence of Superiours, if you meane without diſpleaſing and inciting our Superiours to anger. 1. You ignorantly confound diſpleaſing and Scandalizing, When a Paſtor rebuketh Superiours, as Jeremiah, Elias, and John Baptist, in the good old world did, they did diſpleaſe Superiours, but not ſcandalize them; yea, they did edifie their Superiours, while as they did offend them. It is wicked Divinitie, to mean, that we are not to eſchew the murthering of a weake brother for whom Chriſt died providing we offend not, that is, diſpleaſe not our Superiours. Will you to pleaſe men diſpleaſe the God of heaven, and commit ſpiritual homicide? This is worſe then Poperie.
But if you meane, that wee are to forbeare the thing commanded for eſchewing the ſcandall of the weake, providing we doe it without the offence of Superiours, that is without the active ſcandalizing of Superiours, then 1. your diſtinction is vaine, for if we ſcandalize culpably our ſuperiours by our forbearance, though it be inexpedient to all private perſons, we are not to forbeare, becauſe in no caſe can we breake the ſixt Commandement, and ſcandalize our Superiours. 2. You ſhall be forced to give… caſe, wherein we are neceſſitated by Gods providence, and that by way of contradiction, whether we forbeare, or forbeare not, to murther either the ſoules of ſome weake ones, or the ſoules of Superiours, by our forbearance of the practice 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 breathren, if we practiſe. This is a wronging of Providence, and a Ma…ichean tenent, that we can be under ſuch a neceſſitie of ſinning. Yea, there muſt be two centra…y revealed wills in God, commanding, by forbearing the Ceremonies, not to murther Superiours, and commanding by not forbearing, not to murther weak brethren; and ſo God commandeth both to forbeare, and alſo not to forbeare. If you ſay, the weake may be informed, and then it is a paſſive ſcandall onelyonly, and practiſing is lawfull at the commandement of Superiours. I anſwer, 1. Then your diſtinction hath no uſe here. 2. I anſwer. Let the Superiours, who have more knowledge, be informed, that to abſtaine from a practice, that may murther any one redeemed by Chriſt, is Chriſts commandement (Thou ſhalt doe no murther) then it is but a paſſive ſcandall, and not an active, or culpably given ſcandall. Ergo, we are to forbeare the thing commanded for eſchewing of the ſcandall▪ (hic & nunc) of the weake, even though with the offence, that is the paſſive ſcandall of Superiours and others, which is contradictorie to the Doctours. 3. If we may forbeare obedience to Gods poſitive Commandements, hic & nunc, for eſehewing of Scandall, farre more may we, hic & nunc, not croſſe, not kneele, hic & nunc, when croſſing and kneeling murthereth one for whom Chriſt died, even though it offend our Superiours. Ergo, this proviſion of the Doctors is vaine; and Superiours are unjuſtly offended, if our nonmurthering of weake brethren offend them, nor are we to care for the Doctors proviſion here. 4. No utilitie can truly redound to the whole Church by practiſing of an indifferent thing which culpably occaſioneth the murthering of a weake brother, Except our Doctors meane, that ſinne may edifie the whole Church. 5. They ſay, if the things in our private judgement 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 expediencie be queſtionable and probable on both ſides, the Churches determination ſhould end the controverſie (ſaith the Doctors) this is the Doctrine of the Jeſuites, aSuarez de Rel. to. 4. l 4▪ tract▪ 5. cap 15. Si, ſec…uſ… praecept…, res ex … tr… que …a…te ſit probabilis tunc univerſaliter verum erit adjuncto praeceptoobedi …dum eſſe.Suarez. bThom. Sanchez …n Decalog▪ to. 2. lib 6. cap. 3. n. 3.Thomas Sanches, and cGreg. de Val. … 3. diſp 7 q 3 punct. 2Gregor de valent. as I ſhew before dSupra q. 6. of this Treatiſe.when a thing is probable, and I be reſolved in conſcience againſt neither of the ſides, and feare the one ſide be murthering him, for whom Chriſt died, which is againſt Gods commandement, and know that humane authoritie commandeth the contrary and am perſwaded it is indifferent, and a poſitive commandement of men, if the Churches determination be here to ſway my conſcience; to practiſe, is to me blind obedience, for humane authoritie 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 ſinne, againſt God, for feare of eſchewing a ſinne 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 aſwell to prove the Synode of Trent is to be obeyed, as for the preſent purpoſe,
Duplyers, pag. 69.
Yee will ſay this argument is Popiſh, and leadeth men to acquieſce. without tryall, upon the determination of the Church. But we anſwer in matters of faith the truth, whereof may be infallibly concluded out of the word of God▪ we ought not, without tryall to acquieſce unto the Doctors of the Church, and in this reſpect we diſſent from Papiſts, who aſcribe too much to the authoritie of Councells, as if their decrees were infallible. But in matters of Policie, if we be certaine, that in their owne nature, they are indifferent, and if the expediencie of them onelyonly be called in queſtion, ſeeing no certaine concluſion, concerning their expediencie, can be infallibly drawn out of Gods word—we are to acquieſce to the decrees of the Church. 1. Becauſe otherwiſe it is impoſſible to agree in one concluſion, in matters of this kind. 2. Diſobedience ſhall prove more hurtfull then obedience.
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 Noahs Arke, 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 hiſtoricall veritie 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 fundamentall▪ and that either ſide may be believed, and holden, without hazard of ſalvation, and therefore we are to leane to the Churches determination in theſe without farther inquirie. 2 They mean, that in matters contraverted, and in all things indifferent; as whether in this, or that fact, we doe murther him for whom Chriſt died; Wee are to give our faith and conſcience over to the Church without further tryall. 3. What if wee be▪ not perſwaded of the indifferencie of the things commanded but doubt whether they bee commanded or forbidden in the Word, as is now the preſent caſe of Ceremonies to us, for we cannot be perſwaded of their indifferencie, 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 ſcandall and murthering of our brother, as what is Idolatrie and Blaſphemie, and therefore we are not to hang our faith here upon the Churches Canons without farther tryall, as you ſay. 5. That the Scripture is perfect in matters of faith, but imperfect in matters of Policie, 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 aScotus prol. in ſent. q. 3. ad art. 3.ſaith. True Theologie according to Divine revelation is onelyonly of things in Scripture, or which may be deduced out of Scripture. And Suarez bSuarez 10. …e leg. cap. 1. & de trip. vi…. Theologie, Tract. 1. diſp. …. q. ….ſaith, Things that belong to accidentarie rites are left to the Churches determination, but the Scripture implicitly containeth all articles of feare faith. And ſo ſaith cBanne…, tom. in q 1. … 10. dub 2.Bannes, and dDuvallius, 2 tract. de legib q 5. art. 1. …d ar… 2.Duvallius. 6. Your feare is vain, that we ſhall have no order nor peace, if Scripture be judge, and not the authoritie 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 unitie and peace. Gods word maketh unitie, and not mens authoritie. 7. Diſobedience to Church Canons in caſe of given Scandall, 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 ſcandall taken, not given. Abſtinence from murthering a weak brother, is obedience to God, and ſo no active Scandall.
In the 48 Section▪ The Duplyers doe 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 ſuperiours in things lawfull and expedient, is moſt ſcandalous to others, and that becauſe we, by nature, are moſt unwilling to be curbed, and to have our libertie reſtrained. Therefore CalvinCalv. in In…. …u…. 2 cap. 8. ſect. 35. ſaith, God, that he may allure us to obedience to …riours, called, ſuperiours, Parents.
I anſwer. 1. The Doctors are too haſtie to call that obedience to Superiours which is in queſtion, We ſay it is diſobedience to the …ixt Commandement, becauſe it is a ſcandalizing of our brother. Ergo, it is not obedience to the fift Commandement to practiſe indifferent Ceremonies, when they doe ſcandalize. 2. Our argument is made againſt the practiſe of Ceremonies, before they be enacted in a lawfull Aſſemblie, if they be murthering of the weak, before Pearth-Aſſemblie, the will of Prelates, yea, and all the authoritie of men or Angels, cannot make the practiſe of them, to be no murther, for mens will cannot make that which is ſinne and guiltineſſe before God, to be no ſinne, but due obedience to the fift Commandement, though the Doctors expreſly ſay this.
Duplyers, pag. 71. Sect. 44.
But we with good warrant …oe averre, that the precept which fobiddeth the reſiſting of the civill power, and in generall the denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our Superiors, is of greater obligation then the precept of not ſcandalizing. Their firſt reaſon I put in forme to them thus. That is of greater obligation which commandeth acts edificative to all, then that which commandeth acts edificative to ſome only, for the good of all is to be preferred to the good of ſome particular perſons, and we are to have a greater care of the ſalvation of all, then of ſome. But the precept of obedience to Superiours is univerſall, and commandeth the act of edifying all to wit, obedience to Superiours, and an act to eſchew the ſcandall of all to wit, diſobedience. But the precept of eſchewing the ſcandall of ſome, doth but edifie ſome only, and not all Ergo &c.
Anſ. 1. It is ſoon proved by your learning, for the precept of Gods law to eſchew ſcandall, to you is no precept, and ſo of no obligation, when Superiours 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 lawfull command of God, but the …ſſumption applyed 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 commandement edificative to all, yea, it is a Commandement of acts deſtructive to the ſoules of all. This Argument would have ſome colour, if it were not a vaine begging of the queſtion, for they lay downe as, confeſſed, that the practiſe of Ceremonies, from whence many ſoules are ruined, is obedience, and obedience to the fift Commandement. This is to be proven, and conſtantly denyed by us, becauſe diſobedience to the ſixth Commandement, and murthering of our brother, cannot be obedience to the fift Commandement.
Duplyers pag. 72. n. 50.
The fift Commandement commeth neerer to the nature of pietieAmeſ. M…dull. l. 2 c. 17. ſect. 13. and religion contained in the firſt Table, and the honouring of parents (as your owne A…ſius ſaith) by prophane authours, is called by the name of religion and pietie. 2. It is the ground of obedience (ſayeth Pareus) to be given to all the reſt of the precepts of the ſecond Table. 1. Becauſe all ſocieties Oeconomicke, civill, and Eccleſiaſticke doe conſiſt, and are conſerved by the ſubjection of …nferiours to ſuperiours. 2. Our ſuperiours are ſet over us, to the end, we may doe our dutie to all others. Hence ſaith your owne Ameſius; Crymes which directly procure the perturbation, confuſion, and everſion of ſocieties, are more grievous then the violation of the ſingular precepts: and Dyoniſius Biſhop of Alexandria, writing to Novatus ſaith, Martyrdome ſuffered for eſchewing of ſchiſme, is more glorious, then Martyrdome for eſchewing Idolatrie.
Anſ. You ſaid before matters of Policie are not matters of faith. Ameſius is a Proteſtant writer in matters of faith, by grant of all, it is like then you terme …meſius our owne, 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 precedencie and dignitie to the fift Commandement above the reſt, but your Ceremonies that break the ſixth Commandement, ſhall find no roome in the fift Commandement. Cauſe the fift Commandement ſpeak thus, if you can; Notwithſtanding, that croſſing, kneeling, ſurplice, humane holy dayes occaſion the ſoule murther of him for whom Christ died, yet we the Prelates command the practiſe of the foreſaid Ceremonies as good and expedient for edification, for our Commandement maketh the murthering of our brethren, to be obedience to the fift Commandement. But if Prelates may command that which would be otherwiſe, without, or before the Commandement, ſpirituall murthering and ſcandalizing of our brother, they may command alſo, that which would be otherwiſe without, or before their command, adulterie againſt the ſeventh, and theft againſt the eighth, and perjurie and lying againſt the ninth Commandement, and concupiſcence againſt the tenth; for the fift Commandement hath the precedencie before the ſeventh, eighth, ninth and tenth Commandements, no leſſe then before the ſixth, which forbiddeth the killing of our brothers ſoule. 3. What Ameſius and Parens ſaith, doe well prove the dignitie of the fift Commandement, above all the Commandements of the ſecond Table; but this is not to our purpoſe, but every commandement of the fifth Commandement; yea, every commandement of the firſt Table, is not above every commandement of the ſecond Table. The love of God, is more then the love of our neighbour, and the love of God ſhould, and doth, command obedience to all the ten Commandements, Deut. 30. 6. 7, 8. & Deut. 10. 12. Yet every duty and commandement that the love of God requireth of us, as to offer ſacrifice, is not for that a greater commandement then every commandement of the ſecond Table, yea, the taking of a ſheepe out of a ditch on the Lords day, commanded in the ſixth Commandement, is more then ſacrifices commanded in the ſecond Commandement, as our Saviour ſaith, Math. 12. v. 11, 12. and though the fift Commandement be laid upon us as the fountaine and cauſe, yea to this end, that we ſhould keepe all the reſt, as Divines ſay well. Yet it followeth not that every commandement of the fift Commandement, as when my father commandeth me to preach in a linnen Ephod, and to caſt a Character with my thumbe in the aire, as croſſing is, ſhall be of more obligation then this commandement of God (Thou ſhalt not deſtroy his ſoule for whom Chriſt died) 4. It is falſe, that denying of obedience to Pearth-Aſſemblie, commanding indifferent ſtraws and feathers as (kneele to conſecrated Bread, the Image of Chriſt crucified) doth directly procure the perturbation and confuſion of humane ſocieties, as the Doctors ſaith. There is great difference betwixt ſubjection to ſuperiours, and obedience to ſuperiours; When private men, as the three Children will not bow to Nebuchadnezzars Image, there is no confuſion brought in for that, if they had riſen againſt the King in armes, as Papiſts doe in Ireland againſt our King, that is confuſion, and ſubverteth directly humane ſcocieties, but to ſuffer puniſhment by Superiours, is ſubjection to ſuperiours, as is cleare, 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour the King. 18. Servan…s be ſubject to your Maſters with all feare, not only to the good and gentle but alſo to the froward. 19. For this is thanke-worthy (this ſubjection) if a man, for conſcience reward God▪ enaure griefe, ſuffering wrongfully. 5. What Dionyſius ſaid of the ill of ſchiſme is for us, for ſchiſme is againſt love to our brethren, and a renting Chriſts body. 1 Cor. 1. 13. and a greater evill 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 Schiſmaticks who have now ſeparated from the Church of Scotland, and our Nationall covenant with God.
Duplyers pag. 37. n. 51.
Thirdly, theſe offices or duties, which we owe to others by way of Justice, are more ſtrictly obligatorie, then theſe which we owe to them, only by way of charitie. But we owe the dutie of obedienceMelul. Theol. l. 2. c 16. ſ. 58 59. 60. 61. 62 63. to our Superiours, by way of juſtice, and therefore it is more obligatorie, then the duty of eſchewing ſcandall cauſleſly taken, which is a duty only of charity. 1. The major is a maxime not only of Scholaſticks▪ and of Popiſh caſuiſts, but alſo of our Divines. So Ameſius, The major is cleare for the duty of obedience which wee owe to the publicke Lawes of the Church and Kingdome is▪ Juſtitia legalis, a generall legall Juſtice, and as it is in ſubjects, it is a vertue inclining them to the obedience of all lawes made for the benefit of the Common-wealth, as Ariſtotle ſaith. 2. It is debitum obedientiae, the debt of obedience which we owe to our Superiours, grounded upon the proper right which our Superiours have to exact this right of us, ſo that they may accuſe us of injurie, and cenſure us, if we performe it not. Debitum juſtitiae fundatur in proprio jure alterius; and alſo it is debitum morale, a debt of dutie unto which we are tyed by morall honeſtie in Gods commandement. There is a great difference betwixt theſe two debts; As for example, a man oweth moneys to the poore by a morall debt, but to his creditours he oweth them by a legall debt, or debt of juſtice: and therefore he is more ſtrictly obleiged to pay his creditour then to give almes. Such like by morall honeſtie, and Gods precept alſo; a man oweth to his neighbour, a pious carefulneſſe, to imped ſinne in him, by admonition, inſtruction, good example, and by omiſſion even of things lawfull, when he ſeeth that his neighbour in respect of his weakneſſe, will be ſcandalized by them. But his neighbour hath not ſuch a right to exact theſe duties of him, neither can he have action againſt him, for not performing of them, as our lawfull Superiours have for our due obedience?
Anſ. 1. Here be the white ſhifts of Mr. Sanderſon, Paybodie, Downham, who place Loyaltie above Charitie. We owe to our brother love, but to the Ruler (ſay they) love and juſtice. 1. Why doe they not extend Loyaltie to its utmoſt, even loyaltie to the King of kings? whoſe royall law ſaith▪ (Thou ſhale not ſcandalize (Thou ſhalt not murther) they draw in loyaltie to Rulers who ſhall die as men, and to their commandement 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 obligatorie then theſe which we owe only by way of charitie, caeteris paribus, When 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 Charitie, are more obligatorie, then the duties that we owe only by the tye of Charitie. As for example; My father is in danger, before my eyes, to be drowned, in one deepe water; and before my eyes alſo, my neighbour and friend is in danger of the like kind; the two tyes and bands of Juſtice and Charitie, both by the fifth and ſixth Commandements are more obligatorie, hic & nunc, and doe more ſtrictly obliege, that I run to ſuccour, and preſerve the life of my father, then the life of my neighbour, for the obligation to my neighbour, is only charitie, by the obligation of the ſixth Commandement, which obligation ceaſeth, hic & nunc, at this time, when my fathers life is in hazard; and thus farre the Doctors argument goeth for ſtrong, as Schoolemen, 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 obligatorie, then duties which we owe, only by way of Charitie, as when duties of a poſitive commandement of God, enjoyned by our Superiours, and duties which we owe by charitie only, are compared together, then the Doctors major Propoſition is not cleare of it ſelfe, as they dreame, nor doe Caſuiſts or Ameſius, 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 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 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 ſhew-bread, yet Chriſt acquiteth him of all ſinne, and ſaith Math. 12. 5. he and his followers are foreign, blameleſſe. Now Davia was under a dutie by mercy, and love to his owne life, and he 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 obligatorie, then duties of Charitie, only 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 commandeth me to goe and labour, or ſowe his farme in that time, while I am to preſerve the life of my neighbour in preſent danger, to loſe his life, in a great water. By the Doctors maxime I am under the higher obligatorie tye of Juſtice, to obey my father, who commandeth a thing both lawfull and neceſſarie by vertue of the higher Commandement, to wit, the firſt of the ſecond Table, then I am obliged by the ſixth Commandement, and of charitie only, to give preſent ſuccour and help to my dying neighbour, ſo I muſt let my neighbour die in the waters, to give a dutie of juſtice to my father, of farre leſſe neceſſitie. 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 obligatorie, but alſo the weightineſſe of the thing commanded; Yea, and if the poſitive Commandements of the Lord our God, who of Juſtice and kingly ſoveraigntie▪ hath right to aske obedience of us above all earthly Superiours doe yeeld and cede as leſſe obligatorie, then commandements of love only, that are commanded in the law of nature. What doe our Doctors clatter and fable to us of a right of Juſtice, that mortall 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 vicegerent image of Chriſt crucified) (keepe humane holy-dayes) Croſſe the aire with your thumb above a baptized infants face) at beſt, are but poſitive Commandements, not warranted by Gods word. But ſhall they be more obligatorie 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 dayes, meats, ſurplice, deſtroy not him for whom Chriſt died? All the Caſuiſtes, and Schoolemen, Navarra, Sylveſter, Sanchez, Raphael de la Torre, Meratius, Duvallius, Thomas, Scotus, Bonaventura, Suarez. Ʋaſquez, Grego. de Valentia, Albertus, Richardus, Biel, Corduba, Angelus, Adrianus, Alphonſus, Becanus, yea, and all the hoaſt of our Divines cry with Scripture, that MercieMercy and the precepts of Love, and of the Law of nature, are more obligatorie then Sacrifice, burnt offerings, and Gods owne poſitive lawes, yea, and that poſitive lawes loſe their obligatorie power, and ceaſe to be lawes, when the lawes of nature and neceſſarie duties of merciemercy and love (as not to murther our brother) (not to ſcandalize) ſtandeth in their way. I might wearie the reader here with citations, and bewilder my ſelfe alſo, but it is a point of Divinitie denyed by none at all. 3. What we owe of Juſtice to our Superiours, is indeed both a morall debt of obedience, and a debt of juſtice, and law which Rulers may ſeeke by their place, and ex jure, as Aristotle ſaith, but this right is limited, Rulers have no right to ſeeke abſolute obedience, but only in the Lord, not againſt charitie. And though the place of Rulers be authoritative, yet their commanding power, as touching the matter of what they injoyne is only Miniſteriall, and they cannot but in Gods place exact, that which is Gods due, and ſeeing God himſelfe, if he ſhould immediatly in his owne perſon command, he would not urge a poſitive commandement, farre leſſe the commandement of light and vaine Ceremonies, againſt and beyond the precept of love, not to deſtroy a ſoule for whom Chriſt died. Ergo, Superiours 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 poore, is cloſe off the way, for he is obliged to pay the Creditour firſt, but the caſe here is farre otherwiſe; The debt of practiſing indifferent feathers and ſtraws, ſuch as kneeling, croſſing, wearing Surplice, is neither like the debt owine to the poore, nor to the creditour; For natures law, and Gods word, 1 Cor. 10. 18, 19. maketh the nonpractiſe, non-murthering obedience to God, when the practiſe of indifferent things, is a ſoule-ſtumbling to the weake, and the practiſing is but at its beſt obedience 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 Loyaltie above Charitie, they ſuppoſe obedience to commandements commanding ſcandalizing of ſoules to be loyaltie to Superiours, which is queſtioned, it being treaſon to the Soveraigne of heaven and earth, to deſtroy his Image, it is taken as loyalty by our Doctors, but not proven to be loyaltie, and ſo a vaine queſtion here, whether Loyaltie be above Charitie or not. But I diſmiſſe the Doctors till another occaſion. Other things as Popiſh tenents, in their booke are a thouſand times anſwered by us.